| |
Saving Lives:
Including People with Disabilities in Emergency
Planning
National Council on Disability
1331 F Street, NW, Suite 850
Washington, DC 20004
202-272-2004 Voice
202-272-2074 TTY
202-272-2022 Fax
Lex Frieden, Chairperson
April 15, 2005
Saving Lives: Including People with Disabilities in Emergency
Planning
This report is also available in alternative formats and on the
awarding-winning National Council on Disability (NCD) Web site
(www.ncd.gov).
The views contained in this report do not necessarily represent
those of the Administration as this and all NCD documents are not
subject to the A-19 Executive Branch review process.
Letter of Transmittal
April 15, 2005
The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
The National Council on Disability (NCD) is
pleased to submit to you this report, titled Saving Lives: Including
People with Disabilities in Emergency Planning. Under its congressional
mandate, NCD is charged with the responsibility to gather information
on the development and implementation of federal laws, policies,
programs, and initiatives that affect people with disabilities.
In 2003, as a result of your Administration’s initiatives in homeland
security, NCD committed to evaluate the development of the Federal
Government’s work in that area as well as in the areas of
emergency preparation and disaster relief as they relate to and
affect Americans with disabilities.
All too often in emergency situations the legitimate
concerns of people with disabilities are overlooked or swept
aside. In areas ranging from the accessibility of emergency information
to the evacuation plans for high-rise buildings, great urgency
surrounds the need for responding to these people’s concerns
in all planning, preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation
activities. The man-made homeland security terrorist event of
September 11, 2001, as well as the recent energy blackouts in
the U.S. Northeast and Midwest and, more recently, the natural
disaster hurricane events in Florida and the tsunami event of
December 26, 2004, underscore the need to pay attention to the
concerns raised in this report.
The decisions the Federal Government makes, the priority it accords
to civil rights, and the methods it adopts to ensure uniformity
in the ways agencies handle their disability-related responsibilities
are likely to be established in the early days of an emergency
situation and be difficult to change if not set on the right course
at the outset. By way of this report, NCD offers advice to help
the Federal Government establish policies and practices in these
areas. This report provides examples of community efforts with
respect to people with disabilities, but by no means does it provide
a comprehensive treatment of the emergency preparedness, disaster
relief, or homeland security program efforts by state and local
governments.
This report provides an overview of steps the Federal
Government should take to build a solid and resilient infrastructure
that will enable the government to include the diverse populations
of people with disabilities in emergency preparedness, disaster
relief, and homeland security programs. This infrastructure would
incorporate access to technology, physical plants, programs, and
communications. It also would include procurement and emergency
programs and services.
NCD commends the Administration and those in leadership positions
for the issuance of the July 22, 2004, Executive Order on individuals
with disabilities and emergency preparedness. In addition, NCD
acknowledges the work of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
and the Federal Communications Commission in their efforts to ensure
that Americans with disabilities are included in the developing
infrastructure.
It is our expectation that, through this report, NCD can promote
a focused dialogue and communicate critical information to you
and your staff at the earliest practicable time to address issues
of importance to people with disabilities in the ongoing development
of DHS infrastructure.
We stand ready to work with you and the members
of your Administration to improve the nation’s homeland
security, emergency preparedness, and disaster relief infrastructure
for all Americans.
Sincerely,
Lex Frieden
Chairperson
(The same letter of transmittal was sent to the President Pro
Tempore of the U.S. Senate and the
Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.)
National Council on Disability Members and Staff
Members
Lex Frieden, Chairperson, Texas
Patricia Pound, First Vice Chairperson, Texas
Glenn Anderson, Ph.D., Second Vice Chairperson, Arkansas
Milton Aponte, J.D., Florida
Robert R. Davila, Ph.D., New York
Barbara Gillcrist, New Mexico
Graham Hill, Virginia
Joel I. Kahn, Ph.D., Ohio
Young Woo Kang, Ph.D., Indiana
Kathleen Martinez, California
Carol Novak, Florida
Anne M. Rader, New York
Marco Rodriguez, California
David Wenzel, Pennsylvania
Linda Wetters, Ohio
Staff
Ethel D. Briggs, Executive Director
Jeffrey T. Rosen, General Counsel and Director of Policy
Mark S. Quigley, Director of Communications
Allan W. Holland, Chief Financial Officer
Julie Carroll, Senior Attorney Advisor
Joan M. Durocher, Attorney Advisor
Martin Gould, Ed.D., Senior Research Specialist
Geraldine Drake Hawkins, Ph.D., Program Analyst
Mark Seifarth, Congressional Liaison
Pamela O’Leary, Interpreter
Brenda Bratton, Executive Assistant
Stacey S. Brown, Staff Assistant
Carla Nelson, Office Automation Clerk
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments
Executive Summary
Part I. Introduction
Part II. Improving Access to Disaster Services for
People with Disabilities
Part III. Role of Community-Based
Organizations
Part IV. The Developing Disability-Related Homeland Security,
Emergency
Preparedness, and Disaster Relief Infrastructure
Part V. Conclusions and Recommendations
References
Appendix
Mission of the National Council on Disability
Acknowledgments
A variety of disability
community leaders, disaster preparedness professionals, emergency
managers, government employees, university professors, executive
directors, and staff and board members of nonprofit organizations
made valuable contributions of time and expertise to this report.
We are unable to acknowledge them all individually but wish to
thank them deeply for sharing their time and expertise.
The National Council on Disability thanks June Isaacson Kailes
and Brandi Buchanan for conducting the research for this report.
Executive Summary
Purpose of the Report
All too often in emergency situations the legitimate
concerns of people with disabilities are overlooked or swept
aside. In areas ranging from the accessibility of emergency information
to the evacuation plans for high-rise buildings, great urgency
surrounds the need for responding to these people’s concerns
in all planning, preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation
activities. The man-made homeland security terrorist event of
September 11, 2001, as well as the recent energy blackouts in
the U.S. Northeast and Midwest and, more recently, the natural
disaster hurricane events in Florida and the Asian tsunami of
December 26, 2004, underscore the need to pay attention to the
concerns raised in this report.
The decisions the Federal Government makes, the priority it accords
to civil rights, and the methods it adopts to ensure uniformity
in the ways agencies handle their disability-related responsibilities
are likely to be established in the early days of an emergency
situation and be difficult to change if not set on the right course
at the outset. By way of this report, the National Council on Disability
(NCD) offers advice to help the Federal Government establish policies
and practices in these areas. The report also gives examples of
community efforts to take account of the needs of people with disabilities,
but by no means does it provide a comprehensive treatment of the
emergency preparedness, disaster relief, or homeland security program
efforts by state and local governments.
This report provides an overview of steps the Federal Government
should take to build a solid and resilient infrastructure that
will enable the government to include the diverse populations of
people with disabilities in emergency preparedness, disaster relief,
and homeland security programs. This infrastructure incorporates
access to technology, physical plants, programs, and communications.
It also includes procurement and emergency programs and services.
Scope of the Report
This report describes the disaster experiences
of people with disabilities. It also details the contributions
and efforts of community-based organizations (CBOs). And it examines
the nascent work of the Directorate of Emergency Preparedness
and Response (EP&R), which includes the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) Office
for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL), and FEMA’s federal,
state, local, and private sector partners. It also touches on the
ongoing work of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in
specific areas that relate to issues of homeland security and emergency
preparation. While other federal agencies play important roles
in this effort, DHS and FCC efforts represent some of the most
critical operations on behalf of Americans with disabilities. Given
the nature of most disasters, general and disability-specific programs
and services span many different governmental and nongovernmental
organizations.
The report examines the following broad areas:
- Disaster experiences of people
with disabilities and activity limitations and how their access
to disaster services could be improved.
- The experience of CBOs in disasters
and how partnerships with those organizations can help.
- How an effective disability-related
homeland security and emergency preparedness infrastructure could
be developed.
The report’s recommendations urge the
Federal Government to influence its state and local government
partners, as well as community-based partners, to assume major
roles in implementing key recommendations.
Who Are People with Disabilities?
Individuals with disabilities make up a sizable portion of the
general population of the United States. According to the U.S.
Census of 2000, they represent 19.3 percent of the 257.2 million
people ages 5 and older in the civilian noninstitutionalized population,
or nearly one person in five.
In disaster management activities it is important to think about
disability broadly. Traditional narrow definitions of disability
are not appropriate. The term disability does not apply just to
people whose disabilities are noticeable, such as wheelchair users
and people who are blind or deaf. The term also applies to people
with heart disease, emotional or psychiatric conditions, arthritis,
significant allergies, asthma, multiple chemical sensitivities,
respiratory conditions, and some visual, hearing, and cognitive
disabilities.
Adopting a broad definition leaves no one behind, and the imperative
is clear that emergency managers address the broad spectrum of
disability and activity limitation issues. People with disabilities
should be able to use the same services as the other residents
of the community in which they live. Although they may need additional
services, the emergency management system must work to build provisions
for these services into its plans so that people with disabilities
are not excluded from services available to the rest of the community.
If planning does not embrace the value that everyone should survive,
they will not.
Major Findings
- Disaster management activities
appear to have many access mistakes in common. People with disabilities
frequently encounter barriers to physical plants, communications,
and programs in shelters and recovery centers and in other facilities
or devices used in connection with disaster operations such as
first aid stations, mass feeding areas, portable payphone stations,
portable toilets, and temporary housing.
- Many of these barriers are not
new. Information and lessons learned are not shared across agency
lines, and thus experience does not enlighten the development
of new practices. Many accessibility lessons learned during previous
disasters are not incorporated in subsequent planning, preparedness,
response, and recovery activities. This should not be perceived
as a post-9/11 problem. Segments of the disability community
have reported problems in helping to develop and benefiting from
emergency services over many decades.
- People with disabilities and
activity limitations are left out of preparedness and planning
activities. These activities include analyzing and documenting
the possibility of an emergency or disaster and the potential
consequences or impacts on life, property, and the environment.
- Disaster preparedness and emergency
response systems are typically designed for people without disabilities,
for whom escape or rescue involves walking, running, driving,
seeing, hearing, and quickly responding to instructions, alerts,
and evacuation announcements.
- Access to emergency public warnings,
as well as preparedness and mitigation information and materials,
does not adequately include people who cannot depend on sight
and hearing to receive their information.
- FEMA recently developed one new
course with disability-specific content. Information related
to the emergency needs of people with disabilities, however,
is not widely integrated into a number of general emergency management
courses.
- The strengths and skills of CBOs
serving people with disabilities are not well integrated into
the emergency service plans and strategies of local government.
Emergency managers need to strengthen their relationships with
these organizations by recruiting, encouraging, and providing
funding and incentives to CBOs so that they can participate and
assist in disaster preparedness and relief.
- The CRCL and EP&R/FEMA
do not get many formal complaints about discrimination related
to people with disabilities and activity limitations. This
fact is in dramatic contrast to the barriers reported by
people with disabilities.
- DHS has not initiated funding
terminations to enforce Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation
Act against grantees that violate the law.
- Stronger outreach, targeted technical
assistance, and training initiatives focused on Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 compliance issues are
needed.
- Data on complaint
filings and compliance reviews initiated, specific
Section 504 issues, trends in complaint and compliance
reviews, and outcomes and enforcement actions is not
available on DHS’s Web site.
- There is little
evidence of DHS’s
grants program encouraging potential grantees to integrate and
address disability and access issues.
- Current DHS criteria for proposal
selection lack disability-specific indicators for evaluating
proposals.
Key Recommendations
- DHS should establish a Disability
Access Advisory Group, in addition to the Interagency Coordinating
Council on Emergency Preparedness, made up of qualified people
with disabilities and others with disability-specific disaster
experience who meet regularly with senior officials to discuss
issues and challenges.
- The EP&R should integrate
information on people with disabilities and activity limitations
into general preparedness materials. It also should inform readers
and information users on how to get access to more customized
materials.
- The CRCL should regularly issue
guidance for state and local emergency planning departments to
reinforce their legal obligation to comply with ADA and Section
504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act in planning for, operating,
and managing programs and services such as Citizen Corps, shelters,
and other disaster services.
- The CRCL should proactively conduct
compliance reviews to identify weaknesses and problems in complying
with ADA and Sections 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.
- The FCC should develop stronger
enforcement mechanisms to ensure that video programming distributors,
including broadcasters, cable operators, and satellite television
services, comply with their obligation to make emergency information
accessible to people with hearing and vision disabilities, that
it acts immediately on violations, and that it is proactive on
Section 255 hearing aid compatibility.
- DHS should develop and offer
technical assistance and guidance materials for grantees about
their ADA and Section 504 legal obligations and compliance strategies.
- DHS should conduct proactive
reviews of recipients’ compliance
or noncompliance with Section 504 and ADA.
- The CRCL and EP&R/FEMA
should develop information systems that comprehensively
collect, aggregate, and summarize detailed information about
complaints or compliance reviews and their outcomes. This
information should be made available to the public.
- DHS should collect and analyze
Section 504 and ADA program data (complaints or compliance reviews
and their outcomes) for progress made, deficiencies, best practices,
and areas in which DHS could provide coordination or technical
assistance.
- To ensure the widest possible
usage, Portable Document Format (PDF) documents posted on all
DHS Web sites should also be posted in an alternative accessible
format.
- DHS should fund disability-specific
initiatives.
- DHS should integrate disability-specific
indicators into its proposal selection criteria.
NCD believes this report will contribute to
America’s commitment
to building a solid and resilient infrastructure that incorporates
access to emergency programs and services and includes physical,
program, communication, and technological access for people with
disabilities. NCD acknowledges the good work that federal agencies
have undertaken and stands ready to assist in continuing this work.
Part I. Introduction
“On July 22, 2004, I signed an Executive
Order that makes government agencies responsible for properly
taking into account agency employees and customers with disabilities
in emergency preparedness planning and coordination with other
government entities. To help coordinate this effort, the Executive
Order establishes the Interagency Coordinating Council on Emergency
Preparedness and Individuals with Disabilities.”
President George W. Bush
Purpose of the Report
All too often in emergency situations the legitimate
concerns of people with disabilities are overlooked or swept
aside. In areas ranging from the accessibility of emergency information
to the evacuation plans for high-rise buildings, great urgency
surrounds the need for responding to these people’s concerns
in all planning, preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation
activities.
This report describes the need for the Federal Government, in
partnership with state and local governments and communities, to
build an infrastructure that will enable federal agencies to include
the diverse populations of people with disabilities in programs
and services involving homeland security, emergency preparedness,
and disaster relief. This infrastructure would incorporate access
to technology, physical plants, programs, and communications. It
also would include procurement practices and emergency programs
and services. This report discusses the status of selected federal
agency efforts in the development of such an infrastructure.
Through this report, National Council on Disability (NCD) offers
information that should help the Federal Government establish policies
and practices in these areas. The report also gives examples of
community efforts to take account of the needs of people with disabilities,
but by no means is the report intended to serve as a comprehensive
treatment of the emergency preparedness, disaster relief, or homeland
security program efforts by state and local governments.
Scope of the Report
This report primarily focuses on the seminal
work of the Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response
(EP&R), which includes
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Office for
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) in the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), and FEMA’s federal, state, local, and private
sector partners. It also touches on the work of the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC). It examines the disaster experiences of people
with disabilities. Finally, it looks at the role that community-based
organizations (CBOs) exercise in the areas of homeland security
and emergency preparedness on behalf of people with disabilities.
Now is the best time to integrate disability
issues effectively and reinforce and strengthen the nation’s commitment to homeland
security and emergency preparedness, while the implementing agencies
are still in their formative stages. The newly created DHS is a
massive organization of government agencies that is still in its
early stages of development. DHS is focusing on developing an efficient
and integrated operation (Walker 2004). The department’s
unparalleled size, scope, and complexity sometimes make it difficult
to decipher specific budgets, action plans, priorities, and partnerships
or, more important, to determine the most appropriate and objective
entry points.
Research Methods
Research for this report spanned the 16-month period from September
2003 to December 2004. The research methods included identifying
and obtaining source materials through extensive document and Internet
searches, literature reviews, and analysis of items recommended
by interviewees. Documents and materials reviewed came from federal
and state publications, journals, news reports, and public and
private Web sites, Webcasts and Webcast transcripts, reports, meeting
minutes and correspondence, public and private disaster and evacuation
plans, and disaster-specific conference content and materials.
In addition, in-depth structured interviews
were conducted with individuals, inside and outside of government,
who had relevant knowledge and background as well as extensive
and diverse experience in disability and emergency management.
Key interviewees included people in the disability communities,
in emergency services, and in local, state, and federal agencies.
Interviews covered these people’s occupational background
and experience; involvement with public or private agencies;
knowledge of resources used, training procedures, guides, and
courses, and organizations that have incorporated good disability-specific
practices; and referrals to additional people and materials with
relevant information.
Most interviews were conducted by phone. Notes were taken and
interviews were often taped for reference purposes. When all of
the interviews were completed, responses were grouped by topic
and analyzed for qualitative and quantitative information.
Who Are People with Disabilities?
Individuals with disabilities make up a sizable portion of the
general population of the United States. According to the U.S.
Census of 2000, they represent 19.3 percent of the 257.2 million
people ages 5 and older in the civilian noninstitutionalized population,
or nearly one person in five.
In this report, the term people with disabilities
includes people who are “vulnerable” or “at risk” and
cannot always comfortably or safely use some of the standard
resources offered in disaster preparedness, relief, recovery
and mitigation. They may include people who have a variety of
visual, hearing, mobility, cognitive, emotional, and mental limitations,
as well as older people, people who use life-support systems,
people who use service animals, and people who are medically
or chemically dependent.
Adopting a broad definition helps to ensure that
no one is left behind, and the imperative is clear that everyone
address the broad spectrum of disability and activity limitation
issues (Reis, Breslin, Iezzoni, and Kirschner 2003). If planning
does not embrace the value that everyone should survive, they will
not.
Disaster Experiences of People with Disabilities
There is a wealth of disaster related anecdotal
accounts from the disability community in the popular press,
the disability press and in meeting minutes, unpublished reports
and correspondence. There is, however, scarce research on experiences
of people with disabilities and activity limitations in disaster
activities that include planning, mitigation, preparedness, response,
and recovery (Pollander and Rund 1989, White 2003, White et al.
2004). One study, “Nobody
Left Behind: Investigating Disaster Preparedness and Response for
People with Disabilities,” was conducted at the Research
and Training Center on Independent Living, Kansas University (White
et al. 2004).
The same access mistakes appear to be made repeatedly
in disaster management activities. Lessons learned after a disaster
about reducing access barriers following disasters are not integrated
into subsequent practice. Such barriers include access to physical
plants, communications, and programs in recovery centers; other
structures and buildings used in connection with disaster operations
such as first aid stations, mass feeding areas, portable payphone
stations, portable toilets, temporary housing; and shelters, which
may present barriers to identification, access, management, training,
and services (California Department of Rehabilitation 1997, California
State Independent Living Council 2004, Center for Independence
of the Disabled 2004, Kailes 2000a, U.S. Department of Justice
2004, White et al. 2004).
The following is a sample of the types of barriers experienced
by people with disabilities that are documented by empirical research:
- People with disabilities have little input into
counties’ disaster planning (White et al. 2004).
- Only 39 percent of people surveyed
had an emergency plan in place for evacuating their home in the
event of an emergency (National Organization on Disability [NOD]
2002b).
- Only 39.9 percent of Texas residents
with disabilities in cities surveyed were involved in disaster
planning and preparedness activities. However, cities surveyed
reported that 77 percent of their emergency shelters were physically
accessible. After security perimeters were expanded at government
buildings and airports following 9/11, only 45.9 percent reevaluated
accessible parking and paths of travel to ensure compliance with
ADA (Pound 2002).
- Disaster preparedness and emergency
response systems are typically designed for people without disabilities,
for whom escape or rescue involves walking, running, driving,
seeing, hearing, and quickly responding to directions (White
et al. 2004).
- People with disabilities often
do not have as much access to earthquake preparedness materials
as people without disabilities. Sometimes disaster advice for
the general population is not equally applicable to people with
disabilities (Rahimi 1991).
- The lack of captioning on major
broadcast systems, as well as on Internet news sites, created
anxiety as many people could see pictures of the Twin Towers
collapsing and the fire at the Pentagon without knowing what
was happening (Heppner, Stout, and Brick 2004).
- The lack of captioning kept many
people in California from understanding the danger they were
in during the California wildfires of 2003, as the visual images
often did not include printed names of specific areas and neighborhoods.
This affected their ability to evacuate the area safely or in
a timely manner. People with hearing disabilities did not hear
the evacuation announcements being broadcast from patrol cars
(California State Independent Living Council 2004).
- Many people with disabilities
were inappropriately referred to medical facilities during the
Northridge, California, earthquake in 1994 when Red Cross personnel
misidentified their disabilities as acute medical conditions.
Some shelters refused people on the basis of these mislabeled
conditions (Bowencamp 1994, Lathrop 1994).
- Emergency disaster organizations
are not trained in what constitutes accessible facilities when
selecting sites for and operating shelters and disaster recovery
centers and disaster field offices (Kailes 1994, 2000a, Kailes
and Jones 1993).
- During the 1997 Minnesota Red
River flood, people with disabilities experienced many barriers,
including inaccessible disaster relief centers and temporary
housing such as travel trailers and mobile homes (Options Resource
Center for Independent Living 1997).
- Although local, state, regional,
and Federal Government agencies play a major role in disaster
planning and response, traditional government response agencies
are often ill-equipped to respond to the needs of vulnerable
populations. The traditional response and recovery systems are
often not able to satisfy many human needs successfully. The
usual approach to delivering emergency services does not always
provide the essential services for segments of the population
(City of San Leandro 2004).
- At higher levels of (homeland)
security, as perimeters expand, unique problems for people with
disabilities arise. These include loss of the use of accessible
parking unless it is redesignated, unavailability of close dropoff
points, and longer walks from available parking (Pound 2005).
These experiences and others are described in greater detail in
Part III of this report.
Part II. Improving Access to Disaster Services for People with Disabilities
Improving Access
Research gaps
There is a wealth of disaster related anecdotal
accounts from the disability community in the popular press,
the disability press and in meeting minutes, unpublished reports
and correspondence. There is, however, scarce research on experiences
of people with disabilities and activity limitations in disaster
activities that include planning, mitigation, preparedness, response,
and recovery (Pollander and Rund 1989, White 2003, White et al.
2004). One study, “Nobody
Left Behind: Investigating Disaster Preparedness and Response for
People with Disabilities,” was conducted at the Research
and Training Center on Independent Living, Kansas University (White
et al. 2004).
Planning
People with disabilities are often left out of emergency management
activities. Many of the barriers encountered are not new. Accessibility
lessons learned during previous disasters often do not appear to
be incorporated into subsequent planning, preparedness, response,
and recovery activities.
This should not be perceived as a post-9/11 problem. Segments
of the disability community have reported problems in participating
in and benefiting from emergency services over many decades. This
section reviews a representative sample of barriers and details
recommendations to help to begin to eliminate these barriers.
Disability-specific plan content
People with disabilities are often left out of planning activities
such as analyzing and documenting the possibility of an emergency
or disaster and the potential consequences or impacts on life,
property, and the environment. These activities include assessing
the hazards, risks, mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery
needs. Planning includes development and preparation of emergency
plans and procedures and the identification of necessary personnel
and resources to provide an effective response.
People with disabilities should be able to use the same systems
as other residents of the community in which they live. Although
they may need additional services, the emergency management system
must work to build provisions for these services into its plans
so that people with disabilities are not excluded from services
available to the rest of the community (National Emergency Training
Center Emergency Management Institute 1993).
The California Specialized Training Institute conducted a survey
of more than 1,200 California agencies to determine what plans
community organizations have to address the disaster needs of people
with disabilities. The study found that few of the 168 respondents
believed that plans had been made in their communities. Other findings
included the following:
- Fewer than half had plans in
place to assist people with disabilities.
- One-third believed that their
communities had plans in place to transport institutionalized
people with disabilities.
- Seventy percent of those in public
safety agencies reported that their organizations did not have
plans for people with disabilities, or they believed that the
existing plans would not work in an actual disaster (California
Specialized Training Institute 1983, Challenge Magazine 1983).
Members of the emergency management community must learn to discuss
and think about a broad range of issues related to people with
disabilities, including not only the range of disabilities but
also how to integrate people with disabilities into the existing
emergency services (National Emergency Training Center Emergency
Management Institute 1993).
Many state, regional, and local plans do not specifically address
the transition needs to reestablish predisaster conditions that
are required for people with mobility disabilities (White et al.
2004).
Participation in stakeholder and planning groups
People with disabilities are often not included
in stakeholder and planning groups. Stories include roadblocks
encountered by some who proactively attempted to participate.
People with disabilities have received flip responses like “Don’t worry, you’ll
be taken care of; after plans are formulated we will include you” or “Meetings
take too long as it is without adding someone else” or “I’m
not the person you want to speak with” (Cohen 2004).
The “Nobody Left Behind” study’s preliminary
findings show that people with disabilities have little input into
counties’ disaster planning (White et al. 2004).
National Response Plan
The Homeland Security Act mandates the creation of a National
Response Plan (NRP) predicated on a new National Incident Management
System (NIMS). The NRP and the NIMS provide the structure that
weaves the capabilities and resources of all of the jurisdictions,
disciplines, and levels of government and the private sector into
a cohesive, unified, coordinated, and seamless national approach.
The NRP is intended to help develop a unified approach to domestic
incident management across the nation (Department of Homeland Security
[DHS] 2004b). The overall goal is to harmonize and integrate existing
federal domestic prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery
plans into a single all-hazards plan.
The NRP’s Emergency Support Function (ESF) Annexes (listed
in Part I––Emergency Support Functions) provide detailed
descriptions of the mission, policies, structure, and responsibilities
of federal agencies for coordinating resource and programmatic
support to a state or other federal agencies during incidents of
national significance. The Support Annexes provide functional descriptions
and specific administrative requirements for operational elements
common to most incidents that are not addressed in the body of
the NRP. Support Annexes cover the following topics:
- Donations Management
- Financial Management
- Insular Affairs
- International Coordination
- Logistics Management
These NRP annexes should incorporate disability-specific access
information in at least two ways. One is to integrate disability-specific
access issues into all appropriate annexes. The other is to establish
a disability-specific annex as a means of supporting disability
content in more depth.
Preparedness
People with disabilities are left out of preparedness activities.
Preparedness activities are needed when mitigation measures have
not prevented disasters or cannot prevent them. In the preparedness
phase, governments, organizations, and individuals develop plans
to save lives and minimize disaster damage (e.g., compiling state
resource inventories, conducting training exercises, installing
early warning systems, and preparing predetermined emergency response
forces). Preparedness measures also seek to enhance disaster response
operations (e.g., by stockpiling vital food and medical supplies,
through training exercises, and by mobilizing emergency response
personnel on standby) (Johnson 2000).
For example, at the time of Florida’s
Hurricane Andrew in 1991, people with disabilities did not have
emergency plans in place to cope for several days without power
or telephone service. Nobody checked on them and nobody knew
they needed help. Adequate records were not being kept, and individuals
spent days trying to locate loved ones (Queen 1993).
Survey results
Although it would seem that the events of September 11, 2001,
would have created widespread change and innovation related to
disaster preparedness for all individuals, including people with
disabilities, this has not been the case. A December 2003 Harris
poll found only 44 percent of people with disabilities knew whom
to contact to get information in times of disaster or emergency,
compared with 40 percent in a 2001 poll conducted soon after the
events of September 11 (NOD 2001b, 2004).
The National Organization on Disability (NOD),
which conducted both surveys, was disappointed to learn that
in 2002, only 39 percent of people surveyed had a plan for evacuating
their home in the event of an emergency, compared with the 38
percent who had a plan in the 2001 survey. People with disabilities
also noted higher rates of anxiety than were found in the general
population about future disasters and emergencies (NOD 2002b,
2004). Alan Reich, NOD president, says “The disability community has good reason
to be anxious. The 54 million American children, women, and men
who have disabilities are among the most vulnerable in disasters” (NOD
2004).
A 2002 poll by the Texas Governor’s Committee
on People with Disabilities found similar results. Only 30 percent
of cities surveyed have training and procedures to accommodate
service animals, and fewer than half said they had training and
procedures for providing and allowing use of medical equipment
such as wheelchairs, walkers, and canes. Only 21 percent said
they were prepared to provide specific diets, and 25 percent
said they could provide insulin or asthma medications. While
76 percent of cities surveyed said they had telecommunication
devices for the deaf (TDDs), 15 percent said they provide no
training for shelter staff to use them (Pound 2002).
Employers and people with disabilities have made some improvement
in workplace planning and emergency preparedness. The 2004 Harris
poll indicates that 68 percent of people surveyed have established
evacuation plans in the event of an emergency, up from 45 percent
in the 2001 poll (NOD 2001b, 2004).
Evacuation experiences
Disaster preparedness and emergency response
systems are typically designed for people without disabilities,
for whom escape or rescue involves walking, running, driving,
seeing, hearing, and quickly responding to directions (White
et al. 2004). “A common theme
emerging after 9/11 is there are virtually no empirical data on
the safe and efficient evacuation of persons with disabilities
in disaster planning,” White (2003) found. The media heightened
the public’s awareness of this problem from the reports of
many individuals with disabilities trapped in the World Trade Center
towers on 9/11. While one can hope that such acts of terrorism
are rare, other catastrophic events such as floods, tornadoes,
hurricanes, and fires are frequent occurrences across this nation
and can lead to tragic results (White 2003).
One man’s final image as he left the 80th floor (of the
World Trade Center on September 11, 2001) and made it to safety
was that of a room full of people using wheelchairs and walkers
waiting to be rescued by the firefighters who were coming up the
stairs. They all perished as the building collapsed shortly after….After
the [earlier] 1993 bombing, many tenants of the World Trade Center
and the building management for the complex were aware that evacuation
plans for people with disabilities were needed. Unfortunately,
the evacuation plan for people with disabilities was lethal to
them: it consisted simply of requiring them to go to predetermined
meeting sites within the building and wait for evacuation assistance
(Center for Independence of the Disabled 2004).
The media repeatedly reported stories about the two wheelchair
users who successfully escaped from the World Trade Center using
evacuation chairs on 9/11 and a story about one wheelchair user
who died (Byzek and Gilmer 2001). The public did not hear about
others whose activity limitations prevented them from successfully
evacuating. The public did hear reports from those who successfully
evacuated the towers and who told of passing people who could not
keep up (e.g., older people, people with respiratory conditions
and limited endurance, and other people with no apparent disability).
Their chances of surviving could have significantly improved if
evacuation plans had been in place that included them, and that
were regularly practiced by using both announced and unannounced
drills for reviewing procedures. It is essential that regular drills
be conducted, and that people with disabilities and activity limitations
not be excused from participating.
One wheelchair user who did escape from the World Trade Center
on 9/11 using an evacuation chair told the press that she forgot
that the evacuation chair was under her desk. Two secretaries remembered
and reminded her where it was (Byzek and Gilmer 2000). The fact
that this woman forgot about the device, and that another wheelchair
user who worked at the World Trade Center recalled only a single
demonstration of the device shortly after the 1993 bombing, are
clear indications that the need for preparedness had worn off soon
after the first attack. Whatever evacuation plan existed had not
been practiced regularly. When disaster struck, the plan fell apart.
Most of those who had been assigned to help with rescue devices
were frightened and fled downstairs.
Michael Hingson, a 9/11 survivor who is blind,
used his guide dog, his associates, and his previous experience
during drills to evacuate the building safely. He says, “I feel like I
was as prepared as possible. I knew the evacuation procedures,
I attended all the building fire drills, I knew the exit routes.
So when the attacks hit, I had a sense of preparedness, self-sufficiency,
and the confidence to take a leading position in evacuating myself
and others to safety” (Kailes 2002a).
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,
at the suggestion of the local emergency management office, The
Associated Blind (a local service provider for low- and no-vision
clients) worked with the New York City Fire Department to develop
a building evacuation plan and drill for the staff, most of whom
have limited or no vision. The Associated Blind wanted a plan
for its staff members covering the range of problems that could
occur during a disaster. On September 11, their efforts paid
off. The entire staff calmly and safely evacuated their building’s
9th floor, a success they attribute directly to the customized
advance planning and drills (Center for Independence of the Disabled
2004).
On 9/11, Ed Beyea, a wheelchair user, was working
on the 27th floor of One World Trade Center. He declined an offer
of assistance from a coworker because he knew his weight of 300
pounds required several people to move him properly. Abe Zelmanowitz,
a friend of Beyea’s, stayed by his side, waiting for help from fire
personnel, while Beyea’s personal assistant, Irma, traveled
down to the street to find help. She told a fireman where Beyea
and Zelmanowitz were and that Beyea would need oxygen. Zelmanowitz
talked to his mother by cell phone to notify her that he was all
right. She encouraged him to get out. Zelmanowitz and Beyea have
not been heard from since (Byzek and Gilmer 2001).
During the attack on the Pentagon, equipment previously installed
to help employees and visitors with low or no vision to evacuate
the facility in the event of an emergency made it possible for
dozens of sighted individuals to flee the smoke-filled corridors
as well (Center for Independence of the Disabled 2004).
Experiences with other disasters yielded similar reports.
- At the time of the earthquake in Northridge, California,
in 1994, a woman who used a wheelchair was living on the second
floor of a building whose elevator was shut down due to the power
outage. She was told by another resident, “We all have our
problems,” when she questioned how to evacuate their unsafe
apartment building (Hammitt 1994).
- In 2001, Paul Ray, a programmer,
was a contractor for Ford Motor Company in Dearborn Heights, Michigan.
His office had a fire drill. Ray, who had quadriplegia and worked on
the second floor, said it was the first fire drill in the 18 months
he had worked there. When the alarm went off, he went to the elevator
bank, where he said designated fire wardens seemed surprised to
see him. He said he had never been told about the building’s
evacuation plan. “I was a little surprised. I thought Ford
would have a little better control over the situation,” he
said. “I’m hoping that [now] they’re at least
a little more aware of the fact that I am there, working on their
second floor….I don’t know if it’s something
they just don’t think about it or everybody’s just
so stressed out with their other nonsense that they don’t
have time to deal with it. As a quadriplegic I do not go down stairs,
period. I don’t have the balance for it. It’s a little
disturbing” (Bondi 2001).
- In New York City, one individual
responded to a survey: “I ambulate with forearm crutches and my leg stamina
is limited. As a social service provider in New York City, I am
in tall buildings often and one in particular they had an evacuation
drill. There were no plans or equipment to assist me. They told
me to ignore the drill. I felt very vulnerable because I attend
regular work meetings in this building” (Research and Training
Center on Independent Living 2004).
- In response to another survey
in Los Angeles, an individual said: “I have juvenile rheumatoid arthritis and
use a wheelchair. We had a bomb threat at work, which was very
scary. Everyone evacuated, but I was still left on the third floor
by the stairwell for the firefighters to come get me. But no one
came. Finally, I just struggled, and I used pure fear to get myself
down the stairs and outside. It was scary just to realize that
there are not really any procedures in place to help someone like
me in an emergency” (Research and Training Center on Independent
Living 2004).
- In Oklahoma, a person reported, “We had a
fire at work and the evacuation plan didn’t work to get me
out. Even so, management refused to change the plan” (Research
and Training Center on Independent Living 2004).
Disability-specific materials
One study conducted following the 1989 Loma
Prieta Earthquake found that people with disabilities often did
not receive as much earthquake preparedness materials as people
without disabilities. Rahimi (1991) commented that sometimes
disaster advice for the general population is not equally applicable
to people with disabilities. “For
example, many wheelchair users cannot take cover under tables and
desks, advice commonly given regarding how to respond to an earthquake.”
Examples abound of information
that is vague, incomplete, impractical, and naïve, and of
language that is outdated and that perpetuates negative attitudes
and false stereotypes.
- According to FEMA’s Disaster Preparedness
for People with Disabilities (Federal Emergency Management Agency
[FEMA] 2003a), people who use wheelchairs as their primary modes
of transportation are instructed: “Show friends how to operate
your wheelchair so they can move you if necessary. Make sure your
friends know the size of your wheelchair in case it has to be transported.” FEMA
comments, “This information is vague. What about the option
of having a light weight manual chair available for emergencies?
What if the chair is a heavy motorized chair; and the individual
is unable to transfer without the assistance of several strong
people? What if your trained friends are not with you during a
disaster?”
- One volume of the Fire Risk Series
published by FEMA and the U.S. Fire Administration (1999) instructs: “Have
a Fire Extinguisher and Learn How To Use It. If you are confined
to a wheelchair, consider mounting (or having someone mount) a
small ‘personal use’ fire extinguisher in an accessible
place on your wheelchair and become familiar with its use. Then,
if you cannot ‘stop, drop, and roll’ during a fire,
you should ‘pull, aim, squeeze, and sweep.’”
- The National Emergency Training
Center Emergency Management Institute (1993) reported that “Many
people with disabilities and activity limitations do not receive
information through social services agencies because they have no
need to seek support from these organizations. Information must
be easily available, through the same means as other material is
distributed to them with specific and useful advice in accessible
formats.”
- Emergency preparedness information
often is not available in accessible formats (e.g., Braille,
large print, disks, audio cassettes, and accessible media, including
Web sites or captioned and audio-described films and videos).
Access to emergency public warnings
Many community emergency public warning systems remain inaccessible
to a segment of the disability community with hearing or vision
disabilities. The following are some examples.
- The September 11 television scenes
were disturbing, and without efficient and correct captioning,
people who are deaf experienced heightened anxiety and confusion
as they struggled to learn about the events (Heppner et al. 2004,
Independent Living Research Utilization [ILRU] 2002b). The lack
of captioning on major broadcast systems, as well as on Internet
news sites, created anxiety as many people could see pictures
of the towers collapsing and the fire at the Pentagon without
knowing what was happening. Scrolling messages often blocked
captions, making it difficult to read captioned information.
The increased rate of captioning errors because of increased
anxiety and long working hours for the captioners made it necessary
for many people who are deaf or hard of hearing to decode and
unscramble emergency information. The inability to use TTYs (teletypewriters),
amplified phones, and other equipment dependent on electricity
was a problem for many deaf individuals. They could not hear
auditory announcements on airplanes and did not know why their
planes landed early and in the wrong destinations. A deaf individual
working in the Pentagon smelled the smoke from the fire before
learning that a plane had crashed into the building, whereas
other individuals knew long before they smelled smoke.
- A deaf individual had no knowledge
of what had happened at the Twin Towers or the Pentagon. A coworker
hand-signed the word “war” and told him to get out. When he was outside
the building, he didn’t see any of his coworkers, so he went
back into the office. One coworker who was still there spelled
out in sign alphabet the word “war” and told him to
go home. He had no detailed information on what was going on (U.S.
Department of Labor’s Office of Disability Employment Policy
2004).
- Emergency e-mail and wireless
network alerts are viewed as helpful by the deaf and hard-of-hearing
communities, but information can be spotty. For example, before
a hurricane in the Washington, D.C., area in 2003, information about
the storm’s
approach was sent frequently to keep people updated. Once the hurricane
hit, there was no information about such things as where emergency
shelters were and no warnings about water not being safe to drink,
and so on. In addition, Heppner (2004) wrote, some information
is truncated when sent to various devices.
- During the California wildfires
of 2003, the lack of captioning kept many people with hearing
impairments from understanding the danger they were in, as the
visual images often did not include printed names of specific
areas and neighborhoods. Also, people did not hear the evacuation
announcements from patrol cars. As a result, the California State
Independent Living Council (2004) reported, these people were
not able to evacuate the area safely and quickly.
- Queen (1993) wrote that during
Hurricane Andrew in Florida in 1991, people with hearing loss
were unable to access the emergency broadcast system.
- On September 11, 2001, flashing
news updates on TV broadcasts often were not accompanied by verbal
reports critical for people with visual disabilities (Heppner
et al. 2004).
- A national reverse 911 phone-based
public warning system that can quickly target a precise geographic
area and saturate it with thousands of calls per hour and that
also has capability for TTY calls was not used (Sigma Communications
2004).
Mitigation
Mitigation includes ongoing efforts that can prevent a hazard
or lessen the impact of disasters on people and property (National
Council on Disability [NCD] 2004, 2005). Mitigation also includes
long-term activities designed to reduce the effects of unavoidable
disaster (e.g., land use management, establishing comprehensive
emergency management programs such as vegetation clearance in high
fire danger areas, or building restrictions in potential flood
zones).
People with disabilities and activity limitations sometimes lack
the resources or the support systems to undertake some of these
mitigation activities, such as the following:
- Installing hurricane shutters
- Strengthening roofs
- Installing fire-resistant shingles
- Installing shatter-resistant
window film
- Anchoring outdoor items that
can become projectiles in hurricanes and high winds
- Implementing vegetation
management––for
example, removing fire-prone dry plant material from gutters and
around residences and other buildings, or trimming tree limbs that
overhang roofs to avoid roof damage during hurricanes, tornadoes,
or high straight-line winds
- Clearing streams
- Bolting bookshelves to walls
- Installing backflow
valves––special
valves that prevent toilet overflows when the household sewer is
infiltrated with floodwater
- Building safe rooms––specially
designed rooms built to withstand high winds generally associated
with tornadoes
- Placing a fuse box higher on
a wall in a flood-prone area (FEMA undated-a)
During the 2003 California wildfires, people with activity limitations
had difficulty with fire prevention and maintenance activities,
such as cutting back trees and underbrush to create a defensible
fire-safe perimeter (California State Independent Living Council
2004).
Response and Recovery
Response activities following an emergency or disaster are designed
to provide emergency assistance for victims (e.g., search and rescue,
emergency shelter, medical care, and mass feeding). They also seek
to stabilize the situation and reduce the probability of secondary
damage (e.g., shutting off contaminated water supply sources, and
securing and patrolling areas prone to looting) and to speed recovery
operations (e.g., damage assessment).
Recovery activities are needed to return all systems to normal
or better. Short-term recovery activities return vital life support
systems to minimum operating standards (e.g., cleanup, temporary
housing, and access to food and water). Long-term recovery activities
may continue for a number of years after a disaster. Their purpose
is to return life to normal or improved levels (e.g., redevelopment
loans, legal assistance, and community planning).
After an earthquake at Glendora, California,
a resident told the Research and Training Center on Independent
Living (2004): “Disabled
persons have the same freedom of choice as any other American.
The paternalistic attitude was frightening beyond belief that I
experienced [while trying to access after-disaster services and
information].”
In the aftermath of the 2003 hurricanes in Florida, individuals
who are deaf and hard of hearing reported that they did not receive
information about the availability of dry ice during the power
outages and that in some locations water was unsafe to drink (Heppner
2005).
Physical, Communication, and Program Access
Common access mistakes appear to be made repeatedly in disaster
management activities regarding access to physical plants or buildings,
communications, and programs. Lessons learned after each disaster
about access do not get integrated into subsequent practice (California
Department of Rehabilitation 1997, California State Independent
Living Council 2004, Center for Independence of the Disabled 2004,
Kailes 2000a, U.S. Department of Justice 2004, White et al. 2004).
The Center for Independence of the Disabled
(2004) reported a number of lessons learned during and immediately
after 9/11 about preparation and accommodations for people with
disabilities. The most prominent and disturbing conclusion was
that––even
though many of these lessons had been learned before 9/11––systemic
preparation conceived of or conducted by mainstream emergency responders
and relief agencies did not consistently take into account the
specific needs of people with disabilities. Or when these issues
were taken into account, the results often were not shared across
agency and jurisdictional lines.
Physical access
Physical access involves the removal of architectural barriers
such as curbs and steps; narrow exterior and interior doorways
and aisles; narrow rest room doorways and stalls; and inaccessible
parking spaces, food service, drinking fountains, and telephones.
Physical access allows individuals to get to, into, and around
facilities.
These are a few of many examples of continuing physical access
problems needing attention:
- During the 1994 earthquake at
Northridge, California, many people with disabilities were inappropriately
referred to medical facilities when Red Cross personnel misidentified
their disabilities as acute medical conditions. Some shelters
refused people because of these mislabeled conditions (Bowencamp
1994, Lathrop 1994).
- Emergency disaster organizations
are not trained to understand what constitutes accessible facilities
when they are selecting sites for and operating shelters, disaster
recovery centers, and disaster field offices (Kailes 1994, 2000a,
Kailes and Jones 1993). These facilities are not surveyed using
a comprehensive accessibility checklist. Shelter managers and
volunteers are not trained in how to clearly designate a facility
as fully or partially accessible or how to maintain, and how
important it is to maintain, accessible routes and walkways for
safe mobility, prevention of falls, and so on.
- During the 9/11 crisis and the
2003 California wildfires, emergency housing and shelters were
not adequately equipped for people who needed accessible lodging
(California State Independent Living Council 2004). Temporary
housing (tents, travel trailers, mobile homes, and accessible
hotel rooms within the community or in nearby communities) did
not include identification of accessible units.
- One of the many recorded complaints
was that during a hurricane in Alexandria, Virginia, “The disaster volunteer
was not trained on accessibility issues. He said that the shelters
should be accessible since the law requires it. He didn’t
understand the impact of me getting there only to discover that
they were in violation of the law” (Research and Training
Center on Independent Living 2004). Another complaint, following
the earthquake in Los Angeles, was that “We had to move out
of our house for several weeks to have it repaired. All the places
that people referred us to were not accessible to me in my scooter” (Research
and Training Center on Independent Living 2004). A third complaint,
after the earthquake at Northridge, California, was that “At
the temporary shelter I couldn’t get to the bathrooms, as
you had to walk up stairs” (Research and Training Center
on Independent Living 2004).
Communication access
Communication access enables effective communication with people
who are deaf or blind or who have speech, vision, or hearing limitations.
It includes the use of written materials available in alternative
formats (e.g., Braille, large print, disks, audio cassettes), and
hearing-assistive technologies such as amplified phones, TTYs,
and listening systems. Communication access also involves the use
of auxiliary aids and services, when needed, such as sign language
interpreters, CART (communication access real-time translation)
readers, people to assist with completing paperwork, and people
to take notes. In addition, it includes accessible media such as
Web sites, captioned and audio-described films and videos, videoconferences,
and public service announcements.
Shelter managers and volunteers are not trained
in communication access issues. Hammit (1994) reported after
the 1994 earthquake in Northridge, California, that a deaf person
had been turned away from a shelter because no one understood
sign language. After the same earthquake, the text of oral announcements
was not posted in a public area so that people who are deaf,
hard of hearing, or out of hearing range could go to a specified
area to get or read the content of announcements (California
State Independent Living Council 2004, Kailes 2000a). The Independent
Living Center of Southern California (1994) reported that a “deaf man applying
for admittance to a shelter was given a form to complete which
asked about ‘Medical Problems.’” When asked to
list all past and present conditions, he included having tested
positive for TB more than five years ago. As a result, shelter
volunteers told him he could not be admitted. A woman who was able
to sign saw the man frantically signing to the Red Cross worker.
She went over, signed to the man, and found he was concerned he
might pick up a disease in the shelter. She tried to communicate
this verbally to the Red Cross worker. The worker did not understand
what she was telling him. As a result, neither of them was allowed
into the shelter. The worker assumed they were together because
they were both deaf.
During the 2003 California wildfires, telephones on temporary
telephone access trailers placed at shelters were not within reach
of some people with disabilities and they were not equipped with
TTYs (California State Independent Living Council 2004).
Program access
Program access refers to overall accessibility of programs to
people with disabilities. It involves individuals being able to
participate fully in programs and services provided by organizations.
Publicly funded organizations are prohibited from denying people
with disabilities equal access to participate in programs and activities
because facilities are not accessible. Program access means that
publicly funded organizations operate each program so that when
viewed in its entirety, the program is readily accessible to and
usable by people with disabilities. Program access can be achieved
by creating physical access through both structural methods and
nonstructural methods.
The following lists give a few examples of continuing program
access problems that need attention.
Shelters. It is common that alternatives to inaccessible shelters
are not thought through and are not clearly communicated to people.
If a shelter cannot accommodate people with a specific set of needs,
prompt transfer to a better equipped facility should be offered.
- For example, if one shelter is
well equipped to assist people who are deaf and another shelter
is equipped to assist people with mobility disabilities, an agreement
for cross-referring should be established quickly.
- Recognition of a family’s
need to stay together has not been given proper attention. The
person with a disability is not the only one who will need to
be transported to a more accessible shelter. Accessible transportation
(equipped with a lift or ramp) to another shelter should be provided
for the individual with a disability and his or her family (Kailes
2000b).
- When there is only one shelter,
it is especially important to have a plan in advance for acquiring
additional shelter services when they are needed. In 1993, for
example, Red Cross volunteers were allowed to drive people to
get a shower and their mail. But they were not allowed to transport
people with disabilities (Independent Living Center of Southern
California 1994).
Food and Supplies. FEMA and the County Department
of Public Social Services arranged for food stamps to be provided
on an emergency basis after the 1994 Northridge, California,
earthquake. But people with disabilities and activity limitations
were unable to wait in long lines, from three to eight hours,
to complete applications, and distribution centers were not accessible
to many people with disabilities. Many did not have friends or
family they could send as their designees (Westside Center for
Independent Living 1994). The state agreed to allow SSI (Supplemental
Security Income) recipients to get the emergency food stamps
by mail. They were mailed an application for the stamps, and
once the form was returned, the state mailed an approval letter
with the location where the food stamps could be picked up. This
had been the problem in the first place—people
were unable to get to the distribution site (Independent Living
Center of Southern California 1994).
After San Francicso’s Loma Prieta earthquake
in 1989, a critical need was water. But for people with disabilities
it was difficult to impossible to wait up to seven hours in lines
(Wangeman and Nandi 1996). First aid stations lacked the capacity
to keep certain life-sustaining medications. Stocked supplies
for shelters, temporary housing, and assistance did not include
access signs (wheelchair logo) to indicate the location of accessible
routes and accessible lines for food, water, and disaster relief
applications; auxiliary air and heating units; or portable emergency
call units for people at risk of falling or other isolation-related
risks.
During the 1997 Minnesota Red River flood, people with disabilities
experienced many barriers, including inaccessible disaster relief
centers and temporary housing (i.e., travel trailers and mobile
homes) (Options Resource Center for Independent Living 1997).
A problem for many people with disabilities after the 1994 Northridge
earthquake was finding permanent housing. FEMA provided vouchers
that were valid for 18 months. At the end of this time people were
in jeopardy of losing their ability to remain in their community.
Most were long-term residents who had lost affordable housing and
faced pressure to relocate to more affordable, but higher crime
neighborhoods (Westside Center for Independent Living 1994).
Mental Health. In New York City after 9/11,
trauma counselors did not always fully appreciate the experience
of trying to remain independent when routine services and supports
are no longer available. Relief
volunteers, many of them from other states, were unfamiliar with
Manhattan and unable to offer reliable assistance (ILRU 2002a).
Following 9/11, a deaf person in New York City
who was unable to get accessible trauma counseling was asked
to assist in counseling another deaf person seeking the same
services because of that person’s
ability to both speak intelligibly and sign (Heppner 2005).
Transportation. Following the California wildfires in 2003, public
transportation was limited because many of the areas affected by
the fires are rural and people did not have emergency transportation
plans in place (California State Independent Living Council 2004).
After 9/11, relief workers often had difficulty understanding
why the public transportation shutdown prevented people from getting
access to emergency assistance (ILRU 2002a).
Even if transportation systems are not damaged, emergency response
personnel may restrict travel for security or other reasons. Personal
vehicles were not allowed into Manhattan for a period of time after
the 9/11 attacks. Without public or accessible transit, people
who had medical appointments or needed to travel to apply for relief
benefits or on other important business had no way to get into
town (ILRU 2002a).
After Florida’s Hurricane Andrew in 1991,
transportation plans for accessible emergency evacuation did
not exist (Queen 1993).
Training
FEMA’s National Emergency Training Center in Emmitsburg,
Maryland, is home of the Emergency Management Institute and the
National Fire Academy. There, emergency managers, firefighters,
and elected officials take classes in many areas of emergency management,
including emergency planning, exercise design and evaluation disaster
management, hazardous materials response, and fire service management.
FEMA courses are also given by many states. An independent study
program is also available to private citizens. Special seminars
and workshops are offered via satellite as part of FEMA’s
Emergency Education Network, called EENET. From “tabletop” discussions
of a specific problem to full-scale exercises (e.g., dress rehearsals
for the real thing) that involve a detailed disaster scenario that
unfolds over several days, FEMA coordinates events that bring together
every agency and volunteer organization that would respond in a
real disaster.
Disaster workers training
From the outset, lack of appropriate access and accommodations
for people with disabilities seeking response and recovery services
in the aftermath of the World Trade Center attack was evident,
reflecting, among other factors, methods of program administration
that disregarded needs specific to those with physical, medical,
cognitive, or psychiatric conditions. Through its work with World
Trade Center consumers, CIDNY (the Center for Independence of the
Disabled, New York) identified a series of administrative procedures
that resulted in inappropriate service denials with a wide range
of public and private agencies (Center for Independence of the
Disabled 2004).
After the 9/11 attacks displaced a woman with a mobility disability,
she called FEMA to register and assess damage to her apartment.
FEMA regulations required that she meet the FEMA representative
at her apartment to assess damage. This was physically impossible
for her, given the debris and other barriers situated around Ground
Zero. When she was unable to comply, FEMA discontinued her application.
The independent living center successfully advocated with FEMA
to establish a waiver of this requirement for people with mobility
disabilities (Center for Independence of the Disabled 2004).
Shelter managers and volunteers are not trained
to work with people with disabilities. After 9/11, the Center
for Independence of the Disabled (2004) reported, people at the
Red Cross were polite and interested, but everything had to be
brought to their attention. Their volunteers were from all over
the country. They did not understand transportation issues for
people with disabilities in New York City. Volunteers would ask, “can’t they get a neighbor
to drive them?” and would have be told that “the neighbors
don’t have cars.”
After the earthquake at Northridge, California, in 1994, individuals
with cerebral palsy and multiple sclerosis were denied help at
a shelter because they were perceived as being under the influence
of drugs or alcohol (Hammitt 1994, Independent Living Center of
Southern California 1994).
After the Northridge earthquake, the Los Angeles
independent living center servicing the San Fernando Valley reported
the Red Cross to be ignorant of disability issues and unwilling
to work at the national level with disability organizations.
Complaints received by the center included inaccessible shelters,
unreachable supply distribution points, and poorly trained volunteers––in
a number of cases, people with disabilities were turned away from
shelters and told to go to hospitals by staff members who assumed
that they were sick or injured (Lathrop 1994).
A blind individual using a service animal after that 1994 earthquake
was denied access to a shelter because he would not agree to place
his guide dog in a kennel for the length of his stay at the shelter
(Westside Center for Independent Living 1994).
Shelter managers and volunteers were not trained in how to identify
at-risk individuals to help prevent unnecessary deterioration of
their emotional and physical health, or in the importance of designating
an area for people who use service animals (e.g., guide dogs) and
for pets of other people, especially older single people, for whom
their relationships with their pets may be life sustaining.
First responders
In April 2004, the New York City Transit Authority
conducted training drills to educate and instruct transit workers
about what to do in the event of an emergency. During one such
drill in the New York City subway system, participants were told
that “Our
main concern is to evacuate as many people as possible, as quickly
and safely as possible.” The instructor then proceeded to
tell the students to move the handicapped person off to the side
and provide assurances that “help is on the way.” The
rider would probably have to wait for firefighters to arrive (Luo
2004). Such assistance may never arrive. Some people in the disability
community feel this is equivalent to leaving the individual in
the oven. Some people with disabilities were left behind in evacuated
buildings because rescue agencies did not fully understand how
someone could not be aware of the evacuation effort (ILRU
2002a).
There are few training opportunities for first responders related
to the specific needs of people with disabilities and activity
limitations. First responders, including police officers and law
enforcement officials, rely on street experience and react to situations
as they arise (Homeland Defense TV 2004).
Lack of training and experience dealing with people with disabilities
is a problem and a safety issue for people with disabilities and
for responders. When triage methods are used, people with disabilities
are often told to wait in a specific location for assistance. This
practice puts people with disabilities and activity limitations
and responders at risk. These practices need to be rethought and
updated.
If first responders receive proper training and have plans to
assist people with disabilities, reported Homeland Defense TV (2004),
they will eliminate the risk of having to go back or use triage
planning for people with disabilities, and they are likely to become
more competent in serving all victims of disaster.
Information transfer
After the 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake, a significant
number of disaster response problems affecting people with disabilities
were reported. Most of these problems were the same problems reported
five years earlier after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake (California
Department of Rehabilitation 1997). These issues included accessibility
of shelters, potentially discriminatory policies toward people
with disabilities, lack of knowledge and coordination of existing
disability-related resources that could have ameliorated some of
the problems, and lack of support services needed by people with
disabilities.
Common access mistakes appear to be made repeatedly in disaster
management activities. Lessons learned after each disaster about
physical, communication, and program access for recovery centers,
and other structures and buildings used in connection with disaster
operations (e.g., first aid stations, mass feeding areas, portable
payphone stations, portable toilets, and temporary housing, as
well as shelter identification, access, management, training, and
services) do not appear to get integrated into subsequent practice
(California Department of Rehabilitation 1997, California State
Independent Living Council 2004, Center for Independence of the
Disabled 2004, Kailes 2000b, U.S. Department of Justice 2004, White
et al. 2004).
One major issue was the need for accommodations at the disaster
assistance centers, where people applied for assistance from dozens
of government and private relief agencies. Multiple visits were
often required. Many people with disabilities were unable to apply
for benefits because they could not stand in line for the long
periods of time required. At the start, there were no chairs at
centers, and people were not allowed to send representatives to
file applications on their behalf, even if they were homebound
before the attack.
As the anecdotal evidence illustrates, there has been a significant
amount of relearning and reinventing of good disability-specific
practices during response to new disasters. Deploying well-versed
disability-related experts would mean that more of these lessons
would be learned quickly and permanently integrated into existing
protocols, strengthening the nature, sensitivity, and quality of
the response.
FEMA devotes significant resources to training.
This report underscores the need for more focus on integrating
disability issues into all aspects of this training. In an attempt
to infuse disability content into a variety of disaster management
training, DHS’s CRCL
is expecting to learn more and improve its efforts. One venue for
this was the Conference on Emergency Preparedness for People with
Disabilities, held in Arlington, Virginia, on September 22–24,
2004, sponsored by the NOD in partnership with DHS and the National
Capitol Region. High-level authorities from the emergency management
community, disability communities, government agencies, private
business, and the service, advocacy, and care networks shared and
learned from each other’s experiences, resources, and best
practice models.
FEMA has three national processing centers
that centralize disaster application services for FEMA customers.
These centers house an automated “teleregistration” service––a
toll-free phone bank through which disaster victims apply for assistance
for individuals and households and have their applications processed
and questions answered. A major advantage of teleregistration is
timeliness. Toll-free lines can be staffed quickly, although in
catastrophic or multiple disaster situations there may be busy
signals until staffing is complete. Calls can normally be taken
within hours after the President declares a major disaster (FEMA
2003g).
An Internet search reveals that, typically
but not always, a TTY phone number is posted for these centers.
For example, FEMA can provide disaster housing assistance to
those whose homes are damaged or destroyed. To apply for assistance,
all you have to do is call the special toll-free telephone number,
1-800-621-FEMA (3362), and register. Specially trained operators
at one of FEMA’s
national processing service centers will process your application
(FEMA 2003f).
A disaster recovery center is a facility established
in, or in proximity to, the community affected by a disaster
where people can meet face-to-face with representatives of federal,
state, local, and volunteer agencies (FEMA 2003a–i) to
discuss their disaster-related needs; obtain information about
disaster assistance programs; teleregister for assistance; update
registration information; learn about measures for rebuilding
that can eliminate or reduce the risk of future loss; learn how
to complete the Small Business Administration loan application;
and request the status of their application for assistance to
individuals and households.
Part III. Role of Community-Based Organizations
CBOs are local organizations (usually nonprofit) serving the needs
of specific populations within the community. They represent a
vast array of human and social service organizations, faith-based
organizations, and neighborhood associations.
Experience of CBOs in Disasters
These are a few of many examples of the experiences of CBOs in
disaster mitigation, preparedness, and response:
- After Hurricane Andrew in Florida
in 1991, no plans existed for people with disabilities who use
group homes, residential programs, day programs, and other supportive
communities and environments to continue to receive the assistance
and services that were essential for their daily living (Consortium
for Citizens with Disabilities 1992).
- Service organizations lacked
emergency plans that would have enabled them to locate the people
they work with and inquire about their needs (Queen 1993).
- Group homes did not have plans
for emergency housing of residents, with the result that some
people were reinstitutionalized (Queen 1993).
- There were few disability-specific
agencies to pitch in and help the affected areas (Queen 1993).
- After the 1997 Minnesota
Red River flood, many people with disabilities were displaced
from their homes. Finding no housing and other resources to
meet their needs, people in Grand Forks
and East Grand Forks had to band together with CBOs to find ways
to meet individual needs and design a recovery plan (Options Resource
Center for Independent Living 1997).
On 9/11 the executive director of CIDNY watched
the World Trade Towers collapse. “An act of war happened down the street
from us!” CIDNY was simply not prepared to handle a
disaster of this magnitude. “I think we were on the right
track with everything we’ve been doing [beginning to plan
for emergencies]. I wish we had been further along” (ILRU
2002a).
Networking with Other CBOs and Government Emergency
Response Agencies
“I wish we’d had a stronger relationship with all
the other community-based agencies so we could coordinate efforts,” CIDNY’s
executive director said. “The time to build relationships
is not in the middle of a crisis. I wish we’d paid more attention
to efforts to include people with disabilities in disaster planning.
I wish we’d had better mechanisms in place to get the word
out that we exist and what we can do for people who need help” (ILRU
2002a).
Before September 11, CIDNY had no relationship
with the big players––FEMA,
the Red Cross, and many other local, state, and federal assistance
agencies. Now the big players realize that the independent living
community has a responsibility to educate and work with these agencies
on an ongoing basis (ILRU 2002a).
An important lesson these agencies learned
after 9/11 was not to trust that the needs of their clients would
be met by emergency management personnel during an emergency.
Emergency personnel do not have the knowledge or the resources
to provide all the necessary services to these populations (National
Emergency Training Center Emergency Management Institute 1993).
People with disabilities should not assume that emergency and
relief agencies understand accessibility, accommodations, communication,
transportation issues, or any other aspect of disability or independent
living. If people with disabilities haven’t worked to raise
the awareness of emergency personnel before the emergency, people
can plan to spend a lot of time educating them in the midst of
the crisis (ILRU 2002c).
In the past, CIDNY had been invited to participate in various
emergency preparedness meetings; but in the day-to-day reality
of providing independent living services after 9/11, those meetings
were not given much priority. That has changed now, and CIDNY hopes
to build on the relationships and learning that have occurred since
9/11.
Individual Preparedness Plans for People with Disabilities
CIDNY will also pay more attention to helping
consumers develop personal emergency preparedness plans. The
executive director explains, “We’ve
come to know a lot of people who were doing their own things and
had successfully created their own support networks. When their
support systems crumbled,” as they so dramatically did, “many
still thought they could work things out themselves. But as things
dragged on, they found they needed assistance” (ILRU 2002a).
Funding
Federal and state legislation is often a major obstacle because
it is not geared toward emergency response. Social services agencies
often are reluctant to take on added responsibility during a disaster
because spending additional money may leave them unable to provide
basic services to their clients for the rest of the fiscal year.
Private nonprofit organizations and private for-profit organizations
are not eligible for reimbursement from federal disaster funds
unless they are mandated or identified before a disaster by a local
or state agency to have specific disaster responsibilities (National
Emergency Training Center Emergency Management Institute 1993).
CIDNY’s first attempts to get the attention of FEMA and
the Red Cross were hampered by the general lack of understanding
about the diverse, and sometimes complex, needs of people with
disabilities. The funding organization was finally convinced after
CIDNY submitted an explicit grant application detailing real-life
examples of the problems people are facing and the center for independent
living’s unique capability to understand and help resolve
them (ILRU 2002a).
Shortly after 9/11, CIDNY staff and volunteers
started a log to track the multitude of contacts and requests
for assistance. This is a sampling of log notations from November
5, 2001. It is a chronicle of the diverse ways people with disabilities
were affected when New York City’s complex system of services
and supports collapsed in the aftermath of the attack on the
World Trade Center (ILRU 2002a).
- …young architect has multiple sclerosis…uses
a scooter that he had to leave behind…went to parents’ home…60-year-old
father carrying him up and down stairs daily…
- ...has CP…uses walker...was
told he would have to walk from Brooklyn Bridge or Canal Street
to his school…
- ...had to stay in the hospital
because there was no way to get back and forth for dialysis...
- ...21-year-old woman with significant
traumatic brain injury…witnessed WTC collapse and is traumatized…has
no food/income…is scared and highly vulnerable…
- ...claims she has made 36
trips to four different Red Cross centers…
- ...consumer with lung and
brain cancer was displaced from her home…currently staying in hotel…needs
transportation to her medical appointment next week…
Recognizing the Value and Talent of CBOs in Disaster Activities
Although local, state, regional, and federal government agencies
play a major role in disaster planning and response, traditional
government response agencies are often ill-equipped to respond
to the needs of vulnerable populations. The traditional response
and recovery systems often are unable to satisfy many human needs
successfully. The usual approach to delivering emergency services
does not always provide the essential services for segments of
the population (City of San Leandro 2004).
It is critical for emergency preparedness and response plans to
address and accommodate all individuals, including vulnerable populations.
Numerous agencies and organizations exist that have extensive knowledge
and expertise on the needs of these populations. CBOs are often
a part of naturally occurring local networks, which are powerful
support tools (Davis and Cahill 2003).
CBOs have unique and credible connections with––and
expertise in delivering services to––people with disabilities
and activity limitations. This unique know-how and understanding
can be a valuable resource during planning, preparedness, response,
recovery, and mitigation activities. CBOs should be included as
partners in working with local, state, regional, and federal public
and private response agencies to deal more effectively with and
understand the needs, geography, demographics, and resources of
their local areas.
“Social service agencies must understand that they have
a significant role in emergency preparedness, response, and recovery.
They provide a support network for people with disabilities that
emergency management cannot replace. In planning, FEMA, other federal
agencies, and state and local emergency planners must help to set
the expectations for the performance of social services agencies,
and the social services agencies themselves must educate their
clients about agency roles in a disaster” (National Emergency
Training Center Emergency Management Institute 1993).
Emergency managers generally have little knowledge
about the needs of people with disabilities. “To effectively provide services
to these populations and meet the requirements for accommodations
under ADA, emergency managers must understand the needs of these
groups, the social services mechanisms that are in place to serve
them, and how to work with social service agencies to integrate
these mechanisms into emergency planning” (National Emergency
Training Center Emergency Management Institute 1993).
The social services network for people with disabilities is based
on categorical needs and therefore is fragmented. As a result,
it is not easy to make this network fit into a network to provide
general services. No single specific-needs system exists, and agencies
that provide services to a particular group of people often are
unaware of agencies with similar missions for other groups (National
Emergency Training Center Emergency Management Institute 1993).
Disability-specific CBOs often
- Are able to assist in preparedness
planning and disaster assistance because they know and can protect
best the specific interests and needs of groups that they assist
on a daily basis.
- Know best how to reach out to
the populations they assist.
- Have the most current records.
- Are accessible in terms of design
and layout of facilities, environmental needs such as indoor air
quality and temperature, and communication––the way
information is delivered through signage, technology, interpersonal
exchanges, sign language interpreters, picture books for people
with cognitive disabilities, and materials in alternative formats
(e.g., Braille, large print, disks, audio cassettes).
- Are able to distribute supplies
and administer emergency aid.
- Can serve as satellite distribution
sites to provide alternatives, for some individuals, to traditional
shelters.
Because effective disaster response always
takes place locally, the challenge for emergency management professionals
is to integrate the CBOs’ skill and knowledge into the
emergency service plans and strategy, and connect them to local
government. Emergency managers need to recognize, recruit, encourage,
and provide funding and incentives so that CBOs can participate
in disaster preparedness and relief.
Promising Practices
These are examples of CBOs’ promising
practices in disaster planning, response, recovery, and mitigation
that could be modeled, piloted, and implemented.
Triad Alliance
“There is a 70 percent probability of at least one magnitude
6.7 or greater quake, capable of causing widespread damage, striking
the San Francisco Bay Region before 2030. Major quakes may occur
in any part of this rapidly growing region,” said the U.S.
Geological Survey in October 1999. This quote emphasizes the urgency
for all communities in the Bay region to continue preparing for
earthquakes. Acknowledging this significant risk, and recognizing
the special needs of the community’s vulnerable population,
the Triad Alliance was developed to ensure that high-risk clients
do not fall through the cracks during the response and recovery
phases of an emergency. The “triad” consisted of the
City of San Leandro, California (in the San Francisco Bay Area
region); the Collaborating Agencies Responding to Disasters (CARD);
and CBOs in the region. This Triad Alliance has taken the steps
to address the special and unique needs associated with the community’s
vulnerable population during and after a disaster (City of San
Leandro 2004).
The usual approach to delivering emergency
services does not always provide the essential services for the
portion of the population who have special needs. This population
may represent those people who are physically or mentally disabled,
medically or chemically dependent, elderly, children, homeless,
and non-English speakers. Recent disasters demonstrate that traditional
response agencies are often ill-equipped to respond to the special
needs of our vulnerable populations. Following the Loma Prieta
earthquake in October 1989 in the San Francisco area and the
Northridge earthquake in January 1994 in the Los Angeles area,
emergency services professionals became painfully aware that
the traditional response and recovery systems were not able to
satisfy all the human needs successfully. The usual approach
to delivering emergency services does not always provide the
essential services for that portion of the population requiring
special needs––the vulnerable population
(City of San Leandro 2004).
Given the high potential for future catastrophic
disasters throughout the United States, it is imperative to establish
an emergency protocol and plan for delivering services to people
with language, cultural, and accessibility needs. The vulnerable
population is usually served by CBOs, the local organizations
that meet the needs of specific populations within the community.
CBOs bring unique expertise in delivering services to people
with special needs. The challenge for emergency management professionals
is to integrate the CBOs’ skill
and knowledge into the emergency services plans and strategy, thus
connecting them to local government. This connection enhances the
response and recovery efforts to our vulnerable populations. The
Triad Alliance provides that essential participation and linkage
(City of San Leandro 2004).
The Triad Alliance is the best assurance that the special needs
of the vulnerable population will be successfully addressed during
long- and short-term emergency operations. The alliance consists
of a number of essential elements that together create a program
in which CBOs are more prepared before a disaster and thus are
better able to better serve their clients during and following
a disaster. The three organizational components of the Triad Alliance
are as follows:
- The City of San Leandro: The emergency services
division, located in the city manager’s office, is an active
cofounder of the alliance and represents the city in alliance matters
and activities. A key objective of the division’s mission
is to coordinate emergency response and recovery efforts among
city government, school districts, business, CBOs, and special
districts.
- CARD: CARD is a cofounder of the
alliance. This nonprofit organization was founded in 1994, with the
support of the American Red Cross and United Way. It was formed as
a result of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, when a gap was seen in
meeting the needs of the vulnerable populations during and following
the quake. CARD’s focus is meeting the needs of the community’s
underserved population. CARD has received local, state, national,
and international recognition for its model of coordinating disaster
planning for at-risk populations.
- CBOs: CBOs are the third principal
member of the alliance. They form a direct link to the community’s vulnerable
population––their clients. Two CBOs are selected as
lead agencies to represent the city’s CBO community. These
agencies have special experience, knowledge, and skills necessary
to serve their clients; this unique know-how, understanding, and
expertise becomes an invaluable resource during the response and
recovery phases of an emergency or disaster. The city’s emergency
strategy becomes more responsive and effective in addressing the
human services issues by incorporating CBOs into the city’s
emergency plan and emergency organization.
Emergency Network Los Angeles
The Emergency Network Los Angeles (ENLA) is an organization that
has been set up to coordinate disaster response and emergency preparedness
by establishing links with Los Angeles County CBOs, the government,
and the private sector. ENLA is part of Los Angeles County Voluntary
Organizations Active in Disaster (VOAD). ENLA has created a list
of local and national disaster preparedness and response resources
(Los Angeles County Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster
2003).
Voluntary Organizations Active in Disasters
VOAD is an organization in each state or region that works to
keep CBOs informed and involved during times of disaster. VOAD
creates a coordinated effort of numerous agencies and organizations
and prevents the reinvention-of-the-wheel effect that limits the
amount of services and the level of efficiency that each organization
provides if working alone.
The National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disasters organization
(NVOAD) was established in the 1970s as a way to coordinate the
planning and efforts of voluntary organizations in the event of
a disaster. When a disaster occurs, NVOAD members meet at the disaster
sites to coordinate the many services that the community members
provide. NVOAD is a nonprofit organization committed to serving
its state and national VOAD member organizations through communication,
cooperation, coordination, education, leadership development, mitigation,
convening mechanisms, and outreach opportunities (National Voluntary
Organizations Active in Disasters 2004).
During the 1980s, it became clear that individual states should
have VOAD organizations to coordinate local efforts better. Thus
state and regional VOADs serve the local communities in which they
are established and communicate and interact directly with NVOAD.
Examples of VOAD members include local churches, the Salvation
Army, and the Red Cross. NVOAD is committed to serving states and
regions that are interested in developing and maintaining a VOAD
organization and have created a comprehensive guide for doing so.
National Emergency Resource Information Network
To date, funding to organize CBOs effectively and include them
in these important roles has been sporadic and inconsistent. For
example, the National Emergency Resource Information Network (NERIN)
was a temporary program funded in the 1990s by the Department of
Commerce to determine the feasibility of a national human service
network. This project focused on the role of human service responders
and referral agencies, including CBOs as part of a large nonprofit
service network that could work with local government agencies.
Project plans included Web sites and databases with resource information
that would be accessible to a variety of communities. Outcomes
of the project included recommendations for network implementation.
This important project was not funded beyond the initial study.
Community collaborative groups
Community collaborative groups bring together local CBOs serving
at-risk populations to specifically address issues related to disaster
preparedness and response. Community collaborative groups vary
in size, organizational structure, and procedures. Their common
bond is a commitment to addressing the emergency preparedness needs
of vulnerable, high-risk populations. They establish cooperative
agreements among organizations that support and assist similar
populations. These agreements allow such organizations to help
each other when their own staff or resources are reduced or unavailable
(Monterey County Emergency Food Assistance Project undated, San
Francisco CARD undated, VOICE of Contra Costa County undated, Volunteer
Center of Marin undated).
By participating in a local collaborative, organizations connect
to a network of other service providers and a variety of resources
to meet their individual needs. Community collaborative groups
can provide services that the traditional emergency service providers
do not, or are not permitted to provide. Participating organizations
can learn how to stay open and operational after a disaster, and
ensure that necessary services are provided to the people they
support. Through the collaborative network, organizations can learn
what resources are available to them if they are affected by a
disaster and how to maintain the documentation that may allow them
to be reimbursed for disaster service-related costs (Brisson and
Petersen undated).
Information and Referral 2-1-1
Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks, an estimated 400 telephone hotlines were established
in New York City, for various funds and services, creating a
confusing network for victims and volunteers to navigate. A U.S.
Comptroller General report on charitable aid following the terrorist
attacks found that “families
of victims generally believed they had to navigate a maze of service
providers in the early months” and that “good information
about and easy access to available assistance could help survivors
in the recovery process” (Walker 2004).
In 2000, the FCC assigned the phone number 2-1-1 for community
information and referral nationwide, making this scarce resource
available for the sole purpose of community information and referral.
The 107th Congress recognized the importance of 2-1-1 telephone
service in community preparedness and response by including use
of that telephone number for public information as an allowable
use of funds under grants for preparedness and response to bioterrorism
and other public health emergencies. The phone number 2-1-1 provides
callers with a way to access information about and referrals to
human services for everyday needs and in times of crisis (United
Way of Connecticut undated).
Currently established 2-1-1 systems are completely funded by the
state and local government, businesses, nonprofit organizations,
and other agencies. While 20 percent of the population has access
to 2-1-1 telephone service in 21 states, inadequate funding prevents
access to that telephone service throughout each of the states.
Currently, 2-1-1 telephone service is available statewide only
in Connecticut and Hawaii (United Way of Connecticut undated).
Rapid deployment of a nationwide 2-1-1 telephone service as a
means of access to information about and referral to human services
requires collaboration among state governments, comprehensive and
specialized information and referral centers, human service organizations
and service providers, emergency management and homeland security
officials, telephone companies, and other relevant entities (United
Way of Connecticut undated).
Working with CBOs as partners in disaster response and relief
does not relieve government responsibility. It augments government
efforts and forms a critical partnership with the community. DHS
should value and offer funding and other incentives to encourage
CBOs to become involved in disaster activities (Kailes 2000a).
CBOs can do the following:
- Develop organization disaster
plans that include information about how CBOs can survive a disaster
and continue to serve people.
- Participate in Community Emergency
Response Teams and Citizen Corps (Citizen Corps undated, FEMA
undated-b).
- Participate in cross-training
with disaster response personnel and disability-specific organizations
personnel so both groups gain a better understanding of each other’s
expertise and roles and can plan together for a coordinated response.
- Assist the people they support
in developing individual and family preparedness and mitigation
plans.
- Preestablish contracts so
that CBOs are not encumbered by procedural delays.
Such contracts would allow emergency response funds––from
local, state, regional, and Federal Government agencies as well
as foundations and corporations––to
be immediately appropriated and used. This would allow for quick
deployment of disability-specific relief services. For example,
relocation to shelters might not be needed if such backup services
were available. Provision through contracts for backup electrical
units, such as standalone or portable generators to reactivate
or recharge assistive devices, elevators, and appliances, can alleviate
overcrowding at shelters and help people with disabilities remain
in their home or communities in potentially safer and more accessible
environments.
Part IV. The Developing Disability-Related Homeland Security, Emergency Preparedness, and Disaster Relief Infrastructure
Department of Homeland Security
The Homeland Security Act, passed on November
25, 2002, combined 22 government agencies into the new DHS. DHS
says it “streamlines
and centralizes federal actions into one cohesive unit. It provides
one point of contact for state and local groups and the private
sector” (DHS, 2004a).
The 22 agencies are divided into five directorates:
- Border and Transportation Security
- EP&R
- Science and Technology
- Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection
- Management
The Coast Guard and the Secret Service are not part of the five
directorates because these two departments report directly to the
secretary of homeland security (Stichter 2003). This government
reorganization was initiated to provide a more uniform set of directions
to the many departments, agencies, and units that each do a part
to serve and protect the people of the United States.
Budget
The budget for DHS included $41 billion in
2004 and $47 billion in 2005. Spending for these efforts in 2001,
although not yet under the direction of DHS, totaled approximately
$21 billion. Of the 2004 DHS budget, 37 percent was allocated
to support efforts by the border and transportation authorities;
30 percent was allocated to protect critical infrastructure within
the country; 17 percent was allocated for EP&R efforts; and
15 percent was apportioned for counterterrorism, defending catastrophic
threats, and intelligence and warning activities (Schmit 2004).
Mission
DHS’s mission includes preventing and reducing the risk
of future terrorist attacks; minimizing the damage if such acts
do occur, as well as aiding in recovery efforts; continuing to
carry out the functions of each of the individual units in the
newly created department; maintaining the same level of service
to nonterrorism-related items from each of the individual units
in the department; ensuring that the country’s economic security
is not diminished in spite of the newly created department; and
continuing to monitor and sever connections between drug trafficking
and terrorism (Walker 2004).
Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response
DHS’s EP&R is charged with ensuring that the country
is prepared for catastrophes––whether natural disasters
or terrorist assaults. The directorate coordinates with first responders
and oversees the Federal Government’s national response and
recovery strategy.
DHS builds on FEMA’s long track record of aiding the nation’s
recovery from emergency situations. EP&R continues FEMA’s
efforts to reduce the loss of life and property and protect the
nation’s institutions from all types of hazards through a
comprehensive, risk-based emergency management program of preparedness,
prevention, response, and recovery.
EP&R develops and manages a national training and evaluation
system to design curriculums, set standards, evaluate, and reward
performance in local, state, and federal training efforts. EP&R
continues FEMA’s practice of focusing on risk mitigation
in advance of emergencies by promoting the concept of disaster-resistant
communities, including providing federal support for local governments
that promote structures and communities that reduce the chances
of being hit by disasters. EP&R coordinates with private industry,
the insurance sector, mortgage lenders, the real estate industry,
homebuilding associations, citizens, and others to create model
communities in high-risk areas.
EP&R leads DHS response to all biological
or radiological attacks, and it coordinates the involvement of
other federal response teams, such as the National Guard, in
the event of a major incident (DHS 2004a).
Federal Emergency Management Agency
On March 1, 2003, FEMA became part of DHS’s EP&R, which
brings together, in addition to FEMA, the Strategic National Stockpile
and the National Disaster Medical System (from the Department of
Health and Human Services [HHS]); the Nuclear Incident Response
Team (from the Energy Department); Domestic Emergency Support Teams
(from the Justice Department); and the National Domestic Preparedness
Office (from the Federal Bureau of Investigation). FEMA’s
continuing mission within the new department is to lead the effort
to prepare the nation for all hazards and effectively manage federal
response and recovery efforts following any national incident.
FEMA also initiates proactive mitigation activities, trains first
responders, and manages the National Flood Insurance Program and
the U.S. Fire Administration.
FEMA has more than 2,600 full time employees. They work at FEMA
headquarters in Washington, D.C., at regional and area offices
across the country, at the Mount Weather Emergency Operations Center
in Virginia, and at the National Emergency Training Center in Emmitsburg,
Maryland. FEMA also has nearly 4,000 standby disaster assistance
employees who are available for deployment after disasters (FEMA
2004a).
To understand what FEMA does, think about the
life cycle of disasters. The disaster life cycle describes the
process by which emergency managers prepare for emergencies and
disasters, respond to them when they occur, help people and institutions
recover from them, mitigate their effects, reduce the risk of
loss, and prevent disasters such as fires from occurring. At
every stage of this cycle, FEMA is charged with building and
supporting the nation’s emergency
management system (FEMA 2004a).
Emergency management is not the result of one
government agency. FEMA’s influence is far-reaching, especially
in response to a presidentially declared disaster, when FEMA
may work with as many as 27 federal agencies and the American
Red Cross to provide assistance. These agencies provide state
and local governments with personnel, technical expertise, equipment,
and other resources, and they assume an active role in managing
the response. In addition to its federal partners, FEMA works
with many nonprofit and private sector agencies to assist the
public in preparing for, responding to, and recovering from a
disaster. Together, these players make up the emergency response
team (FEMA 2004c).
To coordinate the federal efforts, FEMA recommends that the President
appoint a Federal Coordinating Officer for each state that is affected
by a disaster. This officer and the state response team set up
a disaster field office near the disaster scene. It is from this
office that the federal and state personnel carry out response
and recovery functions. These functions represent 12 ESFs (emergency
support functions), each headed by an agency supported by other
agencies.
Emergency support functions
The resources provided by the federal government are grouped into
the following 12 ESFs:
- ESF 1: Transportation. Providing
civilian and military transportation. Lead agency: Department
of Transportation
- ESF 2: Communications. Providing
telecommunications support. Lead agency: National Communications
System
- ESF 3: Public Works and Engineering.
Restoring essential public services and facilities. Lead agency:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense
- ESF 4: Fire Fighting. Detecting
and suppressing wild land, rural, and urban fires. Lead agency:
U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture
- ESF 5: Information and Planning.
Collecting, analyzing, and disseminating critical information
to facilitate the overall federal response and recovery operations.
Lead agency: FEMA
- ESF 6: Mass Care. Managing and
coordinating food, shelter, and first aid for victims; providing
bulk distribution of relief supplies; operating a system to assist
family reunification. Lead agency: American Red Cross
- ESF 7: Resource Support. Providing
equipment, materials, supplies, and personnel to federal entities
during response operations. Lead agency: General Services Administration
- ESF 8: Health and Medical Services.
Providing assistance for public health and medical care needs.
Lead agency: U.S. Public Health Service, HHS
- ESF 9: Urban Search and Rescue.
Locating, extricating, and providing initial medical treatment
to victims trapped in collapsed structures. Lead agency: FEMA
- ESF 10: Hazardous Materials.
Supporting federal response to actual or potential releases of
oil and hazardous materials. Lead agency: Environmental Protection
Agency
- ESF 11: Food. Identifying food
needs; ensuring that food gets to areas affected by disaster.
Lead agency: Food and Nutrition Service, Department of Agriculture
- ESF 12: Energy. Restoring power
systems and fuel supplies. Lead agency: Department
of Energy
Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
The CRCL protects civil rights and civil liberties and supports
homeland security by providing DHS with legal and policy advice
on the full range of civil rights and civil liberties issues the
department will face, and by serving the public as an information
and communications channel on all aspects of these issues. Congress
created the Office to review and assess allegations of abuse of
civil rights or civil liberties, and racial or ethnic profiling,
by DHS personnel. The office is required to report annually to
Congress on any such abuses committed by DHS personnel, how much
money was required to resolve these complaints, and how the complaints
were resolved (DHS 2004b).
Leadership
On July 22, 2004, President Bush signed an Executive Order
emphasizing the importance of implementing emergency preparedness
plans that accommodate individuals with disabilities (White House
Office of the Press Secretary 2004). Tom Ridge, the first director
of the Office of Homeland Security, stated in November 2001 at
a White House meeting with representatives from the disability
community––
One of the challenges for the Office of Homeland
Security––and
it’s a wonderful challenge––is to integrate all
the Americans who want to help be part of homeland security into
a national strategy....Obviously, they’ve got some unique
and very special challenges that we’d have to deal with,
but they also have some very unique and, I think, probably helpful
ideas and we want to integrate them in the process of developing
a national strategy (NOD 2001a).
Like this presidential order and Secretary
Ridge’s statement,
clear and continual strong messages and directives from multiple
visible leaders must communicate and reinforce values, directions,
and performance expectations.
Interagency Coordinating Council on Emergency Preparedness
and
Individuals with Disabilities
In April 2004, DHS’s CRCL assembled an
internal working group made up of a variety of departments and
agencies. This group meets monthly and focuses on disability
issues such as Section 504 and 508 of the 1973 Rehabilitation
Act, ADA, and issues related to the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA). The goal is to examine what is in place and to identify
gaps. FEMA, the Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP), TSA, and
the Citizen Corps are some of the members. (ODP is the principal
component of DHS responsible for preventing and preparing the
United States for acts of terrorism. In carrying out its mission,
ODP is the primary office responsible for providing training,
funds for the purchase of equipment, support for the planning
and execution of exercises, technical assistance, and other support
to assist states and local jurisdictions to prevent, plan for,
and respond to acts of terrorism.)
The July 2004 President’s Executive Order on emergency
preparedness for people with disabilities established an Interagency
Coordinating Council on Emergency Preparedness and Individuals
with Disabilities, which will help agencies and private individuals
and organizations take into account the unique needs of people
with disabilities in their emergency preparedness planning (White
House Office of the Press Secretary 2004).
The council is to submit a report to the President
each year, beginning one year after the date of this order, through
the assistant to the president for homeland security. This report
describes the achievements of the council; the best practices
among federal, state, local, and tribal governments and private
organizations and individuals for emergency preparedness planning
with respect to individuals with disabilities; and recommendations
of the council for advancing policy that ensures that the
Federal Government appropriately supports safety and security
for individuals with disabilities in situations involving disasters
(White House Office of the Press Secretary 2004).
Civil rights enforcement
Resources Needed. Two key resources are required for an effective
civil rights enforcement program: adequate staffing and adequate
funds to support enforcement. Civil rights compliance is a labor-intensive
effort. Without sufficient staff, investigations and compliance
reviews may be delayed or deferred. Financial resources are required
to support investigations, pay for travel, provide training and
technical assistance materials, underwrite new initiatives, and
provide expertise that is not otherwise available to the agency.
Each federal agency that provides federal financial assistance
is responsible for investigating complaints of discrimination in
the use of its funds.
Filing a Complaint Online. A search of the
FEMA home page for “filing
a complaint,” “504 complaint,” or “disability
complaint” quickly resulted in appropriate information. The
subject “ADA complaint” did not yield any complaint-related “how-to” information.
The helpline 800 number did not include a TTY number (FEMA 2003b).
A search of DHS’s home page for “filing a complaint
quickly” resulted in appropriate information. “ADA
complaint” did not yield any complaint-related “how-to” information.
Office for Civil Rights and
Civil Liberties. DHS’s CRCL
protects civil rights and civil liberties and supports homeland
security by providing DHS with legal and policy advice on the full
range of civil rights and civil liberties issues. The office, which
began operations in March 2003, was created by Congress to review
and assess allegations of abuse of civil rights or civil liberties,
and racial or ethnic profiling, by DHS personnel. The CRCL is required
to report annually to Congress on any such abuses committed by
DHS personnel, how much money was required to resolve such complaints,
and how such complaints were resolved (DHS 2004b). The CRCL’s
2004 budget request was $12,950,000.
Civil Rights Program of EP&R/FEMA. Michael D. Brown, under
secretary of DHS for EP&R, has said that EP&R/FEMA’s
goals––
…are to protect lives and prevent the loss of property;
to reduce human suffering and enhance the recovery of communities
after disaster strikes; and to ensure that EP&R/FEMA is a high-performance
organization serving the public in a timely and cost-efficient
manner. We will not truly fulfill these goals unless we also protect
precious rights and prevent discrimination. I expect support from
every employee of EP&R/FEMA in carrying out our Civil Rights
mandates (FEMA 2003a–i).
FEMA states that it is the policy of DHS and
EP&R/FEMA to
ensure that the civil rights of all persons receiving services
or benefits from agency programs and activities are protected.
No person shall, on the grounds of race, color,
national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, or economic
status, be denied the benefits of, be deprived of participation
in, or be discriminated against in any program or activity conducted
by or receiving financial assistance from EP&R/FEMA. In particular, all personnel carrying
out federal major disaster or emergency assistance functions, including
the distribution of supplies, the processing of applications, and
other relief and assistance activities, shall perform their work
in an equitable and impartial manner without discrimination (FEMA
2003 a–i).
Any person eligible to receive disaster aid or other services
from FEMA is entitled to those benefits without discrimination.
The laws that guarantee these protections include the following:
- Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation
Act, which prohibits federal agencies and federally funded programs
from discriminating on the basis of disability. It is designed
to promote and expand opportunities for people with a broad range
of disabilities and offer broad-based protection from unwarranted
discrimination stemming from prejudice, social stigmas, and negative
assumptions about their ability to participate fully in the mainstream
of society. Section 504 covers a number of entities and federally
funded activities not reached by the ADA. It is intended to make
certain that tax dollars will not be used to establish, promote,
or reinforce discrimination against people with disabilities
(NCD 2003b). Congress also intended the federal agencies to address
and correct the ways in which recipients of these funds were
discriminating against individuals with disabilities.
- Section 508 of the 1973 Rehabilitation
Act, which deals specifically with access to computers and information
technology.
- Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, which protects individuals from discrimination on
the basis of their race, color, or national origin in programs
that receive federal financial assistance.
- Section 308 of the Robert T.
Stafford Emergency Management and Disaster Assistance Act, which
prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion,
nationality, sex, age, or economic status in all disaster assistance
programs.
EP&R/FEMA’s civil rights
program section of the Office of Equal Rights (OER) provides
the following:
- Technical assistance––policy
guidance to the agency in meeting civil rights mandates. In disaster
operations, staff work closely with community organizations to
resolve tensions and eliminate potential complaints. The office
also provides assistance to the agency and the national emergency
management community in the effort to make publications, programs,
and facilities accessible to people with disabilities; provides
guidance to the federal coordinating officer on equal employment
opportunity (EEO) and civil rights matters; and presents training
on sexual harassment prevention, cultural diversity, and the
EEO process.
- EEO counseling––assistance
to FEMA employees, employment applicants, and managers to resolve
problems quickly; guidance to supervisors through downsizing
to achieve the best possible outcome; and processing of all complaints
that cannot be resolved informally (FEMA 2003d).
- Complaints resolution––a
contact point for anyone who believes he or she has been discriminated
against in receiving services or benefits from FEMA. Disaster
applicants can obtain help from an equal rights officer through
the FEMA helpline. If that officer cannot resolve the issue,
a formal written complaint may be filed with OER. This office
is responsible for processing complaints, acknowledgment, acceptance/dismissal,
investigations, compliance reviews, and issuing final decisions
(FEMA 2003d).
Equal Rights Officer Cadre. The equal rights officer cadre is
a diverse group composed of people with backgrounds in such fields
as EEO, civil rights, human resources management, conflict resolution,
and community organization. They serve on the direct staff of the
federal coordinating officer at the disaster field office.
In addition to technical assistance and training
and EEO counseling, the equal rights officer cadre focuses on
resolution of civil rights complaints. The cadre staff work proactively
with community relations, public affairs, human services, and
other disaster field office components to resolve individual
or group civil rights issues; visit and speak with key community
leaders and organizations; assess accessibility at disaster recovery
centers; and distribute information about EP&R programs.
They investigate disability-specific civil rights complaints
and maintain contact with the disability community.
If individuals believe they or others protected
by civil rights laws have been discriminated against in receiving
disaster assistance, they can contact one of FEMA’s equal
rights officers, who have the job of ensuring equal access to
all FEMA disaster programs. That officer will attempt to resolve
the issues. If the matter is not resolved, individuals may file
a complaint with FEMA. A signed, written complaint needs to be
sent to the OER, generally within 180 days of the date of the
alleged discrimination.
Once a complaint is filed, FEMA reviews it to determine whether
FEMA has jurisdiction to investigate the issues raised. If the
complaint is accepted, FEMA will investigate it and attempt to
resolve any violations that are found. If negotiations to correct
a violation are unsuccessful, enforcement proceedings may be instituted.
The civil rights program manager supervises the equal rights officers
and spends approximately 45 percent of the time on disability-specific
activities, such as attending national meetings, advising other
federal agencies, and providing disability-specific emergency planning
and technical assistance to state and local government agencies.
Using Funding Sanctions to Enforce
Section 504 and ADA. The CRCL
is currently working on a draft document that will remind grantees
of their Section 504 and ADA obligations. A more proactive approach
may be needed. The CRCL also stated that the Department of Justice
is actively working on guidance for state and local emergency planning
departments that reinforces their legal obligation to comply with
Section 504 and ADA in planning for, operating, and managing shelters
and other disaster services.
Often the threat of temporarily withholding even a portion of
the funds is enough to persuade a grantee to rethink its plans
and attend to the assurances that are often in very small print,
buried in the back of grant and contract agreements. Congress included
this as an effective remedy to address discrimination on the basis
of disability by recipients of federal funds.
To combat disability discrimination in the
most effective way possible, it is NCD’s view that federal agencies should use
their sanctioning authority, including making recipients ineligible
to apply for continued or new funding while they are not in compliance
with federal civil rights laws. This strategy could effectively
be incorporated into notices of funding availability and program
eligibility requirements, so that no recipient or potential recipient
can be funded while a preliminary or final finding of noncompliance
is pending. This strategy should become an integral part of agencies’ Section
504 enforcement efforts. DHS should also develop and apply a range
of sanctions to help bring recipients of federal funds into compliance
with Section 504. Additionally, DHS should publicize their efforts
to maximize deterrence against violations of the rights of people
with disabilities (NCD 2003a, b).
Federal funding agencies have the authority
and the ability to influence their recipients’ choices
of how to spend their federal dollars. Recipients, for example,
have used their federal funds to create separate recreation activities
or swimming classes; to deny participation in employment programs
to applicants who take medications for psychiatric disabilities;
and to place public benefit programs in inaccessible buildings.
Each of these decisions is likely to be or to lead to a violation
of both Section 504 and ADA. However, only the funding agency
can withhold the amount of funding that is equivalent to the
amount that would support the illegal activity. It can do much
more, of course, but often the threat of temporarily withholding
even a portion of the funds is enough to persuade the city to
rethink its plans (NCD 2003b).
Encouraging beneficiaries to comply with civil rights obligations
and agreements is a very effective way for DHS to maximize its
resources and compliance. To date, DHS has not initiated funding
terminations to enforce Section 504 against grantees that violate
the law. NCD believes that stronger efforts should be devoted to
clearly communicating to grantees that their funds can be withheld
if they violate Section 504 or ADA.
Congress provided this remedy to give federal agencies the leverage
they needed to force recalcitrant grantees to stop using tax dollars
in discriminatory ways and to otherwise encourage voluntary compliance
with the law.
Technical Assistance, Training,
and Outreach. Encouraging the help of the public to ensure that DHS’s
disaster management networks comply with civil rights laws is
an effective way for DHS to maximize its resources. It assists
DHS by turning to the public and to DHS recipients for help in
identifying discrimination and technical assistance needs (NCD
2003b).
Stronger outreach, targeted technical assistance,
and training initiatives focused on ADA and Section 504 compliance
issues are needed, NCD believes. A search for “504 technical assistance
or guidance” and “ADA technical assistance or guidance” from
the FEMA and DHS home pages resulted in only one resource:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Access Requirements, Date
Published: October 26, 2000, Response and Recovery Directorate
Policy Number: 9525.5. This policy provides guidance in determining
the eligibility of costs for federally required ADA access compliance
associated with Public Assistance (PA) program grants. This policy
is applicable to all major disasters and emergencies declared on
or after the publication date of this policy. It is intended for
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) personnel involved in
making eligibility determinations for the PA program (FEMA 2003f).
Successful Technical Assistance
Practices. Examples of successful technical assistance practices at the
HHS office of civil rights can be found at www.hhs.gov/ocr/generalinfo.html and www.hhs.gov/ocr/selectacts. This office has a wide array
of technical assistance materials available online. The HHS Web
site contains references to a large number of technical assistance
materials (easily accessed through a drop-down menu that includes “civil rights” and “disabilities”),
including complaint filing information, fact sheets, regulations,
and case summaries. The case summaries include examples of HHS
enforcement actions and summaries of several resolutions of Section
504 complaints. The civil rights resource page contains links to
other federal enforcement agencies (NCD 2003b, pp. 81–82).
The Department of Education’s Web site has a number of technical
assistance materials, including a short list of frequently asked
questions, case decisions, a description of the complaint investigation
process of the department’s office of civil rights, and a
breakdown of complaints by type. The site is at www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/disabilityresources.html.
The Department of Education also has technical assistance materials
directed at recipients, including guidance on developing a nondiscrimination
policy and developing effective grievance policies and similar
resources (www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/prevention.html).
Production of ADA and Section 504 guidance
materials available online and through technical assistance,
including fact sheets, technical briefs, and regulation and case
summaries, are very helpful in increasing compliance with civil
rights laws.
Compliance Reviews. DHS does not conduct proactive
reviews of recipients’ compliance or noncompliance with Section 504
and ADA. Agencies enforcing Section 504 have the authority to conduct
proactive reviews of recipients’ compliance, or noncompliance,
with Section 504. This authority is discretionary because it is
not driven by complaints; it can be exercised even in the absence
of complaints. Compliance reviews permit a comprehensive examination
of the activities of a particular recipient for compliance with
the law. A compliance review may be used to identify hitherto undisclosed
compliance issues, it can provide an early alert about emerging
problems, and it can be used as a vehicle for training or technical
assistance.
Compliance reviews may be, and sometimes are, used as an effective
enforcement tool, carrying with them the possibility of a wide
variety of sanctions, including suspension or termination of funding.
Compliance reviews are an effective way to conduct systematic enforcement
of the law without an individual complaint. Especially when victims
of discrimination do not, or cannot, speak for themselves, compliance
reviews help ensure that congressional intentions for civil rights
laws are met (NCD 2003b).
A good practice, in addition to complaint investigations and actions
to resolve noncompliance, involves reviewing whether an agreement
actually accomplishes a Section 504 goal on a case-by- case basis.
Having the flexibility to work with a recipient to modify agreements
and generate better outcomes for people is the goal. It emphasizes
results over process (NCD 2003b).
Data Collection and Reports. NCD asked FEMA and the CRCL to provide
detailed information about their complaint processing and compliance
review information, in general and with respect to Section 504
enforcement activities.
The CRCL has a staff of 20, including five attorneys. Staff share
complaint processing responsibilities, and there is no designated
individual with the sole responsibility for handling disability
issues. CRCL staff felt the timing of this report was too early;
they could not provide some of the information requested because
the CRCL is still in the initial phases of developing initiatives
and priorities.
For fiscal year 2004, the CRCL logged 60 complaints (not limited
to Section 504). The CRCL has 180 days to resolve a complaint.
The number of complaints resolved was not available. The CRCL reports
that, given its newness, it has not developed information systems
that comprehensively collect, aggregate, or summarize detailed
information about complaints or compliance reviews and their outcomes.
EP&R/FEMA also has no designated individual
with the sole responsibility for handling disability issues.
Many of the equal rights officers have partial responsibility
for this activity. In fiscal year 2003, 1 out of 85 complaints
was disability related, and in fiscal year 2004, 18 out of 288
were disability-related issues.
EP&R/FEMA does not collect and analyze Section 504 and ADA
program data (complaints or compliance reviews and their outcomes)
for progress made, deficiencies, best practices, or areas where
DHS could provide coordination or technical assistance. It has
been more than 10 years since EP&R/FEMA has issued guidance
for state and local emergency planning departments reinforcing
their legal obligation to comply with Section 504 in planning for,
operating, and managing shelters and other disaster services. Guidance
on ADA compliance has never been issued.
The CRCL and EP&R/FEMA do
not get many formal complaints on discrimination related to people
with disabilities and activity limitations. On first examination,
there seems to be a dramatic disconnect between the experience
of people with disabilities and activity limitations in disasters
and the number of civil rights complaints received by DHS. There
are probably multiple reasons for the low number of complaints,
which may include the following:
- After a disaster many people
are overwhelmed with dealing with their immediate survival needs
and losses. Filing complaints can be a low priority.
- Complaints may be filed with
the states as well as nonfederal partners.
- Many of the barriers experienced
by people with disabilities are the result of activities conducted
by states and local government and other partners. This underscores
the critical importance of DHS reminding and reinforcing all
of its partners, grantees, and contractors of their legal obligation
to comply with ADA and Section 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation
Act in planning for, operating, and managing shelters and other
disaster services. It also reinforces the importance of DHS regularly
issuing guidance for state and local emergency planning departments
to reinforce their legal obligation to comply with these laws.
- Many people with disabilities
do not know how to make a complaint or where it should be directed
for resolution.
Information systems that comprehensively collect, aggregate, or
summarize detailed information about complaints or compliance reviews
and their outcomes are critical to the public and to consumers
and recipients of service. Among the kinds of information that
should be readily available are the numbers of complaints and compliance
reviews initiated, completed, and remaining for every fiscal year.
Additionally, data routinely compiled should include the length
of investigations and reviews, the issues or claims reviewed and
findings on each, detailed information about findings of compliance
and noncompliance made, and similarly detailed information about
the ways complaints and compliance reviews are resolved (NCD 2003b).
This data is important in assessing trends and themes in Section
504 and ADA issues, identifying the workload and the outcomes of
cases, and assessing the quality and quantity of work done. The
information is important for internal management purposes, but
it is also critically important to consumers, advocates, and recipients,
who rightfully expect to be informed about the types of enforcement
activities being conducted and their outcomes (NCD 2003b).
People with disabilities want to read data
easily about agencies’ compliance
with Section 504 and ADA. Such data includes complaint filings
and compliance reviews initiated, specific Section 504 issues and
trends in complaint and compliance reviews, and outcomes and enforcement
actions. Routinely reporting Section 504 activities on the Web
sites would allow DHS to publicize Section 504 and ADA accomplishments
(NCD 2003b).
Section 508. DHS has committed to comply with the requirements
of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. Section 508 requires
that individuals with disabilities who are members of the public
seeking information or services from DHS have access to and use
of information and data that is comparable to that provided to
the public who are not individuals with disabilities, unless an
undue burden would be imposed on DHS.
Section 508 also requires DHS to ensure that federal employees
with disabilities have access to and use of information and data
that is comparable to the access to and use of information and
data by federal employees who are not individuals with disabilities,
unless an undue burden would be imposed on DHS.
Web Site Access. It is DHS policy that No. 6-03, 9/2/04 reads
as follows:
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
Emergency Preparedness and Response (EP&R), Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) is committed to serving all individuals
equally and therefore considers accessibility to information
a priority for all employees and external customers, including
individuals with disabilities. Federal employees and members
of the public who have disabilities must have access to and use
of information and services that are comparable to the access
and use available to nondisabled federal employees and members
of the public. It is directorate policy to prohibit discrimination
in the accessibility of electronic and information technology (DHS
2004c).
PDF Documents. DHS’s Web site states:
Section 508 also requires us to ensure that federal employees
with disabilities have access to and use of information and data
that is comparable to the access to and use of information and
data by Federal employees who are not individuals with disabilities,
unless an undue burden would be imposed on us. If the format of
any material on our Web site interferes with your ability to access
the information, due to an issue with accessibility caused by a
disability as defined in the Rehabilitation Act, please contact
webmaster@dhs.gov for assistance. To enable us to respond in a
manner most helpful to you, please indicate the nature of your
accessibility problem, the preferred format in which to receive
the material, the Web address (URL) of the material with which
you are having difficulty, and your contact information (http://www.dhs.gov).
FEMA’s Web site states:
Some of the files are provided in Adobe Acrobat
Portable Document Format. All PDF documents on the FEMA Web site
are characterized by the following or similar graphic icon ().
This icon is usually placed next to the document link. Download
Adobe Acrobat Reader. If you have accessibility problems viewing
any PDF document on these pages, go to Adobe’s Online Converter
to obtain the document in text format.
If you have accessibility problems viewing any PDF document on
these pages, go to http://access.adobe.com/simple_form.html and
use the online conversion tools to obtain the document in text
format. Once you download the files you want into the desired directory,
open the Acrobat Reader program and then open the files you want
to view or print. Download directions are also available with each
course. It is recommended that the user download the course material
files and view them off-line at their convenience, saving time
and money for Internet connection charges.
If you have a disability and the format of any material interferes
with your ability to access information contained on our Web site,
please e-mail the FEMA/U.S. Fire Administration webmaster at usfaweb@dhs.gov.
The webmaster will refer your request to the appropriate USFA component.
The component will respond promptly to you by providing you with
an alternate format of the requested material.
To enable us to respond in a manner that will be of most help
to you, please indicate (FEMA 2004a):
- the nature of the accessibility
problem,
- your preferred format (e.g.,
electronic format (Word, ASCII, etc.), standard print, large
print, etc.),
- the Web address of the requested
material, and
- your full contact information
so we can reach you if questions arise while fulfilling your
request.
The American Red Cross (one of
EP&R/FEMA’s
private sector agencies serving as a major player in assisting
the public in preparing for, responding to, and recovering from
a disaster) Web site, in addition to PDF, provides most of its
preparedness documents in hypertext markup language (HTML).
Section 508 Requirements. Section 508 requires that federal Web
pages containing a PDF file include a link to a plug-in that complies
with the software requirements of Section 508. In addition, it
requires provision of a text equivalent for every nontext element.
Many agencies use PDF files to post documents to their Web site
because they create an exact representation of the original document.
To view a PDF file, a user must use a browser plug-in.
DHS has two options when addressing PDF content. First, it can
ensure that its PDF file is accessible and include a link to a
PDF reader that conforms to the software requirements of Section
508. Or, if such a plug in is unavailable, the agency can provide
a link to a duplicate file that contains the same information in
an accessible format (Section 508 2002).
Adobe has made efforts to make PDF files more accessible, but
many people continue to have serious difficulties accessing public
information that is made available only in PDF. The many problems
associated with accessing PDF documents constitute a burden on
people with visual impairments that is significantly greater than
the burden placed on individuals without disabilities with regard
to PDF files (Sajka and Roeder 2003).
Accessible authoring is not enforced by all
available authoring tools. “In fact,” say Sajka and Roeder (2003), “some
PDF authoring tools simply do not support Adobe’s accessibility
guidelines. Without a massive effort to upgrade these tools and
educate authors on how to use them, or a systematic approach to
prevent the use of these tools to create documents intended for
public access, the government will continue to produce thousands
of pages of inaccessible documents.”
The American Foundation for the Blind, the
American Council of the Blind, National Industries for the Blind,
and other groups in the blind community say that “problems of access by people
who are blind or otherwise print disabled and the mandates of Section
508 lead to the conclusion that documents in alternative, accessible
formats must always accompany PDF for information that is intended
for the public” (Sajka and Roeder 2003).
Grant programs
The DHS Secretary is responsible for administering grant programs
for state and local first responders, including firefighters, emergency
medical personnel, law enforcement officials, and related personnel.
DHS functions as a clearinghouse that assists state and local responders
with planning, training, equipment, and exercise needs necessary
to respond to disasters. FEMA fully or partially funds the emergency
management programs and staff in all 56 states and territories
and helps design and equip emergency operations in thousands of
localities.
ODP is the principal component of DHS with responsibility for
preparing the United States for acts of terrorism. In carrying
out its mission, ODP is the primary office responsible for providing
training, funds for the purchase of equipment, support for the
planning and execution of exercises, technical assistance, and
other support to assist states and local jurisdictions in preventing,
planning for, and responding to acts of terrorism.
Integrating Disability and Access
Issues. NCD
found little evidence of DHS’s grants program encouraging potential grantees to
integrate disability and access issues except for an April 2004
ODP announcement for a fiscal year 2004 competitive training grants
program. One of six issue areas was titled “Addressing
Training Gaps Related to Prevention and Preparedness, to Include
Assistance for Special Needs Populations.”
Procurement. The creation and enforcement of procurement policies
and procedures that are similar to, but that go beyond, Section
508 of the Rehabilitation Act can help to increase access to products
and services.
DHS’s procurement policies on acquiring
and using accessible products and services should be integrated
and enforced internally and through all contracts and funded
projects.
DHS should ensure that, wherever possible, purchasing specifications
reflect the most universally designed products that are accessible
and usable by the greatest number of people, regardless of their
capabilities. The concept helps people use products and negotiate
environments they otherwise would find inaccessible or difficult
to manage. For example, a group of architects, product designers,
engineers, and environmental design researchers collaborated to
establish the Principles of Universal Design to guide a wide range
of design disciplines including environments, products, and communications.
These seven principles can be applied to products. Consider adopting
Principles of Universal Design as a best practice (Center for Universal
Design 1997).
Geographic Information System. During emergencies, it is critical
to have the right data, at the right time, displayed logically,
in order to respond and take appropriate action. Most of the data
requirements for emergency management are of a spatial nature and
can be located on a map (Johnson 2000). Ensure that any surveillance
systems used to assess risk include people with disabilities.
Emergency planners and others must also take into account the
needs of people with disabilities who travel and may be in their
community at the time of an emergency. For example, one individual
reported:
In 2002 I was in a Santa Rosa, California,
hotel room when I saw a graphic on an uncaptioned TV news program
that warned of high winds. I didn’t know if the winds were so dangerous that
I should take action to protect myself. In 2003 I was at a conference
in Las Vegas and uncaptioned TV news talked of the wildfires raging
in California but I didn’t know how close they were. I also
didn’t know that the smoke was being carried on the wind
and that the air quality could be unsafe. In 2004 I was in Omaha
at a conference when yet another uncaptioned TV news program was
interrupted with a graphic warning of tornado activity and a picture
of a Doppler map showing only names of counties. It was my first
time in Omaha and I had no idea which county my hotel was located
in (Heppner 2005).
Proposal Selection Criteria. Current DHS proposal selection criteria
lack disability-specific indicators for evaluating proposals. Where
appropriate to the grant focus, these indicators should specifically
detail and show evidence of how applicants will achieve the following:
- Deal with the communications,
evacuation, transportation, physical access, and health needs
of people with disabilities.
- Form partnerships among first
responders, emergency planners, and people with disabilities
to ensure that accurate training information and usable services
are developed.
- Increase communication and cooperation
with the disability community.
- Appoint qualified people with
disabilities to emergency planning committees, and as advisors,
trainers, contractors, and consultants and project staff.
- Educate people with disabilities
and activity limitations about what they can do to be prepared
for any type of emergency.
- Assist localities in reviewing
and, where needed, creating disability-specific policies and
regulations.
- Integrate new and updated disability-specific
training content into training and preparedness materials.
- Follow policies on procuring
and buying accessible products and services.
- Work with CBOs.
Current disability-specific initiatives
DHS has taken some important first steps in its disability-specific
plan. The CRCL provides legal and policy advice to DHS related
to the myriad civil rights and civil liberties issues that the
Department will encounter (DHS 2004a).
CRCL has identified a number of objectives that reflect a commitment
to making DHS a model workplace for people with disabilities, including
the following:
- Providing paid internships for
students with disabilities to gain experience and build new skills.
- Integrating people with disabilities
into emergency preparedness and planning.
- Working with private organizations
that have increased knowledge and information about the important
issues facing people with disabilities.
- Communicating with people with
disabilities about homeland security.
- Ensuring that DHS has an efficient
Section 508 program (DHS 2004b).
Federal Communications Commission
Current FCC rules
FCC rules state that to accommodate people who are deaf or hard
of hearing, emergency information that is provided in the audio
portion of the programming must be provided using closed captioning
or other methods of visual presentation such as open captioning,
crawls, or scrolls that appear on the screen. Emergency information
provided by these means should not block any closed captioning,
and closed captioning should not block any emergency information
provided by crawls, scrolls, or other visual means. This rule on
access to emergency information for people with hearing disabilities
became effective on August 29, 2000 (Federal Communications Commission
[FCC] 2004).
The same information must also be provided in a manner that is
accessible to persons who are blind or have low vision. Specifically,
emergency information that is provided in the video portion of
a regularly scheduled newscast or a newscast that interrupts regular
programming must be made accessible to these people. This requires
the oral description of emergency information in the main audio,
such as open video description. If the emergency information is
being provided in the video portion of programming that is not
a regularly scheduled newscast or a newscast that interrupts regular
programming (e.g., the programmer provides the emergency information
through crawling or scrolling during regular programming), this
information must be accompanied by an aural tone. This tone is
to alert people with vision disabilities that the video programming
distributor is providing emergency information, and to alert those
persons to tune to another source, such as a radio, for more information.
This rule on access to emergency information for people with vision
disabilities became effective February 2, 2001 (FCC 2004).
The FCC has reminded broadcasters of these rules and their obligations
to comply on four occasions, the last being on May 28, 2004. In
spite of these reminders, widespread problems continue.
Clear communication is the cornerstone of all successful planning
and response. Access to emergency public warnings, as well as to
preparedness and mitigation information and materials, must include
people who receive their information orally and visually, and people
who use alternative formats (e.g., Braille, large print, disks,
and audio cassettes) to access print materials. There must be a
national policy of public warning that includes communication access.
The FCC, in coordination with DHS, held a Homeland Security Summit
on March 25, 2004, aimed at addressing emergency communications
issues uniquely faced by the disability community. In addition
to the ongoing interagency relationships, the FCC is exploring
other communications issues related to the specific needs of the
disability community that would lend themselves to other partnerships
with DHS.
Access policy issues
Many broadcasters and public emergency management agencies are
not aware of their legal responsibilities to modify their information
procedures. The following are some examples:
Captioning
- Line 21 on television screens
is reserved for closed captioning. Captions are not visible unless
activated by the viewer. The FCC oversees the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 regulations that phase in closed captioning of TV
programs by 2006. These regulations, however, do not require
100 percent captioning of all programs, including news programs.
Programs shown between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. local time are
exempt. Only news programs by the four major broadcast network
affiliates in the top 25 TV markets and cable networks serving
at least 50 percent of the total number of households subscribing
to the program are required to have real-time captioning (Heppner
et al. 2004).
- Emergency Alerting System captions
use a different format. Individual television stations and networks
have increased use of scrolling text and captions. In spite of FCC requirements
that these forms of captioning not interfere with Line 21 captioning,
reports by individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing confirm
that they do. One reported that on 9/11, “Captioning began
to disappear….All I could see was pictures of terror….My
local and cable news had their closed captions blocking the local
feeder” (Heppner et al. 2004).
- It is increasingly difficult
for people to determine which information is the most recent
and most important when several forms of captions and text appear
on the screen (Heppner et al. 2004).
Description of Visual Information. The FCC
oversees regulations requiring “visual presentation” of
emergency information. These regulations do not specify that
information must be verbatim or provided in real time. These
requirements, written in pre-9/11 days, are intended to provide
all crucial information in an emergency, but there are widespread
reports from across the United States that emergency information
is not being provided and, when it is provided, crucial information
is omitted (Heppner et al. 2004).
Users report that the FCC regulation on description of visual
information is not being enforced. This affects many people, but
it has a much greater detrimental effect on people with no or limited
vision or ability to read. These are two examples.
- Emergency text information including phone numbers
is often not read (“call the number on your screen”).
Logic suggests that people could switch to radios for this information.
This may not work in some rural communities when radios run automated
broadcasts in the evenings and weekends. In addition, some rural
communities only have statewide information, and not local information,
available.
- Consistent, unique, specific tones,
music, and voice tags such as “this is a special report” do
not always precede emergency information.
FCC’s Complaint Processing. The FCC reports
that it is continually in the process of updating all of its
rules. Therefore, the commission will continue to monitor compliance
with its rules on the provision of emergency information and,
if necessary, initiate a rulemaking procedure to amend the rules.
The FCC Web site is clear about how to file
a complaint, but it does not say how long it takes to process
a complaint. Complaint procedures are found by typing in “complaint” in the
search engine or by choosing the “for consumers” icon,
which links to an electronic complaint filing form.
The FCC’s rules currently require that accessible information
be made available to members of the disability community in times
of emergency. Section 79.2 of the FCC’s rules requires that
emergency information be provided in an accessible format. That
section further requires that all critical details must be made
accessible. Critical details include specific details on the areas
that will be affected by the emergency, evacuation orders, detailed
descriptions of areas to be evacuated, specific evacuation routes,
approved shelters or the way to take shelter in one’s home,
instructions on how to secure personal property, road closures,
and how to obtain relief assistance.
The FCC reports that it occasionally receives
informal complaints from a consumer about blocking of closed
captioning by emergency information crawls or scrolls or other
on-screen information. Section 79.2 of the FCC’s rules
states that video programming distributors must ensure that emergency
information does not block any closed captioning and that any
closed captioning not block any emergency information provided
by means other than closed captioning. Through a series of public
notices, the FCC has diligently reminded broadcasters and multichannel
video program distributors of their obligation to provide captioning
for emergency information.
The FCC believes that its complaint process
is effective. Under Section 79.1 of the FCC’s rules, when consumers make informal
allegations about a lack of closed captioning in video programming,
the Consumer Inquiries and Complaints Division of the Consumer
and Governmental Affairs Bureau contacts the broadcaster, cable,
or satellite company directly, on behalf of the consumer, for the
purpose of resolving the closed captioning concern. In addition,
the FCC’s enforcement bureau reviews these informal complaints
to determine whether any additional action is required. Consumers
always receive a response from the FCC, and every complaint is
taken seriously. If the enforcement bureau finds that a party is
in violation of the captioning rules, the FCC may revoke the party’s
license, impose forfeitures, and, in the case of “flagrant” rule
violations, require captioning in excess of the current hourly
requirement.
The FCC welcomes specific comments and suggestions as to how to
improve its processing of consumer complaints. Currently, FCC staff
meet with members of the disability community on a regular basis
to discuss issues affecting people with disabilities. In addition,
the FCC receives consistent feedback on its complaint process through
the Consumer Advisory Committee, a Federal Advisory Committee charged
with providing recommendations to the FCC on consumer issues.
Some consumers do not believe, as the FCC does,
that the complaint process is effective. They raise the following
four kinds arguments: (1) public information provided to consumers
by the FCC about their rights and the complaint process is not
always clear; (2) complaints are not being passed on within the
FCC and consumers have not been kept informed of the status of
their complaints; (3) action on the complaints is slow when speed
is required because of their emergency nature; and (4) despite
numerous complaints submitted––many
of them well documented and involving repeat offenders––the
FCC has yet to fine a single broadcaster. Overall, according to
these individuals, the message to consumers is that their complaints
are not taken seriously and that their lives are not important.
Furthermore, some consumers report that there is no education or
enforcement regarding the need to have closed captions activated
on TVs in public places. When there is an emergency, sometimes
no one knows how to activate the captions on these public TVs,
the remote control may be missing, and there may be several steps
involved to activate the decoder. In addition, some people may
be new to hearing loss or may have temporary hearing loss and not
know about closed captions (Heppner 2005).
Digital Television Closed Captioning. In July
2000, the FCC adopted technical standards for display of closed
captioning on digital television (DTV) receivers. The order incorporated
sections of industry standard EIA-708-B, “Digital Television (DTV) Closed
Captioning,” into the FCC rules. The standard provides instructions
for the encoding, delivery, and display of closed captioning information
for DTV systems, with a July 1, 2002, effective date. Devices covered
under the rules include DTV sets with integrated “widescreen” displays
measuring at least 7.8 inches vertically, DTV sets with conventional
displays measuring at least 13 inches vertically, and standalone
DTV tuners, whether or not they are marketed with display screens.
As a result, viewers can choose and alter the color, size, and
font of their captioning and choose between multiple streams of
captioning, such as “easy reader” or alternate language
captioning. The rules require that cable providers and other multichannel
video programming distributors transmit captions in a format that
will be understandable to the decoder circuitry in DTV receivers.
On August 4, 2004, the FCC adopted a report
and order clarifying its digital closed captioning rules to ensure
that those services are consistently and effectively delivered.
This should allow caption users to reap the benefits of new digital
technologies enabling caption viewers to customize their caption
displays––location,
size, font, color, and so on.
Broadcasters’ Interpretation of “Emergency”. Stations across the country interpret regulations requiring the
captioning of emergency information to apply too narrowly to situations
dealing with adverse weather conditions. As a result, key information
such as airport closings and new security requirements, tightened
security on major transportation routes, suspected anthrax exposure,
sniper attacks, and other important news is not captioned (Heppner
2004, Heppner et al. 2004).
In April 2004, the FCC sent letters to several
local television stations in the Washington, D.C., area about
the failure of these stations to caption reports on the sniper
shootings in the Washington area in 2002. In the letters, the
FCC clarified that those sniper shootings did constitute an emergency
event during which “emergency
information” might have been broadcast.
The FCC interprets the “emergency information” language
broadly enough to include events other than just weather-related
emergencies. Emergency information is information about a current
emergency that is intended to further the protection of life, health,
safety, or property. Examples of the types of emergencies about
which emergency information might be broadcast are tornadoes, hurricanes,
floods, tidal waves, earthquakes, icing conditions, heavy snows,
widespread fires, discharge of toxic gases, widespread power failures,
industrial explosions, civil disorders, school closings and changes
in school bus schedules resulting from such conditions, and warnings
and watches of impending changes in weather. This list of emergencies
is not intended to be exhaustive. The rule may also apply to terrorism-related
events and other similar instances.
In addition, through a series of public notices, the FCC has diligently
reminded broadcasters and multichannel video program distributors
of their obligation to provide captioning for emergency information.
The FCC is continually updating all of its rules. Therefore it
will continue to monitor compliance with its rules on the provision
of emergency information and, if necessary, initiate a rulemaking
to amend the rules.
Telecommunications Relay Services. Telecommunications
relay services (TRS) enable callers with hearing and speech disabilities
who use TTYs and other technologies, and callers who use voice
telephones, to communicate with each other through a third-party
communications assistant. On 9/11, TRS providers were unprepared
for the volume of calls that were made, resulting in the breakdown
of TRS communications in several states. It appears that none
of the nation’s TRS
providers had clear procedures in place to inform communities about
the disruption in relay services (such as 72 hours of power backup,
plans that clearly identify essential staff during emergencies,
use of and access to a reliable national database allowing the
service to connect users with appropriate public safety answering
points (PSAPS–911 Centers) in an emergency, and contingency
plans for transferring calls from centers unable to operate because
of overwhelming volume or damage) (Heppner et al. 2004).
PSAPS–911 Centers are not keeping up
with advances in accessible telecommunications and thus may not
be prepared to handle voice carry over (VCO), IP-relay (Internet
protocol), VRS (video relay service), CapTel (captioned telephones),
and other calls from individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing.
CapTel works like other telephones but with one important distinction:
users can read a captioned version of their conversations on
the text screen of their phone. This is possible through voice-recognition
technology, which the operator at the captioning service center
uses to transcribe everything the other party says into written
text. Captions appear almost simultaneously with the spoken word,
allowing users access to what is said, either by hearing it or
by reading.
In a TRS rulemaking initiated in June 2003,
the FCC sought comment on whether TRS facilities should be part
of the telecommunications service priority (TSP) program, which
was created in 1988 as the regulatory framework to guide telecommunications
carriers in repairing or providing new telecommunications services
in the event of a disaster. The program was established to help
reduce the potential chaos after a disaster when carriers may
be overwhelmed with requests for repairs or new services. In
accordance with the TSP rules, priorities are set for telecommunications
services so that the carriers can determine which services to
repair first. A service designated under the TSP program guarantees
the of restoration of existing circuits or provision of new circuits
before service is restored to non-TSP services. The TSP program
is a voluntary program. As a general matter, “service users” may make
a request that particular telecommunications services they rely
on receive a priority assignment. These requests are directed to
the office of priority telecommunications of DHS’s national
communications system.
In a report and order (FCC 04-137) adopted June 10, 2004, the
FCC encouraged TRS facilities to enroll all qualifying services
in the TSP program, and agreed to sponsor such applications. The
FCC believes that all appropriate steps should be taken to ensure
that service to TRS facilities is made available in times of emergency,
and that restoration of service to TRS facilities should occur,
to the extent feasible, in tandem with restoration of dial tone
service to the general public, thus ensuring that individuals with
hearing or speech disabilities have service available on the same
basis as individuals without such disabilities.
Emergency Use Televisions with
Screens Smaller Than 13 Inches. Because of portability and energy requirements, most televisions
selected for emergency use have screens smaller than 13 inches.
The Television Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990 requires that all
TV broadcast receivers with screens 13 inches or larger manufactured
or imported after July 1, 1993, have the capability to receive
and display closed captions.
The FCC’s rules track the statute’s
13-inches-or-greater requirement. For DTV sets, the requirement
is as follows: All digital receivers with picture screens in
the 4:3 aspect ratio measuring at least 13 inches diagonally,
DTV receivers with picture screens in the 16:9 aspect ratio measuring
7.8 inches or larger vertically (this size corresponds to the
vertical height of an analog receiver with a 13 inch diagonal),
and all DTV tuners, shipped in interstate commerce or manufactured
in the United States, must comply with the minimum decoder requirements
adopted by the commission in the July 2000 report and order that
addressed digital captioning requirements (FCC 2004).
Emergency E-Mail and Wireless
Network. This system lacks an emergency
e-mail and wireless network (i.e., personal computers, pagers,
cell phones, personal digital assistants, and test radios that
caption the spoken word) that will inform people of local, regional,
national, and international emergencies using the Internet and
e-mail. Such a network could be effective if emergency agencies
endorse and work with such a system.
The FCC says it is not clear what role the
commission has in facilitating the availability of e-mail alerts.
The FCC does not regulate the Internet. The FCC says it would
be willing to review any concrete, written proposal about how
emergency e-mail alerts fit under the FCC’s authority.
Cell Phone Compatibility with
Hearing Aids. Users of hearing aids and cochlear implants continue to experience
compatibility and interference problems when using cell phones.
On August 14, 2003, the FCC released a report and order that
modified the exemption for wireless phones under the Hearing
Aid Compatibility Act of 1988 to require that digital wireless
phones be capable of being effectively used with hearing aids.
The report and order requires digital phone manufacturers and
service providers to take steps to reduce the amount of interference
emitted from digital wireless phones and to provide the internal
capability for telecoil coupling. On October 16, 2003, several
interested parties filed petitions requesting that the commission
reconsider and/or clarify various aspects of its decision. By
public notice, the FCC’s wireless
telecommunications bureau sought comment on the issues raised in
the petitions.
Part V. Conclusions and Recommendations
While the new DHS is still in its formative stages, the opportunity
is ripe for drawing on people with disabilities and activity limitations
so that they can contribute to, participate in, and benefit from
emergency planning, mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery
activities and services. When access for people with disabilities
is designed and planned from the beginning, there is little extra
cost. Attention to access and disability-specific needs contributes
to a higher quality response for everybody when emergencies occur.
DHS leadership must continue to promote and
model principles of nondiscrimination and inclusion by example
in the behavior, speeches, meetings, planning, publications,
and internal and external communications of its employees. These
principles should include policy, practice, resources, research,
and training––and viewing people
with disabilities as contributors and collaborators, not just users.
The Federal Government’s decisions, the
priorities it accords to civil rights, and the methods it adopts
to ensure uniformity in the ways agencies handle their disability-related
responsibilities are being established now. These efforts will
continue to require sustained communication, coordination, cooperation,
and collaboration with other government departments and agencies
and particularly with private sector organizations. If these
procedures and policies are not set on the right course at the
outset, they will be much more difficult to add later.
Based on its research, NCD believes that the Federal Government
needs to create and follow a clear roadmap that builds on its nascent
homeland security, emergency preparedness, and disaster relief
infrastructure as it relates to people with disabilities. Such
a roadmap will need to rely on best practices in intergovernmental
planning and communication. In addition, the Federal Government
will benefit greatly from reviewing and adopting or adapting best
practices of CBOs such as those described in this report. Finally,
the Federal Government should consider the following key NCD recommendations
in the development and implementation of its roadmap:
- DHS should establish a Disability
Access Advisory Group made up of qualified people with disabilities
and others with disability-specific disaster experience who
meet regularly with officials to discuss issues and challenges.
- DHS’s EP&R should
integrate information on people with disabilities and activity
limitations into general preparedness materials, and it should
inform readers of those materials of how to gain access to
more customized materials.
- DHS’s CRCL should regularly
issue guidance for state and local emergency planning departments
reinforcing their legal obligation to comply with ADA and Sections
504 and 508 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act in planning for,
operating, and managing shelters and other disaster services.1
- DHS’s CRCL should proactively
conduct compliance reviews to identify weaknesses and problems
in complying with ADA and Sections 504 and 508 of the 1973
Rehabilitation Act.
- The FCC should develop stronger
enforcement mechanisms to ensure that video programming distributors,
including broadcasters, cable operators, and satellite television
services, comply with their obligation to make emergency
information accessible to people with hearing and vision disabilities,
and that violations are acted on immediately. The FCC also should
be proactive on Section 255 hearing aid compatibility.
- DHS should develop and offer
technical assistance and guidance materials for its grantees
regarding their ADA and Section 504 legal obligations and
compliance strategies.
- DHS should conduct proactive reviews of grant
recipients’ compliance
or noncompliance with Section 504 and ADA.
- DHS’s CRCL and EP&R/FEMA
should develop information systems that comprehensively collect,
aggregate, and summarize detailed information about complaints
or compliance reviews and their outcomes. This information
should be made available to the public.2
- DHS should collect and analyze
Section 504 and ADA program data (complaints or compliance
reviews and their outcomes) for progress made, for deficiencies,
for best practices, and for areas where DHS could provide coordination
or technical assistance.
- To ensure the widest possible
usage, PDF documents posted on all DHS Web sites should also
be posted in an alternative accessible format.
- DHS should fund disability-specific
initiatives.
- DHS should integrate disability-specific
indicators into its proposal selection criteria.
NCD expects this report to contribute to America’s
commitment to build a solid and resilient infrastructure that
incorporates access to emergency programs and services and includes
physical, program, communication, and technological access for
people with disabilities and activity limitations. NCD acknowledges
the good work that DHS has begun, as well as the work that the
FCC has continued to engage in, and stands ready to assist in
continuing this work so that the Federal Government can indeed
serve and protect all.
References
Note: Unless otherwise specified, citations with URLs were accessed
on February 1, 2005.
Bondi, N. (2001). Guide To Disaster Planning:
Ten Ways to Make Yourself Safe at Work. iCan News Service
(ican.com), http://www.ican.com/news/fullpage.cfm?articleid=B0547F84-4752-42B7-81592B326706E119.
Bowencamp, D. (1994). Minutes of the Special Needs Committee,
December 6, 1994, American Red Cross, Los Angeles Chapter.
Brisson, J., and Petersen, R. (undated). Disaster Preparedness
Workbook for Service Providing Agencies. Prepared by the Monterey
County, California, Emergency Food Assistance Project, http://www.preparenow.org/monterey.html.
Accessed May 18, 2004.
Byzek, J., and Gilmer, T. (2000). Unsafe Refuge:
Why did so many wheelchair users die on Sept. 11? New Mobility:
21–22, 24.
Byzek, J., and Gilmer, T. (2001). September
11, 2001: A Day to Remember. New Mobility 12: 20–21.
California Department of Rehabilitation. (1997).
Disaster Preparedness for Persons with Disabilities Improving
California’s Response,
http://www.oes.ca.gov/Operational/OESHome.nsf/PrintView/66952778A6D2FA7C88256CEF006A8967?OpenDocument.
California Specialized Training Institute. (1983). Summaries of
closed-ended items and responses to open-ended questions, provided
by the authors. San Luis Obispo.
California State Independent Living Council.
(2004). Issue Brief Resulting from Southern California Fire Forums––The
Impact of 2003 Wildfires on People with Disabilities, http://www.calsilc.org,
mcollins@calsilc.org.
Center for Universal Design. (1997). The Principles
of Universal Design, Version 2.0. Raleigh, North Carolina: North
Carolina State University, http://www.design.ncsu.edu:8120/cud/univ_design/princ_overview.htm.
Center for Independence of the Disabled. (2004).
Lessons Learned from the World Trade Center Disaster: Emergency
Preparedness for People with Disabilities in New York, www.cidny.org,
September 2004.
Challenge Magazine. (1983). Special Feature: The Disabled in Disasters.
Anaheim, California. August/September.
Citizen Corps. (undated). www.citizencorps.gov/index.shtm. Accessed
August 8, 2004.
City of San Leandro, California. (2004). Preparing
the Vulnerable Population––The Triad Alliance, http://www.ci.san-leandro.ca.us/slemervulnerable.html.
Accessed May 8, 2004.
Cohen, M. (2004). Homeland Security––An
Emergency Preparedness Primer. Power Point Presentation at National
Council on Independent Living 2004 Annual Conference, info@drcfc.org.
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities. (1992). Correspondence
to Wallace Stickney, FEMA Director, September 3, 1992.
Davis, M., and Cahill, A. (2003). Including the Needs and Priorities
of People with Disabilities, Seniors, People Who Are Chronically
Mentally Ill and People Who Are Chronic Substance Abusers in Public
Health Emergency Preparedness. Albuquerque, NM: Center for Development
and Disability, Health Sciences Center, University of New Mexico.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). (undated).
DHS Emergency Preparedness and Response, http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=51&content=206.
Accessed June 21, 2004.
DHS. (2004a). DHS Organization, http://www.dhs.gov. Accessed August
5, 2004.
DHS. (2004b). Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Power
Point presentation by Daniel W. Sutherland, www.tvworldwide.com/events/dhs/040310/CRCL
percent20Overview percent20Briefing.Comm.ppt. Posted March 24,
2004.
DHS. (2004c). Report to Congress on the Office for Civil Rights
and Civil Liberties, Department of Homeland Security, http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/OCRCL-ReportJun04.pdf.
Accessed June 21, 2004.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). (2004).
FCC Reminds Video Programming Distributors They Must Make Emergency
Information Accessible to Persons with Hearing or Vision Disabilities.
FCC Press Release May 28, 2004, http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/emergency_access.html.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (undated-a). Community-Based
Pre-Disaster Mitigation for Community and Faith-Based Organizations
Student Guide. Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate
of the Department of Homeland Security, http://www.fema.gov/pdf/mit/b_intro_workshop.pdf.
Accessed May 18, 2004.
FEMA. (undated-b). Community Emergency Response Team
(CERT), http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/CERT/. Accessed May 18,
2004.
FEMA. (2003a). Disaster Preparedness for People with
Disabilities, http://www.fema.gov/library/disprepf.shtm.
FEMA. (2003b). Frequently Asked Disaster Assistance
Questions, http://www.fema.gov/rrr/qanda.shtm.
FEMA. (2003c). National Processing Service Centers, http://www.fema.gov/rrr/npsc.shtm.
FEMA. (2003d). Office of Equal Rights––OER,
http://www.fema.gov/oer/crp.shtm.
FEMA. (2003e). Office of the Under Secretary,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Under Secretary’s
Policy No. 8-03, Subject: Civil Rights Program, http://www.fema.gov/oer/erp.shtm.
FEMA. (2003f). Public Assistance: Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) Access Requirements, http://www.fema.gov/rrr/pa/9525_5.shtm.
FEMA. (2003g). Recovery: Disaster Recovery Centers, http://www.fema.gov/about/drc.shtm.
FEMA. (2003h). What We Do, http://www.fema.gov/about/what.shtm.
FEMA. (2003i). Your Civil Rights and Disaster Assistance,
http://www.fema.gov/library/civilr.shtm.
FEMA. (2004a). About FEMA, http://www.fema.gov/about/.
FEMA. (2004b). Accessibility Help, http://www.usfa.fema.gov/access.shtm.
FEMA. (2004c). Who We Are, http://www.fema.gov/about/who.shtm.
FEMA and U.S. Fire Administration. (1999). The Fire Risks Series:
Fire Risks for Older Adults, http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/older.pdf.
Government Accountability Office. (undated). What
Is GAO? http://www.gao.gov/about/what.html. Accessed August 22,
2004.
Hammitt, J. (1994). Earthquake! Coping with the aftermath can
be a disaster too, for people with disabilities. Mainstream, May
1994, http://www.accessiblesociety.org/topics/independentliving/quake.htm.
Health Resources and Services Administration and American Public
Human Services Association. (2002). Bridging Cultures and Enhancing
Care: Approaches to Cultural and Linguistic Competency in Managed
Care. Conference Proceedings, May 30, 2002, Chicago, Illinois,
Managed Care and Health Services Financing Technical Assistance
Center, http://www.hrsa.gov/financeMC/bridging-cultures/default.htm#CulturalCompetency.
Heppner, C. (2004). Personal e-mail about FCC recommendations,
May 31, 2004.
Heppner, C. (2005). Personal e-mail communication, January 30,
2005.
Heppner, C., Stout, C., and Brick, K. (2004). Emergency Preparedness
and Emergency Communication Access: Lessons Learned Since 9/11
and Recommendations. December 2004.
Homeland Defense TV. (2004). Town Meeting on Training First Responders
to Address Needs of the Disabled, April 30, 2004, http://www.homelanddefensetv.com.
Independent Living Research Utilization (ILRU).
(2002a). Down—but
not out, Manhattan CIL rebounds in aftermath of attacks with help
from IL community. ILRU NetWork, January 2002, published by the
IL Net, a collaboration of ILRU and NCIL, http://www.ilru.org/news/NewsLetter/2002/January2002/January02.html#cidny.
ILRU. (2002b). NYSILC crisis response plan
focused on communication, coordination––and returning
control as soon as possible. ILRU NetWork, January 2002, published
by the IL Net, a collaboration of ILRU and NCIL, http://www.ilru.org/news/NewsLetter/2002/January2002/January02.html#cidny.
ILRU. (2002c). Preparedness Pointers, ILRU NetWork, January 2002,
published by the IL Net, a collaboration of ILRU and NCIL, http://www.ilru.org/news/NewsLetter/2002/January2002/January02.html#cidny.
Independent Living Center of Southern California. (1994). Needs
of People with Disabilities Following 1994 Earthquake. August 12,
1994.
Johnson, R. (2000). GIS Technology for Disasters and Emergency
Management, An ESRI White Paper, May 2000, www.esri.com/library/whitepapers/pdfs/disastermgmt.pdf.
Kailes, J. (1994). Americans With Disabilities Act Compliance
Guide For NonProfit Organizations, www.jik.com/resource.html, jik@pacbell.net.
Kailes, J. (2000a). Creating a Disaster-Resistant
Infrastructure for People at Risk Including People with Disabilities.
Trauma Treatment Professionals’ Training. A. Tufan, Duyan, Hacettepe University,
School of Social Work, Series No: 005, Universitesi, Sosyal Hizmetler
Yuksekokulu, Faith Caddesi No: 195 Ciftasfalt, 06290 Kecioren -
ANKARA. 005.
Kailes, J. (2000b). Preferred Practices to Keep in Mind as You
Meet People with Disabilities, http://www.jik.com/resource.html.
Kailes, J. (2002a). Evacuation Preparedness: Taking Responsibility
For Your Safety: A Guide For People With Disabilities and Other
Activity Limitations. Pomona, California: Center for Disability
Issues and the Health Profession, Western University of Health
Sciences, http://www.westernu.edu/cdihp.html.
Kailes, J. (2002b). Who Are People With Disabilities and Activity
Limitations? http://www.jik.com/resource.html.
Kailes, J., and Jones, D. (1993). A Guide to Planning Accessible
Meetings, http://www.jik.com/resource.html or http://www.ilru.org/ilnet/ilnetbks.html.
Lathrop, D. (1994). DISASTER! If you have a disability, the forces
of nature can be meaner to you than anyone else. But you can fight
back. Be prepared. Mainstream, November 1994, http://www.accessiblesociety.org/topics/independentliving/disaster.htm.
Los Angeles County Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster.
(2003). Emergency Network Los Angeles, http://www.enla.org/default2.htm.
Luo, M. (2004). Staying one step ahead of disaster: Transit authority
expands emergency training. New York Times, late edition, April
27.
Monterey County Emergency Food Assistance Project. (undated).
Disaster Preparedness Workbook for Service Providing Agencies,
http://www.preparenow.org/monterey.html. Accessed May 18, 2004.
National Council on Disability (NCD). (2003a).
National Disability Policy: A Progress Report, December 2001–December
2002. Washington: National Council on Disability, http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2003/progressreport_final.htm#Security.
NCD. (2003b). Rehabilitating Section 504. Washington: NCD, www.ncd.gov.
NCD. (2004). Make Improvements Now to Help People with Disabilities
as We Recover and Rebuild from Hurricanes and Natural Disasters.
Op-Ed, Washington: NCD #04-459, September 9.
NCD. (2005). Letter to Colin Powell, Secretary of State, January
11, 2005.
National Emergency Training Center Emergency
Management Institute. (1993). Workshop in Emergency Management:
Disaster-Related Needs of the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities:
Curriculum Advisory Committee, July 19–21, 1993.
National Organization on Disability (NOD). (2001a). N.O.D. Meets
with Director of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, Pursues Emergency
Planning for Americans with Disabilities, http://www.nod.org/content.cfm?Id=621.
NOD. (2001b). Polling Data Show People with Disabilities Unprepared
in Terrorist, Other Crises at Home or at Work, 2001 NOD Annual
Report at http://www.nod.org/resources/PDFs/2001annrpt.pdf.
NOD. (2002a). Disaster Mobilization Initiative: Response to September
11th, http://www.nod.org/content.cfm?id=622.
NOD. (2002b). Polling Data Show People with Disabilities
Unprepared for Terrorist, Other Crises at Home or at Work. In 2001
NOD Annual Report, http://www.nod.org/index.cfm?id=773.
NOD. (2004). New Poll Highlights Need for More Emergency Planning
for and by People with Disabilities, http://www.nod.org/content.cfm?id=1489.
National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disasters. (2004).
http://www.nvoad.org/index.php.
Options Resource Center for Independent Living. (1997). Flood
Scatters People with Disabilities. June 1997, Options, Choices,
Rights - Resource RCIL, 1010 Central Ave, NE, East Grand Forks
MN 56721. VIII: 2.
Pollander, G. S., and Rund, D. A. (1989). Disabled
Persons and Earthquake Hazards. Institute of Behavioral Science,
Boulder, Analysis of Medical Needs in Disasters Caused by Earthquake:
The Need for a Uniform Injury Reporting Scheme. Disasters 13(4):
365–369.
Pound, P. (2002). Governor’s Committee
Survey: Emergency Preparedness for People with Disabilities,
http://www.governor.state.tx.us/divisions/disabilities/resources/ada/emergency_preparedness. Accessed June 23, 2004.
Pound, P. (2005). Personal e-mail communication, January 14, 2005.
Queen, A. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
and Rehabilitative Services. (1993). Correspondence to FEMA and
a variety of national disability organizations, January 14.
Rahimi, M. (1991). Quake Planning Fails to Consider People with
Disabilities: Study, Report on Disability Programs. July 25: 117.
Reis, J. P., Breslin, M. L., Iezzoni, L., and
Kirschner, K. (2003). The Case for Disability Competent Health
Services in Hospitals and Health Facilities: with Recommendations
for Stakeholders. (Draft––publication
in process). Robert Wood Johnson Community Health Leadership Program.
Research and Training Center on Independent Living. (2004). Consumer
Survey, www.NobodyLeftBehind2.org.
Sajka, J., and Roeder, J. (2003). PDF and Public Documents: A
White Paper, Version 1.1, published April 25, 2002, http://www.afb.org/section.asp?Documentid=1706.
San Francisco CARD. (undated). Collaborating Agencies Responding
to Disaster, http://www.preparenow.org/sfcard.html. Accessed May
18, 2004.
Schmit, M. (2004). Economic and Budget Issue Brief: Federal Funding
for Homeland Security, http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/FY_2005_BIB_4.pdf.
Accessed April 30, 2004.
Section 508. (2002). Section 508 Acquisition FAQs, p. 2, http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&ID=159.
Sigma Communications, I. (2004). Interactive Community Notification
system, What is REVERSE 911?, http://www.reverse911.com/whatisr911.html.
Stichter, C., ed. (2003). Guide to Homeland Security: 2003 Edition.
Thomson West Publishing.
Sutherland, D. (2005). http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/emergencyprep.htm.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2004). Project Civic Access, http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/civicac.htm, and Settlement Agreement Between The United States
of America and City of Detroit, Michigan, Department of Justice
No. 204-37-284, http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/detroitmi.htm.
U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of
Disability Employment Policy, ed. (2004). Emergency Preparedness
for People with Disabilities: An Interagency Seminar of Exchange
for Federal Managers, Summary Report, http://www.dol.gov/odep/pubs/ep/about.htm.
United Way of Connecticut. (undated). 2-1-1 Get Connected, Get
Answers, http://www.211.org/legislation.htm. Accessed May 18, 2004.
VOICE of Contra Costa County. (undated). A Volunteer
Organized Initiative for Community Emergencies, How to Create an
Agency Disaster Plan, http://www.preparenow.org/voicedoc.html.
Accessed May 18, 2004.
Volunteer Center of Marin. (undated). A Guide to Organizing Neighborhoods
for Preparedness, Response and Recovery, http://www.preparenow.org/marin-g.html.
Accessed May 18, 2004.
Walker, D., Comptroller General of the United States. (2004).
Keeping Tabs on Homeland Security. Power Point presentation, http://www.gao/gov/cghome/img0.html.
Accessed February 3, 2004.
Wangeman, M., and Nandi, J. (1996). Disaster
Planning Information and Suggestions for Persons with Disabilities
and Those Assisting Them, http://members.aol.com/jeannandi/HOMEPAGES/dis_plan.html.
Westside Center for Independent Living. (1994).
Disaster Related Problems for People with Disabilities and Seniors––1994
Northridge Earthquake. Los Angeles: Westside Center.
White, G. (2003). Nobody Left Behind: Investigating Disaster Preparedness
and Response for People with Mobility Impairments. Research and
Training Center on Independent Living, Kansas University, grant
proposal, ATPM/DCD, TS#TS-0840, http://rtcil.org/abstract.htm.
White, G., Fox, M., Rowland, J., Rooney, C., and Aldana, S. (2004).
Nobody Left Behind: Investigating Disaster Preparedness and Response
for People with Disabilities. Power Point presentation at the National
Advisory Board Meeting, Lawrence, Kansas, May 24, http://www.rtcil.org/resources.htm.
White House Office of the Press Secretary. (2004). Executive Order:
Individuals with Disabilities in Emergency Preparedness. Press
release, July 22.
Appendix
Mission of the National Council on Disability
Overview and purpose
The National Council on Disability (NCD) is an independent federal
agency with 15 members appointed by the President of the United
States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The purpose of NCD is
to promote policies, programs, practices, and procedures that guarantee
equal opportunity for all individuals with disabilities regardless
of the nature or significance of the disability and to empower
individuals with disabilities to achieve economic self-sufficiency,
independent living, and inclusion and integration into all aspects
of society.
Specific duties
The current statutory mandate of NCD includes the following:
- Reviewing and evaluating, on a continuing basis,
policies, programs, practices, and procedures concerning individuals
with disabilities conducted or assisted by federal departments
and agencies, including programs established or assisted under
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, or under the Developmental
Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, as well as all
statutes and regulations pertaining to federal programs that assist
such individuals with disabilities, to assess the effectiveness
of such policies, programs, practices, procedures, statutes,
and regulations in meeting the needs of individuals with disabilities.
- Reviewing and evaluating, on
a continuing basis, new and emerging disability policy issues
affecting individuals with disabilities in the Federal Government,
at the state and local government levels, and in the private
sector, including the need for and coordination of adult services,
access to personal assistance services, school reform efforts
and the impact of such efforts on individuals with disabilities,
access to health care, and policies that act as disincentives
for individuals to seek and retain employment.
- Making recommendations to the
President, Congress, the Secretary of Education, the director
of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research,
and other officials of federal agencies about ways to better
promote equal opportunity, economic self-sufficiency, independent
living, and inclusion and integration into all aspects of society
for Americans with disabilities.
- Providing Congress, on a continuing
basis, with advice, recommendations, legislative proposals, and
any additional information that NCD or Congress deems appropriate.
- Gathering information about
the implementation, effectiveness, and impact of the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et
seq.).
- Advising the President, Congress,
the commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration,
the assistant secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services within the Department of Education, and the director
of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research
on the development of the programs to be carried out under the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.
- Providing advice to the commissioner
of the Rehabilitation Services Administration with respect to
the policies and conduct of the administration.
- Making recommendations to the
director of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation
Research on ways to improve research, service, administration,
and the collection, dissemination, and implementation of research
findings affecting people with disabilities.
- Providing advice regarding
priorities for the activities of the Interagency Disability
Coordinating Council and reviewing the recommendations
of this council for legislative and administrative changes
to ensure that such recommendations are consistent with
NCD’s purpose of promoting the full integration, independence,
and productivity of individuals with disabilities.
- Preparing and submitting to the
President and Congress an annual report titled National
Disability Policy: A Progress Report.
International
In 1995, NCD was designated by the Department
of State to be the U.S. government’s official contact point
for disability issues. Specifically, NCD interacts with the special
rapporteur of the United Nations Commission for Social Development
on disability matters.
Consumers served and current activities
Although many government agencies deal with issues and programs
affecting people with disabilities, NCD is the only federal agency
charged with addressing, analyzing, and making recommendations
on issues of public policy that affect people with disabilities
regardless of age, disability type, perceived employment potential,
economic need, specific functional ability, veteran status, or
other individual circumstance. NCD recognizes its unique opportunity
to facilitate independent living, community integration, and employment
opportunities for people with disabilities by ensuring an informed
and coordinated approach to addressing the concerns of people with
disabilities and eliminating barriers to their active participation
in community and family life.
NCD plays a major role in developing disability
policy in America. In fact, NCD originally proposed what eventually
became ADA. NCD’s
present list of key issues includes improving personal assistance
services, promoting health care reform, including students with
disabilities in high-quality programs in typical neighborhood schools,
promoting equal employment and community housing opportunities,
monitoring the implementation of ADA, improving assistive technology,
and ensuring that people with disabilities who are members of diverse
cultures fully participate in society.
Statutory history
NCD was established in 1978 as an advisory board within the Department
of Education (P.L. 95-602). The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of
1984 (P.L. 98-221) transformed NCD into an independent agency.
1The Department of Homeland Security states
that “The
Department of Justice (DOJ) is already handling this. In addition
to the numerous settlement agreements that are a part of Project
Civic Access, the DOJ has issued a technical assistance document
to the state and local governments with this legal interpretation.” See
www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/emergencyprep.htm (Dan Sutherland, e-mail
communication of February 7, 2005).
2 “It would have been more accurate for the report to
reflect, as we stated during the interview, that the data sought
after by the [NCD] interviewers was not yet available because the
office at that time was in existence for only a few months and,
as we further pointed out, we were in the midst of instituting
a case management system that allows CRCL to track the nature and
progress of each complaint. Notably such a system has since been
implemented and is now operational.” (Dan Sutherland, e-mail
communication of February 7, 2005).
|
