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

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)

Long-Term Recovery of Individuals with Disabilities

Dr. Laura StoughDr. Amy Sharp Richard Petty,

M.B.A.

Dr. Judith HoltJeff Sheen, MSW

Design of the StudyDesign of the Study

I. Face-to-face in-depth interviews with 39 individuals with disabilities

II. Telephone surveys with 59 individuals with disabilities

III. Two focus groups: Texas and Louisiana

Interview ParticipantsInterview ParticipantsTexas Louisiana Total

Intellectual Disabilities

11 12 23

Diabetes 5 3 8

Other Disabilities 1 7 8

Total 17 22 39

Interview Participants

African American,

77%

Caucasian,10%

Unknown, 10%

Asian , 3%Ethnicity

Grounded Theory AnalysisGrounded Theory Analysis Social Supports Housing Employment Transportation Access to Recovery

Services Recreation Spiritual Activities Medical Well-Being

Photo: Eric Gay/AP

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

Properties of Social Supports

1. Proximity to supports

2. Frequency of interactions

3. Cohesion of family

4. Intimacy with neighbors

5. Diversity of people

6. Formality of supports

Proximity Before:

Close proximitySame house or neighborhood

After:Proximity significantly distancedSeparation affected the participants regardless of actual distance

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 Interaction Before

High interaction Often Daily interaction

After Infrequent interaction No contact at all

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 Family Before

Cohesive Gathered

After Scattered Cohesiveness unraveled

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

Intimacy with Neighbors Before

High Contact Neighborhood belongingNeighbors were friends

AfterLow to no contact“Checking in” Fellow survivors

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 People Before

Included a diverse range of individuals Influenced amount of activities

After Social supports less diverse

Lowered frequency of activities

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 Supports Before

Informal Anticipated needs

After Formal Difficult to ask for help

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

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.

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