HLTH 6100 Week 6 Peer Reply Discussion Post Example

Week 6 Discussion: Peer Reply

Who Counts as the Community? A Reply That Finds the Premise Under a Classmate's Whole Community Argument

Reply to Danielle M.

Danielle, your post argues that the whole community approach solves the problem of top-down planning, because it brings residents, nonprofits, faith organizations and businesses into preparedness alongside government. I agree with the goal, and your example of the faith coalition that ran a shelter after the ice storm is a good one. But I think your argument stands on a premise it does not state: that the community can be reached through its organizations.

The federal document that set out the approach describes engaging the full capacity of the private and nonprofit sectors, faith-based and disability organizations and the general public (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2011). In practice, most engagement happens through groups that already exist and already talk to government: coalitions, chambers of commerce, congregations and advocacy organizations. Your example fits that pattern. The people least likely to be in those groups, such as renters who move often, workers on night shifts, residents with limited English and people without legal status, are also among those research identifies as most exposed to harm in disasters. A review of sociological research found that people in poverty face greater risk at every stage, from preparedness through recovery (Fothergill & Peek, 2004). Indexes of social vulnerability are built from exactly these characteristics because they predict who is harmed (Flanagan et al., 2011).

So my question is this: in your county's approach, how would a renter who belongs to no organization, works nights and speaks limited English become part of the community the approach engages? If the answer is through organizations, then whole community may mean organized community, and the residents most at risk may be the ones it leaves out. If there is another route, I would like to know what it is, because it is the part of the approach I cannot find in the guidance.

Why This Reply Presses Rather Than Agrees

I could have praised Danielle's example and added one of my own. That would have been easy and would have taught neither of us anything. The premise about organizations is the one her conclusion depends on, and if it fails, her claim that the approach solves top-down planning needs revising. A good answer to my question would make her post stronger; I am not trying to win the point. I also expect the question to be asked of my own argument later in the term, since need-based recovery aid runs into the same problem of reaching people who are not already connected to any agency.

Follow-Up After Danielle's Answer

Danielle answered that her county partners with the school district to reach families who belong to no organization, since nearly every family with children has contact with a school. That is a good route for families and a real revision to her argument. It still leaves single adults and older residents without school contact, and we agreed that utility shutoff lists and home health agencies might reach some of them. Her post now says whole community requires routes beyond organizations, which is a stronger claim than the one she started with.

References

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2011). A whole community approach to emergency management: Principles, themes, and pathways for action (FDOC 104-008-1).

Flanagan, B. E., Gregory, E. W., Hallisey, E. J., Heitgerd, J. L., & Lewis, B. (2011). A social vulnerability index for disaster management. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 8(1), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.2202/1547-7355.1792

Fothergill, A., & Peek, L. A. (2004). Poverty and disasters in the United States: A review of recent sociological findings. Natural Hazards, 32(1), 89-110. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:NHAZ.0000026792.76181.d9