An estimated two-thirds of all U.S. households made donations to help those affected by the terrorist attacks. The Government Accounting Office, which released the report on the charities earlier this month, has identified more than 300 charities involved in collecting funds for September 11 survivors. The 34 largest funds alone reported raising a whopping $2.4 billion, two-thirds of which has been distributed. Most of the money went to help the families of those killed or injured. About 50,000 people who lost jobs or incomes or whose homes were damaged, also received aid. And millions of meals were served to rescue workers at the disaster sites.

But in the world of September 11 charity, not everything has gone smoothly. The scope of the disaster overwhelmed some charities. There were also isolated cases of fraud and piles of paperwork that deterred some eligible recipients. NEWSWEEK’s Jennifer Barrett spoke with Gale Harris, an assistant director at the GAO and co-author of the government report, on the efforts charities have made over the past year to help those affected by the September 11 attacks. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: You say the total amount of money raised may never be known, why is that?

Gale Harris: There are so many organizations involved and we know there are at least 300 charities collecting donations. There is no master list, but we’re confident we’ve identified the biggest among them.

Some Americans who donated money to help the victims of the September 11 attacks have raised concerns about not knowing where their donations ended up. What efforts did the agencies make to ensure donors that their money was being used in the ways they’d intended?

For this job, we reported what the charities told us–it was not within the scope of this effort to track down where all the funds went. However, we did determine that public education could help clarify what the charity’s role is and make sure the public’s trust in charities is maintained. We did not specifically look at this, but I know a lot of charities, like the American Red Cross, have taken additional steps this time to let donors know where the money is going.

It seems like there was a lack of understanding among some donors about how their money would be used.

We did hear a lot of those concerns from the charities–how, almost instantaneously, we were all involved in this by watching it on TV or seeing it happen. There was this need to do something right away. People wondered how to help. There was an instinctive outpouring, and it’s not clear how much thought and planning went into it initially.

The 30 largest charities have reported collecting an estimated $2.4 billion since September 11. Were you surprised by how much money they were able to raise?

It really is amazing. An estimated two-thirds of American households donated. The charities really enabled so many people to play a role in the recovery effort.

You interviewed the 12 largest charities. How did they compare their 9-11 efforts to past efforts in terms of scope and the number of donations received?

Well we didn’t talk too much specifically about past efforts, but we heard a lot about the unprecedented scale and complexity of this. We heard a lot about the sheer numbers of victims killed or injured in the Sept. 11 attacks and the number of charities involved, so many things related to scale and scope that were different. We heard that again and again.

About two-thirds of the money raised has already been distributed, according to the charities. Obviously, some, like the Citizens’ Scholarship Fund (which has distributed less than 1 percent of the $97 million raised) plan long-range distribution. But others–like the Sept. 11 Fund, which still has about one-third remaining of the $503 million raised–seem to have a lot left to distribute. What are some of the reasons for that?

One is that we had a cut-off date in July for this survey. The Red Cross, for example, had plans in place to distribute more money by the September 11 anniversary, and possibly by the end of the year. So, one explanation is the timing; we just did not capture all the planned distribution in those figures. In other cases, charities have made very deliberate decisions to keep some money in place to meet long-term needs–not just for scholarships, but particularly for mental-health needs. When we visited Oklahoma City, there were victims who were still receiving mental health care years after the bombing. This is a need that is not known at this time for those affected by September 11. It is one that will emerge over time.

What accountability measures were these charities taking to insure only eligible people received aid?

The charities certainly had attempted to document that people were eligible for funds. One way was documenting that you were a family member of someone killed. That would involve producing a death certificate and producing proof that you were a family member. Others sought employment assistance. We heard from some charities that the sheer number of folks they were trying to serve would overwhelm them. They hired new staff, but there was some concern that because of the sheer numbers their typical eligibility measures might not have occurred at the beginning.

Did you find many instances of fraud?

Our impression was that few cases of fraud have been discovered so far. We also heard that the total extent of fraud is hard to get your hands around. We think it might be particularly difficult in cause-related marketing. Every time I went to the mall there were sales of jewelry and clothes where a portion was supposed to go to 9-11 aid. But that is hard to track. Also, there may be groups invoking the name of 9-11 to solicit funds for other purposes. It could be a valid organization, but the funds might not end up assisting 9-11 victims. We heard of a case where an individual put out a can and said they were collecting for 9-11.

We spoke with the New York Attorney General’s office and charity oversight officials in six other states. They generally said they did not have additional resources dedicated to fighting 9-11-related fraud. But time and time again they said if they identified any types of fraud they would be aggressive in prosecuting them. There can be different types of fraud that you might catch at the charity level, like an individual who is not really eligible for aid. Then there were cases of fraud with someone, some group, posing as a charity. New York county, which includes Manhattan, as of August had arrested at least 20 people for individual fraud. They estimated about $1 million in aid had been fraudulently obtained and there were about 50 cases pending. Most had to do with false death certificates.

What did the aid organizations do to detect and prevent fraud and to punish those who did commit fraud?

They would turn fraud cases over to proper authorities. But they tried to prevent fraud through proper eligibility procedures and documentation checks and sometimes did internal audits and follow-ups to check procedures. Some conducted independent reviews of the eligibility. During the Red Cross’s independent review of the eligibility processes, it found 350 cases of suspected fraudulent claims, but that represented less than one percent of distributed funds.

What kinds of efforts to coordinate did you find among agencies responding to the disaster?

Our bottom line here was that early on there were little efforts to coordinate the distribution of aid, but a more coordinated approach emerged later on. We spoke with the representatives of families and heard that they really had to navigate a maze of information, particularly in the initial weeks. Over time, the New York State Attorney General made efforts to ease people’s access to aid and also a consortium was created: the 9/11 United Services Group [http://www.9-11usg.org/], which is composed of 13 charities formed last December with the goal to foster a more coordinated approach to aid delivery. They have in place a database that not all, but most, of the members are using. They have also trained service coordinators who are sent out to the charities to identify the aid available and ease access to a broad range of services.

What could or should we have done differently?

We talk about lessons learned. One thing is that more coordination among charities might have eased people’s access to aid. But there is no easy solution to how to make coordination happen. One of its strengths of the charitable sector is its independence and flexibility. We want to tread very carefully before the government comes in and says we need to manage the charitable sector. One of their strengths is to be able to see the gaps and to fill them. In that way they are a nice complement to the government.

But there were four areas of lessons learned. The first is the importance of good information about easy access to assistance. The flip side of that is that public and private agencies could better assist agencies by coordinating and sharing information with each other. The third is that public education could help clarify what the charities role is in disasters and help maintain the public’s confidence in them. And, lastly, that planning for the role of charitable aid in disasters could aid the recovery process for individuals and the communities–planning for future events and also, thinking through what role the charity will play after an event has occurred. Still, it’s important to stress that charitable aid really made a huge contribution in the nation’s response to this, despite some really difficult circumstances. The charities played a dual role–not just providing assistance to people in need, but also serving as a vehicle though which millions of people who made donations could feel like they played a role in the recovery efforts too.