Assessment of State- and Territorial-Level Preparedness Capacity for Serving Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Populations in Disasters

Abstract

Objectives.

Substantial evidence exists that emergency preparedness and response efforts are not effectively reaching populations with functional and access needs, especially barriers related to literacy, language, culture, or disabilities. More than 36 million Americans are Deaf or hard of hearing (Deaf/HH). These groups experienced higher risks of injury, death, and property loss in recent disasters than the general public. We conducted a participatory research study to examine national recommendations on preparedness communication for the Deaf/HH.

Methods.

We assessed whether previous recommendations regarding the Deaf/HH have been incorporated into state- and territorial-level emergency operations plans (EOPs), interviewed state- and territorial-level preparedness directors about capacity to serve the Deaf/HH, and proposed strategies to benefit Deaf/HH populations during emergencies. We analyzed 55 EOPs and 50 key informant (KI) interviews with state directors.

Results.

Fifty-five percent of EOPs mentioned vulnerable populations; however, only 31% specifically mentioned Deaf/HH populations in their plan. Study findings indicated significant relationships among the following factors: a state-level KI's familiarity with communication issues for the Deaf/HH, making relay calls (i.e., calls to services to relay communication between Deaf and hearing people), and whether the KI's department provides trainings about serving Deaf/HH populations in emergencies. We found significant associations between a state's percentage of Deaf/HH individuals and a KI's familiarity with Deaf/HH communication issues and provision by government of any disability services to Deaf/HH populations in emergencies. Further, we found significant relationships between KIs attending training on serving the Deaf/HH and familiarity with Deaf/HH communication issues, including how to make relay calls.

Conclusion.

This study provides new knowledge that can help emergency agencies improve their preparedness training, planning, and capacity to serve Deaf/HH populations in emergencies.

References

National Institutes of Health (US), National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. Quick statistics (updated 2012 Jun 16) [cited 2012 Aug 30. Available from: URL: http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/statistics/Pages/quick.aspx.

Stout

Brick

Heppner

, Emergency preparedness and emergency communication access: Lessons learned since 9/11 and recommendations. Fairfax (VA): Northern Virginia Resource Center for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Persons; 2004.

Department of Homeland Security (US). Nationwide plan review: Phase 2 report. Washington: DHS; 2006.

Institute of Medicine, Committee on Research Priorities in Emergency Preparedness and Response for Public Health Systems, Board on Health Sciences Policy. Research priorities in emergency preparedness and response for public health systems. A letter report. Washington: National Academies Press; 2008.

Government Accountability Office (US). National disaster response—FEMA should take action to improve capacity and coordination between government and voluntary sectors. GAO-08-369. Washington: GAO; 2008.

Department of Homeland Security (US). National response framework. Washington: DHS; 2008. Also available from: URL: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf-core.pdf [cited 2012 Aug 30].

Kutner

Greenberg

Baer

National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL): A first look at the literacy of America/s adults in the 21st century. Report no. NCES 2006–470. Washington: Department of Education (US), National Center for Education Statistics; 2005.

Gallaudet University. Individual U.S. states, territories, and localities: Local and regional deaf populations. 2010 [cited 2013 May 28. Available from: URL: http://libguides.gallaudet.edu/content.php?pid=119476&sid=1029190.

Aguirre

, The lack of warnings before the Saragosa tornado. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters 1988;6:65–74.

10.

Aldrich

Benson

, Disaster preparedness and the chronic disease needs of vulnerable older adults. Prev Chronic Dis 2008;5:A27.

11.

Messias

Lacy

Katrina-related health concerns of Latino survivors and evacuees. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2007;18:443–64.

12.

Green

George

Daniel

Frankish

Herbert

Bowie

, Guidelines for participatory research in health promotion. In: Minkler

Wallerstein

, editors. Community-based participatory research for health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2003. p. 419–28.

13.

Census Bureau (US). Census 2000 gateway [cited 2008 May 6. Available from: URL: http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html.

14.

Engelman

Ivey

Tseng

Dahrouge

Brune

Neuhauser

Responding to the Deaf in disasters: Establishing the need for systematic training for state-level emergency management agencies and community organizations. BMC Health Serv Res 2013;13:84.

15.

Kailes

, Southern California wildfires after action report. Prepared in partnership with the Access to Readiness Coalition, the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers, and the Center for Disability Issues and the Health Professions at Western University of Health Sciences. Pomona (CA): Center for Disability Issues and the Health Professions at Western University of Health Sciences; 2008. Also available from: URL: http://www.jik.com/CaliforniaWildfires.pdf [cited 2012 Aug 30].

16.

Eggerton

FCC fines station over wildfire coverage. The Business of Television Broadcasting and Cable 2008 Sep 18 [cited 2012 Sep 26]. Available from: URL: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/96435-FCC_Fines_Station_Over_Wildfire_Coverage.php.