September 16, 2007

National Council on Disability,
ATTN: Homeland Security Committee
1331 F Street NW, Suite 850
Washington, DC 20004
ncd@ncd.gov

Re: Public Comment on Emergency Preparedness

To Whom It May Concern:

This is to provide open comments on behalf of the National Council for Support of Disability Issues (“NCSD”). Located at http://www.ncsd.org, NCSD equals a Section 501© (3) cross-disability policy non-profit.

It has become important for all Americans, both able-bodied and disabled, to know of the risks in the post-modern world and how to prepare for emergencies. In July 2004, President Bush signed an Executive Order explicitly stating the policy of the United States in the area of emergency preparedness for people with disabilities.

Unfortunately, the literature is limited and empirical evidence on best practices for addressing the needs of individuals with disabilities in disaster preparedness is sparse. However, The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 provides a legal framework for local and state government to account for the needs of people with disabilities, that is, equal access to information, products and services. With the purpose of this non-profit being education and advocacy of full inclusion of persons with disabilities, it is therefore valuable and timely that the officers and board provide what it hopes will equal informative and learned comments during this notice and public comment period.

As a preliminary matter, we believe it is important to comment on the mention of the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act. It is known that the hurricanes of extant caused several issues for both the service animal community and for all who enjoy and derive salubrious affects from the ownership of companion animals in the way in which both private citizens and government protected and ensured the viability of the human and animal bond. We interpret that the Bush administration has heralded the enactment of the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act as a landmark accomplishment. For extensive analysis of this legislation, visit the article published by the legal chair, Gary C. Norman, Esq., in the April issue of the Maryland Bar Bulletin. We disagree that this legislation is an accomplishment or that the circumstances of the brunt of the hurricanes required new legislative action.

In general, handlers of service animals already had civil rights under existing legislation, namely the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Shelters are likely to constitute places of public accommodations as is defined under this statutory panoply in many circumstances. Should a shelter at the state-level not be a private company or organization rising to the degree of a place of public accommodation, then it is likely that such shelter, in some fashion, receives funding from the state, and can be considered therefore as a state operated public entity. Should such shelter receive any kind of federal funding, then the panoply of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, As Amended, would likely cover it. As such, compliance with and the enforcement of that panoply and not the enactment of new legislation is what is required.

However, there is need for action on issues, such as relieving areas. In the event that an emergency arose and a service animal team was “locked down” at an airport, there would be an eventual need for such service animal to be relieved. To our knowledge, only limited progress has been achieved since the work group regarding relieving areas at airports was initially convened. Collaboration with the FAA and the TSA is required in order to construct national-wide policy regarding relief areas for non-emergency situations, and, particularly, emergency ones.

We desire to comment to the inquiry interposed regarding how people with disabilities were provided with information about and how to prepare for the severity of the emergency, including, evacuation. In the post-modern age, an increasing number of able-bodied persons have ready access to telecommunications, such as cell telephones or IPod telephones, or some combination of the two. They are alternatively able to easily acquire information from a variety of technological devices, such as screens in airports, messages that scroll across televisions and alike. This may not often be true for those with sight and hearing disabilities. Because of rapid technological change, it is easier and easier to find a way in which to ensure that messages about emergencies that able-bodied persons receive is concomitantly conveyed to persons with disabilities.

The better view of the sight-disabled community is that messages about emergency preparedness and warnings should be fully accessible. However, this has yet to receive the kind of statutory and regulatory enactment and implementation that it should. This sub population of persons with disabilities often have to rely on sighted friends or families, or on analogue radios for such information. Both Congress and the administration have relied on disagreement among the sight disabled, particularly, the disingenuous views of the National Federation of the Blind to avoid true leadership on progressing forward with implementation of an emergency warning and response system that will be fully accessible to all Americans.

Unlike the service animal legislation mentioned supra, Congress and the Administration need to collaborate to draft and enact a bill requiring or authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to design and implement mandates on the telecommunications industry regarding emergency warnings. To some degree, the state government and the private and non-profit sector influence the emergency warning and response system. There is always some level of resistance by some members of the private sector to additional requirements that are perceived to impose financial burdens or unfunded mandates. Although this is an area, based on misguided litigation influenced by the NFB and a court decision detrimental to such policy, legislation is require; it is equally important that the FCC and other related departments and agencies be given additional funding to ensure that any such legislation is timely implemented and enforced.

Once any necessary legislative activity is undertaken as may be required to establish the under-girding legal framework, messages conveyed to broadcasters for dissemination should include “boilerplate” statements indicating that the FCC requires all emergency information to be broadcast with captions, graphics, or other visual display of information provided orally. In the circumstance that private companies, such as television stations fail to comply with such requirements, then civil monetary penalties should be levied.

We agree with issues concerning adaptive technology being included as one of the themes on which to comment. Universal design is not to the level that it should be. The majority of persons with disabilities, even slight ones, or temporary ones, must rely on specialized equipment, tools and/or technology. Therefore, it is critical that emergency shelters, emergency preparedness planning, mitigation and recovery account for the adaptive technology utilized by persons with disabilities, and how, if feasible, such equipment, tools and/or technology can be facilitated, preserved or protected and utilized before, during and after a situation. As such, we recommend that the federal/state government provide grants for specialized supplies such as accessible evacuation equipment; disaster supply kits that address disability and age-related needs; and equipment, aids and assistive technology. We also recommend that persons with disabilities, as is appropriate and feasible, be included in emergency preparedness planning and on the compensated or volunteer staff of organizations and shelters involved with emergency goods, services and processes. In this regard, organizations and shelters need to collaborate with state-level advocacy non-profits to provide training and technical assistance concerning adaptive technology solutions.

Next, we desire to comment on mental health issues. According to an article published on July 14, 2006, by Kevin Freking of the Associated Press, the National Council on Disability studied the issue of persons with mental health disabilities discovering that there is a need for improvement. Kevin Freking, Mentally Disabled Faced Bias Post-Katrina, Wash. AP (July 14, 2006). The hurricanes demonstrated serious gaps for persons with mental health disabilities. Persons with mental health disabilities experienced either outright discriminatory treatment, being banished from shelters or were even involuntarily institutionalized. The article indicated that the Red Cross, who was significantly involved in the mitigation and recovery efforts, equaled a culprit of such treatment.

Certainly, the Red Cross is not the only party who failed, or fails, persons with mental health disabilities. The Red Cross, as is true with myriad public places of accommodations, and who in the circumstance of disaster mitigation and recovery may additionally raise to the level of a public entity needs to improve on how it interacts with, ensures access to and protects the interests of persons with disabilities before, during and after emergencies. We are aware that the Red Cross did sign an agreement with the American council of the Blind regarding access issues and their resolution, but improvements are yet to be seen on the local level. However, we are equally aware that at least in Maryland, the Red Cross is involved on an advisory committee to the Maryland Department of Disabilities concerning persons with disabilities and emergency preparedness.

Although the Red Cross, being an example of a renowned organization, has undertaken steps to improve its gaps, if any, in the way in which its leaders, local organizations, members and volunteers interact with, provide services to and communicate with persons with disabilities; clear need for improvement is required. We agree with the article indicated supra that there should be a kind of disability policy ombudsman at the Red Cross who can resolve situations both nationally and on the local level. This should be true of any organizations that provide or facilitate goods, services or programs. Ultimately, the best policies and procedures will be fostered and implemented if persons with disabilities are in positions of leadership.

For persons with disabilities to rise to positions in any organization, but in this context, ones involved with emergency preparedness policy, it is critical they are welcome and are provided the accommodations they require to be equally participatory. This will mean a dialogue with such individuals as to what they require instead of unfounded or confounding assumptions of the same.

There are myriad issues affecting the lives of persons with disabilities from gainful employment to housing and from important transportation barriers to daily discrimination that has yet to diminish significantly since the enactment of the ADA, but among them, for sure are access barriers to emergency preparedness planning, response, mitigation and recovery. We hope that these comments will constitute valuable information as the federal government designs and implements policy. We also hope that we will be included on work groups, special projects or called on as an organization with interest in these issues in the future. Please telephone our legal chair, Gary C. Norman, Esq., at – (410) 241-6745, if there are questions.

Sincerely,

Gary C. Norman, Esq., Legal Chair and Spokesperson

National Council for Support of Disability Issues