SOCIAL WORK AND DISASTERS

Michael J. Zakour, Ph.D.

School of Social Work

Tulane University

Email: <mzakour@tulane.edu>

Abstract

This article reviews the contributions of the social work profession to
disaster research, with an emphasis on contributions in the last two
decades. Social workers have been active in disaster relief since the US
Civil War and the Settlement House Movement of the late nineteenth
century. Social workers have defined disasters primarily in terms of the
social and psychological impact of natural and technological hazards.
The social work profession has been largely concerned with
disaster-related issues such as prevention of severe disruption during
disaster, impacts on systems at multiple levels of analysis, and
availability of services to high-risk populations such as children and
low-income persons. Social workers have contributed research findings on
traumatic stress, disaster volunteers, vulnerable populations,
organizations and interorganizational networks, environmental disasters,
cross-cultural and international issues in disasters, and improved
measurement and theory. Disaster research in social work is largely
based in research from sociology and psychology. Gaps in social work
knowledge, and suggestions for future research, are discussed. Finally,
substantive suggestions for emergency management and social work are
offered.

Historical Overview

The social work profession has long been involved with disaster relief,
both through the profession's roots in the provision of wartime relief,
and its concern with the physical environment of people. Beginning with
the Civil War and continuing with the formal role of social workers in
Vet Centers, social workers have helped treat the trauma resulting from
wartime deployment (Pryce & Pryce, 2000). In the social work
perspective, the environment is included among the physical, biological
and social factors influencing the welfare of individuals, groups, and
populations. Since the late nineteenth century social workers have
intervened in the microenvironments of people to improve their health
status, residential living environment, workplace conditions, and social
and psychological functioning (Zakour, 1996a). An important focus for
these interventions has been the urban environment of immigrants to the
United States before 1900. Crowded and unhealthy tenement living, poor
public health, and elevated morbidity and mortality in these urban
settings led to collaborative efforts by social workers and public
health workers to seek to reform urban systems and conditions.

These early urban reform efforts were closely related to the Settlement
House movement led by Jane Addams at Hull House, and to the Charity
Organization Societies. The settlement house workers lobbied for public
health reforms which resulted in a sharp decrease in morbidity and
mortality from epidemic disease in urban areas (Zakour, 1996a).
Settlement workers in Chicago provided disaster relief and services to
victims of the Chicago Fire in 1871. Charity Organization Societies
(COS) responded to the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906, using their
tradition of interagency coordination to improve disaster response. Both
the COS and the settlement house workers represent early movements
within social work emphasizing both community mobilization and services
coordination. Community mobilization to improve environmental conditions
for individuals, households, and populations provided the roots for
environmental concerns in social work today. More effective coordination
continues to be a focal point for improvements in disaster response
within social work. Coordination promises to make services accessible
for vulnerable populations, as well as link services together to provide
for improved continuity of care for victims of disaster (Zakour &
Harrell, 2003).

This article describes how social workers currently define disaster,
vulnerability, and emergency management. The central concerns of social
work disaster research are discussed. The contributions of social
workers to disaster research are reviewed, with an emphasis on the
research findings of the last two decades. The relationship of social
work disaster research to research in other disciplines and professions
is summarized, and gaps in social work disaster knowledge are described.
Finally, suggestions for emergency managers, and for future research in
social work and related disciplines, are offered.

Defining Disaster, Vulnerability, and Emergency Management

#  Social work disaster researchers define disaster primarily through social disruption and collective stress, though physical hazards are an important part of the definition of disaster. Vulnerability in disasters refers to social structural factors leaving populations such as low-income groups, children, and older individuals disproportionately at risk for loss during disaster. Communities are vulnerable because of their demographic, cultural, historical, or ecological characteristics. Emergency management in the social work perspective is the management and coordination of the disaster social services delivery system so that important resources are redistributed to vulnerable populations heavily impacted by disaster.

# Definition of a Disaster

In social work research, disasters are seen as a type of collective
stress situation, in which many individuals fail to have their needs met
through societal processes (Barton, 1969). Disasters are distinguished
from other types of collective stress because, first of all, disasters
are crisis situations (Quarantelli, 1998). This approach is consistent
with the use of crisis intervention frameworks in social work disaster
research (Miller, 2003). Furthermore, conflict situations such as riots
and wars are generally not defined as disasters in social work research.
Conflict situations, as compared to natural and technological disasters,
involve very different responses of organizations and other social
systems. However, conflict situations are related to disasters both
because competition is present in disasters, and because disasters and
conflict crises often lead to high levels of collective stress and
traumatic stress.

Disasters are often defined in social work research using a stress
framework, with a focus on the stressor and the impacted system. This
conceptualization of disaster allows for the examination of disaster
impacts at micro, mezzo, and macro levels of analysis. Stress theory
classifies disaster impacts according to type, demands on the impacted
system, and duration (Dodds & Nuehring, 1996). These properties of
disaster are consistent with Barton's (1969) typology of collective
stress situations. Social work disaster researchers also focus on the
mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery periods of disasters.
The stress framework supports the generation of different research
questions at each of these disaster phases, and for disaster impacts
from individual to societal levels.

This definition of disaster is consistent with the social work
definition of disasters as events causing human loss and suffering
sufficient to create social disruption. Disasters warrant an
extraordinary response from outside the immediately impacted area or
community. Though the response required may be extraordinary, disasters
may usefully be viewed as an extension of everyday events (Streeter,
1991). This definition permits a long-term developmental orientation,
such that political, social, economic, and environmental forces work
together to undermine a system's ability to cope with new stresses. The
definition also shares some similarities with those of scholars who
conceptualize disasters as socially defined occasions leading to
radically changed behaviors to meet the crisis. According to these
scholars, disasters are conceptualized within a social change
perspective and are viewed as multidimensional (Quarantelli, 1998).

Though in social work research disasters are defined with an emphasis on
social disruption, the environmental aspect of hazards is not excluded.
The use of systems theory in social work is based partly on Duncan's
POET framework which points to the interaction of variables related to
population, organization, environment, and technology (Norlin & Chess,
1997; Quarantelli, 1998). In ecological theory, a type of systems
theory, the physical and social environments of individuals and
collectives are of equal importance in shaping human welfare. The
physical nature of hazards, in an ecological perspective, is an
important aspect of the definition of disasters in social work disaster
research. In the POET framework, the natural and built environments
interact with societal variables and may lead to disasters. Environment
and society mutually affect one other.

[Vulnerability]{.underline}

Social workers define vulnerability in reference to both individuals and
communities. Vulnerability at the individual level refers to social
structural factors which increase individuals' probability of suffering
long-term and serious social, psychological, and health problems after a
disaster (Thomas & Soliman, 2002). The primary theoretical foundation
for vulnerability is distributive justice (Soliman & Rogge, 2002). In
this formulation, the market value of individuals and populations is
inversely related to the level of risk from natural and technological
hazards that people are exposed to. Social vulnerability is therefore a
continuum in which lower levels of socioeconomic status are associated
with greater social vulnerability (Rogge, 2003).

Two of the most important social structural factors are poverty and
social isolation. Poverty and lack of household wealth means that
individuals will be less likely to recover from the material and health
impacts of disasters. These individuals are less likely to have
insurance to cover disaster losses, they may be on fixed or very limited
incomes, and will have difficulty repaying low-interest disaster loans.
Health conditions existing before disaster will likely be exacerbated by
disaster, and lack of disposable income will make it very difficult for
these low-income populations to afford health and mental health care.
Older individuals, people of color, recent immigrants, and children are
disproportionately represented among low-income populations (Sanders,
Bowie, & Bowie, 2003). Children are especially vulnerable because they
are dependent on adult caregivers for survival and recovery in
disasters. Because they are developing physiologically, children are
also highly vulnerable to environmental and technological disasters.
Asthma and other respiratory problems, endocrine and immune system
damage, and loss of IQ are among the documented or suspected
consequences of chemical exposure in children (Rogge, 2003).

Often income level is related to social isolation. Social isolation from
neighbors, kin, and formal organizations means that individuals and
households will be unable to mobilize social capital to recover after a
disaster. Isolated individuals will have difficulty obtaining
information to help them make evacuation decisions, and to obtain relief
services from formal organizations. These individuals suffer from a lack
of social support and network ties, either to core networks of kin and
neighbors, or to geographically dispersed networks which include aid
organizations. Older individuals, and households consisting only of
older individuals, tend to be especially socially isolated (Sanders et
al., 2003).

Vulnerability is defined at the community level by the community's
demographic, historical, cultural, and ecological characteristics.
Poverty rate is a demographic variable negatively associated with
community survival and recovery during major, long-term disasters
(Sherraden & Fox, 1997; Sundet & Mermelstein, 1996). The level of
functioning of local governments also predicts survival during community
disasters. Communities are vulnerable when they contain few disaster
social services organizations, and when these organizations and their
programs are poorly coordinated. The lack of a developed disaster relief
network of organizations also makes it difficult for community members
to access services after a disaster. Disaster response and mitigation
programs may be lacking in vulnerable communities. Vulnerable
individuals and households tend to reside in communities whose other
residents have similar social and demographic characteristics. Partly
because low-income communities tend to have a poor tax base, the degree
of vulnerability of communities coincides with the vulnerability of
populations (Zakour, 1996b; Zakour & Harrell, 2003).

# Emergency Management 

Emergency management in social work disaster research is defined as
management of the disaster social service system, which includes
disaster organizations as well as the mass assault after a disaster.
Emergency management focuses on preparedness for disasters, and planning
for coordination of community resources during disasters (Gillespie,
1991). In the social work perspective, an important goal for emergency
managers is inclusion of diverse organizational representatives and
community leaders in overall disaster planning. Participants in the
planning process should include representatives of informal community
organizations serving vulnerable populations such as children,
single-parent families, low-income individuals, and members of ethnic
minorities (Harrell & Zakour, 2000).

Central Disaster Issues and Concerns

Social work research in disasters is consistent with the profession's
concern with prevention, a generalist approach to social problems, and
the equitable distribution of resources. Research on prevention focuses
on understanding intervention in the social and physical environments of
individuals in order to mitigate or ameliorate serious psychosocial
problems. Generalist approaches in social work research and practice in
disasters examine interventions in systems at different levels of
abstraction, to respond to disaster impacts on a large number of
societal systems. Research on access to resources by vulnerable
populations seeks to improve the equality of service delivery to
vulnerable populations.

# Prevention

Just as prevention is part of the mission of the social work profession,
disaster social work is concerned with intervention in the social and
physical environments of individuals and groups as a means of preventing
serious long-term social, health, and mental health problems after
disaster (Rogge, 2003). The immediate social environment of individuals
consists of their social support networks, including family, friends,
and formal social services organizations. These networks are often
disrupted by disasters of regional scope. Disaster relief programs using
volunteers may seek to reconstitute these support networks to minimize
disruption of social functioning and to facilitate recovery. Disaster
social work involves not only expertise in service provision, but also
interorganizational practice to improve coordination. An effective and
coordinated network of disaster services organizations helps
individuals, households, and communities recover and avoid long-term
psychological and social problems (Zakour, 1996b).

In addition to reconstituting social support networks, restoration to
pre-disaster levels of functioning depends on reconstruction of the
physical environment. Housing and other infrastructure make up an
important part of the physical environment of individuals and
households, and these may be damaged or destroyed by disasters. Social
work disaster services include helping people qualify for aid for home
reconstruction and for replacement of other material losses. Volunteer
programs managed by social workers also provide skills and personnel for
rebuilding and for management of temporary shelters. Intervention in the
physical environment represents a type of secondary prevention limiting
disruption in systems after a disaster.

Prevention is most embodied in community disaster mitigation. This may
involve rapid dissemination of information in a public education format
to induce vulnerable populations to evacuate in the face of disaster
warning. It also involves mobilizing community groups to support
mitigation projects such as building codes to increase the built
environment's resilience to earthquakes, floods, or high winds
associated with tornadoes or tropical systems. Primary prevention is
viewed as the most effective means of lessening traumatic events in
refugee camps (Drumm, Pittman, & Perry, 2003). With highly vulnerable
populations such as children, prevention can take place through ensuring
that children are not exposed to chemicals and other substances released
during environmental and technological disasters. By avoiding exposure
of people at an early age to harmful substances, it is possible to limit
or prevent long-term damage to children's health and cognitive
functioning (Rogge, 2003).

[Social Problems at Multiple Levels]{.underline}

Consistent with the multidimensional nature of disaster, social work
disaster research is concerned with social problems at multiple levels
of analysis. These include the individual, family, group,
organizational, community, and societal levels (Streeter & Murty, 1996).
Intervening at multiple levels is part of the historical mission of the
profession, and it includes prevention through services at the
organizational, community, and societal levels to improve individual
wellbeing. Research at the individual, family, and household levels has
examined the effectiveness of interventions to restore people and small
groups to pre-disaster levels of social and psychological functioning.
Groups, organizations, and service delivery systems have been studied to
improve coordination and effectiveness of the disaster-relevant
interorganizational network (Gillespie, Colignon, Banerjee, Murty, &
Rogge, 1993).

Research at the community level seeks to understand community
characteristics which increase vulnerability to disaster. Research at
the societal level analyzes policy from governmental and other large
organizations contributing to or mitigating vulnerability. For example
Soliman (1996), in a study of chronic technological disaster in a rural
community, used a social process model which focuses on the social and
psychological impact of toxic exposure through complex interactions
among various levels of analysis. Research has also taken place from the
micro to macro levels simultaneously, such as research utilizing an
ecosystems approach in refugee camps (Drumm et al., 2003).

# Access to Disaster Services

A central concern for social work is facilitating access to needed
services. The mission of the social work profession includes creating
linkages between vulnerable populations and service systems, and
creating linkages among service systems to make resources more
accessible to people (Minahan & Pincus, 1977). This is of particular
importance to disaster services in social work because the populations
most vulnerable to disaster are often protected by fewer mitigation
projects and served by fewer disaster relief organizations with
relatively low service capacities (Zakour & Harrell, 2003). The focus on
access to services is important to social work partly because of the
profession's historic concern with poverty and urban ecology. Many
vulnerable populations are concentrated in urban jurisdictions with high
rates of poverty, a lower tax base, and low rates of volunteering in
emergency services organizations. These social and demographic
conditions are associated with lessened access to disaster services.

Research in social work has focused on a variety of social work practice
methods which aim to improve access to disaster services. These methods
include case management, case finding, outreach, advocacy, brokering,
information and referral, and helping clients apply for or qualify for
services. Case management involves finding programs, services, and
resources for a client, and ensuring provision of a meaningful
combination of services. Case finding after a disaster is important
because many disaster victims are unaware of available disaster
services, or fear stigmatization resulting from receiving social
services. Outreach means increasing access to services by creating
satellite locations for programs, to make services more geographically
and socially accessible. Advocacy involves using professional contacts
within organizations to persuade program intake workers that a
particular client is qualified for a service. Brokering involves
exchanging clients among programs or organizations to meet client needs
for multiple services, and to ensure the movement of clients through
various programs in service systems (Harrell & Zakour, 2000; Zakour &
Harrell, 2003).

Contributions of Social Work to the Disaster Knowledge Base

Social work disaster research has contributed new findings on the uses
and effectiveness of debriefings, disaster volunteers and service
delivery, vulnerable populations in disasters, organizational and
interorganizational behavior in disasters, environmental disasters,
cross-cultural and international aspects of disaster response, and
improved measurement and theory. The scope of these contributions
reveals a generalist approach to disaster response, such that social
work research and intervention focuses on systems of various sizes and
levels of abstraction. Improved measurement and theory has resulted from
research on volunteerism, organizations, interorganizational networks,
communities, and vulnerable populations.

# Traumatic Stress Interventions

Psychological debriefing is highly consistent with social work's
orientation. Debriefing emphasizes coping mechanisms, community social
support, and social connections through networking (Miller, 2003).
Because disasters are conceptualized as impacting more than one person,
debriefings take place in a group format. Debriefings are led by one or
more facilitators, and involve a typical format. Victim accounts of what
occurred are reviewed, and there is reflection about cognitive,
emotional and physical reactions.

Psycho-educational teaching about typical stress responses and useful
coping mechanisms provides a framework for understanding the traumatic
event. Ideas and plans for healing, self-care, and mutual aid and
support are then elicited. Participants in debriefings, including
professional facilitators and disaster victims, generally report
debriefing to be helpful (Miller, 2003). Debriefing has been found to be
effective for first responders in disasters, such as police and fire
personnel in the Oklahoma City Bombing (Callahan, 2000). However,
debriefings may not be effective for disaster victims other than first
responders. Also, group debriefing formats are reported to be less
helpful than individual counseling in eastern European (Kosovar) refugee
camps, based on the self-reports of refugees (Drumm et al., 2003).

# Volunteers

The use of volunteers for service delivery has historically been an
important issue in social work. Social work research on disaster
volunteerism represents a significant contribution to the disaster
literature (Zakour, Gillespie, Sherraden, & Streeter, 1991). Social
workers are prominent among disaster volunteers, making up a large
percentage of trained disaster volunteers (Cosgrove, 2000). In a study
of disaster organizations providing relief services to people, Zakour &
Harrell (2003) found that smaller, less formal organizations, often
excluded from the officially comprised disaster interorganizational
network, could be an important source of trained volunteer personnel in
a disaster. An argument is made for inclusion of these informal
organizations, which are often smaller mental health, religious, or
minority-run organizations. Both understanding their disaster roles, and
inclusion of these informal organizations, may be facilitated through
use of more refined measures of the range of types of organizations an
organization has a cooperative link with in disasters (Harrell & Zakour,
2000).

Volunteers are often engaged in multiple roles in disaster social
services. One important role is facilitating psychological debriefings
using a social work strengths-based perspective. Though professional
social workers have strong psychotherapeutic skills in group settings,
volunteers can help facilitate group processes while reducing the social
distance between facilitators and debriefing group members (Miller,
2003). Another important role of volunteers and volunteerism in disaster
is through the integration of for-profit and voluntary sectors and
organizations. Because paid workers often volunteer with career
development as a goal, the for-profit and volunteer sectors provide
resources for each other. Volunteers can play an important role in
coordination of the disaster social service system through their
multiple affiliations in voluntary and for-profit organizations.
Training volunteers not only increases the capacity of disaster services
organizations, but also develops human capital valuable for career
advancement of individuals (Zakour, 1994).

The level of volunteerism of disaster organizations is operationalized
as the percentage of volunteers among an organization's total staff, and
the types of appreciation shown to volunteers by the organization.
Volunteerism been has shown to increase the capacity of organizations to
provide disaster services, which in turn increases an organization's
geographic range of service delivery. Increased capacity and geographic
range helps organizations to overcome distance barriers in disaster
services delivery, as well as to insure that services are provided to
vulnerable populations residing in isolated geographic segments of
communities (Zakour & Gillespie, 1998).

The relative lack of volunteerism and volunteer resources accounts for
much of the explained variance in reduced access to disaster social
services in some populations. The relative lack of disaster volunteers
and programs of effective volunteer management was found to lead to
lessened access to resources for African Americans, households led by
those 75 years or older, and for female-headed households with small
children (Zakour & Harrell, 2003). Municipalities with the greatest need
for disaster services were shown to have the lowest levels of volunteer
resources during disasters.

# Vulnerable Populations

Social work disaster research has made a number of important
contributions in the area of vulnerable populations. Individuals may be
vulnerable because of their low socioeconomic status and social
isolation, or because of their residence in communities vulnerable to
disaster. This research has been consistent with sociological research
pointing to organizational, communication, and physical barriers which
limit access to services for vulnerable populations (Phillips, 1993;
Phillips, Garza, & Neal, 1994). Outreach counselors in disasters report
the usefulness of a training program for identifying and treating
vulnerable populations such as children and the frail elderly (Soliman,
Raymond, & Lingle, 1996). Children represent an important special needs
population in disasters, and have been extensively studied by social
workers. Prevention research in social work has focused on children
because they are more susceptible to a variety of environmental
stressors, and children are likely to develop long-term problems if not
treated in a timely fashion. Krueger & Stretch (2003) in a study of
3,876 children in grades K-12 impacted by flooding in 1993, found that
about 9% (n=366) required follow-up psychosocial interventions because
of the flooding. For these children, predictors of risk as evidenced by
elevated anxiety or depression were (a) presence of disaster impact, (b)
harm to the family, (c) a need to evacuate the residence, and (d) lack
of household disaster recovery. Floodwater in the residence was not a
statistically significant predictor of risk. Residential evacuation led
to the need for long-term services because of elevated anxiety which
involved physiological manifestations of anxiety rather than worry or
social concerns. Evacuation was not related to elevated depression
(Krueger & Stretch, 2003). Rogge (2000) shows that, at the international
level, socioeconomic inequalities interact with poor environmental
conditions to amplify the risks of poor children. Environmental
degradation resulted from the interaction of socioeconomic inequality
with (a) human population growth and consumption; (b) reduction in per
capital water supply and water quality; (c) loss of renewable natural
resources; (d) loss of biodiversity; (e) environmental damage due to the
application of industrial, commercial, and household chemicals; and (e)
global warming.

Several other populations which are vulnerable to disasters are
African-Americans, female-headed households with small children, and
those 75 years and older (Sanders et al., 2003; Zakour & Harrell, 2003).
African American and female-headed households are disproportionately low
income. Older individuals tend to have sparse social support networks of
family and friends, and are often have reduced access to formal disaster
services (Thomas & Soliman, 2002). Each of these groups was found to be
more vulnerable in a disaster because of the geographic areas in which
they reside, the smaller number of organizations providing disaster
services in these areas, and the lower capacities and network
interaction of community organizations serving these populations.
Geographic barriers were also found to increase the vulnerability of
these populations because of their geographic isolation from the
disaster interorganizational network. Geographic distance is a barrier
to interorganizational links promoting resource sharing after a
disaster. Additionally, when vulnerable populations are relocated after
disaster, they lose support networks of family, friends, and voluntary
associations because of the greater geographic distances of relocation
centers to these networks.

Cherry and Cherry (1996) found social action research to be effective in
influencing disaster organizations such as FEMA to extend the timeframe
for additional disaster aid, which was of benefit for populations made
homeless by Hurricane Andrew. Action research in this study differed
from traditional research on vulnerable populations because the
investigators operationalized variables to be highly sensitive to the
needs of participants and to highlight the plight of vulnerable disaster
victims (Cherry & Cherry, 1997). The research was also designed to
withstand critique by others during legal challenges.

# Organizational and Interorganizational Research

Research on organizations and interorganizational networks has been an
important agenda for social work since its initial involvement in
disaster studies (Gillespie, Sherraden, Streeter, & Zakour, 1986). Much
of this research examines the behavior of organizations in disaster
settings, and compares behavior by organizational type (Zakour et al.,
1991). Typologies distinguishing among established, extending,
expanding, and emergent organizations have been used in this research,
which has compared established and extending organizations such as fire
and police departments to expanding and emergent organizations which are
often volunteer and smaller organizations.

Because organizations active in disaster may have roles related to their
organizational type, a number of studies have examined
interorganizational linkages among types of organizations. Zakour and
Gillespie (1999) discuss the advantages of linking the governmental and
nonprofit sectors in the context of the disaster-relevant
interorganizational network. One of these advantages is the integration
of the significant resources of governmental agencies with the greater
knowledge of community needs of local nonprofits. Other advantages
include increasing the capacity of nonprofit organizations active in
serving geographically isolated neighborhoods, and making the greater
service delivery efficiency of governmental organizations more
accessible to community nonprofits and their constituents during a
disaster. Harrell & Zakour (2000) found that the total number of
different types of organizations which a given disaster organization is
linked to is significantly and positively associated with an
organization's preparedness for disaster. Range of types is also
positively related to the number of special populations an organization
is able to serve during disasters, and the organization's total disaster
social services capacity. They suggest that each type of organization,
including smaller, informal organizations, have fundamentally different
resources in a disaster, so that linkage to a larger range of types of
different organizations translates into an organization's access to
different types of disaster resources.

Coordination of the disaster interorganizational network, particularly
among public and private disaster organizations, has been shown to
improve the effectiveness of the disaster social services system (Liu,
Gillespie, & Murty, 2000; Robards, Gillespie, & Murty, 2000).
Interorganizational coordination is conceptually defined as the
deliberate interdependence of autonomous units for a common purpose.
This definition of coordination is broadly consistent with sociological
definitions of multiorganizational coordination, though substantial
differences exists among different researchers' concepts of coordination
(Drabek & McEntire, 2002). One aspect of interorganizational networks
which promotes resource flow and coordination in uncertain environments
is systems redundancy (Streeter, 1992). If too little redundancy exists
in network roles or linkages, then the system is more vulnerable to
complete breakdown if one or more actors is damaged by a disaster. Joint
disaster drills also increase interorganizational links along with
disaster capacity. Murty (2000) found that rural disaster management
organizations developed greater awareness of disasters as well as higher
capacities after the false prediction of an earthquake by Browning. This
awareness diminished when the earthquake did not occur, but more
regional organizations, and those organizations participating in a
large-scale earthquake drill well after the predicted date, showed the
least decline in awareness of disasters and in interorganizational
relationships.

Zakour (1996b) developed a theoretical path model of interorganizational
links using data from 52 local disaster services organizations in a
mid-west metropolitan area. In the sociological literature on disasters,
both cooperative links and the resulting network of disaster
organizations make up the foundation for multiorganizational
coordination in disaster (Drabek & McEntire, 2002). In the model,
geographic distance has a direct effect on cooperative links, and was
negatively related to links. However, organizational variables including
percentage of volunteers in an organization, type of organization
(social service versus emergency management), geographic range of
service delivery, and number of different means of showing appreciation
to volunteers were more influential than geographic distance in
determining cooperative links among volunteer organizations. All of
these organizational variables were positively related to links, except
for type, which was negatively related. The use of organizational
variables as control variables reduced the magnitude of the relationship
between geographic distance and links among organizations. Furthermore,
for the 29 organizations with the greatest percentage of volunteers
among total staff, both volunteer and paid, the relationship between
distance and links was not significant. The relationships in this path
model suggest that emergency management organizations in metropolitan
areas tend to have low organizational permeability (Zakour & Gillespie,
1998). Low permeability is associated with few interorganizational
links, quasi-military organizational characteristics, and low ability to
recruit and retain disaster volunteers.

# Environmental Issues

Social work research in environmental issues in disaster shows how
environmental exposure affects systems at a variety of levels (Soliman,
1996), from individual stress responses to community social
organization. Similar to studies of urban ecology and vulnerability, a
number of social work studies examine the geographic distribution of
risk and preparedness (Rogge, 2000). Risk of exposure to technological
hazards is most highly related to the population density of geographic
areas. As the population density increases, there is a decline in voting
and social participation, and this reduces a population's ability to
take legal and political action to oppose the location of industrial
sites proximate to the population. These highly populated urban areas
also have large percentages of working-class individuals who place
industrial development at a higher priority than avoiding fugitive
chemical releases. Though household income, level of education, and a
higher percentage of non-elderly adults in a geographic area are related
to population density, these three socioeconomic factors are negatively
related to level of toxic risk (Rogge, 1996).

Rogge (1998) found that locality development and social planning models
of community organization were effective in cleaning up long-term river
pollution in Chattanooga-Hamilton County, but only for middle-class
neighborhoods and jurisdictions. In low-income and African-American
neighborhoods, which tended to be located on more marginal land next to
the polluted waterway, social action models involving adversarial
interactions were effective. Community-based development was successful
in this setting because of (a) extensive citizen participation; (b) a
broadly and flexibly defined vision of sustainability focusing on
interactive systems of environment, economy, and social equity; (c) an
appropriate balance between long-term vision and current action; (d)
coalition building across public and private organizations, private and
not-for-profit enterprises, business entrepreneurs, and
environmentalists; and (e) optimism about locating solutions.

# Cross-Cultural and International Research

Recently, social work researchers have begun exploring the effectiveness
of disaster interventions developed in the United States and delivered
in cross-cultural or international settings (Soliman & Silver, 2003).
Most disaster research in the United States has studied middle-class
populations, and it has not been clear to what extent research findings
transfer to either cross-cultural or international settings. This lack
of attention to developing nations may result from a view of disasters
as random, isolated acts of God, so that the disproportionate risk of
low-income nations and communities has been ignored (Streeter, 1991).
However, disaster planning should be incorporated into social
development planning, and should focus on mitigation, response, and
recovery. Disasters may lead to significant loss of social and economic
infrastructure, which damages development efforts. Rogge (2000) shows
that, at the international level, socioeconomic inequalities and poor
environmental conditions place children at higher levels of risk in
disasters. Long-term environmental degradation and population growth in
developing nations are further increasing the vulnerability of children.

Many effective methods of helping disaster victims through social
services are not feasible in cross-cultural and international settings.
Cultural norms about helping, who is to be helped first, and which
groups are eligible for aid may prevent the provision of disaster relief
professionals and volunteers from the United States and other
neo-European societies (Puig and Glynn, 2003). For example, though
everyone affected by a disaster is initially viewed as deserving of aid
in the U.S., in some developing nations very low status populations may
not be viewed as appropriate recipients of aid. Bell and associates
(2000) in a study of an airline disaster in South Korea found that
victim's families as well as governmental and nonprofit agencies to be
antagonistic toward disaster volunteers from rural areas. The lower
social status of the rural volunteers led to mistrust between volunteers
active in the mass assault, and organized disaster workers as well as
victims' families. This resulted in blame being assigned to volunteers
for any shortage of aid in the immediate aftermath of the plane
disaster.

A few studies have demonstrated the applicability of social work
interventions in international or cross-cultural settings. Despite the
presence of significant survival needs, Kosovar refugees reported
emotional traumatization which could be treated by mental health
professionals (Drumm et al., 2003). In addition to emotional
traumatization, refugees reported a lack of knowledge concerning family
members and relatives, as well as a lack of a normalized routines,
meaningful activities, and self-determination in the camps. After an
air-traffic disaster in Egypt, a social worker used a human-relations
model sensitive to culturally-defined needs of victims, their families,
and relatives (Soliman, in press). This culturally sensitive approach
was found to be more effective than a command and control model for
managing response to this disaster.

Debriefing models developed for mainstream populations in the United
States have been extended to groups such as Native Americans. Social
work researchers have generally found group models to be highly
effective, though diagnostic categories developed for debriefing models
in the United States have been shown to be only partially applicable to
Native Americans. For example, traditional behaviors associated with
spiritualism are incorrectly diagnosed as hallucinations accompanying
post-traumatic stress disorder. A combination of debriefing and
traditional healing approaches seems to provide for the most improvement
of individuals suffering from long-term traumatic stress (Brave Heart,
2000).

# Improved Theory and Measurement

[Theory]{.underline}. A number of research studies in social work have
contributed to theory regarding communities in disaster, as well as
interorganizational cooperation in local communities. In an application
of the Social Process Model (Edelstein, 1988) to toxic exposure in a
rural community, Soliman (1996) found evidence to support four
postulates of this model. For the first postulate, that toxic exposure
involves complex interactions among various levels of society, it was
found that inadequate policies and regulations regarding river pollution
have caused residents to lose trust in every system they have relied on
to solve the problem, including the Environmental Protection Agency.
Postulate 2 states that toxic exposure influences victim behavior and
how they perceive and comprehend their lives. In this study, 86% of the
residents believed river pollution is a very serious matter, and 14%
also believed the pollution will have long-term effects on their lives.
Postulate 3 states that toxic exposure is stressful, and forces victims
to adopt a coping response. In this study of the Pigeon River, over 80%
of respondents exhibited stress responses, and most community members
participated either in individual efforts, a social movement
organization, or a class-action suit to end the pollution. Postulate 4
of the social process model states that toxic contamination is
inherently stigmatizing. Evidence to support this includes the refusal
of agricultural and industrial interests to invest in the small rural
community because of fears that toxic wastes from the Champion Plant
have infiltrated the region's water, soil, and other resources.

Sundet & Mermelstein (1996) in a study of the 1993 Mississippi flood
used a systems approach to understand predictors of community survival.
Demographic, historical, ecological, cultural, and organizational
factors were examined. Among demographic variables, only poverty rate
was a strong predictor of community survival. Paradoxically, high
poverty rates predicted survival because residents were unable to afford
relocation, even with FEMA loans. Historical dimensions predicting
survival were harmonious inter-governmental relations, lack of internal
community conflict, and horizontal integration of community subsystems.
Ecological factors predicting survival were communication capacity (e.g.
marketing tourism), and proximity to resources external to the
community. Strong local government leadership to respond to the flood
disaster was also associated with community survival, though other
organizational behaviors were not.

Zakour & Harrell (2003) found that urban geography and human ecology
mirror a social structure of stratification related to vulnerability
among communities. For geographic areas with high percentages of African
Americans, female-headed households, and older individuals, community
organizations have lower capacities for service provision, and have
fewer links to the officially-comprised disaster services network of
organizations. The geographic distribution of disaster organizations and
cooperative links among these organizations coincides with urban
geography and ecology.

Zakour (1996b) developed a theoretical path model of interorganizational
links with high goodness-of-fit. This model extends Barton's (1969) work
to the organizational level. This model shows that organizational
characteristics determine both an organization's distance to all other
disaster organizations, as well as its total cooperative links to these
organizations. However, distance is shown to have a negative
relationship with cooperative links. These theoretical relationships
support the distinction between localistic and cosmopolitan
organizations (Zakour & Gillespie, 1998). Compared to cosmopolitan
organizations, localistic organizations have a higher mean distance from
all other organizations, have fewer cooperative links, lower levels of
appreciation shown to volunteers, and a lower percentage of trained
volunteers among total staff during disaster conditions. Localistic
organizations are often emergency management organizations in suburban
municipalities. Contrary to intuitive expectations, local organizations
are less volunteer oriented, and may function to block resource
distribution throughout a metropolitan area. Cosmopolitan organizations
have a larger geographic range of service delivery, are geographically
centrally located, and are higher in volunteerism.

[Measurement]{.underline}. Several studies have produced improved
measurement of disaster volunteerism, disaster's impact on children,
interorganizational networks, and sociodemographic variables related to
disasters and disaster relief. Some important improvements in
measurement have come from volunteerism research. By asking
organizational representatives about the number of trained volunteers
they can count on during a disaster, a more reliable measurement of
volunteer capacity and the volunteerism of organizations is produced
(Gillespie et al., 1986; Zakour et al., 1991). This measure has also
been used to determine the percentage of volunteers among the total
staff of disaster organizations, paid and volunteer, forming a measure
of the level of volunteerism of organizations (Zakour, 1996b; Zakour &
Gillespie, 1998). The volunteerism measure is a more refined measure of
organizational volunteerism, and is positively associated with
organizational capacity in disasters. A related advance is in the
measurement of career-development and training of volunteers. Zakour
(1994) developed a Guttman Scale using data from a survey of 1349
American Red Cross Volunteers. This scale reveals a temporal dimension
to skills development among volunteers. The scale has a reproducibility
coefficient of .93 and displays a high level of reliability. It conforms
to the requirements of a scaling model, with a scalability coefficient
of .72.

Harrell & Zakour (2000) developed a measure to assess the range of
different types of organizations that a particular organization has a
cooperative link with during disaster conditions. A larger value on this
measure was found to be predictive of the variety of needed relief
resources that both disaster organizations and the constituents of
organizations are able to access.

Krueger & Stretch (2003) developed and tested the Children and
Adolescents Protocol on Flood Impact (CAPFI). This self-report
instrument contains 10 disaster impact items assessing magnitude of
disaster; questions about harm to self, family, friends, and neighbors;
amount of recovery; and demographic items. The instrument gathered
information in a rapid fashion, and measured subjective feelings. The
CAPFI proved relatively inexpensive to administer. A study of the
Mississippi Flood of 1993 provided validating information for the CAPFI,
as well as the Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS), and
the Children's Depression Inventory (CDI). The RCMAS has three subscales
measuring worry, physiological anxiety, and concerns about social
occasions.

Structural equivalence analysis, a type of social network analysis, has
been used to understand changes in the nature of positions between a
predisaster and postdisaster network of organizations. Suggestions for
the use of structural equivalence analysis to complement standard modes
of analysis for disaster organizations were offered (Streeter &
Gillespie, 1992). This simultaneous use of network and more standard
methods of analysis was shown to have great potential to advance
disaster social work research and theory. Gillespie and Murty (1994)
used structural equivalence analysis to identify peripheral and isolate
positions in a disaster service delivery network. Peripheral positions
contained organizations with only a single link to the main network of
disaster organizations, while isolate positions had no links to the
larger network. The organizations occupying the peripheral and isolate
positions have substantial experience in responding to disasters, but
the resources of these organizations could not be easily mobilized
during a disaster.

Structural equation modeling, which simultaneously assesses the
reliability of measures and tests relationships among variables, has
been used to examine the relationship among sociodemographic variables
and fugitive toxic emissions. This was done using the 1990 United States
Census and geographic information systems. Toxic risk was
operationalized as the density (pounds/square mile) of fugitive chemical
releases (Rogge, 1996). In qualitative research in cross-cultural as
well as international settings, investigators discovered the importance
of matching socio-demographic characteristics of interviewers and
interpreters with those of subjects. In societies segregated by gender,
age, or ethnicity, the presence of an interviewer or interpreter who
differs socially or demographically from the interviewees may cause
subjects to be less forthcoming or honest (Drumm et al., 2003).
Additionally, during interviews of Albanian Kosovars, it was found that
members of the same ethnic group who are geographically dispersed have
markedly different dialects from each other.

Relationship of Social Work Disaster Research to other Disciplines

Social work research has historically drawn on research in psychology
and sociology, and these two disciplines have contributed much to social
work research on disasters. The sociology of disasters has been a
foundation for social work research into interorganizational networks,
coordination of the disaster system, and human ecological theories of
disaster vulnerability. There was little research within social work on
disasters until the last two decades (Dodds & Nuehring, 1996). David
Gillespie promoted disaster research in social work through work with
students and associates at Washington University in St. Louis (e.g.
Gillespie et al, 1993; Gillespie et al., 1986). In 1995, the Disaster &
Traumatic Stress Symposium, founded and originally chaired by Zakour,
was held at the Council on Social Work Education's Annual Program
Meeting in San Diego, and has been a part of the Annual Program Meeting
since 1995. In the last decade a significant amount of disaster research
has been conducted by social work researchers and educators (Padgett,
2002).

The sociology of disasters has been a major foundation on which social
work research in disasters is based. Sociological investigators have
provided an important knowledge base on vulnerable groups, such as the
elderly, children, families, and racial minorities (Cherry & Cherry,
1996). Barton's (1969) theory of collective stress and related concept
of the altruistic community forms a theoretical foundation for the study
of disaster social services, and the creation of theoretical models of
disaster relief in social work (Zakour et al., 1991; Zakour & Harrell,
2003). The study of organized volunteers, organizations, and
interorganizational networks has been strongly influenced by
sociological research (Drabek, 1970; Drabek & McIntire, 2002; Dynes,
1970) and by research with a sociological perspective conducted by
social work educators (Gillespie et al., 1993; Gillespie et al., 1986).

Current social work research on vulnerable populations and environmental
factors continues to draw on the work of sociological investigators
focusing on societal factors in disaster causation (Mileti, 1999;
Peacock, Morrow, & Gladwin, 1997). Social work disaster research at the
community level has also been based on socio-political ecological models
from sociology (Peacock & Ragsdale, 1997). In this perspective,
communities are defined as an ecological network of actors which are
usually social systems such as organizations and large groups. This
perspective focuses on heterogeneity and social inequality in disaster
impacts and outcomes. An important issue in ecological networks is the
promotion of coordination of the network during a disaster, as well as
the mitigation of destructive competition among systems. Research within
this perspective also focuses on the flow of resources in a disaster,
including people, information, services, and capital. Social work
research with a network, geographic, and community focus, as well as
research on social inequality, is inspired by the socio-political
ecological approach (Harrell & Zakour, 2000; Rogge, 1996, 1998; Soliman,
1996; Zakour & Gillespie, 1998; Zakour & Harrell, 2003).

Psychology has been a foundation for social work research on trauma and
traumatic stress, as well as debriefing interventions during crisis
(Streeter & Murty, 1996). Psychological debriefings are conducted by
practitioners in psychology, psychiatry, as well as social work.
Mitchell originated the use of debriefings in disasters and other crises
(Mitchell, 1983), and this technique has been adapted by social workers
who use the Mitchell model of debriefing. Social workers have also
sought to use debriefing as a means to help prevent severe
post-traumatic stress and post-traumatic stress disorder (Bell, 1995;
Callahan, 2000). Investigators in each of these disciplines have sought
to evaluate the efficacy of debriefings (Miller, 2003), and social work
researchers have been influenced by researchers in psychology and
psychiatry is assessing the usefulness of debriefings.

Knowledge Gaps and Further Research

An important gap in social work knowledge in disasters is the
effectiveness of debriefing for different populations, especially the
effectiveness of debriefing for prevention of post-traumatic stress.
Most social work disaster research and intervention have not been
studied cross-culturally, and further research in needed on vulnerable
populations and communities. These include adolescent populations
subject to chronic community violence, low-income and older populations
at-risk for natural disasters, and small and rural communities facing
environmental hazards.

## Psychological Debriefing

The effectiveness of debriefing, a widely used intervention in social
work, remains unclear. There appears to be evidence that debriefings are
unable to prevent future PTSD for those exposed to critical incidents,
and that those who receive debriefings report them to be helpful.
However, methodological problems in assessing the effectiveness of
debriefing include studying different types of critical incidents, using
different definitions of debriefing, offering debriefings at different
time intervals after the critical incident, and comparing varied
recipient groups. Though both practitioners who conduct debriefings and
disaster victims who receive them report that debriefings are helpful,
it has been difficult to demonstrate that debriefings lead to measurable
positive outcomes (Miller, 2003). Also, knowledge of the percentage of
victims who experience psychopathology after a disaster, and who may
benefit from debriefings, is limited (Padgett, 2002).

Though there is evidence that structural inequality influences provision
of social services after disaster (Zakour & Harrell, 2003), there has
been little research on inequality or discrimination in the area of
debriefings. It is not known if racism or ageism, for example, have a
significant impact either on access to debriefing interventions, or on
the outcome of the debriefing process (Miller, 2003). As with other
social work interventions in disaster, controlled outcome studies on
debriefings are lacking. Intervention research examining the
effectiveness of disaster response programs is sorely needed in social
work disaster research (Dodds & Nuehring, 1996).

# International and Cross-cultural Issues

The effectiveness of many interventions within social work has not been
tested in either cross-cultural or international settings. Little
research exists on effective intervention or prevention models for
refugees living in camps (Drumm et al., 2003). Most of these models rely
on theory instead of empirical validation. Also, disaster preparedness
has been neglected in the social work research literature. Preparedness
is an important indicator of effective response and recovery. Empirical
work in a variety of communities and cultural settings needs to be
conducted to directly establish the relationship between preparedness
and effectiveness of disaster services organizations (Banerjee &
Gillespie, 1994).

# Vulnerable Populations

A number of gaps exist in understanding disaster impact and recovery for
vulnerable populations and communities. The identification of family and
community risk factors in violent victimization is still in its very
early stages. It is not clear why some adolescents, for example, are
exposed to substantial community violence, while other are not
(Rosenthal, 2000). Yet community violence is an insidious source of
traumatic stress which is widespread and intensive. It is also not known
how often and at what key points children exposed to a natural disaster
should be assessed, nor how long they should be monitored for PTSD
effects. This is significant because of the considerable costs involved
in screening large numbers of children throughout a region impacted by
disaster (Kreuger & Stretch, 2000, 2003).

More research is needed to assess the impact of acute and chronic
environmental disasters on rural and small communities, which often
contain high percentages of low-income residents. This research could be
helpful in understanding the relationship between poverty and exposure
to toxic waste. Historical research in particular is needed to
understand the process of toxic exposure in rural, small, and low-income
communities (Soliman, 1996). It is also not known where in the
economic/technological production process toxic risk is located (e.g.
the production process versus the end-stage of production), and it is
unknown if visible versus invisible toxic emissions are more likely to
be conceptualized as hazardous (Rogge, 1996).

Examination of the populations residing within the geographic service
areas of organizations shows that African American and female-headed
households as well as those older than 75 have decreased access to
disaster services. However, closer study of the actual clients served by
disaster programs would provide a clearer understanding of access to
resources. Also, study at the individual or household level would
provide a greater understanding of the relative access of different
populations to services. This research at the individual level should
also examine the interpersonal networks of key volunteers in disaster
organizations and how these networks influence access to services
(Zakour & Harrell, 2003). Finally, research is needed to assess the
effectiveness of joint training programs to connect informal
organizations serving vulnerable populations to the larger disaster
interorganizational network (Harrell & Zakour, 2000).

Substantive Implications for Emergency Management

In this section suggestions from social work research are offered for
emergency managers. Research on debriefing suggests that debriefing
groups for first responders should be homogeneous, so that each group
has, for example, only fire personnel, law-enforcement personnel, or
social workers. Anonymity and voluntary participation are also shown to
be important predictors of debriefing success (Callahan, 2000).
Debriefing concepts and interventions for members of traditional
societies, such as Native Americans within the United States, should be
combined with traditional world views and healing practices to be
maximally effective. To the extent that debriefing groups and group
interventions are consistent with traditional religious healing
ceremonies, the effectiveness of these interventions may be enhanced
(Brave Heart, 2000).

Some suggestions for emergency managers involved with refugee camps are
(a) provide assessment and counseling as standard camp services; (b)
help refugees access information through casework and electronic data
bases; (c) normalize activities partly through provision of education
and play for children; (d) strengthen linkages and communication among
front-line workers, camp managers, and governmental and relief agencies;
and (e) ensure cultural appropriateness of material aid items (Drumm et
al., 2003). In addition, emergency managers providing social welfare
services should be aware of the multiple dimensions involved in toxic
material exposure. Toxic exposure impacts need to be understood at the
individual, family, and community levels if interventions are to be
effective (Soliman, 1996).

Disaster services organizations should adopt disaster plans and missions
that emphasize wider geographic ranges of service delivery, and
cooperation with disaster organizations throughout a larger geographic
area (Zakour & Gillespie, 1998; Zakour & Harrell, 2003). The stated
geographic range of mutual aid is an important predictor of resource
flow throughout metropolitan areas during a disaster, and larger service
ranges promote links among organizations. Geographically larger service
ranges help to provide services to otherwise under-served or isolated
disaster victims. Closely related to widening of service range, informal
organizations should be included in the officially comprised network of
disaster organizations. This could add significant resources in terms of
both volunteer personnel providing relief resources, and culturally
sensitive knowledge of heavily impacted areas in disasters.

Joint training and disaster planning activities may be the most
effective means for inclusion of smaller, less formal organizations
(Zakour & Gillespie, 1998; Zakour & Harrell, 2003). In particular,
governmental disaster agencies should work closely with community-based
nonprofits so that the greater service efficiency of governmental
agencies can be combined with the community orientation of local
nonprofits to increase the effectiveness of the disaster services system
(Zakour & Gillespie, 1999). Disaster agency managers and directors could
use geographic information systems and network analysis software to aid
in examining the location of disaster services agencies to insure that
vulnerable populations are served by these agencies. Emergency managers
should also use the results of network analysis and structural
equivalence analysis to identify organizations with no links or few
links to the disaster services network. Based on this information,
emergency managers could act to bring these organizations into the
larger network of disaster organizations, perhaps through joint training
exercises or collaborative programs of service delivery (Gillespie &
Murty, 1994; Streeter & Gillespie, 1992). These research tools should be
part of a comprehensive disaster victim services evaluation strategy
which is particularly valuable when used for mitigation and planning
purposes (Johnson, Olson-Allen, & Collins, 2002).

Emergency managers should emphasize recruitment, training, and retention
of volunteers (Zakour & Gillespie, 1998). High-volunteerism
organizations tend to have more cooperative links with other disaster
organizations, and these volunteer organizations also are less likely to
be limited by geographic distance barriers. High-volunteerism
organizations are also able to facilitate network coordination, and rank
high on capacity measures. Promoting volunteerism also helps facilitate
access to disaster services for vulnerable populations (Zakour, 1996b).

Rural social workers need to build community coalitions to help
coordinate human service delivery for timely disaster response. Social
workers should educate the community about mutual support, particularly
in chronic disasters. Social workers can also develop communication
linkages among critical community leaders, both horizontally and
vertically. Finally, social workers should help foster resource
awareness and disaster preparedness related to resources. Information
and referral systems are one example of fostering resource awareness
(Sundet & Mermelstein, 1996).

Summary and Conclusions

Social work has long been involved in disaster response, and disaster
research in social work grew out of sociological and psychological
studies of disaster. Both the profession's definition of disaster and
the major concerns of disaster research in social work are consistent
with the profession's theoretical perspectives and historical mission.
Future social work disaster research needs to focus on understanding the
effectiveness of disaster interventions including psychological
debriefings, particularly for vulnerable populations and communities
located in other cultures and nations. Emergency managers should
consider suggestions from social work research, which include (a) paying
careful attention to the composition of debriefing groups, and to
inclusion of traditional religious practices as part of the debriefing
process; (b) ensuring that activities are normalized and material items
are culturally appropriate in refugee camps; (c) adopting wider
geographic ranges of service delivery for disaster response
organizations; (d) promoting joint training activities, and sharing
geographic information systems and other technologies to improve
coordination; (e) emphasizing recruitment, training, and retention of
disaster volunteers; and (f) building community coalitions to help
coordinate service delivery in disasters. These suggestions are largely
related to building social networks, including interorganizational
networks, for service delivery and resource sharing during disasters.

Disaster research in social work may offer unique contributions to our
knowledge of disasters partly because of the profession's emphasis on
disaster impacts on many systems and levels of analysis. Disaster
research in social work has examined systems from the family to societal
levels, both domestically and internationally. Interventions at the
community level have been developed to prevent long-term damage to
vulnerable populations such as children, and to prevent disruption in
systems including families, groups, and organizations. Individual and
organizational behavior, including volunteerism, has been examined for
its relationship to coordination and effectiveness of the disaster
relevant organizational network. Social work has much to contribute to
current and future disaster research and practice.

References

Banerjee, Mahasweta M., and David F. Gillespie. 1994. "Linking Disaster
Preparedness and Organizational Response Effectiveness." [Journal of
Community Practice]{.underline} 1(3): 129-142.

Barton, Allen H. 1969. [Communities in Disaster. A Sociological Analysis
of Collective Stress Situations]{.underline}. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday.

Bell, Janet L. 1995. "Traumatic Event Debriefing: Service Delivery
Designs and the Role of Social Work." [Social Work]{.underline} 40(1):
36-43.

Bell, Janet L., Sang-Hoon Yoo, Ji-Young Park, and Geon-Hee Shin. 2000.
"The Second Injury/Social Wound: The Villagers' Experience of the Crash
of South Korea's Asiana Flight 733." [Tulane Studies in Social
Welfare]{.underline} 21/22: 311-321.

Brave Heart, Maria Yellow Horse. 2000. "*Wakiksuyapi*: Carrying the
Historical Trauma of the Lakota." [Tulane Studies in Social
Welfare]{.underline} 21/22: 245-266.

Callahan, Jay. 2000. "Debriefing the Oklahoma City Police." [Tulane
Studies in Social Welfare]{.underline} 21/22: 285-294.

Cherry, Andrew L., and Mary E. Cherry. 1996. "Research as Social Action
in the Aftermath of Hurricane Andrew." [Journal of Social Service
Research]{.underline} 22(1/2): 71-87.

Cherry, Andrew L., and Mary E. Cherry. 1997. "A Middle Class Response to
Disaster: FEMA's Policies and Problems." [Journal of Social Service
Research]{.underline} 23(1): 71-87.

Cosgrove, John G. 2000. "Social Workers in Disaster Mental Health
Services: The American Red Cross." [Tulane Studies in Social
Welfare]{.underline} 21/22: 117-128.

Dodds, Sally, and Elane Nuehring. 1996. "A Primer for Social Work
Research on Disaster." [Journal of Social Service Research]{.underline}
22: 27-56.

Drabek, Thomas. E. 1970. "Methodology of Studying Disaster." [American
Behavioral Scientist]{.underline} 13(3): 331-343.

Drabek, Thomas E., and David A. McEntire. 2002. "Emergent Phenomena and
Multiorganizational Coordination in Disasters: Lessons from the Research
Literature." [International Journal of Mass Emergencies and
Disasters]{.underline} 20(2): 197-224.

Drumm, Rene D., Sharon W. Pittman, and Shelly Perry. 2003 "Social Work
Interventions in Refugee Camps: An Ecosystems Approach." [Journal of
Social Service Research]{.underline} 30(2): 67-92.

Dynes Russell R. 1970. [Organized Behavior in Disaster]{.underline}.
Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

Edelstein, M. 1988. [Contaminated Communities---The Social and
Psychological Impacts of Residential Toxic Exposure]{.underline}.
Boulder, CO: Westview.

Gillespie, David F. 1991. "Coordinating Community Resources." Pp. 55-78
in [Emergency Management: Principles and Practice for Local
Government]{.underline}, edited by Thomas. E. Drabek and Gerard. J.
Hoetmer. Washington, DC: International City Management Association.

Gillespie, David F., and Susan A. Murty. 1994. "Cracks in a Postdisaster
Service Delivery Network." [American Journal of Community
Psychology]{.underline} 22(5): 639-660.

Gillespie, David F., Richard A. Colignon, Mahasweta M. Banerjee, Susan
A. Murty, and Mary Rogge. 1993. [Partnerships for Community
Preparedness]{.underline}. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado,
Institute of Behavioral Science.

Gillespie, David F., Michael W. Sherraden, Calvin L. Streeter, and
Michael J. Zakour. 1986. [Mapping Networks of Organized Volunteers for
Natural Hazard Preparedness]{.underline} (Report No. PB87-182051 / A07).
Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service.

Harrell, Evelyn B., and Michael J. Zakour. 2000. "Including Informal
Organizations in Disaster Planning: Development of a Range-of-Type
Measure." [Tulane Studies in Social Welfare]{.underline} 21/22: 61-83.

Johnson, Knowlton W., Susan Olson-Allen, and David Collins. 2002. "An
Evaluation Strategy for Improving Disaster Victim Services: Blueprint
for Change." [International Journal of Mass Emergencies and
Disasters]{.underline} 20(1): 69-100.

Kreuger, Larry, and John Stretch. 2003. "Identifying and Helping Long
Term Child and Adolescent Disaster Victims: Model and Method." [Journal
of Social Service Research]{.underline} 30(2): 93-108.

Liu, Li-Wen, David F. Gillespie, and Susan A. Murty. 2000. "Service
Coordination as Intergovernmental Strategies in Service Delivery."
[Tulane Studies in Social Welfare]{.underline} 21/22: 85-103.

Mileti, Dennis S. 1999. [Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural
Hazards in the United States]{.underline}. Washington, DC: John Henry.

Miller, Joshua. 2003. "Critical Incident Debriefing and Social Work:
Expanding the Frame." [Journal of Social Service Research]{.underline}
30(2): 7-25.

Minahan, Anne, and Allen Pincus. 1977. "Conceptual Framework for Social
Work Practice." [Social Work]{.underline} 22(5): 347-352.

Mitchell, J. T. 1983. "When Disaster Strikes...The Critical Incident
Stress Debriefing Process." [Journal of Emergency Medical
Services]{.underline} 8(1): 36-39.

Murty, Susan A. 2000. "When Prophecy Fails: Public Hysteria and Apathy
in a Disaster Preparedness Network." [Tulane Studies in Social
Welfare]{.underline} 21/22: 11-24.

Norlin, Julia M., and Wayne A. Chess. 1997. [Human Behavior and the
Social Environment: Social Systems Theory]{.underline}. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.

Padgett, Deborah K. 2002. "Social Work Research on Disasters in the
Aftermath of the September 11 Tragedy: Reflections from New York City."
[Social Work Research]{.underline} 26(3): 185-192.

Peacock, Walter Gillis, Betty Hearn Morrow, and Hugh Gladwin. Editors.
1997. [Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, Gender, and the Sociology of
Disasters.]{.underline} New York: Routledge.

Peacock, Walter Gillis, and Kathleen A. Ragsdale. 1997. "Social Systems,
Ecological Networks and Disasters: Toward a Socio-Political Ecology of
Disasters." Pp. 20-35 in [Hurricane Andrew. Ethnicity, Gender, and the
Sociology of Disasters]{.underline}, edited by Walter Gillis Peacock,
Betty Hearn Morrow, and Hugh Gladwin. New York: Routledge.

Phillips, Brenda D. 1993. "Cultural Diversity in Disasters: Sheltering,
Housing, and Long Term Recovery." [International Journal of Mass
Emergencies and Disasters]{.underline} 1191): 99-110.

Phillips, Brenda D, Lisa Garza, and David M. Neal. 1994. "Intergroup
Relations in Disasters: Service Delivery Barriers After Hurricane
Andrew." [The Journal of Intergroup Relations]{.underline} 21(3): 18-27.

Pryce, Jo Knox, and David H. Pryce. 2000. "Healing Psychological Wounds
of War Veterans: Vet Centers and the Social Contract." [Tulane Studies
in Social Welfare]{.underline} 21/22: 267-283.

Puig, Maria Elena, and Jennifer B. Glynn. 2003. "Disaster Responders: A
Cross-Cultural Approach to Recovery and Relief Work." [Journal of Social
Service Research]{.underline} 30(2): 55-66.

Quarantelli, E. L. Editor.1998. [What is a Disaster? Perspectives on the
Question]{.underline}. New York: Routledge.

Robards, Karen J., David F. Gillespie, and Susan A. Murty. 2000.
"Clarifying Coordination for Disaster Planning." [Tulane Studies in
Social Welfare]{.underline} 21/22: 41-60.

Rogge, Mary E. 1996. "Social Vulnerability to Toxic Risk." [Journal of
Social Service Research]{.underline} 22(1/2): 109-129.

Rogge, Mary E. 1998. "Toxic Risk, Community Resilience, and Social
Justice in Chattanooga, Tennessee." Pp. 105-121 in [Sustainable
Community Development: Studies in Economic, Environmental, and Cultural
Revitalization]{.underline}, edited by Marie D. Hoff. Boston: Lewis
Publishers.

Rogge, Mary E. 2000. "Children, Poverty, and Environmental Degradation:
Protecting Current and Future Generations." [Social Development
Issues]{.underline} 22(2/3): 46-53.

Rogge, Mary E. 2003. "The Future is Now: Social Work, Disaster
Management, and Traumatic Stress in the 21^st^ Century." [Journal of
Social Service Research]{.underline} 30(2): 1-6.

Rosenthal, Beth Spenciner. 2000. "Who is At Risk: Differential Exposure
to Recurring Community Violence among Adolescents." [Tulane Studies in
Social Welfare]{.underline} 21/22: 189-207.

Sanders, Sara, Stan L. Bowie, and Yvonne Dias Bowie. 2003. "Lessons
Learned on Forced Relocation of Older Adults: The Impact of Hurricane
Andrew on Health, Mental Health, and Social Support of Public Housing
Residents." [Journal of Gerontological Social Work]{.underline} 40(4):
23-35.

Sherraden, Margaret S., and Ellen Fox. 1997."The Great Flood of 1993:
Response and Recovery in Five Communities." [Journal of Community
Practice]{.underline} 4(3): 23-45.

Soliman, Hussein H. 1996. "Community Responses to Chronic Technological
Disaster: The Case of the Pigeon River." [Journal of Social Service
Research]{.underline} 22(1/2): 89-107.

Soliman, Hussein H. In Press. "An Organizational and Culturally
Sensitive Approach to Managing Air-Traffic Disasters: The Gulf Air
Incident." [International Journal of Mass Emergencies and
Disasters]{.underline}.

Soliman, Hussein H., Amanda Raymond, and Susan Lingle. 1996. "An
Evaluation of Community Mental Health Services Following a Massive
Natural Disaster." [Human Services in the Rural Environment]{.underline}
20(1): 8-13.

Soliman, Hussein H., and Mary E. Rogge. 2002. "Ethical Considerations in
Disaster Services: A Social Work Perspective." [Electronic Journal of
Social Work]{.underline} 1(1): 1-23.

Soliman, Hussein H., and Paula T. Silver. 2003. "Preface." [Journal of
Social Service Research]{.underline} 30(2): xiii-xv.

Streeter, Calvin L. 1991. "Disasters and Development: Disaster
Preparedness and Mitigation as an Essential Component of Development
Planning." [Social Development Issues]{.underline} 13(3): 100-110.

Streeter, Calvin L. 1992. "Redundancy in Organizational Systems."
[Social Service Review]{.underline} 66(1): 97-111.

Streeter, Calvin L., and David F. Gillespie. 1992. "Social Network
Analysis." [Journal of Social Service Research]{.underline} 16(1/2):
201-222.

Streeter, Calvin L., and Susan A. Murty. 1996. "Introduction." [Journal
of Social Service Research]{.underline} 22(1/2): 1-6.

Sundet, Paul, and Joanne Mermelstein. 1996. "Predictors of Rural
Community Survival after Natural Disaster: Implications for Social Work
Practice." [Journal of Social Service Research]{.underline} 22(1/2):
57-70.

Sundet, Paul A., and Joanne Mermelstein. 2000. "Sustainability of Rural
Communities: Lessons from Natural Disaster." [Tulane Studies in Social
Welfare]{.underline} 21/22: 25-40.

Thomas, Norma D., and Hussein H. Soliman. 2002. "Preventable Tragedies:
Heat Disaster and the Elderly." [Journal of Gerontological Social
Work]{.underline} 38(4): 53-66.

Zakour, Michael J. 1994. "Measuring Career-Development Volunteerism:
Guttman Scale Analysis Using Red Cross Volunteers." [Journal of Social
Service Research]{.underline} 19(3/4): 103-120.

Zakour, Michael J. 1996. "Disaster Research in Social Work." [Journal of
Social Service Research]{.underline} 22(1/2): 7-25.

Zakour, Michael J. 1996. "Geographic and Social Distance during
Emergencies: A Path Model of Interorganizational Links." [Social Work
Research]{.underline} 20(1): 19-29.

Zakour, Michael J., and David F. Gillespie. 1998. "Effects of
Organizational Type and Localism on Volunteerism and Resource Sharing
during Disasters." [Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly]{.underline} 27(1): 49-65.

Zakour, Michael J., and David F. Gillespie. 1999. "Collaboration and
Competition among Nonprofit and Governmental Organizations during
Disasters." Pp. 495-506 in [Crossing the Borders: Collaboration and
Competition Among Nonprofits, Business and Government]{.underline}.
Alexandria, VA: Independent Sector.

Zakour, Michael J., David F. Gillespie, Michael W. Sherraden, and Calvin
L. Streeter. 1991. "Volunteer Organizations in Disasters." [The Journal
of Volunteer Administration]{.underline} 9(2): 18-28.

Zakour, Michael J., and Evelyn B. Harrell. 2003. "Access to Disaster
Services: Social Work Interventions for Vulnerable Populations."
[Journal of Social Service Research]{.underline} 30(2): 27-54.