Weil, lsu post katrina survey - 150326 - southerns

LSU Post-Katrina Research on Disaster Recovery & Community Resilience

(Supported by the National Science Foundation)

Rick Weil Department of Sociology, LSU

[email protected] www.fweil.com

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.fweil.com/

Development of Disaster Literature 1

Early literature focused on debunking myths, especially demonstrating that after disasters, the dominant community responses tended to be, not chaos and predation, but rather –

• cooperation and altruism

• with new solidaristic organizations often emerging from the grass roots


Beginning around the 1970s, focus in the literature turned to the effects of inequality and vulnerability.

• Weaker social and economic groups were more vulnerable to harm, especially the poor, minorities, women, children and the elderly, and disabled people.

• In addition, due to factors like environmental racism and government favoritism, disadvantaged groups were more exposed to hazards in the first place and less likely to receive assistance after a disaster.

• At a macro-level, vulnerability research has moved to a critique of Neo-liberalism.


Most recently, scholars have begun emphasizing social capital, civic engagement, and the importance of organizations.

• e.g., Daniel Aldrich’s recent book on social capital and disaster recovery.

• Social capital augments analyses of inequality and vulnerability; it does not displace them.

Roots of Social Capital theory in Political Sociology

Early empirical work from the 1950s and 1960s set the basis for understanding civic engagement.

• Especially the work of Sidney Verba.

• Putnam’s work on social capital grew out of this.

• It points back to Tocqueville’s discussion of how community self-governance works.


Hypotheses About Recovery: Individual and Collective Resources

The Verba-Nie-Kim Hypotheses: Individual & Collective resources are correlated,

but Collective Resources can Compensate for the Lack of Individual Resources

Derived from: Sidney Verba, Norman H. Nie, Jae-on Kim, Participation and Political Equality: A Seven-Nation Comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1978, page 85.

Be

ne

fit

Individual Resources (e.g. SES)

Group with Individual-Level Resources (only)

Another Group with Individual-Level Resources (only)

Be

ne

fit

Individual Resources (e.g. SES)

Group with Individual-Level Resources (only)

Group Has Collective Resources

Compensating Effect

New Orleans Hypotheses: Individual & Collective Resources

and Disaster Recovery

Individual-Level Resources

Yes No

Collective

Resources

(Social Capital,

Organization)

Yes

High level of Recovery. High to Medium level of

Recovery.

e.g. Jewish community e.g. Vietnamese community;

SAPC members

No

High to Medium level of

Recovery. Low level of Recovery.

e.g. Renaissance Village

(FEMA Trailer Park)

(Rare: High Individual-Level

Resources usually permit

formation of Collective Resources, as needed)


Data Basis:

7,000 interviews in main Household Survey over 10,000 total interviews, all surveys

ca. 100 interviews with Neighborhood Association Leaders Ethnographic research with over 200 groups

ca. 150 Videotaped in-depth interviews


Maps of Flooding & Damage

Mapped from U.S. Geological Survey Data

Mapped from City of New Orleans Data

Source: LSU Disaster Recovery Survey


Individual-Level Data Analyses

Individual Level Regressions: Low Damage, High Social Status, & Social Capital

Promote Recovery and reduce Negative Outcomes.

Stay or Leave

Nola

Recovery -

Household

Recovery -

Neighborhd

Psych

Distress

Social

Closeness

Damage & Resources

Damage to Residence -.10** -.23** -.37** .14** -.03*

Demographic

Estimated Income .04* .15** .09** -.14** -.07**

Black .07** -.10** -.01 -.10** .14**

Female .05** -.04* -.02+ .12** .03+

Age .06** -.06** -.06** .00 .06**

Time since Katrina .14** .25** .24** -.07** .05**

Social Capital

Social Trust .12** .14** .18** -.18** .25**

Civic Engagement .04* .01 .01 .05** .12**

Social Embeddedness -.04* .07** .04* -.02 .14**

Church service attendance -.02 .01 -.04** -.07** .10**

Adj R-Sq .05 .18 .24 .10 .15

Individual Level Regressions: “Intersectionality” has a small, irregular impact,

but it doesn’t change the main story.

Stay or Leave

Nola

Recovery -

Household

Recovery -

Neighborhd Psych Distress

Social

Closeness

Damage & Resources

Damage to Residence -.10** -.10** -.23** -.23** -.37** -.37** .14** .14** -.03* -.03*

Demographic

Estimated Income .01 .03+ .12** .13** .09** .09** -.10** -.13** -.06** -.07**

Black .12** .08** -.07** -.09** .03 .00 -.12** -.11** .15** .14**

Female .07** .07** -.04+ -.03+ -.02 -.02 .14** .12** .06** .03+

Age .05** .05** -.06** -.06** -.07** -.06** .00 .00 .06** .06**

Time since Katrina .14** .14** .25** .25** .24** .24** -.07** -.07** .05** .05**

Social Capital

Social Trust .12** .12** .14** .14** .18** .18** -.18** -.18** .25** .25**

Civic Engagement .04* .04* .01 .01 .01 .01 .05** .05** .12** .12**

Social Embeddedness -.04* -.04* .07** .07** .04* .04* -.02 -.02 .14** .14**

Church service attendance -.03 -.02 .01 .01 -.04** -.04** -.06** -.07** .10** .10**

Intersectionality

Black Female -.04 -.01 -.04 -.02 -.04+

Poor Female .01 .02 .05** -.02 -.02

Poor Black -.08** -.07** -.06** .09** .03

Poor Black Female -.04* -.04* -.02 .03 .00

Adj R-Sq .06 .06 .18 .18 .24 .24 .10 .10 .15 .15


Aggregate Data Analyses

With a large enough N (7,000), we can aggregate (average) data to geographical districts and conduct aggregate analyses.

We use Census Tracts, the finest (smallest) district size we can, consistent with reliable averages per district.

Aggregating 7,000 survey responses to Census Tracts. Example: Civic Engagement

Sources: HUD; USPS; Valassis & Greater New Orleans Community

Data Center

Repopulation Data (from Postal deliveries) Can be analyzed with our aggregated survey data.

Aggregate Level Bivariate Charts: Low Damage, High Social Status, & Social Capital

Promote Repopulation per Census Tract*

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Pre-K 3/09 3/10 3/11 3/12

Civic Engagement

Top Civ Eng Bottom Civ Eng

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Pre-K 3/09 3/10 3/11 3/12

Income

Top Assets Bottom Assets

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Pre-K 3/09 3/10 3/11 3/12

Damage

Top Damage Bottom Damage

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Pre-K 3/09 3/10 3/11 3/12

Social Embeddedness

Top SocEmb Bottom SocEmb

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Pre-K 3/09 3/10 3/11 3/12

Race

Most Black Least Black

*Showing top and bottom quartiles

Blight Reduction can be analyzed in a similar way.

Sources: HUD; USPS; City of New Orleans

We add an Organizational Level: A Survey of Neighborhood Association Presidents (N=70)

In collaboration with The Neighborhoods Partnership Network (NPN), A nonprofit, citywide network of neighborhoods.

NPN Neighborhood Associations that Responded to our Survey

Note: Some Neighborhood Associations overlap with Others

Blight Reduction: 1. Storm Damage

Source: City of New Orleans

Blight Reduction: 2. Post-Katrina Blight (average over time)

Source: U.S. Postal Service, HUD

Blight Reduction: 3. Blight Reduction in the Flooded Areas

Source: U.S. Postal Service, HUD

Blight Reduction: Neighborhood Associations’ Effect on Reducing Blight:

Multiple Regressions

LSU/NPN Survey of Neighborhood Association Leaders (N = 67)

and LSU Disaster Recovery Survey (N = 7,000)

Regressions (with Fixed Controls)

Blight Reduction

Wet areas: all Wet areas: NBOs only

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Damage Assessment .277+ .189 .328* .259+ .318*

Median household income .006 .074 .021 .101

Unemployed -.457* -.302+ -.442* -.438* -.222 -.433*

Pct Black .324 .308* .302 .260 .344* .394+ .383* .384+ .294 .409*

Married with Children .328+ .341* .333+ .364*

Pct Owner Occupied -.276 -.316+ -.281 -.327+

Disadvantage Index -.168 -.243 -.149 -.262

Associational Involvement .271 .411** .260+ .291+ .407** .199 .437** .222 .218 .401**

Family is Rooted in New Orleans .179 .254 .268 .341+

Church service attendance -.215 -.090 -.248 -.083

Cooperation with Other Organizations: Count .090 .274* .180 .160 .281* .025 .202 .144 .047 .215+

Organizational Activities: Blight (q 41) .321* .240* .242* .295* .223+ .361** .308* .262* .353** .267*

Organization Structural Assets (Block Capts) .117 .157 .148 .217+

Adj R-Sq .602 .567 .607 .560 .553 .658 .577 .641 .621 .582


Causal Processes/Mechanisms: Community Strategies and Resources

for Recovery

Qualitative Research: “Social Action” Partnerships

and Video Ethnography

Community Strategies and Resources for Recovery 1

• Increasing organizational capacity and autonomy.

– Use of Committees, Block Captains, etc.

– Doing own Data Collection.

– New technologies, like Mapping, Data Bases.

– Use of Volunteers.

– Taking the initiative and not waiting for outside help.


• Greater strategic sophistication.

– Creating “Critical Masses” or “Tipping Points”

• Talking to Retail & Neighbors

• Managing expectations

– Branding

– Community planning

• E.g., Broadmoor, Vietnamese, Jews

Managing Expectations and Tipping Points May have spurred Repopulation

Note: Tracts are different in different years

The Effect of Expectations on Repopulation in Greater New Orleans, 2006-2010

Survey Data (N=ca. 7,000) & USPS Data at Tract Level (N as shown)

Bivariate Correlations

Cumulative Rate of Repopulation to:

Expectations N 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Most NBH evacuees will return 2007 33 - .212 .312+ .317+ .322+

Most NBH evacuees will return 2008 37 - - .165 .128 .091

Neighborhood will Recover 2006 23 .584** .602** .708** .716** .742**

Neighborhood will Recover 2007 33 - .596** .609** .628** .604**

Neighborhood will Recover 2008 37 - - .082 .153 .142

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Pre-K 3/09 3/10 3/11 3/12

Civic Engagement

Top Civ Eng Bottom Civ Eng

Managing expectations might have spurred repopulation in communities

that were well organized.


• Increasing citizen participation. – People who had never participated before

• A new Cooperative Orientation among community leaders – 91% of

Neighborhood leaders affirmed that relations with other leaders are cooperative

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

There are otherneighborhood

organizations whose rolesoverlap with your

organization

See your relationshipswith other neighborhood

groups as cooperative,rather than competitive

Your organization compares activities and

strategies with organizations in other

neighborhoods, in order to learn from each others’

experiences

Relations among Neighborhood Associations (N = 56)


• Emergence of new Umbrella Groups from outside the organizational eco-system they work with

– Convening Groups.

– Find areas of common concern on which they can work together.

– Find synergies on issues that would otherwise produce competition/conflict.

– Learn from each other. Barbara Lacen Keller teaching NPN’s Capacity College


• New recovery resources from “Outside-inside” the community – Extra-Regional, National, & International

assistance from within the communities

– Vietnamese Community • Houston & West Bank Neighbors

– Jewish Community • National & Baton Rouge organizations

– Cultural Community • Assistance to Musicians from Musicians


(Supported by the National Science Foundation)

Rick Weil Department of Sociology, LSU

[email protected] www.fweil.com

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.fweil.com/


Addendum on Aggregate Data Analyses (if there’s time & interest)

Violent Crime can also be analyzed in a similar way.

Church Membership Is associated with Reduced Violent Crime

Survey Data (N = 6,945) & N.O. Police Reports, Aggregated to Tract Level (N = 182)

Aggregate Level: Church Membership’s Effect on Reducing Violent Crime:

Spatial Regressions

Factors Influencing Crime Rates in Orleans Parish, 2007-2009

Survey Data (N = 6,945) & Aggregate Data at Tract Level (N = 182)

Regression Models, Testing for Spatial Auto-correlation: t-Statistics or z-values

Natural Log (Ln) Rates Combined Murder Assault

Constant 4.813** 1.925+ 3.506**

Spatial Lag 13.024** 9.740** 10.662**

ACS 2005-09 Pct Below Poverty level 2.149* 2.305*

ACS 2005-09 Unemployed over Age 16 -3.360**

ACS 2005-09 Pct Age 15-34 -1.197

ACS 2005-09 Pct Vacant Housing Units 4.181** 2.362*

ACS 2005-09 Pct Owner Occupied -1.004 -3.812**

ACS 2005-09 Pct Non-Hispanic Black 3.096** 4.024** 3.327**

Church member -3.343** -2.914** -4.293**

Social Trust -3.594** -2.227* -2.968**

Education

Weil, lsu post katrina survey - 150326 - southerns