Analysis of Emergency Preparedness Plans in the U.S. Jurisdictions with the Highest Rates of Homelessness

Abstract

Although disasters have always existed in the U.S, the rise in frequency of extreme weather events is an enormous factor contributing to communities facing unprecedented environmental challenges (Chmutina & von Meding, 2019). People experiencing homelessness are disproportionately impacted by disasters due to limited resources and limited social connections to their broader communities; they may not have the ability to respond to public recommendations before and during a disaster (Morris, 2020). Common recommendations, such as voluntary evacuation and stockpiling of food, water, medicines, and supplies, may be beyond the capabilities and resources of individuals and families experiencing homelessness (Morris, 2020). Lack of disaster planning at local government levels for the most at-risk populations adversely affects people experiencing homelessness and will ultimately affect outcomes during response and recovery (US HUD, 2021). Engagement of service providers and organizations who work with people experiencing homelessness in the disaster planning process is essential. However, the extent to which specific strategies to address the unique needs and communicate risk to individuals experiencing homelessness have been integrated into emergency plans remains unknown. In response, we conducted a content analysis of publicly available emergency preparedness plans in the twenty (20) U.S. city/county jurisdictions with the highest rates of people experiencing homelessness to identify the ways in which, if at all, people experiencing homelessness are considered in emergency management planning. Using a national disaster preparedness guide, we found specific strategies and services for planning to support populations experiencing homelessness (e.g., warning and notification, evacuation and transportation, shelter, and support services) (US HUD, 2021). Our findings showed that although over 80% of plans within CoC jurisdictions included “basic” plan elements such as referring to and defining people experiencing homelessness in their emergency plans, less than 25% of plans integrated “stronger” or “best” plan elements which described specific actions and steps in addressing the needs of people experiencing homelessness. As disasters continue to become more frequent and intense, and the rates of income inequality, and housing precarity continue to rise, local emergency managers, and other key stakeholders within CoC jurisdictions must collaborate to effectively address the needs of people experiencing homelessness through comprehensive disaster planning.