Children with disabilities and special needs are among the most vulnerable when disaster strikes. Schools can play an effective role in mitigating the effects of natural disasters on students and their families through disaster preparedness and community-based risk reduction. However, recent research indicates that insufficient consideration is being given to the needs of students with disabilities in disaster management plans and policies of Australian education departments. This study involved a postal survey of schools in Western Australia (n= 45) and South Australia (n=35) to review the emergency management policies and plans in place with respect to students with disabilities. The results indicated that most schools had disaster management plans but not all plans made provision for students with disabilities, although the results varied according to the disability and the disaster envisaged. Moreover, most schools were not represented at Local Disaster Management Groups. This paper advocates for better preparedness in schools to support their students with disabilities and their families during natural disasters.
Children with disabilities including chronic medical conditions and special health care needs, are among the most vulnerable to natural disasters (Balbus & Malina 2009). Many find it difficult to cope when their environment, and support systems are dramatically altered, especially those with limited understanding of the level of danger they are in during and after a disaster event (Kailes & Enders 2007) or who become anxious and confused in response to emergency signals (Scotti et al. 2007). Children require more preparation and assistance to fully participate in emergency evacuation plans or to move quickly from an area likely to be affected by a disaster (Peek & Stough 2010). Van Willigen et al. (2002) found that the evacuation rates were 9.25 per cent lower in households where one family member had a disability compared with other households in the aftermath of hurricanes Bonnie, Dennis and Floyd in the United States. Transportation issues and the lack of accessible shelters were reported as factors contributing to the decision not to evacuate.
Vulnerability may be compounded by social, structural and financial disadvantage. Frequently, children with disabilities lack adequate access to social and economic resources and possess limited levels of social capital, power and autonomy (Peek & Stough 2010). According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW 2009), an estimated 168 500 Australian children had a severe disability in 2009, with the proportion of children with severe disabilities being highest amongst low-income households (29 per cent) and lowest amongst high-income households (7 per cent).
Schools can play an effective role in mitigating the effects of natural disasters on all students and their families including the most vulnerable (Ronan & Johnston 2005). For example, recent research in New Zealand illustrated how a school-based hazards education program increased knowledge and preparedness among students (Ronan, Crellin & Johnston 2012). According to recent Australian estimates, 10.6 per cent of all children under 18 have a schooling restriction (ABS 2009). The most prevalent disabilities among children are intellectual/learning disabilities, estimated at 166 700 of children under 18 (4.3 per cent) and physical/diverse disabilities, estimated at 162 800 of children under 18 (4.2 per cent) (AIHW 2009). Despite these numbers, little is known about the effectiveness of Australian school emergency planning for students with disabilities (Boon et al. 2011). The unique needs of these students are noted in all Australian state and territory government education emergency planning policies except for Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory (Boon et al. 2012). However, there has been no systematic evaluation of the extent to which the particular needs of these students are addressed in disaster planning among Australian schools. Planning for the needs of students with disabilities is of particular importance, not only because of their vulnerability, but also because of predicted climate change related increases in the severity and frequency of some natural disaster events across Australia (CSIRO 2011).
This study examined school-level emergency management and disaster policies and plans in Australia to determine the extent to which they consider the specific needs of students with disabilities and special needs.
The present study involved a random postal survey of Australian schools in two states: Western Australia and South Australia. The aim of the project was to look at a range of schools across Australia. However, only the Education Departments in Western Australia and South Australia granted permission to conduct the survey with their schools and staff, despite ethics approval from the authors’ university. Approximately 450 surveys were distributed to administrators in these two school systems.
The survey was constructed to reflect the authors’ knowledge of how the specific needs of students vary according to their particular disability or special needs, and how these have a unique impact on the capacity of each student to evacuate safely during various emergency situations and to comprehend and recover from particular emergencies. For example, an evacuation plan for a school should address the needs of a student with visual impairment very differently to those of a student with an intellectual disability. Similarly, school policies to manage emergency and disaster situations would be expected to assist staff in their efforts to help students with disabilities recover from their experiences, and to understand how the particular special need of the student could impact on this recovery.
The survey was structured to obtain information about school planning for each disability type in each of the anticipatory, acute, and recovery phases of an emergency. The anticipatory phase reflects the period of time when an emergency or disaster is anticipated but has not yet occurred. The acute phase includes the period of the emergency or disaster and its immediate aftermath. The recovery phase is the period of time beyond the acute phase of the emergency or disaster, where the school is seeking to return to ‘business as usual’.
A total of 80 survey responses were received. This comprised 45 schools from Western Australia and 35 schools from South Australia. The response rate (18 per cent) to the survey is consistent with results obtained from postal surveys, commonly found to range between 15-50 per cent (Burns 2000).
Tables 1a–c provide an outline of the demographic characteristics of the responding schools. Most schools were rural schools and the surveys were generally completed by principals or deputy principals. On average, approximately 5 per cent of students in each school had a verified disability, and 10.3 per cent of students had verified special needs such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) or dyslexia, results reflecting lower than average rates in Australia1 (ABS, 2009).
Table 1a: Demographic Characteristics of the Responding Schools—Description of the School
|
Category |
Characteristic |
Percentage of respondants |
|---|---|---|
|
State |
WA |
56.3% |
|
SA |
43.8% |
|
|
Respondent Role |
Principal / Deputy Principal |
84.8% |
|
Teacher |
6.3% |
|
|
Other |
8.9% |
|
|
Type of School |
Primary School |
38.0% |
|
Middle School |
2.5% |
|
|
Secondary School |
35.4% |
|
|
P-10 or P-12 |
16.4% |
|
|
Senior |
3.8% |
|
|
Secondary and Senior |
3.8% |
|
|
Location |
Metropolitan |
34.2% |
|
Urban Regional |
19.0% |
|
|
Rural |
46.8% |
Table 1b: Demographic Characteristics of the Responding Schools—Staff and Student Population
|
Category |
Mean +/- Standard Deviation |
Median (Interquartile Range) |
Minimum |
Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Number of Staff |
86 |
49 |
5 |
950 |
|
Student Population |
468 |
350 |
16 |
1730 |
|
% of Students with Verified Disability |
5.0% |
3.0% |
0.2% |
25.0% |
|
% of Students with Verified Special Needs |
10.3% |
5.5% |
0.4% |
90.0% |
Table 1c: Demographic Characteristics of the Responding Schools—Events Experienced
|
Event |
Percentage of respondants |
|---|---|
|
Bushfire / Wildfire |
35.9% |
|
Building Fire |
50.0% |
|
Flash Flood |
10.4% |
|
Cyclone |
11.7% |
|
Violent Intruder |
39.0% |
|
Flood |
14.3% |
|
Pandemic / Disease Outbreak |
18.2% |
|
Heat Emergency |
28.6% |
|
At Least One of the Above |
77.5% |
The results indicated that 77.5 per cent of all respondent schools had experienced a disaster, with fire (bush fire or building fire) being the most common.
Table 2 indicates the status of school disaster plans. Most schools (96.3 per cent) had a plan in place and most of these plans (73.8 per cent) had been updated within the last year. Despite the prevalence and currency of these plans, most schools were not represented at the local Disaster Management Group meetings.
Table 2: Status of School Disaster Plans
|
Measure |
Status |
Percentage of respondents |
|---|---|---|
|
Type of School Disaster Plan |
Any Plan |
96.3% |
|
Generic District / System-Wide Plan |
15% |
|
|
Generic District / System-Wide Plan with Modifications |
51.9% |
|
|
A Unique School-Specific Plan |
37.5% |
|
|
Currency of Plan(s) |
Updated within Last Year |
73.8% |
|
Updated within Last 5 Years |
15.0% |
|
|
Updated in Last 6 to 10 Years |
5.0% |
|
|
Unknown |
6.3% |
|
|
School Represented at Local Disaster Management Group |
Yes |
27.6% |
|
No |
56.6% |
|
|
Unknown |
15.8% |
Table 3 provides details of the disaster plans of respondents. As noted, a distinction was made between the anticipatory, acute and recovery phase of hazards, which were defined in the school surveys.
Table 3: Percentage of Schools with Disaster Plans Addressing Each Disaster Phase and Provisions for Students with Disabilities
|
Plan makes provisions for students with … |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Plan |
Phase |
Plan specifically addresses Hazard |
Physical/Mobility Impairment |
Chronic Conditions/ Special Needs |
Sensory Impairments |
Emotional/Behavioural Disability |
Cognitive Impairment |
|
Bushfire/Wildfire |
Anticipatory |
50.0% |
27.5% |
31.3% |
26.3% |
30.0% |
31.3% |
|
Acute |
51.3% |
27.5% |
30.0% |
26.3% |
30.0% |
30.0% |
|
|
Recovery |
46.3% |
25.0% |
28.8% |
25.0% |
27.5% |
28.8% |
|
|
Cyclone |
Anticipatory |
13.8% |
11.3% |
12.5% |
11.3% |
12.5% |
12.5% |
|
Acute |
15.0% |
11.3% |
12.5% |
11.3% |
12.5% |
12.5% |
|
|
Recovery |
12.5% |
10.0% |
10.0% |
8.8% |
10.0% |
10.0% |
|
|
Flood/Flash Flood |
Anticipatory |
22.5% |
15.0% |
17.5% |
15.0% |
13.8% |
15.0% |
|
Acute |
21.3% |
13.8% |
16.3% |
13.8% |
12.5% |
13.8% |
|
|
Recovery |
15.0% |
10.0% |
12.5% |
10.0% |
8.8% |
10.0% |
|
|
Pandemic/Disease |
Anticipatory |
21.3% |
15.0% |
16.3% |
12.5% |
15.0% |
16.3% |
|
Acute |
18.8% |
13.8% |
15.0% |
11.3% |
13.8% |
15.0% |
|
|
Recovery |
17.5% |
12.5% |
13.8% |
10.0% |
12.5% |
13.8% |
|
|
Heat Wave |
Anticipatory |
31.3% |
25.0% |
26.3% |
21.3% |
23.8% |
26.3% |
|
Acute |
28.8% |
25.0% |
27.5% |
22.5% |
25.0% |
27.5% |
|
|
Recovery |
25.0% |
23.8% |
26.3% |
21.3% |
22.5% |
26.3% |
|
The percentage of respondents reporting having disaster plans varied according to the type of disaster and disaster phase, reflecting in part that not all schools were at risk of all disasters. For example, 51.3 per cent of respondents reported having a disaster plan that specifically addressed the acute phase of a bushfire/wildfire but only 15.0 per cent of respondents had a disaster plan that addressed the acute phase of a cyclone, as many of the responding schools were located far inland from the coast.
When the needs of students with disabilities were considered, these varied according to the type of disability. For example, 27.5 per cent of respondents reported that their bushfire/wildfire plan specifically addressed the issues of children with physical or mobility impairments in the acute phase compared to 26.3 per cent for students with sensory impairments and 30.0 per cent for students with emotional or behavioural disabilities. Nonetheless, across all disasters and disaster phases, less than one-third of school disaster plans specifically addressed the needs of students with disabilities—for some hazards, as few as 10 per cent to 15 per cent of disaster plans specifically addressed the needs of students with disabilities.
Table 4 outlines the results of respondent needs for additional resources, infrastructure or professional advice. Approximately a quarter of respondents indicated they needed additional resources, infrastructure or professional advice on disaster planning across all hazards.
Table 4: Schools Reporting a Need for Additional Resources, Infrastructure, or Professional Advice on Disaster Planning
|
Specifically regarding provisions for students with … |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Plan |
Generally |
Physical/Mobility Impairment |
Chronic Conditions/ Special Needs |
Sensory Impairments |
Emotional/Behavioural Disability |
Cognitive Impairment |
|
All Hazards |
25.0% |
26.3% |
26.3% |
25.0% |
23.8% |
23.8% |
|
Bushfire/Wildfire |
21.3% |
17.5% |
16.3% |
16.3% |
16.3% |
16.3% |
|
Cyclone |
13.8% |
12.5% |
12.5% |
10.0% |
11.3% |
11.3% |
|
Flood/Flash Flood |
12.5% |
7.5% |
7.5% |
6.3% |
6.3% |
5.0% |
|
Pandemic/Disease |
17.5% |
11.3% |
11.3% |
10.0% |
11.3% |
11.3% |
|
Heat Wave |
16.3% |
10.0% |
8.8% |
8.8% |
8.8% |
8.8% |
The above results reflect the views of respondents on how students with disabilities including those with special needs are incorporated into school emergency planning. While it is acknowledged that the results do not adequately represent all Australian state and territory schools, the results nonetheless provide some understanding of how school emergency plans reflect the needs of students with disabilities and perhaps also how state education policies are implemented at a local level.
It appears that the needs of students with disabilities are not adequately reflected in school emergency plans although the extent to which this occurs varies according to the disaster and disability type. It is axiomatic that not all schools would be at risk of all disasters. Accordingly, the results indicate differences between the percentages of respondents having emergency plans for each disaster. However, we believe that all Australian schools should make provision for children with disabilities and special needs in their emergency plans for each disaster, as advocated in other countries (Save the Children USA 2012). While children with disabilities and special needs on average represented 5 per cent and 10 per cent respectively of the student population among respondents, these students are among the most vulnerable to disasters. These students require inclusive emergency plans to be developed and implemented at the school level because the context of the school will, in part, determine the support necessary for each student’s needs. The child and his or her carers and families should also be actively involved in developing these emergency plans as they will best understand what their child’s needs may be and how they may be accommodated.
Emergency planning needs to occur for all phases of a disaster from disaster preparedness through to disaster recovery. Preparedness and evacuation responses need to be practised by persons with disabilities and those who are responsible for assisting them. For example, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (2007) noted that the Associated Blind Organisation had developed and practiced an evacuation plan and drill for its visually impaired staff with the help of the New York City Fire Department. This plan and its practice were instrumental in the safe evacuation of the Associated Blind Organisation’s staff from the 11 September 2011 attack on the World Trade Center in New York. In the case where a school building is damaged by a weather disaster and becomes unusable for a period of time, as occurred after Cyclone Yasi and the Brisbane floods, it is important that contingency plans be in place to ensure that the students, especially those who have a disability, are not excluded. The loss of schools, both in terms of the physical building and the educational access that the institution provides, can be particularly problematic for students with disabilities, as they face many barriers in accessing education on a day-to-day basis and their home environment might be ill prepared to substitute the educational impact that they miss from school (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies 2007).
It is noteworthy that the majority of respondents indicated that their school was not represented at the local Disaster Management Group or that they did not know whether or not this was the case. Given that local Disaster Management Groups are responsible for planning all aspects of disaster mitigation, prevention, preparedness and response in a local area, the absence of a school representative is significant in terms of ensuring that the school is adequately informed about disaster preparedness and that the needs of its students are addressed and integrated into community-wide disaster planning.
It would be useful to extend the results of the present study by continuing its application in other states and territories. Further, qualitative research with school management personnel may provide further insight into how schools are able to prepare for emergencies with respect to students with disabilities and to corroborate these research results by reviewing some of the emergency plans for each school. Up to a quarter of all respondents indicated that they would like additional resources, infrastructure or professional advice on disaster planning. Perhaps the school resources available through the Australian Emergency Management Institute Disaster Resilience Education for Schools website2 could be bought to the attention of teachers, or it could be that these resources are not suitable for use within the current school curriculums. Additional research may help elucidate how schools can be better integrated into disaster planning structures and be able to care for all students in disaster settings including the most vulnerable.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009, Disability, Ageing and Carers, Australia: Summary of Findings, 2009, Cat.No. 4430.0, Australia.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2009, A picture of Australia’s children 2009, Cat. No. PHE 112, AIHW, Canberra.
Balbus, JM & Malinac, C 2009, Identifying vulnerable subpopulations for climate change health effects in the United States, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 33-37.
Boon, HJ, Brown, LH, Tsey, K, Speare, R, Pagliano, P, Usher, K & Clark, B 2011, School disaster planning for children with disabilities: A critical review of the literature, International Journal of Special Education, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 223-237.
Boon, HJ, Pagliano, P, Brown, L, & Tsey, K 2012, An assessment of policies guiding school emergency disaster management for students with disabilities in Australia, Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 17-26.
Burns, RB 2000, Introduction to research methods, 4th edition, Longman, Frenchs Forest, NSW.
CSIRO 2011, Climate change will continue worldwide. At: www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding/Climate-Change-Continues.aspx, [15 July 2013].
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies 2007, World Disasters Report – Focus on discrimination, Kumarian Press, Bloomfield, Connecticut.
Kailes, JI, & Enders, A 2007, Moving beyond “special needs” A function-based framework for emergency management and planning, Journal of Disability Policy Studies, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 230-237.
Peek, L & Stough, LM 2010, Children with disabilities in the context of disaster: A social vulnerability perspective, Child development, Vol. 81, No. 4, pp. 1260-1270.
Ronan, KR & Johnston, DM 2005, Promoting community resilience in disaster: the role for schools, youth and families, Springer, USA.
Ronan, KR, Crellin, A & Johnston, DM 2012, Community readiness for a new tsunami warning system: quasi-experimental and benchmarking evaluation of a school education component, Natural Hazards, Vol. 61, pp. 1411–1425.
Save the Children USA 2012, A National Report Card on Children Protecting Children During Disasters. At: www.savethechildren.org/site/c.8rKLIXMGIpI4E/b.7705371/k.10C/Disaster_Preparedness_for_Kids_in_the_USA.htm, [15 July 2013].
Scotti, JR, Stevens, S, Cavender, A, Morford, M, Jacoby, V, Freed, R & Burkhart, S 2007, Response of persons with mental retardation⁄developmental disabilities to emergency situation: Implications for disaster preparedness. In annual meeting of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, Baltimore.
Van Willigen, M, Edwards, T, Edwards, B & Hessee, S 2002, Riding out the storm: Experiences of the physically disabled during Hurricanes Bonnie, Dennis, and Floyd, Natural Hazards Review, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 98-106.
Dr Helen J Boon is a Senior Lecturer at James Cook University. Helen has a strong research interest in climate change and the intersection of ethics, climate change and adaptation to climate change. Helen has conducted research on community resilience to disasters using mixed methods, including Rasch and Structural Equation analytical methods.
Dr Lawrence H Brown is an Associate Professor at James Cook University, and the research lead for Community Rehabilitation North Queensland. Lawrence’s interests include enhancing the evidence base for out-of-hospital emergency care, and strengthening the links between emergency medical services and public health, particularly in resource-poor settings.
Dr Paul J Pagliano is an Associate Professor in Education and the Director of Academic and Accreditations at James Cook University. Paul’s research focuses on maximising the life chances of individuals with disabilities.
1 The ABS and other bodies reporting on disabilities only count disabilities such as Down Syndrome, intellectual impairment and visual impairment and so on. Special needs such as ADHD and dyslexia, and chronic illness which do not carry extra funding, are not ‘counted’. It has been estimated that 18 per cent of all children have special educational needs.
2 Disaster Resilience Education for Schools website. At: http://schools.aemi.edu.au.