1. Disaster Preparedness and Response for Persons with Mobility Impairments: Results of the Nobody Left Behind Project
Michael H. Fox, Sc.D., Glen W. White, Ph.D.,
Catherine Rooney, M.A., Jennifer Rowland, Ph.D., P.T.
Research and Training Center on Independent
Living at the University of Kansas
Governor’s Public Health Conference
Wichita, Kansas
April 11, 2006

2. Nobody Left Behind http://www.nobodyleftbehind2.org
Three year grant, TS#-08040, awarded the KU RTC/IL by the Association for Teachers of Preventive Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Glen White, Ph.D., KU, P.I.
Michael Fox, Sc.D., KUMC, Co-P.I.
October, 2002 – September, 2005
AIM: To understand county level disaster preparedness and response around needs of persons with mobility impairments

3. Persons with Disabilities in the U.S.
50 million people with a self reported disability represent 19% of the 257 million people > age 5 in the civilian non-institutionalized U.S. population
Within this population, Census 2000 found:
9.3 million Americans with a sensory disability involving sight or hearing.
21.2 million with a condition limiting basic physical activities, such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying.
18.2 million of those 16 and older with a condition that made it difficult to go outside the home.

4. Nobody Left Behind The Nature of the Problem
Typically, disaster preparedness and emergency response systems are designed for non-disabled persons, for whom escape or rescue involves walking or running.
In addition, many plans do not appear to specifically address the transition needs back to pre-disaster conditions that are required for persons with mobility impairments.

5. The True Scope of the Issue
90% of presidential declared disasters result from natural phenomena in which flooding was a major component
Annually, the U.S. averages 100,000 thunderstorms
Galveston Texas hurricane in 1900 killed more than 6,000. Death toll from Katrina still unknown, but exceeds 2,000.
Average of 22 “killer tornados” each year.
About 13,000 earthquakes of various magnitudes in the U.S. each year

6. Katrina Federal Disaster Funds - $62
Katrina Federal Disaster Funds - $62.5 Billion Washington Post, 9/9,2005

7. Cost to People with Disabilities

8. Cost to People with Disabilities
Special Needs Assessment 4 Katrina (SNAKE Teams) – National Organization on Disability (NOD)
Recommendations
Disability and aging organizations involved in the Katrina response effort report their budgets are depleted.
No use or under-use of disability and aging organizations
Need for participation of disability groups in planning process
Emergency information needs to be in accessible format

9. Nobody Left Behind Research Activities Overview
Focus Area #1
County Programs, Policy, and Practice
Focus Area #2
Assessing Risk
Focus Area #3
Assurance and Policy Development

10. COUNTY PROGRAMS, POLICY, AND PRACTICE
Focus Area #1
COUNTY PROGRAMS, POLICY, AND PRACTICE
Objective:
To determine whether counties that have experienced a disaster during have systems of workplace, home, and community disaster preparedness and emergency response in place for residents with mobility impairments.

11. COUNTY PROGRAMS, POLICY, AND PRACTICE
Focus Area #1
COUNTY PROGRAMS, POLICY, AND PRACTICE
Research Questions:
Have disasters facilitated changes in disaster preparedness and emergency response policies and practices for persons with mobility impairments? If so, how?
Has the disaster preparedness and emergency response planning process included community stakeholders representing people with disabilities? If so, what has been their involvement? With what outcomes?

12. Focus Area #2
ASSESSING RISK
Objective:
To evaluate surveillance systems in place at the county level that can identify morbidity and mortality frequency and prevalence for persons with mobility impairments exposed to a disaster

13. ASSESSING RISK Research Questions:
Focus Area #2
ASSESSING RISK
Research Questions:
Are counties able to assess prevalence of persons with mobility impairments who reside or work in their jurisdictions and are at risk of disaster exposure (calculating the denominator)?

14. Research Questions (continued):
Focus Area #2
ASSESSING RISK
Research Questions (continued):
Are counties able to determine how many persons with mobility impairments are affected by disasters?
Among counties that have surveillance systems in place, what are prevalence rates of disaster exposure for persons with mobility impairments, and what factors appear to influence these rates?

15. ASSURANCE AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT
Focus Area #3
ASSURANCE AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT
Objective:
To recommend modifications to county disaster coordinating agencies to address the health, safety, and survival needs of people with mobility impairments

16. ASSURANCE AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT
Focus Area #3
ASSURANCE AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT
Research Questions:
What surveillance systems appear most effective in assessing risk for people with mobility impairments exposed to disasters?
How can counties use surveillance systems to better manage their risk for persons with mobility impairments?

17. ASSURANCE AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT
Focus Area #3
ASSURANCE AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT
Research Questions (continued):
What county policies, practices, or programs are exemplars of best practices that can be emulated by counties around the U.S.?
How can these policies, practices, and programs be incorporated in county disaster plans?

18. Nobody Left Behind- Methods
Identify Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) declared disasters between
Select a random sample of 30 counties or equivalent units (i.e., boroughs, reservations, etc.) across each of the ten federal regions
Interview these county emergency managers
Evaluate their disaster plans in place at time of occurrence and more recently for actions targeting persons with mobility disabilities
With assistance of national advisory panel, identify best practices
Administer on-line consumer survey

19. Nobody Left Behind Methods What did we ask?
Examples of survey questions:
“Does your current emergency management plan have a protocol to assist people with mobility impairments during an emergency?”
“To your knowledge, were people with mobility impairments included in the process of developing these protocols?”
“If no written formal protocols exist to assist people with mobility impairments, to your knowledge what do emergency services personnel do to assist people with mobility impairments during an emergency? “

20. Representative County Selection
Selection of state level disaster occurrences so that each of the ten federal regions is represented:
REGION I: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Vermont.
REGION II: New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands.
REGION III: Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West
Virginia, District of Columbia.
REGION IV: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee.
REGION V: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio,
Wisconsin.
REGION VI: Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas.
REGION VII: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska.
REGION VIII: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Utah, Wyoming.
REGION IX: Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada.
REGION X: Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Idaho.

22. Summary Research Tables Corresponding to Research Questions for Nobody Left Behind

23. Research Questions 1: Have disasters facilitated change for people with mobility impairments?
Table 1. Reasons for Modifying County Disaster Plans
Using Chi-squared tests, none of these 2x2 relationships are statistically significant
N=30
Revisions prompted by disaster?
Revisions prompted by people with disabilities?
Revisions prompted by federal mandates?
Revisions prompted by other concerns?
County disaster plan revised since disaster?
Yes % No
Yes (n=29)
27.6
72.4
6.9
93.1
58.6
41.4
No (n=1)
0.0
100

24. Research Questions 2: Were people with disabilities included in the planning process?
Four of the six best practice sites had people with disabilities included in the process. This question was only answered for six counties engaged in the planning process (Question #14)
Of the total survey only 4 out of 30 sites (13%) had people with disabilities included in the disaster planning process

25. Research Question 3 Are sites able to assess prevalence based upon adequate surveillance?

26. # people with mobility impairments in county 13 Database-5 Census-3
Table 2. Reported Surveillance of Counties Experiencing Disasters
# Counties
Frequencies
Data
Validity
Measure
Category
Count
# people with mobility impairments in county 13
< 75
4(13%)
Database-5 Census-3
Estimate-5
Good
Fair
Poor
2 (7%)
3,000-10,000
6(20%)
>10,000
1(3%)
# persons injured in disaster 30
None
27(90%)
<100
10,000
# persons killed in disaster
26(87%)
1-5
3(10%)
2,749
# persons with mobility impairments killed
28(93%) 1
Unknown
# persons with mobility impairments rescued
17(57%)
2-15
25-100
>100
5(16%)

27. Research Questions 4 & 5: Were surveillance systems in place that allowed estimates of prevalence of people with mobility impairments at risk in a disaster?
No way to determine prevalence rates based upon surveillance systems in place.
However, we may want to test this further with our site in Coffey County. Where there are accurate voluntary data registries, this measure could be possible.

28. Research Question 6: Surveillance systems that appear most effective – possible “best practices.”
Six counties* identified as possible “best practices” (out of 30) based upon two criteria:
Having in place guidelines for persons with disabilities; and
Identifying operating procedures in place that follow the guidelines
* Best practice sites included the following counties/jurisdictions: Dubuque County, Iowa; Brooklyn-New York City, New York; Coffey County, Iowa: Maricopa County, Arizona; Norton City, Virginia; Lincoln County, Nebraska.

29. Table 3. Differences Between Disaster County Sites Identified as Best Practices and All Other Sites
All mean differences were tested using ANOVA and Mann-Whitney for between group differences.
Disaster County Characteristic
Best Practice
Site (6)
Other Disaster
Site (24)
Significance,
p-value
Mean Total Population
571,266
217,711
.285
Area in square miles
2,248
2,436
.932
Persons per square miles
205
1,783
.575
% urban area 67 58
.721
% White 91 76
.097
Median household income
$36,577
$38,914
.568
% above median income 33 29
.849
% below poverty 13 14
.610
% with Center for Independent Living 50 63
.429
% persons with physical disability > 5
8.4
9.7
.392
% people with disabilities 5-64 years old
5.1
7.2
.141
% people with disabilities >64 years old
29.1
30.7
.551
%t with employee who took FEMA course 17 42
.271
% knowing how many people with disabilities live within district
100
.001

30. Nobody Left Behind What did we find out?
Findings - Emergency Managers:
People with disabilities either were not represented or had minimal representation in the emergency planning process
The G197 FEMA Emergency Planning and Special Needs course pertaining to people with disabilities appears useful in increasing county awareness, though only 27% of county emergency managers reported completing it
Only 20% of the emergency managers reported having specific guidelines in place to assist people with mobility impairments during emergencies

31. Nobody Left Behind What did we find out?
Findings - Emergency Managers:
Surveillance efforts to identify persons with mobility impairments are weak
57% of county managers did not know how many persons with mobility limitations lived within their jurisdiction
Of those who claimed to know, most gave broad estimates based on unreliable sources
27% of counties used Census or self-reported registries to identify this figure more accurately

32. Nobody Left Behind What did we find out?
Findings- Emergency Managers:
20% of emergency managers reported having specific guidelines in place to assist people with mobility impairments during emergencies
Among 24 (80%) of jurisdictions that did not:
38% (9) identified transportation accommodations that they have in place
17% (4) identified accessible shelters and other educational programs that sought to reach out in some way to persons with disabilities

33. Nobody Left Behind Where are we now?
Findings of Emergency Managers:
Among jurisdictions not having specific details or guidelines in place, all (24) told us that they were important to have
“Every person’s life is important….”
“I have never seen a publication that would address many of these impairments….”
“We have it, just not in our particular plan…covered in council on aging and human resource protocols.”
“It’s a fact of life. They are out there, they need assistance, and you’ve got to address it.”

34. Nobody Left Behind What did we find out?
Findings - Emergency Managers:
97% (29) of disaster management plans had been revised since the time of the county disaster we asked about
But among these, only 2 (7%) revised their plans owing to disability related concerns
Other reasons driving revisions of plans:
Annual review (72%)
Federal mandates (59%)
State mandates (24%)
Disaster (28%)
Other factors (34%)

35. Nobody Left Behind - Findings
Among jurisdictions not having specific guidelines in place (24), 5 (21%) told us they were planning to develop them. 19 (79%) told us they were not. Reasons why not:
“If need is brought to our attention, we will accommodate…”
“We are trying to focus on special needs as a whole…”
“It is covered in other plans…”
“We don’t need to be any more specific than we already are..”
“Confidentiality issues…”; “limited local authority…”
“We are overwhelmed with the demands of Homeland Security…”
“My office is only staffed by one volunteer….”

36. Nobody Left Behind Findings
Sites reporting no specific guidelines stated the following resources were needed to develop them:
67% financial resources
33% knowledgeable and trained personnel
17% greater education for the public
25% a FEMA/State/or County mandate
Among reporting sites, who told us they were planning to develop the guidelines
One told us the idea originated with our interview, another started with discussions of the needs of non-English speaking residents, one mentioned particular advocate associated with university

37. Click on “Consumer Survey”
Do you have a personal disaster experience to share?
We want to hear from persons with mobility limitations who have experienced a disaster.
Please complete our on-line survey at:
&
Click on “Consumer Survey”

38. Nobody Left Behind Consumer Survey Findings
There are inaccessible escape routes
Few people know how to use the adaptive escape chairs for wheelchair users
There was no accessible transportation after the disaster event to get around in the community
Very slow response in helping citizens with disabilities return to their homes (e.g., rebuilding ramps, moving debris, etc.)

39. Nobody Left Behind Consumer Survey Findings
Shelters, including bathrooms, were not accessible for wheelchair users
During extended power outages, persons were unable to use assistive equipment and medical devices
Power outages disabled elevators, forcing persons with mobility limitations to be dependent upon neighbors or emergency workers

40. Nobody Left Behind Consumer Survey Findings
“It is really difficult to get the utility company to understand power is a need, if disabled.”
“I ambulate with forearm crutches and my leg stamina is limited. As a social service provider in NYC, I am in tall buildings often and one in particular had an evacuation drill. There were no plans or equipment to assist me. They told me to ignore the drill. I felt very vulnerable because I attend regular work meetings in this building.”

41. Nobody Left Behind Consumer Survey Findings
“I have juvenile rheumatoid arthritis and use a wheel chair. We had a bomb threat at work, which was very scary. Everyone evacuated, but I was still left on the 3rd floor by the stairwell for the firefighters to come get me. But, no one came. Finally, I just struggled and I used pure fear to get myself down the stairs and outside. It was scary just to realize that there are not really any procedures in place to help someone like me in an emergency.”

42. Nobody Left Behind New Directions
Received $162,000 funding from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research to conduct research on two tasks:
Identify barriers and gaps that Centers for Independent Living personnel have experienced concerning people with disabilities in the recently affected hurricane areas and relocation centers
Identify barriers and gaps that emergency personnel have experienced concerning people with disabilities in the recently affected hurricane areas and relocation centers

43. Current Research Early February, 2006 Late February, 2006 March, 2006
Visited with CIL staff and consumers from Southern Mississippi and visited Katrina affected areas in Gulfport and Biloxi
Late February, 2006
Visited with CIL staff and consumers from Southern Louisiana conducting interviews in Baton Rouge and visiting Katrina affected areas around New Orleans (e.g., 9th Ward, Arabi, St. Bernard Parrish)
March, 2006
Visited with CIL staff in Alabama

45. Consumer Reports Fear Dense darkness Safety (looters)
Unknown (where to go? What to do? When can I go back, if ever?)
What will my life be like now?

46. Consumer Reports Resignation
The system is broken and will not help me.
There is nothing I can control or do.
I have invested my whole life in my home and now it is gone.

47. Consumer Reports Anger
“FEMA stands for F*** Every Mississippian Again.”
The response of authorities at all levels was too little too late.
When we stayed with family after the disaster; there was lots of tension (When you going to leave?)

48. Centers for Independent Living Reports
Question
MS CILs
S. LA CILs
Anyone with DP training at your CILs? No
Yes, limited
Before Katrina, did your CIL have a plan to provide services in the event of a disaster?
Did your Center have an informal or formal relationship with first-responders before Katrina?
How many PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES from your county had to relocate following Katrina?
Thou-sands
35+ K

49. Centers for Independent Living Reports
Question
MS CILs
S. LA CILs
What were your CIL’s most significant accomplishments during the shelter and recovery phase?
Finding consumers; getting well over $100,000 of equipment to consumers
Continuing to provide services post-Katrina
Based on your Katrina experience how can CILs be more effective in helping pwd in future disasters?
Train, train, train for DP; both staff and consumers; work more closely with DP specialists
Locate, evacuate, pre-assess, move to CIL-contr. shelter

50. Much remains to be done…
People with disabilities must be treated as a separate group with separate needs and not combined with “special needs.” Such designations only widen disparities.
The overwhelming response of people with disabilities affected by Katrina is that they don’t want to be forgotten
Exemplary disaster preparedness and emergency response procedures and annexes need to be developed and used to help get people with disabilities out of harm’s way

51. Mission: to promote emergency preparedness inclusion, research, education, awareness and
planning for people with disabilities at the local, state, and national level through a variety of means.
The Consortium consists
of the American Association on Health and Disability (AAHD), the University of Kansas Research and Training Center on Independent Living, and the University of New Mexico Center for Development and Disability.

52. Additional Sources of Information
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
Findings submitted to:
Journal of Disability Policy Studies
 in response to Call for Papers
 Disaster Preparation and Emergency Response for People with Disabilities: Research, Policy and Practice