Laura M. Stough, Ph.D. Elizabeth McAdams Ducy, M.Ed. Texas A&M University Project REDD: Research and Education on Disability and Disaster Center on Disability.

Social Supports and Long-term Recovery for

Individuals with Disabilities

Laura M. Stough, Ph.D.Elizabeth McAdams Ducy, M.Ed.Texas A&M University Project REDD: Research and Education on Disability and Disaster Center on Disability and Development

Eric Gay/AP

www.katrinadestruction.com

Hurricane Katrina1.5 Million

Impacted23% with Disabilities

Past Research on Disaster and DisabilitiesPeople with disabilities are often excluded from

emergency preparedness planning (Fox, White, Rooney, & Rowland, 2007)

Adults with disabilities are less likely to evacuate (Dash & Gladwin, 2007)

Adults with mobility impairments are at increased risk for mortality (Aldrich & Benson, 2008)

Social distancing, and institutional exclusion can further threaten the physical health in the aftermath of disaster (Hemingway & Priestly, 2006)

DefinitionsDefinition of Disaster-

When resources needed due to an unexpected impact exceed the capacity of a community or individual to respond to the impact.

Definition of Social Supports- “Those social interactions or relationships that

provide individuals with actual assistance or that embed individuals within a social system believed to provide love, caring, or sense of attachment to a valued social group.” (Hobfoll, 1998).

Social Supports

Turn to one or two people next to you. Describe briefly the people who are your primary social supports.

Social Supports and DisasterSurvivors seek to

reestablish social bonds as quickly as possible following disaster (Reich, 2006).

Social supports can have psychosocial benefits on individuals impacted by disaster (Norris & Kanistay, 1996).

www.katrinadestruction.com

Social Supports and DisasterResearch on disaster suggests

that people with disabilities may be more vulnerable, in part, because of the composition of their social networks.

Individuals with disabilities may have fewer social supports (Van Willigen et al., 2002).

Tierney et al. (1988) suggest that the social distancing associated with the label of “disabled” may further limit access to social networks and others sources of psychological support during a disaster

Eric Gay/AP

Design of the StudyI. Face-to-face in-depth interviews with 39

individuals with disabilities (ID) A. Daily life and supports pre-disasterB. Disaster narrativeC. Daily life and supports three years post-

disaster

II. Telephone surveys with 59 individuals with ID or diabetes

III. Two focus groups: Texas and Louisiana

Interview ParticipantsTexas Louisiana TOTAL

Intellectual Disabilities

11 12 23

Diabetes 5 3 8

Other Disabilities 1 7 8

TOTAL 17 22 39

Interview Participants

Male, 38%

Female, 62%

Gender

Interview Participants

African Amer-ican, 77.0%

White 10.0%

Unknown, 10.0%

Asian 3.0%

Ethnicity

Survey Item CategoriesAfter 39 face-to-face interviews were completed, transcribed, and

coded, grounded theory was used to identify primary emerging categories.

Conceptual categories-

Social SupportsHousingEmploymentTransportationAccess to Recovery ServicesRecreationSpiritual ActivitiesMedical Well-BeingDisability Related SupportsEmotional and psychological responses

The Central Phenomenon: Social Supports

Social supports was the most prominent category revealed through the analysisSocial supports was a topic referenced in

all 39 interviewsSocial supports was referenced a total of

311 times across all interviews

Turn to one or two people next to you. Describe briefly who you think would be your primary social supports if you had to evacuate over 100 miles from your home.

Which of your social supports changed from your first answer?

Example of Social SupportsSocial Supports Social Supports-100

miles

Fam-ily

Friends

Neighbors

Co-Workers

Family

Friends

Properties of Social Supports1. Proximity to supports2. Frequency of interactions3. Cohesion of family4. Intimacy with neighbors5. Diversity of people6. Formality of supports

ProximityBefore:

Close proximity Often living in same house or neighborhood

After: Proximity significantly distanced Separation affected the participants regardless of

actual distance

ProximityInterviewer: “Did your family live right there

by you or close?” Karen: “Oh yeah, I lived on this side, I live 1609

and my sister live 1611. It was a family house and we have been around here since 1953.”

Proximity

“ It’s [life] boring. Besides my Auntie, I had a friend that I loved. I left them because it’s too far away. People won’t come way down here to get you. They considered this a long ways from Baton Rouge and a long ways from New Orleans.” Wanda

Frequency of InteractionBefore

High interactionOften Daily interaction

AfterInfrequent interactionNo contact at all

Frequency of InteractionInterviewer-”Who did you see almost everyday before Katrina?”

Mark- “My family. My brothers and sisters yeah. There is eight of us, four boys and four girls.”

Interviewer-”Those are the people you spent your time with everyday?”

Mark- “Right, right. Some kind of way or another.”

Frequency of Interaction“So it has been rough trying to get back we

have been back one time but we was enjoying life was sweet like my kids tell it they really miss their friends people that we have not seen in a long time.” Kate

Cohesion of FamilyBefore

Cohesive Gathered

After Scattered Unaware of location

Cohesion of Family“Like I said I still can’t reach out and touch my sisters, none of them. Things are just bad. Seeing them everyday. Now everybody just spread all over. My other sister she in where she at lets see if I can think of the name somewhere her and her daughters, my nieces where they at man I can’t even think of the name.” Mark

Cohesion of FamilyInterviewer: Are there any other members of

your family that live nearby? You said you had a son in Corpus Christie?”

Mike- “That’s my only one. Everyone else, I don’t know where they at. I don’t know if they're dead, I don’t know if they are alive.”

Intimacy with NeighborsBefore

Neighbors were friends Considered leisure time hanging out with neighbors

After The majority had low or no contact with neighbors Some participants described contact as “checking

in” but not friends The few that did describe neighbors as friend had

the shared experience of Katrina

Intimacy with NeighborsInterviewer- “Do you know people in the

neighborhood?”

Immanuel- “No, I might greet them hello, goodbye, maybe my neighbor downstairs. But I mean I don’t congregate with anyone in particular around here.”

Diversity of PeopleBefore

Included a variety of individuals Influenced amount and type of activities Influenced access to transportation, daily living

finances, leisure and recreation

AfterSocial supports less diverse

Lowered frequency and type of activities Limited access to other supports

Diversity of People“My friends and I we have certain times we

would get together, you know, like on Friday we would go to the market or if I had some place or some of them, a couple of them would meet me down there we would go to lunch at a café in St. Peter’s square, we would go there and have a sandwich and sometimes we would go to the park.” Faye

Diversity of People“I don’t have no friends. The only friends I have

right now is my wife.” Mike

“I don’t know nobody here.” Efron

Formality of SupportsBefore

InformalAnticipated needs

AfterFormalDifficult to ask for help

Informality of Supports“ My church family and my family I could

always go to them for help. I didn’t necessarily have to ask all the time they know my limits, they knew my limits. I miss those people its different here. I was comfortable with my family and people from my church and the few friends in the neighborhood I had. Like I said people knew, I had friends you didn’t have to ask for anything you know. Its different here real different here.” Joe

Survey Results

II. Telephone surveys with 59 individuals with ID or diabetes

A. 65 items based on qualitative resultsB. 12 demographic items

Social Supports

Before After Same

Saw friends and neighbors more

88% 4% 6%

Saw family members more

72% 11% 16%

Knew more neighbors

80% 14% 4%

Had more friends

78% 11% 9%

Linkage With Other CategoriesHousingEmploymentTransportationAccess to Recovery ServicesRecreationSpiritual ActivitiesMedical Well-Being

SummarySocial supports were important to these

participants both before and after the stormAll of the participants lost close and loved supports

as a result of the disaster and its aftermathThe configuration of these supports changed

significantly after the storm. They became:SmallerLess variedMore formalLess familiarMore delicate

Laura M. Stough, Ph.D. [email protected]

http://redd.tamu.edu