Vulnerable populations and natural disaster: A policy analysis

VULNERABLE POPULATIONS AND NATURAL DISATSTER: A POLICY ANALYSIS

Vulnerable populations and natural disaster: A policy analysis

Ashley R. Acevedo

SWK 510 Social Welfare and Policy

1


Abstract

This paper seeks to contribute to the existing literature byproviding an analysis of social policy dealing with emergency

preparedness of vulnerable populations and how do these policiesspecifically address the needs of these populations? I will be

analyzing laws, policies, programs, and services in the past, andthose currently provided, and their role in protecting and

preparing vulnerable populations for disaster. In so doing, Ihope to provide a link between acknowledging the risk ofdisadvantaged populations, and the creation of policy and

procedures that can act as protective and preventative measures,rather than merely responding to crises after it occurs.

2


I. Definitions of the Problem

In conditions that would normally be thought to affect

everyone equally, certain groups are more negatively affected

than others (Hartman and Squires, 2006; Klinenberg, 2002; Smith,

2006; Neumayer and Plumper, 2007). Events like Katrina, and the

1995 Chicago heat wave (Klinenberg, 2002) in which clear patterns

show this increased vulnerability, have resulted in a pressured

government to focus on hazard mitigation and the preparation for

disasters at all levels of government (Hoffman, 2009). The CDC

has worked with state public health departments to create

emergency plans and programs. Reports analyzing the response and

3


effectiveness of a various government actors have brought

attention to both emergency management policy specifically, as

well as the role of social service programs in providing aid in

response to disaster (White House 2006; Winston et al 2006;

Krammer, Finegold, and Kuehn, 2008). However, these reports often

overlook the unique needs of vulnerable populations (Hoffman,

2009).

Because of its significance as one of the most catastrophic

disasters in US history, killing more than 1,300, and displacing

200,000 from New Orleans alone, I will be referring to hurricane

Katrina throughout (Sharkey, 2007; White House, 2006; U.S.

Congress, 2006). Though it is not the main focus of this

analysis, the victimiology of those impacted matches most closely

with the vulnerable populations I refer to. It is also a

relatively recent disaster, which provides good opportunity to

examine policies in use then and the adjustments that have been

made since. It also marked the first time key the affects of

changes in policy in the years prior could be seen. Lastly, it

provides a unique insight into what has worked and what hasn't,

4


as well as what issues have not been addressed in past policy,

which is important in deciding what to include in future policy

recommendations. For similar reasons, I will also refer to

Klinenberg’s (2002) work Heat Wave, which provides a valuable

analysis of vulnerability, particularly for the elderly.

Vulnerable populations have been defined as those who need

additional support in a variety of areas, including but not

limited to, communication, supervision, transportation, medical

care and maintaining independence” (Assistant Secretary for

Preparedness and Response, 2008). This typically includes those

who are part of any of a number of disadvantaged groups such as

the poor, minorities, pregnant women; young children; female

headed households; non-English speakers; the elderly; people with

disabilities including medical, mobility, vision, or hearing

needs; those without access to transportation; or those living in

areas of high segregation and concentrated poverty; and prisoners

(Assistant Secretary, 2008; Hoffman, 2009)

II. Scope of the Problem

A. Extent of the Problem

5


Hurricane Katrina resulted in the evacuation of about 1.5

million people in total, most of which left after the storm hit

(Peek and Erikson, 2007 in Zamore). New Orleans’s high levels of

concentrated poverty due to a long history of segregation meant

that many stayed behind because of lack or resources,

transportation, or a place to evacuate to (Peek and Erikson 2007,

in Zamore). What’s more, the most affordable homes, and thus

those predominately owned by low income African Americans, who

are three times more likely to live in poverty, were those below

at sea level, and thus experienced the most flooding (Gault,

Harmann, Jones-DeWeever, Werschkul, and Williams, 2005; Elliott

and Pais, 2006).Despite the fact that there is such a high

concentration of poverty in New Orleans, there was no plan in

place to help residents evacuate if they didn’t have the means to

do so themselves. Concentrations of poverty mean that it is more

likely they their neighbors will have similar resources, be the

same class, etc. So if one of them doesn’t have the ability to

leave, it is more likely the others lack these resources as well.

This was a problem for many who had no car, no friends or family

outside of the area, and not enough resources to stay away from

6


their homes and places of work for an extended period of time.

Even if one does have a car, it does little good if you have no

place to go. If, on the other hand, they had a support system in

terms of friends or family, that provides at least temporary

retreat (Laditka, Murray, Laditka, 2010). Future policies and

plans need to address this through the utilization of existing

services to help identify and prepare at risk populations for

disaster.

Hurricane Katrina is just one of many natural disasters in

the United States resulting in catastrophic destruction and death

disproportionately affecting what has come to be known as

vulnerable populations. Many look at the victims of Katrina and

similar disasters and say things like “Why didn’t they evacuate

like everyone else? It is their own fault.” Those that think like

this often don’t know about vulnerable populations, and why they

are often the ones left behind. While we are all faced with

choices each day, those choices available to the poor are

severely limited in relation to those with more economic and

social capital (Rubington and Weinberg, 2003 in Drabek,

7


2007).This is not by coincidence, rather in large part a function

of the capitalistic society. Our Calvinistic and Protestant roots

that led to the development of the economic system we know today,

has greatly encouraged an outlook on social problems as

individual issues, rather than as flaws in the larger system

(Russell, 2011; Rockman, 2003). It is in the capitalist’s

interests to maintain this view, in order to prevent the masses

from attempting to solve these larger problems, and thus changing

the social structure. As a result, policies often are aimed

towards being most effective to those considered the most

“deserving” in society, the successful white middle and

upperclasses who have succeeded in our capitalistic society,

while underserving those most in need of need of assistance. This

is especially true in the case of Katrina, where unlike in most

cases natural disasters strike without warning, the events of

Katrina in New Orleans were predicted five years before the storm

struck, but little had been done to mitigate the risk for those

most vulnerable to its affects (White House, 2006; U.S. Congress,

2006).

Dimensions of Risk and the nature of Vulnerability

8


Largely due to years of slavery and institutional racism,

African Americans experience the second highest poverty rates of

all racial and ethnic groups, placing them at increased risk for

disaster because of lack of the economic resources to prepare and

escape (Macartney, Bishaw, and Fontenot, 2013). Zarkour and

Harrell (2003) discuss how urban social ecology theory suggest

that “spatial patterns of residence” and society as a whole

reflect the larger social structure in a given society (Park,

1926/1975 as cited in Zakour and Harrel,l 2003). Racism and

migration in America, have resulted in high levels of segregation

in urban communities. This was especially true of New Orleans,

which prior to Katrina had the highest levels of segregation of

any metropolitan area in the country (Fussell, 2007). Older urban

areas typically have poor infrastructure, with high levels of

concentrated poverty, and few resources (Zakour and Harrell,

2003). Housing segregation, both institutionalized through legal

means, and those done through practices like redlining, paired

with the low cost of the abandoned urban housing, led to high

concentrations of poor minorities in these areas (Howenstein,

1996 as cited in Zakour and Harrell, 2003). As urbanization and

9


populations have increased, the impact of disasters have too,

with more people being affected because of their concentrations

in cities, often times in hazardous areas that originally acted

as a buffer from nature’s forces. Peacock and Ragsdale (1997 as

cited in Zakour and Harrell, 2003) explain how resources are

organized according to these socio-demographic characteristics.

White middle and upper class neighborhoods with more political

power are located at the core of society, and thus have more

social and other services (Peacock and Ragsdale, 1997 as cited in

Zakour and Harrell, 2003). This leads to fewer network

connections outside of the area, limiting the distribution of

resources in the area (Zakour and Harrell, 2003; Dash, Peacock,

and Morrow, 1997 as cited in Zakour and Harrell, 2003). This lack

of resources occurs at every level and in both in the everyday

resources, and those needed for disaster preventions and relief

services (Peacock et all, 1997 as cited in Zakour and Harrell,

2003). As a result, those who need services the most are the

least likely to have access to them, magnifying their already

existing vulnerability to disaster (Zakour and Gillespie, 1998 as

cited in Zakour and Harrell, 2003). Policy should address this

10


issue by distributing existing services and programs more

equitably throughout communities, ensuring that low-income

neighborhoods have access to resources available.

The issue of vulnerability is not one unique to race and

class inequality. The intersection of various inequalities is

noted to increase one’s risk during disaster, and for poor women

of color, the risk is high (Blaikie et al, 1994). Statistically

women are more likely to be impoverished than men (Gault et al,

2005; Neumayer and Pl ̈umper, 2007). Women’s increased

vulnerability can also be attributed to existing gender roles

stating that women are still considered primary caretakers of

their families, and women were responsible for evacuating their

children and elderly parents (Peek and Fothergill, 2008;Laditka,

Murray, Laditka, 2010). This is amplified for single mothers

because, particularly among those never married, is most common

among those with low education and lack of job skills required

for better paying jobs (Zedlewski, 2006). The expense of

childcare and the unpredictable or odd hours common in many part

time jobs added to the difficulty of acquiring a good paying job

11


(Knox et al. 2003 in Zedlewski, 2006). Lack of financial

resources and support of a spouse, many single mothers rely on a

strong social support system of neighbors, families, and friends

for childcare.

Many of those affected by disaster are the most

disadvantaged in society, and so they may be utilizing social

welfare programs prior to the disaster (Rivera and Miller, 2005;

Smith, 2005).While there are several types of social welfare

programs that may be utilized, public assistance and social

insurance programs such as TANF, Medicaid, Unemployment

Insurance, and others serve some of the most vulnerable in

society, and thus have the unique ability of already having

contact with those who need assistance preparing for disasters

(Winston et al., 2006; Titmus, 1965). Age is also a risk factor

involved in vulnerability to natural disaster. Katrina, like the

1995 Chicago heat wave resulted in a disproportionate number of

the elderly falling victim to disaster (Warner and Travis, 2005;

Sharkey, 2007; Klinenberg, 2002). Physical disability, medical

conditions, as well as social isolation and weak social networks

12


place this group at high risk (Klinenberg, 2002). In the case of

the Chicago heat wave, fear of dangerous neighborhoods, the loss

of friends due to age, and lack of family meant many had no one

to check on them and ensure their health or access to cooling

services provided elsewhere in the city (Klinenberg, 2002). In

Katrina, many elderly in nursing homes and hospitals, or those

living at home had similar difficulties, with lack of

transportation being an added obstacle to evacuation (Warner and

Travis, 2005).

III. Theories of Causation

A. Theories

As Piven and Cloward (1993) noticed, our welfare system in

entirely regulatory in nature; expanding during economic hardship

to prevent revolt of the poor working classes, and contracts

during economic prosperity to encourage hard work and discourage

idleness. This is desire to regulate the workforce has resulted

in social policy that is very controlled and limiting for who

gets aid. Concepts of “less eligibility” and “deserving” versus

“undeserving” are important to keep in mind when discussing

13


vulnerable populations (Titmus, 1965; Piven and Cloward, 1993).

Historically, many of those who would today be considered

vulnerable populations have typically fallen under the category

of “underserving” populations (Titmus, 1965; Piven and Cloward,

1993). As a result, until recently, there has been a lack of

legislation protecting this population.

IV. Social Policies: Laws, Programs and Services

Since the enactment of the country’s first disaster related

legislation in 1849, there has been an abundance of legislation

proposed and enacted by congress (Rivera and Miller, 2006; Burby,

2006; Mener, 2007). One of the most significant pieces of

legislation affecting disaster response today are the Robert T.

Stafford Disaster and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act)

and its amendments, passed in 1988 (Burby, 2006; Mener, 2007;

Hoffman, 2009). This act set the guidelines for emergency

response for government. As has been the case with the majority

of policy passed in the U.S., the Stafford Act limited the

authority of the federal government by requiring that state

authorities must request federal assistance (Burby, 2006; Mener,

2007; Hoffman, 2009).This system of response, referred to as a

14


pull system, had the goal of maintaining state sovereignty

(Select Committee, 2005 in U.S. Congress 2006; National

Association of Social Workers, 2005). The idea is that local

authorities have a unique understanding of the communities under

their jurisdiction and thus are best suited to identify and

mitigate risk, plan and enact emergency plans, and know when

federal assistance is required.

In 1979, President Carter created the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA), as a way of responding to the need for

a government agency aimed at dealing with natural disaster

(Rivera and Miller, 2006). Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks,

President Bush created the Department of Homeland Security which

became the central location for emergency programs and

legislation, and the new home of FEMA (Mener, 2007; Rivera and

Miller, 2006)

In 2013, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS, 2013 from here

on) created the National Response Plan (NRP), to help in multiple

stages of action for all potential domestic hazards, using a

combination of federal, state, and local programs, with an

emphasis on local jurisdictional response (DHS, 2013; Mener,

15


2007; Rivera and Miller, 2006). The plan says that one of the

goals to reduce ‘vulnerability to all natural and man-made

hazards’ (DHS, 2013). The plan is supposed to focus on different

steps of the disaster process including the creation and

maintenance of a plan, as well as disaster prevention,

preparedness, response, and recovery (DHS, 2013). It was created

by the collaboration of multiple agencies to assess needs, and is

to be assessed and changed as necessary to accommodate

legislative and other changes (DHS, 2013). The prevention stage

is predominately focused on terrorist threats and health crises,

with immunization, quarantine, surveillance, law enforcement, and

disruption of illegal activities as activities listed (DHS,

2013). The preparedness section discusses the government’s

responsibility for addressing vulnerabilities, prepare for

disasters, and respond immediately before, during and in the

first few days after a major or catastrophic disaster’ (FEMA,

2014).Finally, the recovery stage emphasizes the coordination of

a variety of actors including individual, private, non-

governmental, and public assistance programs in this last stage

(DHS, 2013).

16


A. Current Policies - Laws

There are a variety of laws and amendments that have been

passed to protect disadvantaged groups from discrimination. While

most of these are general laws that are part of everyday life,

there are several specifically targeting vulnerable population

during disaster response and preparation. The 2006 The Pandemic

and All-Hazards Preparedness Act, a subsection of the Public

Health Service Act, targets “At-risk individuals” defined as,

“children, pregnant women, senior citizens, and other individuals

who have special needs” (Hoffman, 2009: 1539). The act allows for

the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) to create the

position of “Director of At-Risk Individuals” to advocate for

them in the preparation for disaster, with a focus on the “public

health and medical needs of at-risk individuals” and does not say

much about how to protect these groups (Hoffman, 2009:1539).

As previously discussed, the Stafford Act set the guidelines

for emergency response for government by allowing the President

to declare an emergency at the request of a state’s governor

(Hoffman, 2009; Mener, 2007; River and Miller, 2006). However,

17


the Act also allows the President to impose regulations on the

provision of federal aid in areas in need of assistance. This

portion of the act adds to existing nondiscrimination laws by

ensuring that relief is distributed “without discrimination on

the grounds of race, color, religion, nationality, sex, age,

disability…”. It also adds “English proficiency, or “economic

status”, which are not covered under general nondiscrimination

laws, thus strengthening the protection of vulnerable populations

(Hoffman, 2009: 1533).

In 2006, Congress passed the Post-Katrina Emergency

Management Reform Act, creating the position of Disability

Coordinator in FEMA to ensure the provision of aid and effective

planning for disasters for people with disabilities (Hoffman,

2009).The Coordinator acts an advocate for disabled persons, in

the creation of evacuation plans, disaster training, alternative

emergency communication tools, accessible transportation and

accessible post-disaster housing services when necessary

(Hoffman, 2009). The 2004 “Individuals with Disabilities in

Emergency Preparedness,” act, 2006 Department of Homeland

Security report, and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) all

18


provide similar protections for disable populations (Hoffman,

2009). The DOJ “Making Community Emergency Preparedness and

Response Programs Accessible to People with Disabilities” act

encourages local governmental entities to establish a voluntary,

confidential registry of people with disabilities, so that local

officials can provide individual assistance to those in need,

which three states have done (Hoffman, 2009). Some states extend

similar protections to other vulnerable populations as well. For

example, Connecticut provides protection for inmates of state

institutions and children in schools, and some states include

welfare recipients, other low-income residents, the elderly, and

those with language barriers, (Hoffman, 2009).

This past summer, the Department of Homeland Security

Appropriations Act was introduced to congress and is still being

considered for enactment (Library of Congress, 2014). Part three

of the act would provide grant money to state and local programs

to improve emergency management, disaster relief, hazard mapping,

risk analysis, pre-disaster mitigation, and emergency food and

shelter programs (Library of Congress, 2014). There is no mention

of specific areas the act will be applied to; suggesting funds

19


will be available to all states. While it is important that these

programs are being improved, the bill lacks clarity in defining

what is meant when referring to hazard mapping, risk analysis,

and mitigation. Legislation has often focused on the loss of

physical resources and environmental issues, rather than the

impact on human populations. There is also a lack of clarity in

defining what is meant by emergency food and shelter programs, as

general social service programs have been used as emergency

programs in the past (Library of Congress, 2014;Winston et al,

2006).

V. Effectiveness of Current Policies

B. Evaluations Winston, Finegold, Ruben, Turner, and Zuckerman (2006)

provided evaluation of major social service programs that

provided assistance to those in need following the storm, and

helping to lessen the burden on the already weighted social

services system. Programs explored included TANF, Unemployment

Insurance, Housing Assistance, and Medicaid services. The

evaluation focuses on the use of these programs in response to

Katrina, but provides no information about their role in

20


preparing populations for disaster, nor is there any discussion

about vulnerable populations, despite the brief discussion of

adjustments to policy to allow those using these services prior

to the storm, to be able to continue doing so. Kramer, Finegold,

and Kuehn (2008) specifically focused their efforts in the

population served by the Administration of Child and Family

Services .Similarly, White House (2006), analyzed all federal

and state level preparation and response to Hurricane Katrina,

outline many of the flaws detailed in this paper.

VI. Recommendations for Alternative Policies

Focus on Vulnerable populations

While the policies described above show great progress in

the protection of vulnerable population from natural disaster,

there are many steps that need to be taken to ensure their full

protection. There is a lack of laws and legislation specifically

addressing all members of vulnerable population under a single

piece of legislation. In the months prior to the disaster in New

Orleans, the Protection of Vulnerable Populations During

Humanitarian Emergencies Act was proposed and rejected by

congress (U.S. Congress, 2005). Despite being created with the

21


purpose of providing foreign humanitarian aid, the act

specifically targets vulnerable populations and suggested the

provisions of a “comprehensive strategy for the protection of

vulnerable populations (U.S. Congress, 2005). The act also calls

for the development of systems to monitor the effectiveness of

these strategies (U.S. Congress, 2005).

There are a variety of laws and amendments that have been

passed to protect disadvantaged groups from discrimination. While

most of these are general laws that are part of everyday life,

there are several specifically targeting vulnerable population

during disaster response and preparation. Additions of

antidiscrimination laws are the first step towards achieving

this. The Stafford act specifically adds to existing

nondiscrimination laws by ensuring that relief is distributed

“without discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion,

nationality, sex, age, disability…” and adds “English

proficiency, or economic status” which are not covered under

general nondiscrimination laws, but legislation should be passed

to prevent these types of discrimination in non-emergency

situations as well.

22


While this sort of legislation provides an important

foundation for protection of vulnerable populations, more needs

to be done to provide these protections for all of these groups

universally, and ensure a more comprehensive system of

preparation, as negative laws are not enough. Positive

legislation needs to be passed, not just preventing

discrimination from discrimination, but also insuring the right

to services before and during disaster, as part of the guarantee

to the pursuit of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

There are several pieces of legislation that provide some extra

measures to protect disabled populations in times of disaster.

For example, the 2006 The Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness

Act, a subsection of the Public Health Service Act, which allows

for, but does not require the Department of Health and Human

Services (“HHS”) to create the position of “Director of At-Risk

Individuals” to advocate for them in the preparation for disaster

(Hoffman, 2009, p. 1539). The act also focuses on the “public

health and medical needs of at-risk individuals” and does not say

much about how to protect these groups (Hoffman, 2009, p. 1539).

Similarly, the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act,

23


created the position of Disability Coordinator in FEMA to ensure

the provision of aid and effective planning for disasters for

people with disabilities (Hoffman, 2009).This legislation should

be made mandatory, and expanded to include all vulnerable

populations. The creation of a Director of At-Risk Populations,

would provide an advocate for vulnerable populations during times

of disaster to address all of their needs, fight for their

protection, and seek action against those who fail to meet these

needs, and the provision of compensation. They should also, be

part of the creation of evacuation plans, disaster training,

alternative emergency communication tools, accessible

transportation and accessible post-disaster housing services when

necessary for minorities, children, the poor, and other

vulnerable populations (Hoffman, 2009). A way of identifying and

accessing vulnerable populations before a disaster needs to be a

top priority. The DOJ “Making Community Emergency Preparedness

and Response Programs Accessible to People with Disabilities.”

act encourages local governmental entities to establish a

voluntary, confidential registry of people with disabilities, so

that local officials can provide individual assistance to those

24


in need, which three states have done (Hoffman, 2009). Some

states extend similar protections to other vulnerable

populations, including welfare recipients, other low-income

residents, the elderly, and those with language barriers, but

there is no uniformity across states regarding what vulnerable

populations are included, and more still have no such provisions

at all. Enacting legislation requiring all state and local

governments to offer a voluntary, confidential registry similar

to that used for disable populations, for all vulnerable

populations would be instrumental in identifying and providing

services to vulnerable populations prior to disaster. The

registry could be used in providing detailed plans for

preparation addressing the needs of vulnerable populations,

contacting individuals to ensure their access to information

regarding disaster warnings, accessibility for preparation and

evacuation services, and aiding in ensuring the accountability of

government officials for failure of these protections would be a

monumental step towards ensuring adequate protection for all at-

risk populations who lack the political power to advocate for

themselves (Hoffman, 2009).

25


Furthermore, while Winston et al (2006) discuss the use of

existing social services in the response to disaster, there is a

lack of the use of such services in the preparation for disaster.

Many vulnerable populations use services such as TANF, Medicaid,

Unemployment Insurance, prior to disasters, and thus these

services have the unique ability of already having contact with

those who need assistance preparing for disasters (Winston et

al., 2006; Titmus, 1965). It would be an effective use of

monetary and physical resource to extend their role to

preparation (Winston et al., 2006). Smith (2005: 138), notes in

his research on disaster preparedness that, “the best way to care

for needy persons is by the most normal means available.” It

would prevent the need to create new services to meet these

needs, and thus more demand for existing funds and resources, as

well as help ease increased demand for these services following

disaster, by lessening the impact on those they serve. This

would also help accommodate for the lack of social support that

affects the ability to prepare. However, in doing so, changes

also need to be made to expand our definitions of “eligibility”

for such services, thus better serving the populations during

26


non-emergency situations, as well as being able to identify more

of those who are at risk, but would not otherwise be able to be

identify and protected because of their ineligibility for public

assistance programs (Piven and Cloward, 1993; Titmus, 1965).

Focus on preventative measuresThe Stafford Act was amended in December of 2005 to

reauthorize a pre-disaster mitigation program and the necessary

technical and financial assistance required of state and local

governments (Burby, 2006; Mener, 2007; Hoffman, 2009). This act

has been unique in that is breaks from past legislations focus on

recovery and response, to some mention of focus on pre-disaster

mitigation measures. This is important to keep in mind when

creating new policy in that though natural disasters can’t be

predicted, the affect they have on society and be predicted and

lessened through preventative measures, especially those helping

those most at-risk. This needs to be applied the National

response plan, which talks about prevention of disaster, but

predominately focused on terrorist threats and health crises,

with immunization, quarantine, surveillance, law enforcement, and

disruption of illegal activities as activities listed (DHS,

27


2013). The preparedness section while alluding to vulnerabilities

of some sort, fails to specify what kind of vulnerabilities, and

gives no indication in the ways in which they seek to prepare for

disaster (DHS, 2013). Rather, it says that ‘Response activities

take place immediately before, during and in the first few days

after a major or catastrophic disaster’, indicating a lack of

steps to prevent disaster by addressing issues in the current

legislation, social system, or anything else (FEMA, 2014). What’s

more, no clear steps for how to prepare are mentioned in any

degree of detail, nor does it discuss what types of programs or

services would be used for preparation. Finally, the recovery

stage specifically indicated to coordination of a variety of

actors including individual, private, non-governmental, and

public assistance programs in this last stage (DHS, 2013). One

such step would include a change in focus in evacuation orders

from recommending that those without a vehicle carpool with

friends, family, or neighbors, to the provision of transportation

in emergency situations, through use of existing public

transportation systems (Litman, 2006; Berube, 2005; Insurance

Institute for Business & Home Safety, 2012). These plans and

28


forms of legislation need to provide a clear, plan for what steps

are to be taken to prevent disaster, including but not limited to

stopping further development of land that acts a natural barrier

against weather, and giving priority to the provision of pre-

disaster plans resources to those already living in such areas.

Specific procedures need to be written outlining who programs and

services are responsible for prevention and preparation resources

and services, as well as services provided during and after

disaster.

29


References

Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response. (2008). Emergency Response. City of New Orleans. Retrieved from http://www.nola.gov/health/emergency-preparedness/

Berube, Alan, & Steven Raphael. (2005). Access to Cars in New Orleans.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/metro/20050915_katrinacarstables.pdf

Blaikie, Piers, Terry Cannon, Ian Davis, & Ben Wisner. (1994). At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability, and Disasters. London: Routledge.

Burby, Raymond J. (2006). Hurricane Katrina and the Paradoxes of GovernmentDisaster Policy: Bringing About Wise Governmental Decisions for Hazardous Areas. Retrieved from

30

http://www.brookings.edu/metro/20050915_katrinacarstables.pdf

http://www.brookings.edu/metro/20050915_katrinacarstables.pdf

http://www.nola.gov/health/emergency-preparedness/


http://www.wcu.edu/webfiles/pdfs/paradox_of_disaster_policy.pdf

Dash, N., Peacock, W. G., & Morrow, B. H. (1997). And the Poor get Poorer: A Neglected Black Community. In W. G. Peacock, B. H. Morrow, & H. Gladwin (Eds.), Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, Gender, and the Sociology of Disasters (206-225. New York: Routledge.as cited in Zakour, Michael J. and Evelyn B. Harrell (2003). Access to Disaster Services: Social Work Interventions for Vulnerable Populations. Journal of Social Service Research.Vol 30 (2) 27-54. Retrieved from http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JSSR

Department of Homeland Security. (2013). National Response Plan. Retrieved from http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/NRP_Brochure.pdf

Elliott, James & Jeremy Pais. (2006). Race, Class, and Hurricane Katrina:Social Differences in Human Responses to Disaster. In Zamore, Ysaye. Being Black: Examining the Relationship Between Sociodemographic Characteristics, Racial Residential Segregation, and Evacuation Behavior in Hurricane Katrina. Master’s Thesis, Department of Sociology Colorado State Univeristy. Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/awards/paper-competition/zamore.pdf

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2014). National Response Framework. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/national-response-framework

Fussell E. (2007).Constructing New Orleans, Constructing Race: A Population History of New Orleans. Journal of American History. Retrieved from http://jah.oxfordjournals.org/content/94/3/846.full.pdf+html

Gault, Barbara, Heidi Harmann, Avis Jones-DeWeever, MishaWerschkul, & Erica Williams. (2005). The Women of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast: Multiple Disadvantages and Key Assets for Recovery. Part 1. Poverty, Race, Gender, and Class. Washington, D.C: Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Retrieved from http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/the-women-of-new-

31

http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JSSR

http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/the-women-of-new-orleans-and-the-gulf-coast-multiple-disadvantages-and-key-assets-for-recovery-part-i.-poverty-race-gender-and-class

http://jah.oxfordjournals.org/content/94/3/846.full.pdf+html

https://www.fema.gov/national-response-framework

https://www.fema.gov/national-response-framework

http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/awards/paper-competition/zamore.pdf


http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/NRP_Brochure.pdf




orleans-and-the-gulf-coast-multiple-disadvantages-and-key-assets-for-recovery-part-i.-poverty-race-gender-and-class

Hartman, Chester W. & Gregory D. Squires, eds. (2006). There is No Such Thing as a Natural Disaster: Race, Class, and Hurricane Katrina. Taylor &Francais.

Hoffman, Sharona. (2009). Preparing for Disaster: Protecting theMost Vulnerable in Emergencies. UC Davis Law Review Vol 42:1pp 1491-1547. Retrieved from http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/42/5/articles/42-5_Hoffman.pdf

Howenstine, E. (1996). Ethnic Change and Segregation in Chicago. In C. C.Roseman, H. D. Laux, & G. Thieme (Eds.), EthniCity: Geographic Perspectives on Ethnic Change in Modern Cities (pp. 31-49). Lanham, MD:Rowan & Littlefield.as cited in Zakour, Michael J. and Evelyn B. Harrell (2003). Access to Disaster Services: Social Work Interventions for Vulnerale Populations. Journalof Social Service Research.Vol 30 (2) 27-54. Retrieved from http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JSSR

Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety. (2012). Public Policy: Vulnerable Populations. Retrieved from https://www.disastersafety.org/public-policy/vulnerable-populations/

Klinenberg, Eric. (2002). Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Knox, Virginia W., Andrew S. London, Ellen K. Scott, & Susan Blank. (2003). Welfare Reform, Work, and Child Care: The Role of Informal Care in the Lives of Low-Income Women and Children. The Next GenerationPolicy Brief. New York: MDRC. In Zedlewski, Sheila R. (2006). Building a Better Safety Net for the New New Orleans. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, February 2006.Retrieved from.http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=900922

Kramer, Fredrica D., Kenneth Finegold, & Daniel Kuehn. (2008). Understanding the Consequences of Hurricane Katrina for ACF Service Populations: A Feasibility Assessment of Study Approaches. The Urban Institute. Washington, D.C. Administration for Children and

32


http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=900922

https://www.disastersafety.org/public-policy/vulnerable-populations/

https://www.disastersafety.org/public-policy/vulnerable-populations/

http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/42/5/articles/42-5_Hoffman.pdf

http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/42/5/articles/42-5_Hoffman.pdf




Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/katrina_final2.pdf

Laditka, Sarah B., Louise M. Murray, & James N. Laditka. (2010). In the Eye of the Storm: Resilience and Vulnerability Among African American Women in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina. Health Care for Women International, 31 (11) 1013-1027.

Library of Congress. (2014). H.R.2217 - Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/2217

Litman, Todd. (2006). Lessons From Katrina and Rita: What Major Disasters CanTeach Transportation Planners. In Zamore, Ysaye. Being Black: Examining the Relationship Between Sociodemographic Characteristics, Racial Residential Segregation, and Evacuation behavior in Hurricane Katrina. Master’s Thesis, Department of Sociology Colorado State Univeristy. Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/awards/paper-competition/zamore.pdf

Macartney, Suzanne, Alemayehu Bishaw, & Kayla Fontenot. (2013). Poverty Rates for Selected Detailed Race and Hispanic Groups by State and Place:2007–2011. American Community Survey Briefs. U.S. Census Bureau.

Mener, Andrew S. (2007). Disaster Response in the United States of America: An Analysis of the Bureaucratic and Political History of a Failing System. CUREJ:College Undergraduate Research Electronic Journal, University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/curej/63.

National Association of Social Workers. (2005). Role of Government, Social Policy, and Social Work. Social Work Speaks: National Association of SocialWorkers Policy Statement. Washington, DC: NASW Press. 291-295.

Neumayer, Eric & Pl ̈umper, Thomas. (2007). The Gendered Nature of

33

http://repository.upenn.edu/curej/63



https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/2217

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/katrina_final2.pdf

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/katrina_final2.pdf


Natural Disasters: The Impact of Catastrophic Events on the Gender Gap in LifeExpectancy, 1981–2002. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 97(3) 551–566. Blackwell Publishing. Malden, MA, USA. Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/3040/1/Gendered_nature_of_natural_disasters_(LSERO).pdf

Park, R. E. (1926/1975). The Urban Community as a Spatial Pattern and Moral Order. In C. Peach (Ed.), Urban Social Segregation (pp.21-31). New York: Longman. as cited in Zakour, Michael J. and Evelyn B. Harrell (2003). Access to Disaster Services: Social Work Interventions for Vulnerable Populations. Journal of Social Service Research.Vol 30 (2)27-54. Retrieved from http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JSSR

Peacock, W. G., Morrow, B. H., & Gladwin, H. (Eds.). (1997). Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, Gender, and the Sociology of Disasters. New York: Routledge. as cited in Zakour, Michael J. & Evelyn B. Harrell (2003). Access to Disaster Services: Social Work Interventions for Vulnerable Populations. Journal of Social Service Research. Vol 30 (2) 27-54. Retrieved from http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JSSR

Peacock, W. G., & Ragsdale, A. K. (1997). Social Systems, Ecological Networks and Disasters: Toward a Socio-Political Ecology of Disasters. Peacock, W. G., Morrow, B. H., & Gladwin, H. (Eds.). (1997). Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, Gender, and the Sociology of Disasters.New York: Routledge. as cited in Zakour, Michael J. & Evelyn B. Harrell (2003). Access to Disaster Services: Social Work Interventions for Vulnerbale Populations. Journal of Social Service Research. Vol 30 (2) 27-54. Retrieved from http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JSSR

Peek, Lori & Kai Erikson. (2007). Hurricane Katrina. Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology.Ritzer, G. (Ed). Blackwell Publishing. Blackwell Reference Online.” In Zamore, Ysaye.Being Black: Examining the Relationship between Sociodemographic Characteristics, Racial Residential Segregation, and Evacuation Behavior in Hurricane Katrina. Master’s Thesis, Department of Sociology

34




http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/3040/1/Gendered_nature_of_natural_disasters_(LSERO).pdf

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/3040/1/Gendered_nature_of_natural_disasters_(LSERO).pdf


Colorado State Univeristy. Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/awards/paper-competition/zamore.pdf

Peek, Lori & Alice Fothergill. (2008). Displacement, Gender, and the Challenges of Parenting After Hurricane Katrina. National Women’s Studies Association Journal 20(3) 69-105.

Piven, Frances Fox & Richard A. Cloward. (1993). Regulating the Poor : the Functions of Public Welfare. New York : Vintage Books.

Rivera, Jason David & DeMondShondell Miller. (2006). A Brief History of the Evolution of United States’ Natural Disaster Policy. Journal of Public Management and Social Policy. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/8268645/A_Brief_History_of_the_Evolution_of_United_States_Natural_Disaster_Policy

Rockman, Seth. (2003). “Part I: Introduction: Poverty " in a Land Flowing with Milk and Honey." Welfare Reform in the Early Republic: A Brief History with Documents. 1-29. Waveland Press, Inc. Boston.

Rubington, Earl & Martin S. Weinberg. (2003). The Study of Social Problems: Seven Perspectives, sixth edition. New York: Oxford University Press. As cited in Drabek, Thomas E. 2008. Social Problems Perspectives, Disaster Research and Emergency Management: Intellectual Contexts, Theoretical Extensions, and Policy Implications. (Revision and expansion of the E.L. Quarantelli Award lecture). Emmitsburg, Maryland: Emergency Management Institute, Federal Emergency Management Agency (Higher Education Project website). Retrieved from http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu/highpapers.asp].

Russell, James. (2011). Double Standard: Social Policy in Europe and the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2nd edition.

Select Committee Staff. (2005). Interviews with City of New Orleans officials in New Orleans, LA. Cited in United States Congress. (2006). A Failure of Initiative: Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response

35

http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu/highpapers.asp

https://www.academia.edu/8268645/A_Brief_History_of_the_Evolution_of_United_States_Natural_Disaster_Policy

https://www.academia.edu/8268645/A_Brief_History_of_the_Evolution_of_United_States_Natural_Disaster_Policy




to Hurricane Katrina. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20090326065222/http:/www.gpoaccess.gov/katrinareport/fullreport.pdf

Sharkey, Peter. (2007). Survival and Death in New Orleans: An Empirical Look at the Human Impact of Hurricane Katrina. Journal of Black Studies. 37(4), 482-501. Retrieved from http://cretscmhd.psych.ucla.edu/nola/volunteer/EmpiricalStudies/Survival%20and%20death%20in%20new%20orleans%20-%20an%20empirical%20look%20at%20the%20human%20impact%20of%20katrina.pdf

Smith, DeWitt C. (2005). Organizing for Disaster Preparedness. originally in 1942, in the Proceedings of the National Conference ofSocial Work, Selected Papers, Sixty-Ninth Annual Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, May 10-16, 1942, 255-267. New York: Columbia University Press. The original formatting has been retained, to the extent possible. This material has entered the public domain. Journal of Community Practice, Vol. 13(4): 131-141. Haworth Press. Retrieved from http://www.haworthpress.com/web/COMd

Smith, Neil. (2006). There’s No Such Thing as a Natural Disaster. Understanding Katrina. Perspectives from the Social Sciences. Retrieved from 2014. http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Smith/

Titmuss, Richard M. (1965). The Role of Redistribution in Social Policy. Soc. Sec. Bull. 28 (1): 14-20.

United States Congress. (2006). A Failure of Initiative: Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved from fromhttps://web.archive.org/web/20090326065222/http:/www.gpoaccess.gov/katrinareport/fullreport.pdf

United States Congress. (2005). S. 559 (109th): Protection of Vulnerable Populations During Humanitarian Emergencies Act of 2005. Retrieved from

36

http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Smith/

http://www.haworthpress.com/web/COMd

http://cretscmhd.psych.ucla.edu/nola/volunteer/EmpiricalStudies/Survival%20and%20death%20in%20new%20orleans%20-%20an%20empirical%20look%20at%20the%20human%20impact%20of%20katrina.pdf




https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s559/text

Warner, Coleman & Robert Travis. (2005). "Where They Died." Times-Picayune. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20051027003351/http:/www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-4/113005097377980.xml

White House Department of Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. (2006). The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina:Lessons Learned. Retrieved from http://library.stmarytx.edu/acadlib/edocs/katrinawh.pdf

Winston, Pamela, Olivia Golden, Kenneth Finegold, Kim Ruben, Margery Austin Turner, & Stephen Zuckerman. (2006). After Katrina: Federalism after Hurricane Katrina. How Can Social Programs Respond to a Major Disaster? Assessing the New Federalism. An Urban Institute Program to Assess Changing Social Policies. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/publications/311344.html

Zakour, Michael J. & Evelyn B. Harrell (2003). Access to Disaster Services: Social Work Interventions for VulneralePopulations. Journal of Social Service Research.Vol 30 (2): 27-54. Retrieved from http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JSSR

Zakour, M. J., & Gillespie, D. F. (1998). Effects of Organizational Type and Localism on Volunteerism and Resource Sharing During Disasters. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27(1), 49-65.as cited in Zakour, Michael J. and Evelyn B. Harrell 2003. Access to Disaster Services: Social Work Interventions for Vulnerable Populations. Journal of Social Service Research. Vol 30 (2): 27-54. Retrieved from http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JSSR

Zedlewski, Sheila R. (2006). Building a Better Safety Net for the New NewOrleans. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=900922

37



http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=900922

http://www.urban.org/publications/311344.html

http://library.stmarytx.edu/acadlib/edocs/katrinawh.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20051027003351/http:/www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-4/113005097377980.xml



https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s559/text

VULNERABLE POPULATIONS AND NATURAL DISATSTER: A POLICY ANALYSIS38

Vulnerable populations and natural disaster: A policy analysis

Documents

Transcript of Vulnerable populations and natural disaster: A policy analysis