Social Vulnerability and Procedural Equity: Exploring the Distribution of Disaster Aid Across Counties in the United States

• Author: Simone J. Domingue,Christopher T. Emrich
• DOI: 10.1177/0275074019856122
• Published date: 01 November 2019
• Date: 01 November 2019
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074019856122

American Review of Public Administration

2019, Vol. 49(8) 897 –913

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0275074019856122

journals.sagepub.com/home/arp

Article

Problem Identification and Introduction

Governments provide significant aid and assistance to indi-

viduals and communities following major disasters, much in

the form of public assistance (PA) funds for infrastructure

repairs and mitigation. 2017’s hurricanes and wildfires are

just the latest example of disasters affecting the United

States, resulting in calls for upward of $80 billion in govern-

ment assistance (Zanona & Marcos, 2017). The deadly con-

ditions created by crippled infrastructure systems in Puerto

Rico following Hurricane Maria (and the ensuing struggle

for government aid) clearly underscore the importance of

public aid and administrative equity for the well-being of

individuals. Since the passage of the 1988 Stafford Act, fed-

eral disaster assistance has been the primary source of recov-

ery aid for individuals and communities across the nation

damaged by major disasters such as hurricanes, wildfires,

tornadoes, and other severe events.

Local and state governments also rely heavily on federal

funds distributed by the Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA). Despite the importance of federal disaster

aid in this context, there are a number of research gaps regard-

ing how federal disaster aid is distributed, especially as it

relates to the unequal patterns of exposure, susceptibility to

harm, and recovery from disasters that coincide with social,

political, and economic characteristics of people and places

(for reviews, see Cutter, Boruff, & Shirley, 2003; Finch,

Emrich, & Cutter, 2010; Fothergill, Maestas, & Darlington,

1999; Norris, Friedman, Watson, & Byrne, 2002; Tierney,

2006; Wisner, Blaikie, Cannon, & Davis, 2004). A long his-

tory of disaster research has identified those characteristics

associated with disparate exposures and impacts—including

race, socioeconomic status, age, disability, and language pro-

ficiency (Cutter & Emrich, 2006; Fothergill & Peek, 2004;

Morrow, 1999; Thomas, Phillips, Lovekamp, & Fothergill,

2013; Reid 2013), and social vulnerability indices (such as

that developed by Cutter, Boruff, and Shirley, 2003) have

been developed to capture the wide range of socioeconomic,

demographic, and built environment conditions that are

associated with disaster inequalities. Few studies, however,

856122ARPXXX10.1177/0275074019856122The American Review of Public AdministrationDomingue and Emrich

research-article2019

1University of Colorado, Boulder, USA

2University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA

Corresponding Author:

Simone J. Domingue, Department of Sociology and Natural Hazard

Center, University of Colorado, UCB 327, Ketchum 195, Boulder,

CO 80309, USA.

Email: simone.domingue@colorado.edu

Social Vulnerability and Procedural Equity:

Exploring the Distribution of Disaster

Aid Across Counties in the United States

Simone J. Domingue1 and Christopher T. Emrich2

Abstract

To date, there has been limited research conducted on disaster aid allocation across multiple regions and disasters within

the United States. In addition, there is a paucity of research specifically connecting social indicators of vulnerability to public

assistance grants aimed at restoring, rebuilding, and mitigating against future damages in disasters. Given these gaps, this article

inquires as to whether the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) public assistance program is characterized

by procedural inequities, or disparate outcomes for counties with more socially vulnerable populations. Specifically, this

article analyzes county-level FEMA’s Public Assistance distribution following major disaster declarations, while controlling for

damages sustained, population, household counts, and FEMA Region. Results indicate that FEMA’s Public Assistance program

operates well when accounting only for disaster losses across the years, however, findings also show that county social

conditions influence funding receipt. Although socioeconomic characteristics were significant drivers of assistance spending,

additional vulnerability indicators related to county demographic and built environment characteristics were also important

drivers of receipt. Cases of both procedural inequity and equity are highlighted, and implications for equitable disaster

recovery are discussed along with recommendations.

Keywords

social vulnerability, inequality, disaster impact, public assistance grants

898 American Review of Public Administration 49(8)

have assessed administrative disaster aid distribution pro-

cesses from this comprehensive social vulnerability perspec-

tive. Aid distribution systems stymie equitable disaster

recovery if vulnerable areas with vulnerable populations

receive less funding than counterparts with similar levels of

damages. As such, a current need for empirical assessment of

disaster aid distribution through what public administration

and environmental justice scholars call a “social equity lens”

exists (Bowen & Wells, 2002). This process, emphasizing

how administrative processes can be grounded to yield more

fair distributions, will support public administration’s main

goal of improving equality, justice, security, efficiency, and

effectiveness of public services (Durant & Rosenbloom,

2017; Guy & McCandless, 2012).

A concurrent dearth in the literature focusing specifically

on public benefit disaster aid indicates a need for more

directed and concrete assessments across this domain. PA aid

restores public infrastructure, such as public hospitals, criti-

cal care facilities, and utility and transportation infrastruc-

ture. PA funds granted after disasters provide immediate

threat response support, funds for recovery from sustained

damages, and funding for disaster mitigation at specific

impact locations. Studies to date have not analyzed PA fund-

ing distribution over multiple regions, disasters, time frames,

or in association with underlying social characteristics to

determine procedural equity in funding allocation.

These research gaps form the basis of this inquiry into in

how PA disaster aid is distributed in the United States. This

article draws from scholarship on procedural equity and ana-

lyzes interactions between county-level socioeconomic char-

acteristics and FEMA’s county-level PA fund distribution

following major disasters in the years 2012-2015. We view

procedural equity as just distributive processes and outcomes

(Gooden, 2015), defining an inequity as a case when highly

socially vulnerable counties receive a lesser benefit from

federal disaster relief than other counties experiencing simi-

lar disaster impacts. Socially vulnerable counties are more

dependent upon federal assistance, have less resources for

recovery, and have highly impacted populations (Krueger,

Jennings, & Kendra, 2009). As such, this research aims to

prevent disparities in recovery happening through the pro-

cess of PA distribution by using pre-event social determi-

nants of vulnerability. By connecting social indicators of

vulnerability to PA funds, this analysis identifies both best

practices and areas where programmatic or policy changes

can facilitate more effective and equitable disaster recovery

spending.

Procedural Equity and Government

Programs

Preeminent environmental justice scholar, Robert Bullard,

defined procedural equity as the degree to which fair treat-

ment characterizes policies and programs (Bullard, 2005).

Procedural inequities, and the ensuing disparate distribution

of resources and capabilities they produce, disproportionally

affect racial and ethnic minorities and lower income and

working-class communities (Bullard, 2008; Cole & Foster,

2001; Harrison, 2014; Mohai, Pellow, & Timmons, 2009;

Muller, Sampson, & Winter, 2018; Pellow, 2017; Schlosberg,

1999, 2009; Shrader-Frechette, 2002). Although scholars

recognize that outward bias and discriminatory intent are

still extant features of society, they also stress that procedural

inequity is part of the commonplace proceedings of bureau-

cratic organizations and thus see systems of governance as

being characterized by institutionalized processes that privi-

lege certain members of society (Morello-Frosch, 2002;

Pellow, 2000; Pulido, 2015).

Procedural inequities in local and national government

programs may produce or reproduce disparate distributions

of environmental burdens across communities. For instance,

although minority communities more often reside in areas

burdened with harms, such as toxic waste sites, research

shows that policies and programs intended to reduce these

burdens do not significantly reduce risk or enhance the capa-

bilities of communities (Bryant & Mohai, 1992; Daley &

Layton, 2004; Harrison, 2016; Holifield, 2004; Pearsall &

Pierce, 2017; Petrie, 2006). Programs intended to benefit

individuals within overburdened communities are not imple-

mented in a manner that is consistent with federal policy,

such as the Executive Order on Environmental Justice

(Murphy-Greene & Leip, 2002). Remediation programs,

such as the U.S. Superfund program, have been proven sub-

optimal in minority communities and have shown bias in pri-

oritization and program delivery (Burda & Harding, 2014;

Lavelle & Coyle, 1992; O’Neil, 2007). Environmental jus-

tice scholars have documented how language constitutes a

significant procedural barrier, as for example, many Latino

communities struggle to access Spanish-translated govern-

ment documents (Cole & Foster, 2001; Harrison, 2011;

Schlosberg, 2009). Importantly, federal agencies are begin-

ning to address these calls for procedural equity. One such

example shows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

now providing technical assistance grants to communities

dealing with complex administrative processes (https://www

.epa.gov/environmentaljustice).

Environmental justice literature traditionally focuses on

place-based inequalities relating to environmental toxins and

pollution, but recently, more research specifically aimed at

equity in the disaster context has taken root. For example, in

their recent research, Robert Bullard and Beverly Wright

(2012) present case studies of inept and unequal government

response in the wake of hurricanes, floods, and public health

emergencies. Focusing on the U.S. South, Bullard and Wright

illustrate how government actions—including emergency

response, relief and compensation spending, and rebuilding

decisions—often show signs of institutionalized discrimina-

tion against people and communities of color. Indeed, in the

wake of Hurricane Katrina, researchers documented dispari-

ties along racial lines in the way emergency aid, individual