Duration: 10/01/2011 to 09/30/2016

Administrative Advisor(s):

NIFA Reps:

Non-Technical Summary

Statement of Issues and Justification

The focus of NC 1030 has been on family firms and policy. Committee members have broken new ground in business research by demonstrating the role of interactions and exchanges of resources between firm, family and community. The team has conducted a panel study that enabled the tracking of businesses over a 10 year period. The results of this work has led to important understandings about the interaction of family and family firm, new insights into survival and demise of firms, and the development of the Sustainable Family Business Theory, based on systems theory. NC 1030 is ready to take another step in the development of family firm theory by studying the family and firm as they respond to non-normative disruptions such as natural disasters. These non-normative disruptions are usually significant events that originate outside the family and business system. Because these disrupting events are not usual and are external in origin, they disrupt the family, the firm and community simultaneously. Natural disasters afford an ideal laboratory for studying the impact of disruptions and consequently the adaptive strategies of family firms, their owning families and the communities in which they live and do business.


Family owned firms comprise the majority of firms in the United States (Heck & Stafford, 2001). The economy depends on them. Small firms represent 99.7% of all employer firms and employ more than half of all private sector employees. They have generated 64% of net new jobs over the past 15 years and over half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (Kobe, 2007).) Family owned firms have a disproportionate impact on the economy of the Midwest and South, especially in rural areas where most firms tend to be family operated in the agriculture and non agriculture sector. For the purposes of NC 1030, small firms are those with 200 or fewer employees. Small firms generally have a lower success rate than larger firms and are inherently riskier enterprises. Rural communities are more dependent on small enterprises than are urban communities, therefore ascertaining what is associated with family owned firm sustainability is particularly important for rural America and conversely, the well being of rural communities and their citizens is closely linked to the health of locally owned family firms. The challenge in rural areas is not convincing rural Americans to start firms, but understanding what helps to grow these firms and prevent business closures. On average these firms have a short life span and the majority are small or very small in size. Thus, it is vital to identify predictors of family firm survival and success and understand the role policy can play.


Understanding the successful survival of owning families and businesses is an important key to the successful survival of a community. One major weakness of previous research on survival and demise after natural disasters is that only survivors have been studied. It is also important to include owners of businesses that did not successfully survive in order to determine the factors that led to the demise of their businesses. In what ways were they less able to recover? Did they have barriers to recovery that were different than those of businesses that survived? Was the demise of their businesses a choice? What role did the family and community of the owner play in business survival and demise? Another major weakness of past research is that the owning family was left out of the survival equation, yet may play an important role that is not being considered in disaster recovery efforts and policy. Understanding survival and demise after a significant disrupting event such as a disaster is unique in that it stresses families, businesses and communities simultaneously. Simultaneous stress on systems the family firm habitually depends upon may be an important contributor to business demise. If that is the case, perhaps policy supporting family disaster recovery may be more important than policy supporting business recovery, or at least an important component of it.


Significant disruptions such as natural disasters offer an important opportunity to assess the role of policy in firm survival and demise and Hurricane Katrina has certainly pushed public policy disaster support to the forefront of controversy. Much attention has been focused on local evacuation orders, shelter conditions and other pre-hurricane preparations, timing and actions in New Orleans. Certainly community preparations and actions at the time of a crisis are important policy inputs and practical decisions that have impact on the survival of individuals, families and businesses in the community.


There are also important post-crisis policies that impact survival and demise such as provision of shelter and subsistence for individuals and families, emergency financial assistance to families and financial assistance to small businesses to enable them to bridge the gap between crisis and recovery. Both Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Small Business Administration (SBA) have been accused of significant failures in serving the victims of Katrina. It is important to understand where federal, state and local assistance can be most effective and how it can be managed in the best interests of recipients and with the greatest transparency and understanding of local conditions that impair the ability of people and businesses to respond to requirements in the wake of a disaster. After Katrina, for example, impacted residents and businesses were given extended time by the IRS to submit tax returns, yet they were held to unusually strict deadlines for submission of applications to SBA for assistance. In addition, post-crisis policies such as rezoning, lengthy multi-layered approval processes for community infrastructure repair and replacement, and changes in flood insurance eligibility zones may play a role in the ability of small businesses to recover after a crisis.


NC 1030 is well positioned to seek answers to some of the questions raised above. In the past, Regional Research Project NC 1030 has demonstrated the feasibility of finding and interviewing a random sample of family owned firms using a household sampling frame and obtaining a high response rate. NC 1030 also successfully interviewed a stratified random sample of 708 family firm owners. As Heck and Trent (1999) noted, the response rate was over 70%, even though the interviews were 45 minutes long. For 673 families, two interviews were obtained, one for the business owner and one for the household manager. That project also obtained a relatively large number of interviews from rural locations. NC 1030 also successfully re-interviewed participating business owning families in 2000 and 2007 (Winter, Danes, Koh, Fredericks & Paul, 2004; and Danes, Stafford, Haynes & Amarapurkar, 2009).). The 2007 data collection was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) for the purpose of understanding the impact of disasters on family firms. The group has recently received a second NSF grant to extend its work by collecting additional data. NC 1030 is now focusing on further testing the Sustainable Family Business Theory by studying family firms within the context of a disaster event that simultaneously stresses family, firm, and community.


Studies of business recovery from disaster have suffered from three key limitations. First, they have often focused on pre-disaster preparation (e.g. buying insurance, boarding up, evacuation planning) rather than on post-disaster factors. Few studies have assessed post-disaster problems such as loss of customers and suppliers, loss of business property including inventories, location decisions, cash flow problems, and loss of critical infrastructures. Second, prior research has focused on business characteristics and rarely included factors such as disaster impacts on the owners family and community, patterns of owner adjustment to disruption, owners assessment of the risks of business ownership, owners risk aversion and impacts of disaster relief. According to Alesch et al (2001), what happens after the disaster, including the decisions an owner makes at that time may well have more impact on survivability of the business than the preparations done in advance. Those decisions will clearly be impacted by a variety of factors including family matters, owner attachment to community, neighborhood and community infrastructure, customers and suppliers, and local government decisions. Third, previous studies have included almost no businesses that ultimately failed, but for the most part have studied survivors. Understanding what factors contribute most to demise of businesses after natural disasters can help fill key knowledge gaps for business owners, and increase the likelihood of longer survival for their businesses. This understanding needs to come from the owners of those demised businesses.


Another limitation of previous research is that community issues that impact business operation are not addressed. Loss of key resources such as utilities and roadways affects the ability of businesses to operate and generate revenue. However, the relative impact of community resources on business survival or demise, such as loss of utilities and other infrastructure, damage to residential structures, or community population return after evacuation has not been addressed in research. Other factors (such as the nature and degree of damage suffered by the business and its suppliers and customers; the length of time closed; the size, age and industry of the business; the nature of business pre-planning; what decisions had to be made post-disaster) have been sometimes shown to affect business recovery, but a series of studies reported by the University of Delaware Disaster Research Center demonstrate that survival factors dont come in a neat package that permits one to predict what business will or wont survive based only on business variables. While there are some general predictors such as business size, industry and length of time closed, there is still much to learn. The following areas are among those that have not been studied and deserve attention: owners family situation as a result of disaster, private and public disaster relief funding, owners resiliency and attachment to community, disaster impact on community infrastructure.


To date, the role family factors play in an owners business decisions post-disaster, has not been studied. In a study of reasons for small business discontinuation, Olson, Zuiker, Danes, Stafford, Heck & Duncan (2003) reported that business success was impacted more by family factors than the family was impacted by the business. Winter, Danes, Koh, Fredericks, & Paul (2004) reported that business discontinuation occurred not only because of failure of a business, but also because of positive and conscious choices on the part of owners. Clearly, family decisions have an impact on business continuity. This seems even more likely in a disaster situation when both family and business are under duress. Tatsuki and Hayashi (2002) showed that business owners who had damaged houses were the group most likely to display vulnerability after a disaster. In Hurricane Katrina, for example, 65,000 family residences were destroyed in Mississippi alone and 134,000 were damaged (Mississippi Governors Commission on Recovery&, 48). It seems intuitive that the impact on consumers and owners families would have a significant impact on businesses and perhaps have led to business demise that might otherwise not have occurred. Furthermore, disaster relief financial support is offered to family households as well as to business owners. Resolving residential damage and settling household financial matters may well contribute to the ability of an owner to remain in business. In order to examine this possibility, the NC 1030 project includes family and customer factors to a greater extent than seen in other research.


The support of family firms for their communities has been established by the work of Besser and the work of NC 1030. Both lines of work demonstrate that a normative partnership exists between firm and community. Bessers (1999) study of small town business owners found that the owners of older businesses and those with more employees were more likely to be committed, and provide leadership to the community. Further, the owners education and age were positively related to leadership. Owners were also more likely to demonstrate community commitment than business managers. In another study of small town business operators, Besser (1998) found operator education, business age, and collective community action to be significant predictors of community leadership. NC 1030 researchers have established that family businesses are not only engines of economic growth but they are also critical players in the social and political development of communities. One measure of the impact of family owned firms on the community is leadership the owners provide and the donation of time, goods, and services to local institutions. Nearly 75% said they volunteered at least 12 hours a month. In the National Family Business Study 2000 Panel, 41% of rural family firm owners had served in a community leadership position. Between 1997 and 2000, at least 65% of rural owners had contributed financial or technical assistance to community development efforts. In that same time interval, 91% provided donations to local schools and youth programs. These contributions on the part of family firms and their owners are an indication of connectedness to the community that increases the likelihood of post-disaster recovery and return to the community.


After significant events such as natural disasters, many people assume that government will come to the rescue. However, research demonstrates that civil society plays an important role in achieving disaster recovery. Where, civil society refers to organizations such as registered charities, development non-governmental organizations, community groups, women's organizations, faith-based organizations, and coalitions and advocacy groups according to the London School of Economics Centre for Civil Society.


Aldrich theorizes that communities and neighborhoods where residents are better connected will recover faster from disasters (2008). The normative ties of firm and community play a role in recovery and resiliency after a non-normative event that affected both firm and community. Aldrich cites examples of communities in Kobe, Japan where residents had strong networks of previous connections as well as friends and relatives and resources outside the community that increased their ability to recover and their resolve to remain in the community. Owner resiliency and owner attachment to community are two elements of civil society that have not been assessed at the individual business level to determine whether these owner assets result in greater likelihood of business survival or might influence decisions about continuing or relocating their businesses. If they do play a role in recovery from non-normative events such as disasters then resiliency and commitment can be enhanced in communities pre-disaster as a means of preparation. In addition, post-disaster recovery needs to capitalize on resiliency and attachment to community in ways not much utilized in the U.S. As Bill Stallworth (a city councilman in Biloxi, MS) pointed out in a recent interview, Governments do a lot of things sometimes well. They do streets, they do drainage, they may do some economic development. But they dont do people at all. And unfortunately, thats what needed to be done right after Katrina. (Elliott, NPR interview, downloaded 8-25-10). Resiliency and attachment to community are variables about people. Niehm, Swinney and Miller (2008) found that commitment to community significantly influenced business success in rural areas. Fitzgerald et al. (in press) demonstrated that firms contribute in their communities in significant ways and these contributions are influenced by the success of the firm and its owner.


In addition to family, business and community factors, disaster experiences and the post-disruption decisions of families are also important to businesses. Olson, et al. (2003) reported that for family businesses, how the owning families respond to disruptions had more impact on business income and perceived business success than did family resources, constraints and processes. Just as planning and preparation prior to a disaster is not enough to ensure survival, what happens to owners families after a disaster may not only contribute to income and perceived success of the business, but also to its survival or demise. Some possible influences on business survival and demise may include disaster impacts on family, family response to disruption, availability of alternative employment or income sources, use of disaster relief loan and grant programs, delays in insurance settlements and infrastructure repairs, household property damage, loss of property that is uninsured or underinsured, and loss of customers (neighboring families), loss of suppliers, etc. Turner, Lee, Gurenko, Itigen, Varghese & Walker (2008) reported that the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina demonstrated rising indebtedness and improved credit performance from 2005 to 2006. Lower income households exhibited greater increases in indebtedness than those with higher incomes, and homeowners and married couples demonstrated lower increases in indebtedness than renters and singles.


What makes for a resilient business? Successfully completing the proposed research will provide useful information on resiliency of family firm owners and their firms. This information will be useful for economic and community development officials, and policy makers. The results of this research will provide information to business-owning families that will enable them to improve their management practices and prepare for and respond to the unexpected. Results will also provide economic and community development officials with estimates of the impact of these businesses on their communities and will allow more effective assessment of the costs and benefits of proposed community actions. Policy makers will additionally gain estimates of the impact of a select set of policies on family firms and, indirectly, on communities and economies. The current objectives, in particular, address the management practices of disaster preparation, response and recovery and the policy impacts of federal disaster relief funding, SBA disaster loans, and local community decisions such as rezoning and infrastructure rebuilding.


The objectives of this five year plan of work for NC 1030 are focused on examining small and family business survival and demise in the context of a major disruptive event (natural disaster) in their individual histories. The systems based approach requires a comprehensive look at the family, business and community.

Related, Current and Previous Work

This section reports work on the impact of external disruptions such as disasters on family firms and the role of policy in enabling firm and family recovery. Several state CRIS research projects deal with disasters (all NC 1030 state projects) and one in particular is focused on measuring family resiliency from disasters (LA). The NC 1030 project is more comprehensive than the LA state project and is guided by Sustainable Family Business Model (SFBM) (Stafford, Duncan, Danes & Winter 1999; Danes & Stafford 2008; Danes, Lee, Stafford & Heck 2008). The SFBM draws from family systems theory and behavioral theories of firm management, giving equal recognition to family and business and to the interplay between them in achieving mutual sustainability (Stafford, et al., 1999). In contrast to traditional models of firm and entrepreneurial success (Cramton, 1993), the SFBM locates entrepreneurship within the social context of family. The Louisiana project does not focus on firm sustainability and uses a different framework. (Appendix A)

The SFBM posits that different processes occur in each system during times of stability and change (Danes, Rueter, Kwon & Doherty, 2002; Stewart & Danes, 2001). Modified patterns of interaction are needed for family firms to remain healthy when responding to chronic, normal and acute disruptions in either the family or firm. In response to change, modified patterns of interpersonal and resource interactions are adjusted at the interface of family and firm to sustain the family and firm (Danes, 1999; Danes et al., 2002) in the context of the communities in which they live and operate. The SFBM recognizes an organizational behavior premise that one explanation for the birth, growth, and death of businesses is the community in which they reside (Tigges & Green, 1994). Families, businesses, and communities exchange resources regularly, thus what happens to one affects what happens in the others. Understanding community vulnerability contributes to understanding the success of families and businesses within. Socio-economic vulnerability is the extent to which the economic or social structure of a geographic area is likely to be severely disrupted by the impact of a crisis or disastrous event (Haynes, Muske, Fitzgerald, & Fong, 2005). Such understanding is a strength of NC 1030. The team has developed the county-level Economic Vulnerability Index (EVI) which measures social and economic vulnerability using 18 indicators (Haynes et al, 2005) with foundation variables of rate of county growth in total earnings (economic) and rate of total population change (social).

Family business sustainability: The only CRIS reported project addressing family firm sustainability is NC 1030. Success and survival are distinct components of business performance and predictors are not necessarily the same. Research exists on how family businesses need to operate for long-term survival, performance, growth, and success (e.g., Bates, 1990; Davidsson, 1991; Hall, 1991; Kalleberg & Leicht, 1991; Korsching & Allen, 2004; Olson, et al, 2003; Sharfman & Dean, 1991; Siegel, Siegel & Macmillan, 1993). Typical objective indicators are gross revenue, survival, return on assets, growth in sales, profits, and number of employees (Miner, 1997). While the majority of firm studies utilize objective performance measures, a number incorporate subjective measures examining the non-economic dimensions of firm performance that complement the use of financial data (Kotey, 1997). Subjective, non-pecuniary measures of firm success provide more insights into the owners commitment to the firm, and take into account customer satisfaction, personal development, and a sense of personal achievement (Rosenblatt, de Mik, Anderson & Johnson, 1985; Stanforth & Muske, 2001).

Small business demise is often attributed to poor business management, but personal and family reasons account for 69% of business closures. Many small businesses survive because the family works without pay or uses family assets to secure a loan. Olson et al. (2003) found that how the family managed the interface with the business accounted for 22% of the variance in business gross revenues and 33% of the variance in perceived business success. Firm income, profitability, growth, and survival have been linked to certain owner and family characteristics. Education, managerial skills and experience, and to some extent male gender, have been found to increase earnings (Rowe, Haynes & Bentley, 1993). The owner's age, lack of experience, and management skills decreased firm success (Hoy & Verser, 1994; Olson et al., 2003). Firm success increases when family members help in the firm and provide emotional support to the owner (Danes & Lee, 2004; Danes & Morgan, 2004; Green & Pryde, 1989). Success is negatively affected by heavy family demands and goal conflict between family members (Danes, Haberman, & McTavish, 2005), and by tension levels within the firm (Amarapurkar & Danes, 2005; Danes & Olson, 2003; Danes, Zuiker, Arbuthnot & Kean, 1999). Family dynamics influenced family firm success perceptions (Masuo, Fong, Yanagida & Cabal, 2001), and higher levels of family functionality are positively linked to firm success (Duncan, Stafford & Zuiker, 2003). Clearly, family response can have an impact on gross revenues and perceived firm success (Olson et al., 2003).

Demise of businesses can be due to personal and family reasons and life events, but the other 31% of demise lies in the business and the community. One important reason for demise may be attributed to unexpected disruptions such as disasters which influence the ability of the business to survive. These include extended closures that impact business cash flow, displacement of customers, loss of suppliers, disruption of infrastructure such as roads leading to the business, and temporary or permanent loss of employees (Dennis, 2004). Problems are compounded when the firm, its owning and employee families suffer physical damage. It is important to understand why some businesses survive, yet others cease operations. More than 30% of businesses experience a closure of at least 24 hours following a natural disaster and this directly affects them, primarily due to loss of sales and cash flow (Dennis, 2004). According to Dennis, the SBA Office of Disaster Assistance told him that as many as 40% of small businesses hit by natural disasters do not recover (the 40% number may or may not account for family and personal factors). His study does not include interviews with business owners whose businesses did not survive. The story of the survivors likely differs in some key ways from that of the non-survivors. No research has explored that possibility.

Responses of family businesses to disruptions. NC 1030 past and current work does offer some insight into business response to disruptions. That a capacity for resilience against disruptions can be built in both the family and the business systems has been established. Capacity created in the family system is permeable and is transmitted to the business system. As portrayed in the SFBM, resilience is the ability of the family business to adjust resource and interpersonal processes to internal and external disruptions (Stafford et al., 1999). The capacity for resilience is a reservoir of individual and family resources that cushion the family business against disruptions and is characterized by individual and collective creativity used to solve problems and get work done (Conner, 1992; Danes, 1999, 2006). If families have built a capacity for resilience, when they encounter a disaster or acute disruption the store of trust and creativity in problem solving can be tapped in the new situation.

Three processes contribute to resilience capacity in family businesses: family functionality, cognitive predisposition for scheduling congruity, and pattern of adjusting to disruptions. Family functionality represents the stability of the family and is measured by a Family APGAR which has five components: adaptation, partnership, growth, affection, and resolve (Smilkstein, 1978; Smilkstein, Ashworth, & Montano, 1982). APGAR was developed to assess the capacity of a family to respond to a health emergency and help take care of a family member. It has been found to distinguish between families that hold together and families that fall apart (Sawin & Harrigan, 1995).

The cognitive predisposition for scheduling congruity represents knowledge family members have about decision making and activity coordination (Avery & Stafford, 1991; Stafford & Avery, 1993). It measures the extent to which different schedules pursued by a family, both individually and collectively, fit together harmoniously, appropriately and agreeably into group knowledge and action (Stafford and Avery, 1993). Lack of congruity undermines efficiency, reduces cooperation, and decreases resilience.

The use of adjustment behaviors during normal but hectic times creates a resilience capacity that kicks in automatically when encountering a disaster or other acute disruption. Responses to disruptions are changes made in one system (business or family) to accommodate needs of the other when unusually heavy demands exist. Five adjustment types occur at the family-business intersection: (a) personal time reallocation, (b) obtaining additional help, (c) adjusting family resources, (d) adjusting business resources, and (e) intertwining tasks (Fitzgerald, Winter, Miller, & Paul, 2001; Miller, Fitzgerald, Winter, & Paul, 1999; Miller, Winter, Fitzgerald, & Paul, 2000). Variables found to influence adjustments during hectic times were family and business size, number of roles the manager was fulfilling in the family and the business, the age and education of the family and business managers, family income, whether the business was home-based, and whether the family was entrepreneurial. Financial adjustments are also made. Intermingling of family and firm finances is another adjustment strategy building resilience capacity. Haynes et al. (1999) found that two-thirds of family firms intermingled household and firm finances, indicating that finances are intertwined. In times of crisis that impact both family and firm, intermingling may not be a feasible strategy and may interfere with ability to get disaster relief loans. All research on family business use of family adjustment strategies has been based on NC1030 data, primarily because it is the first large-scale study to measure the family-business overlap of resources using interval variables (Haynes, Walker, Rowe & Hong, 2000; Winter, Fitzgerald, Heck, Haynes, & Danes, 1998).

Sustainability in times of disruption. The body of work on effects of natural disaster on people is primarily conducted by sociologists. Natural disasters also offer opportunity to study impact of disruptions on family firms. A National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) study found that at least 30% of businesses had closed for at least 24 hours in the previous three years because of a natural disaster. Only 38% had emergency preparedness plans and most of them had not communicated plans to employees. The NFIB survey reported that 62% of those struck by a natural disaster reported their biggest problem was the loss of sales and customers (Dennis, 2004). Uninsured losses were the biggest problem for only 18% of the survivors (Dennis, 2004). These figures indicate that unexpected temporary closures contribute to business demise, but so does lack of insurance coverage and the impact on the businesss customers.

The relative impact of community resources on business survival or demise, such as loss of utilities and infrastructure, damage to residential structures, or community population return rates has not been addressed in research. Some factors (such as the nature and degree of damage suffered by the business and its suppliers and customers; the length of time closed; the size, age and industry of the business; the nature of business pre-planning; what decisions had to be made post-disaster) have been sometimes shown to affect business recovery. Studies reported by the University of Delaware Disaster Research Center (UDDRC) demonstrate that survival factors dont come in a neat package that permits one to predict what business will or wont survive based on business variables. What is a lethal dose of exposure to disaster to one business may not be lethal for another. There is much to learn by looking outside the business at owner-family situation as a result of disaster, private and public disaster relief funding, owner resiliency, pre and post-disaster business decisions, attachment to community, community involvement (aka civil society) and disaster impact on community infrastructure.

While most business research after disasters has focused on economic consequences at broad levels of aggregation (Tierney, Nigg & Dahlhamer, 1996), a small body of research exists on individual responses has been conducted in urban disaster locations with small cross sectional convenience samples. It has been difficult to explain distinguish routine failures from failures due to the disaster, to distinguish between normal business patterns and disaster business patterns. Studying businesses at one point in time potentially has presented a distorted picture, since businesses may fail at a later date; economic cycles and increased indebtedness after the disaster can influence success and failure over the long-term (Tierney, 1997) and demised businesses have not been studied.

Significant business predictors of disaster recovery have been identified. Dahlhamer (1998) and Webb et al. (2000) reported that business size was the best predictor of recovery. The more business disruptions reported by a firm, the less likely they were to recover (serial disaster). Some types of businesses, such as construction firms, actually gained from disasters. Firms that were marginally surviving before the disaster were less likely to recover. Dahlhamer (1998) concluded that recovery of a particular firm depended mainly on how neighborhoods, critical infrastructure, and the greater community were affected by the disaster rather than on direct physical damage to the business facility. These studies did not include family or community variables.

Family firm capacity to respond to disruptive events can be built by crisis planning and implementing mitigation strategies (Alesch et al., 2001). However, the typical business does little preparation for disaster (Webb et al., 2000; Drabek, 1994). Businesses were most likely to implement mitigation strategies that were inexpensive, simple and protected against a range of disasters. Businesses were more likely to implement strategies with the goal of improving human survival and safety rather than the goal of ensuring business continuity. UDDRC studies indicated that business disaster preparedness actions did not aid recovery (Webb et al., 2000).

To date, the role family factors and civil society play in an owners business decisions post-disaster, has been under studied. In a study of reasons for small business discontinuation, Olson, et al. (2003) reported that business success was impacted more by family factors than the family was impacted by the business. Winter, Danes, Koh, Fredericks, & Paul (2004) reported that business discontinuation occurred not only because of failure of a business, but also because of positive and conscious choices on the part of owners. Clearly, family decisions and life events have an impact on business continuity. This seems even more likely in a disaster situation when both family and business are under duress. Tatsuki and Hayashi (2002) showed that business owners who had damaged houses were the group most likely to display vulnerability after a disaster. The impact on consumers and owners families would have a significant impact on businesses and perhaps have led to business demise. Post-earthquake research in Japan indicates that civil society connections are crucial to community recovery. Aldrich reports that communities and neighborhoods where residents are better connected seem to recover faster (2008) and this is supported by data from the Kobe earthquake. The degree to which business owners are attached to their communities may be a significant determinant of their desire to return to the community after a major disruption. Natives may be more likely to return than transplants. Owners who have family members in the area and those who believe their community has been a supporter of their businesses, or have been actively involved in the community are more likely to return to the community to live and work. Owner resiliency and owner attachment to community are two elements of civil society that have not been assessed at the individual business level to determine whether these owner assets result in greater likelihood of business survival or influence decisions about continuing or relocating their firms.

Disaster experiences and the post-disruption decisions of families are also important to firm continuance. Olson, et al reported that for family firms, how owning families respond to disruptions had more impact on business income and perceived business success than did family resources, constraints and processes (2003). Just as planning and preparation prior to a disaster is not enough to ensure survival, what happens to owners families after a disaster may not only contribute to income and perceived success of the business, but also to its survival or demise.

Changes in the overall economic health of a region before and after a natural disaster are likely to influence both recovery and new starts, and can be an indicator of recovery through employment data. Since Katrina, the poverty rate in Mississippi has grown higher, placing the state at the top of the list. Turner et al. (2008) reported that the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina demonstrated rising indebtedness from 2005 to 2006. Lower income households exhibited greater increases in indebtedness than those with higher incomes, and homeowners and married couples demonstrated lower increases in indebtedness than renters and singles. Regardless of the cause, these numbers suggest that workers are unemployed or underemployed and small businesses are not functioning to generate as many jobs as before the disaster.

An important consideration in the study of family and business recovery is the availability and use of various resources in recovery. Post Katrina funding through the SBA was an exceptionally lengthy and frustrating (some would say arbitrary) process. With an all time high number of loans not approved, and a high number of complaints, the landscape of recovery funding has changed. Disaster relief aid and funding is normally assumed to be a positive and essential factor in recovery. Red Cross disaster assistance and FEMA provide financial assistance and direct services to individuals and households who have disaster related needs and are unable to meet those expenses through other means (FEMA, 2005). FEMA and Red Cross assistance to individuals and families may discourage employees from returning to work soon enough to benefit businesses, if at all. SBA disaster relief is reported to be of value to homeowners and renters to cover uninsured or underinsured property losses, but evidence suggests receiving loans may do more harm than good for businesses if the loan increases the debt load or limits flexibility (Alesch, Holly, Mittler & Nagy, 2001). UDDRC studies reinforce these conclusions (e.g., Dahlhamer & Reshaur, 1996; Tierney & Dahlhamer, 1997; Nigg, 1995; Webb, Tierney & Dahlhamer, 1999; Webb, Tierney and Dahlhamer, 2000). A comprehensive look at the disaster relief resources used by small businesses in post-disaster situations has not been reported.

The majority of business disaster studies have typically not been large scale, comprehensive, or longitudinal. In an anecdotal study of over 100 businesses after a variety of disasters, Alesch et al. (2001) reported that business recovery from disaster is a clearly a process, rather than an event. They note that examining recovered businesses at a single point in time is insufficient to capture the recovery process, or to examine the decisions made by their owners. The continually changing environment (e.g. infrastructure recovery, evacuee returns, rezoning decisions, financial changes, family matters) in which those decisions are made continues to influence survival or demise for long periods post-disaster. Webb and colleagues characterized short-term and long-term survival, but their study was not longitudinal (Webb, et al, 1999a). Alesch & Holly (1999) re-interviewed respondents at various points in time and used pooled time series strategies to reach conclusions about changes over time. Within the study, a group of 40 Northridge businesses were studied repeatedly over a five-year period. Alesch et al. (2001) did not locate owners of defunct businesses, but followed survivors long enough to determine what happened to their businesses. In order to develop greater understanding of the impact of disasters in the business community, longitudinal (rather than cross-sectional) study of businesses post-disaster is important (Webb et al, 1999).

To date, studies of business recovery from disaster have suffered from five key limitations. First, they have often focused on pre-disaster preparation (e.g. buying insurance, boarding up, evacuation planning) rather than on post-disaster factors. Few studies have assessed post-disaster problems such as loss of customers and suppliers, loss of business property including inventories, location decisions, and cash flow problems. Second, prior research has focused on business characteristics and rarely included factors such as the owners family and community, patterns of owner adjustment to disruption, owners assessment of the risks of business ownership, owners resiliency, attachment to community, owners risk aversion nor impacts of disaster relief or relief funding. According to Alesch et al. (2001), what happens after the disaster, including the decisions an owner makes at that time may well have more impact on survivability of the business than the preparations done in advance. Those decisions will clearly be impacted by a variety of factors including family matters, owner attachment to community, neighborhood and community infrastructure, customers and suppliers, and local government decisions. Third, previous studies have included very small numbers of businesses that ultimately failed, and for the most part have studied survivors. Disaster studies have been reported on convenience samples of owners who could be found. Fourth, only one prior research project has tracked businesses over time. Fifth, previous studies have not been comprehensive enough to consider the exchange of resources that takes place between family, business and community. And sixth, little is said about public policy impacts such as disaster relief funding, zoning changes, bureaucratic delays, and other factors outside the family and business systems.

Objectives

1. Determine the factors that contributed to sustainability of small businesses.
   
2. Assess the effects of management of change, risk and uncertainty by families and firms on family business sustainability.
   
3. Determine the factors that contributed to sustainability of small businesses after disruptions. a. Analyze the impact of disruptions on family business sustainability. b. Analyze the role of family, business and community in small business sustainability after disruptions. c. Assess the impact of public policy and practice on small business sustainability after disruptions.
   

Methods

NC 1030 has created a panel study of family business owners and interviewed them in 1997, 2000 and 2007. The Sustainable Family Business Model (SFBM) has been developed and guides the research. The group has gathered data on families, their firms and the interaction between them. This data has included information on finances and other resources, constraints and actions taken by family and firm in response to disruptions. An assumption of SFBM is that change happens, and family and firm interact to adjust to change and to ensure sustainability and success of both family and firm. Our focus on disrupting events to date has been on life events. Recently, the group has begun to study the family business in the context of external disruptions that not easily planned for, including regulatory change (e.g. tobacco buyout) and significant disruptions such as natural disasters. The NC 1030 group has been awarded two NSF grants to support this work. This section describes three efforts focused on family businesses and their owning families in the context of community and under the condition of various kinds of disruption. The methods reviewed in this proposal are dependent upon previous data collection efforts and a new data collection effort sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF). Objective 1 will be addressed by utilizing data from the three waves of the National Family Business Survey (NFBS) collected in 1997, 2000 and 2007. Both cross-sectional and panel studies will further examine business, family and community factors impacting the sustainability of small businesses. Objective 2 will be addressed by utilizing changes in family, business and community variables in three waves of the NFBS, other data from the Kentucky tobacco farmer buyout and new NSF project data, where additional questions on the response to change and measure of risk tolerance after a major disruption are introduced. The panel studies will further examine changes in the sustainability of family businesses from 1997 through 2007. Objective 3 will be addressed by utilizing the disaster data collected in wave three of the NFBS the new data collection effort sponsored by NSF. The new project allows the team to carefully examine simultaneous disruptions to the family, business and community and assess public policy response at the family business level. Study 1-Continuation of previous work. The research team continues to examine the impact of selected life events and public programs and policies on family businesses. We examine how these life events and policy changes influence the contributions of the family and business to the community and to the success of the business and family. Life events include marriage, divorce, birth, deaths and migrations. The data were collected in 1997 and 2000 by means of panel studies. The methods used in this work were described and approved in the 2006 proposal for NC 1030. Expansion of previous work, Study 2: National Panel Study, 2007. The team is now collecting data on families and firms in the context of external events and policy changes. External events or disruptions might include bank failures, changes in the community such as infrastructure (e.g. road construction, rezoning), fires and floods, and natural disasters. Public policy includes regulatory changes such as those resulting in the tobacco buyout, and federal disaster funding and relief support. In studies 2 and 3, we focus on the latter disruption ( NC 1030 members are also examining tobacco buyout data). Our NSF funding for two major studies of family firms in the context of community supports the work. These are described below. [NSF Award # 0625326, Family Business Response to Federal Disaster Assistance, National Science Foundation, CMMI, Infrastructure Management & Extreme Events, start date 2006, $272,587. PIs: Sharon Danes, University of Minnesota; George Haynes, Montana State University and Kay Stafford, The Ohio State University.] The detailed methods approved by NSF for this study can be found in Appendix B, what follows is a brief synopsis. A third set of interviews was conducted with the original 708 families from 1997 and 2007 panel data. Firm owners were interviewed in 2007 and asked about their experience with external disruption, specifically natural disasters. A questionnaire including comprehensive questions on survival, success, federal disaster assistance, consequences of the disaster, the owners decisions and responses to disasters, and mitigation practices was administered. The survey repeated questions about business survival and success from the 1997 and 2000 surveys. The 2007 panel data has been collected and publications are in process. Two sources of existing data were used and a third was collected. The first, SHELDUS, contains county-level natural disaster data. The second, the 1997 and 2000 surveys, provides baseline business data. Supplemental data was collected in 2007 to update business outcome measures and expand our previous measures of disruption to include external disruption, i.e., natural disasters. We measured direct disaster assistance to the family businesses and their responses to those disasters. We used SHELDUS to determine a county level disaster exposure score for each business. SHELDUS county level disaster data for 1997-1998 was merged with our 2007 panel using FIPS codes. Our own county level economic vulnerability (EVI) data were also merged with panel data, creating a completed merged panel survey for family and firm sustainability in the context of life events and external events. Sustainability. Study two assesses the effects of county-wide federal disaster assistance on family businesses using the panel data. It is expected that businesses in counties receiving larger amounts of federal disaster assistance per capita will have a higher probability of surviving and be more successful than family businesses in counties receiving smaller amounts of federal disaster assistance per capita. Resilience capacity is expected to have a significant set of effects on survival and success of family businesses. A significant interaction between federal disaster assistance and resilience capacity is also expected. The dependent variables measure the survival and success of the business over time. The survival measure utilizes questions from the 2000 NSBF and 2007 data to determine if the business survived from 1997 to 2000 and to 2007. We also asked questions about if and why a firm closed. The success measures capture objective and subjective changes in the firm between 1996 and 2006. The objective measures include changes in gross revenue and net profits, where these measures indicate whether gross revenue and profits increased, stayed the same or decreased over this time period. The subjective measure indicates changes in how successful firms have been in achieving their long-range goals. Data will determine whether firm survival and success are positively correlated with county federal disaster assistance and resilience capacity. They will also indicate whether resilient family businesses receiving indirect federal disaster assistance (paid to the county) are more likely to survive and succeed than other businesses. Policy impacts. The study assesses the effects of direct federal disaster assistance to the business and indirect assistance reported for the county. It is expected that businesses receiving cash as federal disaster assistance will be more likely to survive and be more successful than businesses not receiving disaster assistance. It is expected that family businesses receiving loans as disaster assistance will be less likely to survive and less successful than family businesses not receiving disaster loans. Direct assistance will be associated with business survival, indirect assistance will not. Variables. Statistical model variables are described in the methods included in Appendix B. Number of employees, business assets and business age are important control variables to mitigate the attrition effect when using panel data. Controlling for such variables as baseline firm financial data prior to the disaster, county vulnerability (EVI), and way of life (WOL) helps distinguish between normal closure and those resulting from disaster exposure. Attrition is a concern when collecting longitudinal panel data although less so in this study because the study uses data on both business closures and continuing businesses in analyzing business survival. Attrition is also less of a concern because of prior respondent cooperation in the 1997 and 2000 interviews. When the business owners were re-contacted for the 2000 interviews, the attrition rate was 21.8%. If that rate were to continue to the 2007 interviews, there would still be sufficient observations to conduct analyses necessary to meet the proposed objectives. Study 3: Single Disaster Study [NSF Award # 0856221, Small Business Demise and Recovery after a Natural Disaster. National Science Foundation, CMMI Directorate, Infrastructure Management & Extreme Events Program. Start date, 2009. $417,583. PIs: Maria Marshall & Holly Schrank, Purdue University.] A limitation of the Sustainable Family Business Model (SFBM) has been that we have not had the opportunity to study how the family, business and community systems exchange resources as a result of a simultaneous disruption of more than one system. Disruptions such as natural disasters happen to family, business and community systems simultaneously, and using a natural disaster as the external disruption in this study affords a unique opportunity. In order to maximize the number of small businesses exposed to a disruption such as a natural disaster, we have identified a population of businesses that experienced the same disaster and will interview business owners whose businesses survived the disruption as well as owners of non-surviving businesses. We will also address the issue of business survival in a comprehensive manner by incorporating family issues and owner risk-related characteristics and community variables into the study. The NSF study described above will provide data on the prevalence and impact of disasters on small businesses because the data can be generalized across disasters and is representative of the countrys population. However, it can be very helpful to understanding impacts or disruptions and to test our SFBM to utilize a laboratory such as the region impacted by Hurricane Katrina in order to maximize the number of people and small businesses impacted by the same disruption. This geographic focus is empirically useful to assess the dose of impact received by large numbers of families and firms exposed to a single natural disaster and to further define the variables and questions we should be asking in future studies. Study 3 has been designed for these purposes, detail of the methods to be used and the justification for them that was approved by NSF for this study are included in Appendix C. We have chosen to focus our single disaster study on southern Mississippi for a variety of reasons. This state can serve as a proxy for many others that may be affected by widespread disasters such as floods. Van der Vink et al (1998) pointed out that more and more people are concentrated along the nations coasts where loss of life and property from these disasters are greatest. Mississippi is representative of disaster prone areas of the United States in some important ways. The Gulf Coast is an important tourist area but also includes a variety of industries ranging from agricultural production to oil production to space related companies to military installations to forestry. While diversity of economic base is normally considered to be a buffer against hard times, when it comes to disasters, there are few types of businesses that weather the storm better than others. Many states are increasingly vulnerable to disasters because of population increases and business growth. In Mississippi, for example, between 1960 and 2008 the population of the coastal counties along the Gulf of Mexico increased 150% (U.S. Bureau of Census, 2010). Small businesses of 20 employees or less accounted for 82% of all businesses in the state in 2002 (Mississippi Governors Commission on Recovery&, 92). SBA statistics (www.sba.gov/advo/research/st_o4.pdf) show that the number of small businesses in Mississippi increased by 1.08% from 1990 to 2004. The growth of small businesses with employees was strong in Mississippi prior to Hurricane Katrina. And further, estimates based on chamber of commerce surveys in southern Mississippi indicated that nearly half of the regions businesses were impacted by Katrina, and 20% remained closed as of November of 2005 (ibid, 92). Over 95% of the coastal population of Mississippi was directly impacted by Katrinas surge. This state provides the laboratory needed for our study. The selected study area within Mississippi is its three Gulf Coast counties (Hancock, Harrison & Jackson) and two tiers of their immediate northern counties (Pearl River, Stone, George, Perry, Greene, and Forrest and Lamar. The ten county area includes 5,843 square miles (U.S. Bureau of Census 2006) affected by a single natural disaster. Stone, George, Perry, Green and rural Lamar counties are agricultural and have a concentration of timber land and timber related businesses. Hancock, Harrison and Jackson counties were chosen based on FEMA maps that demonstrate that these three counties suffered a multiple types and degrees of damage from Hurricane Katrina. The counties include two SMSAs, one north and one south. This range of nature and degree affords opportunity to assess dose and to refine the concept. Not all Katrina victims experienced the same dose, nor even the same medicine, therefore it is useful to determine whether barriers and facilitators to recovery are different for different types (e.g. surge, flood, wind) and degrees of damage (minor to catastrophic) as well as for different industries, business sizes, and locations. With use of FEMA data, damage in the three coastal counties can be objectively assessed even five years after the event. Selection of a geographic area in a single state minimizes the political and policy issues that could influence results in a multi-state study, and it also makes location of owners of unrecovered businesses more feasible. The ten counties chosen for this study afford a mix of rural and SMA and coastal and non-coastal areas, and are representative of many other vulnerable coastal areas of the country. Selection of the non-coastal counties north of the three most damaged will aid in selection of controls for the sampling design for phase two and also increases the non-metropolitan area to provide a mix of urban and rural businesses. The following section details the phases of the proposed study and the methods to be employed in each phase. The methods of studying families and firms after a significant disruption such as a natural disaster are much the same as the methods that would normally be used. However, these methods are adapted to the context of a disaster (Stallings 2002). These methodological adjustments relate to how we obtain our subjects after a disaster and how and when they are contacted. A key portion of this study is to pilot new methods of finding and locating subjects to be interviewed. We will identify a sample of small and family businesses with 200 or fewer employees who were operating prior to a natural event and individually locate them post-event. These businesses should include not only those pre-event businesses that are still operating at the present time, but those that are no longer operating. Detail of how we plan to locate these businesses can be found in Appendix C. A carefully designed sampling strategy is necessary for study of small business demise or recovery from natural disaster. A final sample of 1400 respondents will be randomly selected for focused telephone interviews. Subject contact information will be provided to the University of Wisconsin Survey Center which is sub-contracted to conduct a 30 minute telephone interview with the 1400 business owners. The screener will ask all subjects demographic questions about their businesses as needed to obtain information beyond what is included in the initial mailing list data, or to confirm it. It will be especially important to confirm business ownership, name and location since some may have relocated or changed hands post-disaster as part of their recovery strategy. The bulk of data collection will be focused on the preparation, mitigation, response and recovery actions of families and businesses. We are particularly interested in family impacts, utility and infrastructure restoration, disaster relief support sources used, insurance coverage and settlements, community decisions (e.g. rezoning), availability of help needed for reopening, and loss of suppliers. We will also assess owner resiliency, how the owners typically adjust to change, and examine the owners comfort with risk. We also plan to characterize the dosage of disruption experienced by each firm and its owning family. Geo-coded 2004 business locations of these businesses will be matched to the geo-coded damage assessments provided by FEMA for Hancock, Harrison and Jackson Counties (FEMA 2005), and each business will be assigned scores for nature of damage and degree of damage. These maps will provide an objective measure of the nature and damage suffered by each business as well as by its surrounding neighbors. Variables also include family and community variables since small businesses are closely tied to both. Owners will be asked to characterize their family pre- and post-disaster, especially to determine what family challenges may have impacted their business decisions. Examples of variables include: business demographics (pre- and post-disaster, business decisions made (pre- and post-disaster actions), business locations, disaster impacts on business and family, business adjustment strategies, family demographics, family/owner resiliency (family functionality, scheduling congruity, pattern of adjustment to disruption), disaster damage (nature and degree of damage to business and family residence), owner risk position (owners risk assessment, risk aversion, business risk partnerships such as insurance coverage, pre-disaster preparation strategies, location risk), type of disaster relief received by business and family, nature, type and duration of community infrastructure losses that impacted business reopening, and civil society measures such as owner attachment to community. Additional measures of owner resiliency, business resiliency and business adjustment strategies will be used. We also plan to include measures of the owner and family involvement in and attachment to community. The interview data will be supplemented with business data from the initial mailing lists (e.g. 2004 income data), from FEMA damage assessment maps, and with federal and state disaster aid data included in the SHELDUS data base. We will utilize the Mississippi data pertaining to Hurricane Katrina for the ten counties included in this study. Loss totals will be based on SHELDUS records. However, loss totals will be under-reported (e.g. Hurricane Katrina) due to lack of information in the data sources from which SHELDUS data are compiled. This data will help to provide a picture of impact on the community and will be supplemented with direct questions to business owners regarding disaster funding sources they utilized as a result of Katrina (Hazards & Vulnerability Research Institute, 2007 We also plan to request annual commercial credit score data for each business from the SBA. One year after the interviews, the owners will be contacted for a brief follow-up on the operating status of their businesses. The purpose of these contacts will be to determine the current status of the business and to update information. This phase will enable the researchers to track businesses over a period that will end approximately seven years after the initial event that occurred in August, 2005. This will provide view of the process of recovery from disruption over a seven year period and also allow us to identify and analyze businesses that initially recovered and later failed.

Measurement of Progress and Results

Outputs

• The third wave of survey data focused on major disruptions. This dataset provides data to assess how families and businesses are impacted by disruptions and whether federal disaster policy is increasing businesses survival.
• By combining the third wave of data to our existing two waves we will provide a panel dataset focused on sustainable family businesses.
• A new data set focused on small business recovery and demise resulting from an NSF funded project will be available for analysis by the NC1030 group.

Outcomes or Projected Impacts

• The panel data has established the national prevalence of family businesses affected by natural disasters and begun to address the utility of federal disaster funding in the sustainability of small businesses in disaster-declared areas.
• The new small business demise and recovery data will provide new perspectives on federal disaster policy and support for small businesses and their owning families.
• Results will provide considerable insight into survival because it enables comparisons of survivors and non-survivors and understanding of why some businesses met demise after a disaster and why others did not. Previous work on disaster survivors has not included non-survivors so we know little about how survivors and non-survivors differ.
• We will be able to characterize what factors contributed to survival and what contributed to demise. These new characterizations have the potential to change the preparation, mitigation, response and recovery actions of business owners since the new data may well show that some of the currently recommended actions are not productive or are counter-productive with respect to survival.

Milestones

(2011): Panel data collection has been completed and is currently being analyzed for publication. Initial results of this work will be coming out in refereed research journals in the near future.

(2011): The second NSF study is currently in process and we are testing our proposed method of identifying and locating business owners whose businesses did not survive a natural disaster.

(2012): The entire NC 1030 membership will have access to the data to begin extended analysis.

Projected Participation

View Appendix E: Participation

Outreach Plan

The project will have diverse outreach outlets that reflect the diversity of the NC 1030 membership. Research findings will be shared through scholarly publications in research journals that span disciplines. Examples of research journals that would publish the subject matter of the proposal are the Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Family Business Review, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Journal of Agribusiness, Journal of Small Business Management, and Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management. Research findings will also be published in the Journal of Extension to reach a different audience that can be reached through academic journals. Research findings will be presented at national and international conferences.

The results of this study are likely to offer considerable information on family and businesses that will be useful for policymakers, small businesses, and educators. To disseminate research findings beyond academic audiences, materials will be posted in appropriate eXtensions communities of practices such as Entrepreneurs and Their Communities. For example, better understanding of how small businesses plan, endure, and recover from unexpected events has implications for agencies such as Federal Emergency Management Agency and Small Business Administration. What we learn will be communicated to these agencies as well as to local communities through such means as informational web sites, news releases, and publication published by professional organizations such as Choices published by the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

Several members of NC 1030 have Extension appointments. Therefore, we anticipate that workshops and presentations for small business owners and policy makers will be developed and conducted. These workshops may be conducted via distance using Adobe Connect technology to reach a national audience and in person to reach local audiences. Outreach for public officials and small business owners might include interactive web sites that can be accessed through multiple technologies.

Organization/Governance

Executive Committee: The technical committee retains all powers except those specifically delegated to a subcommittee. The officers of the technical committee shall constitute the executive committee. There shall be a chair, a secretary, and a member at-large, one of which is elected each year. The executive committee shall respond in writing to any inquiry from a member of the technical committee.

Duties/Term of Office: A full list of duties of the chair are found in the CSREES Manual. The chair sends a copy of the annual report to the technical committee members, and informs the administrative advisors secretary of changes to the NC-1030 list serve. The chair, elected in the odd-numbered years, serves for two years beginning at the end of the annual meeting in which elected. The secretary, elected in the even-numbered years, serves for two years beginning at the end of the annual meeting in which elected. The member-at-large serves for one year beginning at the end of the annual meeting in which elected. The at-large member works with the executive committee on matters brought to the attention of the chair, which require a vote. In the event that co-chairs are elected, there will be no election of a member-at-large.

Other Appointees and Subcommittees: There shall be a member appointed by the chair who will update the mailing list. There shall be a member appointed by the chair who will serve as editor of a public web site created for the NC-1030 project. There shall be a member appointed by the chair who will serve as manager of the interview schedules. A policy subcommittee will consist of a chair and at least two additional members who shall be appointed by the chair. The subcommittee will serve for the duration of the NC-1030 project. A chair, selected by the subcommittee, will remind the members of the technical committee, of the policies on a regular basis.

Literature Cited

Alesch, D. J. & Holly, J. N. 1999. Tight coupling, open systems and losses from extreme events. Public Entity Risk Institute: Fairfax, VA. www.riskinstitute.org

Alesch, D. J., Holly, J.N., Mittler, E. & Nagy, R. (2001). Organization at risk: What happens when small businesses and not-for-profits encounter natural disasters. Public Entity Risk Institute: Fairfax, VA, www.riskinstitute.org.

Aldrich, D. P. 2008. The crucial role of civil society in disaster recovery and Japans preparedness for emergencies. Japan aktuell, 3, 81-96.

Amarapurkar, S. S., & Danes, S. M. (2005). Farm business owning couples: Interrelationships among business tensions, relationship conflict quality, and satisfaction with spouse. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 26 (3), 419-441.

Avery, R.J., & Stafford, K. (1991). Toward a scheduling congruity theory of family resource management. Lifestyles: Family Economic Issues, 12 (4), 325-344.

Bates, T. (1990). Entrepreneurial human capital inputs and small business longevity: Review of economics and statistics, 72, 551-559.

Besser, T. L. 1999. Community involvement and the perception of success among small business operators in small towns. Journal of Small Business Management 37(4): 16-30.

Conner, D.R. (1992). Managing at the speed of change: How resilient managers succeed and prosper where others fail. New York: Villard.

Cramton, C. D., (1993). Is rugged individualism the whole story? Public and private accounts of a firms founding. Family Business Review, 6, 233-261.

Dahlhamer, J. M. (1998). Rebounding from environmental jolts: Organizational and ecological factors affecting business disaster recovery, Ph.D. dissertation No. 31, Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware, Newark DE.

Dahlhamer, J. M. & Reshaur, L. M. 1996. Business and the 1994 Northridge Earthquake: An analysis of pre- and post-disaster preparedness. Newark, DE: University of Delaware Disaster Research Center, Preliminary Paper No. 240.

Danes, S.M. 1999. Change: Loss, Opportunity, and Resilience, University of Minnesota Extension Service publication #FO-7421-S, St. Paul. Downloadable from http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/familydevelopment/DE7421.html.

Danes, S. M., Zuiker, V. S., Kean, R., & Arbuthnot, J. (1999). Predictors of family business tensions and goal achievement. Family Business Review, 12 (3), 241-252.

Danes, S.M., Rueter, M.A., Kwon, H.K., & Doherty, W. (2002). Family FIRO model: An application to family business. Family Business Review, 15 (1), 31-43.

Danes, S. M. & Olson, P.D. (2003). Womens role involvement in family businesses, business tensions, and business success. Family Business Review, 16 (1), 53-68.

Danes, S. M., & Lee, Y. G. (2004). Tensions generated by business issues in farm business-owning couples. Family Relations, 53, 357-366.

Danes, S. M., & Morgan, E. A. (2004). Family business-owning couples: An EFT view into their unique conflict culture. Contemporary Family Therapy, 26, 241-260.

Danes, S.M., Haberman, H.R., & McTavish, D. (2008). Gendered discourse about Euro-American family business. In V. Gupta , N. Levenburg, L. Moore, J. Motwani, & T. Swartz (Eds.), Culturally-sensitive Models of Gender in Family Business: A Compendium using the GLOBE paradigm (Chapter 8, pgs. 141-162). Hyderabad: ICFAI University Press.

Danes, S.M. (2006). Tensions within family business-owning couples over time. Stress, Trauma and Crisis, 9(3-4), 227-246.

Danes, S.M., Lee, J., Amarapurkar, S., Stafford, K., Haynes, G., & Brewton, K. (2009). Determinants of family business resilience after a natural disaster by gender of business owner. Journal of Entrepreneurial Development, 14 (4), 333-354.

Danes, S.M., Loy, J.T., & Stafford, K. (2008). Business planning practices of family-owned firms within a quality framework. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(3), 395-421.
Danes, S. M., Lee, J., Stafford, K., & Heck, R. K. Z. (2008). The effects of ethnicity, families and culture on entrepreneurial experience: An extension of sustainable family business theory. Invited article for Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Special Issue titled Empirical Research on Ethnicity and Entrepreneurship in the U.S., 13(3), 229-268.

Davidsson, P. (1991). Continued entrepreneurship: Ability, need, and opportunity as determinants of small firm growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 6, 405-429.

Dennis, W.J., Jr. (2004). Disasters. National Small Business Poll, 4(5). Washington, DC: NFIB.

Duncan, K.A. Stafford, K., & Zuiker, V.S. (2003). Family integrity. In Heck, R. K. Z., Puryear, A. N. & Tombline, P. A. (Eds.). A Toolkit for Home-Based Entrepreneurs, Conference Monograph.. Lawrence N. Field Center for Entrepreneurship and Small Business, New York, NY: Baruch College, 57-67.

Elliott, D. 2010. A hard fight for a political voice in Biloxi, MS. NPR Interview, August 23, 2010. Downloaded October 19, 2010 from http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=129375373.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (2005). Remote sensing information for Hurricane Katrina. Most current version to be retrieved at future date. Examples available at http://www.gismaps.fema.gov/2005pages/katrina.shtm.

Fitzgerald, M.A., Haynes, G. W., Schrank, H. L. & Danes, S. M. (2010). Socially Responsible Processes of Small Family Business Owners: Exploratory Evidence from the National Family Business Survey. Journal of Small Business Management 48(4), pp. 524551

Fitzgerald, M.A., Winter, M., Miller, N.J., & Paul, J.J. (2001). Adjustment strategies in the family business: Implications of gender and management role. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 22, 265-291.

GAO, 2009. GAO report to the Chairwoman, Committee on Small Business, House of Representatives: Small Business Administration, additional steps should be taken to address reforms to the disaster loan program and improve the application process for future disasters. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Accountability Office. Downloaded October 9, 2010 from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09755.pdf.

Green, S., & Pryde, P. (1989). Black entrepreneurship in America. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Hall, R. (1991). The contribution of intangible resources to business success. Journal of General Management, 16(4), 41-52.

Haynes, G., Muske, G., Fitzgerald, M., & Fong, G. (2005). Deriving a socio-economic vulnerability scale. Missoula, MT: Montana State University.

Haynes, G. W., Rowe, B. R., Walker, R., & Hong, G.S. (2000). The differences in financial structure between women- and men-owned businesses. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 21 (3), 209-226.

Hazards & Vulnerability Research Institute (2007). The spatial hazard events and losses database for the United States. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina. Available from http://www.sheldus.org .

Heck, R. K. Z., & Stafford, K. (2001). The vital institution of family business: Economic benefits hidden in plain sight. In G. K. McCann & N. Upton (Eds.), Destroying myths and creating value in family business (pp. 9-17). Deland, FL: Stetson University.

Hoy, F. & Verser, T.G. (1994). Emerging business, emerging field: Entrepreneurship and the family firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19, 9-24.

IRS, 2006. IRS reminds Katrina victims of Oct. 16 filing deadline. Downloaded October 9, 2010 from http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=163003,00.html.

Kalleberg, A.L. & Leicht, K.T. (1991). Gender and organizational performance: Determinants of small business survival and success. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 136-161.

Kobe, K. 2007. The Small Business Share of GDP, 1998-2004. Washington, D.C.: Economic Consulting Services LLC for the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy. Downloaded October 19, 2010 from http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs299tot.pdf.

Korsching, P.F. & Allen, J.C. (2004). Locality based entrepreneurship: A strategy for community economic vitality. Community Development Journal, 39(4), 385-401.

Kotey, B. (1997). Relationships among owner/manager personal values, business strategies, and enterprise performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 35, 37-64.

London School of Economics Centre for Civil Society as quoted by Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_society. Downloaded October 19, 2010. (The Centre closed in September of 2010)

Masuo, D., Fong, G., Yanagida, J., & Cabal, C. (2001). Factors associated with business and family success: A comparison of single manager and dual manager family business households. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 22(1),55-73.

Miller, N. J., Fitzgerald, M. A., Winter, M., & Paul, J. (1999). Exploring the overlap of family and business demands: Household and family business managers' adjustment strategies. Family Business Review, 12 (3), 253- 268.

Miller, N.J., Winter, M., Fitzgerald, M.A., & Paul, J. (2000). Family microenterprises: Strategies for coping with overlapping family and business demands. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 5(2), 87-113.

Miner, J.B. (1997). The expanded horizon for achieving entrepreneurial success. Organizational Dynamics, 25, 54-67.

Mississippi Governors Commission on Recovery, Rebuilding, and Renewal (2005, December 31). After Katrina, building back better than ever: A report to the Hon. Haley Barbour, Governor of the State of Mississippi. Retrieved August 20, 2007 from http://www.mississippirenewal.com/documents/Governors_Commission_Report.pdf.

Niehm, L. S., Swinney, J., & Miller, N. J. (2006). Community social responsibility and its consequences for family business performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(3), 331-350.

Nigg, J.M. (1995). Social science approaches in disaster research: Selected research issues and findings on mitigation natural hazards in the urban environment. In F.Y. Cheng & M.S. Sheu (Eds.), Urban disaster mitigation: The role of engineering and technology (pp. 303-310). New York: Elsevier Science.

Olson, P.D., Zuiker, V.S., Danes, S.M., Stafford, K., Heck, R.K. ., & Duncan, K.A. (2003). The impact of the family and business on family business sustainability. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 639-666.

Rosenblatt, P.C., de Mik, L., Anderson, R.M., & Johnson, P.A. (1985). The family in business: Understanding and dealing with the challenges entrepreneurial families face. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rowe, B.R., Haynes, G., & Bentley, M.T. (1993). Economic outcomes in family-owned home businesses. Family Business Review, 6, 383-396.

Sawin, K. J. and Harrigan, M. P. (1995). Measures of Family Functioning for Research and Practice. New York: Springer Publishing Co., Inc

Schwarz, N., & Sudman, S. (1994). Autobiographical memory and the validity of retrospective reports. Springer-Verlag: New York.

Select Bipartisan Committee, 2006. A failure of initiative: Final report of the select bipartisan committee to investigate the preparation for and response to Hurricane Katrina. 109th Congress, Report 109-377. Downloaded October 8, 2010 from http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/hr109-377/conclusions.pdf.

Sharfman, M.P. & Dean, J.W. (1991). Conceptualizing and measuring the organizational environment: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Management, 17(4), 681-700.

Siegel, R., Siegel, E., & Macmillan, I. (1993). Characteristics distinguishing high growth ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 169-180.

Smilkstein, G. (1978). The family APGAR: A proposal for a family function test and its use by physicians. The Journal Of Family Practice, 6(6), 1231-1239.

Smilkstein, G., Ashworth, C., & Montano, D. (1982). Validity and reliability of the family APGAR as a test of family function. The Journal of Family Practice, 15(2), 303-311.

Stafford, K. & Avery, R.J. (1993). Scheduling congruity theory of family resource management: A basis for cross cultural analysis. In R. von Schweitzer (Ed.) Cross cultural approaches to home management. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 17-41.

Stafford, K., Duncan, K.A., Danes, S.M., & Winter, M. (1999). A research model of sustainable family businesses. Family Business Review, 12(3), 197-208.

Stallings, R. A. (ed.) 2002. Methods of Disaster Research. XLibris.

Stanforth, N. & Muske, G. (2001). An exploration of entrepreneurship. Stillwater, OK: Department of Design, Housing & Merchandising, Oklahoma State University.

Stewart, C.C., & Danes S.M. (2001). Inclusion and control in resort family businesses: A developmental approach to conflict. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 22 (3), 293-320.

Tatsuki, S. & Hayashi, HH. 2002. Seven Critical Element Model of Life Recovery: General Linear Model Analyses of the 2001 Kobe Panel Survey Data. Paper Prepared for the Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop for Comparative Study on Urban Earthquake Disaster Management, February 14-15

Tierney, K.J., Nigg, J.M., & Dahlhamer, J.M. (1996). The impact of the 1993 Midwest floods: business vulnerability and disruption in Des Moines (pp. 214-233). In R.T. Sylves & W.L. Waugh, Jr., Disaster Management in the U.S. and Canada. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.

Tierney, K. J. and Dahlhamer, J.M. (1997). Business disruption, preparedness and recovery: Lessons from the Northridge earthquake (Preliminary Paper #257). Newark, DE: University of Delaware, Disaster Research Center. Retrieved August 28. 2007 from http://dspace.udel/edu:880/dspace/bitstream/19716/657/1/PP257.pdf.

Tierney, K.J. (1997). Business impacts of the Northridge earthquake. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management. 5(2): 87-97.

Tigges, L.M., & Green, G.P. (1994). Small business success among men- and women-owned firms in rural area. Rural Sociology, 59(2), 289-310.

Turner, M., Lee, A.S., Gurenko, E., Itigen, A., Varghese, R. & Walker, P. ,August, 2008. Credit and Financial Impacts of Disaster: What Can We Learn from Credit File Data. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Political & Economic Research Council. Downloaded from http://perc.net/files/downloads/Financial%20Impacts%20of%20Disaster.pdf.

U.S.Census Bureau, Census.gov Newsroom, 2010. Special population estimates for impacted counties in the Gulf Coast area. Downloaded October 19, 2010 from http://www.census.gov/newsroom/emergencies/additional/impacted_gulf_estimates.html

United States Bureau of Census, Mississippi QuickFacts, 2006.

van der Vink, G., Allen, R M. Chapin, J., Crooks, M., Fraley, W., Krantz, J.. Lavigne, A. M., LeCuyer, A., MacColl, E.K. Morgan, W.J., Ries, B. Robinson, E. Rodriquez, K., Smith, M.and Sponberg, K. 1998. Why the United States is becoming more vulnerable to natural disasters, Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 79 (44), 533-537.

Webb, G. R., Tierney, K. J., and Dahlhamer, J. M. 1999. Predicting long-term business recovery from disaster: A comparison of the Loma Prieta earthquake and Hurricane Andrew (Preliminary Paper #292). Newark, DE: University of Delaware, Disaster Research Center. Retrieved August 28, 2007 from http://dspace.udel.edu:8080/dspace/bitstream/19716/668/1/PP292.pdf.

Webb, G.R., Tierney, K.J., & Dahlhamer, J.M. 2000. Businesses and disasters: Empirical patterns and unanswered questions, Natural Hazards Review, 1(2): 83-90.

Weiss, Mitch, 2010. Katrina a tale of SBA failure. Associated Press, August 24, 2010.

Winter, M., Fitzgerald, M.A., Heck, R.K.Z., Haynes, G.W., & Danes, S.M. (1998). Revisiting the study of family businesses: Methodological challenges, dilemmas, and alternative approaches. Family Business Review, 11(3), 239-251.

Winter, M., Danes, S.M., Koh, S.K., Fredericks, K., & Paul, J.J. (2004). Tracing family businesses and their owners over time: Panel attrition, manager departure and business demise. Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 535-559.

Attachments

Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

HI, IA, IN, KY, MN, MO, MT, ND, OH, UT, WI

Non Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

Agrisoma Biosciences Inc, DePaul University