The more I learn about KM and disaster management, the more my head swims. There isn’t just a handful of problems to be solved; there’s layer after layer of complexity. Can we ever succeed in managing knowledge within the chaotic nature of crises?
I’m not sure of the answer to that question, but I do think we can vastly improve upon the current structure of disaster planning and management. Start with the subject of evacuations. One only has to think back a few years to the images of Katrina to know that we as a country have a long way to go in protecting vulnerable populations during disasters.
So how do we currently manage knowledge of vulnerable populations in large cities? The most common solution is developing a registry. The idea behind the registry is to develop a voluntary system in which vulnerable populations (elderly, disabled, non-English speakers, transportation disadvantaged, etc.) can provide information to assist in an evacuation. The information provided would include general information, such as an address, phone number, what type of assistance is needed, and the number of individuals in a location. Additional information could be provided, depending on the population- type of disability, mobility issues, medications/medical equipment needed, language spoken, pets in the home, etc.
How is this knowledge stored/managed and who is in charge of this information? It varies. A registry can be as a list kept at the local police or fire station, or an extremely complex online system with many layers of information. Depending on the city, a registry may be managed by a fire station, police department, emergency management, or the local government.
What are the challenges of managing knowledge in this way? People may not want to share their personal and/or medical information, especially if they don’t trust the people in charge of that information. Even if they’d be willing to share their information, some may not know that such a registry exists.
Personal and medical information doesn’t stay the same. People move. People die. If they have a medical condition, it may get better or worse. Even if you can collect a significant amount of data on vulnerable residents in a city, keeping the information up-to-date may prove to be difficult.
When you provide a registry for vulnerable populations, you are in essence telling them that they will be given evacuation assistance in the event of a disaster. There are some scenarios in which it may be difficult or even impossible to provide assistance in a timely fashion. In these cases, there are ethical considerations that need to be evaluated.
How can we improve registries? Or should we even try? The effectiveness of registries is a hot topic among those who study vulnerable populations and disaster management. Some say that registries would be more effective if there was a standard for the KM tools to collect and update the information. One challenge for those who want a more unified system is overcoming privacy (HIPAA) obstacles. The same laws that have been put into place to protect our privacy are the same laws that are prevent agencies from effectively sharing information with each other that would help identify those who would need help during an evacuation.
What are the alternatives to registries? There are many alternatives to registries, though many of them have not been around long enough to have research to validate their effectiveness. The best approach for many cities may be to incorporate several of these strategies. They include:
- Involving vulnerable populations in the planning stages of emergency management
- Creating programs to promote neighbors helping neighbors during an evacuation
- Using population surveys to identify vulnerable populations
- Utilizing GIS technology to map areas in which vulnerable populations live
- Form networks with social service agencies, community centers, and other relevant agencies to keep track of those who will need help during an evacuation. By cooperating which such agencies, the information about each resident is more likely to be up-to-date and the resident is more likely to respond to someone they already have a connection with and trust.
- Provide education through a number of outlets, by many modes of communication, to reach vulnerable populations and inform them of how to plan ahead of time for a potential evacuation scenario.
The challenge of evacuating vulnerable populations is not for the faint of heart! It won’t be solved overnight, but I have been encouraged to see that there is a genuine desire among many agencies and non-profit organizations to improve our ability to care for the most vulnerable within our communities.
Sources:
Chalmeta, Ricardo and Reyes Grangel. “Methodology for the implementation of knowledge management systems.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59 (March 2008): 742-755.
Chua, Alton Y. K. “A tale of two hurricanes: Comparing Katrina and Rita through a knowledge management perspective.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58 (August 2007): 1518-1528.
Massingham, Peter. “Knowledge risk management: a framework.” Journal of Knowledge Management 14 (2010): 464-485.
Librarian Rebecca 
I wonder if the challenge of evacuating vulnerable populations is exacerbated by their desire to not been seen as vulnerable; I’ve been doing a lot of reading about poverty recently, and the researchers have all found that, because of our cultural narratives surrounding poverty, people with low income feel an intense need to NOT be seen as poor, and to distance themselves from those other, “bad” poor people. So, a registry specifically targeting vulnerable populations might meet with strong psychological resistance.
Most registries focus on people with physical disabilities that would require special assistance to evacuate, such as a person who is in a wheelchair or uses oxygen. Even within that specific population, getting people to sign up can be challenging. Some people don’t want to share information about their disability, and some people don’t want to share private information at all.
When the registries extend to other vulnerable populations, I agree that there could be a myriad of challenges. For example, a percentage of the non-English speaking group are in the country illegally, so obviously they don’t want to join a registry! As far as poor populations, the registry (if it was a broad registry) would only want information from those who are transportation-disadvantaged, so it wouldn’t classify them as “poor” per se…
Fair points, but I think the issue of being perceived as vulnerable is still valid. At least in my experience with disabled self-advocates, being perceived as capable and independent, regardless of physical or mobility limitations, is still very important to the dignity of most disabled people. So, while targeting that community makes perfect sense from a preparedness perspective, I wonder if the registry approach isn’t problematic from a psychological perspective. Does that make sense?
Yes, I think there can be many issues with registries. Looking just at physically disabled communities, registries are difficult to adapt to the lives of disabled residents. For example, many disabled people work and live active and busy lives. How do we track where an individual is located at the time of a disaster? Also, many people become temporarily disabled due to illnesses, accidents, etc. If a resident has a broken leg, for example, and lives in a building that has an elevator that could become disabled in an emergency, would that person be included in a registry? Would they even think to sign up for one or even know it existed?
Another comment mentioned the homeless community, which is a very difficult issue when it comes to emergency management and evacuations.
I’d say overall that the best strategy for addressing the needs of vulnerable populations during evacuations would be to use registries as one option of many, and not the sole or primary means for identifying residents who need assistance during evacuations.
I concur. Thank you for raising such an interesting discussion 🙂
When I think of these vulnerable populations the homeless that I work with come to mind. Unfortunately as you point out some people do not trust government agencies with their information, and many of the more mentally unstable patrons show definite signs of paranoia. It is hard to track homeless as it is, unfortunately during an emergency it could be next to impossible without their cooperation.