Intent and Implications of Emergency Management Policy for People with Disabilities

Background & Purpose: Across the United States, people of every demographic are affected by disasters. However, for people with disabilities, barriers to disaster preparedness can be compounded by functional needs and societal barriers. And when preparedness is inadequate, disadvantage often leads to increased suffering during response and recovery. In this study, the author explored how policy makers and people with disabilities influence emergency management policy on the local level, and how those policies impact the disability community.

Methods: This study utilized Guba's (1984, p. 65) approach for exploring “policy in intention” and “policy in experience” as well as the work of O'Connor and Netting (2008). Guba's (1984) framework provides clear methodological guidance: targeting policy makers (emergency management planners) and those affected by the policies (people with disabilities), conducting interviews and document analysis, and using thematic analysis to analyze the data. The research was conducted in a county in a mid-Atlantic state. The county is among the largest in the state, is located near two major metropolitan areas, and more than one third of the population identifies as racial minorities. Policy makers were interviewed about the policies concerning people with disabilities including the emergency operations plan. Participants with disabilities were asked about the disaster they experienced in the county, their interactions with the emergency management community, and the implications of that experience. The Emergency Operations Plan was analyzed using thematic analysis in order to understand the content to compare with the planners' description of the content.

Results: While document analysis revealed almost no mention of disability or related topics, interviews yielded a great deal of information about policy intent. Policy makers' responses centered around four key concepts: (1) meeting basic needs including safety, (2) developing sinuous policy guidance that allows for variability of circumstances and honors knowledge, skills, and abilities of the responders, (3) having the “right people” in place who know what to do and promote equal access, (4) learning from previous experiences within and beyond the county, and as much as possible, (5) addressing needs one person at a time. The participants with disabilities described their experiences with hurricanes that struck the area in 2003 and 2004, during which they sheltered in place at home. Key findings included (1) being unable to get in and out of their neighborhoods, (2) having no power to charge equipment or keep medication refrigerated, (3) having positive interactions with the emergency management community, and (4) increasing personal preparedness after the experience.

Conclusion: This methodology brought policy that can seem generalized and far removed from individual experiences into an analysis that is truly personal and contextual. The research process drew attention to gaps, allowed policy makers to explore alternatives, and gave voice to those crafting as well as those experiencing the policy. The methodology can be used in other communities to give voice to two different viewpoints in the policy process and narrow the divide between those who create policies and those who experience them as recipients or target populations.