How Public Policy Programs Addressed Housing Recovery: Case Study of Pre-Disaster Community Vulnerability in Galveston, Texas

Background/Purpose.  Housing recovery, as indicated by replacement and new building rates, is a significant component of a disaster-resilient community (Quarantelli, 2006). Two public programs administered by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and the Individual Housing Assistance Program (IHAP), have partially mitigated flood-caused housing loss at the community level (Kunreuther, 2008; Peacock, et. al., 2012) among those living in poor housing conditions on special flood hazard areas. However, insurance affordability and access to FEMA resources still limit housing recovery because many community members in disaster-prone areas are socially vulnerable and economically marginalized before disasters (Peacock et al., 2012; Way and Sloan, 2013). Ultimately, how and to what extent pre-disaster community vulnerability affects post-disaster recovery in communities with varied socioeconomic profiles and NFIP/IHAP utilization levels is unknown.

In response, this case study of Galveston County examined the social demographic characteristics and economic well-being of 194 Census Block Groups ("community" definition here) prior to Hurricane Ike (2008), community-level FEMA claim rates (NFIP/IHAP) immediately after Ike, and community-level housing recovery three years after Ike. We ask here: 1) To what extent did social, economic and physical characteristics (community vulnerability) pre-disaster predict post-disaster housing recovery; and 2) To what extent did NFIP/IHAP mediate community vulnerability as evidenced in housing recovery. This is the first study of the relationship between community vulnerability and housing recovery patterns to use public policy (NFIP/IAHP) as a mediator.

Methods: We developed the latent construct of community vulnerability using Census Block Group indicators of: social vulnerability (proportion of seniors and children; persons with disabilities or special needs--both mental and physical; race/ethnicity; female-headed households); economic vulnerability (poverty; households without a car; unemployment); and physical vulnerability (house location; quality; elevation level) and measured it specific to housing recovery.  Structural equation modeling enabled us to examine the individual and combined impacts of these vulnerabilities on housing recovery. Path analysis allowed us to compare the magnitude of each area of vulnerability on housing recovery and to increase understanding about how community vulnerability affects housing recovery. We also mapped and compared levels of NFIP/IHAP utilization in communities that did and did not evidence community vulnerability using Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis.

Results: The community vulnerability construct robustly revealed the cumulative and interactive effects of community vulnerability on housing recovery in ways that individual vulnerability characteristics did not. Second, although public policy programs (NFIP and IHAP) boosted housing recovery overall in Galveston, communities with lower levels of NFIP/IHAP coverage, from either affordability or access challenges, remained vulnerable and evidenced slower housing recovery.

Implications: Identification of how pre-disaster community vulnerability affects housing recovery after a major hurricane provides explicit direction for prevention efforts, from enhancing supportive practices in social service organizations to revising building code policies. Although expanding access to IHAP and affordability of NFIP may be difficult in the current political climate, expansion is critical to combatting the expected increase in flood-related disasters from climate change. Social work scholars and advocates can contribute significantly toward these practice and policy directions.