« Creating a Conference from Scratch | Main | Bits Without Borders Conference »

Friday, September 24, 2010

Mainstreaming Women in Disaster Recovery Efforts

This post continues my discussion of social justice issues concerning women and disaster. Again, an adequate legal framework for development and recovery planning must recognize that women are vulnerable to disaster harm, including gender-based violence, and that they should be encouraged to participate fully in disaster recovery efforts.

Although there is relatively little legal scholarship in this vein, I am learning from a wealth of front-line policy work. This literature describes the differential impact of disasters on women and suggests practical approaches for mainstreaming women into the recovery process. Heeding the call, some organizations have already sought to protect and empower women. Take, for example, the Crescent House Healing Center, which provided support for domestic violence victims in the aftermath of Katrina through extensive outreach efforts and by maintaining a constant presence at the local FEMA facility. Or consider the work in earthquake-shattered Latur and Gujarat of Swayam Shikshan Prayog (SSP), an NGO based in Mumbai. SSP aided local women in rebuilding their communities, recognizing the leadership of women as well as providing skills training for sustainable livelihoods.

While private groups and NGOs have successfully integrated women’s voices into disaster planning and recovery, governments have lagged behind. Even worse, the designation of government relief monies for the “head of household,” coupled with the assumption that the head is male, further disenfranchises women. This gendered notion of family affected resource distribution in post-Katrina New Orleans and after the Berkeley-Oakland wildfires in California and Hurricane Andrew in Miami. Until our policymakers recognize the importance of socially inclusive, participatory disaster management, we risk exposing susceptible groups to additional harms and perpetuate their vulnerability to future events.

Posted by Susan Kuo on September 24, 2010 at 02:36 PM in Current Affairs, Law and Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef013487af5abc970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Mainstreaming Women in Disaster Recovery Efforts :

Comments

Thanks for your thoughtful questions.

Posted by: Susan Kuo | Oct 6, 2010 11:59:23 PM

Thanks for the follow up -- it's clarifying.

Posted by: ALB | Oct 2, 2010 11:11:35 AM

As a quick follow up to ALB’s query regarding the Census: According to its website, the Census Bureau no longer uses the “head of household” designation. In particular, since 1980, the Census Bureau “discontinued its longtime practice of always classifying the husband as the reference person (head) when he and his wife are living together.” This leaves open the question of why, at least in some recent disasters, relief checks have been written in the name of the male partner.

Posted by: Susan Kuo | Sep 29, 2010 12:18:29 PM

Dear ALB and AMcA, thanks for your questions.

ALB, I am not sure what the strength of the presumption is in terms of overall disaster relief efforts. I have been puzzling over this myself and am looking into it as part of a broader research project. From what I have read, this presumption existed in New Orleans as well as in California and Miami. Automatically ceding control over the funds to male partners, as opposed to both individuals (the information I have found addresses male-female relationships), disenfranchises women. I don’t think that it necessarily leads to a bad outcome for all women. But, for example, women who are victims of domestic violence would likely find it difficult to leave an abusive partner if they did not have access to relief funds or lacked decision-making control over the monies. Considering the research showing that domestic violence increases in the wake of a disaster, writing insurance and government relief checks in the name of the male partner can have unfortunate results. For more on this particular issue, see http://tulane.edu/nccrow/upload/NCCROWreport08-chapter8.pdf

As for the census, I am not sure that listing a female partner first would lead to a conclusion that the household is headed by a female. I am looking into this question, as well. To the extent that census results may be used in disaster relief efforts, the answer to this question could be significant.

AMcA, I did not mean to imply that U.S. disaster relief and recovery efforts only extend to male-headed households. Rather, my post was intended to highlight the lack of attention given to the needs of women in disaster recovery. But I like your question because it raises an important point. Leaving aside the question of intent, are female-headed households, in fact, left out of the recovery equation or, at the very least, are male-headed households prioritized in recovery efforts? Again, from what I have been reading, some folks might argue that female-headed households are overlooked. For example, targeting relief funds to male-dominated employment projects (e.g., construction and landscaping) helps men and, presumably, male-headed households, but disadvantages women and female-headed households.

Posted by: Susan Kuo | Sep 29, 2010 12:42:38 AM

I find it very hard to believe that US disaster efforts are overlooking female-headed households because there's no man in the house.

In Afghanistan, maybe. But here?

Is there any evidence of this phenomenon?

Posted by: AMcA | Sep 28, 2010 11:30:44 AM

Could you explain the strength of the presumption that "head of household" is male, and how this disenfranchises women? I ask as a married woman puzzling over what that statement means in Amerca. Each (rare) time we see one of those forms, my husband and I have to figure out whose name to put in that space, but we certainly have no presumptions, gender-based or otherwise, as to which of us is head of household.

Though, for the census, we did decide to list me as "person #1" because we were curious whether this would cause ours to count as a female-headed household, and because I wanted it.

Posted by: ALB | Sep 27, 2010 9:11:37 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.