LGBTQ People Are at Higher Risk in Disasters

A federal report about vulnerability focuses on historically disadvantaged people for the first time

An aerial view of flood waters from Hurricane Delta

An aerial view of flood waters from Hurricane Delta surrounding structures destroyed by Hurricane Laura on October 10, 2020 in Creole, Louisiana.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The Federal Emergency Management Agency warned yesterday that minorities; single parents; and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are “more likely than others to be severely impacted by disasters” and may need extra help.

FEMA’s annual National Preparedness Report, which historically has focused on threats including flooding, terrorism and the nation’s vulnerability, breaks precedent by drawing attention to classes of individuals who may lack the financial and social resources to withstand a disaster.

It’s the first time that the preparedness report, published annually since 2012, used the words “lesbian,” “gay,” “bisexual” and “transgender.” The report does not mention climate change.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


“There are individuals and families who are particularly vulnerable to disasters,” the report says. “Age, financial insecurity, pregnancy, and identification with a historically disadvantaged group—including minorities and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ+) community—are all factors that can increase vulnerability.”

The report notes that LGBTQ people “have historically been socially repressed and excluded.” Research has shown that after a disaster, LGBTQ people are more likely to be socially isolated and face disrespect or harassment in settings such as emergency shelters.

FEMA urges emergency managers to “plan for the whole community, including those with civil rights protections,” and to “quickly restore social safety nets after a disaster.”

Domestic violence and child abuse can increase after a disaster as programs and services are disrupted, the report says. Single-parent households, which account for 30% of U.S. households, face additional vulnerability after a disaster because they “tend to have lower socioeconomic status and fewer social support resources.”

One section of the report cites research showing that minorities, low-income households and less-educated people are far less likely than their counterparts to have internet access at home, which can be crucial after a disaster to find help. Just 56% of people with only a high school education have home broadband compared to 93% of people with a college degree.

Low-income people also often lack property insurance, which can be “cost-prohibitive” for them, the report says. FEMA says its own records show that low-income households are much less likely than higher-income households to have flood insurance, even though low-income households are “exactly the population that would benefit most from a post-disaster insurance payout.”

After major flooding, low-income households instead rely on FEMA disaster aid, which typically pays only a few thousand dollars, “so these individuals will likely fall further behind after a disaster,” FEMA said.

The preparedness report comes amid growing attention to the unequal effects of disasters and the disproportionate harm they inflict on people who are socially or financially marginalized. FEMA itself held a series of “civil rights summits” in recent months to address equity, accessibility and environmental justice in disasters.

FEMA’s preparedness report says nothing about climate change—an omission that in previous years has drawn rebuke from scientists and Democrats in Congress. In the Obama administration, FEMA used its annual National Preparedness Report to warn extensively about the dangers of climate change, but those warnings ceased during the Trump administration.

When FEMA Administrator Peter Gaynor was pressed at a recent congressional hearing about excluding climate change from the 2019 preparedness report, he said the report did not mention any specific hazard and was “more of a thought piece about what was important to the nation.”

The preparedness report, which federal law requires FEMA to issue annually, is intended to broadly describe the main threats and vulnerabilities and to help guide policy and funding decisions.

The 2020 report describes the nation’s threats and vulnerabilities in 2019 and thus does not mention COVID-19. Future preparedness reports “will prioritize pandemics,” the 2020 report says.

Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E&E News. E&E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe