THE EFFECT OF DISASTER ON THE SOCIAL SUPPORTS OF

INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES

Laura M. Stough, Ph.D.Texas A&M University

Center on Disability and Development

Hurricane Katrina1.5 Million

Impacted 23% with Disabilities

Eric Gay/AP

Definition of Social Supports

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

Definition of Social Supports

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

Social Supports and Disaster

Research on disaster suggests that people with disabilities may be more vulnerable, in part, because of the composition of their social networks.

Individuals with disabilities may have fewer social supports (Van Willigen et al., 2002).

Tierney et al. (1988) suggest that the social distancing associated with the label of “disabled” may further limit access to social networks and others sources of psychological support during a disaster

Eric Gay/AP

Design of the Study Face-to-face in-depth interviews with 39 individuals with disabilities (ID)

Interviews included three “chapters” Daily life and supports pre-disaster Disaster narrative Daily life and supports three years post-

disaster

Interview Participants

Texas Louisiana TOTAL

Intellectual Disabilities

11 12 23

Diabetes 5 3 8

Other Disabilities 1 7 8

TOTAL 17 22 39

Interview Participants

Male, 38%

Female, 62%

Gender

Interview Participants

African Amer-ican, 77.0%

White 10.0%

Unknown, 10.0% Asian 3.0%

Ethnicity

AnalysisGrounded Theory ( Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990) was used to collect and analyze our data.

Social Supports Housing Employment Transportation Access to Recovery Services Recreation Spiritual Activities Medical Well-Being

The Category of Focus:Social Supports

Social supports was the most prominent category revealed through the analysis

Referenced in all 39 interviewsReferenced a total of 311 times across all interviews

The social supports category was complex and seemed closely tied to other categories that emerged from our analysis.

Participants referred to this category spontaneously and referred to social supports throughout their interviews.

We were drawn to the emotional/longing/compelling tone of the social support quotes

Properties of Social Supports

1. Proximity to supports2. Frequency of interactions3. Cohesion of family4. Intimacy with neighbors5. Diversity of people6. Formality of supports

Proximity Before:

Close proximity Often living in same house or neighborhood

After: Proximity significantly distanced Separation affected the participants regardless

of actual distance

Proximity“ It’s [life] boring. Besides my Auntie, I had a friend that I loved. I left them because it’s too far away. People won’t come way down here to get you. They considered this a long ways from Baton Rouge and a long ways from New Orleans.” Wanda

Frequency of Interaction Before

High interaction Often Daily interaction

After Infrequent interaction No contact at all

Frequency of Interaction“So it has been rough trying to get back we

have been back one time but we was enjoying life was sweet like my kids tell it they really miss their friends people that we have not seen in a long time.” Kate

Cohesion of Family Before

Cohesive Gathered Families lived in close proximity and had

frequent interaction

After Scattered Cohesiveness unraveled Unaware of location

Cohesion of Family

“Like I said I still can’t reach out and touch my sisters, none of them. Things are just bad. Seeing them everyday. Now everybody just spread all over. My other sister she in where she at lets see if I can think of the name somewhere her and her daughters, my nieces where they at man I can’t even think of the name.” Mark

Intimacy with Neighbors Before

High Intimacy Contributed to a feeling of neighborhood belonging Neighbors were friends Considered leisure time hanging out with neighbors

After The majority had low or no contact with neighbors Some participants described contact as “checking in”

but not friends The few that did describe neighbors as friend had the

shared experience of Katrina

Intimacy with NeighborsInterviewer- “Do you know people in the

neighborhood?”

Immanuel- “No, I might greet them hello, goodbye, maybe my neighbor downstairs. But I mean I don’t congregate with anyone in particular around here.”

Diversity of People Before

Included a diverse range of individuals Influenced amount and type of activities Influenced access to transportation, daily living

finances, leisure and recreation

After Social supports less diverse

Lowered frequency and type of activities Limited access to other supports

Diversity of People“I don’t have no friends. The only friends I

have right now is my wife.” Mike

“I don’t know nobody here.” Efron

Formality of Supports Before

Informal Anticipated needs

After Formal Difficult to ask for help

Formality of Supports

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

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

Summary Social supports were important to these

participants both before and after the storm All of the participants lost close and loved

supports as a result of the disaster and its aftermath

The configuration of these supports changed significantly after the storm. They became: Smaller Less varied More formal Less familiar More delicate

Laura M. Stough, Ph.D. lstough@tamu.edu

http://redd.tamu.edu