recognizing vulnerability and capacity: federal
TRANSCRIPT
61© The Author(s) 2020S. Haeffele, V. H. Storr (eds.), Government Responses to Crisis, Mercatus Studies in Political and Social Economy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39309-0_5
5Recognizing Vulnerability and Capacity: Federal Initiatives Focused on Children and Youth Across the Disaster Lifecycle
Lori Peek and Simone Domingue
5.1 Prologue
Ryan1 found out just before his sixteenth birthday that he had been selected to serve as one of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Youth Preparedness Council (YPC) representatives for his region of the United States. Although he had always been a high-achieving stu-
L. Peek (*) • S. Domingue Department of Sociology, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA
Natural Hazards Center, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USAe-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
The authors would like to thank Stefanie Haeffele and Virgil Henry Storr at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University for their editorial leadership. Nick Horna and Christopher Rini, both undergraduate research assistants at the Natural Hazards Center, assisted with data collection for this chapter. Allison Carlock, National Youth Preparedness Lead at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, reviewed an earlier draft of this chapter, which is gratefully acknowledged. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant no. 1635593. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
62
dent and involved member of his broader community, Ryan said there was “something really special” about being a member of YPC.
Founded in 2012 to convene youth leaders interested in supporting pre-paredness efforts and developing a culture of disaster readiness, the YPC typically includes between 10 and 15 youth leaders who are identified through a competitive application process to participate in the program. These YPC members are invited to attend an annual meeting, held in the summer in Washington, DC, where they receive training and mentoring from leading emergency management professionals and child protection experts. During their two-year appointment on the council, all of the YPC members are encouraged to develop and launch their own local- or national-level disaster preparedness project. They are also regularly invited to provide input and a youth perspective on new programs and initiatives.
Ryan—who was raised in a community subject to weather extremes, where it is especially hot and dry in the summer months and extremely cold and snowy in the winter—decided that he wanted to help equip teens with the information, skills, and materials necessary to survive a severe winter storm. His idea for the “Blizzard Bag” was borne out of his belief that teens may be especially vulnerable2 if they are trapped in their vehicle in freezing weather conditions, and his desire to encourage teens to take action to create their own disaster supply kit so that “new drivers can be ready for about anything.”
Ryan made posters, flyers, and a website and participated in a variety of local events where he would encourage awareness of the threat of winter storm conditions and work to influence teens to act to reduce their risk. He gave talks on the Blizzard Bag in his community and even delivered a plenary presentation on his efforts at a national conference. He raised donations so that he could give away some of the necessary but costlier supplies that the kit requires (which includes a gallon of water, warm clothing or a blanket, nonperishable food, a weather radio, flares, a flash-light, a first-aid kit, and an extra cell phone battery or other power source).
As he neared the end of his term of service with the YPC, Ryan estimated that hundreds of teens had created their own Blizzard Bags in response to the program he developed. In reflecting on his service through the YPC, Ryan noted how much it had changed him. He said that for the first time, he “really understood how much of a difference one person can make.” He
L. Peek and S. Domingue
63
also acknowledged that while it is true that “no one person can do every-thing, we can all do something together to make the world a safer place.”
Ryan obviously recognized that his individual actions created positive change. He was quick to point out, however, that he would not have been able to make such a contribution without the guidance and various forms of support provided by FEMA. Although Ryan had thought about disas-ters previously—some of his extended family members in India were dis-placed by catastrophic flooding the year before he applied for the YPC program—he did not know what to do to help reduce risk and to get others thinking about simple, concrete steps that they can take to become better prepared. Ryan clearly had the personal motivation and desire to take on a disaster preparedness project, but it was FEMA that provided a formal structure of opportunity—here referring to how the chance to gain certain rewards or achieve certain goals is shaped by the ways that society and specific institutions are organized (Cloward and Ohlin 1960)—for him to get involved and make a difference.
5.2 Introduction
Researchers have systematically studied children’s reactions to disaster since the 1940s, although interest in both the subfield and practical inter-ventions to reduce children’s vulnerability has grown tremendously over the past decade (Pfefferbaum et al. 2012). In fact, a recent meta-review found that nearly half of all studies on children and disaster have been published since 2010, and most of this recent literature has focused on a limited number of large-scale catastrophic events (Peek et al. 2018). The same review also highlighted six major waves of research on children and disaster that have been prevalent over time, including contributions regarding (1) the effects of disaster on children’s mental health and behav-ioral reactions; (2) disaster exposure as it relates to children’s physical health and well-being; (3) social vulnerability and sociodemographic characteristics; (4) the role of institutions and socio-ecological context in shaping children’s pre- and post-disaster outcomes; (5) resiliency, strengths, and capacities; and (6) children’s voices, perspectives, and actions across the disaster lifecycle (Peek et al. 2018, 244).
5 Recognizing Vulnerability and Capacity…
64
Just as scholarship has increased and changed in focus over time, so too have the number and range of federal, state, and local programs that concentrate on children and disasters. This institutional trend is, in many ways, aligned with the aforementioned waves (5) and (6) and the associated scholarly emphasis on children’s capacities and their actions in disaster risk reduction.
This chapter provides a brief summary of social vulnerability approaches to understanding disaster and then offers an overview and analysis of a number of programs, educational initiatives, and guidance documents created by federal agencies3 to engage children and child-serving organi-zations in emergency management. The chapter demonstrates that these “top-down” responses reflect an increasing commitment on the part of the federal government to reduce children’s vulnerability in disasters. Additionally, they underscore a rising awareness of children’s ability to participate in activities that reduce their own risk. However, as we argue in this chapter, there are many avenues for the federal government to further engage children in long-term recovery, mitigation, and other disaster risk reduction efforts to further bolster their existing capacities and overall community resilience.
5.3 Social Vulnerability, Children, and Disasters
While some initial studies of disasters cast them as equal opportunity events that caused indiscriminate harm, by the mid-1970s, scholars writ-ing from a social vulnerability perspective began to question and chal-lenge the “naturalness” of so-called natural disasters (O’Keefe et al. 1976). These researchers and others who continued to work in the same vein point out that while many disasters are indeed triggered by natural haz-ards such as tornadoes, earthquakes, or hurricanes, it is actually social, historical, and economic arrangements that determine the scale and scope of disasters and their effects on diverse populations (Tierney 2014; Wisner et al. 2004).
Because disaster risk is distributed in ways that reflect pre-existing inequalities, groups that are marginalized and have less power and fewer resources often have the hardest time preparing for, responding to, and
L. Peek and S. Domingue
65
recovering from disaster (Hewitt 1997; Wisner et al. 2004). Entire vol-umes have been dedicated to exploring the root causes and the consequences of social vulnerability for specific sociodemographic groups, including women, racial and ethnic minorities, low-income per-sons, persons with disabilities, the elderly, and children (see Phillips et al. 2009; Thomas et al. 2013; Veenema 2018). And while the majority of available social vulnerability scholarship considers how social class, racial and ethnic status, and gender influence pre- and post-disaster outcomes (Cutter et al. 2003; Morrow 1999), recent publications have also focused on how age—especially among the very old and very young—can impair disaster preparedness, response, and recovery (Peek 2013). For example, older adults are at a greater risk of injury or death in disaster (Bourque et al. 2007). Their susceptibility to harm is caused by a number of factors, such as economic and social marginalization that reduces their ability to stockpile food and medicine, receive and interpret warning messages, safely evacuate, find adequate medical care post disaster, and recover financially and emotionally from trauma (Elmore and Brown 2007–2008). Similarly, age also influences the vulnerability of infants and very young children who may be dependent upon others for care in disasters and are more susceptible to deleterious physical health effects following public health emergencies and disasters (Peek et al. 2018).
Federal mission agencies with the responsibility for effectively respond-ing to disasters have clearly been influenced by the social vulnerability scholarship that is now so prevalent in the hazards and disaster field. For instance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has a dedicated Vulnerable Populations Officer within the Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response, the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response in the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has a comprehensive collection of resources on access and functional needs, and FEMA developed the Communication, Medical, Independence, Supervision, and Transportation (C-MIST) framework in recognition of potential needs among varying populations in the categories of C-MIST.
Today, it is hard to imagine any emergency planning guidance that does not include recommendations concerning high-risk, high- vulnerability populations (Davis et al. 2018). This is a testament to how far the hazards and disaster field has come since the 1970s, and to how much the science and practice of vulnerability reduction and crisis
5 Recognizing Vulnerability and Capacity…
66
response has advanced. At the same time, scholars have called for more nuanced and complex disaster management frameworks that recognize interdependencies between broader social and cultural systems and how they intersect with more micro-level behaviors and actions to ultimately influence individual and community capacity (Enarson 2012; Luft 2016; O’Sullivan and Craig 2013). Indeed, this newer wave of social vulnerabil-ity scholarship recognizes the utility of naming so-called vulnerable groups to ensure they are not left behind in emergency preparedness planning but also challenges researchers and practitioners to explore how a particular marker of vulnerability intersects with historical and contem-porary patterns of inequality (see Table 5.1).
The recognition of socially vulnerable groups is a prerequisite for the types of more complex and dynamic definitions represented in Table 5.1. This is important to underscore because the marginalization of popula-tions is often what leads to their invisibility in structures of power and opportunity and ultimately drives their vulnerability. It is through the process of naming potentially vulnerable groups that scholars and emer-gency management professionals can begin to unpack the complex his-torical and contemporary processes that influence unequal outcomes.
Children, for example, make up nearly 25 percent of the total US pop-ulation. Yet, before Hurricane Katrina brought their suffering into such sharp relief, they were rarely included or considered in emergency man-agement planning and practice (Peek 2008). Indeed, the presidentially appointed National Commission on Children and Disasters (2010) iden-tified the lack of recognition of children as a distinct population within other “at-risk” populations as a major barrier to prioritizing children’s needs in disaster, such as their need for mental health services, pediatric health care, or educational support services. Today, that has changed in many ways, as is evidenced by the rise in scholarship on children’s vulner-ability and capacities in disaster (Peek et al. 2018) and the ever-growing number of federally focused programs on children, youth, and disasters (FEMA 2016). While these developments are certainly encouraging and indicative of a wider awareness of children’s unique needs, as we shall later discuss, there are still many opportunities for top-down disaster responses to better serve children and recognize their capacity to initiate change within their social environments.
L. Peek and S. Domingue
67Ta
ble
5.1
Ex
amp
les
of
stat
ic v
ersu
s d
ynam
ic a
nd
inte
rsec
tio
nal
defi
nit
ion
s o
f so
cial
vu
lner
abili
ty
Exam
ple
s o
f st
atic
in
dic
ato
rs o
f so
cial
vu
lner
abili
ty—
“Th
e vu
lner
able
po
pu
lati
on
s ch
eckl
ist”
mo
del
Exam
ple
s o
f d
ynam
ic in
dic
ato
rs a
nd
inte
rsec
tio
nal
len
ses
for
un
der
stan
din
g s
oci
al v
uln
erab
ility
Ch
ildre
nA
ge
alo
ne
do
es n
ot
ren
der
a c
hild
vu
lner
able
to
dis
aste
r—ex
cep
t in
th
e ca
se o
f in
fan
ts a
nd
th
e yo
un
ges
t ch
ildre
n, w
ho
may
nee
d c
om
ple
te p
rote
ctio
n a
nd
car
e in
th
e fa
ce o
f d
isas
ter.
For
mo
st c
hild
ren
an
d y
ou
th, t
hei
r vu
lner
abili
ty is
infl
uen
ced
by
thei
r ag
e as
wel
l as
by
oth
er
fact
ors
su
ch a
s fa
mily
str
uct
ure
; exc
lusi
on
fro
m t
he
pu
blic
sp
her
e an
d f
rom
dec
isio
n-m
akin
g
bo
die
s th
at in
flu
ence
th
eir
lives
; a la
ck o
f vo
tin
g r
igh
ts; c
ult
ura
l sys
tem
s th
at d
eval
ue
the
per
spec
tive
s an
d ig
no
re t
he
voic
es o
f ch
ildre
n a
nd
yo
uth
; sti
gm
a o
r st
ereo
typ
es a
gai
nst
yo
un
g p
eop
le; a
nd
hig
h r
ates
of
child
po
vert
y (M
arch
ezin
i an
d T
rajb
er 2
017;
Pee
k 20
08).
Eld
erly
Ag
e al
on
e d
oes
no
t re
nd
er a
per
son
ove
r th
e ag
e o
f 60
or
65—
wh
ich
mo
st s
oci
etie
s u
se t
o
defi
ne
tho
se w
ho
are
co
nsi
der
ed e
lder
ly—
vuln
erab
le in
dis
aste
r. In
stea
d, o
lder
per
son
s m
ay
be
mo
re s
usc
epti
ble
to
har
m a
nd
su
ffer
ing
in d
isas
ter
un
der
cer
tain
co
nd
itio
ns,
su
ch a
s w
hen
th
ey: e
xper
ien
ce p
hys
ical
or
med
ical
co
nd
itio
ns
that
lim
it t
hei
r m
ob
ility
; dep
end
on
par
ticu
lar
dev
ices
or
med
ical
tre
atm
ents
th
at r
equ
ire
po
wer
or
acce
ss t
o p
resc
rip
tio
n m
edic
atio
ns;
ex
per
ien
ce p
hys
ical
dis
abili
ties
th
at m
ay li
mit
th
eir
abili
ty t
o r
ecei
ve w
arn
ing
s o
r to
tak
e n
eces
sary
pro
tect
ive
acti
on
s; a
nd
lack
acc
ess
to t
he
Inte
rnet
, a c
om
pu
ter,
or
oth
er r
eso
urc
es
nec
essa
ry t
o a
pp
ly f
or
and
rec
eive
po
st-d
isas
ter
aid
(Pe
ek 2
013)
.G
end
erTh
ere
is n
oth
ing
inh
eren
t ab
ou
t g
end
er t
hat
ren
der
s w
om
en a
nd
gir
ls m
ore
su
scep
tib
le t
o
dea
th, i
nju
ry, o
r h
arm
in d
isas
ter.
Inst
ead
, pat
riar
chal
sys
tem
s th
at p
rivi
leg
e m
ale
per
spec
tive
s an
d p
ow
er g
ener
ate
dis
par
ate
po
st-d
isas
ter
ou
tco
mes
. In
mo
st p
lace
s ar
ou
nd
th
e w
orl
d,
wo
men
are
less
like
ly t
o: e
xper
ien
ce p
olit
ical
rep
rese
nta
tio
n p
rop
ort
ion
ate
to t
hei
r sh
are
of
the
po
pu
lati
on
, su
stai
n fi
nan
cial
an
d s
oci
al in
dep
end
ence
, an
d e
arn
wag
es a
nd
sal
arie
s co
mm
ensu
rate
wit
h t
hei
r m
ale
cou
nte
rpar
ts. W
om
en a
nd
gir
ls a
re m
ore
like
ly t
o: e
xper
ien
ce
vio
len
ce a
nd
ab
use
, be
po
litic
ally
an
d s
oci
ally
mar
gin
aliz
ed a
nd
eco
no
mic
ally
exp
loit
ed, a
nd
liv
e in
po
vert
y. It
is t
hes
e fa
cto
rs, a
nd
man
y o
ther
s, t
hat
sh
ape
thei
r vu
lner
abili
ty t
o d
isas
ter,
no
t th
eir
gen
der
alo
ne
(En
arso
n 2
012;
Fo
ther
gill
200
4; L
uft
201
6).
(continued
)
5 Recognizing Vulnerability and Capacity…
68
Tab
le 5
.1
(co
nti
nu
ed)
Exam
ple
s o
f st
atic
in
dic
ato
rs o
f so
cial
vu
lner
abili
ty—
“Th
e vu
lner
able
po
pu
lati
on
s ch
eckl
ist”
mo
del
Exam
ple
s o
f d
ynam
ic in
dic
ato
rs a
nd
inte
rsec
tio
nal
len
ses
for
un
der
stan
din
g s
oci
al v
uln
erab
ility
Rac
ial a
nd
eth
nic
m
ino
riti
esIn
th
e U
nit
ed S
tate
s, H
isp
anic
s/La
tin
os,
Bla
cks/
Afr
ican
Am
eric
ans,
Asi
ans/
Asi
an A
mer
ican
s, a
nd
A
mer
ican
Ind
ian
s/N
ativ
e A
mer
ican
s re
pre
sen
t th
e fo
ur
larg
est
raci
al a
nd
eth
nic
min
ori
ty
gro
up
s. T
aken
to
get
her
, th
ey c
om
pri
se a
bo
ut
on
e-th
ird
of
the
tota
l US
po
pu
lati
on
. Eac
h o
f th
ese
gro
up
s h
as e
xper
ien
ced
a u
niq
ue
his
tory
of
ove
rtly
rac
ist
and
dis
crim
inat
ory
po
licie
s th
at
inst
itu
tio
nal
ized
th
eir
excl
usi
on
an
d s
egre
gat
ion
an
d le
d t
o t
he
den
ial o
f va
rio
us
reso
urc
es,
rig
hts
, an
d o
pp
ort
un
itie
s. T
ho
se f
orm
al p
olic
ies
and
th
e in
form
al p
ract
ices
ass
oci
ated
wit
h
them
hav
e re
sult
ed in
cen
turi
es o
f u
neq
ual
allo
cati
on
of
reso
urc
es a
nd
pre
sen
t-d
ay s
oci
al,
eco
no
mic
, an
d h
ealt
h d
isp
arit
ies.
It is
th
ese
raci
al f
ault
lin
es—
and
no
thin
g in
her
ent
abo
ut
raci
al a
nd
eth
nic
min
ori
ty s
tatu
s it
self
—th
at a
ctu
ally
det
erm
ine
the
un
equ
al lo
sses
an
d h
arm
o
ften
exp
erie
nce
d a
mo
ng
rac
ial a
nd
eth
nic
min
ori
ties
in d
isas
ters
(Fo
ther
gill
et
al. 1
999)
.Lo
w-i
nco
me
po
pu
lati
on
sPe
op
le li
vin
g in
po
vert
y o
r n
ear-
po
vert
y o
ften
hav
e th
e h
ard
est
tim
e m
itig
atin
g, p
rep
arin
g f
or,
resp
on
din
g t
o, a
nd
rec
ove
rin
g f
rom
dis
aste
r. Lo
w- i
nco
me
po
pu
lati
on
s ar
e m
ore
like
ly t
o li
ve in
th
e m
ost
vu
lner
able
ho
usi
ng
an
d t
end
to
lack
th
e re
sou
rces
nec
essa
ry t
o r
elo
cate
, to
ele
vate
, o
r to
ret
rofi
t. W
her
e th
e p
oo
r liv
e, a
nd
th
eir
lack
of
cap
acit
y to
mit
igat
e o
r p
rep
are,
can
th
en
tran
slat
e in
to h
igh
er r
ates
of
dea
th a
nd
inju
ry in
dis
aste
r, m
ore
men
tal h
ealt
h d
istr
ess,
del
ayed
re
cove
ry t
imes
, an
d p
rotr
acte
d o
r p
erm
anen
t d
isp
lace
men
t (F
oth
erg
ill a
nd
Pee
k 20
04).
Sou
rce:
Au
tho
rs’ c
reat
ion
L. Peek and S. Domingue
69
5.4 Top-Down Approaches to Engaging Children and Youth in Disasters: A Summary of Federal Programs
The increased recognition of children’s vulnerability has coincided with the development of federal programs, initiatives, and curricular materials aimed at engaging children and youth in understanding and reducing the risks that they may face in their homes, schools, and communities. In this section of the chapter, we describe several illustrative examples of such programs that are explicitly designed for children and youth. We found these materials through conducting internet searches of federal agency websites and using terms such as “children,” “youth,” and “schools.” We also identified programs while reviewing guidance documents from fed-eral entities (FEMA 2016; GAO 2016) and published literature summa-rizing resilience interventions for children and youth (Abramson et al. 2014; Peek et al. 2018).
Table 5.2 includes a list of current federal-level programs and initia-tives focused on children and youth. We reviewed the associated websites, guidance documents, and other materials for these programs and initia-tives. We then prepared a brief description of each program, highlighting in bold the phase of the disaster lifecycle (e.g., preparedness, emergency response, recovery, mitigation) that the program is focused on, as well as the target age for the population the program is geared toward.
The resources and educational curriculum described in Table 5.2 cover a range of natural and environmental hazards and focus on different age groups from pre-Kindergarten to beyond high school. Most are designed to actively engage children and youth in understanding the natural haz-ards and other environmental risks they may face in their community. The programs are often meant to be embedded in existing networks of local organizations such as schools, universities, service clubs, child- serving organizations, and local government.
As emphasized in bold in Table 5.2, almost all of these programs are about educating children and youth and helping them to prepare for and, in some cases, effectively respond during the emergency phase of disaster. For example, FEMA’s YPC and Teen CERT program are two initiatives
5 Recognizing Vulnerability and Capacity…
70Ta
ble
5.2
D
escr
ipti
on
of
fed
eral
dis
aste
r p
rog
ram
s an
d in
itia
tive
s fo
cuse
d o
n e
ng
agin
g c
hild
ren
an
d y
ou
th
Pro
gra
m o
r in
itia
tive
Res
po
nsi
ble
fe
der
al a
gen
cyD
escr
ipti
on
Targ
et a
ge
Am
eric
a’s
Prep
areA
tho
n!
Fed
eral
Em
erg
ency
M
anag
emen
t A
gen
cy
(FEM
A)
This
is a
gra
ssro
ots
cam
paig
n in
tend
ed t
o en
cour
age
com
mun
itie
s to
co
nduc
t pr
epar
edne
ss d
rills
and
exe
rcis
es a
nd h
ave
haza
rds-
rela
ted
di
scus
sion
s. It
is s
pons
ored
by
FEM
A, b
ut it
is a
bout
pro
mot
ing
loca
l ac
tion
. FEM
A p
rovi
des
a nu
mbe
r of
res
ourc
es p
erta
inin
g to
how
or
gani
zati
ons
can
part
icip
ate
in t
he e
vent
. The
cam
paig
n is
for
the
who
le
com
mun
ity,
and
as
such
, chi
ldre
n an
d yo
uth
are
mea
nt t
o be
a p
art
of
acti
viti
es (h
ttps
://w
ww
.fem
a.go
v/m
edia
-libr
ary/
asse
ts/d
ocum
ents
/947
19).
All
ages
, fam
ilies
, an
d s
cho
ols
are
en
cou
rag
ed t
o
par
tici
pat
e
Rea
dy
Kid
sFE
MA
This
is a
cu
rric
ulu
m f
or
emer
gen
cy p
rep
ared
nes
s fo
r ch
ildre
n a
nd
co
nta
ins
add
itio
nal
res
ou
rces
fo
r ed
uca
tors
an
d p
aren
ts. I
nte
ract
ive
gam
es f
or
child
ren
an
d t
een
s fo
cuse
d o
n b
uild
ing
a d
isas
ter
kit
and
p
rep
arin
g f
or
vari
ou
s h
azar
ds
and
dis
aste
rs a
re in
clu
ded
(h
ttp
s://
ww
w.r
ead
y.g
ov/
kid
s).
Elem
enta
ry
thro
ug
h h
igh
sc
ho
ol s
tud
ents
Stu
den
t To
ols
fo
r Em
erg
ency
Pl
ann
ing
(S
TEP)
FEM
AST
EP is
a c
lass
roo
m-b
ased
em
erg
ency
pre
par
edn
ess
curr
icu
lum
wh
ere
stu
den
ts le
arn
ab
ou
t d
isas
ters
, em
erg
enci
es, h
azar
ds,
an
d h
ow
to
cr
eate
a d
isas
ter
sup
ply
kit
an
d c
om
mu
nic
atio
n p
lan
fo
r th
eir
fam
ily.
Less
on
s fo
cus
on
co
mm
un
icat
ion
pla
ns,
bu
ildin
g a
su
pp
ly k
it, a
nd
w
hat
to
do
in fi
re, s
ever
e w
eath
er, e
arth
qu
ake,
an
d o
ther
haz
ard
s (h
ttp
s://w
ww
.fem
a.g
ov/
med
ia-l
ibra
ry/a
sset
s/d
ocu
men
ts/1
1094
6).
4th
- an
d
5th
-gra
de
stu
den
ts
Teen
C
om
mu
nit
y Em
erg
ency
R
esp
on
se
Team
(Te
en
CER
T)
FEM
ATh
e C
ERT
pro
gra
m t
rain
s co
mm
un
ity
mem
ber
s in
dis
aste
r em
erg
ency
re
spo
nse
ski
lls, s
uch
as:
fire
saf
ety,
lig
ht
sear
ch a
nd
res
cue,
tea
m
org
aniz
atio
n, i
nci
den
t co
mm
and
, an
d d
isas
ter
med
ical
op
erat
ion
s.
The
pu
rpo
se o
f Te
en C
ERT
is t
o t
rain
stu
den
ts in
em
erg
ency
p
rep
ared
nes
s an
d b
asic
res
po
nse
to
en
sure
th
at t
hey
hav
e th
e sk
ills
nee
ded
to
pro
tect
th
emse
lves
, an
d a
ssis
t o
ther
s, in
th
e ev
ent
of
emer
gen
cies
. Th
is p
rog
ram
was
est
ablis
hed
to
hel
p b
uild
p
rep
ared
nes
s an
d e
mer
gen
cy r
esp
on
se c
apac
itie
s w
ith
in h
igh
sch
oo
ls
and
am
on
g t
een
s (h
ttp
s://w
ww
.fem
a.g
ov/
med
ia-l
ibra
ry/r
eso
urc
es-
do
cum
ents
/co
llect
ion
s/48
1).
Hig
h s
cho
ol a
ge
stu
den
ts
L. Peek and S. Domingue
71
You
th
Prep
ared
nes
s C
ou
nci
l
FEM
ATh
is p
rog
ram
was
cre
ated
by
FEM
A t
o h
elp
yo
uth
imp
lem
ent
dis
aste
r p
rep
ared
nes
s p
roje
cts.
Th
e yo
uth
wh
o a
re s
elec
ted
mee
t w
ith
FEM
A
staf
f w
ho
pro
vid
e in
pu
t o
n t
hei
r p
roje
cts.
Th
e m
emb
ers
of
the
cou
nci
l al
so m
eet
ann
ual
ly f
or
a su
mm
it (
htt
ps:
//ww
w.r
ead
y.g
ov/
you
th-p
rep
ared
nes
s-co
un
cil)
.
8th
- to
11
th-g
rad
e st
ud
ents
are
el
igib
le t
o
app
lyK
ids
Envi
ron
men
t:
Kid
s H
ealt
h
Nat
ion
al
Inst
itu
tes
of
Hea
lth
(N
IH)
This
ed
uca
tio
nal
, pre
par
edn
ess,
an
d e
mer
gen
cy r
esp
on
se r
eso
urc
e co
nta
ins
links
to
less
on
s o
n o
ver
70 t
op
ics
rela
ted
to
en
viro
nm
enta
l h
ealt
h, i
ncl
ud
ing
ch
emic
als,
har
m p
reve
nti
on
, an
d il
lnes
s o
utb
reak
. Th
e p
age
also
has
gam
es, a
ctiv
itie
s, a
nd
to
pic
s th
at k
ids
and
tee
ns
can
ex
plo
re (h
ttp
s://k
ids.
nie
hs.
nih
.go
v/).
Kin
der
gar
ten
to
12
th g
rad
e an
d
bey
on
d
Nat
ion
al
Wea
ther
Se
rvic
e Ed
uca
tio
n
Pag
e
Nat
ion
al
Wea
ther
Se
rvic
e (N
WS)
This
web
pag
e fe
atu
res
links
to
wea
ther
sci
ence
an
d w
eath
er s
afet
y ed
uca
tio
nal
mat
eria
ls. A
dd
itio
nal
ly, t
her
e ar
e lin
ks t
o in
tera
ctiv
e g
ames
fo
r ki
ds
and
tee
ns,
alo
ng
wit
h li
nks
fo
r p
aren
ts a
nd
ed
uca
tors
o
n p
rep
ared
nes
s an
d e
mer
gen
cy r
esp
on
se f
or
flo
od
s, h
urr
ican
es,
thu
nd
erst
orm
s, w
inte
r w
eath
er, a
nd
to
rnad
oes
(h
ttp
s://w
ww
.wea
ther
.g
ov/
ow
lie/)
.
All
ages
Sto
rmR
ead
yN
WS
This
is a
cer
tifi
cati
on
pre
par
edn
ess
pro
gra
m t
hat
req
uir
es t
hat
to
be
“offi
cial
ly S
torm
Rea
dy,
” a
com
mu
nit
y m
ust
: est
ablis
h a
24-
ho
ur
war
nin
g p
oin
t an
d e
mer
gen
cy o
per
atio
ns
cen
ter,
hav
e m
ore
th
an o
ne
way
to
rec
eive
sev
ere
wea
ther
war
nin
gs
and
fo
reca
sts
and
to
ale
rt
the
pu
blic
, cre
ate
a sy
stem
th
at m
on
ito
rs w
eath
er c
on
dit
ion
s lo
cally
, p
rom
ote
th
e im
po
rtan
ce o
f p
ub
lic r
ead
ines
s th
rou
gh
co
mm
un
ity
sem
inar
s, a
nd
dev
elo
p a
fo
rmal
haz
ard
ou
s w
eath
er p
lan
th
at in
clu
des
tr
ain
ing
sev
ere
wea
ther
sp
ott
ers
and
ho
ldin
g e
mer
gen
cy e
xerc
ises
(h
ttp
s://w
ww
.wea
ther
.go
v/st
orm
read
y/).
Enco
ura
ges
p
arti
cip
atio
n o
f th
e w
ho
le
com
mu
nit
y,
wit
h a
n
emp
has
is o
n
par
tici
pat
ion
fr
om
sch
oo
ls
ran
gin
g f
rom
p
re-s
cho
ol t
o
hig
h s
cho
ol
(continued
)
5 Recognizing Vulnerability and Capacity…
72
Tab
le 5
.2
(co
nti
nu
ed)
Rea
dy
Wri
gle
yC
ente
rs f
or
Dis
ease
C
on
tro
l an
d
Pro
tect
ion
(C
DC
)
Rea
dy
Wri
gle
y is
a d
og
th
at a
lso
ser
ves
as a
pu
blic
hea
lth
pre
par
edn
ess
mas
cot.
Rea
dy
Wri
gle
y ed
uca
tio
nal
res
ou
rces
incl
ud
e b
oo
ks in
En
glis
h
and
Sp
anis
h o
n p
rep
ared
nes
s fo
r ex
trem
e w
eath
er, fl
u, e
arth
qu
akes
, to
rnad
os,
an
d fl
oo
ds,
an
d a
n a
pp
th
at t
each
es c
hild
ren
ab
ou
t p
rep
ared
nes
s an
d r
esp
on
se (
htt
ps:
//ww
w.c
dc.
go
v/p
hp
r/re
adyw
rig
ley/
ind
ex.h
tm).
Ag
es 2
–8 y
ears
Med
ical
Res
erve
C
orp
s (M
RC
)U
S D
epar
tmen
t o
f H
ealt
h a
nd
H
um
an
Serv
ices
(H
HS)
This
is a
pro
gra
m f
or
volu
nte
ers
wh
o w
ant
to g
et e
ng
aged
wit
h
pre
par
edn
ess
and
em
erg
ency
res
po
nse
. Ap
pro
xim
atel
y 22
per
cen
t o
f M
RC
un
its
acro
ss t
he
cou
nty
let
you
th jo
in o
r h
ave
Jun
ior
MR
C u
nit
s.
MR
C u
nit
s o
ften
su
pp
ort
an
d s
up
ple
men
t yo
uth
hea
lth
ed
uca
tio
n
pro
gra
ms
like
CPR
an
d fi
rst
aid
tra
inin
g (
htt
ps:
//mrc
.hh
s.g
ov/
Ho
meP
age)
.
Ag
es 5
yea
rs t
o
adu
lt
Rec
ipes
fo
r H
ealt
hy
Kid
s an
d a
Hea
lth
y En
viro
nm
ent
US En
viro
nm
enta
l Pr
ote
ctio
n
Ag
ency
(EP
A)
This
ed
uca
tio
nal
an
d p
rep
ared
nes
s cu
rric
ulu
m in
clu
des
less
on
s o
n
envi
ron
men
tal h
ealt
h, p
ests
an
d h
ou
seh
old
haz
ard
s, a
ir q
ual
ity,
su
n
pro
tect
ion
, an
d c
limat
e ch
ang
e (h
ttp
s://w
ww
.ep
a.g
ov/
child
ren
/st
ud
ent-
curr
icu
lum
).
Ag
es 9
–13
year
s
Eart
hq
uak
es f
or
Kid
sU
S G
eolo
gic
al
Surv
ey (
USG
S)Th
is p
age
con
tain
s lin
ks f
or
eart
hq
uak
e ed
uca
tio
nal
mat
eria
ls t
hat
are
d
esig
ned
fo
r ch
ildre
n, i
ncl
ud
ing
sci
ence
fai
r p
roje
cts
and
ear
thq
uak
e fa
cts.
Th
is p
age
also
co
nta
ins
links
to
pre
par
edn
ess
do
cum
ents
an
d
reso
urc
es, l
ike
the
“Gre
at S
hak
eOu
t Ea
rth
qu
ake
Dri
lls”
web
pag
e (h
ttp
s://e
arth
qu
ake.
usg
s.g
ov/
lear
n/k
ids/
).
All
ages
Sou
rce:
Au
tho
rs’ c
reat
ion
Pro
gra
m o
r in
itia
tive
Res
po
nsi
ble
fe
der
al a
gen
cyD
escr
ipti
on
Targ
et a
ge
L. Peek and S. Domingue
73
that involve teens in keeping their schools and families safe by encourag-ing them to disseminate their knowledge of disaster preparedness and response to their families and social networks and by encouraging them to take action in disaster situations (FEMA 2012). These programs are based on the principle that active participation from youth is critical to cultivating their ability to effectively respond to emergencies and leads to better post-disaster outcomes (Flint and Stevenson 2010).
5.5 Top-Down Approaches to Engaging Adults and Organizations in Child- Focused Risk Reduction: A Summary of Federal Guidance
While the resources described in Table 5.2 are designed to engage chil-dren and youth in emergency management, our search also yielded sev-eral additional published reports, framework documents, training modules, factsheets, and other materials prepared by federal mission agencies for adult leaders and professionals. Specifically, we found a num-ber of federal guidance documents geared toward emergency managers, school administrators, childcare providers, and other persons and groups responsible for preparing children, families, and child-serving institu-tions for disaster.
Table 5.3 lists and briefly describes federal resources and guidance doc-uments aimed toward adults and organizational leaders regarding children and disasters. In each program description, we highlight in bold the phase of the disaster lifecycle (e.g., preparedness, emergency response, recovery, mitigation) that the information is focused on, and we also include a brief statement on the target audience. Taken together, these documents (1) describe the range of vulnerabilities that may be experienced by children and youth, (2) provide guidance for incorporating children and youth into disaster planning, (3) promote cross-sector collaboration and partner-ship building to address children’s needs in disasters, and (4) offer strate-gies for mitigating hazards risk, implementing educational programs, and promoting preparedness and recovery among children.
5 Recognizing Vulnerability and Capacity…
74
Tab
le 5
.3
Sum
mar
y o
f av
aila
ble
fed
eral
gu
idan
ce d
ocu
men
ts f
or
adu
lts
and
fo
cuse
d o
n c
hild
ren
, yo
uth
, an
d d
isas
ters
Nam
e o
f d
ocu
men
t
Res
po
nsi
ble
fe
der
al a
gen
cy o
r ag
enci
esD
escr
ipti
on
Au
die
nce
Mu
ltih
azar
d
Plan
nin
g f
or
Ch
ildca
re
Fed
eral
Em
erg
ency
M
anag
emen
t A
gen
cy (
FEM
A)
This
co
urs
e m
ater
ial i
s fo
r ch
ildca
re p
rovi
der
s d
evel
op
ing
m
ult
i-h
azar
ds
pre
par
edn
ess
pla
ns
(htt
ps:
//tra
inin
g.
fem
a.g
ov/
emiw
eb/is
/is36
/stu
den
t%20
man
ual
/is-3
6_co
mp
lete
_sm
_feb
2012
.pd
f).
Ch
ildca
re p
rovi
der
s
Prep
ared
nes
s Ti
ps
for
Sch
oo
l A
dm
inis
trat
ors
FEM
ATh
is f
acts
hee
t in
clu
des
dis
aste
r p
rep
ared
nes
s re
sou
rces
fo
r sc
ho
ol a
dm
inis
trat
ors
, em
ph
asiz
ing
kee
pin
g c
hild
ren
an
d t
een
s sa
fe in
sch
oo
ls d
uri
ng
dis
aste
r (h
ttp
s://w
ww
.fe
ma.
go
v/m
edia
-lib
rary
/ass
ets/
do
cum
ents
/305
09).
Sch
oo
l ad
min
istr
ato
rs
Safe
r, St
ron
ger
, Sm
arte
r: A
Gu
ide
to Im
pro
vin
g
Sch
oo
l Nat
ura
l H
azar
d S
afet
y
FEM
ATh
is g
uid
ebo
ok
focu
ses
on
saf
e b
uild
ing
sta
nd
ard
s,
stru
ctu
ral m
itig
atio
n, e
mer
gen
cy p
rep
ared
nes
s, a
nd
lo
ng
-ter
m r
eco
very
pla
nn
ing
fo
r sc
ho
ols
(h
ttp
s://w
ww
.fe
ma.
go
v/m
edia
-lib
rary
/ass
ets/
do
cum
ents
/132
592)
.
Prim
ary:
sch
oo
l ad
min
istr
ato
rs,
teac
her
s, s
cho
ol
safe
ty a
dvo
cate
s, a
nd
em
erg
ency
man
ager
sSe
con
dar
y: p
aren
ts
and
sch
oo
l ch
ildre
nYo
uth
Pr
epar
edn
ess
Cat
alo
g: D
isas
ter
Prep
ared
nes
s Pr
og
ram
s an
d
Res
ou
rces
FEM
ATh
is c
atal
og
pro
vid
es a
co
mp
reh
ensi
ve a
nd
reg
ula
rly
up
dat
ed s
um
mar
y o
f n
atio
nal
, sta
te, a
nd
loca
l p
rog
ram
s o
n y
ou
th p
rep
ared
nes
s ed
uca
tio
n (
htt
ps:
//w
ww
.fem
a.g
ov/
med
ia-l
ibra
ry/a
sset
s/d
ocu
men
ts/9
4775
).
Pers
on
s o
r o
rgan
izat
ion
s in
volv
ed in
yo
uth
p
rep
ared
nes
s p
rog
ram
s
You
th
Prep
ared
nes
s:
Imp
lem
enti
ng
a
Co
mm
un
ity
Bas
ed P
rog
ram
FEM
ATh
is d
ocu
men
t h
elp
s g
uid
e co
mm
un
itie
s an
d c
om
mu
nit
y-b
ased
org
aniz
atio
ns
in d
evel
op
ing
an
d im
ple
men
tin
g
you
th p
rep
ared
nes
s p
rog
ram
s (h
ttp
s://w
ww
.rea
dy.
go
v/yo
uth
-pre
par
edn
ess)
.
Co
mm
un
ity-
bas
ed
org
aniz
atio
ns
L. Peek and S. Domingue
75
Hel
pin
g C
hild
ren
an
d A
do
lesc
ents
C
op
e w
ith
V
iole
nce
an
d
Dis
aste
r: W
hat
Pa
ren
ts C
an D
o?
Nat
ion
al
Inst
itu
tes
of
Hea
lth
(N
IH)
This
do
cum
ent
pro
vid
es a
n o
verv
iew
of
child
ren
’s
vuln
erab
ility
to
tra
um
a an
d d
escr
ibes
th
e p
ote
nti
al
sho
rt-
and
lon
ger
-ter
m im
pac
ts o
f tr
aum
a o
n m
enta
l h
ealt
h. I
t al
so o
utl
ines
ste
ps
to h
elp
ch
ildre
n c
op
e d
uri
ng
th
e em
erg
ency
res
po
nse
an
d r
eco
very
ph
ase
(htt
ps:
//ww
w.n
imh
.nih
.go
v/h
ealt
h/p
ub
licat
ion
s/h
elp
ing
-ch
ildre
n-a
nd
-ad
ole
scen
ts-c
op
e-w
ith
-vio
len
ce-
and
-dis
aste
rs-p
aren
ts/in
dex
.sh
tml)
.
Pare
nts
wit
h c
hild
ren
ex
po
sed
to
vio
len
ce
or
dis
aste
r
Car
ing
fo
r C
hild
ren
in
Dis
aste
r
Cen
ters
fo
r D
isea
se C
on
tro
l an
d P
reve
nti
on
(C
DC
)
Web
pag
e co
nte
nt
dis
cuss
es w
hy
child
ren
are
vu
lner
able
in
dis
aste
rs, h
ow
to
hel
p c
hild
ren
co
pe
in e
mer
gen
cies
, an
d h
ow
to
pla
n f
or
all s
tag
es o
f em
erg
ency
, an
d
des
crib
es s
pec
ific
thre
ats
to c
hild
ren
(h
ttp
s://w
ww
.cd
c.g
ov/
child
ren
ind
isas
ters
/ind
ex.h
tml)
.
Gen
eral
pu
blic
, te
ach
ers,
ch
ildca
re
pro
fess
ion
als,
fa
mili
es, h
ealt
h
pro
fess
ion
als,
an
d
emer
gen
cy p
lan
ner
sEm
erg
ency
Pr
epar
edn
ess
and
Ch
ildre
n:
Pro
tect
ing
ou
r Fu
ture
CD
CTh
is is
sue
bri
ef c
on
tain
s a
sho
rt s
um
mar
y o
f ch
ildre
n’s
vu
lner
abili
ty in
em
erg
enci
es a
nd
off
ers
advi
ce f
or
emer
gen
cy p
rep
ared
nes
s ac
tio
ns
(htt
ps:
//ww
w.c
dc.
go
v/p
hp
r/w
hat
wed
o/c
hild
ren
.htm
).
Gen
eral
pu
blic
Plan
nin
g f
or
an
Emer
gen
cy:
Stra
teg
ies
for
Iden
tify
ing
an
d
Eng
agin
g A
t-R
isk
Gro
up
s: A
G
uid
ance
D
ocu
men
t fo
r Em
erg
ency
M
anag
ers
CD
CTh
is d
ocu
men
t o
utl
ines
ste
ps
for
defi
nin
g a
t-ri
sk g
rou
ps,
lo
cati
ng
at-
risk
gro
up
s b
efo
re d
isas
ter
stri
kes,
an
d
reac
hin
g a
t-ri
sk g
rou
ps,
incl
ud
ing
ch
ildre
n, d
uri
ng
th
e em
erg
ency
pre
par
edn
ess
ph
ase
(htt
ps:
//rem
s.ed
.go
v/d
ocs
/REM
S_K
-12_
Gu
ide_
508.
pd
f).
Emer
gen
cy m
anag
ers
and
pla
nn
ers
(continued
)
5 Recognizing Vulnerability and Capacity…
76
Tab
le 5
.3
(co
nti
nu
ed)
Iden
tifi
cati
on
an
d
Eng
agem
ent
of
Soci
ally
V
uln
erab
le
Pop
ula
tio
ns
in
the
USA
CE
Dec
isio
n M
akin
g
Pro
cess
US
Arm
y C
orp
s o
f En
gin
eers
(U
SAC
E)
This
do
cum
ent
ou
tlin
es s
trat
egie
s fo
r id
enti
fyin
g a
nd
en
gag
ing
po
pu
lati
on
s th
at a
re v
uln
erab
le t
o
envi
ron
men
tal h
azar
ds,
incl
ud
ing
ch
ildre
n a
nd
yo
uth
, d
uri
ng
th
e em
erg
ency
pre
par
edn
ess
and
pla
nn
ing
p
has
e o
f th
e em
erg
ency
man
agem
ent
lifec
ycle
(h
ttp
s://
ww
w.iw
r.usa
ce.a
rmy.
mil/
Port
als/
70/d
ocs
/iwrr
epo
rts/
Iden
tify
ing
_an
d_E
ng
agin
g_S
oci
ally
_Vu
lner
able
_Po
pu
lati
on
s_%
20IW
Rv2
_08_
01_2
016.
pd
f?ve
r=20
16-0
8-11
-125
141-
427)
.
USA
CE
per
son
nel
an
d
oth
er g
ove
rnm
ent
agen
cies
Prac
tica
l In
form
atio
n o
n
Cri
sis
Plan
nin
g: A
G
uid
e fo
r Sc
ho
ols
an
d
Co
mm
un
itie
s
US
Dep
artm
ent
of
Edu
cati
on
(E
D)
This
gu
idan
ce d
ocu
men
t lis
ts a
ctio
n it
ems
acro
ss a
ll st
ages
of
the
dis
aste
r lif
ecyc
le f
or
stak
eho
lder
s to
co
nsi
der
wh
en d
evel
op
ing
cri
sis
pla
ns
(htt
ps:
//rem
s.ed
.g
ov/
do
cs/P
ract
ical
Info
rmat
ion
on
Cri
sisP
lan
nin
g.p
df)
.
Sch
oo
ls, s
cho
ol
dis
tric
ts, l
oca
l co
mm
un
itie
s
Ch
ildre
n a
nd
Yo
uth
Tas
k Fo
rce
in D
isas
ters
: G
uid
elin
es f
or
Dev
elo
pm
ent
US
Dep
artm
ent
of
Hea
lth
an
d
Hu
man
Ser
vice
s (H
HS)
This
do
cum
ent
intr
od
uce
s co
mm
un
ity
par
tner
s to
th
e C
hild
ren
an
d Y
ou
th T
ask
Forc
e M
od
el. T
he
do
cum
ent
incl
ud
es c
ase
stu
die
s an
d e
xpla
ins
the
role
of
HH
S d
epar
tmen
ts in
pro
vid
ing
su
pp
ort
du
rin
g e
mer
gen
cy
resp
on
se a
nd
in p
ub
lic h
ealt
h e
mer
gen
cies
(h
ttp
s://
ww
w.a
cf.h
hs.
go
v/o
hse
pr/
reso
urc
e/ch
ildre
n-a
nd
-yo
uth
-tas
k-fo
rce-
in-d
isas
ters
).
Stat
es, t
rib
es,
terr
ito
ries
, lo
cal
com
mu
nit
ies
Pro
tect
ing
C
hild
ren
’s H
ealt
h
Du
rin
g a
nd
Aft
er
Dis
aste
r
US
Envi
ron
men
tal
Pro
tect
ion
A
gen
cy (
EPA
)
This
pag
e lis
ts in
form
atio
n o
n c
hild
ren
’s h
ealt
h in
th
e em
erg
ency
res
po
nse
an
d r
eco
very
per
iod
aft
er fl
oo
ds,
ex
trem
e h
eat,
an
d w
ildfi
res/
volc
anic
ash
eve
nts
(h
ttp
s://
ww
w.e
pa.g
ov/c
hild
ren/
prot
ectin
g-ch
ildre
ns-h
ealth
-dur
ing-
and-
af
ter-
nat
ura
l-d
isas
ters
).
Gen
eral
pu
blic
, lo
cal,
stat
e, a
nd
fed
eral
ag
enci
es, a
nd
h
ealt
hca
re p
rovi
der
s
Nam
e o
f d
ocu
men
t
Res
po
nsi
ble
fe
der
al a
gen
cy o
r ag
enci
esD
escr
ipti
on
Au
die
nce
L. Peek and S. Domingue
77
Nat
ion
al S
trat
egy
for
You
th
Prep
ared
nes
s Ed
uca
tio
n:
Emp
ow
erin
g,
Edu
cati
ng
, an
d
Bu
ildin
g
Res
ilien
ce
FEM
A, t
he
Am
eric
an R
ed
Cro
ss, a
nd
ED
This
do
cum
ent
ou
tlin
es a
str
ateg
y fo
r ca
taly
zin
g y
ou
th
pre
par
edn
ess
pro
gra
ms
and
bu
ildin
g p
artn
ersh
ips
amo
ng
sta
keh
old
ers
invo
lved
in d
isas
ter
pla
nn
ing
(h
ttp
s://w
ww
.fem
a.g
ov/
med
ia-l
ibra
ry/a
sset
s/d
ocu
men
ts/9
6107
).
Ch
ild-s
ervi
ng
o
rgan
izat
ion
s, lo
cal
go
vern
men
t, f
eder
al
agen
cies
, no
n-p
rofi
t o
rgan
izat
ion
s
Gu
ide
for
Dev
elo
pin
g
Hig
h-Q
ual
ity
Sch
oo
l Em
erg
ency
O
per
atio
ns
Plan
s
ED, H
HS,
D
epar
tmen
t o
f H
om
elan
d
Secu
rity
(D
HS)
, D
epar
tmen
t o
f Ju
stic
e (D
OJ)
, Fe
der
al B
ure
au
of
Inve
stig
atio
n
(FB
I), F
EMA
This
do
cum
ent
off
ers
com
pre
hen
sive
gu
idan
ce f
or
crea
tin
g a
nd
imp
lem
enti
ng
sch
oo
l em
erg
ency
o
per
atio
ns
pla
ns.
Th
e d
ocu
men
t fo
cuse
s p
rim
arily
on
em
erg
ency
pre
par
edn
ess
and
em
erg
ency
res
po
nse
(h
ttp
s://r
ems.
ed.g
ov/
do
cs/R
EMS_
K-1
2_G
uid
e_50
8.p
df)
.
Sch
oo
l lea
der
s,
emer
gen
cy
man
ager
s, o
ther
p
artn
ers
invo
lved
in
sch
oo
l em
erg
ency
re
spo
nse
pla
nn
ing
The
Imp
acts
of
Clim
ate
Ch
ang
e o
n H
um
an
Hea
lth
in t
he
Un
ited
Sta
tes:
Po
pu
lati
on
s o
f C
on
cern
EPA
, HH
S,
Nat
ion
al
Oce
anic
an
d
Atm
osp
her
ic
Ad
min
istr
atio
n
(NO
AA
)
This
sci
enti
fic
asse
ssm
ent
dis
cuss
es t
he
vuln
erab
ility
of
dif
fere
nt
po
pu
lati
on
s, in
clu
din
g c
hild
ren
, to
clim
ate-
rela
ted
haz
ard
s an
d t
he
po
ten
tial
imp
acts
of
a ra
ng
e o
f cl
imat
e st
ress
ors
on
hu
man
hea
lth
an
d w
ell-
bei
ng
. Th
e d
ocu
men
t o
ffer
s re
com
men
dat
ion
s fo
r id
enti
fyin
g
vuln
erab
le p
op
ula
tio
ns
du
rin
g t
he
emer
gen
cy
pre
par
edn
ess
ph
ase
and
eff
ecti
vely
mo
bili
zin
g in
em
erg
ency
res
po
nse
(h
ttp
s://h
ealt
h20
16.
glo
bal
chan
ge.
go
v/).
Polic
y m
aker
s, p
ub
lic,
go
vern
men
t ag
enci
es
(continued
)
5 Recognizing Vulnerability and Capacity…
78
Tab
le 5
.3
(co
nti
nu
ed)
Post
-Dis
aste
r C
hild
care
Nee
ds
and
Res
ou
rces
Inte
rag
ency
W
ork
ing
Gro
up
This
do
cum
ent
cata
log
s re
sou
rces
ava
ilab
le t
o
com
mu
nit
ies,
sta
tes,
an
d c
hild
care
pro
vid
ers
for
pre
par
edn
ess
and
pla
nn
ing
, em
erg
ency
res
po
nse
, an
d
reco
very
, hig
hlig
hti
ng
po
ten
tial
gap
s fo
r in
car
e fo
r fa
mili
es a
nd
ch
ildca
re p
rovi
der
s (h
ttp
s://w
ww
.acf
.hh
s.g
ov/
site
s/d
efau
lt/fi
les/
oh
sep
r/p
ost
_dis
aste
r_ch
ild_c
are_
pla
nn
ing
_mat
rix_
11m
ar20
16_fi
nal
.pd
f).
Stat
es, c
hild
care
p
rovi
der
s,
com
mu
nit
y m
emb
ers
Post
-Dis
aste
r R
eun
ifica
tio
n o
f C
hild
ren
: A
Nat
ion
wid
e A
pp
roac
h
FEM
A, H
HS
This
do
cum
ent
des
crib
es t
he
coo
rdin
atio
n p
roce
sses
as
soci
ated
wit
h r
eun
ifyi
ng
un
acco
mp
anie
d m
ino
rs w
ith
th
eir
par
ents
or
leg
al g
uar
dia
ns
du
rin
g t
he
emer
gen
cy
resp
on
se p
has
e an
d f
ollo
win
g a
larg
e-sc
ale
dis
aste
r (h
ttp
s://w
ww
.fem
a.g
ov/
med
ia-l
ibra
ry/a
sset
s/d
ocu
men
ts/8
5559
).
Stat
e an
d lo
cal
go
vern
men
ts,
com
mu
nit
y st
akeh
old
ers
and
le
ader
s
Sou
rce:
Au
tho
rs’ c
reat
ion
Nam
e o
f d
ocu
men
t
Res
po
nsi
ble
fe
der
al a
gen
cy o
r ag
enci
esD
escr
ipti
on
Au
die
nce
L. Peek and S. Domingue
79
The resources and guidance documents described in Table 5.3 address various human-caused threats and natural and environmental hazards. They also cover a range of potential impacts to children, families, child-care providers, schools, and communities. Because these documents are geared toward adults who are parents, childcare providers, school admin-istrators, emergency managers, or community leaders, they aim to increase understanding of children’s vulnerability while also promoting action to reduce that vulnerability.
As emphasized in bold in Table 5.3, these websites, reports, and guid-ance documents span the disaster lifecycle, focusing on emergency pre-paredness, response, recovery, and mitigation. As with the child-centered emergency management curriculum summarized in Table 5.2, most of the documents included in Table 5.3 also focus on the emergency pre-paredness and planning phase of the disaster lifecycle. In addition, a few of the documents also consider the early- and longer-term stages of recov-ery, and what actions adults might take to help children to cope and adjust after a potentially traumatic event. Notably, the FEMA (2017) Safer, Stronger, Smarter guidebook is the only document represented in Table 5.3 that is explicitly concerned with mitigation actions intended to ensure the structural integrity of schools and other buildings that chil-dren might occupy during the school day.
5.6 Analysis of Gaps and Opportunities for Federal Guidance on Children and Disasters
With the rise of social vulnerability research, federal agencies have clearly recognized children as a potentially vulnerable group in disaster. Furthermore, these agencies have made tremendous strides in offering edu-cational curriculum and other materials for involving children in disaster preparedness and emergency response efforts through interactive educa-tional opportunities that build skills and seek to reduce harms caused by disaster. In addition, the federal government now offers a wide variety of guidance documents to adult leaders and formal organizations regarding child-centered needs in disaster preparedness, response, and recovery.
5 Recognizing Vulnerability and Capacity…
80
Although much progress has been made, especially since Hurricane Katrina devastated the US Gulf Coast in 2005, some important gaps remain regarding both the participatory nature and the content of these initiatives. We believe, however, that these gaps present opportunities for strengthening the federal government’s commitment to risk reduction, child and youth empowerment, and community resilience.
The educational programs in Table 5.2 differed in the degree to which they provide formal structures of opportunities (Cloward and Ohlin 1960), as described in the opening vignette to this chapter. The YPC represents a high standard in this regard, in that it allows teens like Ryan to actively engage in risk reduction by giving them the opportunity to design their own projects. Furthermore, this program also provides the tools and material resources to act on their ideas for risk reduction. This allows for the “co-production” of public services (Parks et al. 1981) by fostering buy-in and utilizing local knowledge that can be applied to ensure risk reduction is effective. For instance, Ryan’s Blizzard Bag project was designed around his insight that first-time drivers who are teenagers are especially vulnerable to severe winter weather. FEMA then provided him the requisite mentorship and support to implement a program based on his passion and commitment to emergency planning.
A growing body of research has shown that children are especially adept at recognizing key drivers of disaster vulnerability and of identify-ing innovative approaches to building community resilience (Ronan and Johnston 2005). Far from being scared or intimidated by hazards-related information, children and youth repeatedly express a strong desire to know more about the risks in their environment and to actively engage to reduce those threats (Towers et al. 2014). Thus, we see an opportunity for the federal government to continue to provide resources and leadership regarding the active engagement of children and youth across the disaster lifecycle.
However, to date, most of the programs for children and youth draw upon a model of personal preparedness (as opposed to collective empow-erment) and focus on emergency planning and response (as opposed to the entire emergency management lifecycle). Indeed, the programs repre-sented in Table 5.2 for children and youth emphasized understanding and reducing their individual risk and aiding in the immediate aftermath
L. Peek and S. Domingue
81
of disaster. Federal guidance documents that targeted adults, as shown in Table 5.3, as the primary stakeholders in disaster risk reduction addressed organizational and institutional dynamics that are critical to reducing vulnerability. For example, the FEMA (2017) guidebook Safer, Stronger, Smarter explicitly addressed hazards mitigation—or activities meant to reduce the long-term risk to people or properties in disaster (Mileti 1999). Children and youth were not the primary audience for this exten-sive guidebook, although as the authors note, “parents, caregivers, and students” can use the guide to “advocate for safe schools in their com-munities” (FEMA 2017, 1–6). We argue that the lack of engaging, inter-active, child- and youth-friendly mitigation programs represents a serious oversight in terms of top-down interventions for young people. Examples of structural hazards mitigation activities include retrofitting unrein-forced masonry schools located in earthquake country, elevating homes located in floodplains, installing tsunami evacuation structures, and building storm shelters or safe rooms in tornado-prone regions. Mitigation actions, especially those that require new legislation or policies, or that require changes in engineering or urban planning practice, can be costly, time-consuming, and politically challenging to implement. But mitiga-tion is also perhaps the single most important activity that individuals and communities can take to reduce economic losses and other conse-quences from disasters (Multihazard Mitigation Council 2017). As such, it is crucial that children and youth be educated about the importance of mitigation and collectively empowered to engage in activities that can help make their homes, schools, and communities safe from hazards.
Recovery, here defined as children regaining or attaining stability in all the spheres of their lives (family, housing, education, extracurricular activities, peer groups, and health care) after a disaster (Fothergill and Peek 2015), was also significantly underrepresented in the child- and adult-specific programs and initiatives that we reviewed. Recovery was nevertheless recognized as a key concern for children and youth (for example, see NIH 2015). In 2017, the costliest disaster loss year in US history, millions of Americans were directly affected in disasters. In the case of the most catastrophic events, recovery may take years, if not decades. With the increased frequency and magnitude of US disasters, the lack of focus on long-term recovery also represents an opportunity for
5 Recognizing Vulnerability and Capacity…
82
engaging children and youth in helping to foster their own and others recovery through interactive peer listening programs, problem-based learning curricular activities, and other initiatives that engage cycles of disaster impact, recovery, and rebuilding. Similarly, it is important to rec-ognize that child-serving institutions such as childcare centers, schools, and child-friendly spaces such as parks and playgrounds may be slow to recover after disaster and may require additional resources. This is worthy of further top-down focus and guidance from the federal level.
An additional gap that we recognized in our review was regarding acknowledgment of the diversity of children and youth. Now that this group is on the radar as a potentially vulnerable population, it is crucial that top-down guidance adopt an intersectional lens that is attentive to age-based differences in vulnerabilities and capacities, as well as other forms of diversity that children experience. Most of the guidance docu-ments treated children as a monolithic group, as opposed to a dynamic category of people marked by difference in terms of racial and ethnic status, gender identity, sexual orientation, immigration status, family income, and family structure.
5.7 Conclusion
This chapter offered a summary of federal initiatives and programs that recognize children’s vulnerability to negative physical, psychological, and educational impacts of disaster (Peek 2008), while also acknowledging their capacity to meaningfully contribute to disaster readiness and response. Additionally, this chapter has identified key gaps and opportu-nities for federal leadership in the children and disasters space.
We see the implications of this chapter as twofold. First, we argue that the federal-level recognition and acknowledgment of children and youth as a vulnerable population in disasters is exceptionally important, in that it renders this group visible in disaster planning and response. The visibil-ity of this group is crucial not only because they make up nearly one- quarter of the total population of the United States, but also because they have unique needs that will only be met once they are identified and resources are allocated to react accordingly.
L. Peek and S. Domingue
83
Second, the education and empowerment of children and youth as well as of adults who care for and educate young people is a first step toward vulnerability reduction. The programs and initiatives represented in Table 5.2 and the guidance documents described in Table 5.3 are all about recognizing children’s vulnerability and then acting to reduce that vulnerability.
Even with the progress that has been made in this space, we take the stance that there are opportunities for further improvement and leader-ship from the federal government. Specifically, we see a need for more formal structures of opportunity that engage children and youth in designing their own paths to risk reduction. We also call for more pro-grams and initiatives that move beyond emergency preparedness and response to more meaningfully encompass hazards mitigation and long- term recovery. Finally, as federal agencies continue to invest in the devel-opment of programs for children and youth and of documents for adults who care for these populations, it is crucial that this guidance recognize the diversity of this population.
Ensuring that educational curriculum, child-centered programs, and vulnerability reduction initiatives generated by the federal government focus on the entire disaster lifecycle—from preparedness, to emergency response, to recovery, to mitigation—and on empowering the diverse generation of children and youth who are coming of age in an ever more turbulent world will serve everyone for the better. Moreover, widening the opportunities for children to take part in activities across the disaster lifecycle represents one powerful means of addressing the dynamic nature of their vulnerability.
Notes
1. Ryan is a pseudonym. The lead author for this chapter served as one of his mentors and that is how we learned of his journey and engagement with the Youth Preparedness Council.
2. Ryan’s assumption regarding the lethality of winter storms among those in his age group was correct. Excessive cold associated with severe winter
5 Recognizing Vulnerability and Capacity…
84
weather kills more 15- to 24-year-old people in the United States than any other natural hazard (see Zahran et al. 2008).
3. Although there are local and state government initiatives on children and disasters, as well as many programs available through private, non-profit, and academic sectors, this chapter analyzes federal initiatives. Our ratio-nale for this focus is twofold. First, this edited volume is organized around top-down initiatives in crisis management, and therefore, we sought to review children and disaster programs released from the highest level of government. Second, given time and space constraints, we were not able to complete a comprehensive review for all states and localities across the United States or for all sectors. Various federal agencies do, however, offer comprehensive lists of resources on children, youth, and disasters such as those available from the US Department of Health and Human Services (https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ohsepr/children-and-families), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (https://www.cdc.gov/childrenindisas-ters/index.html), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (https://www.fema.gov/children-and-disasters).
References
Abramson, D., K. Brooks, and L. Peek. 2014. The Science and Practice of Resilience Interventions for Children Exposed to Disasters. In Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Considerations for Children and Families: Workshop Summary, ed. T. Wizemann, M. Reeve, and B.M. Altevogt, 177–202. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Bourque, L.B., J.M. Siegel, M. Kano, and M.M. Wood. 2007. Morbidity and Mortality Associated with Disasters. In Handbook of Disaster Research, ed. H. Rodríguez, E.L. Quarantelli, and R.R. Dynes, 97–112. New York: Springer.
Cloward, R.A., and L.E. Ohlin. 1960. Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs. Glencoe: The Free Press.
Cutter, S.L., B.J. Boruff, and W.L. Shirley. 2003. Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards. Social Science Quarterly 84 (2): 242–261.
Davis, E.A., R. Hansen, L. Peek, B. Phillips, and S. Tuneberg. 2018. Identifying and Accommodating High-Risk, High-Vulnerability Populations in Disasters. In Disaster Nursing and Emergency Preparedness for Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Terrorism and Other Hazards, ed. T.G. Veenema, 4th ed., 115–138. New York: Springer.
L. Peek and S. Domingue
85
Elmore, D., and L. Brown. 2007–2008. Emergency Preparedness and Response: Health and Social Policy Implications for Older Adults. Generations 4 (Winter): 66–74.
Enarson, E. 2012. Women Confronting Natural Disaster: From Vulnerability to Resilience. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
FEMA. 2012. Teen CERT Guide: Launching and Maintaining the Training. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
———. 2016. Youth Preparedness Catalog: Disaster Preparedness Programs and Resources. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
———. 2017. Safer, Stronger, Smarter: A Guide to Improving School Natural Hazard Safety. FEMA P-1000. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Flint, C.G., and J. Stevenson. 2010. Building Community Disaster Preparedness with Volunteers: Community Emergency Response Teams in Illinois. Natural Hazards Review 11 (3): 118–124.
Fothergill, A. 2004. Heads Above Water: Gender, Class, and Family in the Grand Forks Flood. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Fothergill, A., and L. Peek. 2004. Poverty and Disasters in the United States: A Review of Recent Sociological Findings. Natural Hazards 32 (1): 89–110.
———. 2015. Children of Katrina. Austin: University of Texas Press.Fothergill, A., E.G.M. Maestas, and J.D. Darlington. 1999. Race, Ethnicity and
Disasters in the United States: A Review of the Literature. Disasters 23 (2): 156–173.
GAO. 2016. Emergency Management: Improved Federal Coordination Could Better Assist K-12 Schools Prepare for Emergencies, Report to Congressional Requesters. GAO-16-144. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office.
Hewitt, K. 1997. Regions of Risk: A Geographical Introduction to Disasters. Boston: Addison Wesley Longman.
Luft, R.E. 2016. Disaster Patriarchy: An Intersectional Model for Understanding Disaster at the Ten-Year Anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. Feminist Formations 28 (2): 1–26.
Marchezini, V., and R. Trajber. 2017. Youth-Based Learning in Disaster Risk Reduction Education. In Responses to Disasters and Climate Change: Understanding Vulnerability and Fostering Resilience, ed. M. Companion and M.S. Chaiken. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Mileti, D.S. 1999. Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.
5 Recognizing Vulnerability and Capacity…
86
Morrow, B.H. 1999. Identifying and Mapping Community Vulnerability. Disasters 23 (1): 1–18.
Multihazard Mitigation Council. 2017. Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves 2017 Interim Report: An Independent Study. Principal Investigator: Keith Porter; Co-Principal Investigators: Scawthorn, C., Dash, N., Santos, J.; Investigators: Eguchi, M., Ghosh, M.S., Huyck, C., Isteita, M., Mickey, K., Rashed, T., Schneider, P. Director, MMC. Washington, DC: National Institute of Building Sciences, Multihazard Mitigation Council.
National Commission on Children and Disasters. 2010. Report to the President and Congress. AHRQ Publication No. 10-M037. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
NIH. 2015. Helping Children and Adolescents Cope with Violence and Disasters: What Parents Can Do. NIH Publication No. 15-3518. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health.
O’Keefe, P., K. Westgate, and B. Wisner. 1976. Taking the Naturalness Out of Natural Disasters. Nature 260: 566–567.
O’Sullivan, T.L., and E. Craig. 2013. Unraveling the Complexities of Disaster Management: A Framework for Critical Social Infrastructure to Promote Population Health and Resilience. Social Science and Medicine 93: 238–246.
Parks, R., P. Baker, L. Kiser, R. Oakerson, E. Ostrom, S. Percy, M. Vandivort, G. Whitaker, and R. Wilson. 1981. Consumers as Producers of Public Services: Some Economic and Institutional Considerations. In Polycentricity and Local Public Economies: Readings from the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, ed. M. McGinnis, 381–391. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Peek, L. 2008. Children and Disasters: Understanding Vulnerability, Developing Capacities, and Promoting Resilience. Children, Youth, and Environments 18: 1–29.
———. 2013. Age. In Social Vulnerability to Disasters, ed. D.S.K. Thomas, B.D. Phillips, W.E. Lovekamp, and A. Fothergill, 2nd ed., 167–198. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Peek, L., D. Abramson, R. Cox, A. Fothergill, and J. Tobin. 2018. Children and Disasters. In Handbook of Disaster Research, ed. H. Rodriguez, W. Donner, and J.E. Trainor, 2nd ed., 243–262. New York: Springer.
Pfefferbaum, R.L., A.K. Jacobs, B.J. Pfefferbaum, M.A. Noffsinger, K. Sherrieb, and F.H. Norris. 2012. The Burden of Disaster: Part II, Applying Interventions Across the Child’s Social Ecology. International Journal of Emergency Mental Health 14 (3): 175–187.
L. Peek and S. Domingue
87
Phillips, B.D., D.S.K. Thomas, A. Fothergill, and L. Blinn-Pike, eds. 2009. Social Vulnerability to Disasters. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Ronan, K., and D. Johnston. 2005. Promoting Community Resilience in Disasters: The Role for Schools, Youth, and Families. New York: Springer Science and Business Media.
Thomas, D.S.K., B.D. Phillips, W.E. Lovekamp, and A. Fothergill, eds. 2013. Social Vulnerability to Disasters. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Tierney, K. 2014. The Social Roots of Risk: Producing Disasters, Promoting Resilience. Stanford: Stanford Business Books.
Towers, B., K. Haynes, F. Sewell, H. Bailie, and D. Cross. 2014. Child-Centered Disaster Risk Reduction in Australia: Progress, Gaps and Opportunities. Australian Journal of Emergency Management 29 (1): 31–38.
Veenema, T.G., ed. 2018. Disaster Nursing and Emergency Preparedness for Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Terrorism and Other Hazards. 4th ed. New York: Springer.
Wisner, B., P. Blaikie, T. Cannon, and I. Davis. 2004. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability, and Disasters. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
Zahran, S., L. Peek, and S.D. Brody. 2008. Youth Mortality by Forces of Nature. Children, Youth, and Environments 18 (1): 371–388.
5 Recognizing Vulnerability and Capacity…