U9D1-60 S1 - Ethics: Protection of Human Participants - See Detail Questions.

Quantitativeanalysis-Educationandexperienceeffectsuponemergencypreparednessforspecialneeds.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Operations Management homework help >U9D1-60 S1 - Ethics: Protection of Human Participants - See Detail Questions.

QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS: EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE EFFECTS UPON

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FOR SPECIAL NEEDS

Mark S. Warnick

DEAN R. LARSON, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair

MISTI KILL, PhD, Committee Member

JOSEPH PASCARELLA, PhD, Committee Member

Elizabeth Koenig, JD, Dean, School of Public Service Leadership

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University

July 2015

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

ProQuest 3724949

Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

ProQuest Number: 3724949

Abstract

Special needs populations are often neglected or forgotten in disaster preparedness. Post-disaster

research has found that approximately 80% of emergency management agencies that experienced a

disaster did not have disaster preparedness plans in place for special needs population. In the past,

researchers have reviewed the lack of disaster preparedness for special needs populations in a post-

disaster setting; little pre-disaster research has been done to identify what could improve disaster

preparedness for special needs populations. This research surveyed Emergency Managers, the primary

person within an agency responsible for mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery from natural

and manmade incidents. An Exploratory Factor Analysis was used to reveal correlations between the

Emergency Managers’ disaster preparedness for special needs populations and the variables of

education, training, and on-the-job experience. This study searched for correlations that imply greater

levels of preparedness for special needs population based on those variables. Data analysis identified

that the main variables had moderate to no correlation of significance. Two sub-variables (National

Incident Management System training and hours per week worked in emergency management) provided

significant correlations to improved disaster preparedness for special needs populations. In order to

provide correlations, the data collected evaluated the level preparedness based on FEMA guidance. This

research provided detailed results of disaster preparedness for special needs populations based on the

actions taken (and not taken) by the Emergency Manager. In some areas, Emergency Managers are

remarkably prepared, while in other areas there is still much to be done.

iii

Dedication

This is dedicated to two very important individuals in my life. The first is my

God. Without the strength I got from my personal relationship with my Lord and Savior

Jesus Christ, I have no doubt that I would not have made it through this dissertation. His

love, His strength, and His guidance was (and is) a guiding force in everything I do.

Without Him I am nothing, and I readily acknowledge this.

I also dedicate this to my wife Cleopatra, a kind and loving Christian woman who

has not only put up with me through this doctoral journey but was a great source of

support and inspiration. Not only did she put up with me when I was not fit to be near

neither man nor beast, but also during times of working all night long. When I was short

and snappy with her, she showed support rather than anger. When I considered quitting,

she encouraged me to stay the course. Through it all, she stood by me, encouraged me,

inspired me and was interested in my work. God has blessed me with a wonderful

Christian wife and I am more fortunate than I deserve. I would like to take this

opportunity to thank her for her love, her patience, her support, and her inspiration not

only in this dissertation, but in life.

Acknowledgments

There are many that have supported me, assisted me, or that was a driving force

through this doctoral journey (and dissertation); some of them did so unknowingly. My

wife, Cleopatra has sacrificed much in an effort to allow me to complete this educational

journey. Her support was invaluable to me. She has always been the love of my life, and

my built-in support.

I would also like to acknowledge the best mentor I could have hoped for: Dr.

Dean Larson. From day one, Dean was on board and was providing me with guidance

and support. Dean was not reactive to my needs as a mentee, but rather proactive. In our

many talks, Dean provided insight, and was the “go to” guy that got things done when

others were holding up progress. He had integrity beyond belief, and I cannot express the

gratitude and respect that I have for Dean.

I would like to acknowledge my other committee members: Dr. Joseph Pascrella

and Dr. Misti Kill. Each provided valuable insight that assisted me in producing a better

product. Like Dean, they were always there if I needed them. Their attention to detail

made me realize how blessed I was to have them on my committee. I also would like to

acknowledge a former committee member, Kathleen Mitchell-White, who suggested I

investigate National Incident Management System training in this research. Without that

suggestion, an important variable may have been missed.

I would like to acknowledge Dr. Michael Brown who always answered calls from

me, no matter what time it was. During a tough time in my dissertation, Mike reached out

in support. He became a confidant, a cheerleader, and a mentor all in one. When I was

ready to quit in frustration, he calmed me down and helped me see my errors. I owe a

great deal of gratitude to Mike and his wife Denise.

I acknowledge Dr. Michael Kemp, Dr. Peace Ezeogba-Odoemena, Dr. Scott

Kerwood, Dr. Harry Carter, Dr. Terry Saltsman and Thomas Black, my pastor. All of

them helped me by being a sounding board. I am honored and blessed to have such

wonderful colleagues.

I would like to also thank and acknowledge Beth Armstrong, Jennifer Tobey, and

Kevin Sargent. Each of these individuals assisted in getting my survey out to Emergency

Managers.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention my father. He unknowingly

provided inspiration to me. Without that inspiration, I may not have completed this

doctoral journey.

In the end, I am better because of all of these people. Each one playing an

intricate role into the person I have become. Thanks to all of them, I have overcome the

hurdle known infamously as the dissertation.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments iv

List of Tables ix

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1

Introduction to the Problem 1

Background of the Study 3

Statement of the Problem 4

Purpose of the Study 5

Rationale 7

Research Questions 8

Significance of the Study 8

Definition of Terms 12

Assumptions and Limitations 13

Nature of the Study 15

Organization of the Remainder of the Study 17

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 19

Introduction 19

Historical Discussion 20

Contemporary Discussion 32

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 59

Introduction 59

Research Design 60

Population/Sample 65

vii

Setting 68

Instruments/Measures 71

Data Collection 84

Data Analysis 84

Ethical Considerations 89

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS 93

Introduction 93

Description of Population and Sample 94

Summary of Results 107

Details of Analysis 108

Multivariate Analysis 123

Research Question 1 128

Research Question 2 129

Research Question 3 130

Conclusions 131

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS 136

Introduction 136

Summary of Results 138

Discussion of Results 147

Implications of the Study Results 150

Limitations 153

Recommendations for Further Research or Intervention 157

Conclusion 163

viii

REFERENCES 176

APPENDIX A. STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL WORK 195

APPENDIX B. RESEARCH INSTRUMENT 197

List of Tables

Table 1. Population Served 106

Table 2. What FEMA Region do you reside and respond in 107

Table 3. Years in emergency management 109

Table 4. Hours per week worked in Emergency Management 112

Table 5. Years of post-high school education 113

Table 6. Number of NIMS classes taken 114

Table 7. Number of formal training classes taken 115

Table 8. Special needs included in written disaster plans 117

Table 9. Collaborative networks to identify special needs populations’ 118

Table 10. Special needs trainings per year 118

Table 11. Included in disaster training drill 119

Table 12. Collaborative networks 120

Table 13. Emergency notification 121

Table 14. Rapidly deployable transportation 122

Table 15. Agreements for transportation 123

Table 16. Reproduced correlations 127

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem

The Emergency Management Institute (EMI) which is the training section of the

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has a vested interest in Emergency

Managers. According to the EMI (2009) Emergency Managers should meet certain basic

principles and criteria (FEMA, 2010). Among the principles, Emergency Managers have

a responsibility for ensuring emergency management disaster plans are in place that are

comprehensive and include identification of all hazards the community may face (EMI,

2009; Risoe, Schlegelmilch, & Paturas, 2013). These plans must include all phases of

emergency management, and stakeholders should be included in the planning process.

FEMA posits that emergency managers must be progressive by anticipating future

disasters and taking proper actions to prepare for the effects of a disaster. Disaster

preparedness programs should be risk-driven, integrated with other organizations and

individuals, and would be best served by collaborating with stakeholders active in the

planning process (FEMA, 2010; FEMA, 2014a). EMI (2009) states that emergency

managers should coordinate with stakeholders, be flexible in their approach, and be

professional with stakeholders (EMI, 2009).

Special needs individuals typically have some type of disability such as a physical

or mental impairment that significantly limits a major life activity (Americans with

Disabilities Act [ADA], 2008). Most emergency managers fall short in disaster

preparedness for special needs populations such as those with access and functional needs

(Fox, White, Rooney, & Rowland, 2007). Special needs populations have been described

as a “neglected minority” in regards to disaster preparedness by Emergency Management

Agencies (Parr, 1987, p. 148). Research has shown emergency managers base plans on

traditional expectations of the special needs community rather than identify specific

needs and disabilities unique to their community (Parr, 1987; Fox et al., 2007). Post-

disaster research conducted by Fox et al. (2007) found that the vast majority of

communities possess neither Emergency Operations Plans for special needs populations,

nor do they work with any special needs advocacy groups that might provide the local

Emergency Management Agency insight. Some Emergency Management Agencies

assume the type of disabilities that exist within their response area. Fox et al. (2007)

noted that expectations or assumptions about the categories of special needs and the

number of special needs individuals in their response area were typically incorrect and

inconsistent with the authentic needs of the community. These assumptions about special

needs populations have been apparent and present in both historical and recent disasters

and usually produced negative outcomes (Fox et al., 2007). This research investigated

correlations between the level of preparedness of the agency and the education, training,

and on-the-job training (experience) of the emergency manager.

Background of the Study

Historical and contemporary data provide a foundation for disaster preparedness

in special needs populations. Historical data from Parr (1987) and contemporary data

from Fjord and Manderson (2009) found that people with disabilities are at a

substantially higher risk of being injured or killed in a disaster than the general

population. Marcie Roth, Director of Disability Integration and Coordination for FEMA,

reiterated that special needs population are at higher risk when providing written

statements and oral congressional testimony in 2010 (Roth, 2010). Roth shared the story

of a personal family friend that was mobility impaired and who died in Hurricane

Katrina. According to Roth (2010) this death was apparently caused by a lack of planning

for special needs populations.

Post-disaster data provided by Fox et al. (2007) identified that 80% of emergency

management agencies did not prepare for the disability demographics of their population

prior to a disaster. Jagger (2011) recognized that large numbers of emergency

management agencies tend to focus primarily on mobility issues, if they even prepare for

special needs populations at all. Lack of pre-disaster preparedness planning for special

needs populations is not an isolated event and has been identified by at least six other

research papers over the previous 10 years (California State Independent Living Council

[CSILC], 2004; Fox et al., 2007; Chicago Community Trust, 2009; P. J. Hooper, 2010;

Jagger, 2011; Salinsky, 2012).

Lack of disaster preparedness for special needs populations in a contemporary

context has led to several lawsuits being filed by, or on the behalf of, special needs

individuals. FEMA was named in federal class action lawsuit during the Hurricane

Katrina response and recovery phase. According to the complaint, FEMA neglected to

arrange for temporary disaster trailers that were handicapped accessible (United States

District Court of Eastern Louisiana, 2006). The plaintiffs argued that FEMA did not

provide temporary housing with wheelchair ramps, room to operate mobility devices, or

other accessibility needs. In Brou v. FEMA the litigant was successful in proving the case

against FEMA (United States District Court of Eastern Louisiana, 2006). This lawsuit is

just one of several such recent litigious actions (United States District Court of Eastern

Louisiana, 2006; Disability Rights Advocates, 2010; United States District Court

Southern District of New York, 2013; Disability Rights Advocates, 2014).

Statement of the Problem

Disaster preparedness for special needs populations is critical in protecting these

vulnerable populations in the event of a disaster. Lowe, Chan, and Rhodes (2011) found

that a lack of disaster preparedness plays a significant role in the mental health of special

needs individuals and children during disaster response and recovery. Data supports the

premise that preplanning plays a significant role in life safety and health (both mental and

physical), yet there still remain barriers in preplanning for people with special needs (P. J.

Hooper, 2010; Castenada, 2011; Salinsky, 2012). Lack of disaster preparedness for

special needs populations remain in spite of federal laws and presidential executive

orders mandating disaster preparedness for special needs population be taken by

emergency management agencies (FEMA, 2012).

Events during the 2003 Southern California wildfires indicated that not much has

changed in regards to disaster preparedness for special needs populations since Parr’s

(1987) original investigation. Disaster preparedness issues regarding these fires

emphasized the exclusionary methods which disregards special needs populations often

continues in the planning phase of emergency management (CSILC, 2004). Similar

findings were identified by Fox et al. (2007) who suggest that people with disabilities

were ill-represented in emergency planning prior to the 2003 wildfires. Beyond the

wildfires, it was found that only 27% of emergency managers have received training

regarding disaster preparedness plans for people with disabilities (Fox et al., 2007, p.

196). Additionally, Fox et al. (2007) established that 66% of the counties had "no

intention of modifying their guidelines to accommodate the needs of persons with

mobility impairments" (Fox et al., 2007, p. 196).

Purpose of the Study

This research addresses how specific levels of education and training correlate to

higher and lower levels of disaster preparedness. Education includes varying levels of

college education, federal training, state training and on-the-job experience. The research

takes a holistic look at the learning methods most commonly used in emergency

management.

An element that was neither known nor documented prior to this research is how

learning might affect disaster planning for special needs populations. Multiple searches of

academic databases in the Capella library and through other search engines such as the

Congressional Research Services (Library of Congress), EBSCO host (Academic Search

Premier), the Educational Research and Information Center (ERIC), Journal Storage

(JSTOR), LexisNexis, the Science.gov database, and the Social Science Research

Network were completed in an effort to identify peer reviewed articles in this research.

The search used single words and various combinations of the words and phrases of

preparedness, disaster preparedness, disability, special needs, access and functional

needs, disaster, and vulnerable populations. While there were results returned, no results

were found that addressed this research.

This research investigated correlational relationships between effective disaster

preparedness for special needs populations and years of post-high school education, the

number of formal trainings, and the amount of on-the-job experience. The predictor

variable identified the amount of adherence to Presidential Directive No. 13347

(Executive Order No. 13347, 2004), and the FEMA reference guide entitled

Accommodating Individuals with Disabilities in the Provision of Disaster Mass Care,

Housing, and Human Services (FEMA, 2007). This reference guide is based on the legal

requirement of H.R. 5441 (PL 109-295) Section 689: Planning assumptions for

individuals with disabilities (FEMA, 2012). Additional data was gathered identifying

learning levels and correlations between the level of disaster preparedness and learning.

The research found correlational relationships to specific learning types which potentially

strengthened disaster preparedness for special needs populations. Strong correlational

relationships, while not considered causal, could lead to predictions which might be used

to customize learning and ensure proper disaster planning for special needs populations.

By identifying education that leads to effective and ineffective disaster preparedness,

there can also be a greater understanding of what does and does not work in disaster

planning for special needs populations. Lack of disaster preparedness for special needs

populations can then be addressed, thereby increasing compliance and disaster

preparedness for people with disabilities (Executive Order No. 13347, 2004; Gerber,

Norwood, & Zakour, 2010; FEMA, 2012).

This research has the potential to impact the field through identifying barriers in

the disaster preparedness phase which could cause delays during a response and recovery

operations. Identifying emergency managers that have the most beneficial training and

education regimen could reduce the potential for death and injury (both mental and

physical) in an actual disaster through recognizing the most worthwhile training and

education programs that lead to enhanced disaster preparedness and training for special

needs populations (Fjord & Manderson, 2009).

By researching the potential underlying problems associated with lack of disaster

preparedness for special needs populations, the field of Emergency Management could

reduce the threat to life when disaster strikes (Lowe et al., 2011). According to Fox et al.

(2007), higher risks surface when there is a lack of disaster planning for special needs

populations on the part of county and local emergency managers.

Rationale

An Exploratory Factor Analysis (D. Hooper, 2012) was best suited for this

research. An Exploratory Factor Analysis detects underlying structures to identify

positive, negative, and no relationship of significance. An Exploratory Factor Analysis

was used to identify correlations between disaster preparedness and the correlational

variables of education, training, or job experience by uncovering shared aspects and

shared variance (D. Hooper, 2012). Within this research, the variables were the primary

level of disaster preparedness for special needs populations in the research subject’s

geographical area, and associated with the years of post-high school education, the

number of formal trainings, and the on-the-job experience of the Emergency Manager.

Research Questions

RQ-1) What relationship does the degree of formalized education an Emergency

Manager has obtained have with disaster preparedness of special needs populations?

(H1) Less formalized education (e.g., high school or Associates Degree) on the

part of an Emergency Manager reduces the level of disaster preparedness for

special needs populations.

RQ-2) What relationship does the completion of National Incident Management System

training and formal training classes by an Emergency Manager have with disaster

preparedness of special needs populations?

(H2) Completion of National Incident Management System classes on the part of

an Emergency Manager will have no relationship to the level of disaster

preparedness for special needs populations and lesser amounts of formal trainings

will reduce disaster preparedness for special needs populations.

RQ-3) What relationship does the practical work experience in emergency management

of an Emergency Manager have with disaster preparedness levels of special needs

populations?

(H3) Lesser amounts of experience in emergency management of an Emergency

Manager will reduce the disaster preparedness for special needs populations.

Significance of the Study

During a disaster, special needs populations have historically undergone a

significant amount of unnecessary mental and physical suffering due to a lack of pre-

planning. This research has the capacity to reduce this mental and physical suffering by

identifying types of training and education for Emergency Managers that will increase the

chances of comprehensive disaster preparedness being in place for special needs

populations. This is significant because the National Organization on Disability (NOD,

2009a) found that 54 million people are affected by disabilities in the United States. This

equates to one in every five persons in the United States have a disability. These statistics

were also supported by Nardo-Redmond’s, (2010) study.

This research has the potential to improve disaster preparedness and reduce death

and injury of special needs populations through identifying the types of learning that will

positively affect disaster preparedness for special needs populations. Through identifying

the most effective types of learning that affects special needs disaster preparedness, the

results could assist in reducing the chaos, uncertainty, and complexity that comes with

lack of disaster preparedness, especially for special needs populations. Research and eye-

witness accounts have identified that severe injury or death has in many instances been

caused to special needs populations because of lack of disaster preparedness (Kailes,

2008; Roth, 2010; Heldman, 2011; Jagger, 2011).

By identifying the learning types that lead to better disaster preparedness for

special needs populations, the findings will potentially lead to improved disaster

preparedness for elderly and nursing home patients. This disaster preparedness would

have effects beyond nursing home patients and elderly populations and would positively

affect nursing home staff and family members responsible for assisting these patients

under normal circumstance. According to Marshall and Mathews (2010), elderly

populations are extremely vulnerable in respect to disasters, yet vulnerability can be

greatly reduced through pre-planning. According to Nardo-Redmond (2010), there are

1.8 million people in nursing homes in the United States, with most needing some type of

caregiver assistance. Understanding the outcomes of this research might affect elderly in

the general population as well as nursing home patients through reducing vulnerability in

a disaster for this population as well. The reduction of vulnerability would be

accomplished through identifying the types of learning that would be most beneficial to

disaster preparedness for special needs populations.

The findings of this research have the capacity to impact the field in the way

emergency management agencies train or teach emergency managers. By identifying

shortcomings and strengths in learning, specific techniques can be developed to better

prepare emergency managers to deal with disaster preparedness for special needs

populations. These might include requiring more or less educational degrees, on-the-job

training, state or federally presented training classes, or other forms of formalized

learning. This additional disaster preparedness from customized teaching and training

will likely reduce delays in the response and recovery mode for special needs populations

due to forward-looking disaster preparedness; potentially reducing death or unnecessary

injury to special needs populations (Cahill, 2006; Risoe et al., 2013). The research

findings could also positively affect special needs caregivers, family members, and

advocacy groups who are often left in an indeterminate state when disaster strikes and

disaster preparedness plans are lacking (Roth, 2010). It should however be noted that the

findings and suggestion in this dissertation are only a starting point for a more in-depth

and much-needed understanding of disaster preparedness for special needs populations.

This research identifies correlations between on-the-job experience, formalized

training, education, and disaster preparedness for special needs populations. Researchers

have identified barriers in disaster preparedness for special needs populations in a number

of post-disaster settings (Parr, 1987; Cahill, 2006; Fox et al., 2007; Lowe et al., 2011). No

research has been found that correlates or attempts to understand how experience,

training, and education is correlated to disaster preparedness for special needs

populations.

This research identifies correlational relationships between effective planning for

special needs populations and types of learning. The evaluation will identify the amount

of adherence to Executive Order No. 13347 (2004), and the FEMA reference guide

entitled Accommodating Individuals with Disabilities in the Provision of Disaster Mass

Care, Housing, and Human Services (FEMA, 2007). This reference guide is based on the

legal requirement of H.R. 5441 (PL 109-295) Section 689: Planning assumptions for

individuals with disabilities (FEMA, 2012). Additional data was gathered identifying the

amount of training, experience, and education the Emergency Manager has undertaken,

and then identifying correlations between these variables and disaster preparedness. This

research was used determine correlational relationships that could detect specific training

and education types which connect to strengthened disaster preparedness for special

needs populations. With a strong correlational relationship, customized learning could be

identified to ensure proper disaster planning for special needs populations. By identifying

the traits that lead to ineffective disaster preparedness, there can also be a greater

understanding of what does not work in disaster planning for special needs populations.

Issues of lack of disaster preparedness for special needs populations can then be

addressed, thereby increasing compliance in preparing for people with disabilities

(Executive Order No. 13347, 2004; Gerber et al., 2010; FEMA, 2012).

This research has the potential to impact the field through identifying barriers in

the disaster preparedness phase that could cause delays during response and recovery.

Identifying emergency managers that have the most beneficial learning regimen could

reduce the potential for death and injury (both mental and physical) in an actual disaster

through identifying the most worthwhile learning regimen that leads to enhanced disaster

preparedness and training. (Fjord & Manderson, 2009; Risoe et al., 2013).

Definition of Terms

Emergency Manager: The primary non-elected person at the local level

responsible for ensuring that an agency undertakes mitigation, preparedness, response,

and recovery efforts from natural and manmade disasters.

Preparedness: “Actions taken to plan, organize, equip, train, and exercise to build

and sustain the capabilities necessary to prevent, protect against, mitigate the effects of,

respond to, and recover from those threats that pose the greatest risk to the security of the

Nation” (Presidential Policy Directive 8, 2011, p. 5).

Special needs population: There are numerous definitions by multiple entities as

to what constitutes a special need. The ADA defines a disability as a physical or mental

impairment that significantly limits a major life activity; a record of such an impairment;

or, being regarded as having such an impairment (ADA, 2008). The United States Social

Security Administration describes disability as being a person that is unable to engage in

substantial gainful activity (SGA) because of physical or mental impairment or

impairments (United States Social Security Administration, 2007). These disabilities

must also be expected to result in death or has lasted or is expected to last for a

continuous period of 12 months or more (United States Social Security Administration,

2007). For the purpose of this research, special needs will be defined as a person with

mental, emotional, cognitive, or physical disability. This can include but not be limited to

hearing impairments, sight impairments, mobility issues, elderly individuals that would

need assistance, cognitive issues such as autism, traumatic brain injury, dementia, and

psychological impairments such as depressive disorder, anxiety, and bipolar disorders,

and other potential physical, emotional, and cognitive disorders.

Assumptions and Limitations

Theoretical assumptions are centered on philosophical foundations which provide

links between the theoretical aspect and the practical aspects of the research (Labaree,

2013). This research utilizes Social Constructionism. Social Constructionism is based on

the view that the world is without meaning prior to the person experiencing it and

contends that humans rationalize their experience by creating their own social world and

how it functions. Social constructionism also provides the view that knowledge is not

conveyed, but actively created in the mind of the person (Han & Bhattacharya, 2001).

It is assumed that different Emergency Managers have diverse levels of disaster

preparedness for special needs populations. It is assumed that each Emergency Manager

prepares for special needs populations based on three experience factors which helps

them to construct the world as they see it: training, education, and experience (including

on-the-job experience). It is further assumed that the method by which the Emergency

Manager experiences meaning helps to create the world as they see it.

In reviewing the topical assumptions, research has provided information that

research is needed to identify why disaster preparedness for special needs populations is

lacking. In 2012, Salinsky (2012) conducted research in southern California and found

that Emergency Managers had an ongoing lack of disaster preparedness for special needs

populations. Jagger (2011) found similar results of failure to properly prepare for special

needs populations. Fox et al. (2008) collected post-disaster data throughout the United

States and also found a lack of disaster preparedness for special needs populations. The

previously mentioned researchers (and others) cite lack of disaster preparedness for

special needs populations as an ongoing problem and one that warrants further research

(FEMA, 2004; CSILC, 2004; National Council on Disabilities [NCOD], 2009; Chicago

Community Trust, 2009; P. J. Hooper, 2010; Risoe et al., 2013).

This research assumes that there is a connection between the methods in which

something is learned and how that learning turns into action. This research further

assumes that the method that the Emergency Manager experiences learning will have a

correlational effect in the way they prepare for special needs populations.

Using the Social Vulnerability Theory (O´Keefe, Westgate & Wisner, 1976) and

the Prospect Theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1986) this research will see the world as

something that has to change. This research assumes that the reason the world needs to

change is because those with disabilities are often not planned for, or are insufficiently

planned for in disaster preparedness (FEMA, 2004; CSILC, 2004; NOD, 2008; Chicago

Community Trust, 2009; P. J. Hooper, 2010; Risoe et al., 2013). This research involves

reviewing and identifying the factors that may contribute to lack of disaster preparedness

for special needs populations.

Limitations

A potential limitation identified in this research is a concern of setting. This

limitation would be present when transferring the results of the research to other settings

such as to another field other than emergency management (Creswell, 2009). In

relationship to this research, a correlation in education, training, or on-the-job experience

for an Emergency Manager may not transfer to another situation outside of the

emergency management field.

The limitation of prediction was also a concern. This limitation is the condition in

which a researcher cannot make sweeping statements that one thing causes another. In a

correlational study, correlation does not equal or imply causation. In looking at internal

validity, there are limitations regarding the sample. Every effort was made to ensure that

the sample is representative of the overall population, but there is no assurance of this.

While each person in the population is an Emergency Manager, there is the possibility of

some predisposition or uniqueness that separates or makes some research subjects

different from other research subjects (Dereshiwsky, 1999; Trochim, 2006; Creswell,

2009).

The limitation of researcher bias was reviewed. Potential researcher bias was

identified as the researcher had a negative preconceived notion about NIMS training. The

researcher had a positive preconceived notion regarding formal education and formalized

training.

Nature of the Study

Prospect Theory is shaped by the concept that people will always endeavor to

make the most rational choices possible with the least probable risk and will in most

instances make the same conclusion when given identical facts. In relation to this

research, Prospect Theory was utilized to reveal if Emergency Managers with more

emergency management training, more on-the-job experience, and more years of formal

education had an increased level of preparedness and more in-depth plans for special

needs populations based on Prospect Theory. The data was analyzed by the amount of

positive and negative correlations to the special needs disaster preparedness score. This

analysis was done through determining if higher levels of education, training, and

experience led to a cognitive decision to provide more preparedness (Tversky &

Kahneman, 1981). An increase in the primary special needs preparedness score that

correlated with an increase in one or more of the remaining datasets (on-the-job

experience, formalized training, and formal education) supports a higher propensity to

make rational choices in preparedness for special needs populations. A lower primary

score correlating with smaller amounts of on-the-job experience, formalized training, and

formal education supports Prospect Theory by showing a correlation to less preparedness

associated with less training and education.

Social Vulnerability states that social conditions which determine vulnerability to

disaster are in place prior to a disaster and these factors will determine the possible

outcomes or impact prior to a disaster (O´Keefe et al., 1976). This research was used to

discover whether Emergency Managers with more training, education, and experience

take actions that change the social construction of the special needs population. This

change of the social construction was shown by the actions of making preparedness plans

that reduce social vulnerability for special needs populations. An increase in the special

needs disaster preparedness score that correlates with an increase in one or more of the

remaining variables (on-the-job experience, formalized training, and education) was

aligned with a higher propensity to prepare for special needs populations. This higher

propensity is based on the Emergency Manager understanding the social construction of

more vulnerability and the action of mitigating against the vulnerability for special needs

populations. Lower special needs disaster preparedness correlating with lesser amounts of

on-the-job experience, formalized training, and education was viewed through the lens of

Social Vulnerability. Increases or decreases in the vulnerability of special needs persons

resulting from the analysis of this study revealed the associations with the social

constructive relationship between the three variables and the explanatory variable of

special needs preparedness by showing correlations.

Organization of the remainder of the Study

Chapter two of this study reviews the literature on disaster preparedness for

special needs populations and the effects of training, experience, and education. In

reviewing the literature, an examination of different research provides a comprehensive

look at historical and contemporary research. The literature review also covers incidents

and court cases involving lack of disaster preparedness for special needs populations.

Chapter three of this study covers the methodology. In the methodology, the

research design is explained and the sample and setting is described. The research

instrument and the measure used is reviewed, and the data collection, data analysis, and

the ethical considerations involved are explained.

Chapter four identifies the findings of this research. The sampled data is described

and the research methodology and data analysis provide an in-depth review of data

gathered and what it revealed. The hypothesis is reviewed, a presentation of the data

collected is given, and results of the data analysis are provided. A comparison of the data

analysis to the hypothesis and summary of the results is also performed.

Chapter five of this study is a discussion of the implications of this research and

recommendations for future research. Chapter five covers a summary and a discussion of

the results as well as a discussion of the conclusions and implications for how these

results could be used in emergency management are considered. The limitations of this

study and recommendations for further research are also discussed. In closing, there is a

conclusion of the overall study and final remarks.

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

Special needs populations have frequently been forgotten when looking at the

process of drafting disaster plans which address their needs during and after a disaster

(Parr, 1987, p. 148; Fjord & Manderson, 2009; Salinsky, 2012). While special needs

populations are often neglected in the disaster planning process, they nonetheless occupy

a large part of the United States population. According to the United State Census Bureau

(2012), 56.7 million people that are not institutionalized (e.g., nursing home, mental

health facilities, rehabilitation centers) have disabilities. The special needs population

equates to 18.7% of the general population having a special need based on disability

alone (Benson, 2007). There are an additional 1.8 to 2 million special needs individuals

in nursing homes and an unknown number of special needs individuals in various other

institutions (Nardo-Redmond, 2010). One in five Americans are disabled and often do not

have the capacity to effectively and efficiently perform the activities needed in a disaster

(Benson, 2007).

The necessity of providing disaster preparedness for special needs populations is

usually the responsibility of local government (FEMA, 2011a). Under (Presidential)

Executive Order No. 13347 (2004) local emergency management agencies and FEMA

are required to prepare for special needs populations. Historically, past disasters have

shown the shortcomings of disaster and planning efforts for special needs populations.

Historical Discussion

Prior to 2000

In the 1970’s, new federal laws began to require that special needs populations

must be able to access the same programs and services as the general population. When

the Rehabilitation Act (RA) of 1973 was enacted, it changed the way that many

government and private entities dealt with special needs populations. This affected

Emergency Managers because the RA indicated that emergency management agencies

would have to create inclusive disaster preparedness plans for those with special needs

that were equally effective as the plans made for the general population (Section 503,

1973). In 1975, an additional federal amendment to the RA was created which further

defined a disability to include persons with mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy,

and other neurological conditions. Although the thought behind these laws were

significant, the implementation proved problematic (Delury, 1975).

Progress in integrating special needs into emergency planning and preparedness

progressed slowly during the first fifteen years after the RA was passed by congress. The

United Nation proclaimed 1981 as the International Year of Disabled Persons (United

Nations, 1976). The National Organization on Disability (NOD) was founded, and

became an advocate for special needs populations, helping to spur equality for disabled

populations (NOD, 2014). This was the first cross-disability organization in the United

States. A Harris poll funded by the NOD in 1986 helped identify the perceptions of

special needs populations when investigating a lack of inclusiveness (Marini, Glover-

Graff, & Millington, 2012). While it is not known if Parr’s (1987) research was affiliated,

Parr (1987) submitted a peer-reviewed article that stated special needs populations are

often forgotten and neglected. Parr’s (1987) article and the NOD’s 1986 Harris poll,

helped to bring to the forefront disaster preparedness in conjunction with disability rights

(NOD, 2014).

President George H.W. Bush shortly thereafter signed into legislation the

Americans with Disability Act (ADA) of 1990 (ADA, 2008). This Act contained

federally mandated provisions of equality, reminiscent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In

both the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the ADA, there was a mandate for equal treatment

(ADA, 2008). In 1990 legislation called for more stringent life safety code in nursing

homes. Like the ADA of 1990, the nursing home legislation was mandated by congress

and signed by President H.W. Bush. This change came about through updating Public

Law 42 C.F.R. Section 483.70 (Physical Environment, 1990). Around the same time the

NOD commissioned a Harris poll to document the disadvantages that special needs

populations faced (NOD, 2014). Once again this research provided documentation that

special needs populations were not treated as equals. The NOD research provided proof

that special needs populations were often ignored or neglected (NOD, 2014).

Insufficient action in disaster preparedness for special needs populations was

regularly identified in the 1990’s. The first World Trade Center bombing in 1993

provided a picture that preparedness for special needs populations was severely lacking at

the World Trade Center (WTC) alone. A post-disaster review of the bombing and the

subsequent evacuation revealed that changes in the fire and safety plan were needed

(Gershon, Magdal, Riley, & Sherman, 2011).

News reports began surfacing that special needs populations were often forgotten

or not properly prepared for in various responses to multiple disasters. The St. Petersburg

Times reported that Hurricane Andrew was only one day from making landfall and

emergency workers were still scrambling to evacuate special needs populations (Krueger,

1993). The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that after the Northridge Earthquake,

special needs population were initially forgotten about and when they were remembered,

first responders were not prepared to deal with them (Piastro, 1994). The Piastro (1994)

article quoted a report from the University of Southern California which stated a primary

part of the problem in preparedness for special needs population revolved around the fact

that emergency management agencies and first responders regularly fail to include

special needs population in planning. Five years later, and shortly after Hurricane Floyd

made landfall, the Associated Press (1999) reported serious failures by emergency

managers in helping special needs populations. While the majority of those failures

resulted in inaccessible shelters, it uncovered other gaps that had potentially led to the

death of some individuals with special needs (Associated Press, 1999).

September 11th, 2001

The September 11th, 2001 attack on the WTC revealed the fact that while

improvements had been made since the 1993 WTC attack, these changes were not

enough. According to Gershon et al. (2011), 23% of those that were working in the WTC

on September 11th had special needs. Post-disaster research provided evidence that at the

time of the September 11th attack, there were evacuation plans for only 11% of the

special needs populations (Gershon et al., 2011).

After the events of September 11th, 2001, the United States Fire Administration

(USFA) released an orientation manual for first responders in 2012. In that manual, first

responders were provided with the basic instructions in how to prepare for and evacuate

special needs populations (USFA, 2002). This was the first in a long line of initiatives on

behalf of the federal government.

The United States Department of Labor (USDOL) held a symposium on

emergency preparedness for people with disabilities (USDOL, 2011). Sixteen federal

agencies and two non-profit organizations played a key role in this symposium and the

subsequent report. On July 26th, 2004, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order

No. 13347 (2004), which provided policy to assist in strengthening disaster preparedness

for special needs populations. During the same time period, President G.W. Bush signed

Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5 and HSPD-8. Both initiatives called for

coordinated planning and response among local, state and federal governments. In

addition, HSPD-8 strengthens this through calling for National Response Plan that

included the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and encourages the use of

the Incident Command System (ICS; Waugh, 2007). Executive Order No. 13347 (2004)

also cleared the path for, and created, the Interagency Coordinating Council on

Emergency Preparedness and Individuals with Disabilities which included 23 federal

agencies (Department of Homeland Security [DHS], 2005; Interagency Coordinating

Council on Emergency Preparedness and Individuals with Disabilities, 2010).

Southern California wildfires-2003

Major wildfires affected large parts of southern California in 2003. In one week,

742,000 acres of California, decimating 3,361 homes and killing 26 people (Keeley,

Fotheringham & Moritz, 2004). While there were some changes in preparedness for

special needs populations, not enough change had transpired according to a report from

the CSILC (2004). The CSILC-who is a key stakeholder in preparedness for special

needs populations in California-provided a report that identified where preparedness

plans failed. During the 2003 wildfires, the CSILC (2004) identified multiple issues that

were detrimental to the special needs community with a vast majority of those issues

being described as critical: the major deficiency was in accessible notification (CSILC,

2004). Due to the speed of the fires, deputies and highway patrol officers raced ahead of

the fires giving evacuation orders via loudspeaker. This left many hearing impaired

individuals with no notification of the fire, leaving many of them unaware (CSILC, 2004;

Kailes, 2008). On some television stations regular programing remained and notification

for evacuation was given via crawler along the bottom of the screen. This left many sight

impaired individuals in harm’s way because they could not see to read the notification

(CSILC, 2004; Kailes, 2008). Kailes (2008) also found that the scenes on television either

produced an amplified anxiety or did not provide sufficient information to assist the

hearing impaired population to understand the veracity of the fires. There were problems

with TTY messages due to the fact that when reverse 911 located a TTY phone, it would

hang up on the phone then call back. Often TTY phones would take several minutes to

reset, or in some instances the messages being sent was too long for the TTY phone to

receive the entire message (Kailes, 2008).

Many of the areas that were affected by these wildfires were also considered

geographically rural. Some of the special needs population relied on friends and public

transportation to assist them should they need to travel (Kailes, 2008). This was

problematic because during the evacuation exiting the affected areas via roadway was

allowed but often entry was often denied or intermittent (CSILC, 2004). The reliance on

mass transit became especially challenging when Mountain Area Rural Transit Agency

(MARTA) bus drivers attempted to make a second effort to retrieve special needs

individuals from the disaster zone. Initially, MARTA bus drivers made a first run to

retrieve their most frequent riders from their homes, initially evacuating dozens of special

need individuals. When these same drivers tried to return to evacuate more individuals

with special needs, they were delayed almost two hours due to orders given to restrict

access to the area (CSILC, 2004). The fire departments special needs registry list that

identified special needs populations, where they lived, and the best ways to assist those

with special needs were locked in a safe at fire headquarters; it not make it to the areas

affected by fire for two days (CSILC, 2004).

According to both the CSILC (2004) report and an after action report by Kailes

(2008), a key problem that arose during the wildfires involved those evacuating people

would (in some instances) force the special needs individuals to leave their mobility

devices behind. Leaving mobility devices behind created a lower quality of life for

special needs populations and in some instances created no way for the special needs

individuals to care for themselves. In the midst of the fires, two skilled nursing homes

were evacuated to Norton Air Force Base. Many of these special needs people were

unable to help themselves because the vast majority of mobility devices (e.g., walkers,

canes, wheelchairs) were left behind. Because assistive devices were left behind some

special needs individuals had to wait for volunteers to carry them to the bathroom or

wherever else they may need to go (CSILC, 2004). Many of the initial shelters and even a

majority of the secondary shelters (when the primary shelters became endangered) were

not accessible to those with special needs (CSILC, 2004; Kailes, 2008). There were

additional reports that in the first days of the evacuations, service animals were denied

access to the shelters (Kailes, 2008). The CSILC (2004) also found that in many instances

there were no interpreters for hearing impaired individuals who then had no way of

receiving updates. Sight impaired individuals also had issues with TV stations at the

shelters that continued regular programing but provided a web crawler (Kailes, 2008).

Those with medication needs often did not have their prescription, and in some instances

had to wait days for their medication. This wait was caused because there were no plans

in place to provide medications to those that evacuated without their medicines (CSILC,

2004).

Hurricane Katrina-2005

The extent of lack of disaster preparedness for special needs populations was not

truly known until Hurricane Katrina made landfall (Benson, 2007). Hurricane Katrina

was the disaster that brought to the forefront the detrimental effects of ineffective

planning, ineffective preparedness measures, and administrative breakdowns in local,

state, and federal governmental responses (Schneider, 2005; Evacuteer, 2011). Multiple

cascading failures at all levels of government exacerbated the adverse results between the

varying levels of government (Treaster, 2005). These adverse results provided a domino

effect that put in harm’s way those less capable to fend for themselves, both prior to and

after the flooding began. An investigative report by Leo (2005) claimed that the lack of

inclusion of at risk and special needs populations was primarily an oversight in the

preparedness and response in the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP; Leo, 2005;

Evacuteer, 2011).

New Orleans’ preparedness plans relied too heavily on the federal government,

and not heavily enough on the city’s own self-sufficiency (Roberts, 2005). Roberts

(2005) contends that that the majority of these plans were not complex or serious enough

to cover an event such as Katrina, and that proper disaster preparedness planning was not

in place. This contention is supported by Schneider (2005) who identified the local

response as having a feel of “uncertainty and inconsistency” (p. 515). An estimated one

million people fled the incoming hurricane, and a collaborative qualitative study by the

Kaiser Foundation, the Washington Post, and Harvard University (2005) identified the

primary cause for not evacuating as a lack of transportation. The study went on to say

that the city’s plan had not identified potential social aspects of disaster, including

identification of special needs and at-risk populations (Evacuteer, 2011). The city failed

to undertake practices such as a hazard analysis to understand the intricacies of their own

city (Brodie, Weltzien, Altman, Blendon, & Benson, 2006; Evacuteer, 2011).

The City of New Orleans had no idea of the massive amount of transportation

needed because they had not completed a hazard analysis (Brodie et al., 2006). Some

citizens had no choice but to wait out the storms in their home or a shelter (Evacuteer,

2011). This lack of transportation in part led to 60,000 people that needed to be rescued

from rooftops and high water: most of those being low income, minority, children,

elderly and the disabled (Renne, Sanchez, & Litman, 2008; Evacuteer, 2011). Because

emergency planners did not understand or identify the need, they did not plan for multi-

modal evacuation (especially for those who did not have transportation); many were left

behind, including 25,000 at the Superdome (Litman, 2006; Evacuteer, 2011). Litman

(2006) claimed that emergency managers knew of the risk in evacuation but chose not to

address it. This left many dependent on public transportation and unable to evacuate

(Litman, 2006, Evacuteer, 2011).

Garnett and Kouzmin (2007) identified that locally there was a lack of

communication. That lack of communication failed to educate people of the need to

prepare for disaster and it failed in providing sufficient time to mass-evacuate the City of

New Orleans. Garnett and Kouzmin (2007) also identified a lack of communication in

what resources were available and where to find those resources. A report by the NOD

(2007) found that local emergency management agency did not identify the needs of

those with special needs, nor did they work in the disaster preparedness mode with

special needs advocacy organizations. The City of New Orleans Emergency Management

Agency also failed to identify the demographics of the special needs population,

including what areas of the population needed notifications in a different method (e.g.,

the blind, the deaf) (NOD, 2007). Blendon, Benson, Buhr, Weldon and Herrmann, (2006)

posit that communications were so bad that even if special needs populations received

notice, many believed that evacuation would be too dangerous. Research found that many

special needs populations believed that motorways would be too congested or that there

would not be ample food, water, or medical supplies. This led to many of individuals

with special needs deciding to stay in their own homes (NOD, 2007).

Hurricane Katrina had a greater negative impact on those with special needs than

it did on the general population. Post-disaster research by the Center for Disease Control

(CDC) found that deaths during the Hurricane Katrina disaster disproportionately

affected the special needs population, especially the elderly (Benson, 2007). The CDC

report revealed that 71% of those that died in Hurricane Katrina were over the age of 60,

and 47% were over the age of 75 (p.1). At the time Hurricane Katrina made landfall, the

elderly only made up 15% of the population in New Orleans but accounted for more than

four times that percentage in the death toll. Benson (2007) surmised that the death toll

was higher because these individuals within the special needs community were physically

unable to evacuate themselves: likely because of their age or special needs. White and

Whoriskey (2005) and the non-profit organization Evacuteer (2011) charge that the vast

majority of those trapped in New Orleans had no choice but to stay. In most instances

they had no money, no transportation, and they were limited in where they could go.

These problems were only the beginning of a domino effect that would cost many lives

(Evacuteer, 2001).

In a study by the NOD (2007) named Special Needs Assessment of Katrina

Evacuees (SNAKE), substantial deficiencies were found in disaster preparedness. Post-

Hurricane Katrina surveys identified that of 26 special needs advocacy organizations that

provided services prior to the hurricane, 85.7% stated that they did not know how to link

with the local emergency management system prior to Katrina making landfall. In

preparing for disaster, the New Orleans Emergency Management Agency (NOEMA)

failed in communicating and collaborating with various agencies to determine the risk

prior to an event. Special needs advocacy organizations had never been contacted by

NOEMA, nor did these organizations know how to contact NOEMA. According to

Salinsky (2012), preparedness for special needs populations comes from knowing the

demographics of that geographical region, including advocacy groups. Treaster (2005)

contends that if NOEMA had been involved with advocacy groups, there likely would

have been less people left behind. This contention is supported by other researchers

(White & Whorisky, 2005, Brodie et al., 2006; Evacuteer, 2011).

Marshall and Matthews (2010) stated that during a disaster, healthy people tend to

obtain help more quickly than those that are aged or disabled. Marshall and Mathews

(2010) claim that due to the ability of younger population to be more agile and more

capable of fending for themselves, the disabled and elderly are left to wait because they

are less likely to be able to stand up for themselves. It was reported that during the

evacuation of New Orleans, special needs population trying to board public transportation

were left behind because able bodied individuals pushed them aside (Bytheway, 2007;

Marshall & Mathews, 2010; Roth, 2010). These inadequate government responses were

directly and indirectly related to the deaths of vulnerable populations in Katrina (NOD,

2006; Marshall & Matthews, 2010).

In Congressional testimony, Roth (2010) shared the story of a personal family

friend who died in Hurricane Katrina and that was mobility impaired. Roth (2010)

described ongoing phone calls from this friend describing how she called authorities in

New Orleans requesting evacuation. Ongoing calls were made to New Orleans officials,

only to find there was no way to evacuate this person; the primary barrier was in

transporting a motorized wheelchair. Rescuers searching for survivors found this friends’

deceased body in her home still in her motorized wheelchair. Roth (2010) also described

a paraplegic man that nearly died in his home in New Orleans because there was no room

for mobility devices on the evacuation buses. Roth (2010) described these deaths and

others as a lack of preparedness and preplanning on the part of the City of New Orleans.

FEMA also made mistakes regarding special needs populations during Hurricane

Katrina. FEMA neglected to arrange for temporary disaster trailers that were handicap

accessible. This error in omission led to a federal class action lawsuit which was known

as Brou v. FEMA (United States District Court of Eastern Louisiana, 2006). The

plaintiffs argued that the federal agency did not provide temporary housing with

wheelchair ramps, room to operate a wheelchair (or scooter), and identified various other

accessibility needs required by ADA law (ADA, 2008). The litigant was successful in

proving the case against FEMA and the findings of this case led to substantial changes in

the way that FEMA now prepares for and responds to people with disabilities (United

States District Court, 2006).

Deepwater Horizon oil spill-2010

The Deepwater Horizon presented unique circumstances for a distinctive portion

of the special needs population. The Deepwater Horizon incident involved crude oil

being released from a drilling rig into the Gulf of Mexico. This release of crude oil

caused severe economic loss. This disaster also caused severe emotional and

psychosocial distress among residents in the affected area (Yun, Lurie, & Hyde, 2010).

Much like a similar disaster (the Exxon Valdez oil spill), there was a marked increase in

mental health and substance abuse issues (Yun et al., 2010).

Some infrastructure was in place to deal with the mental health issues caused by

the Deepwater Horizon disaster, but these resources were insufficient. Yun et al. (2010)

stated that there were insufficient resources in place to deal with the mental anguish and

emotional impacts of the disaster. More mental health providers reside in urban areas, but

the rural areas are underserved; these underserved areas left some with these special

needs not being served (Yun et al., 2010). The Deepwater Horizon served as a warning

and a reminder that not all special needs involve physical signs of special needs, and

moreover that there can be a substantial difference of problems and issues identified

between urban and rural areas.

Contemporary Discussion

An Emergency Manager’s job is to “… plan for scenarios that people do not want

to think about, using projections and data not everyone agrees on.” (Kepler, 2014,

abstract). It is imperative that emergency managers and emergency planners realize that

failing to address special needs populations in the planning stage often has profound

negative results; negative effects for special needs populations are often multiplied.

Disaster frequently affects special needs populations with a greater magnitude due to

interruptions in their support systems and loss of equipment, supplies, transportation

modes, and various other needs that can disrupt their lives (NOD, 2009 b; Risoe et al.,

2013).

The contemporary Emergency Manager is charged with disaster preparedness for

the entire community (Rubin, 2012). FEMA (2012) identifies this as a whole community

concept which was encouraged by HPSD-8. Many emergency management agencies fail

to provide disaster preparedness plans for special needs populations. (Fox et al., 2008;

Jagger, 2011; Salinsky, 2012).

Disaster preparedness plans are a key element in preparing for special needs

populations. Those with special needs and special needs advocacy groups are often not

consulted in the planning process by Emergency Managers (Fox et al., 2007). Fox et al.

(2007) also suggest that people with special needs are ill represented in emergency

planning, citing that only 27% of emergency managers had completed training in

planning for people with disabilities (p. 196). Additionally, Fox et al. (2007) found that

66% of the counties researched had “no intention of modifying their guidelines to

accommodate the needs of persons with mobility impairments” (p. 196). It was identified

that the primary reasons for lack of preparedness was due to lack of funding, lack of

available personnel, lack of awareness, and various other concerns (Fox et al., 2007). The

data from Fox et al. (2007) revealed serious concerns about providing equality in

emergency management, especially in the disaster preparedness mode.

Disaster preparedness involves more than just guessing what will happen and

trying to preplan what to do in a disaster. Disaster preparedness is typically accomplished

using the cycle of preparedness as identified in the National Incident Management

System (FEMA, 2013). The cycle of preparedness is an ongoing cycle of planning,

organizing, training, equipping, exercising, reevaluating, and improving in an effort to

effectuate successful coordination during incident response. According to multiple

sources, Emergency Managers need to better understand preparedness for special needs

populations (Davis & Mincin, 2005; NOD, 2009a; Risoe et al., 2013). The NOD (2009a)

contends that the planning process is likely the most important stage in the emergency

management process, and perhaps the most arduous. Emergency planning processes are

difficult due to the unpredictable nature of disasters (NOD, 2009a). Due to the

irregularity of disaster, the Emergency Manager must take a holistic approach and take

into consideration the rapid onset and unexpectedness (without warning) of disasters.

Unusual or uncommon disaster events tend to have less developed preparedness plans

than higher likelihood disasters (Parr, 1987; NOD, 2009a; Risoe et al., 2013). Parr

(1987), Litman (2006) and the NOD (2009a) agree that planning for special needs

populations are often forgotten or ignored; producing an appearance that emergency

managers are insensitive to special needs populations.

Preparedness for special needs populations can be ineffective if advocacy groups

and those with special needs are not included in the planning process (Kailes, 2008; EMI,

2009; FEMA, 2011b.). Kailes (2008) suggests that agencies that include special needs

populations in the planning process have an evolution of better strategies to protect them.

Salinsky (2012) suggests that integrating special needs populations and special needs

advocacy groups into the local emergency management planning process can and usually

does provide a more comprehensive plan. A FEMA (2010) report found that local

emergency management agencies lacked substance and coordination in regards to

planning for special needs populations.

Emergency Managers in many instances have failed in creating professional

relationships with health care workers (Dawalt, 2011). This has partially led to a lack of

comprehensive preparedness for special needs populations (Dawalt, 2011). Lack of

planning was cited as a major part of the high death toll after Hurricane Katrina as well as

increased suffering on the part of special needs populations following Hurricane Irene

and Superstorm Sandy in New York (Roth, 2010, United States District Court Southern

District of New York, 2013; Rodrigues, 2013). Disaster preparedness planning is not

always at the forefront of Emergency Management Agencies or the elected officials in

authority. Long-term disaster planning is not as politically popular or media worthy as

reporting on the aftermath of a disaster to some elected officials (Roberts, Ward, &

Wamsley, 2009). Lack of disaster preparedness for special needs populations is

considered inexcusable and can lead to death for those with special needs (NCOD, 2009;

Brown, Dosa, Thomas, Hyer, & Feng, 2012).

The Emergency Manager is the person responsible for planning for the entire

population in all phases of emergency management. The Emergency Manager is the

supervisor and person guiding the emergency management agency, and is the one setting

priorities. Emergency Managers are responsible for critical thinking skills that guide the

agencies they serve (Peerbolte & Collins, 2013). A recent study by Peerbolte and Collins

(2013) found that the age and sex of an Emergency Manager had no effect on critical

thinking, but those Emergency Managers that had ten or more years of experience and a

higher degree of education showed a higher level of critical thinking. No known research

currently exists to determine if critical thinking skills play a role in increased disaster

preparedness for special needs populations.

A congressional subcommittee led by Congresswoman Richardson was formed to

investigate what was being done to plan for vulnerable (including special needs)

populations (Caring for special needs during disaster, 2010). Richardson stated that

special needs populations should not be treated as second class citizens nor should they

be an annex to an emergency operations plan (Caring for special needs during disaster,

2010). The NOD conducted research in 2004 and again in 2009 on disaster preparedness

for special needs populations. Data from that research found that disaster preparedness

for special needs populations was lacking, and in a disaster special needs populations felt

they had a lower quality of life because of their disabilities (Taylor, 2004; NOD 2009a;

NOD, 2014).

A large portion of emergency managers tend to cluster special needs populations

together as a group rather than identify the special needs of individuals (NOD, 2009a).

The clustering of special needs populations is done in place of identifying the unique

differences of the many different individualized needs present during a disaster (NOD,

2009a; Brown et al., 2012). These same contentions have been made in a historical

context by Parr (1987), the contemporary context provided by Fox et al. (2007), and

again by Salinsky in 2012. For over 25 years these same issues have been identified.

While there has been some change, it is minimal at best (NOD, 2009a).

Numerous pieces of historical and contemporary research have provided

recommendations for disaster preparedness for special needs populations but relatively

few have provided or implemented strategies to complete these goals (NOD, 2009a;

National Fire Protection Association; NFPA, 2014). The NOD (2009) contends that while

reports on the plight of special needs populations are increasing, the scientific literature is

scarce. In many instances this lack of implemented strategies creates severe gaps in

disaster planning, warning systems, training, education, and protective measures (NOD,

2009; FEMA, 2014a).

Executive Order No. 13347 (2004) mandated that the special needs population be

integrated into the planning of all natural and manmade disasters. This Executive Order

sparked the formation of the Interagency Coordinating Council on Emergency

Preparedness and Individuals with Disabilities (ICCEPID). The ICCEPID was comprised

of high-ranking leadership from 23 federal agencies who work to ensure that emergency

mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery plans encompass the needs of special

needs populations (DHS, 2008). The collaboration efforts of these 23 federal agencies

working with special needs advocacy groups led to the identification of seven key areas

of importance, all of them involving preparedness for special needs populations (FEMA,

2014b). Those areas identified by ICCEPID were notification, evacuation, emergency

transportation, sheltering, access to medications, back-up power, access to information

and access to mobility and other assistive devices or service animals. Similarly, FEMA’S

(2010) Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG; version 2.0) identifies the same factors

in order to prepare for an entire community, including special needs populations.

Notification is one of the most rudimentary issues that revolve around ability to

communicate with special needs populations (FEMA, 2012). Historical documentation

from Hurricane Katrina and the California wildfires identified that notification of special

needs population is lacking (CSILC, 2004; Garnett & Kouzmin, 2007; DHS, 2007).

Mass communication is critical in alerting special needs populations to impending

disasters. The difficulty faced in attempting to notify various populations was noted by

the Congressional Research Service (CRS) in 2008. CRS report number RL32527

pointed out that even though the Federal Communications Commission requires that

Emergency Alerting Systems (EAS) messages be delivered in both audio and visual

means; this requirement is often ignored by broadcasters at the local level (Moore, 2008).

Moore (2008) found that while there are numerous technologies that could mitigate the

problem of mass notification, these formats were not supported by EAS or they were

typically too expensive to make it available to the special needs population (Moore,

2008). Moore (2010) revisited the problem for congress and conceded that some progress

had been made in alerting special needs populations, but more advancement was needed.

The progress in notification noted by Moore (2010) was partially due to the

Warning, Alert, and Response Network (WARN) Act. The WARN Act requires the use

of multiple platforms and multiple gateways to assist special needs populations with

emergency notifications (Moore, 2010). These gateways were mandated and designed to

deal with notification of special needs populations under Executive Order 13447 (2004).

The notification systems included an upgrade to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration’s Digital Emergency Alert System (DEAS) and FEMA’s Integrated

Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS; OASIS, 2009).

FEMA (2011b) research found that 36 million individuals (approximately 10% of

the population) in the United States have a hearing impairment (FEMA, 2014a). Hearing

impairments can lead to difficulty in receiving notification audibly from radio or

television (Dawalt, 2011). FEMA (2011b; 2014a) also points out that more than 10

million people have a vision related disability. In most instances those with vision

disabilities cannot read an evacuation map on television. FEMA (2014a) posits that two

million people have a speech disability with approximately 500,000 individuals having a

speech disability that is not understandable by others. Speech disabilities can prove to be

challenging during interactive communications such as phone notifications (Dawalt,

2011).

Mass notification with those that have psychological and cognitive disorders

presents challenges as well. FEMA (2011b; 2014a) identifies that there are 16.1 million

people with cognitive, intellectual, developmental and mental health disabilities. Those

with psychological and cognitive disorders could be ignored or missed if considerations

are not in place to provide notification to them. While FEMA (2011b) found that there

are 16.1 million people with psychological and cognitive disorders, the data did not take

into account that there are also approximately 5.3 million with some form of brain injury

(FEMA, 2014a). Psychological, cognitive, and brain injury are typically not assisted by

advancements such as IPAWS, DEAS, and other similar technologies (DHS, 2013).

Emergency managers should realize that those with cognitive and mental conditions need

to be communicated with during and after the disaster. Emergency management agencies

may in some instances need to employ individuals or obtain volunteers to communicate

with these individuals during evacuation, sheltering, and recovery in order to ensure

viable communication (FEMA, 2010).

Communication with special needs populations is not only critical in alerting, but

also in communicating with special needs populations before and after an incident occurs.

This can include preparing special needs populations for disasters, providing direction

during operations (such as sheltering in place or evacuation orders), during sheltering

operations, and during the process of reintegration into the community. Methods to deal

with the individual in non-emergency situations can be very different from mass

communication or dealing with them during emergent incidents (NOD, 2009b; Dawalt,

2011; FEMA, 2014a).

Individual communication with special needs populations may require specialized

tools or specially trained individuals to effectuate communications. Methods of one-on-

one communication may include American Sign Language, pencil and paper, text

messages (or social media in some instances), a communication board, a dry erase board,

or flash cards (Department of Justice [DOJ], 2007; Dawalt, 2011). Additional methods

could include communications cards, oral responses, simple yes and no questions, or the

use of short plain sentences (St. Petersburg College, 2011).

Those with vision impairments will likely need special considerations in

communicating. Those with vision impairments may need brochures and documents in

braille (DOJ, 2007). Documents could also be read to vision impaired individuals if no

braille or other alternative format version is available (St. Petersburg College, 2011).

Communication with individuals who have cognitive or mental impairments may

require the communicator to appear as extremely calm (St. Petersburg, 2011). The

communicator may also need to use over-exaggerated facial gestures or show empathy

(St. Petersburg College, 2011). The person communicating will need to remember that

there is no one size fits all when it comes to disabilities and special needs communication

(St. Petersburg College, 2011).

Another key lifesaving factor that can appear during a disaster is the rapid

movement of people out of a dangerous area, also known as an evacuation. An

evacuation can be as simple as evacuating a single building or as complex as a large

geographical area or location such as a city, town, or county (NOD, 2009a; Castenada.

2011). While not every disaster requires evacuation, an evacuation should be planned for;

especially for special needs populations (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2009; Risoe

et al., 2013; NFPA, 2014)

It is important that those with special needs learn the evacuation processes prior to

an evacuation being needed and how the process affects them (Disabled World, 2014).

According to a report from the NOD (2009b), those familiar with evacuation, and those

who engage in evacuation drills, are substantially and statistically more successful during

an evacuation than those who are unfamiliar with the procedures.

Research has identified that a large portion of individuals with special needs

require some form of assistance during the evacuation process, including transportation

(Kailes & Enders, 2007; Risoe et al., 2013). Assistance needs should not be ignored by

Emergency Managers when preparing for evacuation of special needs populations. This

can (in many instances) be difficult. Christenson, Blair, and Holt (2007) as well as Risoe

et al. (2013) found that a minimal amount of consideration has been provided to the

behaviors of those with special needs in emergency situations, including evacuations.

Research provided by Brown et al. (2012) found that mass evacuation of dementia

patients during a disaster leads to a death rate four times higher than when no evacuation

is introduced. Brown et al. (2012) suggests that advanced evacuations provided by family

members and being housed in a family member’s home reduces the psychological stress

that may lead to increased amount of death. Brown et al. (2012) supposes psychological

first aid would reduce deaths among dementia patients when evacuation was required.

Understanding how to assist special needs individuals prior to a disaster, such as these

dementia patients (and others), could lead to an increased survivability rate among the

special needs population.

Knowledge gaps in the make-up of special needs populations and their resource

requirements can hamper disaster preparedness (Risoe et al., 2013). These gaps often

prevent the development of evidence-based best practices for locating and transporting

special needs populations (Risoe et al., 2013). The type of disability can change the

means of an actual evacuation substantially (Kailes, 2008). A report by the NOD (2009b)

identified that a significant amount of those who have special needs also have cognitive

disabilities, and they often lack assistance from family members or caretakers. The NOD

(2009b) cites Shields (1999) who recognized that safety issues exist and worsen for those

with cognitive disabilities during the night time. Those with cognitive disabilities may

struggle with accepting or mentally managing evacuation messages (NOD, 2009a). Cahill

(2012) suggests that those with cognitive disabilities may need special considerations that are

well beyond normal populations. Individuals with cognitive disabilities (especially autistic

individuals) may also be adversely affected by lights and sirens and may need substantially

more time to comply than a person without special needs (Cahill, 2012).

Special considerations may be needed when evacuating elderly individuals

depending on their specific abilities and disabilities (Kailes, 2008). In some cases there

may be problems with sensory impairment and cognitive abilities (Cahill, 2012). Data

from He and Larsen (2010) found 66.5% of elderly individuals have mobility

impairments. Many elderly with special needs lack transportation (Cahill, 2012). Each

aspect of evacuation is different not only for elderly, but for each specific individual

special need. Evacuations can be a traumatizing event for the special needs population

(NOD, 2009a). Evacuation plans for special needs populations should provide the

necessary time needed (when possible).Those evacuation plans should ensure that the

special equipment (e.g., wheelchairs, dialysis machines, ventilators) and service/guide

animals are included in the preparedness and response plan (NOD, 2009a; FEMA, 2012).

The use of registries is one method that can assist in evacuation, especially if

those registries identify the specific needs of the individual (Risoe et al., 2013). Special

needs registries are often a way for local jurisdiction to identify individuals and their

needs long before a disaster strikes (Risoe et al., 2013). Special needs registries came into

existence primarily because of Hurricane Katrina and have become a method used to take

a census and provide assistance plans (Risoe et al., 2013; Echevarria, 2014).

Communities have in some instances used special needs registries to create staggered

evacuation plans and orders ahead of the general population because special needs

populations characteristically take a greater amount of time to evacuate (NOD, 2009a).

Rice (2010) contends that these registry lists are far from complete, claiming that only

20-25% of special needs populations are signed up for the special needs registry in

Florida. A special needs registry does offer at the very least some insight in identifying

resources and specific needs of the special needs population in the event of an

evacuation.

A report for the Rhode Island Department of Health’s Center for Emergency

Preparedness and Response found that only seven states mandate special needs registries

and house them as part of a state function. Thirty-six states have mandates for special

needs registries but put the responsibility at local level; seven states have no known

mandate (Echevarria, 2014). The responsibility of building a municipal or county registry

will in almost all instances fall on the Emergency Manager. Local emergency

management agencies with no special needs registry or census are essentially increasing

their risk because they have no hard data on special needs populations to plan from.

Registries provide a guideline which will offer an overview of those with disabilities

(NOD, 2009b). It is not intended to be an exhaustive list.

Some disturbing images were etched into the minds of many Americans in the

aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Live television shots revealing dead bodies sitting in

wheelchairs or lying on the ground with blankets covering them were among the most

disturbing images seen. Others may recollect women carrying young children and crying

for food and water (Zambado, 2005). Most of those left behind had one common

denominator: a lack of transportation (White & Whorisky, 2005, Brodie et al., 2006;

Evacuteer, 2011).

Congressional testimony revealed that one major failure by the City of New

Orleans during the Hurricane Katrina was a shortage of resources to evacuate people with

disabilities (Roth, 2010). Disability Director Marcy Roth (2010) testified about

individuals who required transportation to evacuate, yet the City of New Orleans had no

preplans to evacuate the large numbers of the special needs population. Roth (2010)

contends this was one of the driving factors that led to a high mortality rate among the

special needs population.

It was found that special needs populations in the City of New Orleans suffered

fatalities in an unbalanced manner. Deaths during Hurricane Katrina (and the flooding

that ensued) disproportionately affected the elderly (Benson, 2007). Center for Disease

Control (CDC) data found that 71% of those that died in Hurricane Katrina were over the

age of 60, and 47% were over the age of 75 (p.1). This age disparity was an abnormally

high rate of death for the elderly population; especially considering that the elderly only

made up 15% of the New Orleans population at that time. Heldman’s (2011)

investigation supported CDC findings asserting that 23% of those left behind in

Hurricane Katrina were physically unable to evacuate themselves, primarily because of

their age, special need, or lack of transportation.

Eyewitness accounts revealed a special needs individual who was not capable of

securing a spot on public transportation in the Hurricane Katrina evacuation because of

crowds of able bodied people that rushed ahead of them (Roth, 2010). A young mobility

challenged woman made numerous calls to New Orleans authorities asking for

evacuation prior to Hurricane Katrina making landfall. This phone call was followed by

numerous calls by friends and family to New Orleans authorities (Roth, 2010). Because

there were no preplans and no method of transportation, this young lady was later found

deceased in her motorized wheelchair (Roth, 2010). Transportation of special needs

populations, especially in evacuation mode, has proven to be an ongoing problem in

many diverse disasters. One-third of those that did not evacuate for Hurricane Katrina

were disabled. Post-Katrina surveys found that the two largest demographics that did not

evacuate were those with disabilities and family members or caretakers of those with

disabilities (Hayes, 2014).

Transportation problems of special needs populations were not relegated to only

Hurricane Katrina (Rubin, 2012). A historical review of past disasters has identified

transportation of special needs populations has been an ongoing problem for many years.

According to Rubin (2012) transportation has been a problem since the 19th century.

Rubin (2012) identifies numerous fires and floods where transportation issues contributed

to high death tolls.

Transportation of special needs populations were documented in a historical

perspective during the evacuation prior to Hurricane Andrew (Krueger, 1993). One day

prior to Hurricane Andrew making landfall, first responders were still attempting to

transport those with special needs to safety (Krueger, 1993). Nineteen years after

Hurricane Andrew, Superstorm Sandy also provided evidence that there was still a

problem with transportation of special needs populations. A news report by Santoya and

Weiser (2013) of the New York Times reported that special needs transportation was

lacking in arguably one of the most prepared cities in the United States, New York City.

This lack of transportation left many in the disabled and special needs communities

trapped.

This lack of preparedness led to litigation against the City of New York not only

for the 2012 response to Superstorm Sandy, but also the 2005 response of Hurricane

Irene. On November 7th, 2013, the United States Southern District Court of New York

found that the City of New York violated the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and

the Rehabilitation Act through their failure to provide special needs populations

meaningful access to disaster assistance (United States District Court Southern District of

New York, 2013, p. 116). The court found that nearly 900,000 special needs individuals

struggled to find transportation to evacuate because the city did not sufficiently provide

proper transportation and evacuation measures (United States District Court Southern

District of New York, 2013; Rodrigues, 2013).

The City of Oakland California settled a lawsuit with disability rights advocates in

2010 over lack of preparedness for special needs populations in multiple areas.

(Disability Rights Advocates, 2010). The lack of disaster preparedness in transportation,

evacuation, and sheltering equated to discrimination of those that were disabled and had

special needs.

The District of Columbia was notified of a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of

people with disabilities in 2014. The suit contends that the District of Columbia failed to

plan for accessible emergency evacuation and transportation (Disability Rights

Advocates, 2014). This alleged lack of planning is not only critical for the District of

Columbia’s 72,000 residents with disabilities (including disabled veterans) but also for

those with special needs and those who visit and go to school in Washington, DC

(Disability Rights Advocates, 2014).

The risk to special needs populations can be greatly reduced with proper disaster

planning. Drabek (2010) found that the largest peacetime evacuation in the United States

was successfully coordinated. Pinellas County, Florida was under severe threat from

Hurricane Elena in 1985. The county successfully evacuated in excess of 350,000 people,

including 211 hospital patients (from three separate hospitals) and over 1,800 patients

from 19 different nursing homes (Drabek, 2010). While there were still four deaths

during Hurricane Elena, Drabek (2010) contends that the death toll would have been

substantially higher if not for the preplans and actions taken.

Special needs individuals who are evacuated may also need a place to go. During

a disaster, shelters can be an area or areas where people stay. These shelters are set up in

order to protect the population base from harm and temporarily house individuals

displaced by a disaster. The Inclusive Preparedness Center (2011) describes a shelter as a

safe temporary gathering place which provides temporary services to individuals affected

by a disaster. Shelters are an important and integral part of emergency management and

can be a safe place for special needs populations. Children and adults with special needs

must be able to access the same programs and services in a shelter as are available to the

general population (Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, 2006; ADA,

2008; Risoe et al., 2013).

FEMA (2010) mandates that people with special needs have the same civil and

human rights to services in a disaster shelter as the general population does. The DOJ’s

(2007) guidance for ADA compliance (in shelters) states that if special needs populations

do not receive the same services as the general population, it is a violation of federal law.

When planning for special needs populations in shelters, Emergency Managers have an

obligation to ensure and guarantee that sheltering services and facilities are accessible

and inclusive (FEMA, 2010). The choices made by Emergency Managers, their staff, and

other stakeholders (such as the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and other non-

governmental organizations) during the planning process will essentially decide whether

integration or segregation occurs during a disaster response. Such disaster planning will

ultimately determine if any segment of the special needs population could suffer a civil

rights violation (FEMA, 2004; Disability Rights Advocates, 2010; United States District

Court Southern District of New York, 2013; Disability Rights Advocates, 2014).

ADA law is a civil rights regulation which forbids discrimination based on

disability (ADA, 2008). ADA (2008) law requires that reasonable accommodations be

made to prevent this discrimination, to provide inclusiveness in the workplace and in this

application during a disaster (FEMA, 2004). ADA (2008) law applies to all business with

more than 15 employees and all government agencies, including local emergency

management agencies. Lack of preparedness on the emergency management agencies’

part has led to litigation against local governments (FEMA, 2004; United States District

Court of Eastern Louisiana, 2006; Disability Rights Advocates, 2010; United States

District Court Southern District of New York, 2013; Disability Rights Advocates, 2014).

Communities Actively Living Independent and Free (CALIF) is an advocacy

organization for individuals living independently with disabilities. This organization filed

a lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles in 2009. The suit contended that the City of Los

Angeles had broken federal and state law by inadequately planning for the needs of

people with disabilities during disasters (Lazo, 2013). Multiple lawsuits were also filed

against the City of New York for the city’s inadequate planning for special needs

populations during Superstorm Sandy in 2012, and again for Hurricane Irene 2005

(United States District Court Southern District of New York, 2013). A similar case of

litigation is currently being heard in Washington DC, claiming that the District of

Columbia does not sufficiently preplan for special needs populations (Disability Rights

Advocates, 2014). In all four lawsuits it was alleged that the respective cities failed to

plan or provide inclusive sheltering for people with special needs (along with other

issues), thereby violating the civil rights of those with special needs.

The NCOD (2008) found that those with special needs were regularly overlooked

or disregarded during Hurricane Katrina when it came to sheltering. Historical

documentation provided evidence that even FEMA was sued and lost over sheltering

needs of special needs populations. In the case of Brou et al. v Federal Emergency

Management Agency, FEMA failed to provide handicap accessible temporary trailers

that met the needs of disabled individuals after Hurricane Katrina (U.S. District Court of

Eastern Louisiana, 2006).

Planning for special needs population in general population shelters has been an

ongoing problem (FEMA, 2010). These sheltering gaps have resulted in unequal

treatment and the failure to provide equal and identical services (FEMA, 2010). FEMA

(2010) contends that in some instances, special needs populations have been denied

access to general population shelters and improperly relocated to other settings such as

special needs shelters, medical shelters, nursing homes, or hotels and motels. Special

needs populations have in some cases been disconnected from other support services

(such as aides, nurses, and caretakers) that they so desperately need when being sheltered

(CSLIC, 2004; FEMA 2010).

Special needs populations and sheltering facilities considerations should include

physical ease of access, numerous methods of effective communications, comprehensive

availability to and of services, and reasonable accommodations and modifications of

programs at no charge to the special needs individual (DHS, 2007; FEMA, 2010). The

DOJ (2007) ADA checklist for emergency shelters states “Elements such as a shelter’s

parking, walkway to the entrance, toilets, bathing facilities, drinking fountains, sleeping

area, food distribution and dining quarters, first aid/medical unit, emergency notification

system, and other activity and recreation areas need to be examined for barriers.”

(Chapter 7 addendum 2b). FEMA (2010) and DHS (2007) state that the shelters must

provide safety, comfort, food, medical care, and the support of family and friends in order

to meet ADA requirements. To provide these sheltering requirements in time of a

disaster, preplanning is essential (DOJ, 2007). A lack of preplanning could lead to life-

threatening circumstances in a disaster shelter, especially for those who require the use of

durable medical equipment and life sustaining medications (FEMA, 2010).

FEMA (2010) found that the best person to determine what the sheltering needs

of a special needs individual would be the person themselves. Through identifying and

preplanning for the special needs population and their needs, the emergency management

agency can better provide for their requirements when the need arises. In disaster

sheltering, just as in all phases of emergency management, it cannot be a “one size fits

all” plan (FEMA, 2010, p. 10). Each individual is unique, and each person with a special

need will also have distinctive needs that should be met (FEMA, 2010; Jones, 2010).

It is required that special needs populations have equal opportunities in sheltering

to those that do not have special needs (Department of Justice, 2007; FEMA, 2010).

Guidance by FEMA (2010; 2012) finds that the shelter must be inclusive for the special

needs populations in all shelter activities, and that special needs populations should be

integrated into the shelter plan and shelter living. Shelters are not only required to

provide physical access, but must also provide equal access to all aspects of life,

including sleeping provisions, food, and all other needs that are enjoyed by the general

population (DOJ, 2007; FEMA, 2010; FEMA, 2012). Special needs populations should

also have equal access to communications, which should include understandable and

timely communications for all. These communications should encompass those that are

hearing impaired, visually impaired, or that have cognitive disabilities. Program

modifications may need to be changed in guidelines, rules, actions, or processes (FEMA,

2010; FEMA, 2012). FEMA (2010) and the DOJ (2007) mandate that all of these

accommodations be made at no charge. These requirements are part of reasonable

accommodations as required by ADA law (DOJ, 2007).

The DOJ (2007) takes the position that emergency management agencies and

non-governmental organizations should allow the special needs individual to determine

which type of shelter is best suited for their personal needs. These could be a mass care

shelter, a special needs shelter, or a medical shelter. Under ADA regulations, the disabled

individual should be housed in the most integrated shelter that is appropriate to their

needs (DOJ, 2007).

The Department of Justice’s (2007) ADA Best Practices Tool Kit points out that

inclusiveness for disabled populations requires multiple considerations under the law.

Part of reasonable accommodations to be considered for special needs populations should

include revising no pet policies to exclude service animals, modifying kitchen access to

food and medicines, and to potentially modify sleeping arrangements for people with

special needs. The DOJ (2007) found that ADA law requires effective communication

which may include the use of larger print or braille brochures, methods to convert audible

information into readable information (for those hearing impaired), and TTY telephone

access for those that are deaf or hard of hearing. Other considerations such as access to

durable medical equipment, providing access and charging stations for mobility devices,

refrigeration of medicines, electricity for life sustaining equipment (such as ventilators),

food options for those with special dietary needs, and supplies to care for service animals

is also part of the reasonable accommodations that may be needed by a special needs

individual (DOJ, 2007). While there are a multitude of considerations in special needs

sheltering, the quality of life of special needs individuals in temporary shelters is

important (FEMA, 2010).

The DOJ’s (2007) ADA sheltering checklist posits that a shelter must have

backup power. The requirement for backup power for those with special needs is based

on life preserving necessities such as refrigeration of medicines, power for supplementary

oxygen, breathing devices, and electrical power medicine delivery systems such as

nebulizers. Backup power at shelters is also required to provide power to charge batteries

for mobility devices such as wheelchairs and scooters (DOJ, 2007). Jones (2010) of the

Congressional Research Service identified that those with special needs legally had the

right to the availability of durable medical goods, consumable medical supplies, personal

assistance, medicines, and other services as needed while in a shelter.

A loss of electricity could negatively affect the lives of those with medical

dependencies who otherwise lead independent lives (Risoe et al., 2013). Risoe et al.

(2013) found that a majority of those individuals that have medical dependencies rarely

prepare by securing backup power for disasters. This phenomenon was found to be

substantially more prevalent with those from lower socioeconomic status (Gerber, 2007;

Wilson, Temple, Milliron, Vazquez, Packard, & Rudy, 2007; Risoe et al., 2013). During

a disaster, a loss of power could present a quality of life issue. In some cases a loss of

power could present life sustaining issues which could lead to death. This lack of

preparedness on the part of the individual leaves at least a portion of preparedness to the

local emergency management agency.

Gibney (2005) noted that not all emergency shelters are capable of handling

special needs populations. Even medical shelters fail in providing back-up power for

those with special needs (Gibney, 2005). Gagnon (2007) researched the establishment of

disaster shelters in Derry, NH. Gagnon’s (2007) research found that many of the planned

shelters in Derry, NH would not meet the requirements of ADA sheltering. The local

study led to major changes in preparedness for special needs populations in that

jurisdiction.

According to FEMA’s (2010) Guidance on Planning for Integration of Functional

Needs Support Services in General Population Shelters, local, state and tribal

governments are responsible for ensuring that backup power is available at disaster

shelters. While local, state, and tribal governments are responsible, in the event they

become overwhelmed, the federal government has prepared ways to assist them (FEMA,

2010).

The Superstorm Sandy-After Action Report by Gibbs and Holloway (2013) for

the City of New York found multiple issues dealing with power that affected special

needs populations. These problems included a shortage of charging stations for

wheelchairs and mobility scooters. This and similar issues associated with back-up power

can substantially change the quality of life for those with special needs.

Overlapping with the need for back-up power is the ability to obtain and

refrigerate medicines (FEMA, 2010). Research conducted by Phillips, Thomas, Fothergill

and Blinn-Pike (2010) found widespread failures in the entire sheltering process for

special needs populations; this included access to electricity, medicines, and refrigeration.

Hogan and Burstein (2007) posit that after a disaster, local agencies must rely on their

own medical resources for approximately 72 hours. In the event of a major medical

outbreak, a pandemic, a major disaster or a nuclear, biological, or chemical attack, the

CDC can rapidly deploy medicines from the Strategic National Stockpile (CDC, 2014).

The CDC (2014) states that in a Presidentially Declared Disaster (PDD) they can deploy

these pharmaceutical resources within 12 hours of a request. If pharmaceutical resources

are deployed in a PDD there will still be a gap in providing medication. From the time

that the disaster actually happens until the deployment of medicines typically takes 24-72

hours (Hogan & Burstein, 2007). This is why the local emergency management agency

must offer considerations to provide these medicines during the interim.

The Medical Reserve Corps (MRC; 2008) suggests that local emergency

management agencies can make formal agreements with local stakeholders. These

stakeholders would include local pharmacies, hospitals, and medical supply companies to

provide medicines and durable medical equipment during a disaster. The MRC (2008)

also suggests that transportation arrangements to transport those medicines and durable

goods should be part of the preplans and formal agreements prior to the disaster.

Many pieces of literature and research provide evidence that disaster preparedness

is a critical part of ensuring special needs populations are not neglected during a disaster

(DHS, 2005; DOJ, 2007; FEMA, 2010; FEMA, 2014a). The literature documents that

this preparedness cannot be haphazard, but rather must be meticulously planned out.

Preparedness for special needs populations is not a one-size fits all proposition, it must be

done on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis (FEMA, 2010). In doing so, the civil rights of

special needs populations will not be violated and their quality of life will not be unduly

compromised during a disaster (DOJ, 2007).

In order for Emergency Managers to be effective, they need to have knowledge of

the necessities to protect special needs populations and to take action (Kailes & Ender,

2007). The underlying knowledge to mitigate the threat must be gained in some manner.

Literature on the subject of gaining knowledge identifies three basic methods to gain

knowledge: on-the-job training, training classes, and formal education (Department of

Labor; DOL, 2014).

On-the-job training is the process of teaching employees the skills they need after

they are hired (Kelley, n.d.). According to Jagero, Komba, and Mlingi’s (2012) research,

it was “conclusively” found that on-the-job training improved job performance (p.119). It

was found that improved performance from on-the-job training also leads to greater

effectiveness (Barzegar & Farjad, 2011).

According to Schlabig (2009), on-the-job training benefits entry level employees

by accelerating the dissemination of knowledge. This is accomplished by providing

training and experience that is specific to the goals and priorities of the agency (Schlabig,

2009). According to Onnismaa (2008), on-the-job training requires social interaction and

collaboration between the mentor and the mentee in order for the training to be

successful. On-the-job training has been proven to be successful in making many

businesses competitive in the global market (Greenstone & Looney, 2011). Formalized

training is another method for Emergency Managers to gain knowledge to assist special

needs populations (DOL, 2014). This formalized training can be obtained through many

different entities. Formalized training can come from FEMA’s Emergency Management

Institute (EMI), the National Fire Academy, state based emergency management agency

training, college non-degree training, and private or non-profit educational businesses

that provide training (FEMA, 2014c).

Lindell and Meier (1994) found that training increased preparedness in emergency

management agencies. A subsequent study by Lindell, Whitney, Futch, and Clause

(1996) found similar results, especially when training evolved using new technologies

such as computer technologies. Contemporary research by Miraglia (2013) also found

that school Emergency Managers who received emergency management training within

18 months of a disaster were more prepared than those who had no emergency

management training or whose training that was over 18 months old.

Elnaga and Imran (2013) as well as Sung and Choi (2013) found that training

increases employee performance in an organization. This performance increases the level

of competency for the organization, especially if that training is targeted towards gaps in

the proficiency (Elnaga & Imran, 2013). Training becomes part of sustainable

development that ensures organizational health and prosperity (Nda & Fard, 2013; Sung

& Choi, 213). Sung and Choi (2013) provide empirical evidence that training also

increases innovation for an organization.

Formal education is a growing aspect in emergency management. According to

McCewan (2011), an emergency management degree provides a competitive edge.

McCewan (2011) quotes Canton who states that an emergency management degree is

essentially “finishing school” for emergency managers (para 9).

Dr. Wayne Blanchard of the FEMA Higher Education Program has a different

view of formal education in emergency management. In an interview with Thompson

(n.d.), Blanchard states that education of emergency managers is critical in developing

emergency managers of the future. Blanchard asserts that emergency managers need to

develop a broad base of skills which are often provided by formal education. Blanchard

goes on to say “The new emergency management profession needs to work with a

knowledge-based framework augmented with on-the-job training rather than just an

experiential framework.” (Thompson, n.d., para 14). These educated emergency

managers can then provide convincing and strong knowledge-based information to

decision makers, advising them of what the evidence indicates (Thompson, n.d.).

According to research by Ng and Feldman (2009), formal education positively

influences inventiveness and citizenship behavior. This research also found individuals

with more formal education provide a more positive influence in core job performance

(Ng & Feldman, 2009). Johnnie (2009) contends that formal education has transformed

the level of technical and intangible skills of organizations. Individuals with formal

education tend to show greater capacity to bring together superior ways of planning and

designing jobs as well as inspiring subordinates (Johnnie, 2009).

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

Introduction

Methodology provides insight into the validity of the research. The contents of

this chapter include the main headings of research design, population/sample, setting,

instrumentation/measure, and data collection. The chapter also includes the main

headings of data analysis, validity and reliability, ethical considerations, and risk

assessment.

Research Design defines the methodology used to address the research questions.

Research Design contains the subsections:

 Theoretical Assumptions

 Topical Assumptions

 Methodological Assumptions

 Ontological Assumptions

 Epistemological Assumptions

 Axiological Assumptions

 Limitations

The Population/Sample is divided into three subsections. The subheading of

Population describes the characteristics for research subjects to be included in data. Pilot

Study describes the sample of the pilot study and a brief overview of the pilot study.

Sample provides an overview of the statistical population of research subjects.

Setting describes the methods used to gather data with the reasoning for those

methods. Under the heading of Instrumentation/Measures the research instrument and

what the instrument measured is defined. Data Collection describes the way in which

data was collected. The Data Analysis subsection describes the techniques and reasoning

used to analyze the data collected. Validity and Reliability defines the type of validity the

research it is intended to measure and the consistency of the response.

The heading of Ethics Consideration describes the actions taken to mitigate the

moral issues involved with this research. The subheading of Objectivity in Research

defines how impartiality was promoted. Risk Assessment evaluates the hazards directly

related to the research.

Research Design

This research is a quantitative, correlational, ex-post-facto study. The research

employs an Exploratory Factor Analysis utilizing an ordinal scale method of surveying

participants (Creswell, 2004). The sample was obtained from Emergency Managers in the

United States. Emergency Managers were defined as individuals primarily responsible

for ensuring emergency management agencies within the United States mitigate against,

prepare for, respond to, and recover from natural and manmade incidents.

An Exploratory Factor Analysis was best suited for this research in order to

identify positive correlations, negative correlations, and no correlation of significance

between disaster preparedness and the variables of education, training, or job experience

(D. Hooper, 2012). Exploratory Factor Analysis was used to discover underlying

structures in datasets by uncovering shared aspects and shared variance (D. Hooper,

2012). The variables were: the primary level of disaster preparedness for special needs

populations in the research subject’s geographical area; correlations with the years of

post-high school education; the number of formal trainings; and the amount of on-the-job

experience of the Emergency Manager. The Exploratory Factor Analysis was utilized

because it analyzes micro (individual) and macro (overall) datasets based on the criterion

set in the SPSS statistical package (Maydeu-Olivares & McArdle, 2009).

Theoretical Assumptions

Theoretical assumptions are based on philosophical foundations which provide

links between the theoretical aspect and the practical aspects of the research (Labaree,

2013). This research utilizes social constructionism as a theoretical assumption. Social

constructionism is based on the view that the world is without meaning prior to the

person experiencing it and contends humans rationalize their experience by creating their

own social world and ideas of how it functions. Social constructionism provides the view

that knowledge is not conveyed, but actively created in the mind of the individual (Han &

Bhattacharya, 2001).

Topical Assumptions

The topical assumptions included:

 Emergency Managers have diverse levels of disaster preparedness for

special needs populations.

 Each Emergency Manager prepares for special needs populations based on

three factors which help them to construct the world as they see it;

training, education, and experience (including on-the-job experience). The

method by which the Emergency Manager experiences meaning helps to

create the world through their lens.

 There is a connection between the methods by which something is learned

and how learning turns into action.

 The methods that Emergency Managers experience learning will have a

correlational affect in the way they prepare for special needs populations.

Methodological Assumptions

According to Leedy and Ormod (2010) the methodological assumptions

researchers use is the foundation of their research. This research is a quantitative

exploratory correlational design because it studies a virtually unstudied area (Sarma,

2012). Quantitative assumptions regard research as quantifiable; it looks at reality,

actions, and circumstances as quantifiable, and measurable (Velez, 2008). According to

Creswell (2008) the quantitative correlational design is best utilized under the positivism

paradigm of research.

Ontological assumptions

Ontological assumptions are concerned about the human being in social context

and the nature of the world (Bryman, 2001). There are different ontological assumptions

and lenses a researcher uses to view the world as an outside individual (looking in).

Ontology in a social occurrence is independent from other factors that might influence it

(Bryman, 2001). The ontological assumptions in this research are as Creswell (1994)

states “objective and singular” (p. 5). All things are real and measurable, and the

assumptions and outcomes of this research are “real and measurable” (Wilson, 2008, p.

9).

Ontology is based on the theory of existence. This theory sees the world as

something that has to change and is grounded in the Social Vulnerability Theory

(O´Keefe et al., 1976) and the Prospect Theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1986). Like

Social Vulnerability Theory, this research assumes that those geographical areas with the

highest risk have the greatest vulnerability to disaster. It is assumed that individuals make

the most rational choices possible with the least possible risk, as described in Prospect

Theory. This research involved reviewing and identifying the social phenomena that may

contribute to lack of disaster preparedness for special needs populations (FEMA, 2004;

CSILC, 2004; NCOD, 2008; Chicago Community Trust, 2009; P. J. Hooper, 2010).

Epistemological assumptions

The epistemological assumptions of this research are that knowledge is

measurable, real, and socially constructed (Wilson, 2008). The researcher had no

connection to the research other than being a researcher and utilizing a positivism

research paradigm to uncover the truth (Trochim, 2006; Creswell, 2013). Having no

connection to the research is conducive with both Creswell (2004) and Leedy and

Ormrod (2010) who state researchers should have no biases or connections to the

research. The knowledge gained from this research is intended to be objective and

quantifiable.

Axiological assumptions

Creswell (2004) suggests the axiological assumptions are about whether the

research is value-free and unbiased (quantitative) or if the assumptions are subjective and

prejudiced (qualitative). Axiological assumptions in this research are quantitative and

utilize a valid and reliable research instrument, therefore the research should not be

leading and the research should be unbiased. Creswell (2004) contends quantitative

research is a traditional mode of research and therefore has rules and procedures in place

which help to reduce bias.

Limitations

The limitation of setting may present when transferring the results of research to

other settings. It is unknown if the results will transfer to another field outside of

emergency management (Creswell, 2009). A correlation in education, training, or on-the-

job experience for an Emergency Manager may (or may not) transfer to other Public

Safety agencies, personnel, or outside of the emergency management field.

Another limitation is the limitation of prediction. Prediction is the condition in

which a researcher cannot make a sweeping statement that one issue causes another. In a

correlational research correlation does not equal causation. This means correlations in

this research do not automatically mean one action caused another but rather there is a

hint that one that action may have caused the other and needs further investigation

(Creswell, 2009). An example in this research was the hours per week an Emergency

Manager worked. It was shown to have the highest correlation to disaster preparedness

for special needs population but the correlation was likely caused by an underlying

hidden variable that was not researched or not previously identified.

In looking at internal validity, efforts were made to ensure the sample was

representative of the overall population, but there is no assurance it was a representative

of the sample. There is the possibility of some predisposition which separates or makes

some research subjects different from other research subjects. These differences could be

based on their own views, or their methods of engaging in helping others during times of

disaster (Dereshiwsky, 1999; Trochim, 2006; Creswell, 2009).

The limitation of researcher bias was reviewed. Potential researcher bias in

sampling was addressed by incorporating a stratified sample selection using Emergency

Managers in the United States. To help prevent bias in research instrument outcomes and

variable definitions a pilot study was presented to and taken by experienced emergency

managers. Responses were carefully reviewed and remedial action was taken to reduce

bias and errors. Reducing bias in data collection was accomplished through using the

website SurveyMonkey.com, allowing the website to electronically collect, catalog (by

question), and sort data. To reduce bias in data quality, a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of

Sampling Adequacy (KMO) and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was performed to ensure

the quality and usability of the data. The researcher let the results be data driven and was

cautious not allow personal beliefs to interfere with the research.

Population/Sample

Population

The sampling in this research was a stratified sampling of the emergency

management population. This stratified sampling was the subgroup of Emergency

Managers (the primary person responsible for an agency).

An Emergency Manager is the primary person to ensure the task of disaster

preparedness for special needs population is completed. The amount of disaster

preparedness for special needs populations was correlated against education, training, and

job experience levels which helped identify relationships of more or less preparedness for

special needs populations. A stratified sample was taken of Emergency Managers

because they are the primary decision maker when it comes to disaster preparedness for

special needs populations. Using a stratified sample helped to ensure variables were not

missed, and focuses the research based on those variables. A stratified sample also

provides more efficient statistical estimates (Creswell, 2004).

Pilot Study

A pilot study was performed to help identify design flaws before the research was

undertaken. The pilot study was used to help ensure the research instrument was valid

and reliable. An evaluation of the research was performed by identifying that the

sampling frame and techniques were effective, and in evaluating if the research

instrument was practical (Van Teijlingen & Hundley, 2001; Leedy & Ormrod, 2010).

The pilot study was performed using experienced Emergency Managers from the

State of Indiana. The survey was sent to 24 potential pilot study respondents and 14 of

those individuals responded. According to Simon (2011) a sample size in a pilot study

should be between 10-20%, with higher percentages of research subjects taking the

survey showing the research instrument to be more reliable. A minimum of 59 research

subjects were needed in the full study in order to provide useful data. This pilot study

therefore required a minimum of six respondents with an ideal number of twelve

respondents to test the reliability of this survey instrument.

The research instrument was provided to the pilot study research subjects via a

personalized link to SurveyMonkey. At the end of the questionnaire, participants were

asked for comments on the questions in the survey instrument. The pilot study

respondents were asked to provide comments to identify ambiguous or difficult

questions. The responses were reviewed to measure whether the survey provided an

acceptable range of responses and established that the replies could be understood in the

context of information being research. The researcher was prepared to rewrite and rescale

the study for more clarity if needed (Van Teijlingen & Hundley, 2001). The rewrite and

rescale was not needed.

A total of 14 individuals responded to the pilot study; one of those respondents

was disqualified because they were not the primary Emergency Manager. The amount of

viable participants in the pilot study was 22% of the minimum required for the primary

research to be reliable. This was substantially higher than the 10% minimum needed for

this pilot study to be a viable predictor (Simon, 2011). It was concluded from the

responses and feedback that the research instrument was reliable.

Sample Size

This research contained three predictors. Using these three predictors as a basis,

while figuring a small 0.2 anticipated effect size (f2) and a desired statistical power level

of 0.8 while utilizing a p-level of 0.05, the sample size for this research would require a

minimum of 59 participants. This is according to the A-priori sample size calculator

(Soper, 2000).

Setting

Obtaining a viable sample was more difficult than expected. It was originally

thought that working with the most prevalent trade organization representing emergency

managers in the United States would be sufficient to provide adequate research subjects.

The completed and university approved research instrument was submitted to the

emergency management trade organization for approval. This approval process was to

ensure the research instrument was in line with their standards. The respondents were

Emergency Managers from the United States who were members of the trade

organization. In a collaborative effort, the trade organization forwarded an invitation and

a link to the survey to members that met the criteria of the stratified sampling. The

invitation letter was generated by the researcher and asked Emergency Managers to

participate in the research.

Prior to starting the research, a contingency plan was crafted in the event that

there were not enough viable participants utilizing the emergency management trade

organization. The contingency plan called for emails and letters to be sent to local

Emergency Managers throughout the States of Illinois and Indiana. Indiana was chosen

because of the readily available contact information and the State and Illinois was chosen

because it was in the researcher’s geographical location.

In Illinois, no master list was found that identified all emergency management

agencies or Emergency Managers. An email was sent to an Illinois emergency

management trade organization in care of the President of that organization. Because

there was no master list for the State of Illinois, internet searches were conducted to

identify emergency management agencies within Illinois. A total of 102 county

emergency management agencies and 98 city emergency management agencies (or

ESDA’s) were identified and contact information was collected. Emails were sent to all

200; thirty-seven of those emails were returned as undeliverable (bounced). Those with

undeliverable emails were sent a letter via United States Postal Service to invite them to

take the survey.

The State of Indiana had a readily available master list which was found through a

simple internet search. The internet search led to the Indiana Department of Homeland

Security which listed every county and the recorded Emergency Manager. Research has

shown research subjects who have a relationship with an organization are more likely to

participate in a survey (Ross, 2014). A colleague who was a member of the Emergency

Management Alliance of Indiana (EMAI) agreed to ask permission from their Board of

Directors for the organization to disseminate the recruitment letter. This request was

approved, and the survey invitation was disseminated by the organization. The State of

Indiana was chosen because of geographical location and commonality with the State of

Illinois.

Sufficient research subjects were not obtained to provide a valid sample.

Permission to expand recruitment efforts was requested and approved by my mentor and

the IRB. The sampling method that was requested was to search online and identify one

state contact list per FEMA Region that provided email addresses for local emergency

management agencies. Region V was excluded because Illinois and Indiana reside in

Region V. The states chosen by region were:

• Region I- Massachusetts

• Region II- New Jersey

• Region III- Pennsylvania

• Region IV- Kentucky

• Region VI- Arkansas

• Region VII- Iowa

• Region VIII- Wyoming

• Region IX- Nevada

• Region X- Oregon

Each recipient on the chosen state’s list was sent an individual recruitment

email: one recipient per email. In some instances, spam filters would send a reply

requiring an individual response to ensure the email sent was not sent from an automated

system and the researcher complied with each request.

Because no IP addresses or other tracking information was collected, it was not

possible to separate the amount of responses by organization or state. A total of 169

research subjects took the online survey with 18 of those being disqualified and 22 were

included in the analysis but did not provide enough data to find correlations. Five

research subjects were disqualified because they indicated they had previously seen the

survey (as part of the pilot study). This provided a sufficient amount of correlational data

to provide valid correlations.

The surveys were housed and stored on SurveyMonkey.com. The survey was

anonymous with no apparent way of identifying or tracking who took the survey.

Additionally, the geographical location of the respondent was not recorded (other than

the FEMA Region), and the IP address was not recorded. The survey remained active for

30 days.

Instruments/Measures

The quantitative research instrument was designed by the researcher with

comments and review from his committee. The research instrument provided a total of 26

questions; three of those questions (including the implied consent) were disqualifier

questions. These disqualifiers were to ensure those taking the survey were the

demographic being studied. The survey used a mix of closed ended and multiple answer

questions, with text boxes added to questions that had the other option to assist in

clarification and vetting of information.

The initial question (No.1) was the informed consent form. Potential research

subjects who indicated that they did not understand or did not agree with the informed

consent were disqualified while those who understood and agreed were allowed to go to

question No. 2. Question No. 2 was a disqualifier question used to determine if the

individual taking the survey was an Emergency Manager. In order to reduce confusion,

question No. 2 defined the Emergency Manager as the primary person in a city or county

that is responsible for ensuring that your agency undertakes mitigation, prevention,

response, and recovery effort from natural and manmade disasters. If the research

subject answered they were not the Emergency Manager, they were disqualified from the

survey. If the research subject answered they were the Emergency Manager, they were

taken to question No. 3.

In questions No.3 through No. 5, basic demographic information was collected.

The basic demographic information collected included age, population size, and the

FEMA Region of the research subjects’ city or county. The age and population served

was collected using interval data and the FEMA region was ordinal data. The collection

of demographic data was to add perspective to the results of this research.

Question No. 6 used ordinal data to investigate the research subjects’ years of

involvement in emergency management. A dropdown box was provided with a numerical

option from one to 51+ years in emergency management. The response to the question

was scored according to the number chosen. As an example, if five years was selected by

the research subject, then a total of five was added to the score for years of job

experience. The number of years in emergency management was then correlated with the

disaster preparedness for special needs populations score to determine what significance

the number of years in emergency management has on disaster preparedness for special

needs populations. The disaster preparedness for special needs populations score is an

arbitrary number that is derived from the positive responses in questions No. 13 and

question No. 26. The disaster preparedness for special needs populations score of the

Emergency Manager was led by FEMA guidance (2004; 2007; 2014), making this score

ordinal data.

Question No. 7 asked if the research subject had been involved with other public

safety or special needs advocacy agencies besides emergency management. There was no

significance to this question. Question No. 7 was used to direct research subjects to the

next question based on their answer to previous public safety experience and was not

scored. If the research subject had been involved in other agencies, they were taken to

question No.8. If they answered no to question No. 7, they were taken to question No. 9.

Question No. 8 collected ordinal data investigating the number of years served in

five different categories: law enforcement; fire; EMS; a special needs advocacy group;

and the option of other. Each category used a dropdown box with a single numerical

option between one and 51+, with the actual number being the score added. If 51+ was

chosen, it was scored at 51. The answer to each category was correlated independently

against the disaster preparedness for special needs population score. The other option

required a written response to determine the validity of any answers not provided in the

prepopulated list: if deemed a viable answer, it was added to ancillary experience.

Question No. 9 collected ordinal data which asked the average amount of hours

the research subject spent working in emergency management per week. A dropdown

box was provided with answers ranging between one and 60+ hours per week. If 60+ was

chosen, then that response would be scored as 60. The amount of hours per week that the

emergency manager worked may have been significant as it may differentiate someone

who works 10 hours per week versus someone that works 60 hours per week in the field

of emergency management. The amount of hours per week was then correlated with the

disaster preparedness for special needs population score to determine the significance of

the number of hours worked per week has on disaster preparedness for special needs

populations.

Question No. 10 collected ordinal data by inquiring about the number of years the

research subject attended post-high school education related to a degree program.

Research has shown that formal education increases cognitive ability and the ability to

understand complex issues (Link & Phelan, 1995; Mirowsky & Ross, 2003; Hatch, 2005;

Hatch, Feinstein, Links, Wadsworth, & Richards, 2007). The research subject was

provided a dropdown box which offered a range of numbers from zero to 15+. For the

response of 15+ a score of 15 was calculated. The number of years of post-high school

education was then correlated with the disaster preparedness for special needs population

score to determine the significance of education on disaster preparedness for special

needs populations.

Question No.11 used ordinal data to investigate the number of National Incident

Management System (NIMS) classes the research subject had taken. This was done by

offering a multiple choice list of all Incident Command System (ICS) and NIMS classes

offered by the EMI and the National Fire Academy. Participants were asked to identify

every class taken and were allowed to choose multiple answers. The answers provided

were:

 I do not have any NIMS related training

 ICS-100 Introduction to Incident Command System (ICS)

 ICS-200 ICS for Single Resources and Initial Action Incidents

 ICS-300 Intermediate ICS for Expanding Incidents

 ICS-400 Advanced ICS

 IS-700 National Incident Management System (NIMS) An Introduction

 IS-701 NIMS Multiagency Coordination System (MACS) Course

 IS-702 National Incident Management System (NIMS) Public Information

Systems

 IS-703 NIMS Resource Management

 IS-704 NIMS Communications and Information Management

 IS-706 NIMS Intrastate Mutual Aid - An Introduction

 IS-800 National Response Framework, An Introduction

If the research subject answered I do not have any NIMS related classes, then no

points were added the NIMS score. If any of the remaining answers were selected, then

one point was added for each selection. The number of NIMS classes taken was then

correlated with the disaster preparedness for special needs population score to determine

the significance of NIMS training as related disaster preparedness for special needs

populations.

The ordinal data from question No. 12 was used to assess the amount of formal

training the research subject had taken. The research subject was asked to provide a

combined total number of formal training classes taken from a dropdown box. The

responses offered a range of numbers from zero to 300+. In order to provide more clarity

of the types of classes to be included, it was specified to include EMI and state EMA

classes, but not in-house training. If an answer of 300+ was selected, it was scored at 300.

The number of formal emergency management classes taken by the research subject was

then correlated with the disaster preparedness for special needs population score to

determine the significance of emergency management training on disaster preparedness

for special needs populations.

Questions No. 13 through No. 26 as a collective group were used to determine the

level of disaster preparedness the research subject had for special needs populations using

an overall numerical score (ordinal data). Each positive answer that matched with FEMA

Guidance (2004; 2007; 2012) for special needs populations provided one point towards

the disaster preparedness for special needs population score. Each positive answer was

then tallied to provide a “disaster preparedness for special needs population” score.

Ordinal data was collected in question No. 13 by investigating if the research

subject knew the percentage of disabled individuals their agency served. According to the

FEMA guidance paper (2014), agencies responsible for emergency management must be

“familiar with the demographics of the population of people with disabilities who live in

their community” (FEMA, 2004, p. 3; 2007; 2012). This also falls in line with Section

504 of the Rehabilitation Act (1973) that those with special needs should have inclusion;

they should not be lumped in with a one size fits all disaster plan, and they should be

provided equal access to programs provided for those who do not have special needs

(Section 504, Rehabilitation act of 1973; FEMA, 2004, p.4).

Question No. 14 inquires about the written disaster preparedness for special needs

populations plan, and which special needs populations were identified. The research

subject was allowed to select multiple answers from a prepopulated list. The

prepopulated list included the answers:

 I was not involved in creating the special needs preparedness plan or do not have

written preparedness plans for special needs populations

 Hearing impaired individuals

 Sight impaired individuals

 Individuals with mobility issues

 Elderly individuals

 Individuals with cognitive issues (autism, traumatic brain injury, dementia, etc.)

 Individuals with psychological impairments (depressive disorder, anxiety, and

bipolar disorders)

 Individuals with physical limitations and needs

 Institutionalized individuals (including nursing homes, assisted living, mental

hospitals, etc.)

 Individuals with limited English proficiency or who are non-English speaking

 Individuals that are transportation disadvantaged

 Individuals with chronic medical disorders

 Individuals with pharmacological dependencies

 Children

 Homeless individuals

 Individuals suffering functional limitations

 Other

In question No. 14, one point was added to the disaster preparedness for special

needs population score for each positive answer selected. If the research subject answered

I was not involved in creating the special needs preparedness plan or do not have written

preparedness plans for special needs populations, then no points were added to the

disaster preparedness for special needs population score. If the other option was chosen,

then the research subject was asked to specify the answer and it was vetted for being a

viable answer prior to adding a point to the disaster preparedness for special needs

population score.

Question No. 15 collected ordinal data and asked if the research subject utilized a

special needs registry in their job. If the research subject answered yes then one point was

added to the disaster preparedness for special needs population score. If they answered no

then nothing was added to the disaster preparedness for special needs population score.

The ordinal data collected in question No. 16 was used to identify what agencies

and advocacy groups the research subject solicits for names and addresses of special

needs individuals. The research subject could select multiple answers. For each agency

that was selected, a point was added to the overall score. If the research subject chose I

do not solicit names and addresses of people with special needs from other organizations

no point was added to the disaster preparedness for special needs population score. If the

other option was chosen, then the research subject was asked to specify the answer and it

was vetted for being a viable answer before adding a point to the disaster preparedness

for special needs population score.

Question No. 17 collected ordinal data to identify the number of times per year

the research subject provided training or educational programs to first responders. The

research subject was provided a dropdown box with a range of numbers from zero to 49+.

They were allowed to select only one number and the answer was scored by the number

selected. As an example, if the number five was selected, five points were added to the

disaster preparedness for special needs population score. If the answer 49+ was chosen, a

score of 49 was added to the disaster preparedness for special needs population score.

The ordinal data collected in question No. 18 was used to identify groups and

organizations that advocate for special needs populations which were included in local

preparedness training drills. The research subject could select multiple answers including:

 I do not solicit special needs input in the disaster preparedness training

drill process at this time

 Those that have the special needs

 Family members of someone with special needs

 Local advocacy groups

 State advocacy groups

 Special needs consultants

 Other

If the research subject selected I do not solicit special needs input in the disaster

preparedness drill process at this time, no points were added to the disaster preparedness

for special needs population score. If the other option was chosen, research subjects were

asked to specify the answer and it was vetted for being a viable answer before adding a

point to the disaster preparedness for special needs population score.

Question No. 19 collected ordinal data to identify the frequency of disaster

preparedness outreach programs provided to the special needs community. These disaster

outreach programs were specified as outreach that helps reduce risks to special needs

populations. Research subjects were asked to select only one answer from the responses I

do not provide outreach (scored 0 points), every other year (scored at one point),

annually (scored at two points), quarterly (scored at three points), bi-annually (scored at

four points), and monthly (scored at five points). An increased frequency in outreach

programs led to more points added to the research subject disaster preparedness for

special needs population score.

The ordinal data collected in question No. 20 was used to identify special needs

groups and organizations the research subject fosters collaborative relationships which

can assist in planning for special needs populations. The research subject could select

multiple answers when answering this question. If the research subject chose I am not

involved in collaborative relationships at this time, then no points were added to the

disaster preparedness for special needs population score. If the other option was chosen,

then the research subject was asked to specify the answer and it was vetted for being a

viable answer before adding a point to the disaster preparedness for special needs

population score. All other answers (those that have special needs, family members of

someone with special needs, local advocacy groups, state advocacy groups, and special

needs consultants) received one point for each answer chosen.

Question No. 21 collected ordinal data. The question was designed to investigate

what additional notification systems were used to alert special needs populations of an

emergency or disaster. The research subject could select multiple answers from the

following list:

 I do not provide additional notification

 Reverse 911

 Phone or TDY tree notification

 Door to door

 Alerting service

 Mass texts

 Social Media

 Emergency Alerting System (EAS)

 Digital EAS

 NOAA Weather Radio

 Other

If the research subject selected I do not provide additional notification for

Question No. 21, no points were added to the disaster preparedness for special needs

population score. If the other option was chosen, the research subject was asked to

specify the answer and it was vetted for being a viable answer before adding a point to

the disaster preparedness for special needs population score. All other answers received

one point for each answer selected.

Question No. 22 collected ordinal data to investigate the inclusiveness of shelters

in the response area. Understanding the inclusiveness of shelters was accomplished by

inquiring about the percentage of disaster shelters that were pre-identified as meeting the

needs of special needs populations in the response area. The research subject was allowed

to select one answer from a dropdown box. The answers provided were undetermined (no

points added), 1%-25% (one point added), 26%-50% (two points added), 51%-75%

(three points added) and 76%-100% (four points added). The respective points were then

added to the disaster preparedness for special needs population score.

Question No. 23 collected ordinal data to investigate the types of shelters that will

be provided during a disaster. This question probed if the agency allows self-

determination as required under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (1973) The

research subject was allowed to select one answer from the choices of I was not involved

in identifying special needs sheltering plans (no points), separate shelters for only special

needs individuals (one point), integration of special needs individuals into general

shelters (two points), and both fully integrated and special needs only shelters. The

points tallied from this question were added to the disaster preparedness for special needs

population score for that research subject.

Question No. 24 collected ordinal data to determine if the agency had identified

and developed resources for evacuation of the special needs population. This was done

through asking which modes of rapidly deployed transportation had been pre-arranged to

assist special needs populations. The research subject was allowed to select multiple

answers from the following list:

 I do not have transportation of disabled populations pre-planned

 School buses

 Tour Buses

 Mass Transportation

 Ambulance

 Disability or Para-transit type vans

 Medi-transit type vans

 Handicap accessible school buses

 Handicap accessible tour buses

 Private vehicles

 Other

In responding to Question No. 24 if the research subject selected I do not have

transportation of disabled populations pre-planned no points were added to the disaster

preparedness for special needs population score. If the other option was chosen, then the

research subject was asked to specify the answer and it was vetted for being a viable

answer before adding a point to the disaster preparedness for special needs population

score. All other answers received one point for each answer selected.

Question No. 25 collected ordinal data by investigating the formal agreements the

research subjects had secured for transportation aimed at special needs populations

during a disaster. This was done by asking the research subject what types of formal

agreements they have made with local transportation resources to ensure their

participation. The research subject was allowed to select multiple answers. The answers

provided were:

 I do not have any formal or informal agreements

 Verbal agreements

 Memorandum of understanding

 Intergovernmental agreements

 Pre-written contracts

 Other (please specify)

If the research subject responded I do not have any formal or informal agreements

for Question No. 25, no points were added to the disaster preparedness for special needs

population score. If the other option was chosen, the research subject was asked to

specify the answer and it was evaluated for consistency with this research before adding a

point to the disaster preparedness for special needs population score. All other answers

received one point for each answer selected.

Question No. 26 collected ordinal data which evaluated if the research subject

was cognizant of the fact the ADA requires the same comparative disaster preparedness

for special needs populations as is provided to the general public. The response was

limited to only a yes or no answer. If the research subject answered no, no additional

points were added to their disaster preparedness for special needs population score. If the

research subject answered yes one additional point was added to the disaster preparedness

for special needs population score.

Question No. 27 was an exclusion question. It was added to exclude those who

had seen the survey prior to the surveys release to mitigate against bias. This would

include individuals who were involved in the pilot study of the research instrument and

those who requested to review the survey before allowing the survey to be sent to their

association members.

Data Collection

The participants were provided a direct link to the survey and data was collected

for thirty days. The data was collected and saved by the SurveyMonkey.com website.

Data Analysis

Data was downloaded to a password protected file and stored in a password-

protected computer. The information collected was designated to be shared only (when

requested) with the researcher’s mentor, dissertation committee, and the IRB. Data was

extracted from the surveys and was separated into four separate categories (datasets). The

first dataset was a primary special needs disaster preparedness score. This disaster

preparedness for special needs population score was established for each research subject

as a baseline to measure any increases or decreases in association (correlation) between

the explanatory disaster preparedness for special needs population score variable and the

other three variables (datasets). This special needs disaster preparedness score was

calculated by tallying all of the positive responses in questions No. 13 through No. 26,

increasing the score one point for each positive answer. Each of these questions

investigated what actions the Emergency Manager had taken in preparing for special

needs populations. This numerical score provided a primary scale to rate the level of

preparedness for special needs populations based on preparedness actions that have been

taken prior to a disaster (ordinal data). This scale was used for comparison to identify

correlations to the remaining three variables to reveal increases and decreases in

correlation (positive, negative, and no correlation of significance). The other three

datasets which were the years of job experience, amount of formalized training (including

NIMS training), and years of formal (post-high school) education was compared against

the disaster preparedness for special needs population score of special needs preparedness

to identify potential correlations.

The second dataset investigated associations regarding the years of on-the-job

experience the Emergency Manager had completed and the hours per week they worked

in emergency management. The data was used to detect relationships with the

explanatory variable of special needs disaster preparedness score to identify positive,

negative and no correlations of significance.

The third dataset was used to reveal the total number of formal training classes the

Emergency Manager had completed. This data provided a numerical tally to correlate

with the explanatory variable of special needs disaster preparedness. The data was then

used to find positive, negative and no correlations of significance.

The fourth and final dataset identified the Emergency Managers’ years of formal

education. The years of education provided a numerical set of (ordinal) data that was

correlated with the explanatory variable of special needs disaster preparedness. This

correlation was used to find negative, positive, and no correlation of significance between

formalized education and special needs disaster preparedness.

An SPSS software package was utilized, by employing an Exploratory Factor

Analysis to identify relationships between the explanatory (regression constant) variable

to the remaining (predictor) variables and in revealing positive and negative correlations

to the primary variable. Exploratory Factor Analysis finds underlying structures between

variables by uncovering shared aspects and shared variance (D. Hooper, 2012). Those

variables were the level of disaster preparedness for special needs populations (in the

research subject’s geographical area) which was correlated against the years of post-high

school education, the number of formal trainings, and the amount of on-the-job

experience of the Emergency Manager. An Exploratory Factor Analysis was best utilized

because it can analyze micro (individual) and macro (overall) data based on the criterion

set in the SPSS statistical package. This method of analysis tested the hypotheses in this

research while analyzing the research question through correlational relationships.

Prospect Theory is shaped by the concept that people will always endeavor to

make the most rational choices possible with the least probable risk; and will, in most

instances, make the same conclusion when given identical facts. Prospect Theory was

utilized to investigate if Emergency Managers with more emergency management

training, more on-the-job experience, and more years of formal education will have

increased the level of disaster preparedness and more in-depth plans based on a rational

choice. The dataset was analyzed by the amount of positive and negative correlations to

the special needs disaster preparedness score. This correlational analysis was done

through determining if higher levels of education and training led to a cognitive decision

to provide more disaster preparedness due to an increase level of training, education, and

experience (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). As the primary special needs preparedness

score increased, a correlation with the remaining variables (on-the-job experience,

formalized training, and formal education) was identified. These correlations will support

a higher propensity to make rational choices in disaster preparedness for special needs

populations. A lower score correlating with smaller amounts of on-the-job experience,

formal training, and formal education would support Prospect Theory by showing a linear

correlation to less disaster preparedness associated with less training, education, and

experience.

Social Vulnerability Theory states social conditions which determine vulnerability

to disaster are in place prior to a disaster and these factors will determine the possible

outcomes or impact (O´Keefe et al., 1976). This research was used to predict whether

Emergency Managers with more training, education, and experience took actions that

changed the social construction of the special needs population. The change of social

construction should be seen by the action of creating disaster preparedness plans that

reduce social vulnerability for special needs populations. An increase in the special needs

disaster preparedness score for special needs populations correlates with an increase in

one or more of the remaining variables (on-the-job experience, formal training, and

formal education) would align with a higher propensity to prepare for special needs

populations. This higher propensity is based on the Emergency Managers apparent

understanding the social construction of more vulnerability and the action of mitigation

actions taken for that vulnerability. A lower score that correlates with lesser amounts of

on-the-job experience, formal training, and formal education was viewed through the lens

of Social Vulnerability. Increases or decreases in the vulnerability of special needs

persons resulting from the analysis of this research revealed the associations with the

social constructive relationship. This social constructive relationship was between the

three predictor variables and the explanatory by revealing correlations.

Validity and Reliability

Protecting the internal validity of this research was a three-part process. The first

part was to review the research to identify potential downfalls in validity and reliability.

The second part entailed an external-internal balance to determine relationships. The

internal balance is related to the field of emergency management while the external

entailed looking at transferability to another field. The researcher had to ensure the results

of the research were not skewed in an attempt to fit other disciplines or the external part

of the balance. The third part was to use a method that assisted in protection of the

validity. The researcher used an Exploratory Factor Analysis to compare and contrast

multiple pieces of information such as the level of disaster preparedness for special needs

populations enacted by the research subject, their education level, the amount of training,

and their years of on-the-job experience identified in this research instrument.

The external validity substantially increased because disaster preparedness levels

spanned urban, suburban, and rural emergency management agencies. External validity

could be generalized and relevant based on the population size. Beyond the population

size, this research may suffer from an inability to transfer to other disciplines. As is

mentioned by Aronson et al. (2007), sometimes there is a trade-off between internal and

external validity, and researchers occasionally have no other option.

There were two types of validity tested. The first type of validity was content

validity. The research instrument was validated by experienced individuals in the field of

emergency management and special needs advocacy. This validation is the basic premise

of content validity (Creswell, 2004).

Criterion validity is utilized to forecast something that should theoretically be

suggested (Glicken, 2003; Leedy & Ormrod, 2010). In this research, if certain disaster

preparedness measures (outlined in the Presidential Executive Order No. 13347, 2004)

are undertaken, then it could theoretically be forecasted that disaster preparedness for

special needs populations should be increased.

The reliability of the research instrument was evaluated using internal consistency

reliability estimation. In performing reliability testing, a split-half reliability test was

performed by randomly splitting the data in half and testing each half against the other.

This reliability test was performed to ensure there were comparable results between the

two halves (Glicken, 2003; Trochim 2006; Creswell 2009).

Ethical Considerations

The researcher’s role can be considered highly complex. The researcher has

multiple jobs and they must maintain ethics. The researcher is not a teacher, a first

responder, or one of their many other potential roles; they are first and foremost a

scientist. Scientists are bound by the laws of inquiry, which requires an ethically neutral

unbiased approach to research (Dantzker & Hunter, 2006, p. 50).

Ethical dilemmas can arise during any portion of research, and these issues should

always be resolved in an ethical way. A prime consideration is the concept of doing no

harm. While most people think of this as bodily harm, doing no harm extends to mental

harm, even if that harm may come from others (Dantzker & Hunter, 2006, p. 51).

Informed consent requires the researcher to inform the respondents that the survey

they are taking is completely anonymous, voluntary, and is to be used only for research

(Dantzker & Hunter, 2006, p. 53). The researcher must also identify that the research is

based on voluntary participation; the subject can opt out of the research at any time with

no repercussions. The introduction of the online survey provided this informed consent so

the research subjects could better understand the premise behind the research, including

the survey results and that participation was anonymous.

Identifiable ethical issues were lessened by following ethical considerations of do

no harm, informed consent, right to privacy, and honesty with professional colleagues

(Leedy & Ormrod, 2010). A pilot study was conducted with the goal of reducing the

potential harm to participants. Collection settings on SurveyMonkey.com were chosen so

no personal information was collected about the research subject. The website uses SSL

encryption and offers masking of the IP address of the participant which was used when

collecting data. The company provided assurances that this information would not be

used or shared.

An informed consent page was introduced in the research instrument prior to the

research subject taking the survey. The first issue covered in this informed consent page

was an assurance that the research was anonymous and that identifying personal

information was not collected. The research subjects were informed participation was

voluntary, and would be used only for research. The informed consent also identified that

the research subject could opt out of the research at any time with no repercussions.

These actions were added to mitigate the risk of informed consent. In order to proceed

with the survey, the research subject was required to acknowledge they read and

understood the informed consent page. The respondents who did not acknowledge in a

positive manner were thanked for their time and taken to a page which stated they were

not part of the research demographic being studied.

Objectivity is Critical in Research

Without objectivity, the results of the research could and most likely would

become skewed, making the research ineffective and possibly erroneous (Dantzker &

Hunter, 2006, p. 55). Confidentiality and privacy were concerns as well as preventing

harm, protecting sensitive information, promoting honesty, and protecting the integrity of

the data as it may be stored and later used. This research was anonymous and did not

collect information beyond the responses of the research subject.

This research had no interaction with high risk or vulnerable populations other

than a potential of long term policy change which could not be mitigated. This research

did not present more than a minimal risk to the employees (Emergency Managers of a

local emergency management agency) being queried. Those being surveyed were the

individuals charged with protecting special needs populations in a disaster, not the special

needs population itself. The research subject identified what their written plans entail and

what collaboration is in place with agencies that are stakeholders, such as advocacy

groups, non-profits, and various other agencies. The anonymity of the Emergency

Manager was protected through the use of the anonymous settings on

SurveyMonkey.com. Providing anonymity to the Emergency Manager assisted in

mitigating the risk that presents itself in the employee/employer relationship while taking

the survey.

Risk Assessment

This research did not address at-risk populations. The results of this research

could potentially influence outcomes in disaster preparedness for special needs

populations, creating a minimal risk. There are no known mitigation measures that can be

used to protect against future policy change. The best that can be done is to provide clear

and concise data on what the research found and the potential implications (both negative

and positive).

This research deals with Emergency Managers, and there is a minimal risk

regarding loss of employment. In order to mitigate this risk, the anonymity of the

Emergency Manager was protected through the use of the anonymous settings. These

anonymous settings ensured that IP addresses were not captured and the random number

generated for each research subject was not associated with the information they

submitted.

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to present and analyze the data. The collection of

this quantitative data was to expose correlations between on-the-job experience, formal

education, formal trainings, and disaster preparedness for special needs populations. The

data was analyzed for linear correlations using SPSS version 22 utilizing a factor

analysis.

The organization of this chapter is in sequential order as the research and research

instrument progressed. It is organized by topical heading and then by subheading. The

heading of Description of Population and Sample will include the subheading of Data

Collection, Sample, Coding, and Demographics. The subheading of Data Collection will

describe the actions taken to collect the data. The subheading of Sample will discuss the

representative sample size and describe what warranted a feasible or valid response. The

subheading of Coding explains how specific portions of the data was classified and

identified. The subheading of Demographics will explain the age group of research

subjects, a review of geographical location based on rural and non-rural agencies, and a

demographic of the FEMA region that encompasses their response area.

Under the heading of Summary of Results, the data will be associated to the

research questions. The appropriate variables will be connected with each individual

research question with which they align. The variables include on-the-job experience,

formal post-high school education, formal training, and disaster preparedness for special

needs populations.

Under the heading of Detailed Analysis of Results, the subheading of Sampling

Adequacy will discuss the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy and

Bartlett’s test of sphericity. The subheading of Multivariate Analysis will describe the

methods and actions taken to perform an Exploratory Factor Analysis, the tasks

undertaken to make data viable, and what correlations in variables and factors that the

analysis found. Under the Conclusion heading, a summary of the data results and reiterate

key factors in the data will be discussed.

Description of Population and Sample

The sampling of this research was a stratified sampling of emergency managers;

this stratified sampling used the subgroup of Emergency Managers (the primary person

responsible for an emergency management agency). A sample size of n 59 was needed

based on the a priori calculator, although numerous researchers advise that the minimum

sample should be a minimum of n 100 (Gorsuch, 1974; Kline, 1979; Arrindell & van der

Ende, 1985; MacCallum, Widaman, Zhang & Hong, 1999). The sample was gathered

using a personalized link to SurveyMonkey.com.

Data Collection

It was initially thought that a valid sample could be obtained from surveying the

membership of the most predominant emergency management trade organization in the

United States. This data collection method did not yield a sufficient sample; only n 24

were returned, with n 15 of those providing enough information to identify correlations.

Due to the lack of research subjects in the primary plan for data collection, a secondary

data sampling method was used.

The secondary source for data sampling (using the same method) was to contact

emergency management agencies in the States of Illinois and Indiana and utilizing

emergency management agency trade organizations within those states. In Illinois, a mass

email was sent to emergency management agencies. The contact information for these

individual agencies was found on the internet. In the State of Illinois, those emergency

management agencies that did not have an email address found on the internet were sent

a hard copy letter via the United States Postal Service (USPS). In total, 37 recruitment

letters were sent through the USPS system.

Utilizing a personal relationship, a colleague offered to ask an emergency

management trade organizations’ Board of Directors in Indiana for permission to

disseminate the recruitment letter to their membership. Being a member of an Illinois

emergency management trade organization, the researcher requested permission for the

recruitment letter to be sent to the Illinois membership. Both of the organizations agreed

to support the research by voluntarily emailing the recruitment letters to their

membership. This still did not yield a sufficient sample for this research. The total of

recipients was n 43, with only n 33 being valid and useable results. Between the national

organization and the recruitment in the State of Illinois and Indiana, only n 67 research

subjects were obtained with n 45 of those research subjects providing usable data.

Permission to expand recruitment efforts was requested and approved by the

researcher’s mentor, committee, and the IRB. The sampling source requested was to

search online to identify one state contact list with email addresses per FEMA Region.

Region V was excluded because Illinois and Indiana reside in Region V. The states

chosen by region were:

 Region I- Massachusetts

 Region II- New Jersey

 Region III- Pennsylvania

 Region IV- Kentucky

 Region VI- Arkansas

 Region VII- Iowa

 Region VIII- Wyoming

 Region IX- Nevada

 Region X- Oregon

Each recipient on the chosen state’s list was sent an individual recruitment email:

one recipient per email. The sending of one recipient per email reduced the risk of being

considered spam by email servers. In some instances, spam filters would send a reply

requiring an individual response to ensure that the email sent was not sent from an

automated system. Whenever those responses were received, the researcher complied

with the request.

One thousand and ninety eight recruitment letters were sent to the nine identified

FEMA Regions. This yielded n 102 additional research subjects with n 82 of those

providing valid and useful data. This brought the total of research subjects to n 169.

Sample

Not all data collected was useful for this research. Research subjects needed to be

qualified through informed consent and identify that they were the Emergency Manager

for their jurisdiction. In order to make correlations based on disaster preparedness for

special needs populations, questions that related to the amount of disaster preparedness

for special needs populations (questions No.13 through No. 25) would need to be (at least

partially) answered.

Thirty-five respondents of n 169 did not provide enough data to make all of the

data viable. Two research subjects were disqualified from taking the survey because they

did not agree or understand the informed consent. Seven research subjects were

disqualified because they were not the primary Emergency Manager. One research

subject provided no information beyond the implied consent and verifying that they were

the Emergency Manager but their data was included in the analysis to identify missing

data. Twenty-two research subjects only provided data about themselves but did not

provide any data that identified their level of disaster preparedness for special needs

populations (questions No. 13 through No. 25). These 22 research subjects were still

included in the data analysis to identify missing data. Five individuals were disqualified

and not included in the data because they had seen or taken the survey before; most likely

during the pilot study.

Coding

The data was downloaded from Surveymonkey.com into SPSS. This downloaded

data was pre-coded. Prior to performing a factor analysis on the downloaded data, it was

reviewed for coding errors or other potential problems within the data (Field, 2013).

Some questions allowed open ended responses which required coding based on the

answer.

In question No. 10, the number of NIMS classes taken was added together and

labeled as NIMS classes. Each class taken was scored as one and if a class was not taken

it was coded as zero. This was done to quantitatively identify if an increase in NIMS

classes taken provided correlations in disaster preparedness for special needs populations.

Question No. 13 asked for the percentage of the research subjects’ population that

was disabled and offered four prepopulated responses. If the research subject answered in

a manner which identified they knew the percentage of their special needs population

(e.g., 1-25%, 26-50%, or 50% plus) their answer was scored as a one in the cumulative

score of disaster preparedness for special needs populations. If the research subject

answered that they were unsure of the percentage of disabled population, then the answer

was scored as a zero in the cumulative score of disaster preparedness for special needs

populations.

There were a total of eight questions that asked the research subject to insert a

response that may not have been available in the prepopulated lists of the research

instrument. This response was labeled as other. These eight questions were reviewed and

evaluated for the significance and feasibility to this research, then coded accordingly.

Whenever a written response was added but was not relevant or practical for this

research, the coding of that response was a zero. Coding as a zero was done to ensure that

data was not considered as missing data.

Question No. 8 asked what other public safety or special needs advocacy jobs the

research subject had been involved with, and the number of years they worked at that job.

Research subjects were allowed to write an answer in the other response if they deemed a

public safety or special needs advocacy group was not covered in the prepopulated list.

The research subjects were required to provide a written answer and they could choose

the amount of years they did this job from a dropdown box. There were 30 responses that

utilized the open-ended response to provide an answer question No. 8. Two of the

responses were explanations of their service in public safety and one explained that they

had a child with special needs. Neither of these needed coding because the research

subjects did not identify an amount of years, making the coding of these answers as zero.

Five research subjects responded that they spent time in the military, two responded that

they were teachers, one answered that they were a corrections officer, and one answered

they were an office manager/community planner. These nine additional responses were

coded to a zero because their answers were not feasible answers for this research. The

remaining 18 responses were coded as a one because they were valid answers for this

research. The answers included five that were involved in public health or human

services, four that worked for the American Red Cross, four that worked as 911

dispatchers, two that worked in urban or local search and rescue, two that worked in a

hospital setting, and one that worked for a regional planning agency.

Question No. 14 inquired which special needs populations were identified and

included strategies for assisting special needs populations in their written disaster plan.

100

The open-ended response was provided to identify options not included in the research

instruments prepopulated list. A total of 18 research subject utilized this written response

option. Four of the research subjects provided an explanation or provided an answer that

had no bearing on the research and were coded with a zero. Five research subjects stated

that they had no specific disaster preparedness plans for special needs populations, only

preparedness plans for the general population. These write-in answers were also coded as

a zero because there were no specific preparedness plans for special needs populations.

Seven research subjects stated that they were in progress of writing special needs specific

disaster plans but currently had no plans in place. These answers were also coded as a

zero. One research subject stated that they had plans for schools, daycare facilities, and

group homes for those with mental or physical impairments. This was coded as a zero

because the prepopulated list included children, those with physical limitations, and those

with mental impairments and the research subject already acknowledged plans for those

individual in the prepopulated list. One research subject had a viable addition that was

not covered in the prepopulated list by adding written preparedness plans for the service

animals of special needs individuals. This write-in answer was coded as a one.

Question No. 16 asked the research subjects what groups or organizations they

worked with to solicit the names and addresses of those with special needs. Research

subjects were offered choices from a prepopulated list and could provide a written

response when they felt the answer was not sufficiently covered. Sixty-one research

subjects provided written responses with some providing multiple differing responses

within the same written response. Eighteen of the 61 respondents provided an explanation

that had no feasibility or statistical value to this question. These explanations were coded

101

as a zero. Thirty-seven respondents provided the specific names of local and state

advocacy groups (e.g., Council on Aging, local organizations for the blind, and veteran’s

organizations) which should have been answered in the prepopulated answers. The

written answers were compared to determine if they were also answered in the

appropriate prepopulated answers. If it was answered in the prepopulated list the written

answer was coded with a zero. If it was not answered in the prepopulated list, it was

coded as a one in the appropriate area and a zero in the open-ended written area. Eleven

research subjects provided information that they worked with local medical facilities,

public health agencies, doctor’s offices, or other medical agencies to obtain information

on specific special needs individuals. Because this question is seeking to identify

collaboration with other agencies, these answers were scored as a one. Four research

subjects submitted that they utilized energy companies to identify individuals with

special needs. Utilizing energy companies was deemed a collaborative effort so these

answers were coded as a one.

Question No. 18 asked the research subjects what groups or organizations from

the special needs community they included in training drills. Research subjects were

offered choices from a prepopulated list but were also able to provide a write-in response.

A total of 15 research subjects provided a written response to this question. Some

research subjects provide multiple differing responses in the same submission. Six

research subjects provided an explanation that was not feasible or was of no significant

value to research and those explanations were coded as a zero. Five research subjects

provided names of advocacy groups that should have been chosen from the prepopulated

list of answers. The written answers were compared to determine if they were also

102

answered in the appropriate prepopulated answers. If it was answered in the prepopulated

area the written answer was coded with a zero. If it was not answered in the prepopulated

area, it was coded as a one in the appropriate area and a zero in the written area. Five

research subjects provided information that they worked with local medical facilities,

public health agencies, doctor’s offices, or other medical agencies to find special needs

individuals to participate in drills. Because this question is seeking to identify

collaboration and inclusion of other agencies that work with special needs populations,

these answers were scored as a one.

Question No. 20 asked the research subjects what groups or organizations from

the special needs community they include in the planning process. Research subjects

were offered choices from a prepopulated list but were also able to include a written

response. Eighteen research subjects provided a written response to this question; two

research subjects provided an explanation that was of no significant value to research so

these explanations were coded as a zero. Five provided the names of organizations that

were not specifically related to special needs populations (e.g., Colorado State

University, faith-based organizations) so these were coded as a zero. Five research

subjects provided names of advocacy groups that should have been chosen from the

prepopulated list of answers. The written answers were compared to determine if they

were also answered in the appropriate prepopulated answers. If it was answered in the

prepopulated area the written answer was coded with a zero. If it was not answered in the

prepopulated area, it was coded as a one in the appropriate area and a zero in the write-in

area. Six research subjects provided information that they worked with local medical

facilities, public health agencies, doctor’s offices, or other medical agencies to assist in

103

the planning stages for special needs individuals. Because this question is seeking to

identify collaboration and inclusion of other agencies, these answers were scored as a

one.

Question No. 21 asked research subjects what methods of emergency alerting they

use to notify special needs populations of impending disasters or evacuation orders.

Research subjects were offered choices from a prepopulated list but were also able to

provide a written response. Twenty research subjects provided a written response to this

question. Two research subjects provided explanations that were not feasible or were of

no significant value to research so these explanations were coded as a zero. One research

subject answered that they used a website, which was not considered a method of

emergency alerting but rather a method to inform individuals and was coded as a zero.

Sixteen research subjects provided written brand names that should have been chosen

from the prepopulated list of answers. The written answers were compared to determine

if they were also answered in the appropriate prepopulated answers. If it was answered in

the prepopulated area the written answer was coded with a zero. If it was not answered in

the prepopulated area, it was coded as a one in the appropriate area and a zero in the

written response area.

Question No. 24 asked what modes of rapidly deployed transportation the

research subject had arranged to assist in the evacuation of special needs populations

prior to or during a disaster. Seventeen research subjects responded with a written

response. Six research subjects responded with answers that were not feasible or viable

answers for this research (e.g., police vehicles, fire vehicles, National Guard vehicles) so

these answers were coded as a zero. Seven research subjects provided written responses

104

that should have been chosen from the prepopulated list of answers. The written answers

were compared to determine if they were also answered in the appropriate prepopulated

answers. If it was answered in the prepopulated area the written answer was coded with a

zero. If it was not answered in the prepopulated area, it was coded as a one in the

appropriate area and a zero in the ritten response area. Four research subjects answered

that their agency owned their own busses specifically for evacuating special needs and

general population during an evacuation or disaster. Those owning their own buses were

coded as a one.

Question No. 25 asked what agreements the research subjects made with the

identified local disabled transportation resources to ensure their participation in the event

of a disaster. Ten individuals responded with a written response. One research subject

responded with an answer that was not viable for this research (police and fire vehicles)

so this answer was coded as a zero. Four research subjects responded with explanations

that had no bearing or quantitative value to this research so these were coded as a zero.

One research subject provided a written response that should have been chosen from the

prepopulated list of answers. This written answer was compared to determine if the

question was also answered in the appropriate prepopulated answers. It was not answered

in the prepopulated area so it was coded as a one in the appropriate area. Four research

subjects answered that their agency owned their own busses specifically for evacuating

special needs and general population during an evacuation or disaster. Those owning

their own buses were coded as a one because the busses were readily available.

After completing a data analysis on each individual question, the data in questions

No. 13 through question No. 26 were coded to provide a disaster preparedness score for

105

special needs population. Prior to computing the data, question No. 13 was individually

coded so those that did know the percentage of disabled populations in their response

area were given a score of one and those that did not know were given a score of zero.

Also prior to calculating the preparedness score in questions No. 13 through No.

26, certain responses were excluded because they did not add to preparedness for special

needs populations. Those responses excluded from computation were:

 Question No. 14 response one (I was not involved in creating the special needs

preparedness plan or do not have written preparedness plans for special needs

populations)

 Question No. 16 response one (I do not solicit names and addresses of people

with special needs from other organizations)

 Question No. 18 response one (I do not solicit special needs input in the disaster

preparedness training drill process at this time)

 Question No. 20 response one (I am not involved with collaborative relationships

at this time)

 Question No. 21 response one (I do not provide additional notification)

 Question No. 24 response one (I do not have transportation of disabled

populations pre-planned)

 Question No. 25 response one (I do not have any formal or informal agreements)

Demographics

The demographic of age (n 145) was divided into five separate age ranges. One

research subject indicated that they were between the ages of 18 and 30, making up < 1

106

(.6) percent. Thirty research subjects (18.3%) were between the ages of 31 and 42, and n

54 research subjects (32.9%) were between the ages of 43 and 54. Fifty-one research

subjects (31.1%) were between the ages of 55 and 66 and 10 research subjects (5.5%)

indicated that they were over the age of 67. Nineteen research subjects (11.2%) did not

answer this question. The mean, median, and mode of the research subjects were all in

the 44 to 54 age range.

Research subjects were also asked to identify the type of population setting they

represented. Four choices were provided, including rural city of less than a 20,000

population, rural county of less than 50,000 population, non-rural city of greater than

20,000, and non-rural city of greater than a 50,000 population. The data revealed that

48.3% of the research subjects came from rural areas.

Table 1-Population Served

Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Rural City (less than 20,000

population)

36 22.0 24.8 24.8

Rural County (less than 50,000

population)

34 20.7 23.4 48.3

Non-rural city (greater than

20,001 population)

21 12.8 14.5 62.8

Non-rural county(more than

50,001 population)

54 32.9 37.2 100.0

Total 145 88.4 100.0

Missing System 19 11.6

Total 164 100.0

The research subjects that answered the question which FEMA Region their

response area resided were n 150. The mode of the FEMA Regions was Region I (CT,

MA, ME, NH, RI, and VT), yielding 38 research subjects.

107

Table 2-What FEMA Region do you Reside and Respond in?

Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid FEMA Region I (CT, MA, ,

NH, RI, VT)

38 23.2 26.2 26.2

FEMA Region II (NJ, NY, PR,

USVI)

3 1.8 2.1 28.3

FEMA Region III (DC, DE,

MD, PA, VA, WV)

18 11.0 12.4 40.7

FEMA Region IV (AL, FL,

GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN)

13 7.9 9.0 49.7

FEMA Region V (IL, IN, MI,

MN, OH, WI)

37 22.6 25.5 75.2

FEMA Region VI (AR, LA,

NM, OK, TX)

7 4.3 4.8 80.0

FEMA Region VII (MO IA,

KS, MO, NE)

15 9.1 10.3 90.3

FEMA Region VIII (CO, MT,

ND, SD, UT, WY)

6 3.7 4.1 94.5

FEMA Region IX (CA AZ,

CA, HI, NV, GU, AS, CNMI,

RMI, FM)

5 3.0 3.4 97.9

FEMA Region X (WA, AK,

ID, OR, WA)

3 1.8 2.1 100.0

Total 145 88.4 100.0

Missing System 19 11.6

Total 164 100.0

Summary of Results

The data was evaluated using SPSS version 22. To evaluate the preparedness

level of the research subjects, a preparedness score was developed by numerically adding

the quantitative responses of questions No. 13 through No. 25. The preparedness score

would numerically increase as the research subject identified with undertaking specific

tasks to increase disaster preparedness for special needs population as recommended by

FEMA (2004; 2007; 2012). Initial correlations were identified and after extraction and

rotation, factors were identified. A more thorough review of the data will be provided in

the detailed analysis and results.

108

Details of Analysis

Questions No. 1 through No. 5 provided data that was not specific to performing

the factor analysis; questions No. 6 through No. 9 provided insight into on the job

training and question No. 10 provided insight on post-high school education. Questions

No. 11 and No. 12 provided information on NIMS classes taken and formal training and

questions No. 13 through No. 25 provided a disaster preparedness score for special needs

populations based on actions taken.

Question No. 6 asked the research subjects how many years they had been

involved in emergency management. With valid responses being n 133, the minimum

amount of years in emergency management was one year and the maximum amount was

42 years. The mean of the years in emergency management was 11.3158. The median

and mode were both 10. The range of years served in emergency management was 41.

The SD of this dataset was 8.06824.

109

Table 3-Years in Emergency Management

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid 1 6 3.7 4.5 4.5

2 7 4.3 5.3 9.8

3 6 3.7 4.5 14.3

4 8 4.9 6.0 20.3

5 9 5.5 6.8 27.1

6 7 4.3 5.3 32.3

7 8 4.9 6.0 38.3

8 7 4.3 5.3 43.6

9 6 3.7 4.5 48.1

10 16 9.8 12.0 60.2

11 1 .6 .8 60.9

12 3 1.8 2.3 63.2

13 3 1.8 2.3 65.4

14 4 2.4 3.0 68.4

15 9 5.5 6.8 75.2

16 3 1.8 2.3 77.4

17 4 2.4 3.0 80.5

18 3 1.8 2.3 82.7

19 2 1.2 1.5 84.2

20 4 2.4 3.0 87.2

21 3 1.8 2.3 89.5

22 1 .6 .8 90.2

23 1 .6 .8 91.0

24 2 1.2 1.5 92.5

25 4 2.4 3.0 95.5

26 1 .6 .8 96.2

30 2 1.2 1.5 97.7

33 1 .6 .8 98.5

40 1 .6 .8 99.2

42 1 .6 .8 100.0

Total 133 81.1 100.0

Missing System 31 18.9

Total 164 100.0

Question No.7 asked if the research subjects had been involved in public safety or

a special needs advocacy organization prior to being involved in emergency management.

The number of research subjects that provided a valid answer was n 144. The data

revealed that 67.7% of research subjects had prior public safety or special needs

advocacy organization experience.

110

Question No. 8 (a) asked about years spent working in law enforcement had a

value of n 55. The amount of years spent in working law enforcement had a range 45,

with one year being the minimum and 46 years being the maximum. The mean of years

working in law enforcement was 16.5636, and the median was 17. The mode of years

worked in law enforcement was one, and the SD was 11.80201. Because there was an

insufficient sampling which remedial action could not correct, a factor analysis was not

suitable for this question.

Question No. 8 (b) queried about years spent working in the fire service and had a

value of n 84. The amount of years spent working in the fire service had a range 42, with

one year being the minimum and 43 years being the maximum. The mean of years

worked in the fire service was 21.6786, and the median was 24. The mode of years

worked in the fire service was 29 years. The SD was 12.34559. Because there was an

insufficient sampling which remediation could not correct, a factor analysis was not

suitable for this question either.

Question No. 8 (c) inquired about years worked in the EMS system had a value of

n 67. The amount of years spent working in the EMS system had a range 41, with one

year being the minimum and 42 years being the maximum. The mean of years worked in

the EMS system was 21.2239, and the median was 24. There were two modes identified

of years worked in the EMS system, the lowest mean being one year and the larger being

30 years. The SD was 12.34559. Because there was an insufficient sampling which

remedial action could not correct, a factor analysis was not suitable for this question.

Question No. 8 (d) inquired about the years worked in a special needs advocacy

group and had a value of n 24. The amount of years spent working in an advocacy group

111

had a range 22, with one year being the minimum and 23 years being the maximum. The

mean of years worked in a special needs advocacy group was 4.875, and the median was

one. The mode of years worked in a special needs advocacy group was also one. The SD

was 5.99502. Because there was an insufficient sampling which remediation could not

correct, a factor analysis was not suitable for this question.

Other years worked in public safety or a special needs advocacy group had a

value of n 18. The amount of years spent working in other public safety or in an advocacy

group had a range 30, with seven years being the minimum and 37 years being the

maximum. The mean of years worked in other public safety or in an advocacy group was

17.5, and the median was 12. The mode of years worked in other public safety or in an

advocacy was eight, and the SD was 2.52859. Because there was an insufficient sampling

which remedial action could not correct, a factor analysis was not suitable for this

question.

Question No. 9 inquired about the numbers of hours per week the research subject

worked in emergency management and had a valid value of n 142; 22 research subjects

did not answer the question. The data exposed a range of 59 hours with the minimum

amount of hours per week being one hour per week and the maximum being 60 hours per

week. The mean of hours worked per week in emergency management was 27.8873, the

median was 35, and the mode was 40. The distribution of hours worked varied greatly.

112

Table 4-Hours per Week Worked in Emergency Management Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid 1 3 1.8 2.1 2.1

2 7 4.3 4.9 7.0

3 4 2.4 2.8 9.9

4 3 1.8 2.1 12.0

5 4 2.4 2.8 14.8

6 1 .6 .7 15.5

8 1 .6 .7 16.2

10 16 9.8 11.3 27.5

12 2 1.2 1.4 28.9

15 3 1.8 2.1 31.0

16 2 1.2 1.4 32.4

17 2 1.2 1.4 33.8

19 2 1.2 1.4 35.2

20 13 7.9 9.2 44.4

25 2 1.2 1.4 45.8

30 5 3.0 3.5 49.3

35 7 4.3 4.9 54.2

40 40 24.4 28.2 82.4

43 1 .6 .7 83.1

45 8 4.9 5.6 88.7

46 1 .6 .7 89.4

48 1 .6 .7 90.1

50 9 5.5 6.3 96.5

60+ 5 3.0 3.5 100.0

Total 142 86.6 100.0

Missing System 22 13.4

Total 164 100.0

Question No. 10 asked how many years of post-high school education (including

college but not trade school or training) leading to a degree did the research subject

complete. Question No. 10 had a value of n 141 with 23 research subjects not answering

the question. The range was 15 (plus) with no post-high school education as the

minimum and more than 16 years being the maximum. The mean of post-high school

education was 5.9176 and both the median and mode was 5.0.

113

Table 5-Years of Post-High School Education

Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid 0 12 7.3 8.5 8.5

1 9 5.5 6.4 14.9

2 15 9.1 10.6 25.5

3 6 3.7 4.3 29.8

4 41 25.0 29.1 58.9

5 10 6.1 7.1 66.0

6 20 12.2 14.2 80.1

7 5 3.0 3.5 83.7

8 7 4.3 5.0 88.7

9 1 .6 .7 89.4

10 2 1.2 1.4 90.8

11 1 .6 .7 91.5

15 1 .6 .7 92.2

16 11 6.7 7.8 100.0

Total 141 86.0 100.0

Missing System 23 14.0

Total 164 100.0

Question No. 11 inquired which NIMS classes the research subject took. The

valid number of research subjects that answered this question was n 143; 24 research

subjects that did not answer the question. The amount of NIMS related classes was added

together for each research subject to provide a total number of classes taken. From the

prepopulated answers provided in this question there was a range of 12 with no classes

taken to 12 classes taken.

114

Table 6-Number of NIMS Classes Taken

Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid .00 2 1.2 1.4 1.4

1.00 1 .6 .7 2.1

3.00 5 3.0 3.5 5.6

4.00 5 3.0 3.5 9.1

5.00 7 4.2 4.9 14

6.00 20 12.0 14.0 28

7.00 17 10.2 11.9 39.9

8.00 6 3.6 4.2 44.1

9.00 9 5.4 6.3 50.4

10.00 12 7.2 8.4 58.8

11.00 59 35.3 41.3 100.0

Total 143 85.6 100.0

Missing System 24 14.4

Total 167 100.0

Question No.12 asked the number of formal training classes that provide general

emergency management classes had the research subject taken. The research subjects that

answered this question was n 140 with 27 research subjects not answering this question.

The mean was 38.5714, the median was 16.5, and the mode was 20 classes.

115

Table 7-Number of Formal Training Classes Taken

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid 0 3 1.8 2.1 2.1

1 3 1.8 2.1 4.2

2 5 3.0 3.6 7.8

3 3 1.8 2.1 9.9

4 9 5.4 6.4 16.3

5 4 2.4 2.9 19.2

6 5 3.0 3.6 22.8

7 2 1.2 1.4 24.2

8 5 3.0 3.6 27.8

9 2 1.2 1.4 29.2

10 10 6.0 7.1 36.3

11 1 .6 .7 37.0

12 6 3.6 4.3 41.3

13 2 1.2 1.4 42.7

14 2 1.2 1.4 44.1

15 8 4.8 5.7 49.8

16 1 .6 .7 50.5

17 3 1.8 2.1 52.6

20 12 7.2 8.6 61.2

22 3 1.8 2.1 63.3

23 2 1.2 1.4 64.7

25 6 3.6 4.3 69.0

30 6 3.6 4.3 73.3

33 1 .6 .7 74.0

34 1 .6 .7 74.7

35 2 1.2 1.4 76.1

40 6 3.6 4.3 80.4

45 1 .6 .7 81.1

46 1 .6 .7 81.8

50 4 2.4 2.9 84.7

51 1 .6 .7 85.4

70 1 .6 .7 86.1

86 1 .6 .7 86.8

100 6 3.6 4.3 91.1

107 1 .6 .7 91.8

110 1 .6 .7 92.5

155 1 .6 .7 93.2

180 1 .6 .7 93.9

195 1 .6 .7 94.6

200 3 1.8 2.1 96.7

250 1 .6 .7 97.4

300 1 .6 .7 98.1

300+ 2 1.2 1.4 100.0

Total 140 83.8 100.0

Missing System 27 16.2

Total 167 100.0

116

Question No. 13 asked what percentage of the research subjects’ population (in

their response area) had special needs. The research subjects that answered this question

were n 119 with 45 research subjects not answering the question. There were 28 (23.5

valid percent of) research subjects that did not know the amount of special needs

populations in their response area. Seventy-three (61.3 valid percent of) research subjects

reported between one and 25% disabled in their response area while 16 (13.4 valid

percent) reported between 26% and 50% disabled. Two (1.7 valid percent of) research

subjects reported more than 50% disabled in their response area. The mode was the one

to 25% disabled.

In question No.14, research subjects were asked which special needs groups they

included in their written disaster plans. The research subjects that answered this question

were n 119. Forty respondents did not respond to this question. This was a question

where the research subject could leave multiple responses.

117

Table 8-Special Needs Included in Written Disaster Plan

Responses Percent of

Cases N Percent

In written

plana

Not involved with or do

not have written plans for

special needs populations

17 1.8% 14.3%

Hearing impaired 72 7.7% 60.5%

Sight impaired 67 7.2% 56.3%

Those with mobility issues 92 9.9% 77.3%

The elderly 100 10.7% 84.0%

Those with cognitive

issues

55 5.9% 46.2%

Those with psychological

impairments

39 4.2% 32.8%

Those with physical

limitations

80 8.6% 67.2%

Institutionalized

individuals

77 8.3% 64.7%

Those with limited English

skills

54 5.8% 45.4%

Transportation

disadvantaged

68 7.3% 57.1%

Individuals with chronic

medical disorders

45 4.8% 37.8%

Individuals with

pharmacological

dependencies

28 3.0% 23.5%

Children 60 6.4% 50.4%

Homeless individuals 30 3.2% 25.2%

Individuals suffering

functional limitations

47 5.0% 39.5%

Other 1 0.1% 0.8%

Total 932 100.0% 783.2%

a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1.

Question No. 15 asked if the research subjects employed a special needs registry.

The valid responses were n 135. Thirty-five research subjects did not answer this

question. Fifty-five (42.3 valid percent of) research subjects answered that they did have

a special needs registry and 75 (57.7 valid percent) indicated that they did not have a

special needs registry.

Question No. 16 asked what groups or organizations the research subject

collaborated with in an effort to garner names and addresses of special needs populations.

118

The valid responses were n 113. Those that did not answer this question were n 50. This

was a question where the research subject could provide multiple responses to this

question.

Table 9-Collaborative Networking to Identify Special Needs Populations

Responses

Percent

of Cases N

Percent

Group

Collaborationa

Not involved with or do not

have written plans for

special needs populations

46 20.0% 40.4%

Meals on Wheels 32 13.9% 28.1%

Salvation Army 23 10.0% 20.2%

American Red Cross 32 13.9% 28.1%

Faith-based organizations 42 18.3% 36.8%

Homeless shelters 16 7.0% 14.0%

Immigrant organizations 4 1.7% 3.5%

Other 35 15.2% 30.7%

Total 230 100.0% 201.8%

a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1.

Question No. 17 inquired how many times per year the research subject provided

training to first responders on how to assist special needs populations.

Table 10-Special Needs Trainings per Year

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid 0 57 34.8 44.5 44.5

1 37 22.6 28.9 73.4

2 18 11.0 14.1 87.5

3 2 1.2 1.6 89.1

4 6 3.7 4.7 93.8

5 2 1.2 1.6 95.3

6 4 2.4 3.1 98.4

8 1 .6 .8 99.2

10 1 .6 .8 100.0

Total 128 78.0 100.0

Missing System 36 22.0

Total 164 100.0

The valid responses equaled n 128. There were n 36 that did not answer this question.

The range was 10, encompassing responses from no trainings per year (zero) to ten times

119

per year. The mean was 2.2109, the median was two and the mode was one. The SD was

1.7598.

Question No. 18 asked the research subject which advocacy groups or

organizations they include in disaster preparedness drills. The research subjects who

answered the question were n 126. Those that did not respond to the question were n 38.

This was a question where the research subject could provide multiple responses.

Table 11-Included in Disaster Training Drills

Responses Percent of

Cases N Percent

Included in

training

drillsa

I do not solicit special needs

input in the disaster preparedness

36 16.0% 28.6%

Those that have the special need 39 17.3% 31.0%

Family members of someone

with special needs

28 12.4% 22.2%

Local advocacy groups 73 32.4% 57.9%

State advocacy groups 26 11.6% 20.6%

Special needs consultants 19 8.4% 15.1%

Other 4 1.8% 3.2%

Total 225 100.0% 178.6%

a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1.

Question No. 19 investigated the number of times per year the research subject

provided outreach to programs to prepare special needs populations for disasters. There

were n 124 valid responses to this question. Forty research subjects did not respond to

this question. Forty-six (37.1% of) research subjects revealed that they did not provide

outreach to special needs populations for disaster preparedness while 16 (12.9%)

identified that they provided outreach every other year. Forty-three (34.7%) revealed that

they provided outreach programs for disaster preparedness annually and seven (5.6%)

identified that they provided outreach biannually. Eleven (8.9% of) research subjects

120

identified that they provided special needs disaster preparedness quarterly and one (.8%)

research subject revealed that they provided outreach monthly.

Question No. 20 asked the research subject with which groups or organizations

they formed collaborative networks. The valid responses were n 119. Research subjects

that did not answer this question were n 45. The response to this question allowed

multiple answers.

Table 12-Collaborative Networks

Responses Percent

of Cases N Percent

Collaborative

networksa

I am not involved with collaborative

relationships at this time

30 13.1% 25.2%

Those that have special needs 37 16.2% 31.1%

Family members of someone with

special needs

28 12.2% 23.5%

Local advocacy groups 80 34.9% 67.2%

State advocacy groups 34 14.8% 28.6%

Special needs consultants 20 8.7% 16.8%

Total 229 100.0% 192.4%

a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1.

Question No. 21 was used to identify the methods used to provide emergency

notification for special needs populations. The valid responses to this question were n

127. Those that did not answer question No. 21 was n 37. The research subjects were

allowed to provide multiple answers to this question.

121

Table 13-Emergency Notification

Responses Percent

of Cases N Percent

Emergency

notificationa

I do not provide additional notification 5 1.0% 3.9%

Reverse 911 76 14.6% 59.8%

Phone or TDY tree notification 38 7.3% 29.9%

Door to door 45 8.7% 35.4%

Alerting service 37 7.1% 29.1%

Mass texts 52 10.0% 40.9%

Social Media 92 17.7% 72.4%

Emergency Alerting System (EAS) 84 16.2% 66.1%

Digital EAS 21 4.0% 16.5%

NOAA Weather Radio 70 13.5% 55.1%

Total 520 100.0% 409.4%

a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1.

Question No. 22 researched the percentage of emergency shelters that were ADA

compliant. The valid responses for this question were n 127. Those that did not respond

were n 37. The mode of this question was one to 25% answer. Twenty-six (20.5 valid

percent of) research subjects answered that the amount of ADA compliant shelters in

their jurisdiction was undetermined. Fifty-six (44.1 valid percent of) research subjects

answered that one to 25% of shelters in their jurisdiction were ADA compliant and 12

(9.4 valid percent of) research subject revealed that 26% to 50% of the shelters in their

jurisdiction were ADA compliant. Ten (7.9 valid percent of) research subjects identified

that 51% to 75% of the shelters in their jurisdiction were ADA compliant and 23 (18.1

valid percent of) research subjects revealed that 75% to 100% of disaster shelters in their

jurisdiction are ADA compliant.

Question No. 23 explored what types of emergency shelters were provided to

special needs population. The valid responses to this question were n 129. Those that did

not answer the question were n 35. The mode of this question was the integration of

special needs individuals into general shelters. Nineteen (14.7 valid percent of) research

122

subjects indicated that they were not involved in special needs sheltering plans or they

did not know. Two (1.6 valid percent of) research subjects revealed that their jurisdiction

only offers separate shelters for individuals with special needs while 86 (66.7 valid

percent of) research subjects indicated that their jurisdiction provided integration of

special needs individuals into general shelters. A total of 22 (17.1 valid percent of)

research subjects indicated that their jurisdiction provided both fully integrated and

special needs only shelters.

Question No. 24 asked what modes of rapidly deployable transportation were

prearranged for special needs populations in the event of a disaster. The valid responses

to this question were n 129. The missing data was n 35. Research subjects were allowed

to answer multiple times in this question.

Table 14-Rapidly Deployable Transportation

Responses Percent

of Cases N Percent

Transportationa I do not have transportation of

disabled populations pre-planned

12 2.7% 9.3%

School buses 89 20.2% 69.0%

Tour Buses 14 3.2% 10.9%

Mass Transportation 47 10.7% 36.4%

Ambulance 88 20.0% 68.2%

Disability or Para-transit type vans 54 12.2% 41.9%

Medi-transit type vans 21 4.8% 16.3%

Handicap accessible school buses 55 12.5% 42.6%

Handicap accessible tour buses 18 4.1% 14.0%

Private vehicles 37 8.4% 28.7%

Other 6 1.4% 4.7%

Total 44

100.0

341.9%

a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1.

Question No. 25 explored what agreements the research subjects’ jurisdiction had

for rapidly deployed transportation for special needs populations. The valid responses

123

were n 129. The missing data represented n 34. Research subjects were allowed to

provide multiple answers to this question.

Table 15-Agreements for Transportation

Responses Percent

of Cases N Percent

Agreementsa I do not have any formal or informal

agreements

29 16.0% 23.0%

Verbal agreements 53 29.3% 42.1%

Memorandum of understanding 57 31.5% 45.2%

Intergovernmental agreements 28 15.5% 22.2%

Pre-written contracts 7 3.9% 5.6%

Other 7 3.9% 5.6%

Total 181 100.0% 143.7%

a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1.

Question No. 26 asked if the research subject was aware that according to ADA

law they should have the same comparative level of preparedness for special needs

populations as they do the general public. The valid responses to this question were n

129. The missing data in the question was n 35. In response to this question 114 (88.4

valid percent of) research subjects stated that they were aware of the ADA law. Fifteen

(11.6 valid percent of) research subjects identified that they were not aware of the ADA

law.

Multivariate Analysis

Specific data needed calculation and recoding to perform a multivariate analysis.

Questions No. 13 through No. 25 collectively identified the level of disaster preparedness

for each research subject. Every positive answer that coincided with disaster preparedness

for special needs populations added to disaster preparedness score for special needs

populations. Missing data for research subjects that completed the survey was coded as a

zero for calculation purposes. Answers that did not add to preparedness for special needs

124

populations (e.g., I do not have a written preparedness plan for special needs populations,

I do not solicit special needs input into training drills) was scored as a zero. All answers

were then added using the compute variable tab in SPSS 22 to create a special needs

disaster preparedness score.

The minimum preparedness score for special needs populations was 15 and the

maximum score was 67. The mean of these scores was 35.0233. The median was 34. The

analysis revealed two modes, the smallest mode was 24 and the largest was 33. The range

of the disaster preparedness score for special needs populations was 52. The SD of this

dataset was 11.35607. The variables checked for correlations were:

 Years working in emergency management

 Average hours per week worked in emergency management

 Years of post-high school education

 Total number of NIMS classes taken

 Number of formal training classes taken

 Disaster preparedness for special needs populations score

In relationship to the special needs disaster preparedness score, the correlational

matrix identified relationships to the other variables utilizing a Pearson’s r. The

correlational relationship of hours per week worked in emergency management provided

the greatest amount of association with a quantitative linear correlation of r .443 in the

correlation matrix. The second greatest linear correlational relationship was the number

of NIMS classes taken with a quantitative correlation of r .383. Formal training classes

identified a quantitative linear correlation of r .245 and years in emergency management

125

identified a quantitative linear correlational value of r .138. The years of post-high school

education identified a quantitative linear correlational value of r .093.

To evaluate the variables and constructs measured by the research instrument, an

initial Exploratory Factor Analysis utilizing a Principal Components Analysis (PCA) was

conducted. In the initial Exploratory Factor Analysis, six factors were examined to

determine the appropriateness of performing a PCA. A Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of

Sampling Adequacy (KMO) was undertaken to decide how small the correlations were

between the individual variables in the correlation matrix and as a group. The KMO

revealed a value of .712 which is acceptable for an Exploratory Factor Analysis (Kaiser,

1970; 1974; Ferguson & Cox, 1993). Additional review of the data’s usefulness was

performed utilizing Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (BTS) which is used to test the null

hypothesis. The BTS test revealed an χ2 = 97.166, a df of 15, and a significance level of p

being 0 (<.0001). The results of these tests supported the factorability of the analysis and

it was deemed appropriate to proceed with a Principal Component Analysis (Ferguson &

Cox, 1993).

An Exploratory Factor Analysis was then performed utilizing the Principal

Component Analysis extraction method using an orthogonal rotation utilizing the

quartimax rotation method. To determine the number of variables to retain, three criteria

were used: The Kaiser rule (the number of eigenvalues > 1.0), a review of the scree plot

by means of identifying the point in which the plot displayed a curve, and (3) the

conceptual clarity of the items within the factors. In interpreting the rotated factor pattern,

an item was selected for a factor if the variable loading was .40 or greater (Ferguson &

Cox, 1993).

126

The communalities identified that all but one variable in the extraction were

above an h2 of .50. The variable that did not have an h2 of .50 was years of post-high

school education. Remedial action was needed due to the low h2 in years of post-high

school education so post-high school education was removed from the factor analysis.

Another Principal Component Analysis was performed with the years of post-high

school education variable removed. Five variables were examined to determine the

appropriateness of performing a Principle Component Analysis on these variables. No

changes were observed in the r values of the correlation matrix. The KMO revealed a

slight change from a value of .712 to .710 which was still acceptable for an Exploratory

Factor Analysis. The review of the data’s usefulness utilizing the Bartlett’s Test of

Sphericity revealed an χ2 = 93.537, a df of 10, and a significance level of p 0 (<.0001).

The results of these tests supported the factorability of the analysis and it was deemed

appropriate to proceed with a Primary Component Analysis (Ferguson & Cox, 1993).

The extraction method used in this Primary Component Analysis was again an

orthogonal rotation utilizing the quartimax rotation method and a principal component

extraction. In interpreting the rotated factor pattern all factor loadings presented a value

greater than .40. The extraction of communalities revealed variances between an h2 .564

and .786. The table of variance revealed that two higher order factors were sufficient for

analysis and that those two higher order factors accounted for 65.052% of the total

variance.

The extraction method for the Exploratory Factor Analysis was changed to a

Principal Axis Factoring. Changing the Principal Component Analysis to an extraction

using a Principle Axis Factoring yielded a two factor analysis. The total variance

127

explained revealed initial cumulative loaded Eigenvalues in the first two factors as

65.052%. The extracted sums of squared loading and the rotation sums squared of

loadings identified a cumulative value of 41.613%.

In the factor matrix the first factor provided three variables with values above .40

(Ferguson & Cox, 1993). The average hours per week (.711), NIMS courses completed

(.648), formal emergency management training classes (.529), and the disaster

preparedness score for special needs populations were identified as factor one. Factor two

in the factor matrix included only the years worked in emergency management (.473).

Remedial action was needed in factor two because there was only one variable (years in

emergency management), so factor two was excluded as a factor and was retained only as

a variable (Garson, 2008). The reproduced correlations found no residuals with absolute

values greater than .50 (Table 16).

Table 16-Reproduced Correlations

Years

as EM

Hours per

week

NIMS

Classes

Formal

Training

Preparedness

score

Reproduced

Correlation

Years as EM .324a .088 .164 .331 .125

Hours per week .088 .590a .486 .275 .440

NIMS Classes .164 .486 .428a .313 .380

Formal Training .331 .275 .313 .399a .260

Preparedness score .125 .440 .380 .260 .339a

Residualb Years as EM -.005 -.006 .000 .014

Hours per week -.005 -.004 .006 .003

NIMS Classes -.006 -.004 .006 .003

Formal Training .000 .006 .006 -.016

Preparedness score .014 .003 .003 -.016

Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.

a. Reproduced communalities

b. Residuals are computed between observed and reproduced correlations. There are 0

(0.0%) nonredundant residuals with absolute values greater than 0.05.

The rotated factor matrix loaded two factors. The first factor identified the

average hours per week worked (.768), completed NIMS classes (.636), and the disaster

128

preparedness score for special needs populations (.574). This Exploratory Factor Analysis

appeared to be reliable using a Principal Component Analysis with an orthogonal rotation

using the quartimax rotation method and the extraction method of Principal Axis

Factoring.

In testing the reliability of the research data, a split-half correlation test was

administered utilizing SPSS version 22. A split-half correlation divides the data into two

subsets and is then evaluated for similarities (Martella, Nelson, Morgan, & Marchand-

Martella, 2013). Martella et al. advise that a correlation greater than .70 is reputable when

considering reliability but some researchers advise that in cases of exploratory research a

value of .60 is acceptable (Cooper & Schindler, 2006; Garson 2008). In completing a

Brown-Spearman split-half coefficient on the research data, both the equal and unequal

lengths were .660. In the Guttman split-half coefficient a value of .638 was revealed. The

reliability of this exploratory factor analysis was found to be acceptable, but only

marginally acceptable based on the low value provided by the Guttman and separately the

Brown-Spearman coefficients. The validity of this data is content validity, based on the

actions of the research subjects grounded in the knowledge, skills, and abilities related to

their disaster preparedness for special needs populations.

Research Question One

RQ-1) What relationship does the degree of formalized education an Emergency

Manager has obtained have with disaster preparedness of special needs populations?

The years of post-high school education was compared alongside the level of

disaster preparedness for special needs population for linear correlations; there were n

121 research subjects. The statistical output of the initial principal component analysis

129

provided an r value of .0.91 in the correlation matrix. Post-high school education showed

a correlation of no significance as the level of preparedness did not significantly increase

as the years of education increases. In extracting and rotating the data, this variable did

not present any significant factor loading or latent correlation of significance. Remedial

action was taken and this variable was removed from the Exploratory Factor Analysis

because it did not load as a factor.

Research Question Two

RQ-2) What relationship does the completion of National Incident Management

System training and formal training classes by an Emergency Manager have with

disaster preparedness of special needs populations?

The amount of NIMS classes (including ICS) completed was compared for linear

correlations with the level of disaster preparedness for special needs populations using n

121 research subjects. The statistical output of the analysis in the correlation matrix

provided an initial r value of .371. NIMS training showed a moderate linear correlation.

The level of preparedness did moderately increase as the amount of NIMS classes taken

increased. After rotation and extraction, the Exploratory Factor Analysis identified that

the variable of NIMS training had a latent correlation between disaster preparedness for

special needs populations (r .636) and NIMS training loaded as a factor in the analysis.

The amount of formal training classes taken was compared for linear correlations

to the level of disaster preparedness for special needs populations using n 121 research

subjects. The statistical output of the analysis provided an r value of .246. Formal

training classes revealed a weak linear correlation in the preliminary data of the

correlation matrix. This weak correlation was based on the data that revealed the level of

130

preparedness did not significantly increase as the number of formal training classes

increased. In rotating and extracting data, the variable of formal training did not load as a

factor in disaster preparedness for special needs populations in factor one, but it did load

in factor two (r .515). Factor two only included number of formal trainings and years of

emergency management revealing a latent correlation between the two variables; it

excluded as a factor due to the factor being a two factor loading in the Exploratory Factor

Analysis (Garson, 2008).

Research Question Three

RQ-3) What relationship does the practical work experience in emergency management

of an Emergency Manager have with disaster preparedness levels of special needs

populations?

The amount of years that the research subject was involved in emergency

management, years in other public safety (or disability advocacy organizations), and the

average hours per week worked in emergency management was compared for linear

correlations alongside the level of disaster preparedness for special needs populations.

The research subjects that responded to this question were n 121. The statistical output in

the correlation matrix regarding the variable of years in emergency management

disclosed an initial r value of .116. The years of emergency management showed a weak

latent correlation because the data identified that the level of preparedness did not

significantly increase as the years of education increases. After extracting and rotating the

data, the variable of years in emergency management did not load in the factor of disaster

preparedness for special needs populations (factor one) but did load in factor two. Factor

two identified a latent correlation between years served in emergency management and

131

the number of formal trainings taken. Factor two was excluded from the final Exploratory

Factor Analysis because it loaded only two variables (Garson, 2008).

The statistical output of number of years the research subject worked in other

public safety or special needs advocacy groups did not provide a sufficient sampling to

conclusively identify latent correlations. A Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling

Adequacy value revealed a sampling adequacy of 3.77 and remedial action could not

overcome this deficiency. These variables were removed from the statistical testing of the

Exploratory Factor Analysis.

The number of hours per week the research subject worked in emergency

management was compared for linear correlations. The statistical output in the correlation

matrix on the variable of hours worked per week disclosed an initial r value of .427.

Hours per week spent working in emergency management showed a moderate linear

correlation. As the level of preparedness increased the amount of hours worked per week

increased. After extraction and rotation the number of hours per week loaded in factor

one revealing a latent correlation (r .768) between the number of hours per week worked

in emergency management and disaster preparedness for special needs populations.

Conclusions

Data analysis provided enlightenment into many of the variables and to the factors

extracted. A review of the demographic of age revealed that 64% of the research subjects

were between the age of 43 and 66 years old, and a near equal distribution between rural

(48%) and non-rural (52%) research subjects. The distribution of research subject by

FEMA region had an unusually high response from Region one and Region five. These

two regions accounted for 51% of all responses from research subjects.

132

The data from the years involved in emergency management revealed that 48% of

the research subjects had 10 years or less in emergency management and that 52% had

more than ten years in emergency management. Sixty-eight percent of the research

subjects had served in another public safety capacity (e.g., law enforcement, firefighting,

EMS) or had been involved in a special needs advocacy group. An insufficient sample

was collected to evaluate for correlations for employment (or volunteering) in other

public safety or special needs advocacy group. It should be noted that while there was not

a sufficient sample to validly test these supplementary years in public safety or advocacy

groups, an unusually high correlation above a .93 was found with those having special

needs advocacy experience when testing the viability of the data. The hours per week

worked by emergency managers revealed that 49% of research subjects worked 30 hours

per week or less and that 51% worked 35 or more hours per week.

Post-high school education revealed that 58% of research subjects had four years

or less of post-high school education and those with 10 years or more of post-high school

education represented 10% of research subjects. The number of NIMS classes taken was

revealed that only 1% of the research subjects had no NIMS classes and that 91% of

research subjects had four or more NIMS classes. In looking at formal training classes,

61% of research subjects took 20 or fewer formal classes and 15% took 50 or more

classes.

Twenty five percent of research subjects revealed that they did not know what

percentage of the population they served was disabled individuals. Responses from

research subjects revealed that 14% of the cases reviewed were not involved with or did

not have written disaster preparedness plans for special needs populations and 76% of the

133

cases did not prepare for those with pharmacological dependencies. Seventy five percent

of the cases did not have written preparedness plans for homeless individuals and 68% of

the cases did not prepare for those with psychological impairments. Sixty two percent of

the research subjects did not have preparedness plans for those with chronic medical

disorders and 55% did not prepare for those with limited English. In 55% of the cases

research subjects did not have written preparedness plans for those with cognitive issues

and 50% of cases had no written preparedness plans for children. It was found that in

44% of the cases, research subjects had no written preparedness plans for sight impaired

individuals and 40% had no written preparedness plans for the transportation

disadvantaged. In 40% of the cases, research subjects did not prepare for those with

hearing impairments and 35% of the cases did not have written preparedness plans for

those that were institutionalized. It was also revealed that in 67% of the cases, research

subjects had written preparedness plans for those with physical limitations and that 77%

of the cases had written preparedness plans for those with mobility issues. The special

needs population that research subjects had most frequently developed written

preparedness plans for was the elderly with 84% of the cases involved having written

disaster plans.

The data revealed that 57% of research subjects had no special needs registry to

pre-identify those that may need assistance before, during, or after a disaster and 40% did

not collaborate with other organizations or groups to pre-identify special needs

populations. The data found that 45% of research subjects did not provide training to first

responders on assisting special needs populations. The research subjects that did provide

first responder training on assisting special needs populations found that 29% provided

134

training once per year and 14% provided first responder training twice per year. The

remaining 12% of research subjects provided first responder training between three and

10 times per year.

It was revealed that 71% of research subjects do collaborate with special needs

individuals and organizations to include the special needs populations in disaster drills.

The data identified that 37% of research subjects did not provide disaster preparedness

outreach to special needs populations while 13% provided outreach every other year and

the remaining 50% provided outreach at least annually. The research also exposed that

96% of research subjects provided some form of additional disaster notification to warn

special needs populations of impending disasters.

A total of 21% of research subjects did not know how many ADA compliant

disaster shelters they had within their jurisdiction, while 44% stated that between one and

25% of the disaster shelters within their response area were ADA compliant. The data

discovered that 35% of research subjects had 50% or more shelters that were ADA

compliant. When asked about the types of shelters they provided (e.g., separate special

needs shelters, fully integrated shelters, or integrated and special needs only shelters),

15% stated they were not involved in special needs sheltering plans or did not know

while 84% answered that they provide fully integrated (special needs integrated with

general population) or separate (special needs only) and fully integrated (special needs

integrated with general population) shelters for special needs populations, and two

percent answered they offer special needs only shelters.

In 97% of the cases, Emergency Managers had alternative plans of rapidly

deployable transportation to facilitate the evacuation of special needs individuals affected

135

by a disaster. While a large percentage had alternate plans for rapidly deployable

transportation of special needs populations, 16% had no agreement for transportation.

Twenty-nine percent of research subjects had verbal agreements for rapidly deployable

transportation to assist special needs populations in disaster. This means that 45% of the

research subjects had no written agreements for rapidly deployable transportation of

special needs populations in a disaster. The last of the individual questions identified that

88% of the research subject were aware that they were required by ADA to provide the

same comparative level of preparedness for special needs populations as they do for the

general public.

Upon completing an Exploratory Factor Analysis, it appeared as if the variable of

post-high school education had no correlation of significance prior to extraction and

rotation so it was removed from the factor analysis. After extraction and rotation the

variables of hours per week worked as an emergency manager and the number of NIMS

classes taken did load as a factor with the disaster preparedness score for special needs

populations. The variables of years in emergency management and formal trainings

loaded as a separate factor but did not load with disaster preparedness for special needs

populations leaving only those two variables in factor two. Remedial action was taken

and factor two was removed from the analysis.

136

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

In this chapter the researcher will review the data, summarize the results, and

provide insight into the results of this research. The research findings will be discussed,

themes will be revealed, and underlying factors will be addressed. Identification of

shortcomings in the research project and implications for future research will also be

covered. This chapter then provides the closing comments, looks towards potential future

research, and closes with the researchers’ personal reflection.

The Introduction provides a description of the chapter, describes the purpose of

the chapter, and describes how the chapter fits into the overall dissertation. The

Introduction also provides a review of the organization of the overall chapter.

The Discussion of Results will revisit the reason for this research and the research

problem from Chapter One. This part of the chapter will identify the studies significance

and identify key points from the literature review in Chapter Two. It will then introduce

new literature that has emerged since writing the literature review. The methodology

from Chapter Three will be revisited and a summary of the findings from Chapter Four

will be presented.

137

Discussion of the Study Results will provide a theoretical and practical discussion.

This discussion will focus on how the study relates to the research questions and

hypothesis. The limitations and design flaws of this study will also be briefly discussed

but covered more thoroughly later in the chapter. There will also be a brief discussion

about components that are believed to have some impact on the results of this research.

The Implication of the Study Results will look towards how the findings of this

research compares to scholarly literature pertaining to previous research and scholarly

articles. An evaluation of the literature and the results beyond the study will be reviewed.

This section will compare and contrast the subject and will evaluate whether the data

confirms the findings or show if the data fails to relate to previous studies.

Limitations will explain the confines and the perceived design flaws found in this

research; especially those that may have influenced the results. There will be reviews of

what variables were considered but not studied. The impact of the problems that arose

during the research process will also be discussed.

Recommendations for Further Research will provide insight for potential future

research. This insight will consist of recommendations based on the findings of the data.

Future recommendations in methodology, research design, and limitations will be

addressed and problems not covered by this research (but could later be related to this

research) will be reviewed.

Conclusions will wrap up the research providing a final review. The data relating

to the research questions will be revisited and final thoughts about the research will be

discussed. A review of how this study could be used to advance the understanding of the

138

disaster preparedness for special needs population will be discussed and the researchers’

reflections will finish this chapter.

Summary of Results

The general purpose of this study was to identify correlations that might improve

disaster preparedness for special needs populations based on education and experience.

The variables that were researched related to on-the-job experience, formal education,

and formal training. A multitude of researchers and organizations have identified that the

special needs population has been underserved by emergency managers in the realm of

disaster preparedness (Parr, 1987; CSILC, 2004; Fox et al., 2007; Chicago Community

Trust, 2009; P. J. Hooper, 2010; Jagger, 2011; Castenada, 2011; Salinsky, 2012; Risoe et

al., 2013).

While research has been done in disaster preparedness for special needs

populations, it appeared as if the research had been post-disaster (Parr, 1987; Cahill,

2006; Fox et al., 2007; P. J. Hooper, 2010; Castenada, 2011; Lowe et al., 2011; Risoe et

al., 2013). None of the literature that was identified established a relationship with or

tried to understand how training and education was associated to disaster preparedness

for special needs populations. The purpose of this research was to investigate if there

were correlations between formal on-the-job experience, education, formal training, and

disaster preparedness for special needs populations.

This research is significant because it has the ability to improve an Emergency

Manager’s level of proficiency in disaster preparedness for special needs populations.

The improved proficiency could lead to reduced death and injury by identifying the types

of training and education that will positively affect disaster preparedness for special

139

needs populations. The potential to reduce mental and physical suffering caused by

disaster is also significant. This reduction of suffering could be accomplished by

identifying the types of training and education that could increase comprehensive disaster

preparedness being in place for special needs populations. This research could also lead

to improved preparedness for elderly and nursing home patients that are often

underserved in disaster preparedness (Kailes, 2008; Roth, 2010; Heldman, 2011; Jagger,

2012). Improving disaster preparedness for special needs populations has the capacity to

affect not only those affected by disabilities, but also their caregivers and family

members (NOD, 2009; Nardo-Redmond, 2010).

The capacity of this research to impact the field of emergency management

agencies could be realized in several ways. It could be speculated that the findings could

allow agencies to customize aspects of their emergency management agency to increase

disaster preparedness for special needs populations. Emergency management agencies

could potentially change hiring practices to include more specific training or job

experience based on the findings of this research. There is a possibility that by identifying

shortcomings and strengths in training and education, customized training and education

could be developed to increase disaster preparedness for special needs populations. The

results of understanding how to train or teach emergency managers to be more effective

would likely deliver better disaster preparedness for all special needs populations. This

additional preparedness from customized training and work experience would likely

reduce delays in the response and recovery mode for disabled populations, potentially

reducing death or unnecessary injury (Cahill, 2006). Improved training and education of

emergency managers could also positively affect special needs caregivers, family

140

members, and advocacy groups who often are left in an indeterminate state when disaster

strikes and preparedness plans are lacking (Ross, 2010).

New literature has been released since beginning this research. Estimates revealed

the special needs community is predicted to have substantial increases in the number of

disabled individuals in the near future (Scommegna, 2013; Lesser, 2015). It was

identified that Emergency Managers not only need to prepare for those that have been

disabled (and know their needs), but also those that are newly disabled who are unaware

of their needs such as recent amputations and traumatic brain injuries (Lesser, 2015).

Emergency Managers also need to prepare for individuals who have special needs but do

not self-identify as such (Brittingham & Goepfert, 2014). Recent literature affirms that

disaster preparedness for special needs populations has still proven to be deficient

(Caring for special needs during disaster, 2010; Robinson, Gerber, Eller, & Gall, 2013;

Diament, 2014). This lack of disaster preparedness can also be seen within this research.

Recent literature acknowledged that a key factor in disaster preparedness is

collaboration (Heaton, 2014). According to Heaton (2014), collaboration is often born out

of outreach programs (Heaton, 2014). These outreach programs often lead to

collaboration in not only disaster planning for special needs population, but also a better

overall comprehensive disaster plan (Heaton, 2014). As was mentioned in chapter 2,

FEMA (2012) suggests that an overall collaboration effort with those that have special

needs, their family members, and special needs advocacy groups leads to increased

disaster preparedness through identifying intricacies that are generally not known by the

general population. J. Brown (2015) reviewed the changes in Douglass County (KS), who

in 1997 began collaborating and forming coalitions to meet the needs of special needs

141

populations in disasters. These collaborations and coalitions led to improved disaster

preparedness and continuity of operations by incorporating advocacy groups that could

help meet special needs requirements when disasters strike (J. Brown, 2015). Tidman

(2015) also found that regular and consistent standardized training leads to better

collaboration.

Other recent literature focuses on training, education, and job experience.

Spiewak (2014) quotes Drabek (2010) by identifying that professionalism in emergency

management comes through “training, workshops, seminars, and formal education” (para.

5). Bergeron (2015) identifies that the field of emergency management is a relatively new

discipline. Education and training has been an important part of maturing the field over

the last 10 years; creating inventive and enthusiastic scholars in emergency management.

Individuals with education and training often lack real-life experience unless they have

previously served in some type of public safety capacity (Bergeron, 2015). Regardless of

the method being used to gain understanding the technique used needs to provide

knowledge that leads to behavior change (Rudner, 2015).

To better understand the underlying factors that lead to behavior change, the

methodology of this research was a quantitative correlational study utilizing an

Exploratory Factor Analysis. The research approach used the primary variable of disaster

preparedness for special needs populations. All other variables were measured against the

primary variable. The level of preparedness was evaluated based on FEMA reference

guide entitled: Accommodating Individuals With Disabilities In The Provision Of

Disaster Mass Care, Housing, And Human Services (2007). The reference guide is

grounded on the legal requirement of H.R. 5441 (PL 109-295) Section 689: Planning

142

assumptions for individuals with disabilities (FEMA, 2007), Executive Order No. 13347,

(2004) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (1973).

A numerical score was derived by adding one point to each positive answer that

led to disaster preparedness for special needs population: This was based on the level of

adherence to the FEMA reference guide (2007). This special needs preparedness score

served as a benchmark that the remaining variables were measured against. Those

Emergency Managers with preparedness plans more in line with the FEMA reference

guide (2007) received higher scores in disaster preparedness for special needs

populations. The individual variables reviewed were training, education, and on-the-job

experience that were analyzed using an Exploratory Factor Analysis.

In separating the elements of this research, the education variable was based on

the number of years related to post-high school education of the Emergency Manager.

The training variable was separated through two different types of training: formalized

training and on-the-job experience. Formalized training included Emergency

Management Institute (EMI) training, state trainings, and various private trainings. In-

house trainings that were done within the Emergency Managers agency were excluded

from formalized training. A separate variable identified National Incident Management

System (NIMS) classes. These trainings were quantified by the number of formalized

trainings or NIMS training that the emergency manager had taken. The third and final

variable would be on-the-job training that was measured by the amount of time the

individual had been on the job and separately the number of hour per week they work in

only emergency management.

143

The assessment of Social Vulnerability Theory was tested by identifying the level

of disaster preparedness for special needs populations the Emergency Manager had

undertaken. It was assumed that those with more disaster preparedness for special needs

populations would find that population more vulnerable based on their training and

education. This is possible through what is identified as a “social leveler” (Enarson, 2007

p.206). These social levelers are often preparedness measures which serve to level the

field in survival for special needs populations during a disaster, providing relatively

comparative preparedness measures as is provided to the general population.

The assessment of education, training and experience also tested the Prospect

Theory as described by Tversky and Kahneman (1981). Prospect Theory submits that the

manner in which something is offered influences the choices that individuals make.

Prospect Theory is shaped by the concept that people will always endeavor to make the

most rational choices possible and will (in most instances) make the same conclusion

when given identical facts. In testing this theory, it was assumed that emergency

managers with more standardized training and education would be more capable of

making more informed decisions in disaster preparedness for special needs populations:

therefore they should be more prepared than those who have less training and education.

To evaluate the level of preparedness to test the Prospect Theory, disaster preparedness

for special needs population was tested through identifying the level of preparedness of

the Emergency Manager. This level of preparedness was based on the disaster

preparedness for special needs population measures taken in line with FEMA guidance

(2007). This research would support this theory if emergency planners with less

education, training, and experience had less disaster preparedness for special needs

144

populations and those with more education, training, and experience had more disaster

preparedness for special needs populations.

A review of the data analysis provided insight into many of the variables

(independently and as a collection) as well as the extracted factors. A review of the

demographics revealed that 64% of the research subjects were between the age of 43 and

66 years old. A near equal distribution was seen between research subjects that worked in

rural (48%) and non-rural (52%) communities. The distribution of research subject by

FEMA region had an unusually high response from Region one and Region five. Of the

10 regions, two regions accounted for 51% of all responses.

Data from the years involved in emergency management revealed that 48% of the

research subjects had 10 years or less in emergency management and that 52% had more

than ten years in emergency management. Sixty-eight percent of the research subjects

served in another public safety capacity (e.g., law enforcement, firefighting, EMS) or had

worked in a special needs advocacy group. It should be noted that an insufficient sample

size was collected to reliably evaluate working in ancillary public safety or special needs

advocacy groups. While there was not a sufficient sample size to reliably test this

ancillary work, an unusually high correlation above r .93 was found when testing the

viability of the data. The hours per week worked by emergency managers revealed that

49% of research subjects worked 30 hours per week or less and that 51% worked 35 or

more hours per week.

Data revealed that 58% of research subjects had four years or less of post-high

school education and those with 10 years or more of post-high school education

represented 10% of participants. The variable of NIMS classes taken revealed that one

145

percent of research subjects had taken no NIMS classes and that 91% of research subjects

had taken four or more NIMS classes. Data from formal training classes found that 61%

of research subjects took 20 or fewer formal classes and 15% took 50 or more classes.

Twenty-five percent of research subjects conceded that they did not know what

percentage of the population they served had disabilities. The data revealed that in 14%

of the cases Emergency Managers were not involved with or did not have written disaster

preparedness plans for special needs populations. In 76% of the cases, disaster plans did

not include those with pharmacological dependencies. Seventy-five percent of the cases

reviewed did not have written preparedness plans for homeless individuals and 68% of

the cases did not prepare for those with psychological impairments. The data revealed

that 62% of the research subjects did not have preparedness plans for those with chronic

medical disorders. In 55% of the cases, research subjects did not have written

preparedness plans for those with cognitive issues and 50% of cases had no written

preparedness plans for children. It was found that in 44% of the cases research subjects

had no written preparedness plans for sight impaired individuals and 40% had no written

preparedness plans for the transportation disadvantaged. In 40% of the cases reviewed,

research subjects did not prepare for those with hearing impairments and 35% of the

cases reviewed did not have written preparedness plans for those that were

institutionalized. Data found that in 33% of the cases had written preparedness plans for

those with physical limitations and 23% of the cases reviewed had no written

preparedness plans for those with mobility issues. The special needs population that

research subjects had most frequently developed written preparedness plans for was the

elderly with 84% of the cases reviewed having written disaster plans.

146

The data highlighted that 57% of research subjects had no special needs registry

to pre-identify those that may need assistance in a disaster and 40% did not collaborate

with other organizations or groups to pre-identify special needs populations. It was found

that 45% of research subjects did not train first responders in how to assist special needs

populations in a disaster. Those that did provide first responder training in how to assist

special needs populations disclosed that 29% provided training once per year.

The data discovered that 71% of research subjects collaborated with special needs

organizations and individuals to include them in disaster drills. It was acknowledged by

37% of research subjects that they did not provide disaster preparedness outreach to

special needs populations while 13% provided outreach every other year. The research

also exposed that 96% of Emergency Managers provided some form of additional

disaster notification to warn special needs populations of impending disasters.

A total of 21% of research subjects did not know how many ADA compliant

disaster shelters they had within their jurisdiction, while 44% stated that their jurisdiction

had between one and 25% of the disaster shelters within their response area that were

ADA compliant. Thirty five percent of research subjects had shelters that were 50% or

more compliant with ADA. When asked about the types of shelters Emergency Managers

provided (e.g., separate special needs shelter, fully integrated shelters, or integrated and

special needs only shelters), 15% stated they were not involved in special needs

sheltering plans while 84% answered that they provided fully integrated (both special

needs and general population) or separate and fully integrated shelters for special needs

populations, and two percent answered they offered special needs shelters separate from

the general public.

147

Ninety-seven percent of the cases had alternative plans of rapidly deployable

transportation for evacuation of special needs individuals affected by a disaster. While a

large percentage had alternate plans for rapidly deployable transportation of special needs

populations, 16% had no agreement for transportation. Twenty nine percent of research

subjects had verbal agreements for rapidly deployable transportation to assist special

needs populations in disaster. This means that 45% of the research subjects had no

written agreements for rapidly deployable transportation to evacuate the special needs

populations in a disaster. It was also acknowledged that 88% of the research subjects

were aware that they were required by ADA law to provide the same comparative level

of preparedness for special needs populations as they do for the general public.

After analyzing the data using an Exploratory Factor Analysis it appeared that the

variable of post-high school education had no correlation of significance, so it was

removed from the factor analysis. After extraction and rotation the variables of hours per

week worked as an emergency manager and the number of NIMS classes taken loaded as

a factor with the disaster preparedness for special needs populations. The variables of

years in emergency management and formal trainings loaded as a separate factor but did

not load with disaster preparedness for special needs populations. The variables that were

revealed as a correlational factor in disaster preparedness for special needs populations

were hours per week worked in emergency management and the number of NIMS classes

taken.

Discussion of Results

148

The discussion of results discusses the interpretation of the overall results found

by analyzing the data using an Exploratory Factor Analysis. After data analysis, it was

obvious that some variables had strong linear correlations and were factors in disaster

preparedness for special needs population. It was also obvious that some variables did not

factor into disaster preparedness for special needs population.

A variable that did not factor into disaster preparedness for special needs

populations was the amount of years working in emergency management. The data from

the Exploratory Factor Analysis provided no correlation of significance to years served in

emergency management (r .138) with disaster preparedness for special needs population.

The variable of post-high school education (r .093) revealed no correlation of

significance to the disaster preparedness for special needs populations and neither did the

amount of formal trainings (r .245). Furthermore, none of these variables loaded as a

factor with disaster preparedness for special needs populations. The results of the data

collected for these three variables were interpreted as having no significance to disaster

preparedness for special needs populations.

Three variables loaded as factors in the Exploratory Factor Analysis. Those

variables were disaster preparedness for special needs populations, hours per week

worked in emergency management (.768), and NIMS courses taken (.636). The

interpretation was NIMS classes taken and hours per week worked in emergency plays a

role in disaster preparedness for special needs populations. As the number of hours

worked in emergency management increased so did disaster preparedness for special

needs populations. As the number of NIMS classes increased, disaster preparedness for

special needs populations increased.

149

Two theories were utilized in this study: Prospect Theory and Social Vulnerability

Theory. Each was evaluated to identify if the research supports each theory individually.

The theoretical implications of this research presented mixed results.

The first theoretical concept evaluated was Prospect Theory (Tversky &

Kahneman, 1981). Prospect Theory was intended to demonstrate that Emergency

Managers with more emergency management training, more on-the-job experience, and

higher degrees of formal education would display a higher level and more in-depth

preparedness plans for special needs populations; those with lower levels of learning

would have less comprehensive preparedness plans for special needs population. In

analyzing the results, it was determine that Prospect Theory was not supported by this

research. As training, education, and on-the-job experience increased the level of

preparedness for special needs populations did not increase as was predicted.

The second theory utilized was Social Vulnerability Theory (Westgate & Wisner,

1976), This theory was intended to demonstrate that Emergency Managers that identified

social vulnerabilities would take actions to mitigate these negative effects for vulnerable

populations (Prater, Peacock, Lindell, Zhang & Lu, 2004; Drabek, 2010). It was

determined that the data supports this theory. Those Emergency Managers that had more

NIMS training had increased disaster preparedness for special needs populations took

mitigation measures to protect them. It was also found that those who spent more hours

per week working in emergency management had increased disaster preparedness and

took mitigation measures to protect special needs populations. While correlation does not

predict causation, it was determined that Social Vulnerability Theory is supported by this

research based on the findings.

150

This research, as is common with most research projects, had concerns about

limitations. A limitation of setting that relates to transference to another field was

identified. There was also a limitation in prediction, where the results of this research

cannot be used to make conclusive statements about what the results mean. The limitation

of self-reporting and self-selection (which affects the internal validity), and researcher

bias was also considered. These limitations will be discussed in greater detail in the

Limitations section of this chapter.

This research had some potential design flaws. During the data collection of this

research a potential design flaw in recruitment was identified. A design flaw was realized

in the research instrument during the process of investigating on-the-job experience. The

research instrument also presented a potential design flaw in the area of demographics.

While not a design flaw or limitation, there was another problem that arose in the

research. The problem that presented was the unusually low response to the survey.

Further discussion on design flaws and problems will be explained in the Limitations

section of this chapter.

Implications of the Study Results

The findings of this research did not always agree with previous literature.

Peerbolte and Collins (2013) research found that emergency managers that had 10 or

more years of experience and a higher degree of education showed a higher level of

critical thinking. Literature indicated that on-the-job training improved job performance

and that improved performance led to greater effectiveness (Barzegar & Farjad, 2011;

Jagero et al., 2012). The findings of this study did not agree with Peerbolte and Collins

(2013); it did however reveal some linear correlations related to improved job

151

performance and experience. The years in emergency management presented a slight

linear correlation to disaster preparedness for special needs populations, but that

correlation was not definitive enough to be a correlation of significance. The hours per

week working in emergency management (which is related to on-the-job experience)

provided the highest linear correlation to disaster preparedness for special needs

populations. The data established that Emergency Managers that worked more hours per

week had an increased linear correlation with disaster preparedness for special needs

populations. This correlation showed a greater job performance and increased

effectiveness in disaster preparedness for special needs population. In contrast, those

Emergency Managers that had more years in emergency management presented only a

slight linear correlation and appeared to have considerably less job performance and

effectiveness to disaster preparedness for special needs populations. It should be realized

that the correlations and results are based only on a portion of the overall job duties of an

Emergency Manager: disaster preparedness for special needs populations. The data

somewhat agrees with previous scholarly literature about on-the-job training but does not

align with Peerbolte and Collins (2013) findings.

The data provided no significant correlations to formal education and the data in

most instances is contrary to the literature reviewed. Ng and Feldman (2009) stated that

formal education positively influences inventiveness, citizenship behavior, and creates a

more positive influence in core job performance. This coincides with Johnnie (2009) who

found that formal education increased the level of technical skills of an organization and

increased capacity to bring together superior ways of planning (Johnnie, 2009). The

results of the data revealed that those with increased education did not display more

152

planning, organization, or inventiveness in regards to disaster preparedness for special

needs populations. The data also did not support an increase in job performance based on

the level of disaster preparedness for special needs populations the Emergency Manager

completed. This is not to say that these knowledge, skills, and abilities do not play a role

in other parts of emergency management; the data primarily suggests that they do not

play a role in the more focused area of disaster preparedness for special needs

populations. In relationship to the broader scholarly knowledge base, this research does

not align with previous literature concerning education.

Lindell and Meier (1994) found that training increased disaster preparedness in

emergency management agencies. This disaster preparedness was found especially true

when training evolved using new technologies (Lindell et al., 1996). In research outside

of emergency management, Elnaga and Imran (2013), as well as Sung and Choi (2013),

found that training increased employee performance. This increased performance then

becomes part of sustainable development (Nda & Fard, 2013; Sung & Choi, 2013). The

research data found linear correlations with some formalized training which increased

preparedness for special needs populations, but not all formalized training. A weak linear

correlation was revealed in general emergency management training but it did not load as

a factor in disaster preparedness for special needs population. On the other hand, the data

revealed that the highly specialized training of NIMS had a strong linear correlation to

disaster preparedness for special needs populations. In comparing the data to scholarly

literature, the data found that there were correlations in training, increased preparedness,

increased performance, and development of emergency managers. These improvements

were revealed by an increase in disaster preparedness for special needs populations. In

153

contrasting the data with scholarly literature, this research did not find significant

correlations in all aspects of formalized training using disaster preparedness for special

needs populations as the benchmark; the data did however find significant correlations in

the specialized area of NIMS training. As was previously mentioned, this research is not

examining the performance of emergency management as a whole; the research is

investigating the focused area of disaster preparedness for special needs populations. The

data from this research somewhat align with predictions on training from the larger

scholarly knowledge base.

Many variables could account for areas where the literature from the larger

scholarly knowledge base and the data did not align. Future research is needed to gain a

deeper understanding into the potential underlying factors. The potential underlying

factors will be discussed more in-depth in the Recommendations for Future Research

section of this chapter.

Limitations

This research was not without potential limitations and design flaws. A limitation

of setting was realized from the onset. Setting relates to the ability of research to transfer

to another field (Creswell, 2009). Grounded in the aspect that disaster preparedness for

special needs population is related primarily to emergency management, transference

may present a limitation. Furthermore, the variable of NIMS training is only related to the

field of public safety and some support organizations. While there may be some

generalizable factors, the overall study is based on the setting of emergency management.

A limitation of setting should not have an impact on the results of this research.

154

The limitation of prediction is a limitation in this research. A limitation of

prediction presents itself when the results of the research cannot make conclusive

statements about what those results mean. This research utilized an Exploratory Factor

Analysis. In an Exploratory Factor Analysis, correlations and coefficients are used to

identify relationships between variables. The problem with correlations and coefficients

is it cannot be conclusively said that the correlation and coefficients are caused by the

variable; an unforeseen or variable not considered or noted may be causing the

correlation. Correlations do not imply causation: that is why there is a limitation of

prediction in this research (Creswell, 2009; Leedy & Ormrod, 2010). The limitation of

prediction will have an impact on the results of this research. Because of the limitation of

prediction, this research should be considered a starting point for further research. The

results of the Exploratory Factor Analysis should not be used to provide conclusive

results.

Self-reporting and self-selection limitations were of concern in this research. Self-

reporting and self-selection is described as research subjects responding in the way that

they feel the researcher wants them to, or in a way that positively reflects their abilities

(Yu, 2010). Self-reporting can lead to Social Desirability bias which presents when

research subjects answer in a way that they think is socially desirable (Rosenfeld, 2012).

Self-reporting can also lead to the Hawthorne Effect in which research subjects change

behavior because they know they are being researched (Landsberger, 1958). After careful

review, it was determined that the bias of self-reporting did not appear play a role in data

collection or this research based on research question answers that were consistently

answered, even if it painted the research subject in a negative light.

155

The limitation of researcher bias was reviewed. Potential researcher bias in

sampling was addressed by incorporating a stratified sample selection using Emergency

Managers in the United States. To help prevent bias in research instrument outcomes and

variable definitions a pilot study was presented to-and taken by-experienced emergency

managers. Responses were carefully reviewed and remedial action was taken to reduce

bias and errors. Reducing bias in data collection was accomplished through using the

website SurveyMonkey.com, allowing the website to electronically collect, catalog (by

question), and sort data. To reduce bias in data quality, a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of

Sampling Adequacy (KMO) and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was performed to ensure

the quality and usability of the data. It should be noted that while not initially realized,

the researcher had a negative preconceived notion about NIMS training. The researcher

had a positive preconceived notion regarding formal education and formalized training.

Even though there was a potential for bias, the researcher let the results be data driven

and was cautious not allow personal beliefs to interfere with the research.

During data collection of this research, respondents were difficult to obtain

presenting a potential design flaw. Initially an emergency management advocacy group

was used, but yielded an insufficient sample size. Because of a lack of respondents, the

States of Illinois and Indiana were surveyed also yielding an insufficient sample size. A

further lack of sample size led to recruiting from one state in each FEMA Region, with a

slight bias towards Region 5 because both Illinois and Indiana reside in that region while

only one state was selected in the other regions. It should be noted that recruiting research

subjects by FEMA Region was potentially biased because the states selected were chosen

156

based on readily available information through the internet. These design flaws should

not impact the findings of this research.

Potential design flaws were identified in the process of investigating on-the-job

experience; data only evaluated the number of years the research subject served in

emergency management and the number of hours per week they worked in the discipline.

While ancillary service in public safety and special needs advocacy was investigated, it

did not yield sufficient results due to lack of sample size. When offering an open-ended

question to fill in other jobs (related to public safety or special needs advocacy groups)

the question was under-defined. This led to unrelated results. It is considered that these

potential design flaws should not impact the results of this research.

The research instrument presented a design flaw in the demographics; the age

range and population had too broad a focus. These design flaws led to an inability to

more concisely see the effects of age or population base in disaster preparedness for

special needs populations. These design flaws should have a minimal effect on the results

of this survey. That impact would be limited to being able to investigate the micro data

based on demographics.

While not a design flaw or limitation, another problem was revealed: an unusually

low response rate. When the recruitment letter was sent to a known number of recipients

(1098 potential research subjects in nine FEMA Regions) a relatively low number (102)

responded; only a nine percent response rate. Penwarden (2014) states that the average

response to an email survey is 24.8% but in matters of a sensitive nature these responses

may be substantially lower. While nine percent appears to be a low response rate,

Petchenik and Watermolen (2011) have reported response rates as low as two percent.

157

Average response rates in the field of emergency management do not appear to be

available, making a nine percent response rate at the very least a concern due to the larger

response rates identified by Penwarden (2014).

Recommendations for Further Research or Intervention

Recommendations developed directly from the data.

Future research should build on the framework and results of this research.

Scholarly literature stated that those with more years’ experience had improved job

performance and greater job effectiveness (Barzegar & Farjad, 2011; Jagero et al., 2012;

Peerbolte & Collins, 2013). While the data did reveal a linear correlation between years

working in emergency management and disaster preparedness for special needs

populations, the correlation was not significant and did not show improved performance

or greater job effectiveness in disaster planning for special needs populations. Future

research may be warranted in determining why those with more on-the-job experience do

not have more comprehensive disaster preparedness for special needs populations. It

could be speculated that a combination of lack of funding partnered with increased

demands in general emergency management duties may play a role in lack of

preparedness for special needs populations (Nicholson, 2013; Pines, Pilkington, &

Seabury, 2014). It could also be theorized that preparedness for special needs populations

is not an organizational priority for emergency managers (NCOD, 2009). Future research

should investigate what role funding, increased duties, and organization priority affects

disaster preparedness for disabled and special needs populations.

158

There was a dichotomy between the scholarly literature on formal education and

the data found in this research. Scholarly literature found that those with post-high school

education had improved technical skills, inventiveness, improved job performance,

superior planning, and superior ways of inspiring subordinates (Johnnie, 2009; Ng &

Feldman, 2009). In the more focused area of disaster preparedness for special needs

population, the data revealed that post-high school education had no significant

correlations to disaster preparedness for special needs population. This led to speculation

that the major pursued in post-high school education may influence the actions taken in

emergency management (Able & Dietz, 2015), especially in areas that are outside of the

scope of emergency management. This speculation is based in the knowledge that higher

education in emergency management significantly increased after the September 11th,

2001 attacks and again after Hurricane Katrina in 2005; relatively few emergency

management degrees were available prior to 2001 (Kapucu, 2011). While only a theory,

the conflict between the data and scholarly research should be investigated to identify if

the type of degree an Emergency Manager has obtained affects disaster preparedness for

special needs populations.

Research did not agree with the scholarly literature on formal training. The

scholarly literature found that training increased employee performance and became part

of sustainable development (Nda & Fard, 2013; Elnaga & Imran, 2013; Sung & Choi,

2013). The data found that formal training (excluding NIMS training) did not have a

significant correlation to disaster preparedness for special needs populations. Based on

research conducted by Miraglia (2013), those who had training within 18 months were

more prepared than those who had no emergency management training or whose training

159

was over 18 months old. Future studies should research disaster preparedness for special

needs population as it correlates to recent formalized trainings and trainings that were

taken more than 18 months prior.

In the beginning of this research it was not known what variables had underlying

factors that played a role in disaster preparedness for special needs populations. An

Exploratory Factor Analysis was used to find those factors without assigning a

predetermined structure that could affect the end result (Suhr, 2006). Future research

should include completing a Confirmatory Factor Analysis to test the suitability of the

factors extracted from the Exploratory Factor Analysis (Motsunaga, 2011). Confirmatory

Factor Analysis would load only on one variable and compare to a fixed variable; in this

case disaster preparedness for special needs populations would be the fixed variable (T.

Brown, 2015).

Recommendations derived from methodological, research design, or other

limitations of the study.

A problem in recruiting research subjects was realized in the first two weeks of

data collection. Future research could mitigate the low response rate by taking proactive

actions. These proactive conditions that could increase response rates would include

offering incentives, increasing the number of contacts with participants, and

personalizing invitations (Perkins, 2011). It was originally thought that no incentives

were needed due to the civic commitment of Emergency Managers. In future research

incentives such as gift cards, gas cards, subscriptions to trade journals (or magazines) or

other incentives could be offered, even if offered to randomly chosen research subjects.

The recruitment strategy involved organizations or researcher sending out unsolicited

160

emails which brought about a low response rate. Strategies that involve press releases

targeted at the emergency management industry, personalized pre-survey letters, and

multiple methods of recruitment should be considered for future research (Archer, 2008).

While time consuming and expensive, future research considerations should be

given to surveying all emergency management agencies rather than a random sampling.

This census type survey could help mitigate the low response rates. A census-style survey

could also mitigate the effects of insufficient sample size. In this research, an insufficient

sample was seen when measuring the additional on-the-job experience related to public

safety or special needs advocacy work.

The demographics section of the research instrument had a potential design flaw:

the demographics were not narrowly defined. The descriptive statistics were intentionally

designed to collect a broad range to reduce the likelihood of respondent identification.

Post-data collection revealed that this range reduces the ability to narrowly define the

descriptive data of the sample. In the demographic of age, there was an 11 year span. In

the demographic of population served, four options were given; a rural city (less than

20,000 population), non-rural city (greater than 20,000 population), rural county (less

than 50,000 population), and non-rural county (greater than 50,000 population). Future

research should consider narrowing these demographics to a smaller age range (five year

intervals) and a more narrowly defined population.

In collecting the open-ended response which identified other public safety or

special needs advocacy groups, a design flaw was realized. The open-ended question was

included to give the research subject the option of including relative work experience not

listed in the prepopulated list of jobs. Some responses included closely related work not

161

listed such as 911 dispatchers, American Red Cross workers, and urban search and rescue

teams. Non-relevant jobs such as school teacher, military service, a corrections officer or

an office manager were also listed. Future research should include a more succinct

definition of the information that is being pursued.

Recommendations based on delimitations.

There were several considerations excluded in designing this research and the

research instrument. The primary delimitation involved using the research instrument to

identify where the research subject learned a task. Questions such as where they learned

to take a census of special needs populations, where they learned to include special needs

populations in disaster preparedness plans, and similar queries were delimited. The

reason this line of questioning was delimited is the study would have changed from a

quantitative study to a mixed methods research.

Another delimitation would have investigated what effects recent disasters had on

disaster preparedness for special needs populations. The research instrument included

two questions that evaluated how recently the research subject had been involved in a

Presidentially Declared Disaster, and if there was a likelihood of a Presidentially

Declared Disaster in the next 10 years. The reason for removing this variable was there

would likely need to be a substantial increase in sample size based on a perceived

relatively low occurrence of Presidentially Declared Disasters per agency.

Service animals are an important part of some special needs individuals. An initial

consideration in research was to understand how the Emergency Manager had planned

for the sustainment of service animals in a disaster. This variable was delimitated because

162

it would have substantially lengthened the survey and likely would have led to a lower

sample size.

The final delimitation would have investigated post-high school education more

in-depth. Follow-up questions in the research instrument would have reviewed what the

research subject’s field of study was and the time passed since completing a degree. This

in-depth research into education was delimited because it would have changed the

research from quantitative to mixed methods research and thus would have increased

time and expense in collecting and analyzing the data results.

Recommendations to investigate issues not supported by the data but relevant to the

research problem.

The data from this research found that NIMS training and hours per week worked

in emergency management were highly correlated to disaster preparedness for special

needs populations. In reviewing these two variables, questions arose about what these

two variables have in common. It was speculated that both NIMS training and hours per

week worked in emergency management may connect with collaboration. NIMS training

consists of collaboration and coordination methods (DHS, 2007) and building

collaborative networks is time consuming to build and maintain (J. Brown, 2014). Recent

literature acknowledged that collaboration is a key factor in disaster preparedness for

special needs populations (Heaton, 2014). A recent case study identified that

collaboration and coalitions between advocacy groups and emergency management

agencies led to improved disaster preparedness for special needs populations (J. Brown,

2015). Using this rationale provides a foundation for future research investigating what

role collaboration plays in disaster preparedness for special needs populations.

163

Rudner (2015) stated that regardless of the technique used to gain knowledge,

knowledge needs to lead to behavior change (Rudner, 2015). The data found that the

variables of this research (on-the-job experience, formalized training, and formalized

education) led to knowledge that often did not turn into action. It could also be speculated

that the research subjects gained knowledge but not learning. Knowledge is gaining

information while learning understands what you learned (Les & Les, 2013). Actionable

learning comes from a reflection of the materials and a transformative learning process

while knowledge is based on gaining information, actions, or new concepts without a

more in-depth understanding (Morrison, 2001). Based on the data retrieved on disaster

preparedness for special needs populations, future research should investigate what

factors transform knowledge into learning in the focused area of disaster preparedness for

special needs populations.

Conclusion

In summarizing the conclusion, the research questions will be addressed and

discussed and an explanation will be provided to describe how this research can be used

to better understand the problem of disaster preparedness for special needs populations.

The conclusion will identify how the findings relate to the broader field of emergency

management and provide recommendations. In the closing the chapter, a description will

show how this dissertation changed the researcher and provided personal growth

throughout the process.

Research question No. 1 investigated what relationship formal education had with

disaster preparedness for special needs populations. The data looked to identify

correlations between years of post-high school education and disaster preparedness for

164

special needs population. The hypothesis for this research question believed that post-

high school education would be highly correlated with disaster preparedness for special

needs populations. It was thought that those with less education would have a reduced

level of disaster preparedness for special needs populations. This hypothesis was based

on scholarly literature that acknowledged those with higher degrees of education

presented increased critical thinking and increased organizational skills (Johnnie, 2009;

Ng & Feldman, 2009). The data revealed that post-high school education had no

correlation of significance to disaster preparedness, and failed to support the hypothesis.

The data indicated that post-high school education statistically had the least correlation of

all the variables researched. The results of this data should not be misconstrued to say

that post-high school education is not important in the field of emergency management;

the data simply shows that post-high school education did not present correlations to

disaster preparedness for special needs populations.

Research question No. 2 investigated what relationship NIMS training and

formalized training played in disaster preparedness for special needs populations. The

data looked for correlations between the number of NIMS classes taken and disaster

preparedness for special needs populations. The hypothesis was that NIMS classes taken

by an Emergency Manager would have no relationship to the level of preparedness for

special needs populations. No scholarly literature was found to support or refute this

hypothesis. The data did uncover a moderate correlation between NIMS training and

disaster preparedness for special needs population and this supported the research

hypothesis. When further analyzing the data, it was discovered that NIMS training had

the second highest correlation of all of the variables. NIMS training also loaded as a

165

variable in the Exploratory Factor Analysis, displaying that NIMS training was an

underlying factor (along with hours per week worked in emergency management) in

disaster preparedness for special needs populations. This correlation in NIMS training

was contrary to what was expected. Reflection on this result led to speculation that NIMS

training is partially based on collaboration which may be an underlying factor. Future

research should investigate if collaboration affects disaster preparedness for special needs

populations.

The data also looked for correlations between the amount of formalized training

classes and disaster preparedness for special needs populations. The hypothesis believed

that formalized training would be highly connected with disaster preparedness for special

needs populations. It was thought that those with fewer formal training classes would

have less disaster preparedness for special needs populations. The hypothesis was based

on scholarly literature that identified those with more training had increased innovation,

job performance, and level of competency (Nda & Fard, 2013; Sung & Choi, 2013). The

data revealed a weak correlation between formal trainings and disaster preparedness that

failed to support the hypothesis. As the number of formal trainings increased disaster

preparedness only slightly increased. When completing the factor analysis, formalized

training did not load as a factor in disaster preparedness for special needs populations.

The amount of formalized training did load in a separate factor that correlated with the

number of years involved in emergency management. As the number of years in

emergency management increased so did the number of formalized trainings. The

correlation between formalized training and years involved in emergency management

was not a focus of this research so this factor was disregarded. While formalized training

166

was found to have no significant correlation to disaster preparedness for special needs

populations, this does not indicate that formalized training is of no significance to

Emergency Managers or the field of emergency management. These findings reveal that

formalized training had no relationship with disaster preparedness for special needs

populations.

Research question No. 3 investigated what relationship work experience had with

disaster preparedness for special needs populations. In the first part of the research into

work experience the data looked for correlations between years worked in emergency

management and disaster preparedness for special needs populations. The hypothesis

believed that years of work experience in emergency management would be highly

correlated with disaster preparedness for special needs population. It was thought that as

years in emergency management decreased, so would disaster preparedness for special

needs populations. This hypothesis was based on scholarly research that indicated that

on-the-job training and experience led to increased job performance and greater

effectiveness (Barzegar & Farjad, 2011; Jagero et al., 2012). The data revealed that there

was a weak correlation between years in emergency management and disaster

preparedness for special needs population; this failed to support the hypothesis. The

variable of years involved in emergency management did not load as a factor with

disaster preparedness for special needs population but did load as a factor with the

amount of formalized training taken. As the number of years in emergency management

increased so did the number of formalized trainings. The correlations of number of

formalized trainings as related to the number of years involved in emergency

management were not a focus of this research so this variable was disregarded.

167

The second variable of research question No. 3 intended to investigate what

relationship number of years involved in other public safety work (related to emergency

management) or special needs advocacy groups had with disaster preparedness for

special needs populations. The hypothesis believed that years of experience in other

public safety fields or special needs advocacy organizations would be highly correlated

with disaster preparedness for special needs population. It was thought that as years in

other public safety fields or special needs advocacy organizations decreased, so would

disaster preparedness for special needs populations. This hypothesis was based on

scholarly research that indicated that on-the-job training and experience led to increased

job performance and greater effectiveness (Barzegar & Farjad, 2011; Jagero et al., 2012).

When analyzing the data it was realized that there was not a large enough sample to

evaluate this variable for correlations or to include the variable in the Exploratory Factor

Analysis.

The third and final variable in research question No. 3 investigated if the number

of hours per week the research subject worked (solely) in emergency management played

a role in disaster preparedness for special needs populations. The data looked to identify

correlations between the number of hours worked and disaster preparedness for special

needs populations. The hypothesis believed that the number of hours per week worked

would be highly correlated with disaster preparedness for special needs populations. It

was thought that as the number of hours worked decreased, disaster preparedness for

special needs population would also decrease. This hypothesis was based on scholarly

research that indicated that on-the-job training and experience led to increased job

performance and greater effectiveness (Barzegar & Farjad, 2011; Jagero et al., 2012). The

168

data statistically revealed that correlations exist between disaster preparedness and hours

per week worked in emergency management, which supports the hypothesis. This

correlation presented as the greatest correlation among all of the variables researched.

The Exploratory Factor Analysis loaded the variable of hours per week worked in

emergency management as a factor in disaster preparedness for special needs populations

along with NIMS training and disaster preparedness for special needs populations. While

correlation does not imply causation, it should be noted that there is an identified

relationship between hours per week worked in emergency management and disaster

preparedness for special needs population. In reflecting on this relationship it was

theorized that increased hours per week worked in emergency management may increase

collaboration. This was based on scholarly literature which identified that building

collaborative networks are time consuming to build and maintain that collaboration is a

key factor in disaster preparedness for special needs populations (J. Brown, 2014;

Heaton, 2014). Using this rationale provides a basis for future research investigating what

role collaboration plays in disaster preparedness for special needs populations.

In reviewing the data in this research, no statistical errors were found. The

limitations of this research or design flaws did not appear to affect the results of this

study. Future research should review and address the design flaws identified in order to

provide a clearer picture in the overall spectrum of disaster preparedness for special

needs populations.

In this research data was collected to evaluate the level of disaster preparedness

for special needs populations. Findings supported previous literature on the topic of

special needs populations being a neglected minority (Parr, 1987). While there appears to

169

have been a gradual improvement in disaster preparedness for special needs populations,

the data supports that there is still a substantial amount of work to be done.

Serious gaps in disaster preparedness for special needs populations were revealed,

and these gaps increased or decreased based on the type of special need or disability.

Some of the most significant results identified that the 76% of Emergency Managers did

not have disaster preparedness plans in place for those with pharmacological

dependencies. The data found that 68% of Emergency Managers did not have written

disaster preparedness plans for those with psychological disorders, yet 16.1 million

people in the United States have some form of psychological disorder (FEMA, 2014).

The data revealed that 62% of Emergency Managers did not have written disaster plans

for those with chronic medical disorders. Fifty five percent of the research subjects failed

to write disaster preparedness plans for those with cognitive issues. Emergency Managers

failed to write disaster preparedness plans for sight impaired in 44% of the cases and

hearing impaired in 40% of the cases reviewed. When looking at those with special needs

that are institutionalized (nursing homes, psychiatric institutions, hospitalized, etc.), 35%

of Emergency Managers did not have written disaster plans in place to address disaster

preparedness for these populations.

The data regarding existing written disaster plans for the elderly and those with

mobility issues showed the most promise. Seventy seven percent of Emergency Managers

wrote disaster plans for the elderly individuals. Emergency managers had written disaster

plans 67% of the time for those with mobility issues. While these numbers are

encouraging, it should be noted that 33% of the Emergency Managers surveyed did not

170

have written disaster plans for those with mobility issues and 23% did not have written

disaster plans for the elderly.

When it came to lack of action taken by Emergency Managers, the data

discovered that 14% of those that were surveyed had no written disaster plans for special

needs populations. While the reason for this inaction is unknown, it is a serious concern.

The data also revealed that 24% of Emergency Managers did not know the demographics

of the special needs population within their geographical response area. Forty percent of

the Emergency Managers surveyed did not collaborate with other organizations or groups

to pre-identify the special needs population they protected. Data exposed that 45% of

Emergency Managers did not provide any training to first responders to improve

interactions with the special needs population. In the area of disaster preparedness

educational outreach to special needs populations, it was found that 37% of emergency

managers did not provide outreach programs.

Positive signs in disaster preparedness for special needs population were found as

well. Data revealed that 71% of Emergency Managers collaborated with special needs

individuals and organizations to include the special needs population in disaster drills.

The data found that 96% of Emergency Managers provided some form of additional

disaster notification to warn special needs populations of impending disasters. Seventy

nine percent of Emergency Managers knew how many ADA compliant disaster shelters

they had within their jurisdiction with 84% of those stating the shelters were fully

integrated to include the general population and special needs individuals. Emergency

managers in 97% of the cases had alternative plans of rapidly deployable transportation

to facilitate the evacuation of special needs individuals affected by a disaster. It should be

171

noted that while a large percentage had alternate plans for rapidly deployable

transportation, 45% had no written agreements for in place for that transportation. The

data also identified that 88% of the Emergency Managers surveyed knew of the

requirement by ADA law to provide the same comparative level of preparedness for

special needs populations as they do for the general public.

In many instances this research provided more questions than answers. Quite

often the variables did not agree with the hypothesis. The late Thomas Edison was quoted

as saying “The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time”. While

the hypotheses in this research did not always agree with the data, the data provided

insight of where correlations do and do not exist. This insight should provide guidance

for future research.

In the broad spectrum of emergency management, this research can be used to

advance the understanding of disaster preparedness for special needs populations. The

data collected provided a picture of where there are successes in disaster preparedness for

special needs population. The accomplishments identified could be built on and used as a

catalyst to encourage even more successes. This research found that NIMS and hours per

week in emergency management had correlations to increased disaster preparedness for

special needs populations. It could be suggested that Emergency Managers should be

encouraged to steep themselves in NIMS and NIMS-related training to increase disaster

preparedness for special needs populations. It could also be suggested that the funding

bodies for emergency management agencies should consider the job of Emergency

Manager as a full time job and treat it as such in order to potentially increase disaster

preparedness for special needs populations.

172

The data provided a picture of where emergency management and Emergency

Managers need to provide more effort in disaster preparedness for special needs

populations. When performing the pilot study for this research, comments were solicited

to identify any areas of the research instrument that were not clear or did not measure the

intended variable. Three of the 14 Emergency Managers involved in the pilot study

provided comments that the research instrument gave them ideas of how to improve their

disaster preparedness plans for special needs populations. Based on those comments it

could be suggested that this research could help provide awareness of strategies that are

beneficial in disaster preparedness for special needs populations. While FEMA provides a

multitude of resources to address disaster preparedness for special needs population, the

comments by a few imply that they were not aware of those resources. It could be

suggested that a greater emphasis and more awareness of those resources could be

promoted to increase disaster preparedness for special needs populations.

This research looked for correlations between formal education, formal training,

on-the job training, and disaster preparedness for special needs populations. As was

stated previously, correlation does not imply causation: it only identifies relationships

between variables. Each of the variables identified a positive correlation to disaster

preparedness for special needs population; in many instances the variables were not

significant enough to unmistakably identify that the correlation was noteworthy. Other

underlying factors may have played a role in increased or decreased correlations.

Although correlations did not present as significant, it does not suggest that Emergency

Managers should not further themselves and gain more training or education.

Additionally, future research is recommended in several areas:

173

 Research to determine if lack of preparedness for special needs populations is

related to lack of funding, increased demand in general emergency management

duties, or organizational culture.

 Research to examine if the type of college major is related to disaster

preparedness for special needs populations.

 Research to identify if special needs formalized training was taken and how recent

general formalized training affects disaster preparedness for special needs

populations.

 Research to investigate the effect that collaboration has in disaster preparedness

for special needs populations

 Research to identify where the Emergency Managers learned strategies for

disaster preparedness for special needs population.

 Research to identify if a recent Presidentially Declared Disaster (PDD) or the

expectation of a future PDD had an effect on disaster preparedness for special

needs populations.

 Confirmation of findings in this research utilizing a Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The recommendations for future research identify potential factors and

unanswered questions that arose while conducting this research. By conducting research

into these subjects, more answers can be gained in what factors do and do not affect

disaster preparedness for special needs populations. Future investigated research is

encouraged.

In reflecting on the research project as a whole, it was found that this research and

the dissertation process was a life-changing experience. While formalized education

174

provided knowledge of what should be done, it was not until the researcher delved into

this research project that he began to comprehensively learn and understand the

intricacies of writing a dissertation and the research involved. The initial thought was that

a mentor and dissertation committee was available to answer questions and to teach the

candidate what to do. In actuality, the dissertation process was there to help him to grow

as a researcher and to find his own answers, rather than leaning on others. As needed, the

researcher could and would confirm his answers with his mentor, his committee, or if

needed, his peers. The dissertation process was often stressful, especially during the times

of looking for specific answers and not being able to find them without overcoming many

obstacles. The reward found when one climbs (and sometimes even jumps) over that next

hurdle confirmed that it could be done. This progression through perseverance during the

times provided an abundant feeling of accomplishment.

Going into the dissertation process it was thought that the researcher had no

biases or preconceived notions regarding this research. In reflection, it was obvious that

there were possible preconceived notions. Having had a formal education and

undertaking a large amount of training, he sensed that training and education would play

a significant role in disaster preparedness for special needs populations; the data did not

support those notions. Having been in fire, EMS, and emergency management (prior to

the implementation of NIMS), he felt that NIMS training would not have a correlation to

disaster preparedness for special needs populations. The inquiry into NIMS training was

suggested by a committee member and he reluctantly added the research question. The

significance of NIMS was found in data analysis. Even though preconceived notions

were later realized, he nevertheless let the data drive the results.

175

In closing, the dissertation process transformed the researcher from being

dependent on others for answers into someone that could find the answers himself. He

learned that when there were hurdles, one learns how to deal with it through research.

This dissertation presented lessons that will be with the researcher for the rest of his life

and that will drive him to find answers to research problems rather than wonder speculate

about them.

176

REFERENCES

Able, J. R., & Deitz, R. (2012). Agglomeration and job matching among college

graduates. Regional Science and Urban Economics 51, 14-24.

doi:10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2014.12.001

American with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (2008).

Archer, T. M. (2008). Response rates to expect from web-based surveys and what to do

about it. Journal of Extension, 46(3). Retrieved from

http://www.joe.org/joe/2008june/rb3.php

Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., Akert, R. M., & Fehr, B. (2007). Social psychology (4th ed.).

Toronto, ON: Pearson Education.

Arrindell, W. A., & Van der Ende, J. (1985). An empirical test of the utility of the

observations-to-variables ratio in factor and components analysis. Applied

Psychological Measurement, 9, 165-178.

Associated Press. (October 13, 1999). Storm response for disabled gets slammed. Star

News Retrieved from

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19991013&id=s3paAAAAI

BAJ&sjid=zB4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=4465,6173014&hl=en

Barzegar, N., & Farjad, S. (2011). A study on the impact of on the job training courses on

the staff performance (a case study). Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,

29, 1942-1949. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.444

Benson, W. F. (2007). CDC planning goals: Protect vulnerable older adults. Center for

Disease Control-Healthy Aging Program. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Center for Disease

Control. Retrieved from

http://www.cdc.gov/aging/pdf/disaster_planning_goal.pdf

Bergeron, W. P. (2015). Internships in emergency management: good for all. Domestic

Preparedness Journal. Retrieved from

http://www.domesticpreparedness.com/Training/Exercises/Internships_in_Emerg

ency_Management%3a_Good_for_All/

Blendon, R., Benson, J., Buhr, T., Weldon, K, Herrmann, M. (2006). High-risk area

hurricane survey. Harvard School of Public Health Project on the Public and

Biological Security. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 3(1).

Brittingham, R., & Goepfert, M. (2014). Access and Functional Needs. In J. E. Trainor

& T. Subbio (Ed.), Critical issues in disaster science and management: A

177

dialogue between researchers and practitioners (110-136). Retrieved from

https://training.fema.gov/hiedu/docs/critical-issues-in-disaster-science-and-

management.pdf

Brodie, M., Weltzien, E., Altman, D., Blendon, R. J., & Benson, J. M. (2006).

Experiences of Hurricane Katrina evacuees in Houston shelters: Implications for

future planning. American Journal of Public Health, 96(8), 1402-1408. doi:

10.2105/AJPH.2005.084475

Brown, L., Dosa, D. M., Thomas, K., Hyer, K., Feng, Z., & Mor, V. (2012). The effects

of evacuation on nursing home residents with dementia. American Journal of

Alzheimer’s Disease & Other Dementias, 27(6), 406-412. doi:

10.1177/1533317512454709

Brown, J. (2014). Collaboration moves Utah toward next-gen 911. Emergency

Management Journal. Retrieved from

http://www.emergencymgmt.com/safety/Utah-Next-Gen-911.html?page=1

Brown, J. (2015). Embracing a continued evolution into keeping vulnerable populations

safe. Domestic Preparedness Journal. Retrieved from

http://www.emergencymgmt.com/disaster/Embracing-Continued-Evolution-

Keeping-Vulnerable-Populations-Safe.html

Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New

York, NY: Guilford Press.

Bryman, A. (2001). Social research methods. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford

University Press.

Bytheway, B. (2007). The evacuation of older people: The case of Hurricane Katrina.

Proceedings from Royal Geographical Society and Institute of British Geographer

06: Social Science Research Council. London, England. Retrieved from

www.understandingkatrina.ssrc

Cahill, A. (2006). Planning tools you can use to meet the needs of people with disabilities

in an emergency: What to do, what not to do, and what difference does it make?

Paper presented at the Working Conference on Emergency Management and

Individuals with Disabilities and the Elderly, Washington, DC.

Cahill, A (2012). Tips for first responders (4th ed.). Center for Development and

Disability: University of New Mexico. Retrieved from:

http://www.cdd.unm.edu/cms/Programs/dhpd/pdfs/FourthEdition.pdf

California State Independent Living Council. (2004). The impact of southern California

wildfires on people with disabilities (Issue Brief). Sacramento, CA. Retrieved

178

from

http://www2.ku.edu/~rrtcpbs/resources/pdf/impact_of_2003_ca_wildfires_4-30-

04.pdf

Caring for special needs during disaster (2010). What’s being done for vulnerable

populations? Hearing before the subcommittee on Emergency Communications,

Preparedness and Response of the Committee on Homeland Security of the House

of Representatives. 111th Cong. 2. Retrieved from

http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/Testimony/2010/HS_Subcomm_Young_Testimon

y_FINAL

Castenada, M. A. (2011). Including people with disabilities in disaster preparedness: A

Delphi study (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Digital

Dissertations. (UMI 3487432).

Center for Disease Control. (2014). DNS fact sheet. Office of Public Health Preparedness

and Response: Division of Strategic National Stockpile. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Center

for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from

http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/documents/DSNS_fact_sheet.pdf

Chicago Community Trust. (2009). Emergency preparedness report. Chicago, IL.

Retrieved from http://www.issuelab.org/resource/emergency_preparedness_report

Christensen, K. M., Blair, M. R., & Holt, J. M. (2007). The built-environment,

evacuations, and individuals with disabilities: A guiding framework for disaster

preparation and emergency response. Journal of Disability Policy, 17(4), 249-

253.

Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2006). Business research methods (9th ed.). New

York, NY. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2004). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches. Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method

approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among the five

approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

179

Dantzker, M., & Hunter, R. (2006). Research methods for criminology and criminal

justice (2nd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publications.

Davis, E., & Mincin, J. (2005). Nobody left behind: Incorporating special needs

populations into emergency planning and exercises. Research and Training

Center on Independent Living University of Kansas. Lawrence, KS. Retrieved

from http://www.nobodyleftbehind2.org/findings/pdfs/JMFinal072105.pdf

Dawalt, P. R., (2011). How do the theories of public and private sector collaboration,

cooperation and coordination facilitate analysis of the role of health care and

disability professions with emergency management in the Midwest? Paper

presented at the FEMA Higher Education Symposium, Emitsburg, MD. Retrieved

from http://training.fema.gov/hiedu/11conf/presentations/dawalt%20-

%20theories%20of%20public%20and%20private%20sector%20collaboration.doc

Delury, B. E. (1975). Equal job opportunity for the handicapped means positive thinking

and positive action. Labor Law Journal, 26(11). 679-685.

Department of Homeland Security. (2005). Individuals with disabilities in emergency

preparedness (Executive order 13347Annual Report). Washington, DC: U.S.

Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Retrieved from

http://tap.gallaudet.edu/emergency/nov05conference/EmergencyReports/CRCL_I

WDEP_AnnualReport_2005.pdf

Department of Homeland Security. (2007). National preparedness guidelines. Retrieved

from

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/National_Preparedness_Guidelines.pdf

Department of Homeland Security. (2008). Interagency Coordinating Council on

Emergency Preparedness and Individuals with Disabilities (ICCEPID). Retrieved

from http://www.dhs.gov/xprepresp/committees/editorial_0591.shtm

Department of Homeland Security. (2013). Wireless emergency alerts: Mobile

penetration strategy (NDRI Publication Number: PR-594-OSD). Science and

Technology Division. Washington, DC Retrieved from

http://www.firstresponder.gov/TechnologyDocuments/Wireless%20Emergency%

20Alerts%20Mobile%20Penetration%20Strategy.pdf

Department of Justice. (2007). ADA checklist for emergency shelters. Civil Rights

Division. Washington, DC: U.S. Disability Rights Section. Retrieved from the

American with Disabilities website at

http://www.ada.gov/pcatoolkit/chap7shelterchk.htm

180

Department of Labor. (2011). Emergency preparedness for people with disabilities:

Interagency seminar of exchange for federal manager, summary report [GPO

Stock No. 999-000-33334-3]. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Department of Labor. (2014). What works in job training: A synthesis of the evidence.

Washington DC. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/asp/evaluation/jdt/jdt.pdf

Dereshiwsky, M. (1999). Research design: Limitations and delimitations. Chapter 3.

Northern Arizona University.

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~mid/edr720/class/methodology/delimitations/reading3-3-

1.html

Diament, M. (2014). In emergencies, people with disabilities often an afterthought.

Disability Scoop. Retrieved from http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2014/05/30/in-

emergencies-afterthought/19407/

Disability Rights Advocates. (2010). Sweeping settlement reached by the City Of

Oakland to include people with disabilities in disaster planning. Retrieved from

http://www.dralegal.org/sweeping-settlement-reached-by-the-city-of-oakland-to-

include-people-with-disabilities-in-disaster

Disability Rights Advocates. (2014). District of Columbia sued for failure to serve people

with disabilities during disasters. Retrieved from

http://www.dralegal.org/pressroom/press-releases/district-of-columbia-sued-for-

failure-to-serve-people-with-disabilities

Disabled World. (2014). Disaster and emergency planning for seniors and persons with

disabilities. Retrieved from www.disabled-

world.com/disability/emergency/#sthash.uWodIGhN.dpuf

Drabek, T. E. (2010). The human side of disaster (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL. CRC Press.

Durant, T. J. (2011). The utility of vulnerability and social capital theories in studying the

impact of Hurricane Katrina on the elderly. Journal of Family Issues, 32(10),

1285-1302.

Echevarria, E. (2014). Special needs emergency registries in the United States. The

Rhode Island Department of Health: Center for Emergency Preparedness and

Response. Providence, RI.

Edison, T. A. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasaed149049.htm

Elnaga, A., & Imran, A. (2013). The effect of training on employee performance.

European Journal of Business and Management, 5(4), 137-147.

181

Emergency Management Institute. (2009). IS-197EM: Functional needs planning

considerations for emergency management. Training Course.

Enarson, E. (2007) Identifying and addressing social vulnerabilities. In Waugh, W.L., &

Tierney, K. (Eds.) Emergency management: Principles and practice for Local

government (2nd ed). Washington DC: ICMA Press. 257-278.

Evacuteer. (2011). Five years later: Emergency preparedness improvements in New

Orleans, Louisiana since Hurricane Katrina. A collaborative effort of Evacuteer,

the University of New Orleans, and Louisiana State University. Retrieved from

http://www.evaccenter.lsu.edu/pub/10-02.pdf

Executive Order No. 13347, 3 C.F.R. 142 (2004).

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2004). Preparing for disaster for people with

disabilities and other special needs (FEMA Publication No. 476). Washington,

DC.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2007). Planning assumptions:

Accommodating individuals with disabilities in the provision of disaster mass

care, housing, and human services. Retrieved from http://www.fema.gov/media-

library-data/20130726-1617-20490-6430/section689referenceguide.pdf

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2010). Guidance on planning for integration

of functional needs support services in general population shelters. San Antonio,

TX. Retrieved from http://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/odic/fnss_guidance.pdf

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2011a.). National disaster recovery

framework: Strengthening disaster recovery for the nation. Retrieved

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/recoveryframework/ndrf.pdf

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2011b.). Planning for the whole community:

Integrating and coordinating the access and functional needs of children and

adults with disabilities in preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation

(FEMA Publication No. FDOC 104-008-1). Retrieved from

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/odic/all_hands_0411.pdf

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2012). Accommodating individuals with

disabilities in the provision of disaster mass care, housing, and human services.

FEMA Reference Guide.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2013a). National preparedness cycle.

Retrieved from http://www.fema.gov/national-preparedness-cycle

182

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2014a). IS-368: Including people with

disabilities & others with access & functional needs in disaster operations (FEMA

Publication No. IS-368). Retrieved from

http://emilms.fema.gov/IS0368/DIS01summary.htm

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2014b). Accommodating individuals with

disabilities in the provision of disaster mass care, housing, and human services.

FEMA Reference Guide.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2014c, October 9). Emergency management

training. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/training-1/emergency-

management-training

Ferguson, E., & Cox, T. (1993), Exploratory factor analysis: A users’ guide.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 1, 84–94. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-

2389.1993.tb00092.x

Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). Thousand

Oaks CA. Sage Publishing.

Fjord, L., & Manderson, L. (2009). Anthropological perspectives on disasters and

disability: An introduction. Human Organization, 68(1), 64-72.

Fox, M. H., White, G. W., Rooney, C., & Rowland, J. L. (2007). Disaster preparedness

and response for persons with mobility impairments. Journal of Disability Policy

Studies, 17(4), 196-205.

Gagnon, M. J. (2007). Establishment of emergency evacuation shelters. National Fire

Academy. Emmitsburg, MD Retrieved from

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/pdf/efop/efo40127.pdf

Garnett, J., & Kouzmin, P. (2007). Communicating throughout Katrina: Competing and

complementary conceptual lenses on crisis communication. Public Administration

Review, 67(1), 171-188.

Garson, D. G. (2008). Factor analysis: Statnotes. Retrieved March 22, 2008, from North

Carolina State University Public Administration Program,

http://tx.liberal.ntu.edu.tw/~purplewoo/Literature/!DataAnalysis/Reliability%20A

nalysis.htm

Gerber, B. J. (2007). Disaster management in the United States: Examining key political

and policy challenges. Policy Studies Journal 35(2), 227-238, doi:

10.1111/j.1541-0072.2007.00217.x.

183

Gerber, B. J., Norwood, F., & Zakour, M. J. (2010). Disaster evacuations and persons

with disabilities: An assessment of key issues facing individuals and households.

National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, Disability

Rehabilitation Research Project, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.

Gershon, R. M., Magdal, L. A., Riley, H. E., & Sherman, M.F. (2011). The World Trade

Center evacuation study: Factors associated with initiation and length of time for

evacuation. Fire and Material, 36(5), 481-500. DOI: 10.1002/fam.1080

Gibbs, L. I., & Hollaway, C. F. (2013). NYC Hurricane Sandy after action report. New

York, NY. Retrieved from

http://www.nyc.gov/html/recovery/downloads/pdf/sandy_aar_5.2.13.pdf

Gibney, L. A. (2005). Special needs: medically fragile emergency shelters. IAEM

Bulletin, 22(3), 7.

Glicken, M. D. (2003). Social research: A simple guide (1st ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson

Education.

Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Greenstone, M., & Looney, A. (2011). Building America’s job skills with effective

workforce programs: A training strategy to raise wages and increase work

opportunities (Strategy Paper). The Hamilton Project. Retrieved from

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2011/11/training%20gre

enstone%20looney/11_training_greenstone_looney

Han, S., & Bhattacharya, K. (2001). Constructionism, learning by design, and project

based learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching,

and technology. Zurich, Switzerland. Creative Commons Attribution. Retrieved

from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

Hatch, S. (2005). Conceptualizing and identifying cumulative adversity and protective

resources: Implications for understanding health inequalities. Journal of

Gerontology, 60(2), 130-134. doi: 10.1093/geronb/60.Special_Issue_2.S130

Hatch, S. L., Feinstein, L., Link, B. G., Wadsworth, M. E., & Richards, M. (2007). The

continuing benefits of education: Adult education and midlife cognitive ability in

the British 1946 birth cohort. The Journals of Gerontology, 62(6):404–S414.

doi:62/6/S404

Hayes, D. (2014). Special needs focus. Emergency Management, 5(9), 42

184

He, W., & Larsen, L. J. (2014). Older Americans with a disability: 2008–2012 (U.S.

Census Burueau Publication No. ACS-29). Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office.

Heaton, B. (2014, February). What’s it like to run a one person department. Emergency

Management Magazine. Retrieved from Emergency Management Magazine

website at http://www.emergencymgmt.com/disaster/The-One-Person-Shop.html

Heldman, C. (2011, August). Hurricane Katrina and the demographic of death. Social

Images. Retrieved from:

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/08/29/hurricane-katrina-and-the-

demographics-of-death/

Hogan, D. E., & Burstein, J. L. (2007). Disaster medicine (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA:

Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins.

Hooper, P. J. (2010). Vulnerable populations and crisis communication: A model for

accessible disaster preparedness campaigns. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital

Dissertations (UMI 3406071).

Hooper, D. (2012, April 16). Exploratory factor analysis. Retrieved from

http://www.slideshare.net/dairehooper/exploratory-factor-analysis-12562520

Inclusive Preparedness Center. (2011). Shelter workers guide to accommodate children

with access and functional needs. Washington, DC. Retrieved from

http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/research/centers-institutes/institute-on-development-and-

disability/public-health-programs/upload/2-shelter_workers_guide_final_final.pdf

Interagency Coordinating Council on Emergency Preparedness and Individuals with

Disabilities. (2010). 2009 Annual report to the President. Retrieved from

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/crcl-icc-annual-report-2009.pdf

Jagero, N., Komba, H. V., & Mlingi, M. N. (2012). Relationship between on the job

training and employee’s performance in courier companies in Dar es Salaam,

Tanzania. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(22), 114-

120.

Jagger, J. C. (2011). Disaster management policy and people with disabilities in the

United States and Jamaica. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest.

UMI # 3453987

Johnnie, P. B. (2009). Formal education: A paradigm for human resource development

The International Journal of Educational Management, 7(5), 4.

185

Jones, N. L. (2010). RS22254: The Americans with Disabilities Act and emergency

preparedness and response (Congressional Research Service Publication No.

RS22254). Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/4206%20(3).pdf

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. The

Journal of Business, 2(59), 251-278.

Kailes, J. I. (2008). Southern California wildfires after action report. Retrieved from

http://www.jik.com/CaliforniaWildfires.pdf

Kailes, J., & Enders, A. (2007) Moving beyond "special needs" A function-based

framework for emergency management and planning. Journal of Disability Policy

Study, 17, 230-237.

Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.

Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second generation Little Jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401-415.

Kaiser Family Foundation, Washington Post, & Harvard University. (2005). Survey of

Hurricane Katrina evacuees (Report No. 7401). Washington, DC: Retrieved from

http://www.kff.org/newsmedia/upload/7401.pdf

Kapucu, N. (2011). Developing competency based emergency management degree

programs in public affairs and administration. Journal of Public Affairs

Education, 17(4), 501-521.

Keeley, J. A., Fotheringham C. J., & Moritz, M. E. (2004). Lessons from the October

2003 Southern California wildfires. Journal of Forestry, October/November, 26-

Kelley, S. (n.d.). On-the-job training: Definition, advantages & importance. Retrieved

from http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/on-the-job-training-definition-

advantages-importance.html#lesson

Kepler, N. (2014) Climate change and emergency management: A series of white papers

for Emergency Managers. Emergency Management Methodology Partners, June.

Retrieved from http://emmp-emergency.com/wordpress/wp-

content/uploads/2014/05/EMMP-WP_Climate-Change-and-EM.pdf

Kline, P. (1979). Psychometrics and psychology. London, UK: Acaderric Press.

Krueger, C. (1993, July 18). Plan, plan, plan for a hurricane: City edition. St. Petersburg

Times, 6.

186

Labaree, R. (2013). Organizing your social sciences research paper. University of

Southern California. Retrieved from

http://libguides.usc.edu/content.php?pid=83009&sid=618409

Landsberger, H. A. (1958). Hawthorne Revisited. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University.

Lazo, J. D. (2013). Framing disaster planning for people with disabilities: Analyzing the

CALIF v. City of Los Angeles Lawsuit (Unpublished master’s thesis). University

of Delaware Library, Newark, DE. Retrieved from

http://udspace.udel.edu/handle/19716/12873

Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2010). Practical research: Planning and design (9th ed.).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Leo, J. (2005, September 21). Ray Nagin, The error-prone mayor. U.S. News. Retrieved

from http://katrinacoverage.com/2005/09/25/ray-nagin-the-error-prone-

mayor.html

Les, Z., & Les, M. (2013). Shape understanding system: Knowledge implementation

system and learning. New York, NY: Springer Publishing.

Lesser, K. A. (2015). People with disabilities-laws, plans & partnerships. Domestic

Preparedness Journal 11(4), 24

Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (1992). Behavioral foundations of community emergency

planning. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing.

Lindell, M. K., & Meier, M. J. (1994). Planning effectiveness: Effectiveness of

community planning for toxic chemical emergencies. Journal of the American

Planning Association, 60(2), 222-234.

Lindell, M. K., Whitney, D. J., Futch, C. J., & Clause, C. S. (1996). Multi-method

assessment of organizational effectiveness in a Local Emergency Planning

Committee. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 14, 195-

220.

Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (1995). Social conditions as fundamental causes of disease.

(Special Issue). Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 80-94.

Litman, T. (2006). Lessons from Katrina and Rita: What major disasters can teach

transportation planners. Journal of Transportation Engineering,132(1), 11-18.

Lowe, S., Chan, C., & Rhodes, J. (2011). The impact of child-related stressors on the

psychological functioning of lower-income mothers after Hurricane Katrina.

Journal of Family Issues 32(10), 1303-1324. doi: 10.1177/0192513X11412492

187

MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong S. (1999). Sample size in factor

analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84-99.

Marini, I., Glover-Graf, N. M., & Millington, M. J. (2012). The psychological aspects of

disability: Insider perspectives and strategies for counsellors. New York, NY:

Springer Publishing.

Marshall, I., Jr., & Mathews, S. (2010). Disaster preparedness for the elderly: An analysis

of international literature using Symbolic Interactionist Perspective. Journal of

Aging in Emerging Economies, 2, 79-92.

Martella, R. C., Nelson, J. R., Morgan, R. L., & Marchand-Martella, N. E. (2013).

Interpreting and understanding educational research. New York, NY: Guilford

Press.

Maydeu-Olivares, A, & McArdle, J. J. (2009). Contemporary Psychometrics. Florence,

KY: Taylor and Francis Group.

McCewan, V. L. (2011). What you should know about emergency management degrees.

Emergency Management Journal. Retrieved from

http://www.emergencymgmt.com/training/Emergency-Management-Degrees-

Careers.html?page=2

Medical Reserve Corp. (2008). Guidance for Medical Reserve Corps units regarding

National Incidence Management System compliance. Retrieved from

https://www.medicalreservecorps.gov/File/MRC_Resources/NIMSComplianceJul

y08.pdf

Miraglia, M. (2013). A comparative analysis of emergency management decision-making

skills of school officials: The impact of training on perspectives and performance

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Fisher Publications. (Paper 152).

Mirowsky, J., Ross, C. E. (2003). Education, social status, and health. New York: Aldine

de Gruyter.

Moore, L. K. (2008). The Emergency Alerting System and all-hazard warnings

(Congressional Research Service Publication No. RL32527). Retrieved from

Congressional Research Service at https://www.oasis-

open.org/committees/download.php/27231/jan2008congressionalrpt.pdf

Moore, L. K. (2010). The Emergency Alerting System and all-hazard warnings

(Congressional Research Service Publication No. RL32527). Retrieved from

Congressional Research Service at http://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL32527.pdf

188

Morrison, T. (2001). Actionable learning: a handbook for capacity building through case

based learning. Tokyo, Japan: Asian Development Bank Institute.

Motsunaga, M. (2010). How to factor-analyze your data right: Do’s, don’ts, and how-

to’s. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1). 97-110

Nardo-Redmond, M. R. (2010) Cultural stereotypes of disabled and non-disabled men

and women: Consensus for global categories representations and diagnostic

domains. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 471-488

National Council on Disability. (2008). National Council on Disability quarterly meeting,

July 2008: Seattle, Washington.

National Council on Disability. (2009). Effective emergency management: Making

improvements for communities and people with disabilities. Washington, DC

Retrieved from http://www.ncd.gov/publications/2009/Aug122009

National Fire Protection Association. (2014). Proposed emergency evacuation planning

guide for people with disabilities. Technical Committee on Mass Evacuation and

Sheltering. Retrieved from http://www.nfpa.org/~/media/files/safety-

information/for-consumers/disabilities/evacuationguidepdf.pdf?la=en

National Organization on Disability. (2007). Report on Special Needs Assessment of

Katrina Evacuees (SNAKE). Washington, DC Retrieved from:

http://www.nod.org/Resources/PDFs/katrina_snake_report.pdf

National Organization on Disability. (2009a). Effective emergency management: Making

improvements for communities and people with disabilities. Washington, DC

Retrieved from http://www.ncd.gov/publications/2009/Aug122009

National Organization on Disability. (2009 b). Functional needs of people with

disabilities: A Guide for emergency managers, planners and responders.

Washington, DC Retrieved from http://nod.org/assets/downloads/Guide-

Emergency-Planners.html

National Organization on Disability. (2014). About us: History. Washington, DC

Retrieved from http://nod.org/about_us/our_history

Nda, M. M., & Fard, R. Y. (2013). The impact of employee training and development on

employee productivity. Global Journal of Commerce and Management

Perspective, 2(6), 91-93.

Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2009). How broadly does education contribute to job

performance? Personal Psychology, 62(1), 89-134.

189

Nicholson, W. C. (2013). Emergency response and emergency management law: Cases

and materials (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher Ltd.

OASIS. (2009). [Pdf presentation by Organization for the Advancement of Structured

Information Standards.] Common alerting protocol: version 1.0. Retrieved from

http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1725-25045-

4129/090415dm_sig_cap.pdf

O´Keefe, P., Westgate, K, & Wisner, B. (1976). Taking the naturalness out of natural

disasters. Nature, 260(5552), 566-567.

Onnismaa, J. (2008). Age, experience, and learning on the job: crossing the boundaries

between training and the workplace. Journal of Employment Counselling, 45(2),

79-90.

Parr, A. (1987). Disasters and disabled persons: An examination of the safety needs of a

neglected minority. Disasters, 11(2), 148-159.

Peerbolte, S. L., & Collins, M. L. (2013). Disaster management and the critical thinking

skills of local emergency managers: correlations with age, gender, education, and

years in occupation. Disasters, 37(1), 48-60. doi:10.1111/j.1467-

7717.2012.01291.x

Penwarden, R. (2014). Response rate statistics for online surveys: What numbers should

you be aiming for? [Web log] Retrieved from

http://fluidsurveys.com/university/response-rate-statistics-online-surveys-aiming/

Perkins, R. A. (2011). Using research-based practices to increase response rates of web-

based surveys. Boise State University. Retrieved from

http://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=edt

ech_facpubs

Petchenik, J., & Watermolen, D. J. (2011). A cautionary note on using the Internet to

survey recent hunter education graduates. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 16(3),

216-218.

Phillips B. D., Thomas D. S., Fothergill A., & Blinn-Pike L. (2010) Social Vulnerability

to Disasters. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Physical Environment. (1990). 42 CFR §483.70 retrieved from

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/483.70

Piastro, D. B. (1994, January 22), Disaster planning a must for people with disability:

Metro edition. Star Tribune, Minneapolis, MN. 2E. ISSN 0895-2825

190

Pines, J. M., Pilkington, W. F., & Seabury, S. A. (2014). Value-based models for

sustaining emergency preparedness capacity and capability in the United States.

The Institute of Medicine Forum on Medical and Public Health Preparedness for

Catastrophic Events. Retrieved from

http://iom.edu/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/PublicHealth/MedPrep/Final%20

white%20paper%20Preparedness%20FinancingJan14.pdf

Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, Title VI of P.L. 109-295

(H.R. 5441)(2006).

Prater, C. S., Peacock, W. G., Lindell, M. K., Zhang, Y., & Lu, J.C. (2004). A social

vulnerability approach to estimating potential socioeconomic impacts of

earthquakes. College Station TX: Texas A&M University Hazard Reduction &

Recovery Center

Presidential Policy Directive/PPD-8. (2011). National Preparedness. Retrieved from

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/presidential-policy-directive-8-national-

preparedness.pdf

Renne, J. L., Sanchez, T. W., & Litman, T. (2008). National study on carless and special

needs evacuation planning: A literature review. Retrieved from

http://www.uno.edu/cola/planning-and-urban-

studies/docs/Focus_Group_Final_Report.pdf

Rice, H. J. (2010). Before the storm: Evacuation intention and audience segmentation.

Retrieved from

http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4845&context=etd

Risoe, P., Schlegelmilch, J., & Paturas, J. (2013). Evacuation and sheltering of people

with medical dependencies: Knowledge gaps and barriers to national

preparedness. Homeland Security Affairs 9(2), 1-10.

Roberts, P. (2005). What Katrina means for emergency management. Berkley Press

Journal. 3(3) 1-10.

Roberts, P., Ward, R., & Wamsley, G. (2011). The evolving federal role in emergency

management: Policies and processes. (2nd ed.). In C.B. Rubin Emergency

management the American experience Boca Raton, FL. CRC Press.

Robinson, S. E., Gerber, B. J., Eller, W. S., & Gall, M. (2013). Emergency planning and

disabled populations. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters,

31(2), 315-329.

191

Rodriguez, C. (2013, March 18). Officials testify no specific disaster plans for disabled.

WNYC News. Retrieved from http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-

news/2013/mar/18/officals-testify-no-specific-plans-disabled/

Rosenfeld, M. J. (2012). Notes on terminology for evaluation of research. Stanford

University. Retrieved from

http://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/research_terminology.htm

Ross, J. (2014). Recruiting user research participants by email. UX Matters, November.

Retrieved from http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2014/11/recruiting-user-

research-participants-by-email.php

Roth, M. (2010). Caring for special needs during disasters: What’s being done for

vulnerable populations? Written testimony submitted before the House

Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Emergency

Communications, Preparedness, and Response. Retrieved from

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/odic/written_statement_roth.pdf

Rubin, C. B. (2012). Emergency management: The American experience 1900-2010 (2nd

ed.) (Kindle). Boca Raton FL: Taylor and Francis CRC ebook account. Kindle

Edition, 5317-5560.

Rudner, G. (2015). Training challenge-choosing the best learning approach. Domestic

Preparedness Journal. Retrieved from

http://www.domesticpreparedness.com/First_Responder/Fire_HAZMAT/Training

_Challenge_-_Choosing_the_Best_Learning_Approach/

Salinsky, J. (2012). Local disaster preparedness for the disabled population: Are we

ready? (Master’s thesis). Long Beach, California: California State University.

Santoya, M., & Weiser, B. (2013). Court says New York neglected disabled in

emergencies. New York Times. New York, NY. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/nyregion/new-yorks-emergency-plans-

violate-disabilities-act-judge-says.html?_r=0

Sarma, R. (2012). Research: In a methodological frame. International Refereed Research

Journal, 3(1), 100.

Schlabig-Williams, J. (2009). Mentor program with on-the-job training gets new hires up

to speed quickly. Biomed Instrumentation and Technology, 43(1), 35-37.

Schneider, S. K. (2005). Administrative breakdowns in the governmental response to

Hurricane Katrina. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 515-516.

192

Scommegna, P. (2013). Aging U.S. baby boomers face more disability. Population

Reference Bureau. Retrieved from

http://www.prb.org/publications/articles/2013/us-baby-boomers.aspx

Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 793, (1973).

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 34 C.F.R. Part 104 (1973). Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/reg/ocr/34cfr104.pdf

Simon, M. K. (2011). Dissertation and scholarly research: Recipes for success (2011

ed.). Seattle WA. Dissertation Success LLC. Retrieved from

http://www.dissertationrecipes.com/

Soper, D. (2000). Statistics calculator. Retrieved from

http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc3/calc.aspx?id=47

Spiewak, D. L., (2014). The professional emergency manager. Domestic Preparedness

Journal. Retrieved from

http://www.domesticpreparedness.com/First_Responder/Emergency_Managemen

t/The_Professional_Emergency_Manager/

St. Petersburg College. (2011). Emergency response for people who have access and

functional needs: A guide for first responders. St. Petersburg, Florida: St.

Petersburg College. Retrieved from

http://terrorism.spcollege.edu/SPAWARAFN/Guide/GuideforFirstResponders.pdf

Suhr, D. D. (2006). Exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis. Paper presented at SAS

Users Group International Conference, San Francisco, CA.

Sung, S. Y., & Choi, J. N. (2013). Do organizations spend wisely on employees? Effects

of training and development investments on learning and innovation in

organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 393-412.

Taylor, H. (2004). 2004 National Organization of Disabilities/Harris survey of Americans

with disabilities. National Organization on Disabilities. Retrieved from

http://nod.org/assets/downloads/HumphreyTaylor.pdf

Thompson, K., (n.d.) FEMA Higher Education Project Manager discusses the new

generation of emergency managers [Interview transcript]. International

Association of Emergency Managers Bulletin. Retrieved from

http://training.fema.gov/emiweb/edu/highpapers.asp

Tidman, S. (2015). Collaboration’s real world challenges. Domestic Preparedness

Journal. Retrieved from

193

http://www.domesticpreparedness.com/Industry/Standards/Collaboration%60s_R

eal-World_Challenges/

Treaster, J. (2005, September 1). At stadium, a haven quickly becomes an ordeal. New

York Times. Retrieved from

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9801E6DA1731F932A3575AC0

A9639C8B63

Trochim, W. M. (2006). Research methods knowledge base. Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog

Publishing.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of

choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458.

United Nations, General Assembly Resolution 31/123. International Year of Disabled

Persons. (16 December 1976). Retrieved from from http://www.un-

documents.net/a31r123.htm

United States Census Bureau. (2012). Americans with disabilities. Retrieved from

https://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-131.pdf

United States Department of Transportation. (2009). Evacuating populations with special

needs: Routes to effective evacuation planning primer series (Federal Highway

Administration Publication No. FHWA-HOP-09-022). Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

United States District Court of Eastern Louisiana. (2006). Claire Brou et al. v Federal

Emergency Management Agency et al. Case Number 06-0838. Retrieved from

http://www.nclej.org/pdf/BrouSettlement.pdf

United States District Court Southern District of New York. (2013). Brooklyn Center of

the Disabled, Center for Independence of Disabled, Gregory D. Bell and Tania

Morales v Michael Bloomberg in his official capacity as the mayor of The City of

New York. Case Number 1:11-cv-06990-JMF document 159. Retrieved from

http://www.dralegal.org/sites/dralegal.org/files/pressreleases/159opinionandorder.

pdf

United States Fire Administration. (2002). Orientation manual for first responders on the

evacuation of people with disabilities (United States Fire Administration

Publication No. FA/235). Emmitsburg, MD: U.S. Government Printing Office.

United States Social Security Administration. (2007). Code of federal regulations: Part

404.Federal old age, survivors and disability insurance. Retrieved from

http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/cfr20/404/404-0000.htm

194

Van Teijlingen. E. R., & Hundley, V. (2001). The importance of pilot studies. Social

Research Update, 35(1), 33-36.

Velez, A. M. (2008). Evaluating research methods: Assumptions, strengths, and

weaknesses of three educational research paradigms. Retrieved from

http://www.unco.edu/AE-Extra/2008/9/velez.html

Waugh, W. L. (2007). Terrorism as disaster. In H. Rodriguez, E.L. Quarantelli, & R.R.

Dynes (Ed.) Handbook of disaster research. New York, NY: Springer Publishing.

Waugh, W. L., & Tierney, K. (2007). Emergency management: Principles and practice

for local government (2nd ed.). Lewiston, NY: ICMA Press.

White, J., & Whoriskey, P. (2005, September 2). Planning, response, are faulted.

Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286, p. A.02

Wilson, S. A., Temple, B. J., Milliron, M. E., Vazquez, C., Packard, M. D., & Rudy, B.

S. (2007) The lack of disaster preparedness by the public and it's affect on

Communities. The Internet Journal of Rescue and Disaster Medicine, 7(2), 1.

Wilson, T. (2008). The epistemological dimension of information science and its impact

on library and archival information. Brazilian Journal of Information Science,

2(1), 9-21.

Yu, C. (2010). Reliability of self-report data. Retrieved from http://www.creative-

wisdom.com/teaching/WBI/memory.shtml

Yun, K., Lurie, N., & Hyde, P.S. (2010). Moving mental health into the disaster-

preparedness spotlight. New England Journal of Medicine, 363(13) 1193-1195.

Zambado, T., (2005, September 1). NBC News Special Report (Television broadcast),

New York, NY: National Broadcasting Company.

195

APPENDIX A. STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL WORK

Academic Honesty Policy

Capella University’s Academic Honesty Policy (3.01.01) holds learners accountable for

the integrity of work they submit, which includes but is not limited to discussion

postings, assignments, comprehensive exams, and the dissertation or capstone project.

Established in the Policy are the expectations for original work, rationale for the policy,

definition of terms that pertain to academic honesty and original work, and disciplinary

consequences of academic dishonesty. Also stated in the Policy is the expectation that

learners will follow APA rules for citing another person’s ideas or works.

The following standards for original work and definition of plagiarism are discussed in

the Policy:

Learners are expected to be the sole authors of their work and to acknowledge the

authorship of others’ work through proper citation and reference. Use of another

person’s ideas, including another learner’s, without proper reference or citation

constitutes plagiarism and academic dishonesty and is prohibited conduct. (p. 1)

Plagiarism is one example of academic dishonesty. Plagiarism is presenting

someone else’s ideas or work as your own. Plagiarism also includes copying

verbatim or rephrasing ideas without properly acknowledging the source by author,

date, and publication medium. (p. 2)

Capella University’s Research Misconduct Policy (3.03.06) holds learners accountable for

research integrity. What constitutes research misconduct is discussed in the Policy:

Research misconduct includes but is not limited to falsification, fabrication,

plagiarism, misappropriation, or other practices that seriously deviate from those

that are commonly accepted within the academic community for proposing,

conducting, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. (p. 1)

Learners failing to abide by these policies are subject to consequences, including but not

limited to dismissal or revocation of the degree.

http://www.capella.edu/assets/pdf/policies/academic_honesty.pdf

http://www.capella.edu/assets/pdf/policies/research_misconduct.pdf

196

197

APPENDIX B. RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

Definitions

Emergency Management

For the purpose of this research project, emergency management will be identified as the

process of preparing for, preventing, mitigating, responding to, and recovering from an

emergency. Responses about emergency management should not include firefighting,

EMS, or law enforcement duties unless specifically requested.

Special Needs Populations

For the purpose of this research, special needs populations refer to those that that are

hearing impaired, sight impaired, who have mobility issues, or who are elderly. Special

needs also encompasses cognitive issues (autism, traumatic brain injury, dementia, etc.),

psychological impairments (depressive disorder, anxiety, and bipolar disorders), those

who have physical limitations and needs, those that are institutionalized (including

nursing homes, assisted living, mental hospitals, etc.) and those with limited English

proficiency or are non-English speaking. Additional special needs should include those

that are transportation disadvantaged. Special needs may also have chronic medical

disorders, pharmacological dependencies, be children or homeless individuals, or they

might suffer from functional limitations.

Research Instrument

1) Are you the local Emergency Manager defined as the primary person in a city or

county that is responsible for ensuring that your agency undertakes mitigation,

prevention, response, and recovery effort from natural and manmade disasters?

o Yes o No

2) What age range best describes you?

o 18-30 o 31-42 o 43-54 o 55-66 o Older than 67

3) In your role as a county, parish, or city Emergency Manager, which best defines your

population base?

o Rural City (less than 20,000 population) o Rural County (less than 50,000 population) o Non-rural city (greater than 20,001 population) o Non-rural county(more than 50,001 population)

198

4) What FEMA Region does your city or county reside and respond in?

o FEMA Region I (CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT) o FEMA Region II (NJ, NY, PR, USVI) o FEMA Region III (DC, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV) o FEMA Region IV (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN) o FEMA Region V (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI) o FEMA Region VI (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX) o FEMA Region VII (MO IA, KS, MO, NE) o FEMA Region VIII (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY) o FEMA Region IX (CA AZ, CA, HI, NV, GU, AS, CNMI, RMI, FM) o FEMA Region X (WA, AK, ID, OR, WA)

5) How many years have you been in emergency management? Include only time in

emergency management, do not include related public safety fields such as fire or EMS.

o ______

6) Prior to being involved in emergency management, were you involved with public

safety or special needs agencies or advocacy groups?

o Yes o No

7) How many years were you involved with each of these types of agencies?

o Law Enforcement ______ o Fire ______ o EMS ______ o A special needs advocacy group ______ o Other ____________ ______

8) How many hours per week do you spend actively working in emergency management

as an emergency manager (Do not include other public safety work such as firefighting or

EMS)?

o ______

9) How many years of formal education beyond high school and related to a degree have

you attended (include college but not trade school or training)?

o ______

10) What National Incident Management (NIMS) related classes have you completed?

o ICS-100 Introduction to Incident Command System (ICS)

199

o ICS-200 ICS for Single Resources and Initial Action Incidents o ICS-300 Intermediate ICS for Expanding Incidents o ICS-400 Advanced ICS o IS-700 National Incident Management System (NIMS) An Introduction o IS-701 NIMS Multiagency Coordination System (MACS) Course o IS-702 National Incident Management System (NIMS) Public Information

Systems

o IS-703 NIMS Resource Management o IS-704 NIMS Communications and Information Management o IS-706 NIMS Intrastate Mutual Aid - An Introduction o IS-800 National Response Framework, An Introduction

11) How many formal training classes that provide general emergency management

training have you taken (including EMI, and state EMA classes but not including in-

house or special needs training)?

o _______

12) What percentage of the people in your geographical response area have special

needs?

o Undetermined o 1%-25% o 26%-49% o 50%+

13) In your written disaster preparedness plan, which special needs are identified and

include strategies for assisting special needs populations?

o We do not have written preparedness plans for special needs or do not know if we have I was not involved in creating a preparedness plan

o Hearing impaired o Sight impaired o Mobility issues o Elderly assistance o Cognitive issues (autism, traumatic brain injury, dementia, etc.) o Psychological impairments (depressive disorder, anxiety, and bipolar

disorders)

o Physical limitations and needs o Are institutionalized (including nursing homes, assisted living, mental

hospitals, etc.)

o Limited English proficiency or are non-English speaking o Transportation disadvantaged o Have chronic medical disorders o Have pharmacological dependencies o Are children

200

o Homeless individuals o Suffers functional limitations o Other _____________________________

14) A special needs registry is defined as a database of individuals with a special need

who require notification or evacuation assistance in the event of a disaster. Do you have a

special needs registry?

o Yes o No

15) What groups or organizations do you solicit to obtain the names and addresses of

those with special needs?

o I do not solicit names and addresses of people with special needs from other organizations

o Meals on Wheels o Salvation Army o American Red Cross o Faith based organizations o From lessons learned from a disaster o Homeless shelters o Immigrant organizations o Other ______________________

16) How many times per year do you furnish first responder personnel with educational

programs or training classes designed to assist the special needs populations in the event

of a disaster?

o ______

17) What advocacy groups or organizations from the special needs community do you

include in local disaster preparedness training drills?

o I do not solicit special needs input in the decision-making process at this time

o Those that have the special need o Family members of someone with special needs o Local disabled advocacy groups o State disability groups o Disability consultants o Other _______________

18) How often do you provide an outreach program to educate special needs populations

about preparedness actions they can undertake to reduce their risks?

201

o I do not provide outreach

o Every other year

o Annually

o Quarterly

o Bi-annually

19) In an effort to enhance preparedness for special needs populations, collaborative

networks can be forged to help in the mitigation, prevention, and preparedness stages to

identify intricacies not commonly known. Which groups or individuals do you have

collaborative relationships with to assist planning for special needs populations?

o I am not involved with collaborative relationships at this time o Those that have a special need o Family members of someone with special needs o Local disabled advocacy groups o State disability groups o Disability consultants o Other _______________

20) What notification systems do you utilize to notify the special needs populations who

may not be aware (because of their disability) of warning notices, incoming disasters, or

evacuation orders?

o I do not provide additional notification

o Reverse 911 o Phone or TDY tree notification o Door to door o Code red alerting system o Mass texts o Emergency Alerting System (EAS) o Digital EAS o NOAA Weather Radio o Other ________

21) What percentage of the buildings in your city or county have you pre-identified as

disaster shelters which meet the needs and could be used as emergency sheltering

facilities for the special needs population according to the Americans with Disabilities

Act (ADA)?

o Undetermined o ______%

22) What types of shelters for the special needs population do you provide during

disaster?

202

o I was not involved in identifying special needs sheltering plans o Separate shelters for only special needs individuals o Integration of special needs individuals into general shelters o Both fully integrated and special needs only shelters

23) What modes of rapidly deployed transportation have you arranged to assist in the

evacuation of special needs populations prior to or during a disaster?

o I do not have transportation of disabled populations planned o Disability or Para-transit type vans o Medi-transit type vans o Handicap accessible school buses o Handicap accessible tour buses o Private vehicles o Other _________________

24) What agreements have you made with the identified local disabled transportation

resources (such as medi-transit, handicap accessible school buses, disability vans, etc.) to

ensure their participation in the event of a disaster?

o I do not have any formal or informal agreements o Verbal agreements o Memorandum of understanding o Intergovernmental agreements o Pre-written contracts o Other ________

25) Are you aware that according to the American with Disabilities Act an agency must

have the same comparative level of preparedness for special needs populations as they do

with the general public?

o Yes o No

26) Have you seen or reviewed this survey before today?

o Yes o No