The Effect of Disaster on the Social Supports of Individuals with Disabilities

1. The Effect of Disaster on the Social Supports of Individuals with Disabilities Laura M. Stough, Ph.D. Texas A&M University Center on Disability and Development

2. 23% with Disabilities Hurricane Katrina 1.5 Million Impacted

3. Eric Gay/AP

4. Definition of Social Supports “According to the contemporary models of stress, social support is an asset that it promotes preservation or recovery of physical and psychological resources that are needed for successful coping” (Kaniasty & Norris, 1995)

5. Definition of Social Supports “Social support is a convenient but abstract term that summarizes the effects of what people do for one another naturally, through everyday exchange of acknowledgment, information, emotions and help (Nisbet, 1992).

6. Social Supports and Disaster • Research 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

7. Design of the Study • Face-to-face in-depth interviews with 39 individuals with disabilities (ID) • Interviews included three “chapters” • Daily life and supports pre-disaster • Disaster narrative • Daily life and supports three years post-disaster

8. Interview Participants

9. Interview Participants

10. Interview Participants

11. Analysis Grounded Theory ( Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990) was used to collect and analyze our data. • Social Supports • Housing • Employment • Transportation • Access to Recovery Services • Recreation • Spiritual Activities • Medical Well-Being

12. The Category of Focus:Social Supports • Social supports was the most prominent category revealed through the analysis • Referenced in all 39 interviews • Referenced a total of 311 times across all interviews • The social supports category was complex and seemed closely tied to other categories that emerged from our analysis. • Participants referred to this category spontaneously and referred to social supports throughout their interviews. • We were drawn to the emotional/longing/compelling tone of the social support quotes

13. Properties of Social Supports • Proximity to supports • Frequency of interactions • Cohesion of family • Intimacy with neighbors • Diversity of people • Formality of supports

14. Proximity • Before: • Close proximity • Often living in same house or neighborhood • After: • Proximity significantly distanced • Separation affected the participants regardless of actual distance

15. 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

16. Frequency of Interaction • Before • High interaction • Often Daily interaction • After • Infrequent interaction • No contact at all

17. 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

18. Cohesion of Family • Before • Cohesive • Gathered • Families lived in close proximity and had frequent interaction • After • Scattered • Cohesiveness unraveled • Unaware of location

19. 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

20. Intimacy with Neighbors • Before • High Intimacy • Contributed to a feeling of neighborhood belonging • 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

21. Intimacy with Neighbors Interviewer- “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.”

22. Diversity of People • Before • Included a diverse range of individuals • Influenced amount and type of activities • Influenced access to transportation, daily living finances, leisure and recreation • After • Social supports less diverse • Lowered frequency and type of activities • Limited access to other supports

23. 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

24. Formality of Supports • Before • Informal • Anticipated needs • After • Formal • Difficult to ask for help

25. Formality of Supports “She (sister) took care of me. She took care of me get my medicine and fix my food. My sister cause she got a car and stuff……My sister she go she would take me shopping well the days I was feeling good we go shopping.” Ethel

26. Linkage With Other Categories • Housing • Employment • Transportation • Access to Recovery Services • Recreation • Spiritual Activities • Medical Well-Being

27. Summary • Social supports were important to these participants both before and after the storm • All of the participants lost close and loved supports as a result of the disaster and its aftermath • The configuration of these supports changed significantly after the storm. They became: • Smaller • Less varied • More formal • Less familiar • More delicate

28. Laura M. Stough, Ph.D. lstough@tamu.edu http://redd.tamu.edu