The Impact of Natural Disaster on the Social Supports of Individuals with Disabilities

1. The Impact of Natural Disaster on the Social Supports of Individuals with Disabilities Laura Stough, Ph.D. Amy Sharp, Ph.D. Elizabeth McAdams Ducy, M.Ed. Judith Holt, Ph.D. Jeff Sheen, MSW

2. Hurricane Katrina It is estimated that 23.2 percent of the population of New Orleans had a disability. (National Council on Disability, 2005) (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

3. Long-Term Recovery of Individuals with Disabilities Dr. Judith Holt Jeff Sheen, MSW Dr. Laura Stough Dr. Amy Sharp Richard Petty, M.B.A.

4. Design of the Study • Face-to-face in-depth interviews with 39 individuals with disabilities • Telephone surveys with 59 individuals with disabilities • Two focus groups: Texas and Louisiana

5. Interview Participants

6. Interview Participants

7. Grounded Theory Analysis • Social Supports • Housing • Employment • Transportation • Access to Recovery Services • Recreation • Spiritual Activities • Medical Well-Being Photo: Eric Gay/AP

8. The Category of Focus:Social Supports • The most prominent category • Closely tied to other categories • Participants referred to the category spontaneously • Emotional/longing/compelling tone

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

10. Proximity • Before: • Close proximity • Same house or neighborhood • After: • Proximity significantly distanced • Separation affected the participants regardless of actual distance

11. 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

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

13. 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

14. Cohesion of Family • Before • Cohesive • Gathered • After • Scattered • Cohesiveness unraveled

15. 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

16. Intimacy with Neighbors • Before • High Contact • Neighborhood belonging • Neighbors were friends • After • Low to no contact • “Checking in” • Fellow survivors

17. 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.”

18. Diversity of People • Before • Included a diverse range of individuals • Influenced amount of activities • After • Social supports less diverse • Lowered frequency of activities

19. 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

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

21. 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

22. 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 • The configuration of these supports changed significantly after the storm.

23. Project REDD website: http://redd.tamu.edu