1

Self-assessment of emergency preparedness for people with disabilityA report on the field application of the Individual Self Assessment Tool – Emergency Preparedness (ISAT-EP)

The University of Sydney’s Hazards Research Group (HRG) and Centre for Disability Research and Policy (CDRP)

Self-assessment of emergency preparedness for people with disability

A report on the field application of the Individual Self-assessment Tool – Emergency Preparedness (ISAT-EP)May, 2017

Professor Gwynnyth LlewellynAssociate Professor Dale Dominey-HowesDr. Michelle VilleneuveHayley Brooks

Contact Details

Centre for Disability Research and Policy, Faculty of Health Sciences:Hayley Brooks, Project ManagerT409, Cumberland Campus C43Ph. +61 2 9351 9152e-mail hayley.brooks@sydney.edu.au

Centre for Disability Research and Policy, Faculty of Health Sciences:Professor Gwynnyth LlewellynT407, Cumberland Campus C43Ph. +61 2 9351 9533e-mail gwynnyth.llewellyn@sydney.edu.au

Natural Hazards Research GroupAssociate Professor Dale Dominey-HowesRoom 448, F09 - Madsen BuildingPh. +61 2 9351 6641e-mail dale.dominey-howes@sydney.edu.au

Centre for Disability Research and Policy, Faculty of Health SciencesDr. Michelle VilleneuveJ106, Cumberland Campus C42Ph. +61 2 9356 7438e-mail michelle.villeneuve@sydney.edu.au

AcknowledgementsThe study team would like to acknowledge the joint State/Commonwealth Natural Disaster Resilience Program for funding this project through the Office of Emergency Management NSW Justice Community Resilience and Innovations Program.

2

The team would also like to thank all the participants who engaged in the field test.

Table of contentsAcronyms....................................................................................................4List of Tables...............................................................................................4List of Figures..............................................................................................4Executive Summary....................................................................................51. Introduction...........................................................................................7

1.1 Report description..........................................................................71.2 Specific aims of the field test of the ISAT-EP...................................7

2. ISAT-EP..................................................................................................72.1 Adaptation of DiDR tool to form ISAT-EP.........................................8

3. Field testing of the ISAT-EP...................................................................93.1 Recruitment of participants............................................................93.2 Field testing process.....................................................................123.3 Data collection..............................................................................123.4 Data analysis....................................................................................14

4. Findings...............................................................................................144.1 Overall feedback...........................................................................154.2 Feedback section by section and suggestions for improvement...17

5. Discussion...........................................................................................236. Conclusion...........................................................................................247. References..........................................................................................258. Appendices..........................................................................................269. Project reports.....................................................................................26

Appendix 1 – Draft ISAT-EP for external review – September 2016........27Appendix 2 – ISAT-EP review question sheet..........................................56

3

AcronymsABS – Australian Bureau of StatisticsACOSS –Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS)Auslan – Australian sign languageCALD – Culturally and Linguistically DiverseCDRP – Centre for Disability Research and Policy at the University of SydneyCSO – Community Service Organisation DSO – Disability Support OrganisationDiDR Tool – Disability Inclusive Disaster Resilience ToolDiDRR – Disability Inclusive Disaster Risk ReductionDRR – Disaster Risk ReductionDPO – Disabled People’s OrganisationEMs – Emergency ManagersFACS – NSW Family and Community ServicesISAT-EP – Individual Self-Assessment Tool – Emergency PreparednessLEMC – Local Emergency Management CommitteeLEMO – Local Emergency Management OfficerLGA – Local Government AreaNDIS – National Disability Insurance SchemeNSW – New South WalesNSW SES – New South Wales State Emergency ServicesNSW RFS – New South Wales Rural Fire ServiceNSW VRA – New South Wales Volunteer Rescue AssociationRCO – Resilient Community Organisations toolkit developed by ACOSS

List of TablesTable 1. Recruitment methods for the ISAT-EP field testTable 2. Engagement with participants reviewing the ISAT-EPTable 3. Participants in field testing of the ISAT-EP Table 4.1 Overall feedback and suggestions for improving the ISAT-EPTable 4.2. Feedback section by section and suggestions for improvement

4

List of Figures Figure 1. DiDR Tool Framework Figure 2. Participation by stakeholder group

5

Executive SummaryThis report details the field testing of the Individual Self-Assessment Tool – Emergency Preparedness (ISAT-EP). This field test aimed to evaluate the utility of this tool from the perspective of people with disability and stakeholders in the disability, community and emergency management sectors as well as generate suggestions for improvement.

The project team adapted the Disability Inclusive Disaster Resilience (DiDR) Tool1 for Australian conditions and renamed this tool the ISAT-EP. The original DiDR tool was based on the evidence about capacity and risk in the face of natural hazards for the general population in the absence of an evidence base in relation to people with disability.

The aim of the ISAT-EP is for individuals with disability or their families and carers to identify areas of capacity and risk in the face of natural disaster emergencies. The ISAT-EP comprises four components which are known to be related to capacity and risk in natural disaster situations: functioning and capacity, participation in the community, physical vulnerability of the individual’s house, and risk indicators. The ISAT-EP has 10 sections: general information; socio-demographic and cultural information; functioning and disability questions; participation in the community; physical vulnerability of home; attachment to place; natural hazards risk perception; natural hazard emergencies responses; risk communication preferences; and lived experience of past natural hazard emergencies.

For this field test application of the ISAT-EP, multiple methods were used to recruit participants. Attendees at the project’s Phase Two Local Emergency Preparedness workshops2 reviewed the ISAT-EP as one component of the day. Disability specialists were also recruited from DPOs, peak disability organisations and disability-specific organisations to review the ISAT-EP. Participation was also invited via the project’s social media3. All participants were provided with copies of the ISAT-EP and review information in electronic/hard copy. In total, 60 people participated in this field test application, 29 of whom were people with disability. This was a particular heartening result in the face of many competing priorities in the disability sector in NSW including the transition to and roll-out of the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

Not surprisingly in this context, there were some barriers in the recruitment process. For some people with disability, having the time

1 Disability Inclusive Disaster Resilience (DiDR) Tool is available at http://sydney.edu.au/health-sciences/cdrp/publications/technical-reports/Technical%20Report%20pdfs/Tech_Report_3_DiDR_Tool_Report_FINAL.pdf. 2 Report on Phase Two Workshops October 2016 is available at http://sydney.edu.au/health-sciences/cdrp/projects/disasterdisab.shtml3 Project Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/disabilitynaturaldisasterstudy/

6

available to complete the review was problematic; for others, considering emergency preparedness at this stage was not a priority in their daily lives. As well, some organisations acted as ‘gatekeepers’ as they were not willing to share the ISAT-EP with the people they support. Their reasons included not wanting “to worry people unnecessarily” and thinking it unlikely people with disability could fill in a self-report questionnaire when typically their workers would be the ones assessing the needs of people with disability. This highlights the importance of creating awareness that people with disability can and must be part of developing community resilience in the face of natural disaster emergencies. A critical component of this is self-assessment of capacity, need for support and resources available – as indeed is the case for everyone else in the community.

Analysis of the data generated in this field test application was underpinned by the findings from the Disability and Disaster Risk Reduction / Emergency Preparedness Report Two: Scoping Review prepared for this project4. The overall findings demonstrate that people with disability regarded the ISAT-EP as highly relevant, given the increasing frequency of natural disaster emergencies and their lack of involvement in community preparedness activities to date. A standout finding not anticipated by the project team was the very positive feedback from people with disability on the ISAT-EP as an educative tool: completing this tool prompted a great deal of interest in and learning about the variety of factors that affect preparedness and including emergency preparedness in their individualised support plans. Further, there was support for the ISAT-EP as a tool which gives people with disability a say in matters that effect their lives, in line with Australia’s commitment to people with disability as engaged and participating citizens in their own right.

The availability of a self-report assessment tool which focuses on capacity and resilience as well as areas of need for support was warmly welcomed by the disability, community and emergency management sectors. A standout finding from emergency manager sector participants was the ISAT-EP as a relevant and useful tool to assist their task of mapping resilience as well as locating specific sources of risk in the community. The standout finding from the disability and community sector participants was their desire to have the ISAT-EP readily available as an individual assessment and support planning tool. Although there are many disability assessment and planning tools, none except the ISAT-EP address assessment and planning for natural disaster emergencies.

As hoped, participants in this field test application of the ISAT-EP provided very useful suggestions for improvement of the ISAT-EP. These are detailed in Table 4.1 on pages 15-16 Specific suggestions for improvement section by section of the ISAT-EP are detailed in Table 4.2 on pages 17-22.

4

Disability and Disaster Risk Reduction / Emergency PreparednessReport Two: Scoping Review can be accessed at http://sydney.edu.au/health-sciences/cdrp/projects/disasterdisab.shtml

7

Suggestions for the next, further refined version of the ISAT-EP include multiple paper and electronic formats that meet high standard accessibility guidelines to ensure all people with disability can use the tool, and appropriateness of the tool for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. A highly desirable requirement would be that each individual, on completion of the ISAT-EP, can benchmark their capacity and risk and assess changes to capacity and risk over time as they gain more information, gather resources, and become an integral part of building resilience in their community.

This field test application has demonstrated the value of the ISAT-EP as a self-assessment and an educative tool, with participants warmly welcoming future development along the lines suggested in their overall feedback and suggestions for specific parts of the ISAT-EP. The next steps in tool development include submitting the findings from this field test application for international peer reviewed publication to meet scientific standards of transparency and knowledge sharing in tool development. Further testing of a revised ISAT-EP based on the findings is also required, with consideration given to developing a scoring or benchmarking component as foreshadowed in this report.

8

1. IntroductionThe University of Sydney’s Hazards Research Group (HRG) and Centre for Disability Research and Policy (CDRP) partnered to lead a two-year project designed to enhance community resilience for emergency preparedness for natural hazard emergencies by developing knowledge and capacity for disability inclusion in disaster risk reduction (DIDRR). The focus of this project was enabling Community Service Organisations (CSOs), Disabled People’s Organisations (DPOs), Local Government and local businesses to work collaboratively with Emergency Managers (EMs) and involve people with disability in emergency preparedness. The project took place in three NSW local government areas: Sutherland, Hawkesbury, and Taree. The project was funded by the Community Resilience Innovation Program (CRIP), a scheme under the Natural Disaster Resilience Program, which involves the New South Wales and Commonwealth Governments through the National Partnership Agreement on Natural Disaster Resilience. To find out more about the project visit the project’s website at http://sydney.edu.au/health-sciences/cdrp/projects/disasterdisab.shtml

1.1 Report descriptionThis report details the field testing of the Individual Self-Assessment Tool-Emergency Preparedness (ISAT-EP). The ISAT-EP is the Australian version of the Disability Inclusive Disaster Resilience (DiDR) Tool.

The DiDR tool was developed by Llewellyn and colleagues as part of the Promoting the inclusion of people with disabilities in disaster management in Indonesia project, a Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Australia Development and Research Award, 2013-2014. The full report and description of the Disability Inclusive Disaster Resilience (DiDR) Tool is available at http://sydney.edu.au/health-sciences/cdrp/publications/technical-reports/Technical%20Report%20pdfs/Tech_Report_3_DiDR_Tool_Report_FINAL.pdf

As noted in the CRIP Agreement, Office of Emergency Management and University of Sydney, the project team proposed refining the DiDR tool to assist people with disability to identify their preparedness for natural hazard emergencies.

1.2 Specific aims of the field test of the ISAT-EP

The aims of the field testing of the ISAT-EP were to: Identify the usefulness of the ISAT-EP for people with disability to

self-assess their preparedness for natural hazard emergencies;

9

Engage people with disability and community service organisations working with people with disability in a process of learning more about emergency preparedness and self-reflection using the ISAT-EP;

Develop suggestions for further refining the ISAT-EP to ensure maximum utility and acceptability for people with disability in the Australian context.

2. ISAT-EP The ISAT-EP is the DiDR tool adapted for the Australian context. The development of the DiDR tool was informed by international guidelines on Disability-inclusive Disaster Risk Reduction (DiDRR) drawn from the work done following the Hyogo Framework (UNDISR, 2005) and the Sendai Framework for Action (UNDISR, 2015). The purpose of the DiDR tool was to identify the resilience and capabilities of people with disability to natural hazard emergencies in their family and community setting. The tool was available in two versions: one for people with disability, the other for family members or carers to complete together with of the person with disability. In Indonesia, people with disability and village kaders (health/ community workers) were trained to use the DiDR tool as a guided interview with people with disability or their family/carers living in the community.

In the absence of evidence about risk and resilience for people with disability in the face of natural hazard disasters, the framework for the DiDR tool was drawn from the best evidence on this topic for the broader population. The DiDR framework has four components: individual’s functioning and capacity, participation in the community, physical vulnerability of the individual’s house, and six risk indicators. The relationship of each component in this framework is graphically illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. DiDR Tool Framework

More information on the development of the DiDR tool can be found at

10

http://sydney.edu.au/health-sciences/cdrp/publications/technical-reports/Technical%20Report%20pdfs/Tech_Report_3_DiDR_Tool_Report_FINAL.pdf

2.1 Adaptation of DiDR tool to form ISAT-EP

The project team reviewed the DiDR tool and adapted the language and content as needed for the Australian context. For example, in the section on socio-demographic and cultural information, job types were amended to be consistent with the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2013) classification of occupations. In the section that focuses on the physical vulnerability of the home, refinements were made to suit buildings and infrastructure in the Australian context (e.g. building materials, water and electricity supply).

Adaptations were also done based on the Disability and Disaster Risk Reduction/Emergency Preparedness Report Two: Scoping Review5. This revision required formatting the tool to become the ISAT-EP available for field application in the context of the Disability Inclusive Disaster Preparedness in NSW project which is included in Appendix 1.

The ISAT-EP has 10 sections: general information; socio-demographic and cultural information; functioning and disability questions; participation in the community; physical vulnerability of home; attachment to place; natural hazards risk perception; natural hazard emergencies responses; risk communication preferences; and lived experience of past natural hazard emergencies.

3. Field testing of the ISAT-EP

3.1 Recruitment of participantsThe project team used three approaches to recruit people with disability, disability support organisations (DSOs), community support organisations (CSOs), Disabled People’s Organisations (DPOs), peak disability organisations, and disability-specific organisations to field test the ISAT-EP tool. These are summarised in Table 1 below:

Table 1. Recruitment methods for the ISAT-EP field test

Recruitment Method

Notes

5 Disability and Disaster Risk Reduction / Emergency PreparednessReport Two: Scoping Review can be accessed at http://sydney.edu.au/health-sciences/cdrp/projects/disasterdisab.shtml

11

1. Phase Two workshops in three study location – October 2016

The Phase Two Local Emergency Preparedness Workshops were completed in October 2016 (Hawkesbury 5 October, Taree 11 October and Sutherland 20 October).

Participants were invited to work through the ISAT-EP as detailed in the Report on Phase Two Workshops October 20166. Workshop participants were asked to invite other people with disability as additional reviewers.

Copies of the ISAT-EP (Appendix 1) and ISAT-EP review questions (Appendix 2) were sent to interested organisations to share with people with disability in their networks.

2. Disability specialists in DPOs, peak disability organisations and disability-specific organisations

Organisations approached by telephone with follow-up email included: SCIA (Spinal Cord Injuries Australia), Vision Australia, Blind Citizens NSW, PDCN (Physical Disability Council of NSW), First Nations Disability Network, NSW CID (NSW Council for Intellectual Disability), PWDA (People with Disability Australia), Brain Injury Australia, Multiple Sclerosis Society of NSW, The Deaf Society of NSW.

Each organisation was invited to recruit up to 5 disability specialists to participate in the ISAT-EP review.

3. Via the Project’s social media account (Facebook)

Invitation to participate was shared on the project’s Facebook page7.

Table 2 summarises the engagement with participants according to means by which the participants were recruited: at Phase Two workshops, post workshop, and directly to disability specialists at DPOs, peak organisations and disability specific organisations and via social media.

6 Report on Phase Two Workshops October 2016 can be accessed at: http://sydney.edu.au/health-sciences/cdrp/projects/disasterdisab.shtml 7 Project Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/disabilitynaturaldisasterstudy/

12

Table 2. Engagement with participants reviewing the ISAT-EP

Phase Two workshops

Post workshop recruitment – workshop participants who agreed to recruit people with disability in their networks

Disability specialists at DPOs, peak organisations and disability specific organisations

Social media

Invitation to participate

Participants – 33

ISAT-EPs and ISAT-EP review question sheets completed at the Phase Two workshops were collected on completion of the workshop. Some participants wrote directly on their copy of the ISAT-EP and these were also collected (workshop feedback is summarised at Appendix 3).

Stakeholders contacted: 5 (4 DSOs/1 LGA/EM/)

Phone conversations - 2Voicemails/messages left: 5Emails (including request to call and sending review docs) - 8Face to face meeting - 1No response: 1 stakeholder

Recruited:4

Organisations contacted: 11

Phone conversations – 11Voicemails/messages left – 7Emails (including request to call/sending review docs)– 12No response: 2 stakeholders

Recruited: 9

Stakeholders contacted: 1(EM)

Phone conversations: 1Voicemails/messages left – 2Emails (including request to call/sending review docs) – 1

Recruited: 1

Engage Stakeholders agreeing Organisations agreeing Stakeholders engaged in

10

ment to arrange follow ups

to recruit people with disability for review: 4

Phone conversations – 2Emails – 7

to be involved in review: 9Phone conversations – 6Emails – 17Voicemails/messages left – 7No response – 2 organisations

review: 1Email: 1

11

Follow ups and feedback

Reviews completed by people with disability: 8

Posted hard copy feedback: 5

Email feedback: 2

Telephone feedback: 1 (1 hour conversation)

Face to face meetings – 1duration: 45 minutes

Reviews completed:18 (16 people with disability, 2 people without disability)

Posted hard copy feedback: 4

Additional Email feedback:1

Telephone feedback: 4(average length of time: 30 minutes)

Face to face meetings: 1 (meeting duration 1 hour)

Focus group:1 (for 8 participants) – duration 1.5 hours

Reviews completed:1Email feedback: 1

12

3.2 Field testing processTime was allocated during the morning of the Phase Two workshops8 for attendees to review the ISAT-EP. All participants were provided with a copy of the ISAT-EP and also the ISAT-EP review questions (see Appendix 2). The 10 sections of the ISAT-EP were referred to in the presentation as components. The ISAT-EP review questions were based on three steps: appraisal of the utility of the ISAT-EP; critique of the acceptability of the ISAT-EP for people with disability; and, planning to formulate recommendations on improving the utility and acceptability of the ISAT-EP for the NSW context (Raban et al., 2005; Ward and McCotter, 2004). Each attendee reviewed the ISAT-EP individually, before then engaging in a whole group discussion providing feedback.

In conjunction with the workshops, review participants were offered the opportunity to review the ISAT-EP and complete the ISAT-EP review questions in hard copy or electronic format. The electronic formats of the ISAT-EP and review questions included captioning of images and was assessed to ensure accessibility with screen reader technology. This was done by a peak organisation representative who has a vision impairment. Participants were invited to review the ISAT-EP at a convenient time. Participants were followed up between November 2016 and February 2017. Follow up methods included face to face meetings, focus groups, telephone conversations and emailed feedback.

3.3 Data collectionTable 3 provides details of the participants who took part in the field testing of the ISAT-EP tool. Participants were individuals with disability from three sources: those attending the Phase Two workshops, others who responded to invitations, and personnel from DPOs, peak disability organisations and disability-specific organisations. Peak disability organisations valued the opportunity to contribute to the new and emerging evidence base on DiDRR. As one peak organisation stated ‘often the voices of people with disability are not included in preparedness activities for natural hazards – this is our opportunity for our voices to be heard, to really discuss what is important’. Nearly half (49%) of the participants in the ISAT-EP field testing were people with disability (illustrated in Figure 2).

Table 3: Participants in field testing of the ISAT-EP

N=60 Stakeholder Groups

Hawkesbury workshop – 5

12 3 - People with disability 4 – DSO representatives 1 - Local Government Area

representative8 Report on Phase Two Workshops October 2016 can be accessed at: http://sydney.edu.au/health-sciences/cdrp/projects/disasterdisab.shtml

12

October 2016

2 - Emergency Management representatives

1 - State Government agencies 1 - Local business (local GP)

Taree workshop – 11 October 2016

15 2 - People with disability and their family members and carers

6 – DSO representatives 2 - CSOs 1- Local Government Area

representative 2 - Emergency Management

representative from NSW SES 2- State Government agencies

including NSW Health

Sutherland workshop – 20 October 2016

6 1 - CSOs (including peak organisations)

2 – DSO representatives 1 – Local Government Area

representative 2 - Emergency Management

representativePeople with disability recruited by workshopParticipants

8 8- People with disability recruited via participants at the Phase Two workshops

Peak disability and disability-specific organisations

18 (16 people with disability, 2 without disability)

Spinal Cord Injuries Australia (SCIA) Physical Disability Council of NSW

(PDCN) People with Disability Australia

(PWDA) The Deaf Society of NSW Multicultural Disability Advocacy

Association (MDAA) Brain Injury Australia Blind Citizens of NSW

Social Media

1 Emergency Management representative

Total 60 29 people with disability 17 CSO/DSO 3 Local Government Area

representatives 3 State Government

13

representatives 7 Emergency Management

representatives 1 local business (GP)

Figure 2. Participation by stakeholder group

People with disability

47%

DSO/CSO representa-tives29%

LGA representatives 5%

Emergency Management represenatives

12%

State Government representa-tives 5%

Local Business2%

Percentage

People with disability DSO/CSO LGA Emergency Management State Government Local Business

There were some barriers encountered in the data collection phase of this field testing application of the ISAT-EP. It was not possible to speak directly to a number of individuals with disability who completed the ISAT-EP where DSOs had arranged their participation and returned the forms directly to the Project Manager. The Project Manager had some difficulties following up a number of people who had agreed to participate and timing with the festive season occurring contributing to this. Finally, while the Project Manager made every attempt to capture the detail of all telephone conversations, this is always challenging compared to workshop discussions, face to face meetings and focus groups which can be audio-recorded.

3.4 Data analysis At the three Phase Two workshops, the completed copies of the ISAT-EP and ISAT-EP review question sheets were collected on completion. Notes of whole group discussions were also taken by the project team. All comments, notes and feedback were transcribed into MS Word documents.

Where the ISAT-EP was reviewed by individuals or small groups (telephone, and face to face meetings) the completed copies of the ISAT-EP and ISAT-EP review question sheets were returned to the Project Manager and transcribed into MS Word documents. All communications were documented from initial engagement to final follow up with participants (via telephone calls, emails, face to face meetings) as identified in Table 2. The communications were entered into an MS Excel file and later transcribed into MS Word documents. At the focus group,

14

notes made on a whiteboard, comments on completed copies of the ISAT-EP and ISAT-EP review question sheets, and an audio recording were transcribed into MS Word documents. NVivo 11 was used to store and separate the sources of data as identified in Table 3 that is, from Phase 2 workshops, people with disability recruited by participants, peak organisation and disability specific organisations and social media participation.

The data was initially reviewed reflecting on the aims of the field test, coding data that identified the utility and engagement of people with disability using the ISAT-EP, overall feedback, and feedback on each section of the ISAT-EP, as well as suggestions for improvement. A research journal and data annotations were used throughout the analysis process to capture observations at each stage. Notes were made in relation to any findings which were consistent with the materials reviewed for the Disability and Disaster Risk Reduction/Emergency Preparedness Report Two: Scoping Review9.

4. FindingsThis findings section is organised into two sections: overall feedback and feedback by section.

Participants reported that engaging in the ISAT-EP field test review process supported their learning about the variety of factors to be considered for people with disability preparing for natural hazard emergencies. In the following sections, participant reflections on their insights gained in completing the ISAT-EP are discussed in terms of the potential educative value of the ISAT-EP and may support future modifications of the tool for use in NSW, Australia.

9 Disability and Disaster Risk Reduction / Emergency PreparednessReport Two: Scoping Review can be accessed at http://sydney.edu.au/health-sciences/cdrp/projects/disasterdisab.shtml

15

4.1 Overall feedbackTable 4.1 summarises participant feedback and suggestions for improvement on each of the components of the ISAT-EP. Details of all feedback summarised by workshops is available on request.

Table 4.1 Overall feedback and suggestions for improving the ISAT-EP

Overall feedback Participant feedback on the challenges of competing the ISAT-EP

Suggestions for improvement

Length of ISAT-EP Concern that ISAT-EP is too long particularly for those who have lower levels of concentration

Reduce the length of the ISAT-EP by reducing number of questions

Language ISAT-EP requires literacy skills to complete Language focused more on deficits rather than

skills/resilience

‘With the language used ‘disability’ is referred to as a health condition. This is not in line with the social model of disability and is more aligned with the previous medical model which puts the responsibility for managing the disabling elements of society back on the individual, rather than recognising that the barriers society puts up create the disability’…………… asking individuals to rate their level of challenge against a perceived level of difficulty experienced by the rest of society’(peak organisation representative)

Questions where responses require ability to think of abstract concepts are not suitable for people with cognitive limitations

o People may not be able to perceive/be unaware of barriers/issues/risks

Rewrite using Plain English and include visuals

Reframe language to include strengths based language with more focus on skills, resilience and capabilities rather than deficits

Amend questions to avoid need to think of abstract concepts in responses

15

o Comparing yourself to other people in the community – who would the person with disability be benchmarking against?

16

Accessibility Concern if ISAT-EP not available in accessible formats thato this would act as a barrier for people to complete the ISAT-EP o staff may complete the ISAT-EP on an individual’s behalf,

without their participation Responses require use of pen – allow for alternative methods to

provide response. ‘It is assumed, that people will be answering the questions using a pen’ (peak organisation representative). This causes difficulties for people who have lower fine motor skills and people who are blind who use screen reader technology to complete ISAT-EP

Electronic copy not interactive resulting in the need to print to complete

Provide ISAT-EP in multiple accessible formats

Ensure electronic format of ISAT-EP is in interactive pdf/word formats

Appropriateness for people from CALD backgrounds

Multiple language formats required for people from different CALD backgrounds

Ensure comprehensive dissemination strategies are employed to ensure CALD communities are aware of this resource

Provide opportunity for local community leaders taking roles in interpreting and sharing information within their community

Educative value of completing the ISAT-EP

Completing the ISAT-EP prompted and raised awareness in individuals to consider their preparedness for natural hazards ‘completing the ISAT-EP “plants the seeds”. I had never thought about natural hazard preparedness before’ (person with disability)

o Awareness was prompted not only for individuals, but also prompted participants to think about people in their network

Completing the ISAT-EP is an opportunity to begin conversations with others about a person’s individual natural hazard preparedness

Capitalise on the educative value of the ISAT-EP and use to inform people with disability and their networks

Inclusion of more definitions, practical tips and information

17

which may not otherwise be initiated The awareness of support needs identified can be communicated

with those a person chooses to include in their individual natural hazard preparedness plan (e.g. family, friends, neighbours, disability support provider etc.)

Individuals with less experience in preparedness would benefit from more definitions, practical tips and information

Benchmarking preparedness level

Currently no scoring matrix for person completing ISAT-EP to benchmark their level of preparedness;

Include a scoring matrix

4.2 Feedback section by section and suggestions for improvementTable 4.2 summarises participant feedback and suggestions for improvement on each of the components of the ISAT-EP.

Table 4.2. Feedback section by section and suggestions for improvement

Section Participant feedback on the ISAT-EP content areas Suggestions for improvement1. General

information No comments No comments

2. Socio-demographic and cultural information

Sharing personal information. People with disability may not want to share personal information and be concerned about who would have access to this information

Gender variables do not allow a response for those who do not identify as male or female

Question the relevance of asking marital status. ‘It’s a bit insulting to pry into relationship status. Someone may be single but have a good support network of others to respond. It is important to instead consider the networks available to people’ (peak organisation representative)

ISAT-EP needs clear privacy and confidentiality clauses

Add ‘other’ as an option for those who do not identify as ‘male’ or female’

Include explanation of rationale for marital status

Add ‘other’ as an option for

18

Job type and employmento Variables for responses need to be broader – e.g. to

acknowledge voluntary roleso Response variables do not acknowledge previously held

roles (including before acquiring disability) Questions relating to ethnicity – important to collect information

about ethnicity to assist with preparedness planning e.g. women from some different religions/ethnicities may not feel comfortable receiving assistance from males

Where a person comes from. People may not have experienced natural hazard emergencies that occur in Australia;

o People may not have been exposed to modern ways of living e.g. from small villages

those who have different job types and employment as listed

Include rationale for current job type and employment

Add questions relating to ethnicity and migrant background

3. Functioning and disability

Awareness of capabilities and support needs most valued component of ISAT-EP

Language focuses on deficits rather than strengths and capabilities

Variables for responses too limited to cover the range of disability

People with disability may not identify as having a disability. People also may choose not to respond due to stigma associated

Questions do not consider episodic/transient conditions e.g. mental health

Assistive devices – question use of term ‘help’. ‘Assistive technology is used to empower me to do things independently, not to ‘help’ me’ (peak organisation representative)

o People may have assistive devices, this does not necessary mean they are used

Question the relevance of questions that focus on self-care (q 3.5) ‘what does this have to do with preparing for a natural hazard?’(workshop participant)

Reword to include focus on strengths and abilities

Allow for open answers Include question that

consider if a disability/condition is episodic/transient

Remove term ‘help’ when discussing assistive devices

Include question if assistive device is used for its purpose

19

4. Participation in community

A person’s social and support networks viewed as extremely important in emergency preparedness. These networks will be crucial in the event of a natural hazard emergency

o Important to consider the willingness and ability of people identified within networks to respond

Questions which require ability to think of abstract concepts are not suitable for some people with disability

o Comparing yourself to other people in the community – question of who the person would be benchmarking against?

o Identifying level of ‘problem’ – a person may be unaware of barriers to their participation in the community

Response variables are deficits based identifying ‘problems’. This was considered to relate to medical model understandings of disability

‘Connectedness’ within a community is important particularly for people from CALD communities ‘I don’t know, I guess it’s just a cultural difference that makes me feel less connected’ (focus group with peak organisation representing CALD communities)

Include questions that allow a person to reflect on the ability and willingness of identified networks to respond

Explore using a mapping activity as an alternative to the participation scale, where people could map where they went in the community, identifying who they may be with in these places

Reword response variables to be less deficits based

Include questions that allow a person to reflect on their ‘connectedness’ within a community

5. Where you live

Reference to the term ‘house’ does not consider alternative housing types e.g. apartments etc.

Question the need to consider shape of houseo Related question to the need to consider exits and

evacuation routes ‘the only way I could escape is through a window, which would be hard to do with my disability’

Focus on a person’s home reinforces negative stereotypes ‘questions that focus on a person’s home, only reinforce negative attitudes that people with disability just stay at home all day. I don’t’ (peak organisation representative)

Important to also consider the local area, particularly if affected by ‘one way in, one way out routes’. ‘I live in a flood zone, whilst

Replace term ‘house’ with home

Include questions that reflect on the local area a person lives

Review questions to ensure they are appropriate to both metropolitan and rural regions

20

my house would not be affected. I would be affected how I could move around my suburb, some parts may be closed off’ (peak organisation representative)

Questions are very ‘metropolitan’ and lack considerations for people living in rural/regional areas’

6. Your house and household

Focus of questions are on a person’s immediate familyo Assumes that people with disability do not move from their

family homeo A person’s family may not necessarily be their

social/support networko For migrants immediate family may be overseaso People may live with extended family

Participants from CALD backgrounds discussed this as extremely important

Q.6.2 Response variable for children not broad enough to consider child and infant

Reword so less emphasis on ‘immediate family’, instead focus on a person’s social/support networks

Include reference to living with ‘extended family’

Q.6.2 response variable for children to be broadened to identify infant as well as child

7. Natural hazards - perception of risk

People may not know what the natural hazards are Response variables that ask you to rank risk

o Require ability to think abstractly which may be hard to do for some people

o Harder if a person does not take natural hazard emergencies seriously/aware of the risk they pose

o Concerns of EMs as there should be focus on all hazard approaches, not just hazards a person perceives as a risk

Include images and descriptions of the different natural hazards

Explore using response variables that rate level of risk, rather than rank each hazard for risk

Include more emphasis on ‘all hazard’ approaches to preparedness

8. Natural hazard emergencies – what you would

Responses are dependent on the natural hazard ‘what I would do in the event of a flood, may be different to what I would do in a heat wave’ (person with disability)

o Choosing one option for responses seen as limiting as people may respond in a number of ways

Allow multiple responses for each question

Include considerations of a person’s response based on the timing of the event

21

do in a natural hazard emergency?

o Timing of the event would affect their response, for example one emergency manager stated, ‘a heat wave can last days, you may respond differently during the onset, to during the event’ (Emergency Manager at workshop)

Language focuses on deficits e.g. ‘who would help/would you rely on’

Important to consider the emotional or behavioural responses people may exhibit in the event of a natural hazard

Sentimental items are important in emergency kitso People may need to get sentimental items before leavingo Visa/registration documents/passports are important for

new migrants Importance of preparedness for pets, assistance animals and

livestock (farm animals) was discussed by participants o Animals could be a contributing factor to not leaving a

property

Reframe language using strengths based language

Include questions that allow a person to consider their emotional/behavioural responses during a natural hazard event

Include consideration of sentimental items and important documents as part of emergency kits

Include consideration of importance of preparedness for pets, assistance animals and livestock (farm animals)

9. Learning about natural hazards in your community in the future

Long Term – learning about natural hazards “the people you trust may not necessarily be the people with

the information, and vice versa’ (DSO representative at workshop)

CALD communities feel left out from awareness and preparedness planning and information sharing, citing language as one of the biggest barriers. ‘We simply are not getting the information’ (peak organisation representative)

o Empower and train local community members in preparedness. ‘Invest in money for this continual training – best to spend the money to keep people safe. Lives cost more than money’ (focus group with peak organisation representing CALD communities)

o Community Leaders are bilingual they could share

Broaden response variable for receiving warnings and updates to include mobile phone apps and social media

Include a trigger warning highlighting the potential emotional response of recalling previous natural hazard experiences

Include emphasis on the need for all hazard approaches to preparedness

22

important messages from Emergency Managers within their community. They could also tailor community awareness specific to their community

Short-term - receiving warnings and updates Sources for warnings and updates should be expanded to also

include mobile phone apps, and also social mediao ‘Just because a person has a phone, it doesn’t mean that it

is charged, has credit or data which can be used in the event of a natural hazard’ (workshop participant)

o Relating to social media, emergency managers held caution in relying on social media, advising it would be important that people were checking reliable sources (e.g. NSW Police Facebook page), not relying on ‘hearsay’ from comments from public

o Apps are not accessible for all people e.g. some people do not have web enabled phones. Apps also are unavailable in multiple languages

Not all people use/listen to radioso Not all people listen to ABC radioo Not all people are aware ABC Radio is the official

broadcastero Default language for ABC radio is English and so not

accessible for people from CALD backgrounds

Lived experience of natural hazards Critique of lack of ‘trigger’ warnings before questions that asked

about people’s experiences of natural hazards (q.9.6). stated ‘you are asking people to recall traumatic events without providing sufficient support for managing feelings and emotions stirred up as a result of this’ (peak organisation representative)

Emergency Managers held caution focusing on just the ‘most

23

dangerous’ event a person had experienced. Discussing the potential danger any hazard can have at any time

10.Lived experience of past natural hazard emergencies

Some wording ‘vague’ and open to interpretation. For example, 10.16 refers to ‘significant damage’

Emergency Managers highlighted importance of wording that focuses on ‘protecting’ rather than saving

Importance of considering emotional responses to natural hazards, and if actions they took were indeed what they had planned

‘People from CALD may not be comfortable with people attempting to respond. People who want to help may have difficulty communicating due to language barriers’ (focus group with peak organisation representing CALD communities)

Amend questions to be concise;

Replace reference to ‘saving’ with ‘protecting’

Include consideration of a person’s emotional responses and if these affected their planned actions

24

5. DiscussionThe review of the ISAT-EP yielded participant’s reflections and insights about the utility of the ISAT-EP and the experience of engaging in self-assessing emergency preparedness. Field test participants specifically commented on the capacity of the ISAT-EP to educate people completing the tool about DiDRR and in particular, providing awareness of capacity and needs and in relation to their local disaster context.

Nearly half (49%) of the field test participants were people with disability. The remainder were Emergency Managers, disability support organisations, and local government representatives. These stakeholders in disability inclusive disaster risk reduction also commented on the educative value of the ISAT-EP as well as its potential to provide specific local and potentially benchmarked data about capacity and need for support for people with disability in emergency preparedness.

It was of particular value to have multiple stakeholders engaged in this field test application of the ISAT-EP. As an example, during workshop discussions about the ISAT-EP Emergency Managers were in a prime position to provide feedback relating to the roles and responsibilities of emergency management agencies as well as providing important feedback on the local contexts and natural hazards. DSOs and CSOs were able to provide practical feedback on how the ISAT-EP could be used within organisations. The value of this input recognised the collaboration that needs to occur between sectors, each sector with its own expertise and knowledge to contributing to disability inclusive disaster preparedness. Incorporation of feedback from individuals with disability, and these other stakeholder groups allowed the team to understand the benefits of the ISAT-EP at individual, organisational and also community levels.

In the Australian context, the findings suggest any tools designed for use by people with disability to self-assess their resilience/vulnerabilities to natural hazards should be framed in ways that focus on a person’s capabilities and resilience, rather than focus on their deficits or vulnerabilities. This is consistent with the shift in paradigm from people with disability being viewed as vulnerable and dependent to being recognised as active participants in all phases of disaster management. The framework underpinning the ISAT-EP comes from the human rights and capability approach embedded within the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This is critical in the Australian context with Australia as an early signatory and ratifier of this Convention in 2007 and 2008 respectively. All participants in this field test application commented on the strengths-based approach underpinning the ISAT-EP including Emergency Managers who noted that their sector was more likely to respond positively when materials are strengths and resilience based. This finding aligns with Priestly and Hemingway (2007), who suggested that if people with disability are framed as ‘vulnerable’ and lacking in capacity, disaster management response measures will fail. Valued sections of the ISAT-EP were also those on functioning, disability

23

and participation in the community. This aligns with the social and economic participation of people with disability clearly expressed in Australia’s National Disability Strategy 2010-2020 and more recently in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (revised 2016).

As can be seen from tables 4.1 and 4.2, participants welcomed the development of the ISAT-EP both as an educative tool and as a tool to self-assess emergency preparedness. The overall feedback and the comments on each section with suggestions for improvement provide very useful data to commence the next phase of development of the ISAT-EP. Further development will be contingent on international peer-reviewed publication of the process so far and funding to ensure rigour in the tool development process of the ISAT-EP. In its current written text format the ISAT-EP is not accessible for all people with disability. The formats provided in future must comply with accessible guidelines for example the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)10 and the Centre for Disability Research and Policy’s CDRP Accessible Events Practice Points: A Tool for Organising Events that are Accessible for People with Disabilities11.

In this field test application of the ISAT-EP there were some barriers for individuals with disability to engage in the process. The time available to complete the ISAT-EP was one limiting factor. This applied to having enough time in the workshop setting as well as for those who participated outside the workshops to think about and reflect on all the sections of the ISAT-EP. When the content matter is new and information may have to be gathered for complete and accurate completion of the ISAT-EP, it is possible that an initial draft filling in of the ISAT-EP followed by completion once all the information is gathered may be a more beneficial process. This may be a more appropriate process too when family members or carers or disability support workers are assisting the person with disability to complete the ISAT-EP or filling in this tool for those they assist (when the person is not able to do so independently).

Another barrier was whether currently emergency preparedness was a priority in the lives of individuals with disability. One peak organisation noted for example that ‘for many of my members preparing for natural hazards simply is not their priority … some people may have just acquired a disability, and so planning for disasters is not their priority when they are adapting their lives around their new support needs’. This reflects the time pressures and demands on people with disability and balancing these demands. This was particularly noticeable in one of the field test locations where the transition to the NDIS was in its early phases. This instance is a timely reminder of the importance of utilising individual and person-centred approaches to all aspects of the lives of people with disability to ensure that their particular strengths, needs for support, and their individual circumstances and context are taken into account.

A third and related barrier was the lack of multiple versions applicable for particular individuals with disability. So for example, the peak organisation 10 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines can be accessed at: https://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag11 CDRP Accessible Events Practice Points: A Tool for Organising Events that are Accessible for People with Disabilities can be accessed at: http://sydney.edu.au/health-sciences/cdrp/

24

for people with intellectual disability were not willing to be involved unless an Easy English version was available. This organisation quite appropriately now charges fee for service for their Easy English translation service and it was not possible with the resources available to access this service. Accessibilty is not limited to format however. The ISAT-EP needs to be formally reviewed by the relevant organisations and individuals representing people from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. This was beyond the scope of the adaptation of the ISAT-EP for the purposes of this project, however is required at the next phase of tool development.

6. ConclusionThe findings from this field test application of the ISAT-EP strongly support this self-assessment and potential planning tool on emergency preparedness for people with disability would be welcomed by all stakeholders in the disability and in the emergency management sector. The findings add to the growing literature which demonstrates the capacity, skills and resilience of people with disability in the face of natural hazard disasters.

7. ReferencesAustralian Bureau of Statistics (2013). 1220.0 - ANZSCO -- Australian and

New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations, 2013, Version 1.2. Retrieved 6 May 2017 from http://www.abs.gov.au/anzsco

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2016). 4450.0 - Supplementary Disability Survey, 2016. Retrieved from 6 May 2017 from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4450.0

Centre for Disability Research and Policy (2015). CDRP Accessible Events Practice Points: A Tool for Organising Events. University of Sydney. Retrieved 6 May 2017 from http://sydney.edu.au/health-sciences/cdrp/

Centre for Disability Research and Policy, University of Sydney and Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund Indonesia (2015). Technical Report 3. The Disability Inclusive Disaster Resilience (DiDR) Tool: Development and Field-Testing. University of Sydney, NSW 2006. Retrieved 6 May from http://sydney.edu.au/health-sciences/cdrp/projects/pipddmi.shtml

Commonwealth of Australia (2016). National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Revised 2016). Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Retrieved 6 May from https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2013A00020

25

Commonwealth of Australia (2011). 2010–2020 National Disability Strategy. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Retrieved 6 May from https :// www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/05_2012/n ational_disability_strategy_2010_2020.pdf

Llewellyn, G., Villeneuve, M., Dominey-Howes, D., & Brooks, H. (2016). ISAT-EP. Centre for Disability Research and Policy and Natural Hazards Research Group, University of Sydney.

Llewellyn, G., Villeneuve, M, Dominey-Howes., & Gargett, A. (2016). Disability and Disaster Risk Reduction / Emergency Preparedness - Scoping Review. Centre for Disability Research and Policy and Natural Hazards Research Group, University of Sydney.

Priestley, M. and Hemingway, L. (2007) Disability and disaster recovery: a tale of two cities? Journal of Social Work in Disability & Rehabilitation, 5 (3-4). pp. 23-42. Retrieved 6 May from: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/1969/

UNISDR (2005). Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters. Retrieved 6 May 2017 from http://www.unisdr.org/2005/wcdr/intergover/official-doc/L-docs/Hyogo-framework-for-action-english.pdf

UNISDR (2015). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. United Nations Headquarters. Retrieved 6 May 2017 from http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/43291

United Nations (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. New York. Retrieved 8 May from https:// www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on- the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html

Ward, J.R. & McCotter, S. (2004). Reflection as a visible outcome for preservice teachers.Teaching and Teacher Education, 20 (3), 243-257

Web Accessibility Initiative (2017). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Overview. Retrieved 8 May from https:// www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag.php

8. AppendicesAppendix 1 - Draft ISAT-EP for external review – September 2016Appendix 2 - ISAT-EP review question sheet

26

9. Project reportsThis report forms one of a series of reports from this project.

Report one: Knowledge base workshops in the LGAs: A report outlining the process and outcomes of the disability inclusive emergency preparedness workshops

Report two: Disability and Disaster Risk Reduction / Emergency Preparedness: Scoping Review

Report three: Report on Phase Two Workshops October 2016

Report four: Identifying organisational emergency preparedness: A field test report on the application of the Australian Council of Social Services, Resilient Community Organisations toolkit.

Report five: Self-assessment of emergency preparedness in people with disability: A report on the field test review of the Individual Self-Assessment Tool – Emergency Preparedness (ISAT-EP) in the study locations.

You can access project reports by visiting our website at: http://sydney.edu.au/health-sciences/cdrp/projects/disasterdisab.shtml, or contact the project team via email disability.disaster@sydney.edu.au or by telephone at +612 9351 2222.

27

Appendix 1 – Draft ISAT-EP for external review – September 2016

ISAT- EP (Individual Self-Assessment

Questionnaire – Emergency

Preparedness) External Review

September 2016

28

PLEASE READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE YOU START THE QUESTIONNAIRE

WHO IS THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR?

This is a self-assessment questionnaire about emergency preparedness for people with disability. It means that you will complete the questionnaire on your own, or with support if needed.

ABOUT THE QUESTIONS:

The questions are numbered and written in bold.

All questions have closed answers. You will check the answer(s) that, in your opinion, is more appropriate.

There are no right or wrong answers. We are interested in what you know and think.

Each question has instructions. Instructions are written in blue italics. Please read the instructions before answering the questions.

WHAT SHOULD YOU DO IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION?

If you do not understand the question– write clearly next to the question: “I did not understand the question” and move to the next question.

DO YOU HAVE TO ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS?

No. You can refuse to answer a question. If this happens write clearly against the question: “I did not want to answer this question”

HOW DO YOU MAKE A CHANGE ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE FORM?

If you make a mistake on the form, or if you change your mind, double cross out the mistake and check the correct box. Please make this very clear to help us understand your corrected answer.

29

1. General Information

Please insert your best contact information

1.1 First Name: Last Name:

1.2 Address:

Address:

Suburb:

State:

Post Code:

1.3 Email:

1.4 Phone: Mobile

Landline

30

2. Socio-Demographic and Cultural Information

2.1 Age last birthday in years: _________________

2.2 Gender: ☐ Male ☐ Female

2.3 Marital Status: ☐ Never married

☐Married or De Facto

☐Separated but not divorced

☐Divorced

☐ Widowed

2.4 Education: ☐ Primary

☐ Secondary

☐ Diploma/ Certificate ☐ Graduate degree/ graduate

certificate ☐ Post graduate

2.5 Employment: ☐ Student

☐ Employed full-time

☐ Employed part-time

☐ Unemployed

☐ Never employed

☐ Retired

2.6 Job type (if employed): ☐ Manager

☐ Professional

☐ Technician and Trades Workers

☐ Community and Personal Service Worker☐ Clerical and Administrative Worker

☐ Sales Workers

☐ Machinery Operators and Drivers

☐ Labourer

31

32

3. Functioning and disability questions*

THESE QUESTIONS ASK ABOUT DIFFICULTIES YOU MAY HAVE DOING CERTAIN ACTIVITIES BECAUSE OF A HEALTH PROBLEM.

YOU WILL HAVE FOUR RESPONSE OPTIONS:

1. No Difficulty 2. Some Difficulty 3. A Lot of Difficulty 4. Cannot Do At All

Check one box only per each question – you must check one box only in each row

Questions No difficulty

Some difficulty

A lot of difficulty

Cannot do at all

3.1. Do you have difficulty seeing, even if wearing glasses? □ □ □ □

3.2 Do you have difficulty hearing, even if using a hearing aid? □ □ □ □

3.3 Do you have difficulty walking or climbing steps? □ □ □ □

3.4 Do you have difficulty remembering or concentrating? □ □ □ □

3.5 Do you have difficulty with self-care, such as washing all over or dressing yourself?

□ □ □ □

3.6 Using your usual (customary) language, do you have difficulty communicating? (for example, understanding or being understood by others)?

□ □ □ □

3.7 Do you have an assistive device to help you with your disability?

Check each one that applies ☐ Yes, for seeing

☐ Yes, for hearing

☐ Yes, for walking

☐ Yes, for communicating

☐ No assistive device

33

4. Participation in community**THIS SECTION IS ABOUT YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THE COMMUNITY. YOU WILL BE ASKED TO COMPARE YOURSELF TO OTHER PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY. EACH QUESTION HAS FIVE OPTIONS. YOU CAN ONLY CHOOSE ONE OF THESE OPTIONS.

Check one box per row – you must check one box only in each row

Participation ScaleCompare yourself to the other people in the community

No problem

Small problem

Medium problem

Large problem

Irrelevant, or I don’t want to, or I don’t have to

4.1 Compared to other people, finding any type of paid work (formal or informal) is…..?

□ □ □ □ □

4.2 Working as hard as other people is…..? (same hours, type of work etc)

□ □ □ □ □

4.3 Earning money/producing goods for the family in a similar way to other people is…….?

□ □ □ □ □

4.4 Travelling outside the city/neighbourhood as much as other people do is,,,,,,,? (except for health-related treatment)

□ □ □ □ □

4.5 Taking part in activities as much as other people do is…….? (e.g. sports, chatting, meetings etc.)

□ □ □ □ □

4.6 Taking part in community or religious affairs as much as other people do is ……?

□ □ □ □ □

4.7 Gaining or maintaining the same respect as other people in the community is ,,,,,,,?

□ □ □ □ □

4.8 Taking care of yourself (appearance, nutrition, health, etc) as well as other people is ……?

□ □ □ □ □

4.9 Visiting other people in the community as often as other people is……?

□ □ □ □ □

4.10 Compared to other people, entering into or maintaining a long-term relationship with a life

□ □ □ □ □

34

partner is ……?

4.11 Visiting public places in the neighbourhood like schools, shops, offices, market and tea/coffee shops as often as other people is ……?

□ □ □ □ □

4.12 Doing household work in your home as other people do is …..?

□ □ □ □ □

4.13 Helping other people (e.g. neighbours, friends or relatives) is ……?

□ □ □ □ □

4.14 Feeling comfortable to meet new people is ……? □ □ □ □ □

4.15 Feeling confident to try to learn new things is ……? □ □ □ □ □

35

5. Where you live

THIS SECTION IS ABOUT THE BUILDING WHERE YOU LIVE – YOUR HOME.

5.1 What is the main construction material of the building where you live?

Check one box only

Wood or fibro ☐Brick ☐Steel and concrete ☐Other (please specify………..) ☐

5.2 How many floors does your house have?

Check one box only

One ☐Two ☐More than two ☐

5.3 Is the first floor of your house elevated above the ground?

Check one box only

No, same level as the ground ☐Yes, there are a few steps or a ramp to get into the building

☐

Yes, the entrance is at the second floor (the first floor is used for pets, tools, bikes, storage or other non-residential purpose)

☐

36

5.4 What is the shape of the roof?

Check one box only

Flat or almost flat

Examples:

Figure 2 and 2: :images of houses with flat roof

☐

Pitched and simple

Example:

Figure 3: Image of house with pitched/pointed roof

☐

Pitched and complex shape

Examples:

Figure 4: Image of roofs that are a complex shape with multiple pitches

☐

5.5 What is the roof material?

Check one box only

Wood ☐Tin or metal sheeting ☐Tiles or concrete ☐

37

Not visible/ not sure ☐

5.6 Which one of the following shapes best describes the shape of your house?

Check one box only

Square or rectangular

Examples:

Figure 5: Image of Square and rectangular shaped house

☐

Round or oval

Example:

Figure 6: Image of oval shaped house

☐

38

Complex shape, with many sides and corners

Examples:

Figure 7: Images of complex shaped buildings which have many sides and corners

☐

39

6. Your house and household

IN THIS SECTION, YOU WILL BE ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS HOUSE AND YOUR HOUSEHOLD.

6.1 In regards to the house you live in, do you or your immediate family:

Check one box only

Rent this house ☐Own this house ☐Pay to live in this accommodation with other people ☐Other ☐

6.2 Who lives in this house with you?

Check each one that applies – you must check one box in each row

Child/ children under 18 years old ☐ Yes ☐ No

Adults over 18 ☐ Yes ☐ No

Older person/ persons over 60 ☐ Yes ☐ No

Other people with a disability ☐ Yes ☐ No

Pets ☐ Yes ☐ No

I live alone ☐ Yes ☐ No

Other ☐

6.3 How many years have you lived in this house?

Check one box only

Most or all of your life

Only in the past few years

40

7. Natural hazards

IN THIS SECTION, YOU WILL BE ASKED ABOUT NATURAL HAZARDS THAT YOU THINK COULD AFFECT YOU IN THE FUTURE. THIS IS NOT ABOUT WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO YOU IN THE PAST - THAT COMES LATER IN ANOTHER SECTION.

7.1 Which of these events do you think could be a danger to you and your household in the future?

Check each one that applies – you must check either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ box

Column A: Question 7.1 Column B: Question 7.2:

Rank

Earthquake ☐ Yes ☐ No

River Flood ☐Yes ☐No

Storm ☐Yes ☐ No

Drought ☐ Yes ☐ No

Tsunami ☐ Yes ☐ No

Epidemic or pandemic

☐Yes ☐ No

Erosion ☐ Yes ☐ No

Landslide ☐Yes ☐ No

Bushfire ☐ Yes ☐ No

Heat wave ☐Yes ☐ No

Tornado ☐ Yes ☐ No

Hail ☐ Yes ☐ No

Meteorite strike ☐Yes ☐No

Which of the events you answered “yes” to in Question 7.1 do you think are the greatest danger to you?

Rank only the top 3: 1 = most dangerous - 3 = least dangerous.

41

Please complete Column B in the Table above.

8. Natural hazard emergencies

THIS SECTION IS ABOUT WHAT YOU WOULD DO IN A NATURAL HAZARD EMERGENCY IN THE FUTURE, AND YOUR PREPAREDNESS.

8.1 If you needed help, who would you rely on during a natural hazard emergency?

Check one box only

A member of the household

Friend

Neighbour

Emergency Service Provider

Disability service organisation

Community service organisation

Religious leader/Community leader

No one

Your faith/prayer

Other

8.2 Is there an emergency service that would help you during a natural hazard emergency?

Check one box only

Yes

No

I don’t know

If yes to 8.2 which of the following would help you during a natural hazard emergency?

Check each one that applies – you can check more than one

Police

Ambulance

Fire brigade

Rural Fire Service

42

State Emergency Service

NSW Volunteer Rescue

Marine Rescue Service

Other

8.3 Do you have an emergency kit ready at this moment? An emergency kit contains for example medications, water and food for a couple of days, a battery-operated radio, a torch, a mobile phone.

Check one box only

Yes

No

I don’t know

8.4 Is your house connected to an electricity supply (including solar or own generator)

Yes

No

8.5 Is your house connected to a water supply?

Yes

No

8.6 Where do you spend most of your time in your house?

Check one box only

First floor ☐Second floor ☐Third floor or higher ☐

43

8.7 Have you and the people in your house agreed on a plan on what to do in a natural hazard emergency?

Check one box only

Yes

No

I don't know

8.8 What would you do in a natural hazard emergency?

Check one box only

Go with my gut instinct ☐Follow the plan agreed with other people in the house ☐I would wait to be told by someone what to do, or I would ask someone

☐

I would pray but not take any other action ☐I would do nothing ☐

8.9 What reasoning could prevent you from leaving your house in a natural hazard emergency?

Check one box only

I do not think I would be able to reach a safe place ☐I wouldn’t leave my family/animals ☐I wouldn’t leave my house and belongings ☐Nothing would stop me ☐Being told by someone in my family/household to stay home

☐

I would not want to go to the evacuation point / emergency shelters

☐

No one would help me / I would be left behind ☐

44

My faith that I will be OK ☐Other ☐

45

9. Learning about the natural hazards in your community in the future THIS SECTION IS ABOUT YOU RECEIVING INFORMATION ABOUT NATURAL HAZARDS IN THE FUTURE.

9.1 What sources of information would you trust to learn about natural hazards?

Check each one that applies – you must check one box in each row

Emergency service provider ☐Yes ☐No

Disability service organisation ☐Yes ☐No

Community service organisation ☐Yes ☐No

Religious leader/Community leader ☐Yes ☐No

Television ☐Yes ☐No

Radio ☐Yes ☐No

Internet ☐Yes ☐No

Newspaper ☐Yes ☐No

Other, please specify ☐Yes ☐No

9.2 Do you have a personal mobile phone?

Yes

No

9.3 During a natural hazard emergency, how would you like to receive emergency messages such as warnings or evacuation orders?

46

Check one box only

A member of the household ☐Friend ☐Neighbour ☐Emergency service provider ☐Disability service organisation ☐Community service organisation ☐Religious leader/Community leader ☐

9.4 During a natural hazard emergency, how would you prefer to get emergency messages such as warnings or evacuation orders?

Check one box only

Being told in person ☐Receiving a phone call ☐Receiving a SMS ☐Television ☐Radio ☐Internet ☐Other ☐

9.5 Have you ever attended any educational or information sessions about natural hazard emergencies?

Check one box only

Yes

No

I don’t know/I don’t remember

47

9.6 Have you experienced any natural hazard emergencies in the last ten years?

Check one box only

Yes (go to next question, 9.7)

No (go to question 11 on the last page of the survey)

I don’t know (go to question 11 on the last page of the survey)

9.7 Which of the following natural hazard emergencies have you experienced in the last ten years?

Check each one that applies – you must check one box in each row

Column A: Question 9.7 Column B: Question 9.7

Rank

Earthquake ☐ Yes ☐ No

River Flood ☐ Yes ☐ No

Storm ☐ Yes ☐ No

Drought ☐ Yes ☐ No

Tsunami ☐ Yes ☐ No

Epidemic or pandemic

☐ Yes ☐ No

Erosion ☐ Yes ☐ No

Landslide ☐ Yes ☐ No

Bushfire ☐ Yes ☐ No

Heat wave ☐ Yes ☐ No

Tornado ☐ Yes ☐ No

Hail ☐ Yes ☐ No

48

Meteorite strike ☐ Yes ☐ No

9.8 Which of the events you answered “yes” to in Question 9.7 do you think pose the greatest danger to you?

Rank only the top 3: 1 = most dangerous - 3 = least dangerous.

Please complete Column B in the Table above.

9.9 Approximately, how long ago did the natural hazard emergency that you ranked as 1 =most dangerous happen?

Check one box only

1-2 years ago ☐3-5 years ago ☐6-10 years ago ☐More than ten years ago ☐

10. Lived experience of the past natural hazard emergency

IN THIS SECTION YOU WILL BE ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NATURAL HAZARD EMERGENCY THAT YOU SAID IN QUESTION 9.8 AFFECTED YOU THE MOST. WE WILL REFER TO IT AS “THE EVENT”.

THE FIRST FEW QUESTIONS ARE ABOUT THE WEEKS OR MONTHS BEFORE THE EVENT.

49

10.1 In the weeks or months before the event, did you already have an emergency plan prepared?

Check one box only

Yes

No

I don’t know

10.2 Did you already have an emergency kit prepared?

Check one box only

Yes

No

I don’t know

10.3 Did you already have your house prepared to resist the event?

Check one box only

Yes

No

I don’t know

10.4 In the weeks or months before the event, did you receive any help in preparing yourself or your home?

Check one box only

Yes (go to next question, 10.5)

No (go to question 10.6)

I don’t know (go to question 10.6)

10.5 If yes, did you receive help from?

Check each one that applies – you must check one box in each row

A member of the household ☐ Yes ☐ No

Friend ☐ Yes ☐ No

50

Neighbour ☐ Yes ☐ No

Emergency service provider ☐ Yes ☐ No

Disability service organisation ☐ Yes ☐ No

Community service organisation ☐ Yes ☐ No

Religious leader/Community leader ☐ Yes ☐ No

Other ☐ Yes ☐ No

THE NEXT QUESTIONS ARE ABOUT THE DAY OF THE EVENT

10.6 Did you receive any emergency message about the event such as alerts, warnings or evacuation orders?

Check one box only

Yes (go to next question, 10.7)

No (go to question 10.9)

I don’t know (go to question 10.9)

10.7 If yes, who were the emergency messages from?

Check one box only

A member of the household ☐Friend ☐Neighbour ☐Emergency service provider ☐Disability service organisation ☐Community service organisation ☐Religious leader/Community leader ☐I don’t know ☐

51

10.8 How did you receive the emergency messages?

Check one box only

Communicated in person ☐Phone call received ☐SMS received ☐Television ☐Radio ☐Internet ☐I don’t know ☐Other, please specify ☐

NOW YOU WILL BE ASKED SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT YOU DID DURING THE EVENT

10.9 What did you do during the event?

Check one box only

I went with my gut instinct ☐I followed the plan agreed with other people in the house

☐

I waited to be told what to do or I asked what to do ☐I prayed ☐I did nothing ☐

52

I don’t know ☐

10.10 What did you do to save yourself at the moment when the event happened?

Check one box only

I evacuated to a evacuation point/safe place independently

☐

I evacuated to a evacuation point/safe place with some help

☐

I was rescued by an official and transported to a safe place

☐

I stayed home ☐I did not manage to reach a safe place but survived ☐I don’t know ☐

10.11 Did you go to an evacuation shelter?

Check one box only

Yes

No

I don’t know

NOW YOU WILL BE ASKED SOME QUESTIONS IN RELATION TO YOUR DISABILITY AND THE EVENT

10.12 This question is about your disability and the event:

Check one box only

Yours disability was caused by the events (If you checked this box, go to question 10.14)

Your disability was made worse by the event

Your disability was not affected by the event

53

10.13 Did you acquire a new type of disability as a consequence of the event?

Yes

No

10.14 In the long-term, were you affected mentally or emotionally by the event?

Yes

No

10.15 Were the important people in your life seriously affected by the event?

Yes

No

10.16 Did your house, land and your possessions sustain any significant damage from the event?

Check one box only

Yes

No

I don’t know

10.17 Did you or your household get help to recover over the long term?

Check one box only

Yes (go to next question, 10.18)

No (go to question 10.19)

I don’t know (go to question 10.19)

10.18 If yes, who did you get help from?

Check one box only

54

A member of the household ☐Friend ☐Neighbour ☐Emergency service provider ☐Disability service organisation ☐Community service organisation ☐Religious leader/Community leader ☐I don’t know ☐Other, please specify ☐

10.19 Compared to before the event, your life is now generally:

Check one box only

Pretty much the same as before ☐Better than before ☐Worse than before ☐

THIS IS THE END OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. THIS INFORMATION WILL HELP US UNDERSTAND THE RESILIENCE AND VULNERABILITY OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES IN NATURAL HAZARD EMERGENCIES.

PLEASE FOLD THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND INSERT IN THE REPLY PAID ENVELOPE AND RETURN TO:

55

*Functioning and Disability questions used from: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4450.0** Participation in community questions used from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51712960_Testing_and_validating_a_simplified_scale_to_measure_social_participation_of_people_with_disabilities_in_Indonesia

56

Appendix 2 – ISAT-EP review question sheetFacilitated discussion - Preparing yourself for natural hazards

My thoughts about myself/a person I know with disability using the ISAT-EP

1. The most important components of the ISAT-EP are (see list of 10 components above):

I think this because:

Completing the ISAT-EP would allow me to identify I have skills and readiness for natural hazards in..

2. The questions that I did not understand or felt would not apply in this community are…

3. Some of the challenges that people with disability may face completing the ISAT-EP may be……..

57

4. I would recommend the following improvements to ISAT-EP….

If you would like to be a part of the review of the ISAT or are willing to invite 2 people with disability to participate, please put your details here (reviews will take place in November):

Name: Contact Number

Email address:

Address:

58

END OF REPORT

The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSW Government, unless the views expressed in the project materials have been publicly supported by the Government, or Government Agency.

59