A Disproportional Disaster Recovery in Houston
On February 16, 2021, over 3 million Texans slept in their 20-degree homes; the destruction of the winter storm in Texas filled every news headline in the following days. Four years ago, Hurricane Harvey and the damage it left behind for Houstonians dominated those same headlines. So, it’s no secret that Houston is at the heart of natural disasters especially in recent years due to climate change. While the natural disasters affect every Houstonian, not every Houstonian gets the same treatment when the city picks up the broken pieces.
At first glance, you would only see the Houston diversity present in the variety of cultural cuisines to your diverse neighbors every time you walk down the street. However, if you look a little deeper into the Houston culture, the rundown and ragged homes of the minority communities become clearer. With an already large wealth gap, natural disasters widen this gap for minority communities. Wealthier communities receive care and treatment first after every natural disaster; during the winter storm, they are the first ones to get their power back and after hurricanes, they are the first ones whose lives fully recover its destruction. Conversely, the low-income communities, mainly filled with minorities struggling to make a living, are forgotten and as a result continue to suffer from disasters four years later. During the winter storm, the minority communities lived in the cold weather without power during the three days that high-income houses ran their bright lights. After the hurricanes, homes in minority communities continue rebuild years after the incident. So, what accounts for this extreme difference in disaster relief?
From my research, I realized that while prevalent racial discrimination partly attributes to this inequity, the main issue lies in the local and federal government’s disproportionate allocation of disaster relief resources. Both local and federal disaster plans follow the traditional cost-benefit analysis in which the government spends relief funds for flood protection on higher-valued properties first as it returns a greater investment (Flavelle). This prioritization puts lower-valued areas (mainly populated by minorities) at a disadvantage, leading to a cycling decline as disasters worsen due to increasing climate change. With the federal government, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) distribute the main disaster relief funds for those affected by natural disasters; however, FEMA unevenly disperse these funds. According to “As Disaster Costs Rise, So Does Inequality”, a sociological research by Junia Howell and James R. Elliot, from 1999 to 2013, black and Latino homeowners with a high school education in counties with over $50 million in disaster damage lose $25,000 in wealth after a natural disaster while white homeowners with a high school education in the same situation increase their net worth by $75,000 (Howell and Elliot). In other words, on average, black and Latino homeowners receive less relief funds from FEMA, resulting in a wealth loss while white homeowners gain wealth after a natural disaster. Based on these statistics, it is evident that FEMA disproportionately allocates their disaster relief funds to predominantly white areas, leaving the minority communities with less than enough aid to recover from a hurricane or a winter storm. The inequitable dispersion of FEMA funds deepens the already large wealth gap present in Houston communities. But it begs the question, how did this distribution get so inequitable?
While a multitude of reasons, such as discrimination or monetary greed, can explain this inequity, it truly trickles down to the process of getting federal aid; the disproportionate allocation of federal money starts at a family’s success in getting federal aid in the first place. NPR authors Rebecca Hersher and Robert Benincasa focus on this difficulty of getting federal relief funds for those who can’t easily meet FEMA’s rigid application requirements by recounting the experiences of the Papadopoulos and Evans families after Hurricane Harvey (Hersher and Benincasa). The hurricane hit both the Papadopoulos and the Evans hard as their homes filled with 3 inches of rainwater. Both families started with nothing after the disaster, yet the Papadopoulos family financially recovered from the effects of the hurricane while the Evans family continue to struggle years later. It is important to note that while both families only lived a few miles from each other, the Papadopoulos have a higher income and lived in a higher valued neighborhood as opposed to the Evans who lived in a low-income neighborhood. The Papadopoulos recovered from the hurricane because of how easy it was for them to apply and receive federal relief as FEMA gave them $30,000 in relief and the IRS sent them $100,000 in the form of refunded taxes (Hersher and Benincasa). Unlike the Papdopoulos, the Evans struggled to recover as they only received $2,500 of federal relief from FEMA, their income wasn’t high enough for money from refunded taxes and were denied a low-interest loan because of a low credit score (Hersher and Benincasa). When comparing the federal relief process of both families, the Evans, clearly, struggled to get aid from the federal government all because of circumstances that they can’t control or change without any real help. The current FEMA application process make the rich richer and the poor poorer, therefore “disasters exacerbate wealth inequality”, a claim that Hersher and Benincasa support and that I agree with. So, when federal relief is no help, you turn to local government aid thinking it might be better since their purpose is to serve you, their constituents.
Before Hurricane Harvey, Houston officials proceeded with the same federal traditional cost-benefit analysis for disaster recovery that I previously mentioned. This process emphasized high-valued communities that leads to not only federal funding on flood projects, but also basic infrastructure that mitigates flooding in neighborhoods; wealthier communities have multiple gutters and drains that reduce flooding while poorer communities rely on front yard ditches to drain excess water (Flavelle). As mentioned above, this kind of emphasis puts minority and low-valued communities at risk for more damage as disasters continue to be more frequent. Luckily, officials of Houston recognize the wealth disparity that comes from following tradition after natural disasters. They threw out their old approach and began prioritizing the disadvantage communities (mainly filled with people of color) that have the hardest disaster recovery.
The New York Time author Christopher Flavelle explores the criticisms of Houston’s new disaster plan. Flavelle is in favor of the new plan as it approached flood recovery because of its new prioritization; however, he points out the political resistance derived from such a plan. Given the political divide present in Texas, with Houston being primarily Democratic in a Republican state, it is no surprise that there is some political resistance from a disaster plan put forth by a Democratic relief commission; people can easily disregard a disaster plan to be in favor of a political party instead of for the vulnerable of Houston. Flavelle reports that those living in wealthier neighborhoods oppose the new disaster and believe that Houston’s disaster plan should follow the traditional government cost-benefit analysis in which prioritizes the (predominantly white) communities whose homes are valued higher and generate more tax revenue that provide for the city. While this new implemented disaster plan focuses flood relief towards the low-income and minority communities, the political pushback by those who believe they are not receiving the same fair treatment will widen the political divide and possibly cause some other communities to be ignored. Despite the structural improvements on the local level, the political barrier demonstrates a lack of unity that renders disaster recovery less effective for all; so, what level of disaster relief improves the situation for low-income and minority neighborhoods, local or federal?
Before deciding which response fairs better for the minority communities in need of disaster relief, both responses must present advantages for the vulnerable to fairly compare which solution is best to implement. Houston’s new disaster plan already presents a step in the right direction to relieve disproportionate allocation of local relief, but the federal aid continues to be unevenly allocated. While Hersher and Benincasa explored the issue of disproportionate allocation, they never explicitly stated a solution. Urban Sustainability Directors Network Director for Climate Resilience, Kristin Baja, suggested that the federal relief programs should shift from its “current reactive cookie-cutter structure” to a design that considers the cultural and unique community characteristics, trauma, and racism and prejudice towards the community (Martin et al.). All those hardships make applying for a strict federal relief application much harder than those who don’t face the same struggles, financially and mentally. Therefore, I agree with Baja’s suggestion as it ensures that the minority communities that cannot meet the current FEMA structure receive the funding they desperately need.
With an idea of both federal and local solutions to the disproportionality issue, a comparison of both solutions can determine the best overall solution. Because most of people’s disaster recovery heavily relies on receiving enough money to rebuild their lives, the reconstruction of the distribution of federal money should be the priority. Focusing on the reconstruction of federal relief also calls for more unity as the solution is universal and has little to no political resistance; the federal response demonstrates a broad and more widespread solution that can be implemented not just by the local Houston government, but local governments across the United States. The lack of unity in the Houston disaster plan, while a great local solution that prioritizes the local minority community possibly better than the federal one, adds another issue onto the already growing issue of disproportionate allocation of disaster relief. Opposition response prevents the Houston disaster plan from achieving its full effectiveness, and thus would make fair allocation even more difficult to achieve.
While the local and federal response to disproportional allocation mends the struggles of the minority communities, I argue that the best way to combat the disproportionate allocation of disaster relief in Houston is to prioritize the federal response as it ensures that the minority communities receive an equitable process when applying for federal assistance, specifically federal money which has proven to be the most helpful aid. It is important to note that the federal solution fairs better, if and only if, the federal government follows the response explained above or some form of it. If the federal response does not involve a reconstruction of their disaster relief structure in a way that aids the minority communities, then I believe that a whole new solution should be discovered and considered instead of relying on the local response as the best solution after the federal one.
Reconstructing the current disaster system put in place on both the local and federal level easily eliminates disproportionality in disaster recovery in the short-term as it shifts the prioritization of who should receive the most aid. As seen from research and analysis, there are many ways in which disaster relief is disproportionately allocated, but all it takes is a simple, but widespread solution to combat the disproportionality. Nevertheless, we could always improve on our efforts in disaster relief with a more global mindset and combat it with a long-term solution. We could learn from how successful and equitable other countries have prevented disasters or recovered from their own disasters such as Japan. We could help developing countries in the same disaster recovery issue such as India and its caste discrimination in disaster relief or Puerto Rico’s struggling recovery as a low-valued US territory. Because of the increasing frequency of natural disasters across the world, those who recover the hardest need equitable disaster relief from our governments, both local and federal. So, with what every country knows about disaster recovery and equality for all, how can we ensure that it is possible? If climate change increases the occurrence of natural disasters, should we focus more on combatting global climate change?
Sources:
Howell, Junia, and James R. Elliott. “As Disaster Costs Rise, So Does Inequality.” Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, vol. 4, 2018, p. 237802311881679., doi:10.1177/2378023118816795.
Amid Climate Change, FEMA And Government Aid Widen Wealth Inequality : NPR
Improving the Disaster Recovery of Low-Income Families | Urban Institute
Whiter Communities Received More Federal Buyouts After Disasters : NPR
