![]() Back to Annual Meeting Page
|
133rd Annual Meeting & Exposition December 10-14, 2005 Philadelphia, PA |
![]() |
|
Glen W. White, PhD1, Michael H. Fox, ScD2, Catherine Rooney, MA1, and Jennifer L. Rowland, PhD, MPH, PT3. (1) Research and Training Center on Independent Living, University of Kansas, 1000 Sunnyside Avenue, Dole 4089, Lawrence, KS 66045, (795) 864-4095, glen@ku.edu, (2) Department of Health Policy & Management and the KU Research and Training Center on Independent Living, University of Kansas Medical Center, University of Kansas, Dole Building, Room 4089, 1000 Sunnyside Avenue, Lawrence, KS 66045, (3) Research & Training Center on Independent Living, University of Kansas, 1000 Sunnyside, Room 4089 Dole Building, Lawrence, KS 66045
Typically, disaster preparedness and emergency response systems are designed for non-disabled persons. Transitional needs back to pre-disaster conditions required for persons with mobility impairments offer unique challenges. This study assessed the impact of disasters on county level preparedness for persons with mobility limitations by surveying 30 randomly selected sites in which a FEMA disaster occurred between 1998 and 2003. Survey information was gathered to determine disability surveillance capacity, the extent which the disaster experience influenced changes in policies and practices, whether persons with disabilities were involved in the planning process, what factors appeared to drive the planning process, and whether emerging or best practices appear to exist. Survey results indicated that people with disabilities were poorly represented in the emergency planning process, that the G197 FEMA Special Needs course pertaining to people with disabilities appears useful, even though only 27% of county emergency managers reported completing it; that only 20% of the emergency managers reported having specific guidelines in place to assist people with mobility impairments, and that surveillance systems were very weak. Two/thirds of counties surveyed stated that they had no intention of modifying their guidelines. Reasons cited included cost, limited staffing, lack of awareness, other security demands, and broader responsiveness to all so-called “special needs.” Our findings suggest the need for improved surveillance systems and technology assistance, a better understanding of environmental changes that address the needs of persons with disabilities, and greater participation of persons with disabilities into all phases of the disaster planning and response process.
Learning Objectives:
Related Web page: www.nobodyleftbehind2.org
Presenting author's disclosure statement:
I wish to disclose that I have NO financial interests or other relationship with the manufactures of commercial products, suppliers of commercial services or commercial supporters.
The 133rd Annual Meeting & Exposition (December 10-14, 2005) of APHA