Developing 
A 
More 
Viable 
Disaster 
Housing 
Unit: 
A 
Case 
Study 
of 
the 
Mississippi 
Alternative 
Housing 
Program 


DisasterAssistanceDirectorateAlternativeHousingPilotProgramFebruary2,2009

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements
This 
report 
was 
prepared 
by 
Abt 
Associates 
Inc. 
for 
the 
Federal 
Emergency 
Management 
Agency 
(FEMA) 
and 
the 
U.S. 
Department 
of 
Housing 
and 
Urban 
Development’s 
(HUD) 
Office 
of 
Policy 
Development 
and 
Research 
(PD&R). 
FEMA 
established 
an 
interagency 
agreement 
with 
HUD 
to 
evaluate 
the 
Alternative 
Housing 
Pilot 
Program 
(AHPP). 
This 
case 
study 
is 
the 
first 
in 
a 
series 
of 
evaluation 
reports 
and 
reviews 
the 
State 
of 
Mississippi’s 
AHPP 
program 
from 
grant 
start-up 
in 
2007 
through 
August 
2008. 


The 
primary 
authors 
of 
this 
case 
study 
are 
Amy 
Jones 
of 
Amy 
Jones 
Associates, 
Inc. 
and 
Erin 
Wilson 
of 
Abt 
Associates. 
Dana 
Bres 
of 
PD&R 
authored 
Chapter 
Four, 
which 
reviews 
and 
summarizes 
the 
building 
sciences 
evaluation 
in 
Mississippi. 
Larry 
Buron 
and 
Jill 
Khadduri 
of 
Abt 
Associates 
provided 
technical 
review. 
The 
authors 
are 
appreciative 
of 
the 
guidance 
and 
support 
provided 
by 
Cheryl 
Levine 
at 
HUD 
and 
Naomi 
Johnson 
at 
FEMA. 


This 
case 
study 
would 
not 
have 
been 
possible 
without 
the 
willingness 
of 
the 
Mississippi 
Emergency 
Management 
Agency 
(MEMA) 
to 
allow 
the 
evaluators 
access 
to 
the 
inner 
workings 
of 
the 
Mississippi 
Alternative 
Housing 
Program 
(MAHP). 
MEMA’s 
leadership 
fostered 
an 
open, 
honest 
atmosphere 
that 
encouraged 
staff 
with 
varying 
project 
roles 
to 
reflect 
openly 
on 
the 
challenges, 
successes 
and 
lessons 
learned. 
In 
particular, 
we 
thank 
Mike 
Womack, 
MEMA’s 
Executive 
Director, 
and 
the 
MAHP 
project 
directors, 
Becky 
Baum 
(MEMA), 
Keith 
Campbell 
(MEMA) 
and 
Debbie 
Norton 
(PBS&J) 
for 
giving 
generously 
of 
their 
time 
and 
experience. 
The 
authors 
also 
appreciate 
MEMA’s 
fastidious 
effort 
to 
document 
program 
activities 
and 
outcomes 
in 
order 
to 
inform 
future 
disaster 
housing 
programs. 


In 
addition 
to 
MAHP 
staff, 
many 
community 
leaders 
and 
representatives 
provided 
valuable 
context 
and 
important 
perspectives 
about 
community 
needs 
and 
the 
role 
MAHP 
is 
playing 
in 
recovery 
efforts. 
They 
gave 
freely 
of 
their 
time 
and 
opinions, 
despite 
the 
heavy 
demands 
of 
the 
rebuilding 
effort 
that 
continue 
three 
years 
after 
the 
storms. 
Lastly, 
we 
thank 
the 
MAHP 
program 
participants 
who 
shared 
their 
experiences 
and 
thoughts 
about 
the 
program 
in 
hopes 
of 
contributing 
to 
the 
development 
of 
a 
housing 
solution 
that 
will 
benefit 
families 
in 
future 
disasters. 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 


 
TableofContentsTableofContents
Acknowledgements 
Executive 
Summary 
...........................................................1 


Introduction............................................................................................1 
Grantee 
Organization............................................................................2 
MAHP 
Program 
Design........................................................................3 
Unit 
Design, 
Production 
and 
Installation...........................................4 
DispositionandDemobilization 
ofUnits...........................................6 
Observations 
and 
Lessons 
Learned.....................................................8 
The 
MAHP 
Units....................................................................................8 
Quality 
of 
Life.......................................................................................11 
Community 
Response 
.........................................................................13 
Organizational 
Capacity 
and 
Implementation................................14 


Chapter 
One: 
Introduction 
.............................................17 
South 
Mississippi 
Before 
and 
After 
Hurricane 
Katrina 
.......................17 
The 
Mississippi 
Alternative 
Housing 
Program’s 
Role 
in 
Recovery............................................................................................20 


ChapterTwo: 
TheTemporaryHousingStory...........27 
MAHP’s 
Vision 
and 
Approach 
..........................................................27 
Manufacturing,InstallingandOccupying 
theCottages................37 
Linking 
Cottages 
and 
Families...........................................................39 


Chapter 
Three: 
Transitioning 
to 
Permanent 
Housing 
.........................................................49 


DispositionPlanningand 
Challenges...............................................50 
The 
Disposition 
Plan............................................................................53 
Progress 
on 
Special 
Projects 
and 
Disposition 
Activities.................63 


Chapter 
Four: 
Preliminary 
Results 
of 
the 
Building 
Sciences 
Evaluation..........................................................67 


Introduction..........................................................................................67 
Procurement 
and 
Manufacturing 
........................................................70 
Development 
of 
Accessible 
(UFAS) 
Units...........................................71 
Site 
Development 
and 
Installation.......................................................71 
Ventilation 
and 
Air 
Quality 
Testing 
....................................................73 
Durability...............................................................................................73 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 


Chapter 
Five: 
Observations 
and 
Lessons 
Learned.....77 


How 
viable 
and 
livable 
are 
the 
MAHP 
units 
and 
how 
did 
they 
affect 
quality 
of 
life 
for 
those 
who 
lived 
in 
them?...............................77 
How 
did 
the 
grantee's 
approach 
and 
capacity 
affect 
implementation 
and 
outcomes?.........................................................81 
How 
did 
community 
stakeholders 
react 
to 
MAHP 
and 
to 
what 
extent 
did 
community 
response 
affect 
program 
implementation?...................................................................................83 


Endnotes 
.............................................................................87 
Attachment 
1 


Jurisdiction 
Maps 
Showing 
Distribution 
of 
MAHP 
Units 
...................................................................................89 
Attachment 
2 


Program 
Goals 
from 
the 
MAHP 
Performance 


Management 
Plan..........................................................105 
Attachment 
3 
Example 
Memorandum 
of 
Understanding...............107 


Table of Contents 


ListofExhibitsListofExhibits
Exhibit 
1-1: 
Biloxi, 
Mississippi: 
A 
Biloxi 
beach 
after 
Katrina 
on 


September 
3, 
2005. 
......................................................................................17 
Exhibit 
1-2: 
Damage 
from 
Hurricane 
Katrina 
. 
......................................................................................................................18 


Exhibit 
1-3: 
MAHP’s 
Geographical 
Coverage 
........................................19 
Exhibit 
1-4: 
Damaged 
Rental 
Units. 
.........................................................20 
Exhibit 
1-5: 
Park 
Model 
Exterior 
and 
Floor 
Plan....................................21 
Exhibit 
1-6: 
The 
Mississippi 
Cottage........................................................22 
Exhibit 
1-7: 
Typical 
Park 
Model 
and 
Mississippi 
Cottage 
Interiors....23 
Exhibit 
1-8: 
The 
Eco 
Cottage......................................................................24 
Exhibit 
1-9: 
Number 
of 
MAHP 
Units 
Occupied 
by 
Month 
June 


2007 
to 
August 
2008....................................................................................24 


Exhibit 
1-10: 
The 
Distribution 
of 
Occupied 
MAHP 
Units 
Over 
the 
Program’s 
Six-County 
Geography...........................................25 
Exhibit 
2-1: 
MAHP’s 
Operational 
Sites....................................................29 
Exhibit 
2-2: 
MAHP 
Organizational 
Chart 
– 
First 
Quarter 
....................31 
Exhibit 
2-3: 
Many 
Local 
Governments 
are 
Still 
Operating 
Out 
of 


Temporary 
Trailers.....................................................................................32 
Exhibit 
2-4: 
Housing 
Characteristics 
Along 
the 
Gulf 
Coast..................34 
Exhibit 
2-5: 
Advisory 
Base 
Flood 
Elevations 
and 
the 
National 


Flood 
Insurance 
Program 
..........................................................................36 
Exhibit 
2-6: 
Aerial 
View 
of 
MAHP 
Transition 
Site 
Near 
Gulfport, 
MS... 
38 
Exhibit 
2-7: 
Initial 
“Right-Sizing” 
Criteria 
..............................................42 
Exhibit 
2-8: 
Distribution 
of 
MAHP 
Household 
Sizes 
............................44 
Exhibit 
3-1: 
MAHP 
Organizational 
Chart 
June 
2008 
.............................51 
Exhibit 
3-2: 
Elevation 
Requirements 
Vary 
Along 
the 
Mississippi 


Gulf 
Coast; 
Elevated 
Home 
in 
Waveland, 
MS; 
July 
2008......................54 


Exhibit 
3-3: 
Habitat 
for 
Humanity 
of 
Bay 
Waveland 
Worked 
with 
a 
Manufacturer 
to 
Design 
an 
Addition 
for 
Cottages 
and 
Park 
Models......56 
Exhibit 
3-4: 
Draft 
Pricing 
Structure 
for 
Cottages....................................59 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 


Exhibit 
3-5: 
A 
Cottage 
in 
a 
Mobile 
Home 
park 
in 
Gautier, 
July 
2008......................................................................................................63 


Exhibit 
4-1: 
Number 
of 
Units 
Produced 
by 
Each 
Manufacturer 
and 
Production 
Site............................................................................................71 


Table of Contents 


ExecutiveSummaryExecutiveSummary
Introduction 

In 
the 
year 
following 
Hurricane 
Katrina, 
FEMA 
deployed 
more 
than 
12,000 
FEMA 
travel 
trailers 
and 
9,800 
mobile 
homes 
to 
house 
disaster 
victims 
along 
the 
Gulf 
Coast. 
During 
this 
time, 
it 
became 
clear 
that 
the 
breadth 
and 
severity 
of 
the 
damage 
would 
require 
a 
long 
recovery 
period 
and 
that 
the 
trailers 
were 
not 
appropriate 
long-term 
temporary 
housing 
for 
displaced 
households. 
In 
June 
2006, 
Congress 
allocated 
$400 
million 
to 
the 
Federal 
Emergency 
Management 
Agency 
(FEMA) 
to 
develop 
alternative 
designs 
and 
prototypes 
for 
disaster 
housing. 


FEMA 
offered 
the 
opportunity 
to 
apply 
for 
Alternative 
Housing 
Pilot 
Program 
(AHPP) 
funding 
to 
the 
States 
of 
Alabama, 
Florida, 
Louisiana, 
Mississippi 
and 
Texas, 
the 
five 
states 
most 
severely 
affected 
by 
Hurricanes 
Katrina, 
Rita 
and 
Wilma. 
FEMA’s 
particular 
interest 
was 
to 
identify 
unit 
types 
that 
would 
be 
suitable 
when 
a 
long 
recovery 
period 
is 
anticipated 
following 
a 
major 
disaster. 
Grantees 
were 
given 
significant 
latitude 
in 
both 
the 
design 
of 
units 
and 
how 
the 
program 
would 
be 
administered. 
Three 
states 
and 
one 
local 
grantee 
were 
awarded 
funds. 


The 
State 
of 
Mississippi 
received 
the 
largest 
AHPP 
grant.totaling 
$281 
million.to 
develop 
and 
install 
approximately 
3,500 
units. 
This 
Executive 
Summary 
highlights 
key 
aspects 
of 
the 
State’s 
program 
and 
provides 
the 
preliminary 
observations 
and 
lessons 
learned 
that 
are 
discussed 
in 
more 
detail 
in 
the 
full 
case 
study 
that 
follows. 


FEMA 
contracted 
with 
the 
Department 
of 
Housing 
and 
Urban 
Development 
(HUD) 
to 
oversee 
an 
evaluation 
of 
AHPP 
implementation 
and 
outcomes. 
The 
evaluation 
is 
composed 
of 
two 
parts. 
The 
National 
Association 
of 
Home 
Builders 
Research 
Center, 
Inc. 
is 
tasked 
with 
evaluating 
the 
units 
and 
unit 


AHPP Grantees 
Alabama: State of Alabama 
(City of Bayou La Batre) 
Louisiana: State of Louisiana 
(Louisiana Housing Finance 
Agency / Louisiana Recovery 
Authority) 
Mississippi: State of Mississippi 
(Mississippi Emergency 
Management Agency) 
Texas: State of Texas 
(Texas Department of Housing 
and Community Affairs) 
A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 1 


installations 
from 
a 
physical 
(building 
sciences) 
standpoint, 
including 
the 
speed 
and 
ease 
of 
construction 
and 
installation, 
durability, 
safety 
and 
energy 
efficiency. 
Abt 
Associates, 
Inc. 
will 
conduct 
a 
“quality 
of 
life” 
evaluation 
that 
includes 
an 
assessment 
of 
the 
livability 
of 
the 
units 
as 
perceived 
by 
program 
participants, 
the 
extent 
to 
which 
the 
units 
aided 
participants’ 
recovery, 
how 
the 
units 
were 
perceived 
by 
community 
stakeholders 
and 
how 
the 
grantee’s 
organizational 
capacity 
and 
approach 
affected 
program 
and 
participant 
outcomes. 


The 
four 
AHPP 
projects 
will 
be 
followed 
through 
2010. 
Two 
formal 
surveys 
of 
program 
participants 
will 
be 
conducted 
over 
the 
course 
of 
the 
project 
to 
help 
identify 
outcomes 
for 
participants. 


This 
case 
study 
of 
Mississippi’s 
program 
is 
the 
first 
of 
a 
number 
of 
reports 
to 
be 
produced 
for 
the 
quality 
of 
life 
evaluation. 
It 
covers 
the 
first 
17 
months 
of 
program 
implementation 
for 
Mississippi, 
from 
April 
2007 
through 
August 
2008. 
The 
timing 
of 
other 
evaluation 
reports 
will 
vary 
depending 
upon 
each 
grantee’s 
implementation 
schedule. 
Case 
study 
reports 
will 
be 
prepared 
for 
each 
site 
as 
it 
nears 
full 
occupancy. 
Interim 
reports 
will 
summarize 
the 
results 
of 
the 
first 
follow-up 
participant 
survey, 
and 
a 
final 
report 
will 
summarize 
results 
of 
the 
second 
participant 
survey 
and 
make 
cross-site 
comparisons. 
Case 
studies 
for 
the 
remaining 
three 
sites 
will 
be 
completed 
by 
2010. 
The 
final 
report 
will 
be 
issued 
in 
2011. 


Grantee Organization 

The 
State 
of 
Mississippi 
designated 
the 
Mississippi 
Emergency 
Management 
Agency 
(MEMA) 
to 
implement 
the 
program 
known 
locally 
as 
the 
Mississippi 
Alternative 
Housing 
Program 
(MAHP). 
MEMA 
established 
a 
separate 
MAHP 
office 
in 
Gulfport 
that 
is 
staffed 
by 
a 
combination 
of 
local 
hires, 
contractor 
resources 
and 
regular 
State 
employees 
who 
were 
detailed 
to 
the 
program. 
The 
State 
contracted 
with 
Post, 
Buckley, 
Schuh 
& 
Jernigan, 
Inc. 
(PBS&J), 
a 
national 
engineering 
consulting 
firm, 
to 
provide 
management 
and 
technical 
support 
to 
the 
project. 
PBS&J 
had 
been 
involved 
in 
the 
AHPP 
application 
process 
and 
was 
at 
work 


Executive Summary 


on 
the 
project 
before 
the 
MEMA 
management 
team 
was 
fully 
assembled. 
At 
the 
height 
of 
the 
temporary 
housing 
program, 
about 
100 
MEMA 
and 
contractor 
staff 
were 
working 
on 
the 
program. 
MAHP’s 
Program 
Directors 
report 
directly 
to 
MEMA’s 
Executive 
Director, 
and 
the 
agency 
works 
closely 
with 
the 
Governor’s 
Office 
of 
Recovery 
and 
Renewal. 


MAHP Program Design 

MAHP 
embraced 
the 
pilot 
aspect 
of 
the 
program 
and 
committed 
to 
simulating 
the 
full 
disaster 
response 
cycle, 
from 
design 
through 
demobilization, 
within 
the 
first 
two 
years 
of 
the 
grant. 
The 
pilot 
was 
designed 
to 
test 
the 
ability 
of 
manufacturers 
and 
installers 
to 
mobilize 
quickly 
and 
MAHP’s 
organizational 
capacity 
to 
effectively 
administer 
an 
emergency 
program 
that 
gave 
the 
State, 
rather 
than 
FEMA, 
responsibility 
for 
the 
procurement, 
installation 
and 
management 
of 
temporary 
housing. 
The 
MAHP 
proposal 
called 
for 
the 
temporary 
housing 
phase 
of 
the 
pilot 
to 
end 
on 
March 
31, 
2009. 
Although 
Mississippi 
proposed 
a 
small 
number 
of 
permanent 
housing 
sites 
in 
the 
grant 
application 
and 
planned 
for 
some 
units 
to 
be 
converted 
to 
permanent 
housing, 
MAHP’s 
major 
focus 
during 
the 
first 
year 
of 
operation 
was 
on 
the 
temporary 
program. 
Key 
components 
of 
the 
MAHP 
temporary 
housing 
program 
are 
described 
below. 


Eligible Areas 
MEMA 
initially 
offered 
the 
program 
to 
applicants 
in 
the 
three 
coastal 
counties 
(Hancock, 
Harrison 
and 
Jackson 
counties) 
that 
were 
most 
severely 
affected 
by 
the 
2005 
storms. 
The 
program 
was 
later 
expanded 
into 
the 
more 
rural, 
inland 
counties 
of 
George, 
Stone 
and 
Pearl 
River. 


Eligible Participants 
The 
MAHP 
program 
was 
open 
to 
both 
homeowners 
and 
renters. 
Participants 
must 
have 
been 
residents 
of 
the 
affected 
counties 
on 
August 
25, 
2005, 
affected 
by 
Hurricane 
Katrina 
or 
Rita 
and, 
at 
the 
time 
of 
application, 
had 
to 
still 
be 
in 
need 
of 
temporary 
housing 
for 
at 
least 
six 
more 
months. 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 


Eligible Sites Eligible Sites 
In 
most 
instances 
applicants 
had 
to 
provide 
their 
own 
sites 
and 
site 
improvements 
in 
order 
to 
receive 
a 
unit. 
No 
group 
sites 
were 
developed 
under 
MAHP, 
but 
some 
units 
were 
placed 
in 
commercial 
mobile 
home 
parks. 


Unit Design, Production and Installation 

The 
State’s 
goal 
was 
to 
design 
units 
that 
could 
be 
manufactured 
and 
installed 
quickly 
for 
temporary 
housing, 
but 
could 
also 
be 
suitable 
for 
long-term 
occupancy 
when 
major 
disasters 
resulted 
in 
extended 
recovery 
periods. 
The 
State 
also 
wanted 
to 
design 
units 
that 
would 
be 
credible 
as 
permanent 
housing, 
if 
a 
housing 
need 
continued. 


Designs 
for 
the 
MAHP 
units 
were 
based 
on 
a 
planning 
and 
design 
process 
that 
was 
completed 
soon 
after 
Hurricane 
Katrina 
under 
the 
auspices 
of 
the 
Governor’s 
Office 
of 
Recovery 
and 
Renewal. 
Ultimately, 
MAHP 
elected 
to 
produce 
four 
unit 
types. 
The 
units 
were 
designed 
to 
meet 
both 
the 
current 
HUD 
code 
for 
manufactured 
housing 
and 
the 
International 
Residential 
Code 
(IRC). 


Key Features of MAHP Units 
.One-Bedroom Park Model 
A direct replacement for FEMA travel trailer 
396 square feet 
.Two- and Three-Bedroom Cottages 
728 and 840 square feet 
.Handicapped-Accessible Two- and Three-Bedroom Cottages 
Compliant with Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards 
728 and 840 square feet 
.Two- and Three-Bedroom Eco-Cottages 
Currently in the design phase 
Intended to have enhanced energy efficient features 
Executive Summary 


The 
one-bedroom 
Park 
Model 
units 
are 
larger 
than 
travel 
trailers 
and 
offer 
significant 
advantages 
in 
terms 
of 
structural 
design 
and 
internal 
layout. 
Unlike 
the 
travel 
trailers, 
the 
Park 
Model 
has 
a 
separate 
bedroom 
and 
a 
full-size 
bathroom 
and 
kitchen. 


The 
two-and 
three-bedroom 
Cottages 
are 
similar 
in 
size 
to 
mobile 
homes, 
but, 
like 
the 
Park 
model, 
are 
greatly 
enhanced 
in 
terms 
of 
the 
quality 
and 
durability 
of 
materials 
used 
and 
the 
standards 
they 
meet. 
Just 
over 
20 
percent 
of 
the 
two-and 
three-bedroom 
Cottages 
were 
designed 
to 
comply 
with 
the 
Uniform 
Federal 
Accessibility 
Standards 
(UFAS) 
to 
ensure 
the 
availability 
of 
housing 
for 
family 
members 
with 
physical 
disabilities. 
All 
three 
types 
of 
housing 
were 
designed 
with 
removable 
undercarriages 
that 
would 
enable 
them 
to 
be 
placed 
on 
perm 
anent 
foundations. 


The 
Eco-Cottage 
is 
a 
modular 
unit 
that 
is 
being 
designed 
as 
permanent 
housing 
with 
enhanced 
energy 
efficient 
features. 
Interior 
and 
exterior 
pictures 
and 
floor 
plans 
for 
all 
four 
unit 
types 
are 
provided 
in 
Chapter 
One 
of 
the 
full 
case 
study. 


When 
the 
designs 
were 
completed, 
MEMA 
contracted 
with 
six 
manufacturers 
of 
modular 
housing 
that 
produced 
the 
units 
in 
ten 
existing 
factories 
located 
in 
six 
states. 
MAHP 
established 
a 
transition 
site 
near 
Gulfport 
to 
receive 
and 
inspect 
Cottages 
and 
dispatch 
the 
units 
to 
sites 
when 
they 
were 
ready. 
Early 
quality 



Mississippi Cottage Photo: FEMA / Jennifer Smits 

A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 


control 
inspections 
resulted 
in 
some 
refinements 
to 
unit 
specifications. 
In 
keeping 
with 
efforts 
to 
simulate 
disaster 
circumstances, 
MEMA 
originally 
installed 
all 
Park 
Models 
and 
Cottages 
in 
a 
temporary 
configuration, 
on 
piers 
and 
anchored 
to 
the 
ground. 
Installation 
specifications 
called 
for 
the 
units 
to 
be 
able 
to 
withstand 
150 
miles 
per 
hour 
winds. 
FEMA 
required 
that 
the 
units 
be 
furnished 
with 
at 
least 
a 
sofa, 
dining 
table 
and 
chairs, 
bed 
frames 
and 
mattresses, 
as 
well 
as 
a 
“living 
kit” 
that 
contained 
linens, 
dishes, 
silverware 
and 
cleaning 
supplies. 


As 
of 
August 
28, 
2008 
Mississippi 
had 
installed 
and 
occupied 
2,806 
Park 
Model 
and 
Cottage 
units. 
Eco-Cottages 
were 
still 
in 
the 
design 
phase 
and 
were 
expected 
to 
be 
ready 
for 
installation 
before 
the 
end 
of 
2008. 


Disposition and Demobilization of Units 

Considerable 
interest 
in 
using 
the 
MAHP 
units 
for 
permanent 
housing 
was 
present 
from 
the 
beginning 
of 
the 
project. 
However, 
MAHP 
made 
firm 
commitments 
to 
local 
jurisdictions 
that 
the 
temporary 
housing 
program 
would 
end 
and 
MAHP 
units 
would 
be 
removed 
from 
approved 
sites 
no 
later 
than 
March 
31, 
2009, 
unless 
the 
jurisdictions 
requested 
the 
units 
remain 
as 
temporary 
housing 
or 
approved 
units 
for 
permanent 
housing. 
Early 
in 
2008 
interest 
in 
using 
the 
units 
for 
permanent 
housing 
increased 
because 
affordable 
rental 
housing 
was 
still 
in 
short 
supply 
and 
some 
homeowners 
had 
been 
unable 
to 
rebuild 
their 
homes. 


Disposition and Demobilization Options for MAHP Units 

1. Sell units to eligible households where permitted by jurisdictions 
2. Transfer ownership to community partners for affordable housing 
3. Transfer ownership to federal, state or local governments 
4. Dispose of units through a public auction 
Executive Summary 


In 
April 
2008, 
MAHP 
began 
serious 
planning 
for 
the 
disposition 
of 
MAHP 
units 
and 
identified 
four 
disposition 
approaches 
that 
were 
compatible 
with 
Mississippi 
procurement 
requirements, 
FEMA’s 
grant 
agreements 
and 
MEMA’s 
commitments 
to 
local 
jurisdictions. 
MAHP 
has 
focused 
its 
efforts 
on 
the 
first 
two 
options: 
a 
sales 
program 
to 
eligible 
households 
and 
the 
transfer 
of 
units 
to 
community 
partners 
committed 
to 
providing 
affordable 
rental 
and 
homeownership 
opportunities. 



Mississippi Cottages Photo: HUD / October 2008 

Sales to Eligible Households 
The 
sales 
option 
is 
attractive 
to 
participants 
that 
have 
an 
available, 
eligible 
site, 
but 
is 
not 
without 
challenges. 
Units 
placed 
permanently 
must 
be 
re-installed 
on 
a 
permanent 
foundation 
and 
temporary, 
above-ground 
utilities 
must 
be 
converted 
to 
underground, 
permanent 
connections. 
In 
addition, 
permanent 
units 
must 
comply 
with 
elevation 
requirements 
established 
by 
the 
National 
Flood 
Insurance 
Program 
(NFIP). 
This 
means 
that 
permanent 
installations 
are 
not 
permitted 
in 
some 
high 
risk 
areas 
and 
some 
units 
must 
be 
elevated 
to 
meet 
NFIP 
requirements. 


Financing 
also 
is 
a 
constraint 
for 
many 
interested 
program 
participants. 
Although 
MAHP 
developed 
a 
sliding 
scale 
pricing 
structure 
that 
is 
based 
household 
income 
and 
offers 
discounts 
for 
seniors 
and 
households 
with 
disabled 
family 
members, 
the 
combination 
of 
mortgage 
payments, 
insurance, 
utilities 
and 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 


taxes 
may 
still 
exceed 
what 
some 
households 
can 
reasonably 
afford. 


Transfer to Community Partners 
MAHP 
has 
engaged 
with 
local 
government 
and 
non-profit 
partners 
to 
develop 
long-term, 
affordable 
rental 
and 
homeownership 
opportunities 
using 
MAHP 
units. 
Planned 
projects 
as 
of 
August 
2008 
include: 


. 
The 
South 
Mississippi 
Development 
Corporation 
(SMDC) 
will 
take 
ownership 
of 
more 
than 
300 
Park 
Models 
and 
Cottages 
already 
located 
in 
commercial 
trailer 
parks 
for 
use 
with 
Housing 
Choice 
Vouchers. 
SMDC 
also 
plans 
three 
new 
permanent 
housing 
developments 
totaling 
over 
200 
units. 
. 
Habitat 
for 
Humanity 
Bay 
Waveland 
will 
install 
44 
Cottages 
as 
infill 
housing 
in 
Hancock 
County. 
. 
Habitat 
for 
Humanity 
Mississippi 
Gulf 
Coast, 
Gulf 
Coast 
Community 
Partners 
and 
the 
City 
of 
Pascagoula 
will 
install 
nearly 
30 
Cottages 
in 
Pascagoula. 
. 
Ocean 
Springs 
plans 
a 
mixed 
use 
development 
for 
eight 
Cottages. 
Observations and Lessons Learned 

This 
case 
study 
captures 
MAHP 
operations 
as 
temporary 
housing 
activities 
are 
winding 
down 
and 
demobilization 
activities 
are 
beginning. 
Although 
both 
the 
quality 
of 
life 
and 
the 
building 
sciences 
studies 
are 
still 
underway, 
it 
is 
possible 
to 
make 
preliminary 
observations 
and 
suggest 
lessons 
that 
may 
be 
of 
value 
to 
decision-makers 
for 
future 
disaster 
housing 
programs. 


The MAHP Units 

Observations 
. 
The 
MAHP 
program 
has 
produced 
high 
quality 
units 
that 
exceed 
both 
the 
standards 
set 
by 
HUD 
for 
manufactured 
housing 
and 
the 
requirements 
of 
the 
International 
Residential 
Code. 
Local 
building 
officials 
acknowledged 
Executive Summary 


the 
quality 
of 
units 
and 
speculated 
that 
the 
two-and 
three-
bedroom 
models 
could 
have 
a 
useful 
life 
of 
as 
long 
as 
30 
years. 


. 
Although 
testing 
is 
not 
yet 
complete, 
the 
sturdier 
materials 
used 
in 
the 
MAHP 
units 
are 
expected 
to 
result 
in 
units 
that 
are 
generally 
more 
durable 
than 
trailers 
and 
traditional 
mobile 
homes, 
with 
greater 
impact, 
wind 
and 
insect 
resistance 
and 
fewer 
moisture 
problems. 
. 
MAHP’s 
measured 
approach 
to 
unit 
procurement 
made 
it 
possible 
to 
refine 
unit 
specifications, 
create 
a 
measure 
of 
competition 
among 
the 
manufacturers 
and 
manage 
the 
flow 
of 
units 
to 
the 
transition 
site. 
During 
its 
peak 
month, 
MAHP 
received 
and 
installed 
more 
than 
400 
units. 
Although 
a 
significantly 
higher 
volume 
would 
be 
required 
in 
a 
major 
disaster, 
this 
experience 
suggests 
that 
manufacturers 
of 
modular 
housing 
can 
quickly 
mobilize 
to 
produce 
the 
needed 
housing. 
Park Model Photo: Courtesy of MEMA 

Lessons for the Future 
Technical and quality requirements for units should be established 
in advance of a disaster. 

MAHP 
made 
numerous 
adjustments 
to 
unit 
designs 
and 
installation 
protocols 
as 
a 
result 
of 
problems 
encountered 
during 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 


manufacture 
and 
delivery. 
The 
inevitable 
clarification 
and 
negotiations 
with 
the 
manufacturers 
about 
materials, 
workmanship 
and 
aesthetics 
for 
a 
new 
product 
were 
time-consuming. 
Similarly, 
lack 
of 
clarity 
about 
UFAS 
requirements 
caused 
MAHP 
to 
discover 
mid-stream 
that 
some 
of 
their 
units 
did 
not 
meet 
the 
technical 
requirements. 
A 
uniform 
design 
standard 
that 
could 
be 
shared 
with 
housing 
providers 
and 
manufacturers 
in 
advance 
of 
an 
emergency 
could 
shorten 
production 
time 
and 
improve 
the 
quality 
of 
units. 
The 
same 
is 
true 
for 
installation 
specifications, 
although 
adjustments 
to 
standard 
specifications 
would 
be 
needed 
to 
accommodate 
local 
topographic 
and 
soil 
conditions. 


Unit designs should consider both temporary and more permanent 
uses. 

None 
of 
the 
MAHP 
units 
have 
sufficient 
living 
space 
to 
meet 
the 
minimum 
square 
footage 
standards 
required 
for 
permanent 
housing 
by 
many 
Mississippi 
localities. 
As 
a 
result, 
a 
local 
partner 
worked 
with 
MAHP 
and 
one 
of 
the 
manufacturers 
to 
design 
an 
addition 
to 
the 
Park 
Models 
and 
Cottages. 
When 
the 
scope 
of 
a 
disaster 
indicates 
that 
units 
may 
need 
to 
serve 
a 
longer-term, 
more 
permanent 
use, 
the 
selected 
designs 
should 
take 
into 
consideration 
permanent 
housing 
standards. 
However, 
this 
must 
be 
balanced 
with 
the 
need 
for 
units 
that 
can 
be 
manufactured, 
transported 
and 
installed 
quickly. 


Emergency housing providers should carefully consider how many 
different types of units are optimal. 

Developing 
three 
different 
models 
(Park, 
Cottage 
and 
Eco-
Cottage), 
three 
bedroom 
sizes, 
UFAS-compliant 
and 
noncompliant 
units 
and 
units 
of 
different 
colors 
added 
complexity 
to 
unit 
tracking 
and 
assignments. 
Some 
MAHP 
staff 
recommended 
possible 
ways 
to 
reduce 
the 
complexity.for 
example, 
by 
designing 
all 
units 
as 
UFAS 
accessible 
or 
eliminating 
the 
smaller 
Park 
Model. 
However, 
having 
these 
options 
permitted 
MAHP 
to 
better 
meet 
participants’ 
needs. 
Certain 
options 
or 
amenities 
may 
be 
valued 
differently 
in 
other 
locations 
and 
at 
different 
stages 
of 
disaster 
response, 
but 
the 
need 
to 
strike 
a 
balance 
between 
variety 
and 
efficiency 
applies 
in 
all 
cases. 


Executive Summary 


A methodology is needed for determining when enhanced 
temporary housing units are needed. 

It 
is 
not 
clear 
how 
quickly 
after 
a 
disaster 
an 
assessment 
can 
be 
made 
of 
the 
length 
of 
time 
temporary 
housing 
will 
be 
needed 
or 
whether 
some 
form 
of 
modular 
housing 
will 
be 
needed 
to 
support 
long-term 
recovery 
of 
the 
housing 
stock. 
Developing 
such 
a 
methodology 
could 
help 
Federal 
and 
State 
officials 
determine 
when 
trailers 
are 
appropriate 
and 
when 
a 
larger, 
more 
permanent 
solution 
is 
needed. 


Quality of Life 

Observations 
The 
results 
of 
the 
first 
formal 
survey 
of 
MAHP 
participants 
will 
not 
be 
available 
until 
early 
2009. 
Even 
so, 
discussions 
with 
participants, 
MEMA 
staff 
and 
contractors, 
local 
government 
representatives 
and 
nonprofit 
organizations 
can 
provide 
a 
preview 
of 
participant 
perceptions. 


. 
There 
appears 
to 
be 
clear 
consensus 
that 
the 
Park 
Model 
and 
Cottages 
are 
a 
better 
solution 
for 
long-term 
temporary 
housing 
than 
trailers 
and 
even 
traditional 
mobile 
homes. 
The 
additional 
living 
space, 
full-size 
kitchens 
and 
bathrooms, 
more 
windows 
and 
the 
outside 
space 
provided 
by 
the 
porch 
were 
reported 
to 
contribute 
substantially 
to 
occupants’ 
well 
being. 
. 
Improvements 
to 
mental 
health 
were 
mentioned 
by 
occupants 
more 
frequently 
than 
improvements 
to 
physical 
health. 
Living 
in 
a 
unit 
that 
“feels 
more 
like 
home” 
and 
being 
able 
to 
resume 
pre-storm 
activities, 
such 
as 
inviting 
family 
and 
friends 
over, 
created 
a 
sense 
of 
normality 
that 
was 
greatly 
valued 
by 
program 
participants. 
Occupants 
also 
mentioned 
feeling 
more 
secure 
in 
the 
MAHP 
units. 
. 
Accessible 
features 
and 
exterior 
ramps 
were 
major 
enhancements 
to 
participants 
with 
mobility 
impairments, 
at 
least 
one 
of 
whom 
had 
not 
been 
able 
to 
leave 
her 
temporary 
trailer 
under 
her 
own 
power 
for 
more 
than 
two 
years. 
A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 


Lessons for the Future Lessons for the Future 
Right-sizing of units is an important quality of life consideration. 

In 
its 
effort 
to 
simulate 
disaster 
conditions 
MAHP 
initially 
established 
restrictive 
occupancy 
standards, 
sometimes 
assigning 
two-, 
three-, 
and 
four-person 
households 
to 
the 
one-bedroom 
Park 
Model. 
This 
standard 
was 
changed 
later 
in 
the 
program 
when 
it 
became 
apparent 
that 
applicants 
did 
not 
have 
the 
same 
tolerance 
for 
limited 
living 
space 
that 
they 
might 
have 
had 
immediately 
after 
the 
disaster. 
It 
is 
important 
for 
future 
implementers 
to 
consider 
how 
long 
the 
unit 
is 
likely 
to 
be 
used 
before 
setting 
occupancy 
standards. 



Mississippi Cottage July 2008 

Many program participants need training on unit features and 
amenities. 

MAHP 
staff 
and 
program 
participants 
reported 
that 
more 
training 
on 
unit 
features 
and 
amenities 
at 
move-in 
would 
have 
been 
helpful. 
Some 
applicants 
had 
not 
previously 
used 
a 
microwave 
oven; 
others 
were 
not 
familiar 
with 
smoke 
detectors. 
Air 
conditioners 
and 
the 
operation 
of 
windows 
were 
also 
noted 
as 
areas 
of 
confusion. 
Additional 
training 
might 
have 
reduced 
the 
maintenance 
workload 
and 
eased 
stress 
for 
residents. 


Executive Summary 


Community Response 


Observations 
The 
timing 
of 
the 
implementation 
of 
AHPP, 
which 
started 
nearly 
two 
years 
after 
the 
disaster, 
makes 
it 
difficult 
to 
anticipate 
how 
a 
community 
might 
view 
the 
MAHP 
units 
immediately 
after 
a 
disaster. 
Several 
local 
officials 
said 
that 
the 
Cottages 
would 
have 
been 
more 
welcome 
immediately 
following 
the 
storms 
than 
they 
were 
later. 


. 
The 
passage 
of 
time 
made 
local 
jurisdictions 
less 
willing 
to 
waive 
local 
zoning 
and 
permitting 
processes. 
At 
the 
point 
MAHP 
was 
implemented, 
communities 
were 
intensely 
engaged 
in 
economic 
and 
physical 
redevelopment 
activities. 
They 
feared 
progress 
in 
this 
area 
would 
be 
compromised 
by 
the 
installation 
of 
temporary 
housing 
.especially 
if 
it 
were 
likely 
that 
some 
of 
the 
temporary 
units 
would 
remain 
after 
March 
2009. 
. 
Local 
leaders 
also 
were 
influenced 
by 
the 
attitudes 
of 
vocal 
segments 
of 
the 
community 
who 
felt 
that 
the 
temporary 
housing 
period 
had 
gone 
on 
long 
enough 
and 
that 
local 
residents 
should 
have 
been 
able 
to 
“get 
back 
on 
their 
feet.” 
. 
Long 
held 
perceptions 
about 
the 
desirability 
of 
trailers 
and 
mobile 
homes 
created 
resistance 
to 
the 
MAHP 
units. 
Before 
the 
hurricanes, 
most 
of 
the 
more 
populated 
jurisdictions 
had 
made 
efforts 
through 
zoning 
and 
code 
enforcement 
to 
remove 
mobile 
homes 
as 
a 
permanent 
housing 
resource 
in 
their 
jurisdictions 
or 
permitted 
them 
to 
be 
installed 
only 
in 
designated 
areas. 
The 
more 
rural 
jurisdictions 
generally 
had 
less 
restrictive 
regulations. 
Despite 
MAHP 
efforts 
to 
explain 
the 
higher 
standards 
to 
which 
the 
Cottages 
were 
built, 
negative 
perceptions 
about 
trailers 
and 
mobile 
homes 
transferred 
to 
the 
Cottages. 
MEMA 
overcame 
some 
of 
the 
objections 
by 
executing 
a 
memorandum 
of 
understanding 
(MOU) 
with 
each 
local 
jurisdiction 
detailing 
how 
Cottages 
would 
be 
used 
in 
the 
jurisdiction 
and 
by 
maintaining 
contact 
with 
local 
governments. 
A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 


Lessons for the Future Lessons for the Future 
A strong, comprehensive communication strategy for local officials 
and the public is needed. 

Community 
resistance 
to 
“homes 
on 
wheels” 
is 
a 
challenge, 
especially 
when 
some 
of 
the 
temporary 
housing 
is 
likely 
to 
remain 
in 
the 
community 
long 
after 
the 
disaster. 
MAHP 
negotiated 
agreements 
with 
each 
jurisdiction, 
prepared 
written 
materials 
and 
press 
information 
about 
the 
program 
and 
installed 
sample 
units 
in 
several 
locations 
for 
the 
public 
to 
tour. 
Despite 
this 
systematic 
communication 
effort, 
MAHP 
representatives 
indicated 
that 
more 
communication 
with 
local 
officials 
and 
residents 
was 
needed, 
especially 
at 
the 
program’s 
start-up. 
In 
retrospect, 
bringing 
together 
political 
representatives 
and 
program 
staff 
of 
each 
local 
jurisdiction 
in 
a 
workshop 
session 
may 
be 
a 
helpful 
approach. 


Pre-disaster planning should include strategies for addressing 
short- and long-term temporary housing and the use of modularunits that could transition to permanent housing. 

The 
immediate, 
post-disaster 
period 
is 
a 
difficult 
time 
to 
engage 
in 
discussions 
about 
housing 
strategies 
that 
can 
affect 
the 
long-
term 
landscape 
of 
a 
community. 
Local 
governments 
are 
dealing 
with 
multiple 
issues, 
including 
massive 
debris 
removal, 
restoration 
of 
infrastructure 
and 
planning 
for 
economic 
recovery. 
In 
Mississippi 
many 
local 
governments 
were 
operating 
out 
of 
temporary 
office 
space 
and 
coping 
with 
losses 
of 
data 
and 
systems. 
It 
is 
important 
for 
local 
communities 
to 
include 
short-
and 
long-term 
housing 
needs 
in 
pre-disaster 
planning 
efforts. 
Agreeing 
on 
unit 
designs 
and 
occupancy 
policies 
in 
advance 
of 
a 
disaster 
will 
help 
foster 
a 
sense 
of 
control 
and 
mitigate 
future 
community 
resistance. 


Organizational Capacity and Implementation 

Observations 
Mississippi 
was 
successful 
in 
implementing 
a 
large 
pilot 
program 
of 
more 
than 
2,800 
temporary 
disaster 
housing 
units 
in 
17 
months. 


Executive Summary 


Several 
key 
factors 
appear 
to 
have 
been 
essential 
to 
this 
outcome: 


. 
Based 
on 
prior 
experiences 
administering 
other 
emergency 
programs, 
MAHP 
was 
organized 
and 
implemented 
using 
the 
Incident 
Command 
Structure 
(ICS). 
Common 
in 
the 
emergency 
response 
field, 
ICS 
provides 
clear 
lines 
of 
authority 
and 
a 
structured 
method 
for 
outlining 
tasks 
and 
monitoring 
accountability. 
This 
structured 
approach 
enabled 
quick 
program 
implementation. 
. 
MAHP 
benefited 
from 
significant 
political 
support, 
as 
well 
as 
access 
to 
state 
resources 
and 
expertise. 
Political 
support 
from 
the 
Governor’s 
Office 
assisted 
MAHP 
in 
navigating 
relationships 
with 
communities. 
MAHP 
also 
accessed 
state 
administrative 
resources 
through 
the 
Department 
of 
Finance 
and 
Administration, 
as 
well 
as 
additional 
MEMA 
staff 
at 
critical 
program 
junctures. 
This 
sustained 
support 
provided 
a 
broad 
foundation 
for 
the 
program 
to 
move 
forward. 
. 
MEMA 
elected 
to 
use 
contractors 
for 
MAHP 
with 
MEMA 
personnel 
providing 
oversight. 
This 
approach 
allowed 
the 
program 
to 
remain 
flexible, 
adjust 
staffing 
and 
revise 
policies 
as 
needed 
during 
the 
transition 
from 
temporary 
to 
permanent 
installations. 
Lessons for the Future 
A combination of disaster response, disaster recovery and 
affordable housing expertise is needed to successfully administer 
a similar program. 

MEMA’s 
expertise 
in 
emergency 
operations 
enabled 
it 
to 
establish 
an 
effective 
new 
organization 
and 
to 
deal 
with 
significant 
logistics. 
However, 
MEMA’s 
acknowledged 
lack 
of 
permanent 
housing 
expertise 
affected 
some 
of 
its 
policies 
and 
procedures 
and 
its 
ability 
to 
work 
with 
local 
partners. 
MEMA 
re-procured 
its 
contractor 
in 
part 
to 
access 
this 
additional 
expertise. 
For 
future 
programs, 
incorporating 
permanent 
housing 
expertise 
and 
capacity 
in 
the 
planning 
stages 
and 
throughout 
the 
program 
could 
help 
the 
implementing 
organization 
to 
anticipate 
issues 
and 
make 
the 
transition 
to 
permanent 
housing 
options 
smoother. 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 


Future programs should incorporate a stronger human services 
strategy. 

MAHP 
management 
and 
staff 
reported 
that 
they 
did 
not 
expect 
that 
residents 
would 
have 
such 
intensive 
service 
needs 
and 
were 
initially 
unprepared 
to 
facilitate 
connections 
to 
services 
for 
households 
with 
multiple 
problems 
or 
severe 
needs. 
Over 
time, 
the 
organization 
identified 
and 
referred 
participants 
to 
local 
organizations 
that 
provided 
necessary 
services. 
A 
strategy 
for 
identifying 
and 
accessing 
community 
services 
should 
be 
an 
integral 
part 
of 
pre-disaster 
planning 
efforts 
and 
an 
early 
focus 
in 
any 
temporary 
housing 
mission. 


Details 
on 
MAHP’s 
implementation 
through 
August 
2008 
are 
contained 
in 
the 
body 
of 
this 
report. 
The 
pilot 
program 
is 
ongoing 
through 
2011. 
Further 
program 
updates 
will 
be 
provided 
in 
the 
2009 
interim 
report 
along 
with 
results 
of 
the 
first 
follow-up 
survey 
of 
MAHP 
participants. 


Executive Summary 


ChapterOne:IntroductionChapterOne:Introduction
This 
case 
study 
is 
the 
first 
installment 
of 
the 
quality 
of 
life 
evaluation 
for 
Mississippi. 
It 
describes 
and 
assesses 
program 
implementation 
of 
the 
Mississippi 
Alternative 
Housing 
Program 
(MAHP) 
from 
the 
start 
of 
the 
program 
in 
April 
2007 
through 
August 
2008, 
about 
half 
way 
through 
the 
active 
grant 
period. 
This 
chapter 
describes 
the 
physical 
and 
social 
environment 
of 
South 
Mississippi 
after 
Katrina 
and 
provides 
an 
overview 
of 
Mississippi’s 
recovery 
planning 
process. 
It 
also 
offers 
a 
brief 
overview 
of 
Mississippi’s 
units 
and 
provides 
a 
description 
of 
the 
case 
study 
methodology 
at 
the 
end 
of 
the 
chapter. 


Program 
implementation 
is 
reviewed 
in 
detail 
in 
the 
next 
two 
chapters. 
Chapter 
Two 
(The 
Temporary 
Housing 
Story) 
reviews 
start-up 
activities 
and 
the 
temporary 
placement 
of 
units, 
while 
Chapter 
Three 
(Transition 
to 
Permanent 
Housing) 
describes 
the 
recent 
shift 
to 
permanent 
installations. 
Chapter 
Four 
(Preliminary 
Results 
of 
the 
Building 
Sciences 
Evaluation) 
offers 
a 
building 
sciences 
review 
of 
the 
performance 
of 
MAHP 
units 
to 
date. 
Chapter 
Five 
(Observations 
and 
Lessons 
Learned) 
summarizes 
preliminary 
assessments 
of 
the 
Mississippi 
pilot 
and 
presents 
lessons 
learned 
to 
date. 


South Mississippi Before and After Hurricane Katrina 

Hurricane 
Katrina 
struck 
the 
Gulf 
Coast 
on 
August 
29, 
2005, 
causing 
unprecedented 
damage 
to 
the 
State 
of 
Mississippi’s 
infrastructure, 
housing 
stock, 
commercial 
property 
and 
economy, 
particularly 
the 
tourism 
and 
gaming 
industries. 
Flooding 
combined 
with 
a 
30-foot 
storm 
surge 
swept 
away 
or 
severely 
damaged 
homes, 
roads 
and 
businesses 
that 
once 
were 
concentrated 
along 
the 
Gulf 
Coast. 
Exhibits 
1-1 
and 
1-2 
illustrate 
the 
impact 
of 
Hurricane 
Katrina 
on 
the 
coast. 
Moving 
inland, 
Katrina’s 
wind 
and 
rain 
caused 
enough 
damage 
to 
the 
southern 
half 
of 
Mississippi 
that 
full 
federal 
disaster 
aid 
was 
available 
for 
residents 
of 
the 
49 
southernmost 
counties. 
Ultimately, 
the 
storm 
generated 
46 


Exhibit 1-1: Biloxi, Mississippi 
Above: A Biloxi beach after Katrina 
on September 3, 2005. 
Below: The same stretch of beach 
on November 3, 2005 after initial 
clean-up. 
Photos: FEMA / Mark Wolfe 
A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 17 


million 
cubic 
yards 
of 
debris, 
more 
than 
350,000 
Mississippians 
received 
FEMA 
Individual 
Assistance 
grants 
totaling 
approximately 
$1.2 
billion 
and 
48,000 
Mississippi 
households 
received 
a 
FEMA 
travel 
trailer 
or 
mobile 
home.1 


All 
along 
the 
coast, 
Katrina 
washed 
away 
and 
damaged 
infrastructure, 
including 
roads, 
sewers 
and 
electric 
and 
natural 
gas 
lines. 
Several 
sections 
and 
bridges 
of 
Highway 
90, 


Exhibit 1-2: Damage 
from Hurricane 
Katrina. 

A house was pushed 
off its foundation in 
Biloxi, Mississippi. 

Photo: FEMA / Mark 
Wolfe 

Damage to the 
Highway 90 bridge 
from Biloxi to Ocean 
Springs. 

Photo: FEMA / 
George Armstrong 

the 
beachfront 
drive 
that 
hugged 
the 
Mississippi 
Coast, 
were 
gone. 
Exhibit 
1-2 
shows 
the 
damage 
to 
the 
bridge 
between 
Biloxi 
and 
Ocean 
Springs. 
While 
striking 
progress 
has 
been 
made—two 
critical 
bridges 
have 
been 
restored—sections 
of 
Highway 
90 
are 
still 
under 
construction 
three 
years 
after 
Katrina. 


Katrina 
also 
devastated 
Mississippi’s 
coastal 
economy.2 
Prior 
to 
the 
storm, 
unemployment 


Chapter One: Introduction 


hovered 
around 
6 
percent 
across 
the 
three 
coastal 
counties. 
Immediately 
after 
the 
storm, 
in 
September 
2005, 
the 
unemployment 
rate 
was 
over 
22 
percent; 
it 
did 
not 
return 
to 
pre-storm 
levels 
until 
the 
beginning 
of 
2007. 
Revenues 
from 
gaming, 
a 
key 
industry 
along 
the 
coast, 
dropped 
from 
over 
$105 
million 
in 
August 
2005 
to 
$0 
in 
September 
and 
did 
not 
fully 
recover 
until 
early 
2007. 
The 
damage 
to 
other 
businesses 
and 
the 
reduction 
in 
the 
consumer 
population 
also 
decimated 
sales 
tax 
revenues 
for 
municipalities.3 
As 
expected, 
economic 
losses 
of 
this 
magnitude 
have 
had 
ongoing 
impact 
on 
government 
tax 
revenues, 
especially 
for 
small, 
coastal 
jurisdictions. 


This 
extent 
of 
damage 
required 
a 
measured 
recovery 
effort 
along 
the 
coast. 
As 
part 
of 
this 
endeavor, 
MAHP 
was 
implemented 
in 
the 
three 
coastal 
counties 
of 
Harrison, 
Hancock 
and 
Jackson 
and 
to 
a 
much 
more 
limited 


degree 
in 
the 
more 
rural, 
inland 
counties 
of 
George, 
Stone 
and 
Pearl 
River. 
Exhibit 
1-3 
shows 
MAHP’s 
geographical 
coverage. 


Prior 
to 
Katrina, 
over 
40 
percent 
of 
the 
total 
population 
of 
Mississippi’s 
three 
southernmost 
counties 
lived 
in 
Harrison 
County—which 
includes 
the 
coastal 
urban 
centers 
of 
Gulfport 
and 
Biloxi.4 
Harrison 
County 
also 
had 
the 
largest 
concentration 
of 
rental 
housing.5 
Because 
development 
was 
concentrated 
along 
the 
coast, 
nearly 
60 
percent 
of 
the 
housing 
stock 
in 
the 
lower 
three 
counties 
was 
damaged, 
with 
a 
disproportionate 
impact 
on 
rental 
housing.6 
Exhibit 
1-4 
shows 
a 
damaged 
multi-unit 
rental 
development 
that 
remained 
vacant 
in 
July 
2008. 
The 
percentage 
of 
housing 
units 
that 
were 
damaged 
declined 
from 
west 
to 
east, 
so 
that 
72 
percent 
of 
housing 
units 
in 
Hancock 
County 
were 
damaged, 
64 
percent 
in 
Harrison, 
and 
42 
percent 
in 
Jackson 
County.7 


Exhibit 1-3: MAHP’s Geographical Coverage 
Mississippi Department of Transportation, Planning Division 2007 
Google.com 
A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 19 


The Mississippi Alternative Housing 
Program’s Role in Recovery 

A 
week 
after 
Katrina, 
Governor 
Haley 
Barbour 
initiated 
a 
recovery 
planning 
process 
by 
establishing 
the 
Governor’s 
Commission 
on 
Recovery, 
Rebuilding 
and 
Renewal. 
Town 
hall 
meetings 
and 
planning 
workshops 
took 
place 
in 
the 
months 
following 
the 
storm 
to 
gather 
input 
from 
Mississippi 
residents, 
frame 
a 
vision 
for 
recovery 
and 
develop 
tangible 
recommendations 
for 
moving 
forward. 
Initial 
designs 
for 
alternative 
disaster 
housing 
units, 
namely 
the 
Katrina 
Cottage, 
were 
developed 
during 
this 
planning 
process. 
As 
a 
result 
of 
the 
Commission’s 
final 
report, 
the 
Governor’s 
Office 
of 
Recovery 
and 
Renewal 
was 
created 
to 
coordinate 
Mississippi’s 
recovery 
efforts. 
In 
addition, 
Mississippi 
stakeholders 
advocated 
for 
a 
federal 
initiative 
to 
better 
address 
temporary 
disaster 
housing 
needs. 
These 
efforts 
contributed 
to 
the 
legislation 
that 
authorized 
FEMA 
to 
create 
the 
Alternative 
Housing 
Pilot 
Program. 


By 
the 
time 
FEMA 
called 
for 
AHPP 
proposals, 
Mississippi 
had 
already 
constructed 
a 
prototype 
Mississippi 
Cottage, 
a 
variation 
on 
the 
Katrina 
Cottage, 
and 
convened 
builders, 
engineers, 
local 
officials 
and 
citizens 
to 
better 
understand 
options 
for 
rebuilding 
the 
coast’s 
housing, 
in 
both 
the 
intermediate 
and 
long-
term. 
In 
September 
2006, 
the 
Governor’s 
Office 
of 
Recovery 
and 
Renewal 
convened 
an 
Alternative 
Housing 
Design 
charrette 
and 
developed 
the 
proposal 
submitted 
to 
FEMA 
for 
the 
Mississippi 
Alternative 
Housing 
Program. 


Through 
the 
competitive 
process, 
FEMA 
funded 
two 
of 
Mississippi’s 
proposed 
pilot 


Exhibit 1-4: Damaged Rental Units 
A multi-family rental property situated between 
Gulfport and Biloxi that was still boarded up in July 
2008. The property is several blocks from the coast 
and is typical of the rental units that have yet to 
return to the market. 
programs.TheStatereceived$275millioninAHPPfundsfortheParkModelandMississippiCottages,andasmallerallocationof$6millionfortheEcoCottage(originallycalledtheGreenMobileunit).


The Program 
The 
Mississippi 
Emergency 
Management 
Agency 
(MEMA) 
is 
the 
state 
entity 
responsible 
for 
implementing 
MAHP. 
MEMA 
develops 
Mississippi’s 
emergency 
response 
plan 
and 
manages 
relief 
operations 
following 
a 
natural 
or 
man-made 
disaster. 
MAHP’s 
Program 
Directors 
report 
directly 
to 
MEMA’s 
Executive 
Director, 
and 
the 
agency 
works 
closely 
with 
the 
Governor’s 
Office 
of 
Recovery 
and 
Renewal. 
MAHP’s 
day-to-day 
operations 
are 
carried 
out 
by 
a 
combination 
of 
MEMA 
staff, 
other 
state 
employees 
and 
a 
team 
of 
contractors 
responsible 
for 
project 
management, 
design, 
engineering, 
manufacturing, 
hauling 
and 
installing 
units 
and 
maintenance. 
At 
the 
height 
of 
the 
temporary 
housing 


Chapter One: Introduction 


program, 
about 
100 
MEMA 
and 
contractor 
staff 
persons 
were 
working 
on 
the 
program. 


MAHP 
implementation 
includes 
a 
temporary 
phase 
and 
permanent 
phase. 
Temporary 
installations 
began 
in 
June 
2007 
and 
continued 
through 
July 
2008. 
During 
this 
phase, 
MAHP 
executed 
agreements 
with 
local 
jurisdictions 
to 
establish 
where 
and 
under 
what 
cir-cumstances 
MAHP 
units 
could 
be 
placed. 
Program 
applicants 
were 
responsible 
for 
securing 
a 
site 
for 
the 
Cottage 
on 
land 
they 
owned, 
borrowed 
or 
rented. 
Once 
an 
applicant 
and 
site 
were 
approved, 
MAHP 
installed 
the 
unit. 
Chapter 
Two 
describes 
program 
start-up 
activities 
and 
the 
temporary 
installation 
process. 


The 
permanent 
phase 
officially 
began 
in 
April 
2008, 
although 
MAHP 
had 
been 
working 
on 
developing 
permanent 
housing 
projects 
since 
the 
start 
of 
the 
program. 
Chapter 
Three 
details 
the 
shift 
to 
permanent 
installations. 


MAHP Units 
Ultimately 
the 
program 
will 
include 
four 
unit 
types, 
including: 


. 
One-bedroom 
Park 
Models; 
. 
Two-and 
three-bedroom 
Mississippi 
Cottages; 
. 
Handicapped 
accessible, 
two-and 
three-bedroom 
Mississippi 
Cottages; 
and 
. 
One-and 
two-bedroom 
Eco 
Cottages, 
both 
of 
which 
are 
accessible. 
The 
Park 
Model 
and 
Mississippi 
Cottages 
are 
manufactured, 
modular, 
HUD-code 
certified 
housing 
units 
that 
meet 
the 
2003 
International 
Residential 
Code 
(IRC) 
and 
can 
withstand 
150 
mile 
per 
hour 
wind 
speeds. 
Both 
unit 
types 
reflect 
the 
regional 
Gulf 
Coast 
architecture, 
with 
hipped 
and 
gabled 
roofs, 
front 
porches 
and 
a 
cottage 
aesthetic. 
They 
are 
delivered 
on 
wheels 
and 
can 
be 
installed 
temporarily 
or 
permanently 
because 
the 


Exhibit 1-5: Park Model Exterior and Floor Plan 
A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 21 


removable 
under-carriage 
allows 
for 
installation 
on 
a 
permanent 
foundation. 


Park 
Models 
are 
one-bedroom 
units 
with 
396 
square 
feet 
of 
living 
space 
and 
are 
intended 
as 
a 
direct 
replacement 
for 
the 
256 
square 
foot 
FEMA 
travel 
trailers. 
In 
addition 
to 
being 
somewhat 
larger, 
the 
Park 
Model 
offers 
significant 
advantages 
in 
its 
structural 
design 
and 
floor 
plan; 
use 
of 
environmentally 
safer, 
energy 
efficient 
and 
more 
durable 
materials; 
and 
the 
addition 
of 
attic 
storage 
space. 
Exhibit 
1-5 
includes 
an 
exterior 
view 
of 
the 
Park 
Model 
and 
its 
floor 
plan. 


The 
two-bedroom 
Mississippi 
Cottages 
have 
728 
square 
feet 
of 
living 
space 
and 
the 
three-
bedroom 
has 
840 
square 
feet. 
The 
Cottages 
were 
originally 
intended 
to 
replace 
FEMA 
mobile 
homes, 
which 
are 
typically 
840 
square 
feet. 
The 
two-and 
three-bedroom 
units 
are 
available 
in 
fully 
accessible 
versions 
that 
are 
compliant 
with 
the 
Uniform 
Federal 
Accessibility 
Standards 
(UFAS). 
These 
Cottages 
include 
interior 
adaptations 
and 
ramp 
access 
to 
the 
unit 
for 
individuals 
with 
mobility 
disabilities. 
The 
exterior 
of 
a 
Mississippi 
Cottage 
and 
the 
three-bedroom 
floor 
plan 
are 
featured 
in 
Exhibit 
1-6. 
Exhibit 
1-7 
displays 
photographs 
of 
a 
typical 
Cottage 
interior. 


Exhibit 1-6: The Mississippi Cottage 
Right: An exterior view of a 
Mississippi Cottage. 
Below: The floor plan for 
the three-bedroom 
Mississippi Cottage. 
Chapter One: Introduction 


Exhibit 1-7: Typical Park Model and Mississippi 
Cottage Interiors 

Main living area 
Bedroom 
Bathroom 

The 
Eco 
Cottage 
is 
an 
energy 
efficient, 
“green” 
modular 
unit 
that 
will 
be 
sited 
as 
permanent 
housing 
and 
will 
be 
available 
in 
one-and 
two-bedroom 
versions. 
It 
will 
be 
held 
to 
a 
higher 
environmental 
standard 
than 
the 
other 
designs, 
is 
fully 
compliant 
with 
the 
2006 
International 
Residential 
Code 
and 
uses 
Structural 
Insulated 
Panel 
(SIP) 
design. 


Additions 
can 
be 
easily 
added 
to 
increase 
interior 
living 
space. 
The 
unit 
design 
was 
still 
underway 
as 
of 
August 
2008. 
Exhibit 
1-8 
displays 
the 
preliminary 
Eco 
Cottage 
design 
and 
a 
one-bedroom 
floor 
plan. 


In 
keeping 
with 
efforts 
to 
simulate 
disaster 
circumstances, 
FEMA 
required 
that 
the 
units 
come 
furnished 
with 
a 
sofa, 
dining 
table 
and 
chairs 
and 
bed 
frames 
and 
mattresses. 
The 
AHPP 
grant 
also 
required 
that 
MAHP 
provide 
“living 
kits” 
with 
each 
unit 
that 
included 
basic 
household 
items, 
such 
as 
linens, 
dishes, 
silverware 
and 
cleaning 
supplies. 


Originally, 
Mississippi 
anticipated 
producing 
about 
3,500 
units, 
consisting 
of 
3,400 
Park 
Models 
and 
Mississippi 
Cottages 
and 
100 
Eco 
Cottages. 
These 
estimates 
have 
been 
reduced 
to 
3,025 
Cottages 
and 
Park 
Models 
and 
80 
Eco 
units 
as 
a 
result 
of 
increased 
costs 
for 
transitioning 
from 
temporary 
to 
permanent 
installations. 
As 
of 
August 
28, 
2008, 
Mississippi 
had 
installed 
and 
occupied 
2,806 
units. 
Exhibit 
1-9 
shows 
the 
pace 
of 
installation 
from 
the 
first 
unit 
on 
June 
20, 
2007 
through 
August 
2008. 
Exhibit 
1-10 
shows 
the 
location 
and 
distribution 
of 
occupied 
units 
across 
the 
six 
counties. 
Attachment 
1 
includes 
more 
detailed 
maps 
for 
coastal 
jurisdictions. 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 23 


327 344 
301 305 
216 210 
179 158 
114 
78 65 
21 212 


Exhibit 1-8: The Eco Cottage 
Right: A preliminary rendering of 
the Eco Cottage. 
Below: The one-bedroom floor plan. 
Bedroom Kitchen 
Living Room 
Bath 
Exhibit 1-9: Number of MAHP Units Occupied by Month June 2007 to August 2008 

465

500 
450 
400 
350 
300 
250 
200 
150 
100 
50 
0 

Chapter One: Introduction 


Exhibit 1-10 shows the distribution of occupied MAHP units over the program’s six-county geography. 

A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 25 
Jurisdiction 
Occupied Units 

Case Study Methodology Case Study Methodology 
This 
case 
study 
is 
the 
first 
evaluation 
report 
for 
MAHP. 
A 
two-person 
evaluation 
team 
collected 
data 
for 
this 
report 
during 
three 
on-
site 
visits, 
remote 
monthly 
monitoring 
of 
grantee 
activities 
via 
conference 
calls 
and 
ongoing 
reviews 
of 
program 
documents 
and 
reports. 


The 
team 
visited 
the 
Mississippi 
Gulf 
Coast 
in 
November 
2007, 
May 
2008 
and 
July 
2008 
and 
participated 
in 
FEMA-sponsored 
grantee 
conferences 
in 
February 
2008 
in 
Biloxi 
and 
June 
2008 
in 
New 
Orleans. 
They 
conducted 
in-
depth 
interviews 
with 
MAHP 
staff—both 
MEMA 
employees 
and 
contractors—in 
individual 
and 
group 
interviews. 
They 
also 
conducted 
focus 
groups 
with 
staff 
persons 
who 
held 
the 
same 
MAHP 
positions 
in 
different 
counties, 
as 
well 
as 
staff 
who 
were 
working 
on 
a 
specific 
issue, 
such 
as 
permanent 
housing. 


While 
on-site 
in 
November 
2007 
the 
evaluators 
informally 
interviewed 
eight 
MAHP 
participants, 
that 
is, 
no 
structured 
interview 
protocol 
was 
used. 
The 
evaluators 
sought 
to 
understand 
participants’ 
impressions 
of 
the 
units 
and 
their 
experience 
with 
the 
program. 
The 
MAHP 
participants 
who 
were 


interviewed 
were 
dispersed 
among 
the 
three 
coastal 
counties 
and 
selected 
by 
MAHP 
staff 
based 
on 
the 
availability 
of 
the 
participants. 
The 
conversations 
were 
intended 
to 
be 
used 
to 
inform 
the 
development 
of 
the 
participant 
survey 
and 
to 
obtain 
an 
early 
read 
on 
MAHP 
participants’ 
opinions 
and 
experiences. 
(The 
fall 
2008 
participant 
survey 
will 
collect 
data 
in 
a 
structured, 
representative 
survey.) 


Nearly 
20 
community 
stakeholders 
were 
also 
interviewed 
during 
three 
site 
visits. 
They 
included 
town 
mayors, 
city 
managers, 
zoning 
and 
building 
code 
officials, 
city 
council 
persons, 
representatives 
of 
non-profit 
organizations 
and 
a 
representative 
from 
a 
public 
housing 
authority. 
In 
a 
few 
instances, 
the 
evaluators 
conducted 
follow-up 
interviews 
with 
the 
same 
stakeholder 
to 
understand 
if 
and 
how 
attitudes 
towards 
the 
program 
had 
changed 
over 
time. 


During 
the 
May 
and 
July 
2008 
visits, 
the 
evaluation 
team 
also 
observed 
a 
county 
board 
of 
supervisors 
meeting, 
a 
city 
council 
meeting 
and 
a 
meeting 
for 
an 
affordable 
housing 
coalition 
when 
MAHP 
was 
on 
the 
agenda. 
The 
evaluators 
also 
reviewed 
detailed 
program 
records 
and 
reports 
that 
were 
developed 
and 
archived 
by 
MAHP. 


Chapter One: Introduction 


ChapterTwo:TheTemporaryHousingStoryChapterTwo:TheTemporaryHousingStory
This 
section 
describes 
MEMA's 
approach 
to 
organizing 
the 
program 
and 
implementing 
the 
temporary 
installations, 
including 
the 
barriers 
faced 
and 
how 
they 
were 
overcome 
during 
the 
first 
17 
months 
of 
program 
implementation. 


MAHP’s Vision and Approach 

Because 
the 
State 
quickly 
undertook 
a 
planning 
process 
and 
began 
implementing 
recovery 
efforts, 
the 
MAHP 
program 
did 
not 
start 
with 
a 
blank 
slate. 
By 
the 
time 
AHPP 
funds 
were 
awarded 
to 
Mississippi, 
considerable 
analysis 
of 
housing 
needs 
had 
been 
done, 
and 
design 
of 
a 
disaster 
housing 
unit 
that 
would 
fit 
in 
with 
Gulf 
Coast 
architecture 
was 
underway. 
MAHP’s 
first 
Cottage 
was 
occupied 
81 
days 
after 
operations 
officially 
began 
in 
April 
2007. 
By 
August 
2008, 
over 
2,800 
Cottages 
had 
been 
delivered, 
installed 
and 
occupied. 
("Cottage" will 
be 
used 
to 
describe 
all 
of 
the 
MAHP 
units 
except 
where 
distinction 
among 
the 
models 
is 
important.) 


The Vision 
FEMA’s 
pilot 
program 
challenged 
AHPP 
implementers 
to 
seek 
new 
housing 
types 
that 
would 
be 
feasible 
to 
deploy 
in 
future 
disasters, 
in 
addition 
to 
addressing 
the 
current 
needs 
of 
coastal 
residents 
still 
living 
in 
FEMA 
trailers 
and 
mobile 
homes. 
This 
concept 
was 
embraced 
by 
Mississippi, 
and 
as 
MAHP 
took 
shape, 
the 
program 
policies 
and 
schedules 
reflected 
a 
desire 
to 
simulate 
immediate 
post-disaster 
conditions. 
The 
intent 
was 
to 
test 
the 
ability 
of 
manufacturers 
to 
mobilize 
quickly, 
as 
well 
as 
the 
organization's 
capacity 
to 
identify 
eligible 
households 
and 
to 
receive, 
install 
and 
occupy 
units 
in 
large 
numbers. 
Key 
managers 
were 
committed 
to 
this 
emergency 
mindset 
and 
instilled 
a 
sense 
of 
urgency 
throughout 
the 
organization. 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 


MEMA 
also 
took 
seriously 
the 
pilot 
aspect 
of 
the 
project 
by 
designating 
a 
project 
historian 
to 
record 
key 
milestones 
and 
to 
help 
with 
project 
documentation. 
MAHP 
intends 
to 
spend 
year 
three 
of 
the 
grant 
conducting 
its 
own 
analysis 
of 
the 
program. 


The Plan 
MAHP 
adopted 
a 
management 
approach 
that 
is 
familiar 
in 
the 
disaster 
response 
community. 
The 
Incident 
Command 
System 
(ICS) 
provides 
a 
structure 
for 
establishing 
an 
organization 
and 
protocols 
for 
setting 
goals, 
assigning 
responsibility 
and 
tracking 
progress.8 
ICS 
was 
developed 
in 
the 
1970s 
to 
address 
common 
weaknesses 
in 
emergency 
response 
situations 
such 
as 
lack 
of 
systematic 
planning 
and 
accountability, 
difficulty 
in 
interagency 
coordination 
and 
poor 
communications. 
It 
is 
used 
at 
all 
levels 
of 
government 
and 
by 
some 
private 
sector 
organizations 
and 
has 
been 
incorporated 
into 
FEMA's 
National 
Incident 
Management 
System 
(NIMS). 
ICS 
usually 
is 
organized 
around 
five 
major 
functional 
areas: 
command, 
operations, 
planning, 
logistics 
and 
finance 
and 
administration. 


The 
ICS 
approach 
appears 
to 
have 
served 
the 
project 
well. 
Within 
the 
first 
quarter, 
MEMA 
had 
created 
a 
new 
organization 
focused 
solely 
on 
the 
MAHP 
program 
(including 
organizational 
charts, 
job 
descriptions 
and 
an 
initial 
training 
program), 
conducted 
outreach 
to 
over 
14,000 
families, 
negotiated 
MOUs 
with 
14 
local 
governments, 
and 
installed 
nine 
units 
and 
occupied 
two. 
The 
management 
approach 
was 
also 
reflective 
of.and 
well-
suited 
to.the 
military 
backgrounds 
of 
key 


leaders, 
including 
the 
MAHP 
program 
director 
and 
MEMA’s 
executive 
director, 
both 
of 
whom 
had 
served 
in 
the 
military. 


As 
called 
for 
under 
ICS, 
MAHP 
immediately 
established 
detailed 
goals 
and 
performance 
standards 
to 
support 
the 
program’s 
vision 
and 
codified 
them 
in 
a 
Performance 
Management 
Plan 
(PMP). 
The 
plan 
established 
specific 
targets 
for 
executing 
key 
tasks 
and 
developing 
policies 
and 
procedures, 
including: 
development 
of 
the 
management 
team, 
procurement 
of 
units, 
public 
and 
local 
government 
outreach, 
and 
design 
and 
implementation 
of 
a 
custom-built, 
automated 
workload 
tracking 
system. 
Attachment 
2 
summarizes 
the 
project's 
goals, 
which 
from 
the 
beginning 
called 
for 
the 
implementation 
portion 
of 
the 
program 
(i.e., 
construction, 
installation, 
occupancy, 
demobilization 
and 
disposition) 
to 
end 
in 
March 
2009. 


The 
organization 
measures 
progress 
toward 
the 
goals 
daily. 
It 
also 
publishes 
comprehensive 
quarterly 
reports 
that 
track 
progress 
against 
goals 
and 
contain 
policies, 
procedures 
and 
other 
key 
program 
documents 
that 
were 
created 
or 
modified 
during 
the 
quarter. 
This 
organized 
approach, 
combined 
with 
committed 
leadership 
and 
staff, 
played 
a 
significant 
role 
in 
the 
speed 
of 
MAHP 
implementation. 


A 
headquarters 
office 
was 
established 
in 
Gulfport, 
and 
a 
transition 
site 
for 
receipt 
of 
Cottages 
was 
set 
up 
nearby. 
In 
addition, 
MAHP 
established 
small 
offices 
in 
each 
county, 
primarily 
for 
the 
use 
of 
site 
inspectors. 
See 
Exhibit 
2-1 
for 
a 
map 
showing 
the 
locations 
of 
the 
MAHP 
operational 
sites. 


Chapter Two: The Temporary Housing Story 


Exhibit 2-1: MAHP’s Operational Sites Exhibit 2-1: MAHP’s Operational Sites 
A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 29 


The Team The Team 
The 
State 
contracted 
with 
Post, 
Buckley, 
Schuh 
& 
Jernigan, 
Inc. 
(PBS&J), 
a 
national 
engineering 
consulting 
firm, 
to 
provide 
management 
and 
technical 
support 
to 
the 
project. 
PBS&J 
had 
been 
involved 
in 
the 
AHPP 
application 
process, 
and 
was 
at 
work 
on 
the 
project 
before 
the 
MEMA 
management 
team 
was 
fully 
assembled. 
In 
order 
to 
move 
quickly, 
the 
management 
contract 
initially 
was 
not 
competitively 
bid. 
According 
to 
MEMA's 
Director, 
Mike 
Womack, 
the 
decision 
to 
use 
a 
contractor 
to 
manage 
significant 
portions 
of 
the 
program 
was 
based 
upon 
the 
positive 
experience 
the 
State 
had 
using 
contractors 
for 
the 
administration 
of 
approximately 
$2.5 
billion 
in 
FEMA 
assistance 
funds 
after 
Katrina. 
Although 
MEMA's 
staff 
was 
increased 
after 
the 
storm, 
it 
is 
a 
small 
agency 
and 
Womack 
believes 
that 
engaging 
contractors 
to 
complete 
the 
time-limited, 
day-to-day 
work 
while 
using 
State 
staff 
for 
high 
level 
oversight 
of 
the 
contracts 
is 
an 
effective 
model. 


In 
addition 
to 
being 
responsible 
for 
program 
management, 
the 
PBS&J 
team 
included 
several 
subcontractors 
who 
were 
tasked 
with 
specific 
operational 
duties. 
Exhibit 
2-2 
shows 
the 
MAHP 
organizational 
chart 
as 
of 
the 
first 
quarter 
of 
operations, 
with 
State 
personnel, 
PBS&J 
staff 
and 
subcontractors 
separately 
identified. 


Significant 
operational 
support 
was 
also 
provided 
by 
MEMA 
staff 
not 
directly 
assigned 
to 
MAHP, 
as 
well 
as 
the 
State 
Department 
of 
Finance 
and 
Administration 
(DFA). 
MEMA 
staff 
were 
available 
as 
needed 
and 
a 
few 
members 
were 
loaned 
to 
MAHP 
in 
the 
early 


days 
of 
the 
program. 
MEMA 
enlisted 
DFA 
to 
provide 
finance 
and 
administrative 
support 
for 
the 
duration 
of 
the 
program. 
The 
department 
has 
played 
a 
key 
role 
in 
providing 
guidance 
and 
support 
for 
procurements. 


MAHP 
also 
coordinated 
closely 
with 
the 
Governor’s 
Office 
of 
Recovery 
and 
Renewal. 
The 
Office 
had 
a 
staff 
person 
assigned 
to 
the 
Gulf 
Coast 
who 
assisted 
MAHP 
work 
with 
the 
local 
jurisdictions. 
The 
Governor’s 
office 
has 
been 
involved 
in 
key 
program 
policy 
decisions 
and 
later 
made 
a 
direct 
request 
for 
the 
participation 
of 
a 
handful 
of 
non-profit 
groups 
to 
assist 
with 
permanent 
Cottage 
developments. 
MAHP 
staff 
reported 
that 
support 
and 
coordination 
with 
the 
Office 
has 
been 
helpful, 
aside 
from 
a 
brief 
period 
of 
confusion 
about 
Governor’s 
staff 
communicating 
directly 
with 
jurisdictions 
about 
MAHP. 


Relationships with Local 
Communities 
Although 
each 
of 
the 
jurisdictions 
had 
signed 
a 
letter 
in 
support 
of 
the 
program 
when 
the 
MAHP 
grant 
application 
was 
submitted, 
MEMA 
committed 
to 
entering 
into 
a 
memorandum 
of 
understanding 
(MOU) 
with 
each 
local 
jurisdiction 
to 
specify 
how 
the 
Cottages 
would 
be 
used 
in 
that 
jurisdiction 
and 
where 
they 
could 
be 
placed. 
This 
turned 
out 
to 
be 
a 
more 
difficult 
and 
time 
consuming 
process 
than 
MAHP 
staff 
initially 
expected. 
Local 
government 
responses 
were 
driven 
by 
several 
forces, 
including 
the 
enormity 
of 
the 
recovery 
effort, 
concerns 
(and 
misconceptions) 
about 
the 
Cottages 
themselves 
and 
perceptions 
of 
the 
circumstances 
of 
households 
that 


Chapter Two: The Temporary Housing Story 


Exhibit 2-2: MAHP Organizational Chart – First Quarter 
–Technical Advisor – Contract LiaisonProject Support 
Multi-Family SitesQA/QC Officer 
Finance and Administration 
GIS ManagersPolicy PlannerTransition Site Managers 
HistorianTechnical WriterCall CenterOperators 
ATG Mobile DeveloperGIS AnalystsData Manager 
Project ManagersMEMA / PBS&J 
Deputy Project ManagersMEMA / PBS&J 
Information and Planning 
Hancock CountyJackson County 
Harrison County 
External Logistics Internal Logistics 
Logistics 
Environmental / NEPA 
Deputy Project ManagersMEMA / PBS&J 
Jackson CountyDivision Supervisor 
Harrison CountyDivision Supervisor 
Hancock CountyDivision Supervisor 
InspectionDivision Supervisor 
InspectionDivision Supervisor 
InspectionDivision Supervisor 
Soil TestersSite Inspectors Site Inspectors 
Soil TestersSite Inspectors 
HousingAdvisors 
HousingAdvisors 
HousingAdvisors 
Operations 
Subs MEMA PBS&J 
SchedulerAccounting ClerkSenior AccountingParalegal 
Unit TrackingApplicant Transition 
Soil Testers 
Database ManagerWebsite Developers 
–Technical Advisor – Contract LiaisonProject Support 
Multi-Family SitesQA/QC Officer 
Finance and Administration 
GIS ManagersPolicy PlannerTransition Site Managers 
HistorianTechnical WriterCall CenterOperators 
ATG Mobile DeveloperGIS AnalystsData Manager 
Project ManagersMEMA / PBS&J 
Deputy Project ManagersMEMA / PBS&J 
Information and Planning 
Hancock CountyJackson County 
Harrison County 
External Logistics Internal Logistics 
Logistics 
Environmental / NEPA 
Deputy Project ManagersMEMA / PBS&J 
Jackson CountyDivision Supervisor 
Harrison CountyDivision Supervisor 
Hancock CountyDivision Supervisor 
InspectionDivision Supervisor 
InspectionDivision Supervisor 
InspectionDivision Supervisor 
Soil TestersSite Inspectors Site Inspectors 
Soil TestersSite Inspectors 
HousingAdvisors 
HousingAdvisors 
HousingAdvisors 
Operations 
Subs MEMA PBS&J 
SchedulerAccounting ClerkSenior AccountingParalegal 
Unit TrackingApplicant Transition 
Soil Testers 
Database ManagerWebsite Developers 
A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 

31 


remained 
in 
FEMA 
units. 
These 
three 
factors 
are 
discussed 
in 
the 
sections 
below. 


Challenges and Opportunities 
The 
challenges 
continue 
to 
be 
enormous 
for 
the 
local 
jurisdictions 
affected 
by 
Katrina. 
As 
the 
MAHP 
program 
began, 
local 
leaders— 
many 
of 
whom 
had 
been 
personally 
affected 
by 
the 
storm—were 
intensely 
engaged 
in 
applying 
for 
and 
managing 
funding 
from 
multiple 
federal 
and 
state 
agencies. 
They 
were 
also 
overseeing 
major 
public 
construction 
projects, 
as 
well 
as 
planning 
for 
the 
short-and 
long-term 
restoration 
of 
the 
region’s 
economy 
and 
tax 
base. 
The 
overwhelming 
demands 
of 
recovery 
were 
compounded 
by 
the 
fact 
that 
most 


communities 
lost 
local 
government 
facilities 
and 
were 
operating 
out 
of 
temporary 
offices 
in 
mobile 
homes. 
Many 
continue 
to 
do 
so 
three 
years 
after 
the 
hurricane 
(see 
Exhibit 
2-3). 


The storm is behind us and we are now dealing with 
the reality that post-Katrina decisions and solutions 
are very complicated…we are traveling uncharted 
waters. No American community has had to face 
rebuilding after a catastrophe the scale of Hurricane 
Katrina. We are seeking solutions that have never 
been necessary. 
---- Gulfport Mayor 
State of the Union address 2007 
Exhibit 2-3: Many local governments 
are still operating out of temporary 
trailers. 
Left: Temporary government offices 
in Waveland, July 2008. 
Below: Temporary government office 
in Pass Christian, July 2008. 
Chapter Two: The Temporary Housing Story 


Ironically, 
in 
some 
areas 
damage 
was 
so 
complete 
that 
it 
presented 
the 
opportunity 
to 
consider 
approaches 
to 
development 
that 
might 
not 
have 
been 
feasible 
before 
Katrina 
changed 
the 
landscape 
of 
communities. 
The 
priority 
list 
was 
long, 
and 
housing 
was 
not 
necessarily 
at 
the 
top 
of 
that 
list. 
When 
first 
contacted 
for 
this 
evaluation 
in 
November 
2007, 
one 
local 
government 
official 
characterized 
the 
situation 
this 
way: 
“I 
don’t 
have 
time 
right 
now 
to 
think 
about 
housing.” 
His 
priority 
was 
restoring 
the 
basic 
infrastructure 
and 
economy 
of 
the 
town. 
Eight 
months 
later 
during 
a 
second 
interview 
in 
July 
2008, 
it 
was 
clear 
that 
affordable, 
rental 
housing 
and 
the 
needs 
of 
owners 
who 
had 
not 
been 
able 
to 
rebuild 
had 
moved 
closer 
to 
the 
top 
of 
the 
list. 


Perceptions of the Cottages 
Some 
community 
resistance 
was 
related 
to 
perceptions 
and 
misperceptions 
about 
the 
MAHP 
units. 
Both 
MAHP 
staff 
and 
local 
government 
representatives 
said 
that 
if 
the 
Cottages 
had 
been 
available 
shortly 
after 
the 
storm, 
local 
communities 
would 
have 
welcomed 
them 
with 
open 
arms. 
The 
localities 
would 
have 
been 
less 
stringent 
about 
permitting 
requirements 
and 
they 
would 
have 
allowed 
the 
Cottages 
to 
be 
placed 
in 
any 
available 
location. 


“They say it’s temporary but once they’re here… we 
all know what’s going to happen…” 
---- Local Official, November 2007 
However, 
an 
entirely 
different 
set 
of 
circumstances 
existed 
18 
months 
after 
the 
storm. 
Local 
communities 
were 
focused 
on 
recovery, 
not 
emergency 
response, 
and 
the 
landscape 
in 
which 
the 
MAHP 
program 
operated 
was 
in 
some 
ways 
much 
more 
complex. 
Some 
local 
government 
reactions 
to 
MAHP 
reflected 
the 
attitudes 
of 
vocal 
segments 
of 
the 
community 
who 
were 
experiencing 
what 
some 
locals 
called 
“Katrina 
fatigue.” 
They 
wanted 
the 
FEMA 
trailers 
removed 
as 
a 
sign 
that 
things 
were 
returning 
to 
normal. 
To 
these 
individuals, 
the 
idea 
of 
bringing 
yet 
more 
“temporary,” 
disaster 
housing 
to 
the 
area 
seemed 
contradictory, 
and 
perhaps 
detrimental, 
to 
encouraging 
people 
to 
rebuild 
permanent 
housing. 


By 
this 
time 
it 
was 
difficult 
for 
communities 
to 
think 
about 
the 
Cottages 
for 
temporary 
housing 
without 
also 
thinking 
about 
the 
likelihood 
that 
some 
would 
remain 
in 
the 
communities 
as 
permanent 
housing. 
These 
concerns 
were 
exacerbated 
by 
the 
multiple 
extensions 
FEMA 
gave 
for 
travel 
trailer 
occupancy. 
Even 
though 
MEMA 
was 
publicly 
committed 
to 
demobilizing 
MAHP 
by 
March 
2009, 
local 
leaders 
feared 
that 
a 
similar 
extension 
process 
for 
the 
Cottages 
was 
inevitable. 


Owners 
who 
had 
rebuilt 
or 
were 
in 
the 
process 
of 
rebuilding 
were 
articulate 
and 
vocal 
in 
their 
concerns 
about 
how 
property 
values 
would 
be 
negatively 
affected 
by 
the 
Cottages. 
They 
argued 
that 
the 
size 
and 
style 
of 
the 
Cottages 
did 
not 
fit 
with 
many 
neighborhoods. 
There 
were 
notable 
exceptions, 
including 
one 
beachfront 
owner 
who 
said: "It's 
not 
my 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 33 


business 
what 
people 
put 
on 
their 
own 
land. 
I 
think 
my 
neighbor's 
$300,000 
house 
is 
ugly, 
but 
it's 
his 
decision." 

Local 
officials 
also 
made 
the 
argument 
that 
the 
small 
Cottages 
(if 
retained 
for 
permanent 


housing) 
would 
do 
less 
to 
restore 
the 
tax 
base 
than 
larger, 
more 
expensive 
homes 
that 
existed 
before 
Katrina 
or 
new, 
high-rise 
condo 
or 
apartment 
buildings 
that 
could 
now 
be 
built. 


Exhibit 2-4: Housing Characteristics Along the 
Gulf Coast 
The quality and size of housing stock varies throughout 
the Mississippi Coast. 
1. A Park Model next to a large home which is under 
construction near the waterfront. 
2. More modest housing in Pascagoula, typical of older 
neighborhoods, where Cottages might be suitable. 
3. A non-MAHP house in Bay St. Louis that typifies 
cottages in the neighborhood. 
4. One of a handful of substandard mobile homes in a 
Gautier commercial park that may propagate negative 
community perceptions of mobile units, and, by 
extension, the Cottages. 
5. A series of brightly-colored, non-MAHP cottages in 
Bay St. Louis. 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
Chapter Two: The Temporary Housing Story 


The 
appropriateness 
of 
these 
arguments 
seemed 
more 
compelling 
in 
some 
locations 
than 
others. 
While 
a 
Cottage 
may 
look 
out 
of 
place 
next 
to 
a 
large, 
beach-front 
home, 
each 
jurisdiction 
appears 
to 
have 
older 
neighborhoods 
in 
which 
a 
Cottage 
could 
blend 
in 
with 
the 
neighborhood. 
Exhibit 
2-4 
illustrates 
this 
diversity. 


MAHP's 
proposal 
to 
develop 
group 
sites 
met 
the 
most 
resistance 
of 
all. 
Concerns 
about 
recreating 
some 
of 
the 
visual 
and 
social 
problems 
experienced 
in 
FEMA 
trailer 
parks 
made 
the 
idea 
of 
creating 
new 
MAHP 
group 
sites 
unpalatable 
to 
local 
communities. 
As 
a 
result, 
MAHP 
staff 
worked 
with 
the 
jurisdictions 
to 
make 
maximum 
use 
of 
spaces 
available 
in 
commercial 
mobile 
home 
parks 
in 
order 
to 
accommodate 
renters 
who 
needed 
a 
site 
for 
a 
Cottage. 
Fourteen 
jurisdictions 
ultimately 
approved 
using 
Cottages 
in 
existing 
commercial 
parks. 


Perceptions of Need 
Another 
contributor 
to 
the 
resistance 
that 
MAHP 
encountered 
stemmed 
from 
perceptions 
of 
fairness 
and 
about 
whether 
the 
units 
were 
actually 
needed. 
Individual 
citizens 
and 
local 
officials 
generally 
had 
great 
compassion 
for 
the 
friends 
and 
neighbors 
they 
knew 
who 
were 
still 
not 
settled. 
However, 
a 
perception 
that "others" 
were 
abusing 
the 
system 
was 
widely 
discussed. 
At 
city 
council 
and 
county 
supervisor 
meetings, 
as 
well 
as 
in 
everyday 
conversations, 
anecdotes 
abounded 
about 
families 
who 
“weren’t 
even 
trying 
to 
recover,” 
“weren’t 
even 
living 
in 
the 
FEMA 
units” 
(and 
perhaps 
were 
renting 
them 
out) 


or 
were 
just 
“hanging 
on 
for 
the 
free 
rent.” 
Although 
these 
discussions 
were 
omnipresent, 
when 
MAHP 
staff 
requested 
specific 
information 
about 
cases 
of 
abuse 
the 
response 
was 
often 
that 
someone 
“had 
heard” 
about 
a 
case. 
Housing 
advisors, 
who 
were 
the 
direct 
intermediaries 
between 
families 
and 
MAHP, 
were 
asked 
to 
pursue 
any 
specific 
complaints 
that 
were 
made. 
It 
is 
possible 
that 
some 
families 
stayed 
in 
FEMA 
trailers 
as 
a 
matter 
of 
convenience, 
but 
others 
faced 
a 
different 
reality. 
The 
remaining 
FEMA 
trailer 
occupants 
included 
homeowners 
who 
were 
still 
having 
problems 
with 
insurance 
settlements, 
elevation 
requirements, 
financing 
or 
access 
to 
reliable 
contractors, 
as 
well 
as 
former 
renters 
who 
reported 
they 
were 
unable 
to 
find 
affordable 
rental 
housing. 
Several 
MAHP 
and 
local 
officials 
explained 
that 
the 
substandard 
rentals 
that 
low-income 
households 
rented 
before 
the 
storm 
for 
as 
little 
as 
$300 
a 
month 
were 
destroyed. 


“We lost everything too and got back on our feet 
with the same help they got, and now they’ll get 
more.” 
----Hancock County Resident 
Some 
households 
were 
just 
“stuck,” 
without 
a 
plan 
for 
rebuilding. 
These 
included 
elderly 
owners 
without 
the 
emotional 
and 
financial 
strength 
to 
rebuild 
and 
individuals 
who 
could 
neither 
rebuild 
on 
nor 
sell 
the 
site 
of 
their 
pre-storm 
residence. 
Still 
other 
individuals 
were 
in 
a 
state 
that 
MAHP 
housing 
advisors 
called 
“paralysis”—those 
who 
were 
still 
traumatized 
into 
inaction. 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 35 


Negotiating the MOUs Negotiating the MOUs 
All 
of 
these 
concerns 
were 
brought 
to 
the 
table 
when 
MAHP 
staff 
began 
to 
negotiate 
MOUs 
with 
each 
jurisdiction. 
A 
sample 
agreement 
is 
provided 
in 
Attachment 
3. 
The 
standard 
language 
found 
in 
most 
agreements 
authorized 
participants 
to 
stay 
for 
a 
minimum 
of 
6 
and 
a 
maximum 
of 
24 
months 
and 
included 
an 
acknowledgement 
that 
some 
units 
might 
be 
placed 
temporarily 
below 
the 
jurisdiction's 
Advisory 
Base 
Flood 
Elevations 
(ABFEs; 
see 
Exhibit 
2-5). 
Cottages 
were 
placed 
below 
the 
ABFEs 
only 
when 
a 
Cottage 
was 
replacing 
a 
FEMA 
travel 
trailer 
on 
the 
same 
site. 


Ultimately 
MOUs 
were 
tailored 
to 
meet 
the 
needs 
of 
each 
jurisdiction. 
The 
modifications 
focused 
on 
specific 
concerns 
the 
jurisdictions 
had 
about 
the 
quality 
of 
units 
and 
unit 
installations, 
and 
the 
use 
of 
units 
for 
permanent 
housing. 
For 
example: 


. 
The 
City 
of 
Moss 
Point 
permitted 
units 
only 
on 
private 
residential 
lots 
(no 
group 
sites 
or 
commercial 
lots) 
and 
initially 
restricted 
occupancy 
to 
one 
year. 
. 
The 
City 
of 
Pascagoula 
gave 
blanket 
approval 
to 
place 
Park 
Model 
units 
wherever 
a 
travel 
trailer 
existed, 
but 
individual 
approval 
was 
required 
for 
placement 
of 
the 
larger 
Cottages. 
The 
agreement 
also 
defined 
MEMA's 
responsibility 
for 
the 
cost 
of 
installation 
maintenance, 
demobilization 
and 
reasonable 
site 
restoration. 


. 
Several 
jurisdictions 
(Gulfport, 
Bay 
St. 
Louis, 
Pascagoula, 
Gautier) 
required 
applicants 
to 
provide 
specific 
evidence 
that 
they 
were 
rebuilding 
a 
permanent 
unit 
in 
order 
to 
obtain 
a 
permit 
for 
placement 
of 
the 
Cottages. 
. 
Harrison 
County 
and 
Pass 
Christian 
authorized 
the 
placement 
of 
Cottages 
only 
where 
local 
zoning 
allowed 
modular 
and 
manufactured 
homes, 
and 
required 
applicants 
to 
follow 
the 
normal 
process 
for 
obtaining 
a 
zoning 
variance 
if 
they 
wished 
to 
place 
a 
unit 
elsewhere 
in 
the 
jurisdiction. 
Pass 
Christian’s 
agreement 
further 
specified 
that "no 
person 
will 
be 
allowed 
to 
purchase 
the 
units 
from 
the 
State 
of 
Mississippi” 
at 
the 
end 
of 
their 
occupancy 
and 
reminded 
the 
State 
that "time 
is 
of 
the 
essence" in 
the 
removal 
of 
units. 
The 
MOU 
process 
proved 
to 
be 
time 
consuming, 
confusing 
and 
sometimes 
frustrating 
for 
all 
concerned. 
Having 
to 
understand 
the 
nuances 
of 
requirements 
across 
the 
jurisdictions 
was 
challenging 
for 
MAHP 
staff 
and 
contractors. 
Some 


Exhibit 2-5: Advisory Base Flood Elevations and the National Flood Insurance Program 
After the 2005 Hurricanes, FEMA adjusted the existing Base Flood Elevation (BFEs) maps to account for storms over the 
past 25 years. The result of this process was the Advisory Base Flood Elevations (ABFEs). The ABFEs are much higher 
than previous BFEs, due largely to the scope and scale of Katrina. ABFEs are used to help communities manage 
vulnerability in floodplains and to determine elevation and other requirements for participation in the National Flood 
Insurance Program (NFIP). The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was established in 1968 to help communities 
minimize flood damage and provide flood insurance to property owners. 
Chapter Two: The Temporary Housing Story 


jurisdictions 
modified 
the 
requirements 
multiple 
times—and 
not 
always 
through 
the 
MOU 
process. 
Sometimes 
MAHP 
staff 
would 
discover 
the 
process 
had 
unexpectedly 
changed 
as 
they 
presented 
what 
they 
thought 
was 
a 
site 
ready 
for 
permitting. 
MEMA 
overcame 
these 
problems 
by 
minimizing 
staff 
turnover 
and 
transfers 
between 
jurisdictions. 
This 
allowed 
assigned 
staff 
to 
build 
relationships 
with 
the 
local 
office 
and 
stay 
more 
informed 
about 
changes. 


On 
the 
other 
hand, 
local 
jurisdictions 
were 
sometimes 
frustrated 
by 
MAHP's 
lack 
of 
knowledge 
about 
jurisdictional 
boundaries 
and 
the 
occasional 
resulting 
mistakes 
when 
MAHP 
staff 
applied 
criteria 
from 
the 
wrong 
jurisdiction 
to 
a 
site. 
One 
local 
government 
complained 
that 
MAHP 
staff 
frequently 
submitted 
incomplete 
site 
plans 
for 
unit 
installations. 


Manufacturing, Installing andOccupying the Cottages 

This 
section 
discusses 
the 
overarching 
implementation 
issues 
related 
to 
the 
manufacture, 
installation 
and 
occupancy 
of 
the 
units. 
A 
more 
detailed 
description 
of 
unit 
components 
and 
characteristics 
and 
a 
discussion 
of 
the 
technical 
challenges 
MAHP 
encountered 
in 
designing 
and 
manufacturing 
units 
is 
included 
in 
Chapter 
Four. 


Once 
the 
Park 
Model 
and 
Mississippi 
Cottage 
designs 
were 
complete, 
MAHP 
issued 
a 
series 
of 
Requests 
for 
Proposals 
(RFPs) 
and 
held 
pre-bid 
conferences 
with 
interested 
manufacturers 
with 
support 
from 
the 
State 
Department 
of 
Finance 
and 


Administration. 
Failure 
to 
correctly 
handle 
the 
public 
advertisement 
for 
the 
initial 
order 
of 
Park 
Models 
caused 
a 
small 
delay. 
MAHP 
procured 
units 
from 
6 
different 
vendors 
operating 
in 
10 
separate 
locations. 


The 
original 
RFP 
called 
for 
manufacturers 
to 
both 
manufacture 
and 
install 
the 
units, 
but 
MAHP 
determined 
that 
a 
separate 
haul 
and 
install 
contract 
was 
more 
appropriate. 
The 
original 
plan 
had 
been 
to 
transport 
the 
Cottages 
directly 
to 
the 
sites 
where 
they 
would 
be 
installed. 
However, 
it 
quickly 
became 
clear 
that 
a 
transition 
site 
would 
be 
needed 
where 
the 
units 
could 
be 
accepted, 
repaired 
if 
necessary 
and 
held 
until 
sites 
were 
ready. 
Directly 
contracting 
with 
local 
haul 
and 
install 
contractors 
also 
allowed 
MAHP 
to 
have 
more 
control 
over 
the 
timing 
and 
ensure 
that 
the 
installation 
was 
coordinated 
with 
the 
permitting 
and 
applicant 
preparation 
processes. 
MAHP 
also 
avoided 
creating 
competition 
for 
local 
installation 
contractors 
between 
manufacturers, 
which 
might 
have 
potentially 
inflated 
costs. 


Quality Management 
Cottages 
were 
received, 
inspected, 
accepted 
and 
deployed 
to 
sites 
from 
the 
transition 
site 
in 
Gulfport. 
Exhibit 
2-6 
is 
an 
aerial 
view 
of 
the 
transition 
site. 
When 
they 
arrived, 
the 
Cottages 
were 
logged 
into 
the 
inventory 
(units 
were 
barcoded). 
Each 
unit 
received 
a 
close 
visual 
inspection 
to 
check 
construction 
features 
such 
as 
exterior 
siding, 
roofing, 
drywall 
installation, 
interior 
and 
exterior 
paint, 
kitchen 
and 
bathroom 
fixtures 
and 
functionality 
of 
windows 
and 
doors. 
Utilities 
and 
appliances 
were 
tested. 
Any 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 37 


problems 
identified 
were 
photographed 
for 
the 
record. 


Despite 
the 
initial 
design 
work, 
changes 
to 
specifications 
were 
made 
numerous 
times 
as 
actual 
units 
came 
off 
the 
line 
and 
problems 
were 
identified. 
Each 
issue 
required 
program 
staff 
to 
determine 
whether 
the 
problem 
was 
with 
the 
unit 
design, 
materials 
or 
manufacturer 
workmanship. 
When 
changes 
were 
made, 
decision 
making 
was 
documented 
using 
a 
formal 
issues 
management 
process 
that 
recorded 
the 
problem, 
the 
solution 
and 
the 
final 
decision. 


Exhibit 2-6: Aerial view of MAHP transition site near 
Gulfport., MS. Photo courtesy of MEMA, September 
2007. 
While 
all 
manufacturers 
were 
required 
to 
use 
materials 
of 
equal 
quality, 
the 
quality 
of 
the 
finished 
product 
varied 
considerably. 
Especially 
in 
the 
beginning, 
numerous 
discussions 
among 
MAHP 
staff 
and 
manufacturer 
representatives 
were 
needed 
to 
develop 
a 
common 
vision 
of 
what 
an 
acceptable 
unit 
should 
look 
like. 
Attention 
to 
detail 
was 
a 
mandate 
from 
the 
very 
top 
of 
the 
MAHP 
organization. 
In 
the 
early 
days 
of 
implementation 
the 
MAHP 
program 
director 
personally 
inspected 
units 
to 
ensure 
that 
the 
units 
met 
aesthetic 
as 
well 
as 
technical 


Perspectives on the Cottages November 2007 
“We knew from the beginning the quality of the 
units was the key.” 
---- Becky Baum, MAHP Program Director 
“Initially I didn't understand the balance between 
speed and quality. I would have gone more 
slowly in the beginning.” 
---- Manufacturer 
standards. 
She 
believed 
that 
the 
success 
of 
the 
MAHP 
program 
depended 
on 
the 
ability 
to 
produce 
a 
sound 
and 
attractive 
unit 
that 
would 
unquestionably 
enhance 
the 
quality 
of 
life 
for 
occupants 
and 
could 
gain 
acceptance 
in 
the 
community. 


Managing 
the 
transition 
area 
was 
also 
a 
challenge. 
MAHP 
staff 
attempted 
to 
pace 
deliveries 
and 
deployments 
in 
such 
a 
way 
that 
fewer 
than 
300 
cottages 
would 
be 
on 
site 
at 
any 
given 
time. 
During 
a 
visit 
to 
the 
site, 
the 
Governor 
made 
the 
statement 
that 
he 
did 
not 
want 
the 
transition 
site 
become 
“another 
Purvis,” 
referring 
to 
an 
overcrowded 
FEMA 
travel 
trailer 
storage 
site 
located 
just 
outside 
of 
Purvis, 
Mississippi, 
where 
thousands 
of 
units 
were 
stored 
inches 
apart. 


In 
December 
2007 
an 
inspection 
of 
units 
by 
FEMA 
and 
HUD 
experts 
determined 
that 
MAHP 
accessible 
units 
did 
not 
fully 
meet 
the 
Uniform 
Federal 
Accessibility 
Standards 
(UFAS). 
MAHP's 
response 
was 
two-fold. 
First, 
changes 
were 
made 
to 
the 
specifications 
for 
future 
units. 
Second, 
occupants 
living 
in 
accessible 
units 
were 
surveyed 
to 
determine 
whether 
they 
had 
any 
problems 
with 
the 
accessibility 
of 
their 
existing 
units 
and 
whether 
they 
wished 
to 
swap 
them 
for 
UFAS-

Chapter Two: The Temporary Housing Story 


approved 
units. 
No 
problems 
were 
reported 
by 
the 
occupants 
and 
retrofitting 
of 
units 
or 
unit 
exchanges 
were 
determined 
to 
be 
unnecessary. 
MAHP 
program 
administrators 
expressed 
frustration 
about 
the 
lack 
of 
initial 
guidance 
on 
UFAS 
requirements 
that 
led 
to 
the 
finding. 
However, 
the 
finding 
did 
not 
cause 
significant 
delays 
for 
the 
program. 


Linking Cottages and Families 

Outreach and Selection 
Eligibility 
for 
the 
program 
was 
initially 
limited 
to 
households 
that 
were 
permanent 
residents 
of 
Hancock, 
Harrison 
and 
Jackson 
counties 
on 
August 
29, 
2005. 
Applicants 
must 
have 
also 
been 
living 
in 
a 
FEMA-
provided 
travel 
trailer 
or 
mobile 
home 
on 
April 
1, 
2007 
and 
still 
in 
need 
of 
housing 
assistance 
for 
at 
least 
six 
months 
at 
the 
time 
of 
application. 
Eligible 
applicants 
had 
to 
be 
listed 
as 
an 
applicant 
or 
co-applicant 
in 
FEMA's 
database. 
Once 
selected, 
applicants 
were 
responsible 
for 
providing 
an 
acceptable 
site, 
either 
on 
private 
land 
that 
they 
owned, 
borrowed 
or 
leased, 
or 
in 
a 
commercial 
mobile 
home 
park. 
For 
renters 
or 
other 
applicants 
without 
suitable 
land, 
MAHP 
provided 
a 
list 
of 
commercial 
parks 
that 
were 
willing 
to 
work 
with 
the 
program 
and 
had 
available 
pads. 


Because 
FEMA's 
list 
of 
approximately 
14,000 
households 
suggested 
that 
the 
need 
would 
be 
far 
greater 
than 
the 
number 
of 
units 
available, 
MAHP 
decided 
to 
use 
a 
random 
selection 
process 
to 
determine 
who 
would 
receive 
a 
Cottage. 
To 
ensure 
objectivity 
and 
fairness, 
applicants 
were 
selected 
randomly 


Eligibility for MAHP 
.Permanent resident of designated counties on 
August 29, 2005 
.Listed in FEMAs database and living in a FEMA-
provided travel trailer or mobile home on April 
1, 2007 
.Must have a need for alternative housing for at 
least 6 months 
.Must have a site acceptable to MEMA and the 
local jurisdiction 
from 
a 
pool 
that 
provided 
proportional 
representation 
for 
each 
of 
the 
three 
participating 
counties. 
MAHP 
decided 
to 
both 
call 
and 
mail 
the 
selected 
households. 


A 
call 
center 
was 
established 
and 
MAHP 
began 
to 
contact 
the 
selected 
families. 
Households 
that 
expressed 
interest 
were 
sent 
additional 
information 
about 
program 
requirements. 
Demand 
turned 
out 
to 
be 
much 
smaller 
than 
was 
initially 
assumed. 
The 
call 
center 
had 
difficulty 
reaching 
applicants 
using 
the 
contact 
information 
from 
FEMA’s 
database, 
and 
many 
letters 
were 
returned 
as 
undeliverable. 
Some 
families 
who 
were 
contacted 
reported 
that 
they 
no 
longer 
needed 
temporary 
housing. 
Others 
had 
multiple 
questions 
and 
concerns 
about 
how 
the 
program 
would 
work, 
including 
the 
applicant’s 
responsibility 
for 
utilities, 
the 
size 
of 
the 
unit 
they 
would 
be 
offered, 
whether 
the 
units 
would 
be 
available 
for 
sale 
and 
the 
effect 
acceptance 
of 
the 
MAHP 
unit 
would 
have 
on 
eligibility 
for 
FEMA 
assistance. 
(To 
be 
eligible, 
households 
had 
to 
agree 
that 
if 
they 
were 
accepted 
into 
the 
MAHP 
program 
they 
would 
be 
ineligible 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 39 


for 
further 
assistance 
from 
FEMA 
for 
Hurricanes 
Katrina, 
Rita 
and 
Wilma.) 


The 
Governor's 
office 
requested 
that 
every 
effort 
be 
taken 
to 
reach 
eligible 
residents, 
and 
the 
program 
went 
to 
great 
lengths 
to 
try 
to 
contact 
them. 
A 
second 
call 
center 
was 
opened 
in 
Jackson 
to 
take 
questions 
about 
the 
program 
and 
enable 
the 
call 
center 
staff 
in 
Gulfport 
to 
make 
outgoing 
calls. 
It 
was 
decided 
that 
an 
attempt 
would 
be 
made 
to 
hand 
deliver 
the 
approximately 
2,000 
returned 
letters, 
and 
staff 
from 
MEMA's 
central 
office 
were 
borrowed 
for 
this 
activity. 
MEMA 
also 
embarked 
on 
a 
publicity 
campaign 
and 
community 
outreach 
efforts. 
As 
part 
of 
this 
effort, 
the 
project 
hosted 
two 
open 
house 
events 
in 
Gulfport 
and 
Wave-
land. 
For 
each 
of 
these 
events, 
a 
one-
bedroom 
Park 
Model 
was 
temporarily 
installed, 
and 
MAHP 
housing 
advisors 
and 
manufacturer 
representatives 
were 
available 
to 
answer 
questions. 


MAHP 
had 
always 
planned 
to 
expand 
the 
program 
inland 
to 
Pearl 
River, 
George 
and 
Stone 
Counties 
if 
demand 
was 
not 
sufficient 
in 
Hancock, 
Harrison 
and 
Jackson 
Counties. 
Because 
demand 
in 
the 
three 
coastal 
counties 
was 
smaller 
than 
expected, 
early 
in 
2008 
the 
program 
was 
expanded. 
Units 
were 
eventually 
placed 
in 
Pearl 
River 
and 
George 
Counties, 
but 
not 
in 
Stone 
County. 


Site Approval and Installation 
By 
far, 
the 
biggest 
constraint 
on 
program 
participation 
was 
the 
availability 
of 
an 
eligible 
site. 
Once 
an 
eligible 
applicant 
proposed 
a 
site, 
an 
inspection 
was 


scheduled. 
PBS&J 
inspectors 
determined 
if 
a 
unit 
could 
be 
placed 
on 
the 
site, 
located 
utilities 
and 
identified 
any 
apparent 
connection 
issues, 
marked 
utility 
line 
locations, 
performed 
soil 
density 
tests 
to 
ensure 
a 
unit 
could 
be 
anchored 
properly 
and 
checked 
for 
environmental 
and 
historic 
preservation 
issues. 
FEMA 
representatives 
had 
to 
give 
environmental 
clearance 
for 
each 
site. 


MEMA 
housing 
advisors 
worked 
with 
applicants 
to 
explain 
program 
requirements, 
obtain 
needed 
signatures 
and 
assist 
them 
to 
obtain 
permits 
from 
local 
jurisdictions. 
This 
was 
not 
a 
simple 
process 
and 
included 
the 
following 
forms: 


. 
The 
Applicant 
Site 
Responsibility 
Form 
specified 
applicant 
responsibilities 
for 
preparing 
utilities 
on 
the 
site; 
. 
The 
Applicant 
Transition 
Understanding 
Form 
explained 
that 
applicants 
might 
need 
to 
find 
a 
place 
to 
stay 
for 
the 
period 
between 
the 
removal 
of 
the 
FEMA 
trailer 
and 
Cottage 
installation; 
. 
The 
Waiver 
Agreement 
acknowledged 
that 
acceptance 
of 
a 
Cottage 
would 
result 
in 
the 
applicant 
being 
ineligible 
for 
any 
further 
FEMA 
aid 
for 
Hurricanes 
Katrina, 
Rita 
or 
Wilma; 
and 
. 
When 
applicable, 
a 
Request 
for 
Reasonable 
Accommodation 
Form 
was 
used 
to 
request 
a 
UFAS 
Cottage. 
The 
site 
approval 
process 
challenged 
MAHP 
organizationally 
as 
well 
as 
technically. 
Initially 
lack 
of 
coordination 
was 
a 
problem. 
Independent 
site 
visits 
were 
made 
by 
inspectors 
and 
housing 
advisors, 
and 


Chapter Two: The Temporary Housing Story 


communication 
about 
which 
sites 
and 
applicants 
had 
completed 
the 
necessary 
steps 
was 
difficult. 
Neither 
group 
fully 
understood 
the 
whole 
process. 
As 
one 
housing 
advisor 
put 
it: 
“I 
do 
my 
part 
and 
then 
it 
goes 
into 
some 
“round 
about” 
in 
the 
office, 
I’m 
not 
sure 
what 
that 
is.” 
The 
result 
was 
a 
backlog 
of 
cases 
where 
housing 
advisor 
tasks 
were 
completed 
and 
inspector 
tasks 
were 
not 
and 
vice 
versa. 


“It’s like we are putting on a ballet and a bunch 
of the dancers have not been coming to 
practice.” 
----- MAHP Director, November 2007; Referring to 
coordination difficulties within the MAHP team 
In 
November 
2007, 
the 
MAHP 
program 
director 
took 
steps 
to 
remedy 
the 
situation. 
She 
declared 
a 
“one-organization” 
focus 
and 
established 
joint 
teams 
composed 
of 
MEMA 
housing 
advisors 
and 
PBS&J 
inspectors 
by 
county. 
In 
addition, 
MAHP 
adopted 
a 
process 
of 
having 
PBS&J 
inspectors 
and 
MAHP 
housing 
advisors 
schedule 
a 
single 
appointment 
with 
the 
applicants 
whenever 
possible. 
To 
emphasize 
the 
need 
for 
coordination, 
office 
space 
was 
rearranged 
to 
seat 
the 
PBS&J 
and 
MAHP 
county 
teams 
together, 
and 
MAHP 
managers 
made 
clear 
that 
success 
depended 
upon 
the 
two 
parts 
of 
the 
organization 
communicating 
and 
coordinating 
more 
effectively. 


Unit Installation 
A 
similar 
set 
of 
coordination 
issues 
arose 
after 
the 
sites 
were 
approved. 
The 
haul 
and 
install 
contractor, 
inspectors, 
housing 
advisors, 


applicants, 
building 
officials 
and 
the 
utility 
company 
all 
had 
to 
work 
in 
tandem 
to 
make 
a 
unit 
ready 
for 
occupancy. 
The 
haul 
and 
install 
contractor 
was 
responsible 
for 
transporting 
the 
unit 
to 
the 
site, 
setting 
and 
tying 
down 
the 
unit 
and 
hooking 
up 
utilities 
in 
accordance 
with 
local 
codes. 
The 
contractor 
also 
inspected 
unit 
interiors 
and 
repaired 
any 
obvious 
problems 
or 
damage 
that 
may 
have 
occurred 
during 
transport 
from 
the 
transition 
site. 
The 
final 
electrical 
connection 
often 
caused 
a 
delay, 
sometimes 
because 
of 
utility 
company 
scheduling 
and 
other 
times 
because 
applicants 
had 
difficulty 
raising 
the 
required 
utility 
deposits. 
When 
necessary, 
housing 
advisors 
helped 
the 
applicants 
find 
utility 
deposit 
assistance 
from 
local 
nonprofit 
organizations. 


MAHP 
modified 
installation 
procedures 
multiple 
times 
as 
experience 
identified 
problems 
or 
better 
approaches. 
Sometimes 
manufacturer 
installation 
instructions 
were 
unclear 
or 
had 
to 
be 
modified. 
Other 
adjustments 
were 
made 
in 
protocols 
when 
the 
proposed 
approach 
did 
not 
work 
out 
as 
well 
in 
practice 
as 
in 
theory. 
One 
example 
was 
the 
decision 
to 
install 
air 
conditioners 
for 
the 
Park 
Models 
once 
the 
unit 
reached 
the 
final 
site, 
rather 
than 
at 
the 
transition 
site. 
Another 
example 
was 
developing 
the 
right 
anchoring 
techniques 
for 
different 
types 
of 
soil. 
MAHP 
went 
through 
several 
modifications 
on 
anchoring 
the 
units. 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 41 


Occupancy Standards and Move-In 
Procedures 
Occupancy Standards and Move-In 
Procedures 
One 
of 
the 
significant 
challenges 
for 
the 
housing 
advisors 
during 
this 
process 
was 
helping 
to 
determine 
the 
unit 
size 
a 
family 
needed. 
Initially 
MAHP 
established 
occupancy 
standards 
that 
were 
intended 
to 
simulate 
disaster 
conditions. 
This 
meant 
that 
a 
four-person 
household 
could 
be 
assigned 
the 
one-bedroom 
Park 
Model, 
assuming 
that 
a 
couple 
would 
sleep 
in 
the 
bedroom 
and 
two 
people 
would 
sleep 
on 
the 
full-size 
sleep 
sofa 
in 
the 
living 
room. 
See 
Exhibit 
2-7 
for 
details 
on 
MAHP’s 
initial 
“right-sizing” 
standards. 
Two 
people 
sleeping 
in 
the 
unit’s 
living 
room 
proved 
difficult 
for 
both 
young 
children 
or 
teenagers. 
MAHP 
received 
numerous 
requests 
for 
exceptions 
to 
would 
allow 
households 
to 
receive 
larger 
units. 


One 
unintended 
consequence 
of 
the 
“rightsizing” 
policy 
was 
an 
increased 
demand 
for 
UFAS 
compliant 
units. 
MAHP 
staff 
reported 
that 
as 
applicants 
came 
to 
realize 
that 
all 
of 
the 


UFAS-compliant 
units 
were 
two-and 
three-
bedroom 
units, 
declarations 
of 
the 
need 
for 
an 
accessible 
unit 
increased. 
Some 
of 
those 
requesting 
the 
units 
were 
disappointed 
to 
hear 
that 
documentation 
of 
a 
household 
member’s 
mobility 
limitations 
was 
required. 


In 
fall 
2007, 
MAHP 
determined 
that 
the 
immediate 
post-disaster 
occupancy 
standards 
did 
not 
work 
well 
for 
a 
pilot 
program 
implemented 
two 
years 
later 
and 
liberalized 
the 
standards. 
Housing 
advisors 
reported 
that 
this 
switch 
caused 
some 
frustration 
among 
participant 
households 
that 
received 
units 
in 
the 
first 
months 
of 
the 
program. 
It 
was 
difficult 
for 
them 
to 
understand 
why 
a 
neighbor 
or 
friend 
with 
the 
same 
family 
size 
received 
a 
bigger 
unit. 


When 
a 
unit 
was 
ready 
for 
occupancy, 
housing 
advisors 
scheduled 
a 
move-in 
session 
with 
the 
applicants. 
During 
the 
move-in, 
the 
occupants 
and 
housing 
advisors 
walked 
through 
the 
unit, 
the 
occupants 
received 
keys 
and 
completed 
any 
outstanding 
paperwork. 
The 
move-in 


Exhibit 2-7 
Initial “Right-Sizing” Criteria 
Participants were assigned to a Park Model (one bedroom: one full-size bed, one full-size pull-out couch) if they were: 
.A single person or a couple 
.A single parent or couple with up to two children of the same sex regardless of age or two children of theopposite sex under the age of six (6) 
Participants were assigned a two-bedroom Mississippi Cottage (two bedrooms: one full-size bed, one twin bed, one full-
size pull-out couch) if they were: 
.A single parent or couple with two (2) children of the opposite sex over the age of six (6) or three (3) children 
regardless of age 
Participants were assigned a three-bedroom Mississippi Cottage (three bedrooms: one full-size bed, two twin beds, one 
full-size pull-out couch) if they were: 
.A single parent or a couple with four (4) or more children regardless of age 
Chapter Two: The Temporary Housing Story 


process 
involved 
explaining 
and 
obtaining 
applicant 
signatures 
on 
another 
set 
of 
key 
documents, 
including: 


. 
The 
Lease 
Agreement 
between 
MAHP 
and 
the 
occupant 
(if 
it 
was 
not 
previously 
signed); 
. 
The 
Pet 
Addendum, 
to 
clarify 
the 
occupant’s 
responsibility 
for 
damage 
done 
to 
the 
unit 
by 
pets; 
. 
The 
Maintenance 
Agreement, 
to 
clarify 
the 
occupant’s 
maintenance 
responsibilities; 
and 
. 
The 
Right 
of 
Entry/Ingress-Egress 
Agreement, 
stating 
that 
MAHP 
has 
the 
right 
to 
enter 
the 
unit 
and 
that 
the 
occupant 
will 
not 
place 
the 
unit 
on 
the 
lot 
in 
a 
way 
that 
prohibits 
entry 
and 
exit 
from 
the 
property. 
The 
evolution 
of 
these 
documents, 
as 
well 
as 
the 
previous 
list 
related 
to 
site 
approval, 
illustrated 
the 
changing 
nature 
of 
MAHP's 
policies 
and 
procedures. 
As 
new 
issues 
arose, 
MAHP 
created 
new 
forms, 
policies 
and 
procedures. 
MAHP's 
organized 
approach 
and 
attention 
to 
detail 
were 
a 
plus 
in 
these 
situations. 


MAHP Occupants 
This 
section 
describes 
the 
demographic 
characteristics 
of 
MAHP 
households 
as 
captured 
by 
the 
evaluation 
baseline 
survey. 
It 
was 
voluntarily 
completed 
by 
participants. 
Prior 
to 
the 
procurement 
of 
an 
evaluator 
for 
AHPP, 
the 
baseline 
evaluation 
survey 
was 
distributed 
by 
mail 
by 
the 
U.S. 
Department 
of 
Housing 
and 
Urban 
Development 
to 
over 
14,000 
households 
who, 
based 
on 
FEMA 
data, 


were 
eligible 
for 
MAHP. 
The 
baseline 
survey 
response 
rate 
in 
Mississippi 
was 
very 
low— 
only 
1,175 
households 
returned 
a 
survey. 
Further, 
only 
447 
households 
that 
completed 
a 
baseline 
survey 
actually 
received 
a 
MAHP 
unit. 
This 
is 
only 
16 
percent 
of 
the 
2,806 
households 
that 
received 
a 
MAHP 
unit 
by 
the 
end 
of 
August 
2008. 
There 
is 
no 
way 
of 
knowing 
how 
this 
data 
may 
be 
biased. 
A 
fall 
2008 
survey 
will 
collect 
representative 
demographic 
information 
on 
MAHP 
participants, 
and 
these 
data 
will 
be 
reported 
in 
the 
Mississippi 
Interim 
Report 
in 
early 
2009. 


The 
following 
section 
outlines 
key 
demographic 
characteristics 
of 
MAHP 
participants 
based 
on 
the 
447 
baseline 
survey 
responses 
from 
households 
that 
received 
a 
unit. 
It 
further 
compares 
baseline 
survey 
information 
with 
pre-Katrina 
demographic 
data 
(Census 
2000) 
for 
the 
six 
counties 
where 
the 
program 
operates. 


Household Size 

MAHP 
households 
tend 
to 
be 
smaller 
than 
the 
pre-Katrina 
population 
overall. 
A 
majority 
of 
MAHP 
households 
consist 
of 
one 
or 
two 
people. 
Exhibit 
2-8 
shows 
the 
proportion 
of 
household 
sizes 
among 
MAHP 
participants. 
Single-person 
households 
composed 
23 
percent 
of 
pre-Katrina 
households, 
nine 
percentage 
points 
lower 
than 
among 
MAHP 
households. 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 43 


1 person 
32% 
2-person 
26% 
3-person 
15% 
4 person 
11% 
7-person 
2% 
Missing 
3%
6-person 
4%5 person 
7% 1 person 
32% 
2-person 
26% 
3-person 
15% 
4 person 
11% 
7-person 
2% 
Missing 
3%
6-person 
4%5 person 
7% 
Exhibit 2-8: Distribution of MAHP Household Sizes 

Race and Ethnicity 

Similar 
to 
the 
pre-Katrina 
population, 
most 
of 
the 
MAHP 
participants 
are 
white. 
Eighty 
percent 
of 
the 
responding 
heads 
of 
household 
identified 
their 
race 
as 
white 
and 
18 
percent 
identified 
as 
black. 
In 
the 
pre-Katrina 
population 
as 
a 
whole, 
78 
percent 
of 
people 
were 
white, 
18 
percent 
were 
black 
and 
the 
remaining 
4 
percent 
identified 
themselves 
as 
belonging 
to 
another 
race. 


Education Level 

MAHP 
participants 
are 
slightly 
less 
educated 
than 
the 
pre-Katrina 
population 
overall. 
While 
most 
MAHP 
respondents 
have 
a 
high 
school 
education 
or 
higher, 
24 
percent 
of 
heads 
of 
MAHP 
households 
never 
received 
a 
high 
school 
diploma 
compared 
with 
21 
percent 
of 
the 
pre-
Katrina 
population 
overall. 
Eighteen 
percent 
of 
MAHP 
households 
have 
an 
associates 
degree 
or 
higher, 
six 
percentage 
points 
lower 
than 
pre-Katrina 
households 
overall 
(24%). 


Households with Disabilities 

MAHP 
households 
have 
a 
high 
rate 
of 
physical 
disabilities. 
Nearly 
43 
percent 
of 
households 
reported 
a 
member 
with 
a 
physical 
disability 
or 
a 
condition 
that 
limits 
one 
or 
more 
basic 
activities. 
Of 
households 
with 
a 
physically 
disabled 
member, 
30 
percent 
contained 
someone 
in 
a 
wheelchair 
or 
someone 
who 
could 
not 
climb 
stairs 
at 
all. 
Nine 
percent 
of 
households 
have 
a 
member 
who 
is 
blind 
or 
deaf. 


Employment 

Slightly 
fewer 
MAHP 
heads 
of 
household 
participate 
in 
the 
workforce 
than 
the 
working-age, 
pre-Katrina 
population 
overall. 
About 
half 
(49%) 
of 
MAHP 
heads 
of 
households 
were 
employed 
full-time, 
part-
time 
or 
self-employed 
at 
the 
time 
they 
completed 
the 
survey; 
six 
percent 
were 
unemployed 
and 
looking 
for 
work. 
In 
comparison, 
55 
percent 
of 
the 
pre-Katrina 
population 
aged 
16 
and 
over 
were 
employed. 


Pre-Katrina Housing Tenure 

Most 
MAHP 
households, 
71 
percent, 
were 
homeowners 
prior 
to 
Hurricane 
Katrina; 
24 
percent 
were 
renters. 
(The 
remaining 
5 
percent 
did 
not 
answer 
the 
question 
or 
had 
other 
housing 
arrangements.) 
The 
homeownership 
rate 
is 
consistent 
with 
the 
housing 
tenure 
of 
all 
households 
prior 
to 
Katrina, 
when 
71 
percent 
of 
households 
were 
homeowners 
and 
29 
percent 
were 
renters. 
Fifty-four 
percent 
of 
MAHP 
households 
were 
living 
in 
a 
single-
family 
detached 
home, 
and 
31 
percent 
were 
living 
in 
a 
mobile 
home 
on 
their 
own 
or 
leased 
land 
prior 
to 
the 
storm. 
Pre-Katrina 


Chapter Two: The Temporary Housing Story 


housing 
units 
were 
destroyed 
or 
severely 
damaged 
for 
nearly 
80 
percent 
of 
households. 
Nevertheless, 
42 
percent 
of 
MAHP 
households 
intended 
to 
rebuild 
or 
repair 
their 
damaged 
home. 


Ongoing Management 
Within 
a 
few 
months 
of 
startup 
MAHP 
was 
a 
landlord 
on 
a 
large 
scale. 
Occupied 
cottages 
were 
spread 
across 
the 
three-county 
area, 
and 
plans 
were 
being 
made 
to 
extend 
the 
program 
to 
the 
three 
additional 
counties. 
Although 
MAHP 
did 
not 
charge 
rent 
for 
the 
units, 
they 
had 
to 
address 
other 
normal 
aspects 
of 
the 
tenant/landlord 
relationship. 
Emergency 
and 
routine 
maintenance 
issues 
had 
to 
be 
addressed; 
residents 
moved 
out 
and 
units 
had 
to 
be 
demobilized; 
occupants 
who 
did 
not 
take 
care 
of 
their 
units 
had 
to 
be 
counseled 
and 
a 
few 
were 
ultimately 
evicted. 
One 
unit 
was 
significantly 
damaged 
by 
fire 
because 
the 
occupant 
was 
operating 
a "meth 
lab” 
in 
the 
unit. 


The 
role 
of 
the 
housing 
advisor 
changed 
from 
one 
of 
site 
facilitator 
to 
a 
more 
traditional 
counseling 
role. 
With 
caseloads 
of 
50 
to 
150, 
housing 
advisors 
reached 
out 
to 
occupants 
monthly 
(mostly 
in 
person) 
to 
ensure 
that 
the 
units 
were 
being 
well 
maintained, 
to 
inquire 
about 
the 
progress 
occupants 
were 
making 
toward 
their 
permanent 
housing 
plans 
and, 
when 
needed, 
to 
make 
referrals 
to 
needed 
resources 
and 
services. 
Because 
most 
of 
the 
attention 
of 
MAHP 
leadership 
was 
still 
focused 
on 
installing 
and 
occupying 
units 
as 
this 
transition 
occurred, 
housing 
advisors 
operated 
fairly 
independently. 
They 
consulted 
with 
their 


supervisors 
only 
when 
they 
could 
not 
solve 
problems 
for 
themselves. 


Housing 
advisors 
reported 
that 
they 
had 
difficulty 
meeting 
with 
some 
occupants 
because 
the 
families 
had 
resumed 
their 
normal 
lives 
and 
were 
too 
busy. 
Other 
occupants 
had 
multiple 
challenges, 
and 
the 
advisors 
did 
their 
best 
to 
connect 
them 
with 
appropriate 
resources. 
This 
appeared 
to 
result 
in 
some 
frustration 
on 
the 
part 
of 
housing 
advisors 
and 
some 
“reinventing 
of 
the 
wheel,” 
as 
each 
advisor 
attempted 
to 
develop 
his 
or 
her 
own 
approach 
to 
assisting 
residents 
and 
list 
of 
available 
community 
resources. 


The 
advisors 
completed 
a 
survey 
form 
with 
each 
visit. 
The 
survey 
collected 
information 
about 
the 
household’s 
progress 
with 
permanent 
housing 
planning, 
surveyed 
the 
condition 
of 
the 
unit 
and 
provided 
utility 
cost 
information. 
One 
apparent 
gap 
in 
the 
MAHP 
system 
was 
that 
these 
documents 
were 
completed 
but 
the 
data 
was 
not 
entered 
into 
the 
automated 
management 
database 
or 
summarized 
in 
any 
way. 
The 
lack 
of 
accessible 
information 
from 
these 
surveys 
ultimately 
hindered 
the 
development 
of 
MAHP’s 
permanent 
housing 
policies. 


Many 
housing 
advisors 
developed 
close 
relationships 
with 
“their 
families,” 
and 
it 
appeared 
they 
often 
went 
well 
above 
and 
beyond 
the 
normal 
job 
description. 
For 
example, 
one 
advisor 
noted 
that 
if 
a 
client 
seemed 
uncertain 
or 
confused 
during 
the 
move-in 
process, 
his 
last 
action 
was 
to 
program 
his 
telephone 
number 
in 
the 
resident’s 
phone. 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 45 


Maintenance Maintenance 
The 
primary 
purpose 
of 
AHPP 
is 
to 
test 
the 
usability 
and 
durability 
of 
alternative 
disaster 
housing 
types. 
A 
full 
assessment 
of 
the 
Mississippi 
Cottages 
by 
the 
building 
sciences 
evaluation 
contractor 
is 
underway 
and 
the 
forthcoming 
quality 
of 
life 
participant 
survey 
will 
ask 
people 
living 
in 
the 
units 
about 
usability 
and 
maintenance. 
The 
discussion 
of 
maintenance 
in 
this 
chapter 
focuses 
on 
process 
and 
provides 
preliminary 
anecdotal 
information 
about 
maintenance 
issues 
from 
the 
perspective 
of 
MAHP 
staff 
and 
Cottage 
residents. 


Maintenance 
issues 
were 
identified 
in 
one 
of 
several 
ways. 
First, 
MEMA 
or 
contractor 
staff 
sometimes 
identified 
problems 
with 
units 
during 
installation. 
After 
the 
Cottages 
were 
occupied, 
maintenance 
problems 
could 
be 
reported 
by 
the 
residents 
and 
also 
by 
housing 
advisors 
as 
a 
result 
of 
their 
monthly 
visits. 
Finally, 
MAHP 
staff 
sometimes 
found 
problems 
when 
they 
made 
inspections 
for 
specific 
issues. 
For 
example, 
before 
the 
2008 
hurricane 
season 
PBS&J 
inspectors 
conducted 
“Adverse 
Weather 
Inspections” 
of 
each 
occupied 
unit 
to 
ensure 
that 
the 
units 
were 
stable, 
straps 
were 
tight 
and 
covers 
for 
windows 
were 
available. 


Each 
unit 
includes 
a 
two-year 
manufacturer's 
warranty. 
When 
warranty 
items 
are 
identified 
for 
repair 
they 
are 
referred 
to 
the 
manufacturer's 
representative 
for 
correction. 
For 
non-warranty 
repairs 
MAHP 
selected 
a 
Mississippi-based 
contractor 
to 
perform 
maintenance 
in 
all 
counties. 
It 
was 
sometimes 
difficult 
to 
determine 
whether 
a 


particular 
problem 
was 
a 
warranty 
or 
non-
warranty 
item. 
Discussions 
similar 
to 
those 
at 
the 
transition 
site 
were 
necessary 
to 
determine 
the 
cause 
and 
responsibility 
for 
a 
problem. 
For 
example, 
a 
faulty 
part 
was 
generally 
a 
warranty 
item, 
while 
parts 
incorrectly 
installed 
or 
damaged 
after 
installation 
were 
non-warranty 
items. 


The 
program 
expects 
residents 
to 
take 
some 
responsibility 
for 
maintenance. 
Occupants 
are 
responsible 
for 
reporting 
maintenance 
issues 
promptly 
and 
keeping 
the 
unit 
in 
reasonably 
clean 
condition, 
in 
addition 
to 
addressing 
routine, 
minor 
maintenance 
needs, 
such 
as 
replacing 
a 
light 
bulb 
or 
air 
conditioning 
filter. 
This 
level 
of 
responsibility 
reportedly 
was 
new 
to 
some 
former 
travel 
trailer 
occupants, 
because 
FEMA 
provided 
all 
maintenance, 
including 
something 
as 
simple 
as 
light 
bulb 
changes. 


Prior 
to 
establishing 
a 
contract 
with 
a 
maintenance 
contractor 
in 
fall 
2007, 
program 
participants 
called 
the 
MAHP 
call 
center 
with 
maintenance 
concerns. 
Once 
the 
maintenance 
contract 
was 
in 
place, 
maintenance 
calls 
were 
routed 
directly 
to 
the 
maintenance 
contractor’s 
call 
center. 
This 
step 
reportedly 
improved 
responsiveness 
because 
the 
contractor’s 
customer 
service 
representatives 
were 
better 
trained 
to 
ask 
probing 
questions 
that 
clarified 
the 
nature 
of 
the 
problem. 
For 
example, 
if 
a 
tenant 
calls 
in 
to 
report 
a "leaking" toilet 
an 
experienced 
customer 
service 
representatives 
can 
clarify 
whether 
the 
toilet 
is 
actually "leaking" (an 
emergency) 
or "running" (a 
non-emergency). 


Chapter Two: The Temporary Housing Story 


The 
MAHP 
standards 
for 
response 
times 
are 
within 
two 
hours 
for 
emergency 
repairs 
and 
within 
three 
days 
for 
more 
routine 
maintenance. 
Independent 
contractors 
hired 
by 
MEMA 
confirm 
that 
work 
has 
been 
completed. 
Some 
confirmations 
are 
made 
by 
phone, 
but 
MAHP 
staff 
reported 
that 
most 
are 
confirmed 
through 
visual 
inspections. 


Quality of Life 
A 
formal 
survey 
of 
families 
that 
have 
occupied 
Cottages 
for 
at 
least 
six 
months 
will 
be 
conducted 
in 
the 
fall 
of 
2008. 
The 
findings 
from 
the 
survey 
will 
provide 
a 
more 
in-depth 
assessment 
of 
quality 
of 
life 
issues, 
which 
will 
be 
included 
in 
the 
interim 
report 
scheduled 
for 
delivery 
early 
in 
2009. 
Until 
that 
time, 
information 
from 
discussions 
with 
key 
stakeholders—including 
participants 
themselves, 
MEMA 
staff 
and 
contractors, 
local 
government 
representatives 
and 
nonprofit 
organizations—can 
provide 
a 
preview 
of 
participant 
perceptions. 


There 
appears 
to 
be 
a 
clear 
consensus 
that 
the 
Cottages 
are 
a 
far 
better 
solution 
for 
long-
term 
temporary 
housing 
than 
trailers. 
The 
additional 
living 
space, 
full-size 
kitchens 
and 
bathrooms, 
higher 
ceilings, 
more 
light 
from 
windows 
and 
the 
outside 
space 
on 
the 
porch 
were 
reported 
to 
contribute 
substantially 
to 
the 
occupants' sense 
of 
well 
being. 


Housing 
advisors 
reported 
that 
bathroom 
and 
kitchen 
features 
were 
particularly 
valued, 
as 
was 
the 
additional 
storage 
space. 
Improvements 
to 
mental 
health 
were 
mentioned 
by 
occupants 
more 
frequently 
than 
physical 
health; 
living 
in 
a 
unit 
that 


"feels 
more 
like 
a 
home" was 
important. 
Being 
able 
to 
resume 
valued 
pre-storm 
activities 
created 
a 
sense 
of 
normality 
that 
was 
not 
available 
in 
the 
trailers. 
Simple 
activities, 
such 
as 
hosting 
a 
family 
occasion 
or 
a 
bridge 
club 
meeting 
or 
taking 
a 
bath, 
were 
mentioned. 
Having 
an 
accessible 
unit 
meant 
a 
great 
deal 
to 
occupants 
with 
mobility 
issues. 
For 
example, 
one 
applicant 
had 
not 
been 
able 
to 
leave 
the 
trailer 
under 
her 
own 
power 
for 
two 
years. 
Being 
able 
to 
sit 
on 
the 
porch 
of 
her 
Cottage 
and 
watch 
her 
grandchildren 
play 
was 
a 
thrill, 
despite 
the 
fact 
that 
her 
limitations 
remained 
significant. 
Another 
elderly 
couple 
praised 
the 
accessible 
bathroom 
and 
shower 
that 
were 
much 
more 
accommodating 
to 
the 
husband’s 
mobility 
impairments 
than 
the 
FEMA 
travel 
trailer. 


Participant Perceptions of Cottage Life 
November 2007 
“This is the first time since the storm that I've been 
able to invite my family to my place.” 
“I'm a Vietnam veteran. In the FEMA trailer I started 
having nightmares again. It was so claustrophobic. 
But in the Cottage I feel like I can breathe.” 
“I don't understand how they expect me and my 
(grown) daughter to live in a one-bedroom unit.” 
"It's has an actual, full size stove. A turkey fits in the 
oven!" 
"I can turn around in the bathroom.” 
“I feel a little more normal—it feels more like a 
home." 
“I have a bathtub! I can take a bath again!” 
Noteveryonewashappy,especiallytwo-,
three-,andfour-personhouseholdsthatre-
ceivedtheone-bedroomParkModelsundertheearly,morestringentpoliciesthat


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 47 


mimicked 
a 
disaster 
response 
scenario. 
These 
families 
did 
not 
have 
the 
same 
expectations 
for 
living 
space 
that 
they 
might 
have 
immediately 
after 
the 
disaster. 
In 
addition, 
Park 
Model 
units 
also 
had 
some 
chronic 
problems 
with 
air 
conditioners 
that 
affected 
occupant 
satisfaction 
and 
housing 
advisors 
reported 
some 
dissatisfaction 
with 
the 
responsiveness 
on 
repairs 
to 
manufacturer 
warranty 
items 
on 
all 
unit 
types. 


Receiving 
a 
Cottage 
and 
knowing 
that 
it 
was 
available 
through 
March 
2009 
reduced 
stress 
for 
some 
participants, 
especially 
as 
FEMA 
increased 
its 
emphasis 
on 
removing 
trailers. 
However, 
anxiety 
has 
increased 
for 
some 
households 
without 
permanent 
housing 
plans 
because 
the 
family 
is 
unable 
to 
feel 
secure 
and 
settled 
in 
the 
unit. 
Many 
of 
these 
families 
express 
frustration 
about 
the 
lack 
of 
information 
about 
whether 
and 
at 
what 
price 
the 
Cottages 
will 
be 
available 
for 
sale. 
Empathizing 
with 
occupants, 
housing 
advisors 
share 
the 
frustration 
of 
repeatedly 
being 
unable 
to 
answer 
questions 
about 
permanency. 
These 
issues 
are 
discussed 
further 
in 
Chapter 
Three. 


By 
the 
end 
of 
August 
2008, 
MAHP 
had 
occupied 
2,806 
Park 
Models 
and 
Mississippi 
Cottages, 
and 
temporary 
placements 
were 
winding 
down. 
Chapter 
Three 
reviews 
MAHP’s 
transition 
to 
permanent 
housing, 
which 
officially 
got 
underway 
in 
April 
2008. 


Chapter Two: The Temporary Housing Story 


ChapterThree:
TransitioningtoPermanentHousingChapterThree:
TransitioningtoPermanentHousing
This 
chapter 
describes 
MAHP’s 
shift 
in 
focus 
from 
temporary 
installations 
to 
the 
demobilization 
of 
units, 
including 
the 
development 
of 
permanent 
housing. 
It 
reviews 
the 
policy 
issues 
encountered 
and 
the 
organizational 
changes 
caused 
by 
the 
transition. 
It 
also 
describes 
the 
attitudes 
and 
reactions 
of 
program 
participants, 
as 
well 
as 
the 
communities 
that 
were 
affected 
by 
the 
proposed 
demobilization 
activities 
and 
the 
looming 
March 
2009 
deadline. 
Because 
Mississippi 
was 
in 
the 
midst 
of 
this 
transition 
when 
this 
case 
study 
was 
written, 
this 
account 
covers 
only 
a 
portion 
of 
the 
permanent 
housing 
story. 
A 
progress 
update 
will 
be 
provided 
in 
the 
2009 
interim 
evaluation 
report. 


Mississippi’s 
proposal 
included 
the 
potential 
for 
converting 
the 
Cottages 
from 
temporary 
to 
permanent 
housing 
by 
installing 
units 
on 
permanent 
foundations. 
The 
State 
also 
anticipated 
that 
a 
small 
percentage 
of 
Cottages 
would 
bypass 
temporary 
installation 
entirely 
and 
be 
sited 
in 
permanent 
housing 
developments, 
which 
MAHP 
called 
“community-driven 
special 
projects.” 
MAHP 
anticipated 
these 
Cottages 
would 
be 
incorporated 
into 
multi-family 
rental 
developments.9 


MAHP 
also 
expected 
that 
local 
government 
and 
community 
organizations 
would 
be 
eager 
to 
partner 
on 
the 
permanent 
housing 
projects. 
Instead, 
MAHP 
experienced 
a 
general 
resistance 
to 
the 
Cottages 
from 
local 
governments 
and 
an 
especially 
negative 
reaction 
to 
the 
concept 
of 
developing 
group 
sites. 
As 
a 
result, 
MAHP 
emphasized 
the 
temporary 
nature 
of 
the 
units 
in 
the 
beginning 
of 
the 
program 
in 
order 
to 
make 
it 
clear 
that 
MEMA 
was 
committed 
to 
demobilizing 
all 
of 
the 
units 
by 
March 
2009 
unless 
the 
jurisdictions 
themselves 
authorized 
an 
alternative 
approach. 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 

49 


To 
more 
actively 
and 
publicly 
pursue 
permanent 
housing 
options 
at 
the 
same 
time 
would 
have 
undermined 
that 
important 
message. 
Referring 
to 
potential 
permanent 
housing 
developments 
as 
“special 
projects” 
helped 
mitigate 
this 
dilemma. 


Despite 
the 
challenges, 
work 
on 
a 
handful 
of 
permanent 
housing 
projects 
did 
begin 
early 
on. 
For 
example, 
MAHP 
worked 
with 
staff 
from 
the 
City 
of 
Pascagoula 
to 
develop 
a 
100unit 
project. 
However, 
late 
in 
the 
planning 
process 
the 
Pascagoula 
City 
Council 
refused 
to 
support 
the 
project. 
Similarly, 
MAHP 
offered 
Cottages 
to 
the 
Biloxi 
Housing 
Authority 
(BHA) 
for 
use 
on 
land 
that 
BHA 
already 
owned, 
but 
BHA 
did 
not 
have 
the 
funds 
needed 
for 
site 
and 
infrastructure 
improvements. 
The 
extent 
of 
MAHP’s 
communication 
and 
outreach 
efforts 
with 
community 
organizations 
in 
the 
early 
months 
is 
less 
well 
documented 
than 
their 
outreach 
to 
local 
governments. 
Initial 
discussions 
with 
public 
or 
private 
partners 
looked 
promising 
at 
the 
outset, 
but 
none 
were 
brought 
to 
closure. 


Organizational Changes 
MEMA 
and 
PBS&J 
recognized 
that 
new 
expertise 
was 
needed 
for 
disposition, 
permanent 
housing 
issues 
and 
demobilization. 
When 
MEMA 
drafted 
the 
RFP 
to 
competitively 
procure 
the 
project 
management 
role 
in 
2008, 
a 
new 
emphasis 
was 
placed 
on 
permanent 
housing. 
In 
response 
to 
the 
RFP, 
PBS&J 
added 
strategic 
planning 
and 


housing 
development 
policy 
expertise 
to 
their 
team 
by 
subcontracting 
with 
the 
Hagerty 
Consulting 
Group. 


Along 
with 
the 
addition 
of 
Hagerty 
staff, 
other 
organizational 
changes 
occurred 
in 
late 
2007 
and 
early 
2008. 
As 
a 
result 
of 
the 
shift 
to 
permanent 
installations, 
a 
number 
of 
PBS&J 
operations 
staff 
were 
removed 
from 
the 
project 
as 
the 
volume 
of 
temporary 
installations 
declined. 
PBS&J 
management 
assigned 
operations 
staff 
to 
other 
short-term 
projects 
to 
enable 
them 
to 
return 
to 
MAHP 
when 
demobilization 
began. 
This 
strategy 
will 
enable 
the 
program 
to 
maximize 
previous 
training 
and 
experience. 
Unrelated 
to 
the 
shift 
to 
permanent 
housing, 
MAHP 
experienced 
leadership 
transitions 
on 
both 
the 
MEMA 
and 
PBS&J 
sides 
of 
the 
organization. 
Both 
project 
directors 
left 
the 
organization 
and 
deputy 
project 
managers 
stepped 
into 
these 
roles. 
Exhibit 
3-1 
shows 
the 
most 
recent 
organizational 
chart 
(June 
2008). 


Disposition Planning andChallenges 

An Official Start 
Minimal 
attention 
was 
given 
to 
planning 
for 
the 
transition 
to 
permanent 
housing 
until 
early 
2008. 
In 
addition 
to 
local 
government 
resistance, 
another 
reason 
was 
that 
the 
organizational 
start-up 
and 
temporary 
housing 
activities 
alone 
were 
an 
ambitious 
undertaking 
for 
the 
first 
nine 
months 
of 


Chapter Three: Transitioning to Permanent Housing 


Exhibit 3-1: MAHP Organizational Chart June 2008 
A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 

51 


Jackson / GeorgeCounty SupervisorTrackerJackson / GeorgeCounty SupervisorTrackerCounty HousingAdvisors 
Jackson / GeorgeCounty Supervisor 
County HousingAdvisor Supervisor 
Harrison / StoneCounty Supervisor 
County HousingAdvisor Supervisor 
Hancock / PearlRiver County Supervisor 
County HousingAdvisor SupervisorCounty HousingAdvisors 
DeputyField Supervisor 
TrackerExpediterScheduler 
SoilsTesting 
FieldInspector 
QualityControlQualityControlQualityControl 
QualityControl 
QualityControl 
FieldInspector 
FieldInspector 
FieldInspectorFieldInspector 
SoilsTesting 
Scheduler TrackerExpediterCountyInspectionSupervisor 
County HousingAdvisors 
QualityControl 
QualityControl 
FieldInspector 
FieldInspector 
FieldInspectorFieldInspector 
SoilsTesting 
Scheduler TrackerExpediterCountyInspectionSupervisor 
QualityControl 
Exhibit 3-1: MAHP Organizational Chart June 2008 (continued) 
Jackson / GeorgeCounty SupervisorTrackerJackson / GeorgeCounty SupervisorTrackerCounty HousingAdvisors 
Jackson / GeorgeCounty Supervisor 
County HousingAdvisor Supervisor 
Harrison / StoneCounty Supervisor 
County HousingAdvisor Supervisor 
Hancock / PearlRiver County Supervisor 
County HousingAdvisor SupervisorCounty HousingAdvisors 
DeputyField Supervisor 
TrackerExpediterScheduler 
SoilsTesting 
FieldInspector 
QualityControlQualityControlQualityControl 
QualityControl 
QualityControl 
FieldInspector 
FieldInspector 
FieldInspectorFieldInspector 
SoilsTesting 
Scheduler TrackerExpediterCountyInspectionSupervisor 
County HousingAdvisors 
QualityControl 
QualityControl 
FieldInspector 
FieldInspector 
FieldInspectorFieldInspector 
SoilsTesting 
Scheduler TrackerExpediterCountyInspectionSupervisor 
QualityControl 
Exhibit 3-1: MAHP Organizational Chart June 2008 (continued) 
Chapter Three: Transitioning to Permanent Housing 


operations. 
Mississippi 
identified 
April 
1, 
2008 
as 
the 
official 
start 
of 
MAHP’s 
permanent 
housing 
program, 
although 
some 
planning 
efforts 
were 
underway 
by 
January 
2008. 
For 
example, 
during 
the 
first 
quarter 
of 
2008, 
engineering 
specifications 
were 
developed 
for 
the 
permanent 
foundations 
on 
which 
Mississippi 
Cottages 
and 
Park 
Models 
would 
be 
placed. 
Installation 
design 
and 
procedures 
were 
two 
of 
many 
issues 
that 
had 
to 
be 
revisited 
with 
permanent 
housing 
in 
mind. 
MEMA 
also 
worked 
with 
the 
state 
legislature 
to 
amend 
a 
statute 
that 
allowed 
MEMA 
to 
sell, 
transfer 
or 
lease 
units 
to 
nonprofit 
organizations. 


In 
much 
the 
same 
way 
as 
they 
had 
done 
with 
the 
temporary 
program 
months 
earlier, 
MAHP 
now 
had 
to 
establish 
disposition 
policies 
and 
procedures 
for 
the 
permanent 
program 
including: 
(1) 
who 
was 
eligible 
to 
receive 
a 
Cottage, 
and 
under 
what 
type 
of 
ownership 
or 
long-term 
rental 
arrangement; 


(2) 
how 
the 
units 
would 
be 
transferred 
to 
eligible 
households 
or 
other 
owners; 
and 
(3) 
how 
units 
would 
have 
to 
be 
installed 
to 
receive 
approval 
from 
local 
governments. 
New 
issues 
arose 
as 
well, 
such 
as 
what 
to 
do 
with 
units 
that 
were 
not 
destined 
to 
become 
permanent 
housing 
and 
what 
steps 
MAHP 
could 
take 
to 
ensure 
that 
some 
or 
all 
of 
the 
Cottages 
continued 
to 
be 
used 
for 
affordable 
housing 
after 
the 
grant 
period 
ended. 
When 
PBS&J’s 
new 
contract 
began 
on 
April 
1, 
the 
new 
subcontractor, 
Hagerty 
Consulting, 
began 
to 
develop 
recommendations 
for 
permanent 
housing 
policies 
and 
procedures. 
Designing 
this 
disposition 
strategy 
was 
made 
more 
difficult 
by 
a 
lack 
of 
reliable 
and 
updated 


information 
on 
the 
MAHP 
participants. 
Early 
in 
the 
temporary 
housing 
phase, 
MAHP 
relied 
on 
FEMA 
data 
to 
identify 
potential 
participants 
and 
only 
collected 
additional 
information 
if 
it 
was 
required 
to 
complete 
the 
approval 
and 
move-in 
processes. 
Once 
the 
units 
were 
occupied, 
housing 
advisors 
conducted 
monthly 
visits 
and 
completed 
a 
brief 
survey 
with 
each 
household, 
but 
the 
information 
collected 
was 
limited 
and 
was 
not 
entered 
into 
the 
MAHP 
database 
for 
analysis. 


The 
largest 
information 
gap 
was 
that 
MAHP 
did 
not 
have 
current 
income 
information 
to 
determine 
what 
types 
of 
permanent 
housing 
resources 
participants 
could 
afford. 
This 
is 
one 
of 
several 
areas, 
discussed 
later 
in 
this 
chapter, 
in 
which 
MEMA’s 
lack 
of 
permanent 
housing 
expertise 
and 
focus 
on 
temporary 
housing 
was 
a 
hindrance 
to 
the 
permanent 
program. 


The Disposition Plan 

Before 
the 
permanent 
housing 
phase 
began 
in 
April 
2008, 
MAHP 
identified 
the 
primary 
disposition 
options, 
but 
the 
details 
of 
how 
each 
option 
might 
be 
implemented 
were 
not 
yet 
settled. 
The 
options 
available 
for 
disposition 
were 
to: 


1. 
Sell 
the 
units 
to 
current 
occupants 
for 
permanent 
housing. 
2. 
Sell 
or 
donate 
the 
units 
to 
eligible 
organizations 
who 
would 
establish 
the 
units 
as 
affordable 
rentals 
or 
assist 
families 
to 
achieve 
homeownership. 
3. 
Transfer 
ownership 
of 
the 
units 
to 
federal, 
state 
or 
local 
government 
entities. 
A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 53 


4. 
Auction 
the 
units 
through 
the 
State’s 
normal 
procurement 
and 
disposition 
process. 
The 
issues 
and 
barriers 
that 
had 
to 
be 
addressed 
in 
order 
to 
execute 
these 
options 
are 
discussed 
below. 


Compliance with Flood Plain 
Requirements 
Permanent 
placement 
of 
units 
requires 
compliance 
with 
flood 
plain 
management 
requirements. 
These 
rules 
affect 
both 
where 
and 
how 
the 
Cottages 
can 
be 
permanently 
placed. 


V-Zone Restrictions 

During 
the 
temporary 
housing 
phase, 
approximately 
300 
Cottages 
had 
replaced 
FEMA 
trailers 
in 
Coastal 
High 
Hazard 
Areas 
known 
as 
Velocity-Zones, 
commonly 
called 
VE 
or 
V-Zones. 
V-Zones 
are 
areas 
where 
the 
wave 
velocity 
is 
the 
greatest 
and 
typically 
include 
the 
first 
row 
of 
beachfront 
properties. 
MAHP’s 
grant 
agreement 
with 
FEMA 
prohibits 
permanent 
installation 
of 
Cottages 
in 
these 
areas. 
This 
means 
that 
all 
units 
placed 
temporarily 
in 
these 
areas 
will 
have 
to 
be 
demobilized. 
Some 
of 
the 
households 
living 
in 
these 
Cottages 
will 
have 
finished 
rebuilding 
their 
homes 
by 
the 
March 
2009 
deadline, 
but 
others 
will 
have 
to 
seek 
alternative 
housing 
or 
find 
a 
suitable 
site 
outside 
the 
V-Zone 
on 
which 
to 
place 
the 
Cottages. 


Elevation Requirements 

To 
obtain 
flood 
insurance 
in 
flood 
hazard 
areas, 
occupants 
may 
be 
required 
to 
elevate 


units 
to 
heights 
established 
by 
the 
National 
Flood 
Insurance 
Program 
(NFIP). 
Some 
elevation 
requirements 
were 
changed 
by 
the 
federal 
government 
as 
a 
result 
of 
Hurricane 
Katrina 
and 
the 
specified 
heights 
vary 
substantially 
along 
the 
coast. 
Because 
some 
households 
had 
rebuilt 
before 
the 
new 
requirements 
were 
established, 
some 
beachfront 
communities 
have 
dwellings 
elevated 
to 
varying 
heights. 
Locals 
call 
this 
variation 
the 
“fishing 
camp” 
look. 
Exhibit 
32 
shows 
an 
elevated 
home 
next 
to 
a 
Cottage. 


Exhibit 3-2: Elevation requirements vary along the 
Mississippi Gulf Coast. Elevated home in Waveland, 
MS; July 2008. 
The 
2003 
International 
Residential 
Code 
(IRC) 
specifies 
that 
the 
Cottage 
elevations 
may 
not 
exceed 
5’7”. 
In 
some 
areas 
elevation 
requirements 
far 
exceed 
this 
limit. 
Therefore, 
an 
additional 
number 
of 
participants 
may 
be 
unable 
to 
permanently 
install 
their 
temporary 
Cottage, 
even 
if 
they 
own 
the 
land. 


Cost 
of 
the 
elevations 
is 
also 
a 
feasibility 
issue. 
MAHP 
has 
estimated 
that 
permanent 
installations 
without 
elevation 
will 
cost 
$20,000 
per 
unit, 
while 
installation 
with 
elevations 
up 
to 
5’7” 
could 
cost 
an 
additional 
$10,000 
per 
unit. 
MAHP 
allocated 
$15 


Chapter Three: Transitioning to Permanent Housing 


million 
of 
the 
AHPP 
funds 
for 
permanent 
installations, 
which 
is 
estimated 
to 
be 
enough 
to 
install 
approximately 
500 
units. 
Although 
the 
hope 
is 
that 
partner 
organizations 
can 
bring 
additional 
funding 
to 
the 
table 
to 
cover 
some 
of 
these 
costs, 
it 
is 
possible 
that 
a 
portion 
of 
the 
cost 
will 
need 
to 
be 
passed 
on 
to 
the 
MAHP 
participant 
purchasing 
the 
unit. 
This 
could 
make 
purchasing 
less 
feasible 
for 
some 
participants. 


Community Approvals for Permanent 
Housing 
Obtaining 
local 
jurisdiction 
approvals 
for 
permanent 
housing 
is 
both 
a 
technical 
and 
a 
political 
challenge. 
Each 
participant 
wishing 
to 
convert 
a 
Cottage 
to 
permanent 
housing 
has 
to 
comply 
with 
local 
zoning 
and 
code 
requirements. 
For 
example, 
units 
will 
have 
to 
be 
placed 
on 
permanent 
foundations 
and 
the 
above-ground 
utility 
lines 
that 
were 
acceptable 
for 
temporary 
housing 
will 
not 
be 
permitted 
long-term. 
Some 
units 
will 
have 
to 
be 
placed 
in 
different 
locations 
on 
the 
site 
to 
meet 
local 
“set-back” 
requirements 
that 
were 
waived 
for 
temporary 
housing. 
In 
cases 
where 
temporary 
Cottages 
sat 
in 
front 
of 
damaged 
homes, 
owners 
must 
to 
decide 
which 
unit 
to 
keep 
because 
in 
some 
jurisdictions 
two 
structures 
cannot 
remain 
permanently 
on 
the 
same 
lot. 


Despite 
the 
fact 
that 
the 
Cottages 
were 
built 
to 
meet 
modular 
housing 
standards, 
several 
jurisdictions 
have 
1,000 
square 
foot 
minimum 
requirement 
for 
residential 
units. 
This 
requirement 
alone 
disqualifies 
both 
the 
Park 


Model 
and 
the 
Cottages 
in 
those 
jurisdictions. 
One 
MAHP 
partner, 
Habitat 
for 
Humanity 
Bay 
Waveland, 
pursued 
options 
for 
adding 
on 
to 
the 
Cottages 
and 
worked 
with 
a 
manufacturer 
and 
MAHP 
to 
create 
specifications. 
Four 
prototype 
units 
with 
additions 
are 
being 
constructed 
in 
Diamondhead 
(a 
small 
unincorporated 
area 
of 
Hancock 
County). 
Two 
were 
installed 
and 
ready 
for 
occupancy 
by 
the 
end 
of 
August 
2008. 
Exhibit 
3-3 
shows 
Cottages 
with 
additions. 
MAHP 
and 
potential 
partners 
will 
use 
this 
pilot 
to 
demonstrate 
to 
other 
local 
communities 
what 
the 
units 
could 
look 
like 
with 
the 
addition. 
As 
one 
government 
representative 
said, 
“Mississippi 
is 
kind 
of 
a 
‘show 
me’ 
state 
where 
plans 
and 
talk 
only 
go 
so 
far.” 
Several 
MAHP 
staff 
and 
non-profit 
partners 
believe 
that 
once 
permanent 
options 
for 
the 
Cottage 
are 
demonstrated, 
others 
in 
the 
community 
will 
come 
around. 


In 
general, 
the 
idea 
of 
cottages 
as 
permanent 
housing 
is 
less 
controversial 
in 
the 
three 
northern 
counties 
and 
more 
contentious 
in 
the 
coastal 
counties, 
particularly 
in 
incorporated 
areas. 
The 
northern 
counties 
are 
predominantly 
unincorporated 
and 
have 
fewer 
zoning, 
development 
and 
flood 
hazard 
restrictions 
than 
coastal 
areas. 
Given 
the 
frustrating 
experience 
with 
the 
MOU 
process, 
MAHP 
decided 
to 
approach 
Pearl 
River, 
George 
and 
Stone 
Counties 
for 
approvals 
on 
a 
case-by-case 
basis. 
Far 
fewer 
Cottages 
were 
placed 
in 
these 
areas—only 
46 
units 
in 
Pearl 
River 
County, 
a 
handful 
in 
George 
County, 
and 
none 
at 
all 
in 
Stone 
County 
as 
of 
the 
end 
of 
August 
2008. 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 55 


Exhibit 3-3: 
Above: Habitat for Humanity of Bay 
Waveland worked with a manufacturer to 
design an addition for Cottages and Park 
Models. 
Right: A prototype of an expanded unit. 
Below: A floor plan for an expanded cottage. 
Exhibit 3-3: 
Above: Habitat for Humanity of Bay 
Waveland worked with a manufacturer to 
design an addition for Cottages and Park 
Models. 
Right: A prototype of an expanded unit. 
Below: A floor plan for an expanded cottage. 
Among 
the 
three 
coastal 
counties, 
permanent 
placements 
were 
approved 
by 
unincorporated 
areas 
by 
June 
2008. 
Hancock 
County 
approved 
the 
units 
for 
areas 
where 
mobile 
homes 
are 
permitted; 
Harrison 
County 
approved 
the 
units 
in 
areas 
zoned 
for 
manufactured 
or 
modular 


homes; 
and 
Jackson 
County 
approved 
the 
units 
for 
areas 
where 
mobile 
homes 
and 
modular 
housing 
is 
allowed. 


However, 
at 
the 
time 
of 
this 
case 
study, 
some 
incorporated 
jurisdictions 
(Biloxi, 
Pass 


Chapter Three: Transitioning to Permanent Housing 


Christian, 
Gautier) 
remain 
adamant 
that 
no 
Cottages 
be 
placed 
permanently, 
either 
in 
future 
Cottage 
developments 
or 
on 
private 
land. 
Others 
recognize 
that 
the 
March 
2009 
deadline 
is 
fast 
approaching 
and 
that 
many 
of 
their 
residents 
are 
still 
seeking 
permanent 
housing. 
These 
jurisdictions 
have 
begun 
exploring 
the 
ways 
in 
which 
the 
Cottages 
might 
be 
able 
play 
a 
role 
in 
solving 
the 
general 
affordable 
housing 
crisis 
that 
exists 
along 
the 
coast. 
They 
are 
especially 
open 
to 
solutions 
that 
would 
aid 
elderly 
or 
disabled 
residents 
and 
seem 
to 
favor 
small, 
permanent 
developments 
using 
the 
Cottages 
as 
opposed 
to 
allowing 
citizens 
to 
permanently 
install 
Cottages 
on 
private 
property. 
Ocean 
City 
and 
Gulfport 
have 
developed 
concepts 
for 
small, 
permanent 
group 
projects 
using 
the 
Cottages. 


Decision-making 
was 
not 
easy 
for 
community 
leaders 
who 
heard 
from 
constituents 
on 
both 
sides 
of 
the 
issue. 
In 
at 
least 
one 
area, 
the 
opinions 
of 
those 
who 
had 
the 
ear 
of 
local 
officials 
were 
persuasive 
because 
local 
representatives 
did 
not 
have 
first 
hand 
knowledge 
of 
MAHP 
and 
some 
had 
not 
personally 
seen 
the 
inside 
of 
a 
Cottage. 
Property 
owners, 
especially 
those 
who 
had 
already 
gone 
through 
the 
emotional 
and 
financial 
expense 
of 
rebuilding, 
feared 
the 
Cottages 
would 
reduce 
the 
value 
of 
their 
properties. 
Opinions 
of 
some 
local 
government 
representatives 
and 
community 
members 
were 
based 
on 
perceptions 
of 
how 
“deserving” 
a 
family 
might 
be. 
Generally, 
those 
who 
were 
perceived 
as 
deserving 
were 
low-income 
elderly 
or 
disabled 
persons, 
while 
households 
without 
permanent 
housing 
plans 
that 
included 
unemployed 


adults 
were 
sometimes 
perceived 
as 
looking 
for 
a 
permanent 
handout. 


On 
the 
other 
hand, 
community 
organizations 
and 
major 
employers 
expressed 
an 
urgent 
need 
for 
affordable, 
workforce 
housing. 
One 
local 
government 
official 
expressed 
a 
concern 
that 
industries 
may 
relocate 
to 
other 
areas 
where 
housing 
is 
more 
plentiful 
if 
the 
jurisdictions 
do 
not 
solve 
the 
housing 
problem. 
This 
could 
result 
in 
further 
damage 
to 
the 
economy 
of 
the 
region. 
At 
one 
city 
council 
meeting 
a 
representative 
of 
Northrop 
Grumman 
reported 
that 
the 
company 
could 
fill 
as 
many 
as 
a 
thousand 
vacant 
positions 
if 
the 
workers 
had 
affordable 
places 
to 
live 
that 
were 
closer 
to 
Pascagoula. 
The 
local 
newspaper 
chastised 
the 
City 
for 
a 
lack 
of 
attention 
to 
the 
needs 
of 
its 
citizens 
and 
largest 
employer, 
asking, 
“How 
long 
do 
[officials] 
think 
thousands 
of 
Northrop 
Grumman 
employees 
now 
living 
in 
Mobile 
County 
[Alabama]—because 
they 
cannot 
find 
a 
home 
in 
Jackson 
County—are 
going 
to 
keep 
making 
such 
an 
expensive 
commute?”10 


Based 
upon 
their 
experience 
with 
FEMA, 
some 
jurisdictions 
were 
not 
convinced 
that 
the 
March 
2009 
demobilization 
deadline 
was 
real 
and 
feared 
the 
Cottages 
would 
remain 
permanently 
by 
default. 
Others 
seemed 
to 
be 
assuming 
that 
MAHP 
would 
extend 
the 
deadline 
for 
residents 
who 
were 
not 
finished 
rebuilding. 
One 
mayor 
stated 
that 
when 
March 
2009 
arrived, 
if 
some 
citizens 
still 
needed 
their 
Cottages, 
the 
city 
would 
be 
open 
to 
a 
MEMA 
request 
for 
an 
extension 
of 
the 
deadline. 
This 
idea 
seemed 
not 
to 
take 
into 
consideration 
MEMA’s 
firm 
determination 
not 
to 
ask 
for 
extensions 
and 
to 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 57 


close 
down 
the 
program 
by 
March 
31 
one 
way 
or 
another. 


Both 
MEMA 
and 
the 
local 
jurisdictions 
expressed 
some 
concern 
about 
what 
was 
going 
to 
happen 
at 
the 
end 
of 
March 
if 
residents 
refused 
to 
leave 
their 
units. 
In 
an 
attempt 
to 
make 
clear 
to 
the 
jurisdictions 
just 


“You have to remember that we’re still dealing 
with desperate people here.” 
Housing Advisor in July 2008 expressing 
concerns about the March 2009 demobilization 
date 
how 
serious 
MEMA 
was 
about 
the 
deadline 
and 
to 
allay 
jurisdictions’ 
fears 
about 
permanency, 
the 
Governor 
suggested 
that 
he 
would 
“call 
out 
the 
National 
Guard” 
if 
necessary 
to 
retrieve 
the 
Cottages. 
Housing 
advisors 
also 
expressed 
concerns 
about 
the 
deadline 
and 
gave 
examples 
of 
households 
that 
might 
resort 
to 
violence 
to 
keep 
their 
Cottages. 


Developing a Viable Homeownership 
Program 
Before 
the 
first 
MAHP 
unit 
was 
temporarily 
installed, 
applicants 
began 
asking 
questions 
about 
purchasing 
the 
Cottages. 
These 
inquiries 
intensified, 
especially 
as 
the 
March 
2009 
deadline 
moved 
closer 
and 
housing 
advisors 
reiterated 
the 
need 
to 
develop 
permanent 
housing 
plans 
during 
their 
monthly 
visits. 
MAHP 
staff 
report 
that 
participants 
have 
become 
increasingly 
frustrated 
with 
the 
lack 
of 
information 
about 
a 
purchase 
plan. 
The 
Advisors, 
who 
are 
greatly 
invested 
in 
resident 
outcomes, 
feel 
some 
of 
the 
same 
frustration 


that 
residents 
do, 
noting 
it 
is 
hard 
for 
families 
to 
plan 
for 
permanent 
housing 
when 
they 
have 
no 
idea 
if 
they 
can 
afford 
the 
Cottage. 
It 
is 
also 
possible 
that 
the 
absence 
of 
a 
purchase 
plan 
has 
stalled 
participants 
from 
exploring 
other 
permanent 
options 
because 
they 
assume 
they 
will 
be 
able 
to 
purchase 
the 
unit. 


After 
analyzing 
available 
data, 
MAHP 
recognized 
that 
it 
needed 
more 
information 
to 
inform 
the 
development 
of 
a 
Cottage 
purchase 
program. 
In 
June 
2008, 
MAHP 
undertook 
a 
participant 
survey, 
called 
the 
Permanent 
Housing 
Survey, 
which 
will 
include 
approximately 
2,800 
responses 
when 
it 
is 
complete. 
The 
survey 
asked 
for 
basic 
demographic 
information 
and 
included 
questions 
about 
resident 
interest 
in 
purchasing 
a 
Cottage, 
how 
much 
they 
felt 
they 
could 
afford 
to 
pay 
for 
housing 
costs 
(rent 
or 
mortgage 
payment, 
utilities, 
insurance 
and 
taxes) 
and 
whether 
the 
occupant 
had 
access 
to 
a 
site 
on 
which 
to 
place 
the 
unit 
permanently. 
MAHP 
knew 
that 
63 
percent 
of 
the 
temporary 
units 
were 
placed 
on 
private 
sites 
that 
participants 
did 
not 
own, 
sometimes 
in 
a 
friend’s 
or 
relative’s 
yard 
or 
on 
land 
available 
for 
lease 
from 
others. 
This 
arrangement 
makes 
it 
likely 
that 
many 
of 
these 
sites 
might 
not 
be 
available 
or 
appropriate 
for 
permanent 
housing. 
The 
survey 
was 
implemented 
by 
housing 
advisors 
in 
June 
2008 
and 
is 
expected 
to 
be 
complete 
in 
fall 
2008. 


The 
preliminary 
results, 
including 
1,166 
pre-
disaster 
homeowners 
and 
636 
pre-disaster 
renters, 
indicate 
that 
72 
percent 
of 
owners 
and 
92 
percent 
of 
renters 
are 
interested 
in 
purchasing 
their 
Cottages. 
Just 
over 
half 
of 
the 
pre-disaster 
homeowners 
believe 
they 
are 


Chapter Three: Transitioning to Permanent Housing 


financially 
prepared 
to 
purchase 
the 
unit, 
while 
only 
a 
third 
of 
pre-disaster 
renters 
feel 
financially 
ready 
for 
ownership. 
However, 
even 
these 
more 
conservative 
estimates 
may 
be 
unrealistic. 
About 
three-quarters 
of 
both 
groups 
indicated 
they 
could 
afford 
to 
pay 
between 
$0–$400 
per 
month 
in 
mortgage, 
utilities, 
taxes 
and 
insurance. 
Based 
upon 
MAHP’s 
preliminary 
assessment 
that 
$250– 
$400 
is 
the 
threshold 
for 
ownership 
expenses 
other 
than 
purchase 
price.that 
is 
for 
maintenance, 
taxes, 
insurance 
and 
utilities 
.it 
appears 
that 
a 
significant 
number 
of 
the 
interested 
occupants 
will 
not 
be 
able 
to 
afford 
a 
Cottage 
even 
if 
it 
were 
provided 
at 
no 
cost. 
Considering 
the 
self-described 
purchasing 
power 
of 
the 
target 
audience, 
the 
ownership 
disposition 
option 
presents 
a 
number 
of 
policy 
and 
implementation 
challenges 
described 
below. 


Affordability and Pricing 

MAHP 
is 
seeking 
a 
pricing 
strategy 
that 
supports 
the 
preservation 
of 
the 
Cottages 
as 
affordable 
housing 
over 
an 
extended 
period. 
Even 
if 
a 
household 
can 
afford 
the 
initial 
purchase 
price, 
the 
ongoing 
costs 
of 
insurance, 
taxes 
and 
utilities 
could 
present 
a 
burden. 
MAHP 
requires 
anyone 
who 
purchases 
a 
unit 
to 
maintain 
homeowner/hazard 
insurance 
on 
the 
unit 
and, 
if 
required, 
flood 
insurance. 
As 
a 
result, 
MAHP 
is 
considering 
an 
income-based 
pricing 
structure 
that 
also 
considers 
unit 
condition. 
A 
standard 
exception 
was 
also 
added 
to 
make 
the 
units 
more 
affordable 
for 
elderly 
and 
disabled 
households. 
The 
proposed, 
draft 
pricing 
structure 
is 
displayed 
in 
Exhibit 
3-4. 


Financing 

MAHP 
is 
anticipating 
that 
participants 
with 
low 
incomes 
and 
those 
with 
poor 
credit 
scores 


Exhibit 3-4 Draft Pricing Structure for Cottages 
Percent of Median Price of New Price of New 
Household Income 
($34,473) 
Affordability 
Discount 
Price of New Park 
Model 
2-Bedroom 
Mississippi Cottage 
3-Bedroom 
Mississippi Cottage 

200% + 0% $12,347 $22,699 $26,191 
115% - 200% 35% $8,026 $14,754 $17,024 
80% - 115% 50% $6,174 $11,350 $13,096 
50% - 80% 75% $3,087 $5,675 $6,548 
At or below 50% 
(or disabled or 95% $617 $1,135 $1,310 
senior citizen) 

A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 59 


will 
find 
it 
challenging 
to 
secure 
financing 
because 
both 
mobile 
home 
and 
traditional 
mortgages 
lenders 
require 
acceptable 
credit 
scores. 
In 
addition, 
lenders 
may 
have 
minimum 
required 
loan 
amounts 
for 
their 
existing 
products 
and 
be 
uninterested 
in 
changing 
policies 
for 
the 
relatively 
small 
purchase 
amounts 
anticipated. 


In 
July 
2008, 
MAHP 
convened 
a 
lender 
forum 
to 
explain 
the 
program 
to 
area 
banks, 
lenders 
and 
brokers 
and 
to 
get 
feedback 
on 
potential 
barriers. 
The 
lenders 
indicated 
they 
would 
be 
willing 
to 
finance 
units 
installed 
on 
permanent 
foundations 
and 
suggested 
that 
MEMA 
have 
the 
Cottage 
appraised 
to 
determine 
the 
unit 
value. 
They 
also 
gave 
suggestions 
for 
notifying 
participants 
about 
the 
purchase 
program 
and 
encouraging 
them 
to 
begin 
preparing 
for 
ownership. 
Lenders 
noted 
that 
helping 
households 
under 
$25,000 
in 
annual 
income 
achieve 
ownership 
will 
be 
difficult. 
One 
lender 
described 
a 
promising 
loan 
product 
that 
finances 
site 
preparation, 
infrastructure 
and 
installation 
on 
a 
permanent 
foundation 
in 
addition 
to 
the 
housing 
unit 
itself. 


An 
additional 
issue 
that 
makes 
financing 
even 
more 
complex 
is 
the 
distinction 
between 
real 
and 
personal 
property 
under 
State 
guidelines 
for 
mobile 
and 
manufactured 
housing. 
Whether 
mobile 
homes 
are 
considered 
personal 
property 
or 
real 
property 
is 
generally 
a 
matter 
of 
State 
law, 
and, 
in 
Mississippi, 
an 
owner 
has 
the 
option 
of 
classifying 
a 
mobile 
home 
as 
real 
or 
personal 
property 
upon 
registration. 
Manufactured 
housing 
that 
is 
permanently 
affixed 
to 
land 
is 
generally 
considered 
real 
property. 
It 


appears 
that 
the 
Cottages 
could 
be 
considered 
in 
either 
category. 
They 
arrived 
on 
wheels 
and 
initially 
were 
installed 
in 
a 
manner 
similar 
to 
a 
mobile 
home, 
but 
they 
meet 
IRC 
standards 
and 
can 
be 
affixed 
to 
a 
permanent 
foundation. 


Each 
option 
offers 
advantages 
and 
disadvantages. 
If 
the 
Cottages 
are 
considered 
real 
property, 
traditional 
mortgage 
lending 
products 
can 
be 
used. 
If 
the 
Cottages 
are 
considered 
personal 
property, 
traditional 
mortgage 
instruments 
could 
not 
be 
used 
for 
such 
sales 
and 
typical 
personal 
property 
instruments 
(such 
as 
those 
used 
for 
mobile 
homes) 
would 
need 
to 
be 
used. 
Considering 
the 
Cottages 
as 
real 
property 
would 
result 
in 
higher 
closing 
costs 
than 
a 
personal 
property 
transaction. 
In 
addition, 
if 
Cottages 
are 
sold 
as 
real 
property, 
the 
owner 
pays 
annual 
property 
taxes, 
a 
possible 
disincentive 
for 
program 
participants, 
but 
a 
possible 
selling 
point 
for 
local 
jurisdictions. 
(However, 
several 
government 
representatives 
made 
it 
clear 
that 
their 
preference 
is 
for 
residents 
to 
build 
larger, 
and 
in 
their 
view 
higher 
quality, 
units 
that 
would 
generate 
more 
property 
tax 
revenue 
than 
the 
Cottages.) 


Over 
time 
this 
classification 
may 
also 
affect 
the 
value 
of 
the 
Cottage. 
Typically, 
well 
maintained 
real 
estate 
retains 
its 
value 
and 
sometimes 
appreciates. 
Rapid 
depreciation 
is 
the 
norm 
for 
personal 
property. 
It 
is 
not 
clear 
whether 
the 
Cottages 
will 
appreciate 
or 
depreciate 
in 
value 
over 
time, 
but 
some 
MAHP 
staff 
and 
local 
government 
officials 
suggested 
that 
it 
is 
conceivable 
that 
a 
properly 
installed 
Cottage 
with 
an 
expected 
lifespan 
of 
30 
years 
could 
appreciate. 


Chapter Three: Transitioning to Permanent Housing 


Applicant Communication and Counseling 

MAHP 
recognizes 
that 
participants 
will 
require 
financial 
and 
homeownership 
counseling 
beyond 
what 
the 
housing 
advisors 
are 
able 
to 
provide. 
PBS&J’s 
re-bid 
proposal 
for 
program 
management 
included 
Enterprise 
Corporation 
of 
the 
Delta 
(ECD), 
a 
non-profit 
subcontractor 
to 
be 
responsible 
for 
facilitating 
MAHP 
participants’ 
transitions 
to 
permanent 
housing, 
particularly 
with 
respect 
to 
homeownership 
and 
financial 
counseling. 
However, 
ECD 
and 
PBS&J 
could 
not 
agree 
on 
contract 
terms 
and 
ECD 
decided 
not 
to 
participate 
in 
the 
program. 


In 
early 
August 
2008, 
PBS&J 
began 
negotiating 
a 
partnership 
with 
International 
Relief 
and 
Development’s 
(IRD) 
Gulf 
Coast 
Community 
Service 
Center 
to 
provide 
financial 
and 
homeownership 
counseling 
for 
MAHP 
participants 
interested 
in 
ownership. 
IRD 
has 
been 
providing 
emergency 
relief 
and 
long-term 
recovery 
services 
along 
the 
Mississippi 
coast 
since 
the 
2005 
storms 
and 
had 
a 
presence 
in 
the 
region 
before 
Katrina. 
The 
organization 
has 
a 
resource 
center 
in 
each 
county, 
offers 
lending 
products 
and 
has 
an 
online 
housing 
counselor 
program. 
PBS&J’s 
project 
manager 
said 
that, 
in 
retrospect, 
they 
should 
have 
been 
better 
informed 
about 
available 
local 
resources 
such 
as 
Gulf 
Coast 
Housing 
Resource 
Centers 
at 
the 
time 
of 
the 
re-bid. 


The 
expected 
timeline 
for 
Cottage 
purchases 
is 
also 
an 
issue. 
For 
many 
families, 
preparation 
for 
homeownership 
can 
be 
a 
lengthy 
process. 
Some 
need 
months 
or 
even 
years 
to 
repair 
credit, 
collect 
savings 
and 
find 
workable 


financing. 
The 
March 
2009 
deadline 
will 
not 
be 
compatible 
with 
the 
needs 
of 
such 
families. 


Donation or Sale to Third Party for 
Affordable Housing Development 
Donating 
new 
and 
refurbished 
Cottages 
to 
non-profit 
housing 
and 
development 
organizations 
may 
offer 
a 
way 
to 
maintain 
affordable 
rental 
housing 
or 
create 
additional 
home-
ownership 
opportunities 
along 
the 
coast. 
A 
renewed 
interest 
in 
acquiring 
Cottages 
among 
community 
organizations 
surfaced 
in 
the 
beginning 
of 
2008. 
This 
interest 
was 
likely 
encouraged 
by 
the 
Mississippi 
Development 
Authority’s 
reallocation 
of 
$241 
million 
in 
Community 
Development 
Block 
Grant 
funding 
from 
the 
Homeowner 
Assistance 
Grant 
Program 
to 
the 
Long 
Term 
Workforce 
Housing 
Program 
(LTWHP). 
The 
first 
round 
of 
funding 
was 
announced 
in 
September 
2007, 
a 
second 
in 
April 
2008 
and 
a 
third 
round 
is 
expected 
in 
fall 
2008. 
Defined 
as 
housing 
benefiting 
households 
with 
incomes 
at 
or 
below 
120 
percent 
of 
the 
Area 
Median 
Income, 
the 
LTWHP 
is 
designed 
to 
provide 
grants 
and 
loans 
to 
local 
government, 
and 
non-profit 
and 
for-profit 
organizations 
to 
help 
develop 
long-
term 
affordable 
housing. 


In 
July 
2008, 
MAHP 
initiated 
a 
Letter 
of 
Interest 
(LOI) 
application 
process 
for 
community 
organizations 
that 
are 
ready 
to 
propose 
specific 
projects. 
The 
LOI 
will 
act 
as 
a 
starting 
point 
for 
negotiations 
between 
MAHP 
and 
the 
organizations. 
Prior 
to 
this 
formal 
process, 
MAHP, 
MEMA 
and 
the 
Governor’s 
Office 
committed 
Cottages 
and 
MAHP 
installation 
funding 
to 
two 
organizations 
that 
expressed 
early 
interest 
in 
the 
units. 
Just 
over 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 61 


200 
new 
Cottages 
were 
committed 
to 
the 
two 
partners. 
Other 
partners 
will 
receive 
remaining 
new 
Cottages 
and 
refurbished 
Cottages 
as 
they 
are 
demobilized. 


The 
donation 
and 
sale 
options 
to 
non-profits 
raise 
three 
related 
policy 
concerns 
discussed 
below. 


Planning for Permanent Developments 

Until 
IRD 
begins 
providing 
financial 
and 
homeownership 
counseling, 
it 
will 
be 
unclear 
how 
many 
households 
who 
want 
to 
purchase 
their 
unit 
are 
actually 
able 
to 
do 
so, 
and, 
therefore, 
how 
many 
and 
what 
type 
of 
units 
will 
be 
available 
to 
partners 
for 
permanent 
developments. 
Moreover, 
MAHP 
is 
unable 
to 
provide 
anything 
more 
than 
an 
estimated 
timeline 
for 
when 
the 
partners 
may 
receive 
refurbished 
units—mostly 
likely 
November 
2008 
to 
March 
2009—since 
the 
volume 
and 
pace 
of 
demobilization 
is 
unknown. 
These 
constraints 
make 
it 
difficult 
for 
partners 
to 
plan 
and 
suggest 
that 
MAHP 
will 
need 
to 
work 
very 
closely 
with 
prospective 
organizations. 


Sustainability of the Cottages as Affordable 
Housing 

MAHP 
will 
monitor 
the 
Cottages 
to 
ensure 
they 
are 
used 
for 
affordable 
housing 
purposes 
and 
that 
the 
uses 
conform 
to 
the 
MAHP 
grant 
agreement 
until 
the 
end 
of 
the 
AHPP 
grant 
in 
2011. 
MAHP 
is 
investigating 
options 
for 
sustaining 
affordability 
past 
the 
grant 
term, 
including 
restrictions 
in 
formal 
agreements 
with 
community 
organizations 
and 
requirements 
for 
deed 
or 
title 
restrictions. 


Minimizing Profiteering 

Several 
of 
the 
non-profit 
organizations 
that 
have 
expressed 
interest 
in 
the 
Cottages 
have 
partnered 
with 
private, 
for-profit 
organizations 
to 
access 
development 
capacity 
and 
leverage 
funding. 
MAHP 
wants 
to 
put 
mechanisms 
in 
place 
to 
prevent 
excessive 
profits 
to 
for-profit 
entities 
once 
the 
MAHP 
grant 
closes 
out 
in 
2011. 
MAHP 
also 
intends 
to 
ensure 
that 
donation 
policies 
address 
limits 
on 
how 
the 
nonprofits 
can 
use 
Cottages 
and 
the 
terms 
under 
which 
they 
could 
be 
sold 
after 
the 
grant 
expires. 


Transfer to Government 
Transferring 
the 
Cottages 
to 
another 
federal, 
state 
or 
local 
government 
is 
not 
a 
preferred 
option 
for 
MAHP, 
unless 
the 
transfer 
is 
for 
a 
permanent 
housing 
activity 
or 
immediate 
use 
in 
another 
disaster 
area. 
It 
would 
be 
possible 
for 
a 
government 
entity 
to 
store 
units 
to 
be 
used 
as 
temporary 
housing 
for 
the 
next 
disaster, 
but, 
to 
date, 
this 
option 
has 
not 
received 
much 
interest. 


Sale at Auction 
Although 
possibly 
the 
easiest 
solution 
to 
implement, 
selling 
the 
Cottages 
at 
auction 
is 
the 
least 
desirable 
disposition 
approach 
because 
it 
is 
unlikely 
to 
result 
in 
an 
increase 
in 
the 
availability 
of 
affordable 
housing. 
Several 
MAHP 
staff 
said 
that 
a 
widespread 
sale 
of 
Cottages 
for 
guest 
houses, 
hunting 
cabins 
or 
other 
secondary 
uses 
would 
be 
the 
worst 
possible 
outcome 
of 
the 
permanent 
housing 
phase. 
At 
the 
same 
time, 
the 
quality 
of 
the 
Cottages 
has 
generated 
great 
interest 
in 


Chapter Three: Transitioning to Permanent Housing 


these 
uses 
among 
MAHP 
participants 
who 
are 
rebuilding 
homes 
and 
other 
coastal 
residents. 
MAHP 
will 
auction 
units 
that 
are 
in 
poor 
condition 
and 
units 
that 
do 
not 
become 
permanent 
housing 
at 
the 
end 
of 
the 
program 
in 
“as 
is” 
condition. 
It 
is 
unclear 
how 
many 
units 
will 
be 
returned 
in 
poor 
condition 
or 
otherwise 
sold 
at 
auction, 
but 
MAHP 
is 
anticipating 
a 
small 
number. 


Exhibit 3-5: A Cottage in a mobile home park in 
Gautier, July 2008. MAHP has placed 323 Cottages 
in commercial mobile home parks. MRHA will take 
ownership of these units on a rolling basis through 
2009 and pair them with Housing Choice Vouchers 
for income-eligible families. 
Progress on Special Projects andDisposition Activities 

MAHP 
has 
had 
some 
success 
in 
moving 
permanent 
housing 
projects 
forward. 
Interest 
and 
planning 
for 
such 
projects 
rapidly 
accelerated 
in 
April 
2008. 
This 
section 
offers 
a 
description 
of 
potential 
partnerships, 
as 
well 
as 
projects 
already 
under 
development. 


Mississippi Regional Housing 
Authority 
One 
of 
MAHP’s 
most 
promising 
partners 
is 
the 
Mississippi 
Regional 
Housing 
Authority 


(MRHA). 
MHRA 
manages 
1,200 
public 
housing 
units 
and 
5,672 
Housing 
Choice 
Vouchers 
(HCV) 
in 
Mississippi’s 
14 
southern 
counties. 
Katrina’s 
devastating 
impact 
on 
the 
availability 
of 
affordable 
rental 
stock 
made 
it 
impossible 
for 
MRHA 
to 
use 
its 
full 
HCV 
budget 
authority. 
After 
the 
storms, 
Congress 
allowed 
Gulf 
Coast 
public 
housing 
authorities 
to 
use 
excess 
HCV 
budget 
authority 
for 
other 
housing 
related 
projects. 
MRHA 
contributed 
a 
large 
portion 
of 
the 
excess 
to 
Low-Income 
Housing 
Tax 
Credit 
development 
activities 
that 
the 
organization 
undertook 
to 
build 
new 
affordable 
housing 
in 
the 
region. 


In 
December 
2007, 
HCV 
funds 
previously 
obligated 
by 
MRHA 
to 
other 
housing 
authorities 
were 
freed-up. 
(Under 
voucher 
portability 
procedures 
families 
may 
be 
assisted 
in 
another 
jurisdiction. 
The 
PHA 
at 
the 
“receiving” 
jurisdiction 
can 
bill 
MRHA 
for 
the 
amount 
of 
the 
subsidy. 
December 
was 
MRHA’s 
deadline 
for 
fulfilling 
these 
outstanding 
obligations.) 
This 
change 
enabled 
MHRA 
to 
partner 
more 
actively 
with 
MAHP. 
The 
partnership 
could 
be 
beneficial 
for 
both 
parties 
since 
MAHP 
has 
units 
and 
a 
supply 
of 
low-income 
tenants 
and 
MRHA 
has 
rental 
subsidies 
that 
could 
not 
otherwise 
be 
used 
because 
of 
the 
shortage 
of 
rental 
housing. 


MAHP 
and 
MRHA 
are 
partnering 
on 
three 
permanent 
housing 
efforts 
to 
date. 
First, 
MAHP 
is 
transitioning 
all 
323 
Mississippi 
Cottages 
in 
commercial 
mobile 
home 
parks 
to 
the 
South 
Mississippi 
Development 
Corporation 
(SMDC), 
a 
nonprofit 
subsidiary 
of 
MRHA. 
SMDC 
will 
own 
the 
units 
and 
lease 
the 
pads 
from 
park 
owners. 
Exhibit 
3-5 
shows 
a 
Cottage 
sited 
in 
a 
mobile 
home 
park. 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 63 


MRHA 
will 
offer 
Housing 
Choice 
Vouchers 
to 
current 
commercial 
park 
occupants 
who 
are 
eligible 
for 
the 
program. 
When 
vacancies 
occur, 
SMDC 
will 
offer 
the 
units 
first 
to 
other 
MAHP 
participants 
and 
then 
to 
other 
low-
income 
households. 
MAHP 
staff 
is 
helping 
participants 
living 
in 
commercial 
parks 
to 
apply 
for 
the 
Housing 
Choice 
Voucher 
program. 
Those 
who 
are 
not 
eligible 
or 
are 
not 
interested 
in 
participating 
in 
the 
program 
can 
remain 
in 
their 
current 
unit 
and 
will 
be 
charged 
market 
rent 
when 
their 
MAHP 
lease 
expires 
in 
2009. 


MRHA 
has 
also 
proposed 
three 
new 
permanent 
developments 
using 
227 
new 
and 
refurbished 
Cottages. 
MAHP 
has 
agreed 
to 
provide 
$4.4 
million 
in 
installation 
and 
infrastructure 
funding 
for 
the 
developments, 
which 
SMDC 
will 
own 
and 
manage 
as 
rental 
housing. 
The 
units 
will 
be 
available 
to 
families 
that 
have 
Housing 
Choice 
Vouchers 
and 
also 
to 
market-rate 
renters. 
Two 
developments 
will 
be 
located 
in 
unincorporated 
areas 
of 
Harrison 
County; 
the 
third 
will 
be 
a 
27-unit 
senior 
village 
in 
Gulfport. 


Lastly, 
MRHA 
(through 
SMDC) 
has 
offered 
to 
take 
ownership 
of 
and 
manage 
the 
80 
units 
of 
Eco 
Cottages 
that 
are 
expected 
to 
be 
sited 
in 
Picayune, 
Mississippi. 
An 
architecture 
firm 
was 
hired 
in 
December 
2007 
to 
complete 
the 
technical 
design 
for 
the 
Eco 
Cottage. 
Revisions 
to 
the 
floor 
plan 
to 
make 
the 
units 
more 
cost 
effective 
to 
construct 
were 
underway 
as 
of 
August 
2008. 
Paralleling 
the 
design 
process, 
MAHP 
identified 
a 
suitable 
parcel 
on 
which 
to 
place 
a 
community 
of 
80 
Eco 
Cottages 
in 
Picayune. 
A 
long-term 
lease 
was 
signed 
with 
the 
owner 
of 
the 
property, 


and 
the 
project 
is 
moving 
its 
way 
through 
the 
county 
approval 
process. 


Other Partnerships 
Habitat 
for 
Humanity 
Bay 
Waveland 
is 
currently 
installing 
four 
prototype 
Cottages 
with 
additions 
in 
Diamondhead 
(Hancock 
County). 
The 
first 
two 
units 
were 
completed 
in 
preparation 
for 
the 
third 
anniversary 
of 
Katrina. 
For 
these 
units, 
the 
organization 
worked 
with 
Lexington 
Homes, 
one 
of 
the 
Cottage 
manufacturers, 
to 
design 
an 
addition 
to 
be 
used 
with 
MAHP 
Cottages. 
Exhibit 
3-3 
shows 
a 
completed 
Cottage 
with 
an 
addition 
and 
a 
floor 
plan 
for 
the 
unit. 
The 
organization 
also 
received 
the 
jurisdiction’s 
approval 
for 
40 
units 
of 
infill 
development 
using 
Cottages 
with 
the 
expanded 
square 
footage. 


In 
July 
2008, 
the 
City 
Council 
of 
Pascagoula 
agreed 
to 
negotiate 
with 
MAHP 
for 
three 
permanent 
Cottage 
installations. 
The 
city 
approved: 
(1) 
the 
installation 
of 
6-8 
Cottages 
to 
be 
used 
as 
housing 
for 
two 
years 
and 
then 
as 
commercial 
space 
for 
small 
shops; 
(2) 
five 
cottages 
with 
expanded 
square 
footage 
to 
be 
owned 
by 
Habitat 
for 
Humanity 
Mississippi 
Gulf 
Coast 
and 
sited 
on 
infill 
lots 
within 
the 
city, 
and 
(3) 
15 
Cottages 
with 
expanded 
square 
footage 
developed 
by 
the 
Gulf 
Coast 
Community 
Foundation. 


Enterprise 
Community 
Partners 
will 
develop 
the 
Ocean 
Springs 
Cottage 
Village, 
which 
will 
be 
a 
mixed-used 
development 
containing 
8 
Park 
Models. 


The 
Renaissance 
Development 
Corporation 
requested 
40 
units 
for 
a 
Cottage 
development 
in 


Chapter Three: Transitioning to Permanent Housing 


Hancock 
County. 
The 
units 
will 
include 
additional 
square 
footage. 
Overall, 
Renaissance 
hopes 
to 
provide 
permanent 
placements 
for 
all 
200 
to 
300 
Cottages 
that 
are 
temporarily 
installed 
in 
V-Zones. 


MAHP's 
disposition 
program 
is 
now 
taking 
shape. 
It 
is 
too 
soon 
to 
tell 
how 
successful 
interested 
MAHP 
participants 
will 
be 
at 
purchasing 
their 
units 
for 
permanent 
housing 
or 
how 
well 
the 
partnerships 
with 
local 
governments 
and 
nonprofits 
will 
meet 
the 
needs 
of 
low-income 
renters 
and 
special 
populations. 
An 
update 
on 
these 
issues 
will 
be 
presented 
in 
future 
reports. 
Chapter 
Four 
reviews 
building 
sciences 
assessments 
to 
date, 
while 
additional 
observations 
about 
the 
permanent 
program 
and 
lessons 
learned 
are 
discussed 
in 
Chapter 
Five. 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 


Chapter Three: Transitioning to Permanent Housing 


ChapterFour:PreliminaryResultsoftheBuildingSciencesEvaluation1ChapterFour:PreliminaryResultsoftheBuildingSciencesEvaluation1
Introduction 

The 
Building 
Sciences 
component 
of 
the 
AHPP 
evaluation 
will 
assess 
the 
performance 
of 
the 
MAHP 
units. 
This 
is 
critical 
since 
housing 
that 
is 
durable, 
affordable 
and 
energy 
efficient 
will 
best 
serve 
the 
needs 
of 
MAHP 
participants 
and 
the 
larger 
community. 
Durability 
and 
energy 
efficiency 
are 
particularly 
relevant 
as 
the 
“life 
cycle” 
costs 
are 
ultimately 
borne 
by 
the 
owner, 
typically 
well 
after 
the 
initial 
influx 
of 
post 
disaster 
financial 
assistance. 
The 
building 
sciences 
evaluation 
includes: 
a 
review 
and 
assessment 
of 
the 
unit 
designs, 
unit 
production 
processes, 
and 
delivery 
and 
installation 
of 
the 
homes; 
short-term 
and 
long-term 
durability 
assessments; 
and 
performance 
assessments 
following 
severe 
weather 
events, 
such 
as 
Hurricane 
Gustav 
in 
September 
2008. 


This 
chapter 
summarizes 
the 
building 
sciences 
evaluation 
activities 
and 
preliminary 
results 
for 
the 
MAHP. 
As 
of 
September 
2008, 
the 
Park 
Model 
and 
Mississippi 
Cottages 
have 
undergone 
a 
number 
of 
building 
sciences 
evaluation 
tasks, 
including: 


• 
A 
design 
review; 
The 
chapter 
was 
authored 
by 
Dana 
Bres 
of 
HUD’s 
Office 
of 
Policy 
Development 
and 
Research. 
It 
is 
based 
on 
building 
sciences 
evaluation 
activities 
completed 
by 
the 
National 
Association 
of 
Home 
Builders 
(NAHB) 
Research 
Center. 
While 
the 
rest 
of 
the 
report 
covers 
implementation 
activities 
through 
August 
2008, 
this 
chapter 
includes 
building 
sciences 
observations 
through 
early 
September 
2008 
to 
capture 
unit 
performance 
during 
Hurricane 
Gustav, 
which 
made 
landfall 
on 
September 
1, 
2008. 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 


• 
Observational 
monitoring 
in 
the 
housing 
factories; 
and 
• 
Several 
building 
sciences 
field 
tests, 
such 
as 
installation 
observations, 
blower 
door 
tests 
to 
estimate 
building 
air 
tightness 
and 
an 
initial 
durability 
assessment 
to 
measure 
the 
units’ 
post-
disaster 
performance 
following 
Hurricane 
Gustav. 
Unit Design 
MEMA’s 
approach 
was 
to 
design 
a 
single-
wide, 
manufactured 
unit, 
to 
be 
produced 
in 
one-, 
two-and 
three-bedroom 
sizes. 
More 
than 
one-fifth 
of 
the 
two-and 
three-bedroom 
units 
were 
designed 
to 
be 
compliant 
with 
the 
Uniform 
Federal 
Accessibility 
Standards 
(UFAS). 
MEMA 
also 
designed 
an 
“Eco 
Cottage” 
to 
demonstrate 
an 
environmentally 
friendly, 
efficient 
and 
attractive 
design 
that 
effectively 
blends 
building 
sciences 
technology 
and 
design. 
The 
Eco 
Cottage 
is 
yet 
to 
be 
produced 
and 
is 
not 
addressed 
in 
this 
document. 


The 
goal 
of 
MAHP 
was 
to 
produce 
units 
that 
could 
be 
manufactured 
and 
installed 
quickly 
for 
temporary 
housing, 
yet 
also 
would 
be 
suitable 
as 
permanent 
housing. 
For 
this 
reason, 
MAHP 
units 
were 
designed 
to 
meet 
both 
the 
current 
HUD 
code 
for 
manufactured 
housing 
and 
the 
International 
Residential 
Code 
(IRC), 
which 
is 
the 
model 
building 
code 
for 
new 
construction 
of 
units 
most 
commonly 
adopted 
by 
states, 
cities 
and 
counties 
in 
the 
United 
States. 
In 
terms 
of 
building 
performance, 
neither 
code 
confers 
a 
specific 
advantage, 
as 
both 
establish 
a 
minimum 


standard 
and 
the 
MAHP 
units 
were 
designed 
to 
exceed 
those 
minimums. 


Structural Design 
The 
final 
specifications 
for 
Park 
Models 
and 
Cottages 
met 
or 
exceeded 
the 
requirements 
of 
the 
HUD 
code 
and 
the 
International 
Residential 
Code 
in 
several 
areas 
that 
directly 
affect 
the 
strength 
of 
the 
units. 


The 
units 
were 
designed 
to 
resist 
the 
more 
stringent 
IRC 
standard 
of 
150 
miles 
per 
hour 
wind 
speed. 
Under 
the 
IRC, 
there 
are 
two 
standards 
for 
the 
coastal 
areas 
of 
Mississippi, 
and 
the 
selection 
of 
the 
150 
miles 
per 
hour 
standard 
allowed 
the 
MEMA 
units 
to 
be 
placed 
anywhere 
temporarily. 


The 
metal 
roofing 
selected 
for 
the 
Cottages 
provides 
both 
additional 
durability 
and 
structural 
strength 
by 
using 
a 
“hip 
roof” 
configuration. 
A 
hip 
roof 
slopes 
to 
all 
sides 
of 
the 
home 
and 
does 
not 
have 
gables. 
Hip 
roofs 
are 
stronger 
than 
traditional 
gable 
roofs, 
as 
the 
structural 
components 
of 
the 
roof 
are 
better 
aligned 
to 
resist 
wind 
loads. 
(Neither 
the 
HUD 
code 
nor 
IRC 
require 
a 
specific 
type 
of 
roofing.) 


The 
siding 
MEMA 
selected 
for 
the 
Cottages 
is 
a 
fiber 
cement 
product 
that 
has 
demonstrated 
excellent 
impact, 
wind 
and 
insect 
resistance, 
as 
well 
as 
outstanding 
durability. 
The 
performance 
of 
fiber 
cement 
siding 
provides 
greater 
durability 
than 
wood 
siding 
in 
event 
of 
storms, 
as 
well 
as 
for 
routine 
maintenance. 
Because 
fiber 
cement 
does 
not 
absorb 
moisture 
(as 
wood 
siding 
does), 
paint 
applied 
to 
such 
siding 
will 
last 
significantly 
longer. 


Chapter Four: Preliminary Results of the Building Sciences Evaluation 


Interior Space Interior Space 
As 
described 
in 
Chapter 
One, 
five 
core 
models 
were 
produced: 
a 
one-bedroom 
(Park 
Model) 
at 
396 
square 
feet, 
two-and 
three-
bedroom 
Cottages, 
and 
two-and 
three-
bedroom 
UFAS-compliant 
Cottages. 
The 
UFAS 
models 
are 
variants 
of 
the 
standard 
two-and 
three-bedroom 
units, 
which 
total 
728 
and 
840 
square 
feet 
each. 
As 
with 
many 
manufactured 
homes, 
production 
of 
multiple 
units 
provided 
an 
opportunity 
to 
refine 
and 
perfect 
the 
interior 
design 
and 
use 
of 
space. 


Aesthetic Design 
MEMA 
was 
very 
deliberate 
in 
the 
designs 
they 
selected 
for 
the 
MAHP 
units. 
The 
architectural 
vernacular 
of 
the 
Cottages 
lends 
itself 
to 
acceptance 
at 
the 
local 
level. 
Many 
traditional 
style 
homes 
in 
the 
coastal 
South 
are 
built 
in 
the 
“shotgun” 
style 
and 
include 
a 
front 
porch. 
The 
standing 
seam 
metal 
roof 
of 
the 
Cottages 
continues 
this 
traditional 
design, 
as 
do 
the 
variety 
of 
bright 
paint 
colors 
chosen 
for 
the 
exteriors. 
As 
a 
result, 
the 
Cottages 
blend 
with 
the 
community, 
a 
stark 
difference 
from 
the 
visual 
impact 
of 
the 
plain 
white 
FEMA 
travel 
trailers 
and 
many 
manufactured 
housing 
units. 


Design Approval Process 
The 
initial 
Mississippi 
grant 
application 
included 
unit 
design 
concepts 
that 
were 
refined 
following 
grant 
award. 
In 
Mississippi, 
modular 
home 
designs 
are 
reviewed 
and 
approved 
by 
the 
State 
Fire 
Marshal. 
Following 
development 
of 
the 
designs 
and 
their 
acceptance 
by 
the 
MAHP 
project 
staff, 
they 
were 
approved 
by 
the 
project’s 
professional 
engineers 
and 
submitted 
for 
review 
by 
the 
Fire 
Marshal 
(for 
the 
IRC) 
and 


to 
the 
Design 
and 
Approval 
Primary 
Inspection 
Agency 
(DAPIA) 
(for 
HUD 
code 
compliance). 
Production 
design 
reviews 
and 
approvals 
were 
conducted 
on-site 
by 
the 
Fire 
Marshal 
and 
the 
HUD 
code 
In 
Plant 
Inspection 
Agency 
(IPIA). 
FEMA 
involvement 
in 
the 
design 
process 
was 
focused 
on 
compliance 
with 
structural 
engineering 
principles 
associated 
with 
the 
foundation 
designs. 
FEMA’s 
Mitigation 
Division 
performed 
plan 
review 
and 
provided 
comments. 
With 
the 
exception 
of 
accessibility 
features 
in 
UFAS-compliant 
units, 
FEMA 
did 
not 
approve 
or 
disapprove 
of 
the 
plans. 
The 
MAHP 
project 
team 
also 
conducted 
design 
reviews 
during 
the 
initial 
development 
of 
the 
construction 
contracts 
and 
production 
of 
the 
housing 
units. 


Evaluation of Unit Designs 
At 
the 
beginning 
of 
the 
overall 
evaluation 
effort, 
HUD 
and 
FEMA 
collaboratively 
selected 
the 
building 
sciences 
evaluation 
activities 
and 
criteria. 
These 
were 
selected 
to 
prevent 
foreseeable 
design 
failures, 
to 
predict 
unit 
energy 
usage 
and 
to 
estimate 
the 
labor 
effort 
required 
to 
produce 
and 
install 
the 
units. 
Certain 
results 
of 
the 
evaluation 
were 
communicated 
to 
FEMA 
and 
by 
FEMA 
to 
MEMA 
immediately. 
This 
was 
an 
operational 
decision 
based 
on 
the 
need 
for 
the 
housing 
units 
to 
succeed. 
FEMA 
identified 
and 
communicated 
to 
the 
grantee 
any 
identified 
design 
or 
construction 
flaw 
that 
might 
jeopardize 
the 
viability 
of 
the 
units. 


Evaluation 
of 
the 
MAHP 
unit 
designs 
involved 
different 
types 
of 
reviews. 
The 
building 
sciences 
evaluation 
team 
reviewed 
the 
unit 
designs 
and 
modeled 
the 
expected 
energy 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 69 


performance 
of 
the 
units 
as 
a 
first 
step 
in 
a 
complete 
energy 
assessment, 
which 
will 
eventually 
include 
an 
evaluation 
of 
actual 
energy 
consumption. 
The 
models 
predicted 
that 
MAHP 
units 
will 
be 
close 
to 
satisfying 
EnergyStar 
requirements. 


As 
part 
of 
a 
complete 
durability 
assessment 
the 
building 
sciences 
evaluator 
reviewed 
Cottage 
designs 
using 
HUD’s 
“Durability 
by 
Design” 
guidelines11 
and 
offered 
an 
initial 
durability 
assessment. 
As 
part 
of 
this 
effort, 
evaluators 
provided 
a 
“best 
practices” 
moisture 
assessment 
of 
the 
design 
and 
provided 
feedback 
to 
help 
MAHP 
avoid 
preventable 
moisture 
problems. 
The 
evaluator 
also 
placed 
moisture 
sensors 
in 
a 
small 
sample 
of 
units. 
Based 
on 
reviews 
of 
the 
unit 
designs, 
observed 
construction 
processes, 
and 
the 
materials 
used 
in 
the 
units, 
it 
is 
not 
expected 
that 
these 
monitors 
will 
detect 
moisture 
problems, 
but 
the 
results 
are 
forthcoming. 
The 
initial 
durability 
assessment 
also 
incorporated 
estimates 
for 
how 
long 
the 
unit 
will 
be 
able 
to 
be 
used 
if 
installed 
as 
temporary 
or 
permanent 
housing. 
The 
building 
sciences 
evaluator 
also 
summarized 
design 
characteristics 
of 
the 
Cottages 
using 
FEMA’s 
web-based 
Joint 
Housing 
Assessment 
Tool, 
which 
catalogues 
manufacturer 
information 
for 
later 
use. 


Similar 
to 
the 
initial 
durability 
assessment 
where 
evaluators 
visited 
housing 
factories 
to 
review 
construction 
processes, 
other 
tasks 
required 
both 
design 
review 
and 
on-site 
observations. 
Evaluators 
assessed 
MAHP 
designs 
to 
determine 
what 
skills 
were 
required 
to 
install 
a 
unit 
and 
observed 
installation 
procedures 
on-site. 
FEMA 
experts 
also 
evaluated 
plans 
for 
accessible 
Mississippi 


Cottages 
for 
compliance 
and 
inspected 
constructed 
units 
in-person. 
Unlike 
other 
evaluation 
components, 
the 
UFAS 
process 
was 
an 
absolute 
process 
under 
which 
the 
proposed 
UFAS-compliant 
unit 
was 
declared 
acceptable 
by 
the 
FEMA 
subject 
matter 
expert. 


Procurement and Manufacturing 

RFP and Selection Process 
MEMA 
advertised 
for 
the 
construction 
of 
the 
Cottages 
through 
a 
Request 
for 
Proposal 
(RFP) 
process. 
Following 
receipt 
of 
proposals, 
MEMA 
reviewed 
the 
proposals 
with 
the 
intention 
of 
making 
multiple 
awards 
that 
included 
options 
to 
order 
additional 
units 
without 
further 
competition. 


The 
ability 
of 
the 
awarded 
contracts 
to 
allow 
for 
additional 
orders 
streamlined 
the 
production 
of 
the 
units. 
This 
approach 
allowed 
MEMA 
project 
staff 
to 
allocate 
additional 
orders 
to 
high-
performing 
manufacturers 
based 
on 
the 
quality 
of 
units 
delivered 
and 
the 
manufacturer’s 
responsiveness. 
The 
manufacturers 
understood 
that 
they 
were 
demonstrating 
their 
qualifications 
and 
capacity 
for 
additional 
unit 
orders 
on 
an 
ongoing 
basis. 


Manufacturing 
MAHP 
units 
were 
produced 
in 
multiple 
manufacturing 
plants. 
Exhibit 
4-1 
shows 
the 
number 
of 
units 
produced 
by 
each 
manufacturer 
at 
each 
location. 
The 
proximity 
of 
unit 
production 
was 
an 
important 
strategy 
to 
help 
minimize 
the 
costs 
of 
producing 
and 
transporting 
the 
units 
to 
the 
Gulfport 
receiving 
yard. 


Chapter Four: Preliminary Results of the Building Sciences Evaluation 


In 
addition 
to 
IRC 
and 
DAPIA 
compliance 
reviews, 
the 
building 
sciences 
evaluation 
team 
visited 
the 
factories 
to 
gather 
production 
information, 
observe 
construction 
and 
install 
moisture 
sensors 
in 
the 
floors, 
walls 
and 
ceilings 
of 
selected 
units. 
These 
instruments 
allow 
moisture 
in 
the 
walls 
to 
be 
measured 
in 
a 
non-invasive 
manner. 
The 
building 
science 
evaluation 
effort 
also 
includes 
collection 
of 
cost 
and 
schedule 
information. 
The 
results 
from 
this 
collection 
effort 
will 
be 
included 
in 
future 
evaluation 
reports. 


Development of Accessible (UFAS) 
Units 

The 
Uniform 
Federal 
Accessibility 
Standards 
(UFAS) 
establish 
a 
common 
set 
of 
design 
standards 
to 
accommodate 
people 
with 
mobility 
impairments 
in 
federally 
funded 
projects. 
Since 
the 
MAHP 
is 
funded 
with 
federal 
grant 
dollars, 
UFAS 
standards 
required 
a 
portion 
of 
MAHP 
units 
to 
be 
UFAS-compliant. 
FEMA 
managed 
the 


review 
and 
approval 
of 
the 
UFAS 
compliant 
units. 
This 
was 
done 
through 
design 
review 
and 
on-site 
inspection. 
Because 
FEMA 
was 
not 
in 
a 
position 
to 
provide 
design 
guidance 
directly 
to 
the 
manufacturers, 
the 
review 
and 
approval 
process 
was 
iterative. 
As 
a 
result, 
the 
deployment 
of 
UFAS 
compliant 
units 
was 
slower 
than 
non-compliant 
units 
and 
involved 
greater 
costs 
on 
the 
part 
of 
the 
manufacturers. 


Site Development and Installation 

The 
building 
sciences 
evaluator 
reviewed 
MAHP 
installation 
and 
site 
preparation 
specifications 
and 
conducted 
site 
visits 
to 
observe 
and 
assess 
the 
installation 
of 
Park 
Models 
and 
Cottages. 
MEMA 
deployed 
the 
majority 
of 
the 
units 
on 
privately 
owned 
lots. 
A 
smaller 
portion 
of 
the 
units 
were 
installed 
in 
existing 
commercial 
trailer 
parks. 
At 
least 
initially, 
site 
development 
efforts 
on 
private 
land 
generally 
were 
modest, 
and 
temporary 
modifications 
were 
performed 
on 
the 
site. 
After 
deciding 
where 
the 
unit 
would 
be 


Exhibit 4-1: Number of units produced by each manufacturer and production site 
Manufacturer Production Site 
1 BR Park 
Model 2 BR 3 BR 
2 BR 
UFAS 
3 BR 
UFAS Total 
Forest River Wakarusa, IN 400 400 
Patriot Alabama 300 300 
Patriot Indiana 200 200 
Oak Creek Lancaster, TX 300 300 
Oak Creek Fort Worth, TX 200 200 
Cavalier Alabama 300 150 100 50 600 
Deer Valley Guin, AL 300 100 400 
Lexington Lexington, MS 400 400 
Total 1400 1000 250 100 50 2800 

A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 71 


installed, 
the 
location 
and 
design 
of 
the 
anchoring, 
utilities 
and 
access 
were 
determined. 
Units 
placed 
on 
individual 
lots 
replaced 
the 
FEMA 
travel 
trailers 
that 
were 
installed 
immediately 
following 
the 
storm. 


MAHP 
Cottages 
were 
connected 
temporarily 
to 
existing 
utilities. 
Water, 
electrical 
and 
communications 
service 
were 
easier 
to 
install 
than 
sewer 
service 
because 
slope 
was 
not 
an 
issue. 
MEMA 
subsequently 
also 
installed 
units 
in 
areas 
along 
the 
Gulf 
that 
were 
not 
serviced 
by 
public 
utilities 
or 
septic 
systems. 
In 
these 
cases, 
septic 
services 
had 
to 
be 
installed 
before 
the 
unit 
could 
be 
placed. 


MAHP 
units 
were 
installed 
temporarily 
with 
anchoring 
systems 
similar 
to 
those 
typically 
used 
for 
non-permanent 
installation 
of 
manufactured 
housing. 
This 
requires 
a 
determination 
that 
the 
soil 
can 
bear 
the 
weight 
of 
the 
unit, 
as 
well 
as 
resist 
pull-out 
of 
the 
anchors. 
If 
the 
soil 
beneath 
a 
unit 
is 
too 
soft 
(poor 
bearing 
capacity) 
and 
is 
not 
able 
to 
withstand 
the 
weight 
of 
the 
MAHP 
unit, 
the 
blocks 
under 
a 
unit 
might 
“sink” 
into 
the 
soil. 
Weak 
soils 
also 
may 
be 
unable 
to 
hold 
the 
screw 
anchors, 
so 
they 
might 
be 
pulled 
out 
of 
the 
ground 
slightly 
if 
the 
unit 
is 
subjected 
to 
high 
winds. 


To 
accomplish 
both 
bearing 
and 
hold-down, 
hold-down 
screw 
anchors 
are 
installed 
in 
the 
ground. 
The 
unit 
is 
then 
positioned 
on 
the 
site 
and 
jacked 
up 
so 
that 
the 
pier 
foundation 
blocks 
can 
be 
stacked. 
A 
series 
of 
concrete 
block 
columns 
is 
installed 
to 
provide 
the 
necessary 
elevation 
for 
the 
unit. 
Clips 
along 
the 
structure 
of 
the 
unit 
are 
connected 
and 
the 
unit 
is 
attached 
to 
the 
ground 
anchors 


with 
galvanized 
metal 
strapping. 
A 
ratcheting 
wheel 
is 
tightened, 
tensioning 
the 
metal 
strapping 
and 
firmly 
anchoring 
the 
unit 
to 
the 
ground. 


Unit 
plumbing 
is 
attached, 
and 
sewer 
piping 
is 
extended 
to 
an 
available 
sewer 
connection. 
Because 
the 
Cottages 
have 
been 
installed 
as 
a 
temporary 
housing, 
the 
waste 
lines 
are 
installed 
above 
the 
ground. 
While 
this 
has 
served 
to 
expedite 
the 
installation 
process, 
it 
does 
not 
present 
a 
visual 
sense 
of 
permanency. 


The 
temporary 
installation 
strategies 
selected 
for 
the 
MAHP 
units, 
may 
have 
contributed 
to 
the 
sense 
that 
these 
units 
were 
quite 
similar 
to 
the 
travel 
trailers 
and 
mobile 
homes 
that 
the 
Cottages 
replaced. 
The 
visibility 
of 
the 
wheels 
and 
piping 
suggested 
that 
the 
units 
were 
yet 
another 
round 
of 
temporary 
housing.a 
visible 
contradiction 
to 
the 
goal 
of 
advancing 
individual 
and 
community 
recovery. 


In 
addition, 
the 
accessible 
ramps 
examined 
by 
the 
building 
sciences 
evaluators 
were 
not 
impressively 
crafted. 
This 
rough 
construction 
generally 
was 
on 
the 
edge 
of 
compliance, 
with 
anecdotal 
reports 
of 
ramps 
on 
similar 
units 
(non-MAHP) 
being 
built 
and 
rebuilt 
until 
compliance 
was 
achieved. 
In 
the 
case 
of 
the 
MAHP 
units, 
while 
the 
ramps 
may 
have 
been 
serviceable, 
they 
were 
not 
particularly 
durable. 


Building 
sciences 
observations 
also 
included 
reports 
of 
the 
plywood 
panels 
for 
hurricane 
protection 
being 
discarded. 
Those 
actions 
might 
result 
in 
damage 
to 
the 
building 


Chapter Four: Preliminary Results of the Building Sciences Evaluation 


envelope 
as 
the 
panels 
were 
integral 
to 
the 
storm 
protection 
of 
the 
units. 


These 
observations 
suggest 
a 
need 
for 
a 
reconsideration 
of 
the 
systemic 
issues 
of 
the 
installation. 
Planning 
for 
the 
installation 
process 
may 
not 
have 
been 
as 
detailed 
as 
the 
planning 
for 
the 
construction 
and 
receipt 
phases. 
Installation 
problems 
likely 
did 
not 
impact 
the 
overall 
longevity 
of 
the 
units, 
as 
the 
unit 
design 
and 
construction 
resulted 
in 
units 
with 
significant 
structural 
strength 
and 
potential 
durability. 


Ventilation and Air Quality Testing 

In 
conjunction 
with 
the 
Federation 
of 
American 
Scientists, 
MEMA 
has 
implemented 
a 
mechanical 
ventilation 
system 
that 
includes 
an 
exhaust 
fan 
that 
is 
not 
controlled 
by 
the 
occupant. 
This 
is 
similar 
to 
HUD’s 
manufactured 
housing 
code 
which 
requires 
either 
a 
mechanical 
or 
passive 
system 
designed 
to 
provide 
outside 
air. 
In 
the 
Gulf 
Coast 
areas, 
outside 
air 
may 
bring 
excessive 
moisture 
into 
the 
home, 
particularly 
in 
the 
summer 
months. 
The 
choice 
of 
a 
ventilation 
system 
should 
consider 
the 
capacity 
of 
the 
heating, 
ventilation 
and 
air 
conditioning 
(HVAC) 
system 
to 
handle 
the 
thermal 
and 
moisture 
loads. 
There 
is 
a 
tension 
between 
ventilation 
and 
energy 
costs, 
as 
increasing 
ventilation 
in 
a 
unit 
will 
increase 
the 
energy 
demand 
of 
the 
unit. 


Twenty-two 
units 
were 
subjected 
to 
a 
blower 
door 
test 
by 
the 
building 
sciences 
evaluation 
team 
to 
assess 
how 
air 
sealed, 
or 
“tight,” 
the 
home 
is. 
During 
the 
series 
of 
tests 
on 
22 
separate 
units, 
the 
blower 
door 
results 
place 
the 
units 
solidly 
in 
the 
“moderate” 
tightness 


category. 
An 
extremely 
tight 
home 
would 
benefit 
from 
little 
energy 
loss, 
but 
could 
be 
prone 
to 
indoor 
air 
quality 
issues. 
Given 
the 
issues 
surrounding 
air 
quality 
in 
post-
disaster 
housing, 
providing 
additional 
ventilation 
is 
a 
reasonable 
approach. 


Indoor 
air 
quality 
(IAQ) 
testing, 
including 
testing 
for 
formaldehyde, 
has 
not 
yet 
been 
conducted. 
Testing 
was 
scheduled 
and 
then 
delayed. 
Formaldehyde 
has 
received 
a 
great 
deal 
of 
attention 
in 
the 
media 
and 
within 
FEMA. 
Some 
rudimentary 
testing 
of 
selected 
MEMA 
AHPP 
units 
was 
conducted 
by 
advocacy 
groups 
in 
Mississippi, 
and 
suggested 
elevated 
formaldehyde 
levels 
in 
the 
MAHP 
units. 
Although 
the 
tests 
reported 
by 
those 
groups 
suggested 
higher 
than 
“acceptable” 
levels 
of 
formaldehyde 
in 
the 
MAHP 
units, 
press 
coverage 
of 
the 
formaldehyde 
tests 
indicate 
consumer 
satisfaction 
with 
the 
units. 
Compared 
to 
a 
travel 
trailer, 
the 
increased 
window 
areas, 
multiple 
doors 
and 
capacity 
for 
natural 
ventilation 
of 
MAHP 
units 
provides 
fresh 
(outside) 
air 
that 
will 
result 
in 
improved 
indoor 
air 
quality. 


Durability 

While 
assessing 
the 
durability 
performance 
of 
MAHP 
units 
is 
premature 
at 
this 
juncture, 
preliminary 
evidence 
suggests 
that 
the 
units 
will 
perform 
well 
in 
both 
regards. 
Moisture 
is 
generally 
the 
root 
cause 
of 
durability 
problems 
in 
housing, 
and 
most 
durability 
assessments 
focus 
on 
that 
topic. 
The 
building 
sciences 
evaluation 
will 
include 
the 
examination 
of 
the 
moisture 
in 
walls 
and 
external 
examination 
of 
common 
durability 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 73 


issues. 
MEMA’s 
maintenance 
records 
will 
also 
provide 
detail 
regarding 
the 
performance 
of 
the 
units. 
This 
information 
will 
be 
assessed 
further 
along 
in 
the 
evaluation. 


While 
long-term 
performance 
information 
is 
not 
yet 
available, 
nature 
did 
test 
the 
MAHP 
Cottages 
on 
September 
1, 
2008, 
when 
Hurricane 
Gustav 
made 
landfall 
on 
the 
Louisiana 
Coast 
as 
a 
Category 
2 
storm. 
The 
following 
section 
reviews 
the 
performance 
of 
the 
units 
from 
a 
building 
sciences 
standpoint. 
The 
upcoming 
2009 
interim 
report 
will 
further 
detail 
MAHP’s 
emergency 
and 
organizational 
response 
to 
Gustav. 


Hurricane Gustav 
Following 
Hurricane 
Gustav, 
MAHP 
and 
its 
insurer 
conducted 
separate 
assessments 
of 
MAHP 
Cottages 
damaged 
by 
the 
storm. 
MAHP’s 
insurer 
ultimately 
decided 
that 
249 
units 
were 
destroyed 
and 
uninhabitable. 
All 
damage 
was 
related 
to 
flooding. 
Flood 
damage 
ranged 
from 
the 
wetting 
of 
the 
insulation 
under 
the 
units 
with 
no 
evidence 
of 
other 
damage, 
to 
the 
unit 
or 
the 
installation 
materials 
destroyed 
because 
wave 
action 
pushed 
the 
unit 
off 
its 
foundation 
piers. 
According 
to 
MEMA, 
the 
insurance 
company 
declared 
any 
unit 
that 
had 
wetting 
of 
the 
subfloor 
to 
be 
a 
total 
loss. 
This 
apparently 
was 
a 
preemptive 
assessment, 
based 
on 
the 
potential 
for 
mold 
growth 
below 
the 
carpet 
and 
tile. 


A 
HUD 
building 
sciences 
expert 
visited 
Mississippi 
after 
Gustav 
to 
assess 
the 
damage. 
An 
examination 
of 
the 
units 
that 


were 
displaced 
from 
their 
foundations 
revealed 
significant 
water 
damage, 
but 
no 
evidence 
of 
structural 
compromise. 
In 
units 
that 
experienced 
several 
feet 
of 
water 
inside, 
the 
ceilings 
were 
damaged 
by 
floating 
furniture 
and 
debris, 
but 
the 
crown 
moulding 
was 
intact 
and 
straight. 
Some 
units 
that 
experienced 
wave 
action 
lost 
siding 
on 
the 
windward 
side. 
The 
conclusion 
was 
that 
failure 
of 
MAHP 
units 
during 
Hurricane 
Gustav 
was 
due 
to 
location 
decisions 
and 
not 
unit 
design. 
In 
some 
cases, 
further 
elevating 
the 
units 
might 
have 
prevented 
water 
damage, 
but 
it 
would 
have 
masked 
the 
real 
issue, 
which 
was 
the 
MEMA 
and 
FEMA 
decision 
to 
allow 
a 
one-for-one 
replacement 
of 
FEMA 
travel 
trailers 
with 
Cottages 
in 
coastal 
and 
other 
areas 
prone 
to 
flooding. 


Preliminary Findings 

Mississippi’s decision to embrace factory built 
construction resulted in higher quality, lower 
cost units, which could be produced faster 
than stick-built housing, be re-used and have a 
reduced impact on the disaster-affected area. 

Generally, 
factory 
built 
homes 
are 
considered 
to 
be 
less 
expensive 
than 
site 
built 
housing 
and 
the 
finished 
construction 
is 
more 
consistent. 
In 
a 
factory 
production 
process, 
the 
availability 
of 
tooling, 
supervision 
and 
highly 
refined 
production 
processes 
can 
yield 
a 
very 
consistent 
product. 
While 
consistency 
and 
high 
quality 
are 
not 
necessarily 
linked, 
when 
combined 
with 
a 
strategy 
to 
produce 
high-quality 
units, 
factory-built 
housing 
can 
result 
in 
a 
first-rate 
product. 
The 
observations 
of 
the 
units 
produced 
by 
MAHP 
manufacturers 
suggest 
they 
are 
of 
high 


Chapter Four: Preliminary Results of the Building Sciences Evaluation 


quality 
and 
closely 
reflect 
the 
goals 
and 
vision 
of 
the 
designers 
and 
MEMA. 


Another 
benefit 
of 
factory-built 
construction 
is 
speed 
and 
minimal 
impact 
on 
the 
disaster-
affected 
community. 
Conventional 
site 
built 
construction 
frequently 
requires 
many 
months 
to 
complete. 
It 
is 
not 
unusual 
to 
see 
site 
built 
construction 
durations 
in 
excess 
of 
two 
months, 
compared 
to 
factory 
construction 
durations 
of 
about 
10 
days, 
followed 
by 
a 
short 
period 
of 
transport 
and 
installation. 
The 
use 
of 
factory-built 
homes 
with 
undercarriages 
for 
transport 
enabled 
MAHP 
to 
install 
units 
temporarily 
and 
remove, 
refurbish 
and 
redistribute 
a 
unit 
to 
another 
household 
in 
need 
or 
a 
permanent 
development. 
Stick-built 
homes 
do 
not 
have 
such 
flexible 
re-use 
possibilities. 


Multiple vendors producing similar units 
provided both a measure of competition as well 
as a reduction of risk for the overall program. 

The 
competition 
among 
manufacturers, 
combined 
with 
the 
incremental 
procurement 
process, 
allowed 
MEMA 
to 
produce 
a 
large 
number 
of 
units 
quickly 
and 
to 
control 
the 
pace 
of 
production 
according 
to 
need 
and 
capacity 
to 
install 
units. 
As 
the 
manufacturers 
developed 
greater 
experience 
with 
the 
production 
of 
the 
homes, 
they 
were 
able 
to 
benefit 
from 
that 
experience, 
which 
helped 
offset 
increases 
in 
costs. 
The 
contracts 
were 
awarded 
during 
a 
period 
when 
there 
was 
rapid 
escalation 
in 
construction 
material 
costs, 
and 
efficiencies 
in 
the 
production 
process 
contributed 
to 
the 
maintenance 
of 
unit 
quality 
and 
cost 
effectiveness. 


Establishment of a staging area, or transition 
site, in Gulfport provided an opportunity to 
increase the consistency of the units produced,
reduce costs and control the inventory of units. 

The 
transition 
site 
allowed 
MEMA 
to 
receive, 
document 
and 
inspect 
the 
units 
prior 
to 
installation. 
The 
site 
also 
provided 
a 
central 
location 
where 
construction 
issues 
with 
the 
units 
could 
be 
addressed 
by 
the 
manufacturer. 
This 
improved 
the 
timeliness 
of 
the 
repairs 
and 
also 
reduced 
the 
costs 
for 
both 
MEMA 
and 
the 
unit 
producer. 
Using 
a 
staging 
area 
was 
a 
departure 
from 
the 
typical 
way 
of 
producing 
manufactured 
housing 
for 
the 
market, 
in 
which 
the 
manufacturer 
builds 
a 
unit 
and 
ships 
it 
to 
a 
local 
or 
regional 
retailer. 
While 
these 
inspections 
may 
have 
been 
seen 
as 
increasing 
the 
cost 
to 
the 
manufacturers, 
providing 
a 
single 
location 
where 
the 
issues 
identified 
could 
be 
addressed 
made 
the 
process 
more 
efficient. 


MEMA 
implemented 
a 
successful 
strategy 
for 
incremental 
delivery 
of 
units 
to 
the 
transition 
site 
to 
avoid 
excessive 
inventory 
build 
up. 
By 
limiting 
the 
transition 
site 
to 
about 
300 
units, 
with 
additional 
completed 
units 
held 
at 
the 
manufacturer’s 
facility, 
MEMA 
was 
able 
to 
avoid 
attracting 
negative 
attention 
similar 
to 
that 
displayed 
following 
Hurricane 
Katrina, 
where 
media 
outlets 
showed 
FEMA 
holding 
areas 
with 
thousands 
of 
unused 
travel 
trailers 
and 
mobile 
homes. 


Temporary installations may have impeded 
acceptance of MAHP units as viable permanent 
housing solutions. 

Above-ground 
utilities, 
particularly 
sloping 
sewer 
lines, 
may 
have 
contributed 
to 
a 
lack 
of 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 75 


awareness 
about 
the 
capabilities 
of 
MAHP 
Cottages 
to 
be 
permanently 
installed. 
Any 
future 
disaster 
housing 
program 
producing 
units 
that 
can 
be 
used 
temporarily 
or 
permanently 
should 
develop 
a 
robust 
strategy 
to 
address 
this 
assumption. 


Observed installations suggested a need to 
revisit installation plans and procedures. 

Installation 
of 
the 
units 
seemed 
to 
lag 
behind 
the 
production 
pace 
because 
multiple 
arrangements 
had 
to 
be 
coordinated 
prior 
to 
installing 
a 
unit. 
While 
several 
factories 
were 
producing 
MAHP 
units, 
installation 
required 
time-consuming 
processes 
including 
screening 
and 
selection 
of 
the 
recipients, 
gaining 
local 
approvals 
and 
permits 
for 
the 
site, 
site 
preparations, 
and 
the 
actual 
installation 
of 
the 
unit. 
Given 
the 
complexity 
of 
the 
task, 
production, 
delivery 
and 
installation 
of 
the 
units 
appears 
to 
have 
been 
well 
managed. 
MAHP’s 
experience 
suggests 
disaster-housing 
programs 
need 
to 
realistically 
anticipate 
the 
pace 
of 
installation 
and 
coordinate 
production 
accordingly. 


Building 
sciences 
evaluators 
suggested 
that 
some 
unit 
installations 
were 
imprecise 
and 
did 
not 
follow 
installation 
procedures. 
However, 
these 
installations 
were 
not 
believed 
to 
impact 
the 
long-term 
durability 
of 
the 
units. 
The 
evaluators 
also 
found 
evidence 
of 
poor 
quality 
ramps 
installed 
for 
accessible 
units. 
This 
suggests 
that 
temporary 
installation 
procedures 
should 
be 
reviewed 
to 
the 
same 
degree 
as 
the 
design 
and 
production 
phases. 
Furthermore, 
this 
suggests 
an 
intensive 
quality 
control 
component 
is 
required 
for 
all 
phases 
of 
a 


disaster-housing 
program, 
from 
design 
to 
installation. 


Design reviews and initial testing indicate 
MAHP units balance the need for improved 
indoor air quality with energy efficiency. 

MAHP 
units 
are 
moderately 
air 
tight 
according 
to 
the 
blower 
door 
test. 
This 
allows 
for 
adequate 
ventilation 
and 
still 
maintains 
reasonable 
energy 
efficiency. 
The 
building 
sciences 
evaluators 
will 
conduct 
indoor 
air 
quality 
(IAQ) 
testing 
as 
part 
of 
the 
evaluation 
and 
provide 
results 
in 
a 
future 
report. 


Preliminary evidence suggests MAHP units will 
be durable and maintain structural integrityafter adverse weather events. 

MAHP 
Park 
Models 
and 
Cottages 
are 
constructed 
to 
meet 
or 
exceed 
IRC 
and 
HUD 
code. 
The 
units 
are 
strong 
and 
can 
resist 
up 
to 
150 
miles 
per 
hour 
wind 
speeds, 
have 
hip 
roof 
configurations 
constructed 
of 
metal 
roofing, 
and 
offer 
cement 
fiber 
siding. 
They 
maintained 
structural 
integrity 
during 
Hurricane 
Gustav 
with 
the 
only 
damage 
resulting 
from 
flooding. 
A 
design 
review 
anticipates 
minimal 
moisture 
and 
durability 
issues. 
A 
full 
durability 
assessment 
will 
be 
part 
of 
future 
evaluation 
reports. 


Chapter Four: Preliminary Results of the Building Sciences Evaluation 


ChapterFive:
ObservationsandLessonsLearnedChapterFive:
ObservationsandLessonsLearned
This 
case 
study 
captures 
MAHP 
operations 
as 
temporary 
housing 
activities 
are 
winding 
down 
and 
permanent 
housing 
and 
demobilization 
activities 
are 
beginning. 
Even 
at 
this 
early 
stage, 
it 
is 
possible 
to 
make 
preliminary 
observations 
and 
suggest 
lessons 
for 
future 
implementers 
of 
disaster 
housing 
programs. 
This 
chapter 
is 
organized 
around 
AHPP’s 
key 
evaluation 
research 
questions: 


. 
How 
viable 
and 
livable 
are 
the 
MAHP 
units 
and 
how 
did 
they 
affect 
quality 
of 
life 
for 
those 
who 
lived 
in 
them? 
. 
How 
did 
MAHP's 
approach 
to 
the 
project 
and 
organizational 
capacity 
affect 
implementation 
and 
participant 
outcomes? 
. 
How 
were 
units 
accepted 
by 
community 
stakeholders 
and 
to 
what 
extent 
did 
community 
response 
affect 
program 
implementation? 
How viable and livable are the MAHP units and how 
did they affect quality of life for those who lived in 
them? 

Both 
components 
of 
the 
AHPP 
evaluation 
are 
ongoing. 
The 
building 
sciences 
evaluation 
is 
still 
in 
progress 
and 
requires 
that 
at 
least 
some 
units 
complete 
the 
entire 
use 
cycle, 
from 
design 
to 
demobilization, 
before 
final 
conclusions 
can 
be 
reached 
on 
physical 
performance. 
Additional 
insights 
on 
the 
effect 
units 
have 
on 
quality 
of 
life 
for 
residents 
will 
come 
from 
the 
first 
participant 
survey, 
scheduled 
for 
fall 
2008, 
and 
a 
second 
follow-
up 
survey 
in 
summer 
2010. 
In 
the 
interim, 
it 
is 
possible 
to 
identify 
some 
lessons 
about 
the 
process 
of 
designing, 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 


manufacturing 
and 
installing 
units, 
as 
well 
as 
to 
report 
on 
stakeholder 
perceptions 
of 
quality 
of 
life 
issues. 


Technical and quality requirements 
should be established in advance 
Many 
of 
the 
technical 
adjustments 
that 
MAHP 
had 
to 
make 
in 
unit 
design 
and 
installation 
were 
an 
inevitable 
part 
of 
new 
product 
development. 
Although 
the 
chosen 
manufacturers 
had 
experience 
with 
mobile 
homes 
or 
modular 
housing, 
each 
had 
to 
establish 
a 
new 
production 
line, 
adjust 
manufacturing 
tasks 
and 
materials 
and 
develop 
new 
quality 
management 
protocols. 
Installers 
were 
also 
required 
to 
respond 
to 
installation 
requirements 
that 
were 
more 
stringent 
than 
those 
typical 
of 
mobile 
home 
installations. 
Finally, 
MAHP's 
expectations 
in 
terms 
of 
workmanship 
and 
aesthetics 
appeared 
to 
exceed 
the 
norm. 


Presumably 
all 
of 
these 
challenges 
could 
be 
mitigated 
in 
the 
future 
by 
having 
standard 
designs 
and 
specifications, 
as 
well 
as 
standing 
agreements 
with 
manufacturers 
prior 
to 
a 
disaster. 
Although 
a 
nationwide 
standard 
might 
be 
possible 
for 
the 
units, 
some 
adjustments 
in 
installation 
specifications 
would 
likely 
be 
needed 
to 
accommodate 
local 
topographic 
and 
soil 
conditions. 


Consider options for meeting special 
needs 
The 
MAHP 
units 
resulted 
in 
important 
improvements 
to 
the 
quality 
of 
life 
of 
individuals 
with 
mobility 
impairments. 
To 
reduce 
complexity 
and 
at 
the 
same 
time 
be 


responsive 
to 
households 
with 
special 
needs, 
one 
MAHP 
staff 
member 
suggested 
that 
the 
interiors 
of 
all 
units 
be 
made 
compliant 
with 
UFAS, 
but 
that 
ramps 
be 
installed 
only 
for 
those 
occupants 
that 
actually 
need 
them. 
This 
could 
reduce 
some 
of 
the 
complications 
of 
unit 
assignment 
and 
might 
prevent 
some 
of 
the 
special 
needs 
requests 
that 
MAHP 
received 
which 
were 
actually 
attempts 
to 
obtain 
larger 
units. 
However, 
it 
could 
also 
make 
the 
units 
more 
expensive. 


Another 
staff 
member 
suggested 
that 
only 
a 
small 
portion 
of 
units 
should 
be 
built 
fully 
UFAS 
compliant 
and 
that 
the 
remainder 
of 
Cottages 
could 
be 
made 
“accessible-lite,” 
by 
installing 
bathroom 
grab 
bars 
and 
making 
other 
minor 
adjustments 
that 
would 
be 
valued 
by 
elderly 
households 
and 
those 
with 
minor 
mobility 
impairments. 


MAHP’s 
experience 
suggests 
that 
similar 
disaster 
housing 
programs 
must 
carefully 
consider 
the 
best 
approach 
for 
meeting 
residents’ 
accessibility 
needs. 
Whether 
it 
be 
maximizing 
universal 
design 
concepts, 
manufacturing 
adaptable 
units 
or 
developing 
a 
percentage 
of 
fully 
accessible 
units, 
program 
implementers 
will 
have 
to 
balance 
the 
needs 
of 
residents 
with 
the 
potential 
cost 
and 
schedule 
implications 
that 
result 
from 
these 
approaches 
and 
design 
types. 


The 
confusion 
and 
frustration 
that 
MAHP 
encountered 
related 
to 
UFAS 
could 
be 
remedied 
by 
establishing 
clear 
and 
consistent 
UFAS 
requirements 
for 
units 
that 
are 
designed 
to 
meet 
longer-term 
temporary 
needs. 
Implementing 
organizations 
must 
receive 
very 
clear, 
timely 
guidance 
from 
federal 
and 


Chapter Five: Observations and Lessons Learned 


state 
officials 
during 
the 
design 
stage, 
before 
construction 
begins. 


Analyze and address "right-sizing" 
Careful 
thought 
needs 
to 
be 
given 
to 
how 
unit 
types 
and 
sizes 
are 
assigned. 
MAHP's 
initial 
disaster-oriented 
right-sizing 
policy 
is 
not 
suitable 
for 
a 
recovery 
period 
of 
one 
or 
more 
years. 
Immediately 
after 
a 
disaster 
the 
need 
for 
shelter 
makes 
the 
smaller 
units 
that 
are 
easier 
to 
transport 
and 
install 
more 
acceptable. 
For 
longer-term 
temporary 
housing, 
two-and 
three-bedroom 
units 
are 
likely 
to 
be 
a 
better 
match 
for 
families 
of 
three 
people 
or 
more, 
even 
though 
these 
units 
are 
more 
difficult 
to 
transport 
and 
install. 


A 
policy 
that 
ties 
the 
type 
and 
size 
of 
a 
unit 
assigned 
to 
the 
length 
of 
time 
a 
household 
is 
expected 
to 
occupy 
the 
unit 
makes 
sense. 
However, 
estimating 
recovery 
timeframes 
early 
on 
would 
be 
challenging 
and 
making 
decisions 
based 
upon 
early 
data 
could 
lead 
to 
misunderstandings 
and 
claims 
of 
favoritism. 


It 
is 
also 
important 
to 
note 
that 
not 
all 
small, 
one-bedroom 
units 
are 
the 
same. 
Even 
though 
the 
Park 
Model 
was 
developed 
as 
a 
direct 
replacement 
for 
a 
travel 
trailer, 
the 
quality 
of 
life 
for 
residents 
of 
trailers 
and 
Park 
Models 
was 
quite 
different. 
Anecdotal 
evidence 
from 
MAHP 
staff 
and 
participants 
indicates 
a 
significant 
improvement 
in 
quality 
of 
life 
upon 
the 
move 
from 
a 
trailer 
to 
a 
Park 
Model. 
Participants 
appreciated 
the 
larger 
unit 
and 
full-size 
kitchen 
and 
bathroom, 
as 
well 
as 
the 
higher 
ceilings 
and 
additional 
storage. 
The 
participant 
survey 
in 
fall 
2008 
will 
ask 


questions 
that 
compare 
participant 
experiences 
with 
both 
units. 


Housing providers should carefully 
consider how many different types of 
units are optimal 
As 
part 
of 
its 
program 
approach, 
MAHP 
chose 
to 
test 
a 
variety 
of 
unit 
designs 
and 
sizes 
and 
to 
purchase 
units 
from 
a 
variety 
of 
manufacturers. 
Although 
this 
was 
a 
worthy 
strategy 
for 
a 
pilot, 
it 
made 
implementation 
more 
complex. 
Several 
MAHP 
staff 
suggested 
that 
having 
as 
little 
variation 
in 
unit 
type 
as 
possible 
would 
facilitate 
program 
implementation. 
Finding 
the 
right 
balance 
between 
variety 
and 
complexity 
is 
an 
important 
challenge. 
For 
example: 


. 
The 
fact 
that 
MAHP 
units 
came 
in 
various 
colors 
was 
considered 
a 
plus 
by 
many 
stakeholders. 
The 
colors 
helped 
the 
units 
fit 
in 
better 
with 
the 
local 
architecture 
and 
helped 
to 
avoid 
an 
institutional 
look. 
But 
the 
color 
variations 
led 
inevitably 
to 
requests 
for 
specific 
colors. 
. 
Having 
three 
different 
models 
(Park, 
Cottage, 
Eco-Cottage), 
three 
bedroom 
sizes 
and 
UFAS 
compliant 
and 
non-
UFAS 
compliant 
units 
made 
tracking 
and 
assigning 
units 
more 
complex 
than 
if 
there 
were 
fewer 
options. 
However, 
having 
these 
options 
permitted 
MAHP 
to 
better 
meet 
participants’ 
needs 
and 
the 
pilot 
program’s 
goals. 
Certain 
options 
or 
amenities 
may 
be 
valued 
differently 
in 
other 
locations 
and 
at 
different 
stages 
of 
a 
disaster 
response, 
but 
the 
need 
to 
strike 
a 
balance 
applies 
in 
all 
cases. 
It 
also 
appears 
that 
planning 
entities 
should, 
to 
the 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 


extent 
practicable, 
understand 
the 
anticipated 
needs 
of 
the 
population 
by 
using 
experiences 
during 
past 
disasters 
and 
data 
on 
the 
demographic 
characteristics 
of 
households 
that 
live 
in 
areas 
at 
particular 
risk, 
such 
as 
the 
Gulf 
Coast. 
This 
preparation 
could 
help 
inform 
preliminary 
decisions 
about 
bedroom 
sizes 
and 
accessible 
units. 


Unit designs should consider both 
temporary and long-term uses 
Assuming 
that 
some 
long-term 
temporary 
units 
may 
become 
permanent, 
implementers 
should 
consider 
carefully 
how 
the 
unit 
compares 
to 
the 
standards 
the 
community 
will 
return 
to 
once 
the 
emergency 
period 
ends. 
Square 
footage 
requirements 
in 
local 
codes 
became 
a 
stumbling 
block 
for 
MAHP 
in 
transitioning 
units 
from 
temporary 
to 
permanent 
housing. 
Manufacturing 
larger 
units 
would 
undoubtedly 
create 
its 
own 
issues, 
including 
making 
them 
less 
feasible 
for 
temporary 
housing 
(i.e. 
transporting 
the 
units 
and 
installing 
them 
on 
lots 
with 
minimal 
space 
due 
to 
debris). 
However, 
designing 
temporary 
housing 
units 
to 
which 
additional 
rooms 
can 
be 
added 
easily, 
as 
MAHP 
partners 
are 
doing, 
or 
units 
that 
are 
easily 
combined 
seem 
to 
be 
promising 
approaches. 


It 
is 
not 
clear 
how 
quickly 
an 
assessment 
can 
be 
made 
of 
the 
length 
of 
time 
temporary 
housing 
will 
be 
needed 
and 
whether 
some 
form 
of 
modular 
housing 
will 
be 
needed 
to 
support 
long-term 
recovery 
of 
the 
housing 
stock. 
Both 
MAHP 
staff 
and 
local 
officials 
suggested 
that 
travel 
trailers 
or 
Park 
Model 
units 
could 
be 
used 
for 
an 
immediate 
response 
during 
which 
longer-term 
recovery 


needs 
are 
assessed. 
The 
smaller 
units 
could 
then 
be 
replaced 
with 
Cottages 
if 
it 
appears 
temporary 
occupancy 
will 
be 
for 
an 
extended 
period 
or 
if 
the 
units 
are 
expected 
to 
support 
permanent 
recovery 
efforts. 
Repeating 
unit 
installation 
for 
a 
single 
family 
is 
not 
optimal, 
but 
may 
be 
preferable 
to 
providing 
enhanced 
units 
for 
short-term 
needs. 
In 
large 
disasters, 
it 
may 
be 
possible 
to 
make 
some 
decisions 
about 
unit 
needs 
quickly 
enough 
to 
avoid 
the 
duplication. 
For 
example, 
when 
housing 
and 
neighborhoods 
are 
completely 
devastated 
by 
storm 
surge 
similar 
to 
Katrina, 
it 
is 
reasonable 
to 
assume 
that 
recovery 
will 
take 
more 
time 
and 
that 
larger 
units 
may 
be 
more 
appropriate. 


Residents need training on unit 
features and amenities 
Both 
maintenance 
personnel 
and 
housing 
advisors 
recommended 
better 
education 
for 
occupants 
about 
the 
workings 
of 
the 
units 
and 
appliances 
during 
the 
move-in 
process. 
For 
example, 
some 
applicants 
had 
not 
previously 
owned 
microwave 
ovens 
and 
others 
had 
never 
operated 
a 
fire 
extinguisher. 
MAHP 
staff 
and 
participants 
reported 
that 
confusion 
about 
how 
to 
correctly 
operate 
the 
air 
conditioning 
system 
was 
a 
significant 
issue. 
Housing 
advisors 
were 
trained 
to 
assist 
the 
residents 
in 
some 
areas. 
However, 
in 
retrospect, 
MAHP's 
maintenance 
coordinator 
believes 
more 
training 
for 
residents 
could 
have 
reduced 
the 
maintenance 
workload. 
Additional 
training 
might 
also 
have 
eased 
stress 
for 
the 
residents. 


Chapter Five: Observations and Lessons Learned 


How did the grantee's approach 
and capacity affect implementationand outcomes? 

A combination of disaster response 
and recovery expertise is needed 
Mississippi’s 
experience 
suggests 
that 
the 
type 
of 
agency 
selected 
to 
administer 
a 
temporaryto-
permanent 
housing 
effort 
is 
an 
important 
consideration 
and 
that 
one 
agency 
may 
not 
be 
able 
to 
cover 
all 
the 
bases. 
MEMA’s 
thorough 
understanding 
of 
the 
temporary 
housing 
objective 
and 
the 
initial 
focus 
on 
simulating 
disaster 
conditions 
helped 
drive 
the 
organization’s 
performance 
and 
enabled 
MAHP 
to 
field 
over 
2,800 
units 
quickly 
and 
effectively. 


Despite 
the 
clear 
success 
of 
the 
program, 
MEMA 
Director 
Mike 
Womack 
acknowledged 
that 
“housing” 
and 
particularly 
permanent 
housing 
is 
not 
MEMA’s 
area 
of 
expertise 
and 
speculated 
that 
a 
State 
emergency 
management 
agency 
might 
not 
always 
be 
the 
best 
organization 
to 
manage 
the 
temporary-topermanent 
component 
of 
recovery 
operations. 


MEMA 
has 
in-depth 
emergency 
housing 
expertise 
and 
PBS&J 
brought 
project 
management 
and 
engineering 
skills 
to 
the 
table. 
As 
MAHP 
transitioned 
into 
the 
permanent 
housing 
phase, 
a 
different 
set 
of 
experience 
and 
skills 
were 
needed. 
Planning 
for 
permanent 
placement 
was 
peripheral 
until 
early 
2008. 
MAHP 
staff 
indicated, 
in 
hindsight, 
that 
intensive 
planning 
about 
permanent 
housing 
issues 
should 
have 
begun 
at 
program 
start-up. 
Because 
it 
had 
less 
experience 
in 
housing 
and 
community 
development, 
MEMA 
may 
not 
have 
fully 


understood 
the 
lead 
time 
that 
the 
permanent 
housing 
process 
would 
require. 


Similarly, 
an 
organization 
more 
experienced 
in 
housing 
programs 
might 
have 
been 
able 
to 
streamline 
some 
procedures. 
For 
example, 
the 
separate 
agreements 
MAHP 
used 
to 
establish 
the 
property 
owner’s 
right 
to 
enter, 
occupant 
maintenance 
responsibilities 
and 
pet 
policies 
are 
typically 
included 
in 
residential 
leases. 


Some 
of 
the 
opportunities 
for 
permanent 
use 
of 
the 
Cottages 
as 
affordable 
housing 
may 
take 
longer 
to 
accomplish 
than 
the 
MAHP 
March 
2009 
schedule 
will 
allow. 
It 
appears 
that 
partnerships 
between 
state 
emergency 
management 
agencies 
and 
state 
or 
local 
housing 
and 
community 
development 
organizations 
could 
be 
an 
effective 
way 
of 
handling 
the 
rapid 
initial 
deployment 
of 
housing 
units 
and 
ensuring 
the 
best 
long-term 
uses 
of 
units. 
In 
future 
programs, 
the 
implementation 
team 
should 
consider 
adding 
a 
partner 
able 
to 
administer 
a 
longer-term 
disposition 
approach. 


The Incident Command System 
provides an effective framework for 
organizing complex endeavors 
A 
commitment 
to 
the 
formal 
Incident 
Command 
System 
structure 
made 
roles, 
lines 
of 
authority 
and 
the 
decision-making 
process 
clear. 
The 
ICS 
approach 
enabled 
the 
organization 
to 
continue 
functioning 
well 
in 
spite 
of 
significant 
leadership 
and 
organizational 
changes 
in 
2008. 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 


Having information systems to 
support decision-making is important 
Future programs should incorporate a 
human services strategy 
Having information systems to 
support decision-making is important 
Future programs should incorporate a 
human services strategy 
A 
strong 
management 
structure, 
combined 
with 
an 
information 
management 
system 
that 
provided 
the 
data 
needed 
to 
hold 
staff 
accountable 
enabled 
MAHP 
leadership 
to 
manage 
daily 
operations 
effectively 
during 
the 
temporary 
housing 
phase. 
Detailed 
daily 
reports 
that 
could 
be 
generated 
by 
county 
and 
by 
the 
staff 
person 
responsible 
enabled 
MAHP 
to 
identify 
the 
specific 
status 
of 
each 
case 
and 
identify 
production 
bottlenecks. 


However, 
MAHP 
also 
did 
not 
fully 
understand 
the 
types 
of 
information 
that 
would 
be 
needed 
to 
develop 
feasible 
disposition 
approaches. 
Additional 
data 
collection 
was 
ultimately 
necessary 
to 
understand 
how 
disposition 
could 
best 
serve 
occupants 
and 
preserve 
the 
units 
as 
affordable 
housing. 


Using contractor resources effectively 
aids organizational flexibility 
Through 
the 
use 
of 
contractors 
and 
temporary 
employees, 
the 
MAHP 
organization 
remained 
flexible 
enough 
to 
change 
along 
with 
program 
needs. 
For 
example, 
during 
the 
transition 
to 
permanency, 
PBS&J 
has 
been 
able 
to 
move 
some 
staff 
to 
other 
projects 
until 
the 
need 
for 
operations 
field 
staff 
peaks 
again 
during 
demobilization. 
Similarly, 
after 
most 
units 
had 
been 
occupied, 
the 
housing 
advisors 
continued 
to 
be 
the 
primary 
link 
with 
participants 
but 
changed 
their 
focus 
from 
site 
approvals 
to 
working 
with 
families 
to 
develop 
permanent 
housing 
plans 
and 
linking 
clients 
with 
needed 
community 
services. 


Although 
MAHP 
focused 
primarily 
on 
the 
engineering, 
manufacturing 
and 
installation 
challenges 
of 
developing 
a 
better 
disaster 
housing 
unit, 
attention 
was 
also 
given 
to 
providing 
services 
for 
program 
applicants. 
At 
the 
program 
start, 
management 
recognized 
the 
need 
for 
a 
staff 
person 
to 
help 
the 
applicant 
through 
the 
cumbersome 
process 
of 
receiving 
a 
unit. 
As 
the 
program 
progressed, 
this 
role 
shifted 
from 
providing 
logistical 
help 
to 
connecting 
families 
with 
long-term 
supportive 
services. 


MAHP 
management 
and 
staff 
reported 
that 
they 
were 
somewhat 
unprepared 
to 
provide 
services 
to 
households 
with 
multiple 
problems 
or 
intensive 
needs. 
Although 
some 
housing 
advisors 
had 
social 
work 
backgrounds, 
not 
everyone 
was 
trained 
to 
provide 
case 
management 
or 
handle 
the 
mental 
health 
issues 
that 
were 
more 
severe 
after 
Katrina. 
In 
addition, 
one 
MAHP 
manager 
does 
not 
think 
the 
program 
provided 
support 
to 
participants 
in 
a 
way 
that 
fostered 
self-sufficiency. 
Part 
of 
the 
housing 
advisor’s 
role 
was 
to 
complete 
tasks 
on 
behalf 
of 
the 
participant 
(e.g. 
securing 
permits, 
filling 
out 
Housing 
Choice 
Voucher 
applications 
and 
delivering 
them 
to 
the 
housing 
authority), 
and 
this 
may 
not 
help 
participants 
develop 
their 
own 
coping 
skills. 


In 
retrospect, 
several 
MAHP 
staff 
said 
housing 
advisors 
should 
have 
received 
more 
training 
to 
standardize 
how 
the 
role 
was 
operationalized 
in 
each 
county, 
but 
also 
in 
how 
they 
approached 
working 
relationships 
with 
participants. 
In 
addition, 
a 
community 


Chapter Five: Observations and Lessons Learned 


liaison 
familiar 
with 
the 
region’s 
social 
services 
systems 
would 
have 
been 
useful 
to 
build 
relationships 
with 
partners 
and 
inform 
housing 
advisors 
of 
referral 
resources 
in 
a 
uniform 
manner. 
In 
spite 
of 
being 
thrust 
unexpectedly 
into 
the 
role 
of 
a 
social 
worker, 
many 
housing 
advisors 
appear 
to 
have 
thrived 
in 
their 
work 
with 
participants. 


MAHP’s 
experience 
suggests 
future 
implementing 
agencies 
should 
be 
prepared 
to 
serve 
clients 
with 
multiple 
problems 
and 
a 
human 
services 
strategy 
should 
be 
part 
of 
a 
similar 
temporary-to-permanent 
housing 
programs. 
The 
strategy 
should 
outline 
how 
the 
organization 
will 
access 
experienced 
staff 
and 
the 
approach 
to 
assessing 
participants’ 
needs 
and 
providing 
ongoing 
support. 
Not 
all 
program 
participants 
will 
require 
services, 
but 
it 
is 
likely 
that 
many 
households 
will 
require 
extra 
support 
and 
guidance 
in 
getting 
back 
on 
their 
feet. 


State support played an important role 
in implementation effectiveness 
The 
involvement 
of 
the 
Governor 
and 
support 
from 
other 
State 
agencies 
contributed 
to 
the 
program's 
success. 
Because 
MAHP 
had 
the 
attention 
and 
support 
of 
the 
State 
at 
the 
highest 
levels, 
required 
organizational 
resources 
were 
available 
at 
critical 
moments. 
For 
example, 
when 
MAHP's 
call 
center 
was 
overwhelmed, 
MEMA 
staff 
were 
assigned 
to 
assist. 
The 
attention 
of 
MEMA’s 
Director 
and 
the 
Governor’s 
staff 
were 
also 
instrumental 
in 
working 
with 
the 
local 
jurisdictions 
and 
public 
education 
efforts. 


How did community stakeholders 
react to MAHP and to what extent 
did community response affect 
program implementation? 

Barriers to using modular housing are 
psychological as well as technical 
Even 
though 
MAHP 
emphasized 
that 
the 
Cottages 
met 
IRC 
requirements 
and 
qualified 
as 
modular 
housing, 
leaders 
in 
some 
of 
the 
local 
jurisdictions 
could 
not 
get 
past 
“the 
wheels”.that 
is 
the 
undercarriage 
used 
to 
transport 
the 
units. 
One 
county 
supervisor 
admitted 
that 
if 
the 
same 
units 
had 
come 
into 
the 
community 
in 
two 
pieces 
on 
a 
flatbed 
truck, 
they 
would 
have 
been 
accepted 
as 
modular 
(permanent) 
units 
without 
question. 
This 
does 
not 
necessarily 
mean 
that 
temporary-to-permanent 
units 
cannot 
be 
transported 
using 
an 
undercarriage, 
but 
it 
does 
suggest 
a 
psychological 
barrier 
that 
may 
have 
to 
be 
overcome 
in 
many 
communities 
as 
part 
of 
pre-disaster 
planning 
or 
through 
an 
aggressive 
educational 
process 
at 
the 
time 
of 
the 
disaster. 
More 
light 
may 
be 
shed 
on 
this 
topic 
as 
other 
AHPP 
sites 
that 
proposed 
more 
traditional 
modular 
units 
bring 
those 
units 
on 
line. 
One 
key 
step 
is 
repeatedly 
exposing 
the 
community 
to 
the 
unit 
and 
inviting 
officials 
and 
the 
public 
to 
tour 
the 
units. 
Ideally, 
a 
unit 
should 
regularly 
be 
made 
available 
for 
public 
view, 
especially 
at 
every 
emergency 
preparedness 
public 
event. 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 


A more comprehensive 
communications strategy could have 
been helpful 
A more comprehensive 
communications strategy could have 
been helpful 
Several 
MAHP 
leaders 
stated 
that 
despite 
the 
significant 
outreach 
and 
the 
extended 
MOU 
negotiations 
that 
were 
conducted, 
more 
communication 
with 
the 
community 
(individual 
residents 
and 
local 
officials) 
would 
have 
been 
helpful. 
Starting 
permanent 
housing 
discussions 
much 
sooner 
would 
have 
benefited 
the 
permanent 
housing 
phase 
of 
the 
program. 
However, 
MAHP 
was 
faced 
with 
a 
dilemma: 
to 
communicate 
and 
educate 
more 
broadly 
about 
permanent 
housing 
opportunities 
might 
have 
jeopardized 
the 
temporary 
housing 
mission 
and 
even 
prevented 
the 
program 
from 
installing 
some 
of 
the 
units 
at 
all. 
This 
suggests 
that 
in 
future 
disasters 
a 
more 
formal 
and 
comprehensive 
communications 
strategy 
would 
be 
helpful 
in 
addition 
to 
as 
much 
pre-disaster 
planning 
with 
local 
jurisdictions 
as 
is 
possible. 
In 
addition, 
a 
MAHP 
staff 
person 
and 
local 
government 
representative 
both 
suggested 
that 
the 
implementing 
agency 
bring 
a 
jurisdiction’s 
local 
elected 
officials 
and 
program 
offices 
together 
in 
one 
meeting 
to 
explain 
the 
program, 
answer 
questions, 
plan 
for 
possible 
temporary 
or 
permanent 
developments 
and 
offer 
suggestions 
for 
leveraging 
other 
resources. 


As 
more 
nonprofit 
and 
for-profit 
entities 
began 
to 
focus 
on 
using 
the 
Cottages 
for 
permanent 
housing, 
some 
complaints 
were 
heard 
about 
organizations 
that 
seemed 
to 
have 
a 
“head 
start” 
in 
terms 
of 
either 
allocation 
of 
units 
or 
receiving 
funding 
for 
installation 
and 
infrastructure. 
In 
truth, 
it 


appears 
that 
these 
organizations—Habitat, 
MRHA 
and 
Renaissance 
Corporation—took 
the 
initiative 
to 
seek 
out 
MAHP 
resources 
early 
on 
and 
to 
develop 
partnerships 
with 
the 
program 
or 
the 
Governor’s 
Office 
at 
a 
time 
when 
little 
interest 
was 
being 
expressed 
by 
others. 
It 
is 
not 
clear 
that 
this 
issue 
will 
affect 
MAHP’s 
performance 
or 
outcomes, 
and 
MAHP 
ultimately 
established 
a 
more 
transparent 
Letter 
of 
Interest 
process 
for 
potential 
partners. 
Future 
implementers 
should 
establish 
an 
open 
and 
formalized 
partnering 
process 
early 
in 
the 
program. 


Pre-disaster planning for long-term 
temporary housing is needed 
MAHP 
and 
community 
leaders 
suggested 
that 
pre-disaster 
planning 
activities 
should 
include 
a 
consideration 
of 
strategies 
for 
addressing 
both 
short-term 
and 
long-term 
temporary 
housing 
needs 
and 
the 
use 
of 
modular 
units 
that 
could 
transition 
to 
permanent 
housing. 
Advance 
discussions 
and 
pre-disaster 
agreements 
between 
State 
and 
local 
entities 
could 
alleviate 
local 
governments’ 
concerns 
about 
losing 
control 
of 
the 
recovery 
process 
and 
expedite 
appropriate 
assistance 
to 
households 
in 
need. 
Such 
discussions 
would 
also 
allow 
communities 
to 
review 
and 
agree 
on 
the 
design 
and 
type 
of 
unit 
used. 


Mississippi’s 
experience 
confirms 
that 
providing 
long-term 
temporary 
housing 
for 
renters 
in 
a 
major 
disaster 
is 
a 
special 
challenge. 
While 
homeowners 
can 
make 
their 
home 
sites 
available 
for 
placement 
of 
the 
temporary 
housing, 
renters 
do 
not 
have 
this 
ability. 
The 
requirement 
to 
pay 
rent 
for 
the 


Chapter Five: Observations and Lessons Learned 


trailer 
lot 
may 
also 
have 
been 
a 
deterrent 
to 
program 
participation 
for 
some 
renters. 
Resolving 
concerns 
about 
the 
design 
and 
use 
of 
group 
sites 
during 
the 
pre-disaster 
planning 
process 
could 
help 
to 
address 
this 
need. 


Cottages could represent a valuable 
housing resource and outcomes of 
future uses should be monitored 
MAHP 
has 
produced 
high-quality 
units 
that 
exceed 
both 
the 
standards 
set 
by 
HUD 
for 
manufactured 
housing 
and 
the 
requirements 
of 
the 
International 
Residential 
Code. 
Local 
building 
officials 
acknowledged 
the 
quality 
of 
the 
units 
and 
speculated 
that 
the 
two-and 
three-bedroom 
models 
could 
have 
a 
useful 
life 
of 
as 
long 
as 
30 
years. 


It 
is 
too 
early 
to 
know 
how 
many 
of 
the 
Cottages 
will 
be 
sold 
to 
individuals 
or 
donated 
to 
organizations 
to 
develop 
multiunit 
housing 
opportunities. 
MEMA's 
current 
intention 
is 
to 
use 
normal 
excess 
property 
procedures 
to 
dispose 
of 
any 
units 
that 
are 
not 
purchased 
or 
donated. 
This 
approach 
is 
consistent 
with 
MEMA's 
plan 
to 
close-down 
the 
program 
in 
a 
timely 
manner 
and 
also 
reflects 
the 
agency's 
lack 
of 
interest 
in 
managing 
a 
housing 
program 
which 
diverges 
from 
their 
core 
mission. 


It 
will 
be 
important 
to 
follow 
this 
issue 
as 
MAHP 
winds 
down 
its 
pilot 
program. 
If 
estimates 
of 
the 
life 
cycle 
for 
the 
Cottages 
are 
correct 
(15 
years 
for 
the 
Park 
Model; 
30 
years 
for 
the 
Cottages), 
they 
are 
a 
valuable 
housing 
resource. 
Because 
the 
MAHP 
units 
are 
transportable, 
the 
opportunity 
for 
using 
them 
for 
a 
future 
disaster 
relief 
effort 
or 
for 
affordable 
housing 
outside 
the 
immediate 
disaster 
area 
also 
could 
be 
considered. 


Even 
though 
a 
formal 
participant 
survey 
has 
not 
been 
completed, 
it 
seems 
apparent 
that 
the 
MAHP 
units 
provide 
residents 
with 
important 
features 
that 
positively 
affect 
quality 
of 
life 
and 
that 
the 
units 
could 
serve 
as 
an 
important 
bridge 
from 
temporary 
to 
permanent 
housing. 
Pre-disaster 
planning 
and 
coordination 
among 
State 
and 
local 
jurisdictions 
could 
address 
major 
implementation 
challenges. 
Furthermore, 
partnering 
emergency 
response 
agencies 
with 
existing 
planning 
and 
housing 
organizations 
could 
ensure 
the 
most 
effective 
long-term 
uses 
of 
these 
valuable 
housing 
resources. 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 


 
EndnotesEndnotes
1 
Governor’s 
Office 
of 
Recovery 
and 
Renewal. 
Two 
Years 
After 
Katrina: 
Progress 
Report 
on 
Recovery, 
Rebuilding, 
and 
Renewal. 
August 
2007. 
http://www.governorbarbour.com/recovery/documents/TwoYearreport.pdf. 


2 
Mississippi 
Governor’s 
Office 
of 
Recovery 
and 
Renewal. 
Mississippi 
Recovery 
Fact 
Sheet. 
June 
2008. 
http://www.governorbarbour.com/recovery/documents/RFSJune08.pdf. 


3 
The 
John 
C. 
Stennis 
Institute 
for 
Government. 
Katrina’s 
Impact 
on 
Sales 
Tax 
Diversions 
– 
Mississippi 
Gulf 
Coast 
Municipalities. 
July 
2006. 
http://www.sig.msstate.edu/files/Katrinataxes.pdf 


4 
McCarthy, 
Kevin 
F. 
and 
Hanson, 
Mark. 
Post 
Katrina 
Recovery 
of 
the 
Housing 
Market 
Along 
the 
Mississippi 
Gulf 
Coast. 
RAND 
Gulf 
State 
Policy 
Institute: 
2008. 
http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/2007/RAND_TR511.pdf. 


5 
Ibid. 


6 
Ibid. 


7 
Ibid. 


8 
See 
the 
FEMA 
Incident 
Command 
Resource 
Center 
for 
more 
information: 
http://www.training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/ICSResource/index.htm. 


9 
Mississippi 
Emergency 
Management 
Agency 
and 
PBS&J. 
Mississippi 
Alternative 
Housing 
Program 
Performance 
Management 
Plan. 
October 
15, 
2007. 


10 
Sun 
Herald.com. 
It 
Takes 
a 
Lot 
of 
Houses 
to 
be 
the 
Home 
of 
the 
State’s 
Largest 
Employer. 
Accessed 
on 
July 
15, 
2008 
at 
http://www.sunherald.com/editorials/v-print/story/684230.html. 


11 
Durability 
by 
Design: 
A 
Guide 
for 
Residential 
Builders 
and 
Designers. 


http://www.huduser.org/Publications/PDF/durability_by_design_part1.pdf 


http://www.huduser.org/Publications/PDF/durability_by_design_part2.pdf 


HUD 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 


 
Attachment1Attachment1
Jurisdiction Maps Showing Distribution of MAHP Units 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 

89 


Attachment 3 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 91 


Attachment 3 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 93 


Attachment 3 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 95 


Attachment 3 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 97 


Attachment 3 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 99 


100 Attachment 3 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 101 


102 Attachment 3 


A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 103 


Attachment2Attachment2
Program Goals from the MAHP Performance Management Plan 
1. Develop an Incident Command System (ICS)-based management team and identify key staff; 
2. Fill field staff positions and provide necessary training; 
3. Design and construct MAHP units that will meet 150-mph wind standard and IRC; 
4. Develop a streamlined procedure for unit delivery and installation; 
5. Develop customer-oriented tenant assistance management system; 
6. Develop an Internet-based multi-user Applicant Verification Model; 
7. Deploy real-time Site Verification Module; 
8. Deploy Maintenance/Demobilization Module; 
9. Deploy Reports Module; 
10. Commercial Site Module Implementation 
11. Design selection criteria and methodology that meet FEMA and the US Department of Housing 
and Urban Development (HUD) selection requirements; 
12. Address larger unit needs and other special resident needs, as they relate to the Americans 
with Disabilities Act (ADA); 
13. Develop manageable multi-family sites through partnerships with commercial park owners, 
public housing authorities, non-profit organizations, and local long-term recovery 
organizations; 
14. Provide technical assistance for community-driven special projects; 
15. Increase public and local government participation through implementing three phased 
outreach activities; 
16. Develop guidelines for information collecting, archiving, and filing; 
17. Recruit housing advisors, develop a comprehensive housing assistance list and assist 
applicants as they pursue permanent housing solutions; 
18. Develop a financial management system to use for tracking individual and itemizedexpenditures; and 
19. Establish and maintain acceptable budget with FEMA and meet grant requirements. 
20. Establish policies and procedures for demobilization that will meet State, FEMA, and HUD requirements.
A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 105 


Attachment3Attachment3
Example Memorandum of Understanding 



A Case Study of the Mississippi Alternative Housing Program 107 


108 Attachment 3