Emergencies—natural disasters, fires, public safety threats—test communities' capacity to protect all their members. But emergency planning has historically focused on the general population, with people with disabilities treated as afterthoughts if considered at all. The consequences can be fatal. Barrier-free emergency planning that includes people with disabilities from the start saves lives and reflects the principle that no one should be left behind when crisis strikes.
The Historical Pattern
>Major emergencies repeatedly expose failures to protect people with disabilities. Hurricane Katrina's death toll disproportionately included elderly and disabled people unable to evacuate. The COVID-19 pandemic's devastating impact on long-term care residents revealed emergency preparedness gaps in congregate settings. Canadian floods, fires, and other emergencies have similarly shown that standard emergency responses don't adequately serve everyone.
>These aren't unpredictable failures—they're predictable consequences of planning that doesn't account for diverse needs. When evacuation plans assume everyone can drive, walk, or hear sirens, people who can't do these things are excluded by design. When shelter arrangements assume standard mobility, communication, and self-care capacity, people who don't match those assumptions face inadequate protection.
>Post-emergency reviews consistently identify disability inclusion gaps, but implementation of lessons learned proves inconsistent. The next emergency often reveals the same failures as the last.
Alert System Accessibility
>Public alert systems must reach everyone, including people with sensory disabilities. Canada's Alert Ready system delivers warnings through television, radio, and compatible wireless devices. But accessibility of these alerts remains imperfect.
>Wireless Emergency Alerts appear as text, making them accessible to deaf users, but may not be compatible with all devices. Emergency broadcasts should include both visual and auditory components, but implementation varies. People who are deafblind may not receive alerts through either channel.
>Understanding alerts requires cognitive accessibility as well. Complex language, unfamiliar terms, or unclear instructions may confuse people with cognitive disabilities. Plain language alerts with clear action steps benefit everyone but particularly serve those who might struggle with complex communication.
Evacuation Challenges
>Evacuation orders assume people can leave quickly with their own resources. But people with disabilities may need more time to prepare, require transportation they can use, need to bring mobility equipment or medical supplies, and require accessible destinations.
>Transportation is a critical gap. Standard evacuation transportation may not be wheelchair accessible. People without vehicles who usually rely on accessible transit may have no way to leave when transit isn't running. Some jurisdictions maintain registries of people needing evacuation assistance, but registry systems have their own limitations.
>Evacuation from multi-story buildings presents particular challenges. Elevators shouldn't be used during fires, but stairway evacuation may be impossible for people with mobility disabilities. Evacuation chairs and areas of refuge provide partial solutions but require building design that supports them and personnel trained in their use.
Shelter Accessibility
>Emergency shelters must be accessible to serve the whole community, but many shelter facilities don't meet accessibility standards. Schools, community centres, and other common shelter locations may have physical barriers, lack accessible washrooms, or be unable to accommodate mobility equipment.
>Beyond physical accessibility, shelters must meet diverse disability-related needs. Power for medical equipment, refrigeration for medications, quiet spaces for people with sensory sensitivities, service animal accommodation, and personal care support may all be necessary. Standard shelter operations often don't provide these.
>Mental health accessibility matters too. Shelters can be overwhelming environments for people with psychiatric disabilities, autism, or trauma histories. Staff training in mental health response and availability of quiet, less stimulating spaces can make shelters more survivable for these populations.
Communication During Emergencies
>Emergency communication must reach and be understood by people with diverse communication needs. This includes not just initial alerts but ongoing information about evolving situations, available resources, and recovery processes.
>Sign language interpretation for emergency briefings has become more common but isn't universal. Captioning of broadcast communications should be standard but may be missing or poor quality during fast-moving situations. Written materials should be available in accessible formats including large print and plain language versions.
>In-person communication at shelters and resource centres requires similar accessibility. Staff should be able to communicate with deaf and hard of hearing people. Information should be available in formats people with visual impairments can access. Communication supports for people with speech or cognitive disabilities should be available.
Medical and Care Continuity
>Emergencies disrupt the medical care and personal supports that many people with disabilities depend on. Ensuring continuity of essential care during crises requires advance planning.
>Medication access becomes critical when pharmacies close or supplies are lost. Personal care attendants may not be able to reach the people they support. Medical equipment may require power that isn't available. Dialysis, ventilator support, and other essential treatments may be interrupted.
>People who rely on daily medications should maintain emergency supplies, but this advice assumes resources for stockpiling that not everyone has. Insulin, for example, requires refrigeration that may not survive power outages. System-level solutions—emergency pharmacy protocols, medical needs registries, backup power provisions—address what individual preparation cannot.
Institutional Settings
>Long-term care facilities, group homes, and other congregate settings housing people with disabilities require specific emergency planning. Residents may be unable to self-evacuate, facilities may lack adequate staff for emergency response, and evacuation destinations must be able to continue providing care.
>The COVID-19 pandemic exposed catastrophic emergency preparedness failures in long-term care. Outbreaks spread rapidly in congregate settings, staff were inadequate for crisis response, and infection control was impossible in facilities designed for communal living. These weren't unforeseeable problems—advocates had warned of vulnerabilities for years.
>Accountability for institutional emergency preparedness involves regulatory requirements, inspection and enforcement, and consequences for failures. Current systems often prove inadequate, as repeated disasters in the same types of facilities demonstrate.
Individual Preparedness
>Emergency preparedness guidance often focuses on individual preparation—emergency kits, evacuation plans, backup supplies. People with disabilities should indeed prepare, but individual preparation has limits when systems aren't accessible.
>Emergency preparedness resources should address disability-specific planning. This includes maintaining supply of medications and medical supplies, having backup power for essential equipment, planning for service animal needs, documenting medical and care information, and identifying support networks.
>Personal support networks matter when formal systems fail. Neighbors, friends, and community members who know someone needs assistance can provide help that emergency services may not. Building these networks before emergencies occur increases resilience.
Including Disability Perspectives
>Emergency planning that includes people with disabilities from the start produces better results than plans that treat disability as an afterthought. This means involving disability community members and organizations in planning processes, not just consulting after plans are made.
>Disability organizations can advise on community needs, identify gaps in planned responses, and help communicate with disability communities. Partnering with these organizations leverages existing knowledge and networks rather than starting from scratch.
>Exercises and drills should include disability scenarios. Testing whether plans actually work for people with disabilities—before real emergencies occur—identifies problems that can be fixed proactively.
Questions for Reflection
>Should emergency shelters be required to meet full accessibility standards, even if this limits available facilities? How should the tradeoff between quantity and accessibility of shelter spaces be managed?
>What obligations should long-term care facilities and other institutional settings have for emergency preparedness? How should these obligations be enforced?
>How can emergency planning processes meaningfully include people with disabilities rather than treating them as populations to plan for rather than plan with?