I ! ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS AND EMERGENCY PLANNING IN INSTlTUTIONS HOUSING THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED by Sophia Kim Le B.A.. University of Washington. 2008 A thesis submitted to the University of Colorado Denver in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters in Public Administration 2011 This thesis for the Masters in Public Administration degree by Sophia Kim Le has been approved by Brian J. Gerber / Lloyd Burton I Deborah S.K. Thomas r 1 Date Le. Sophia Kim (Masters in Public Administration) Organizational Effectiveness and Emergency Planning in Institutions Housing the Dewlopmentally Disabled Thesis directed by Associate Professor Brian J. Gerber ABSTRACT Catering to understand the needs of the disabled population has been an important issue in the field of emergency management. However. there has been little research on the developmentally disabled populations and of populations in long-term care or institutional settings. Using organizational effectiveness theory. this research sets out to determine emergency planning performance at state-run institutions housing the developmentally disabled in four states: Washington, Colorado. South Carolina, and New Jersey. These states were selected due to their variation in policy structure, hazard risks. and rate of institutionalization. Emergency response plans from each of the facilities in the four states were selected and then analyzed for common themes in their content. In addition to this. a randomly selected institution from each state was interviewed about emergency planning processes and how successful they deemed themselves. It was discovered that there were various barriers that each state suffered from in implementing emergency planning procedures, which ranged from resource power to lack of structure. It was also found that increased hazard risk might drive institutions to perform better at emergency planning. It is recommended that lesser successful states examine their more successful counterparts and implement such practices into their own departmental and institutional entities. This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidate's thesis. I recommend its publication. / Brian J. Gerber DEDICATION I dedicate this thesis to my family. who taught me the importance of education and perseverance. I also dedicate this thesis to Carol Kirk and all of the staff at Frances Haddon Morgan Center, for their work and passion to the developmentally disabled community. Lastly. I dedicate this thesis to Matthew Kirk, for his unwavering support during the duration of my academic career. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My special thanks to my advisor. Brian J. Gerber. for his intellect. sense of humor. and support on this project. I also w·ish to thank Lloyd Burton and Deborah Thomas for their valuable insight and words of wisdom. Lastly. I'd like to thank the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services in Washington: the Colorado Department of Human Services, the South Carolina Department of Disabilities and Special Needs, and the New Jersey Department of Human Services for their willingness to participate in this research. TABLE OF CONTENTS Figures ..................................................................................... x Tables ...................................................................................... xi CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................. .. Background/Problem Definition ............................................. .. Research Questions .............................................................. 3 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................................ 5 Social Vulnerability and Special Needs Populations ........................ 5 Definition of Disabilities and Approaches to Policy........................ 7 Legislative History for Disabled Populations and Emergency Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Issues of Long-Term Care Facilities and Emergency Management.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 0 The Developmentally Disabled in History................................... II The Developmentally Disabled and Emergency Management.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ................................................... 17 The Origins of Organizational EtTectiveness................................. 17 Government Performance & Why Management Matters .................. 19 VII Organizational Effectiveness and Emergency Management.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4. METHODOLOGY ................................................................... 24 Sample ............................................................................ 24 Instrumentation... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Data Analysis ..................................................................... 32 5. WASHINGTON...................................................................... 34 Plans ............................................................................... 36 Interview .......................................................................... 41 Analysis........................................................................... 46 6. COLORADO .......................................................................... 47 Plans ............................................................................... 49 Interview .......................................................................... 53 Analysis........................................................................... 57 7. SOUTH CAROLINA ................................................................ 58 Plans ............................................................................... 59 Interview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Analysis ........................................................................... 64 8. NEW JERSEY........................................................................ 65 Plans ............................................................................... 65 VIII Interview.......................................................................... 73 Analysis........................................................................... 77 9. OVERALL FINDINGS .............................................................. 78 Overall Findings from All Emergency Plans ................................. 78 Overall Interview Findings..................................................... 81 10. CONCLUSION ...................................................................... 84 Policy Structure .................................................................. 84 Rate of Institutionalization ...................................................... 85 Hazard Risk ............................................................................. 86 Other Factors and Limitations ................................................. 87 Policy Recommendations ........................................................ 88 Summary ................................................................................. 92 APPENDIX ..................................................................................................... 94 A. RECRUITMENT MATERIAL .................................................... 94 B. CODING PROTOCOL. ................................................................ 95 C. INTERVIEW SCRIPT .................................................................. 99 D. OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST................................... 102 E. HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL............................................... 106 REFERENCES............................................................................................... 10 9 IX LIST OF FIGURES Figure E.l University of Colorado Denver Human Subjects Approval. ....................... 106 E.2 Washington State Human Subjects Approval. ...................................... 107 X