Inclusive emergency management: Communication and accessibility needs for the deaf, hard-of-hearing and deafblind population

4 months ago

By Jen McEachen, Sarah Cowan, and Caitlin Parker

Right now, many best practices related to accessibility are not the norm in Canada. We can do better. Here are a couple suggestions to get you started:
● Ask. If you are unsure how best to support someone, please ask them.
● Representation and inclusion is required in all phases of the emergency cycle, including the development and testing of policies and procedures.
● Communicate information through a number of different formats, including visual, audible and written.
● Be proactive and adaptable in providing accommodations to allow for full participation of all involved.

The Inclusive Emergency Management Series aims to address key issues for diversity and inclusion in emergency management. In this issue, we explore communication and accessibility needs for the deaf, hard-of-hearing, and deafblind population through reflections on the recent CRHNet course offering ASL 010: ASL for Emergency Situations, facilitated by Humber College. This three-part course introduced learners to Deaf culture, and basic American Sign Language (ASL) ranging from the alphabet and feelings, basic conversation, describing injuries, to concepts such as ‘firetruck’. This article is meant to be a starting point for considering accessible disaster and emergency management. Thus, these recommendations are not comprehensive and each emergency manager is encouraged to explore this topic further.

The authors of this article are members of the 2023/24 CRHNet Emerging Professionals (EP) Committee. The EP Committee supports early-career professionals in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Disaster and Emergency Management (D&EM) in Canada through advocacy, encouraging growth and professional development, and fostering a sense of community. Please note that of the authors, Jen is deafblind, and Sarah and Caitlin are hearing.

Defining and understanding the D/deaf community

The deaf community is highly diverse and includes people who identify as deaf, hard-of-hearing, deafened, deafblind and more. But, what do we mean when we say ‘deaf’, ‘hard-of-hearing’, and ‘deafblind’ and what is the proper terminology to use to show respect?

In Canada, the Canadian Association of the Deaf (CAD-ASC) estimates that there are “357,000 profoundly deaf and deafened Canadians and possibly 3.21 million hard-of-hearing Canadians” (2015).

This is the very question that the ASL 010 course began with. The term ‘deaf’ (lowercase “d”) is used to describe a medical condition for those with little or no functional hearing, whereas ‘hard-of-hearing’ refers to a range of hearing loss from mild to profound. ‘Deafblind’ is a term used to describe a combination of hearing and vision loss. The Canadian Association of the Deaf (Association des Sourds du Canada) notes that deaf may also be used as a collective noun to refer to the community of people who are deaf (e.g., the deaf community) (n.d.). They also highlight that it is important to note that Deaf (capital “D”) is a sociological term for people who participate in the distinct culture, society, and language of deaf people (n.d.). Throughout this article, where appropriate, the authors use d/Deaf to recognize both the medical and sociological definition of the term.

Deaf culture is centered around sign language, a form of communication using visual gestures and signs. Today, there are estimated to be around 300 sign languages used worldwide (National Geographic Society, 2024). In North America, some of the dominant dialects are American Sign Language (ASL), Quebec Sign Language (LSQ), and Mexican Sign Language (LSM). There are also a variety of Indigenous signed languages, such as Inuit Sign Language, which existed historically and continue to be practiced today (Dawe, 2022). Reflecting on the course, one participant stated, “I feel like I have a better understanding of Deaf culture that is useful in my day-to-day role in public education and risk communication as well as my response role with Emergency Support Services.” Similarly, another course participant shared: “Not only did we learn some foundations of ASL in emergencies, it was also a window into Deaf culture, its expressiveness, humour, and visual transmission of information and emotion.” If you are interested in learning more about the spectrum of the d/Deaf community, we recommend the Canadian Association of the Deaf and CNIB Deafblind Community Services.

In Deaf culture there are a number of signals that are appropriate to use if you need someone’s attention, try one of the following:

  • Waving in the air
  • Tap on the shoulder
  • Direct eye contact.

 

Considerations for delivering information in emergency management

Emergency management has failed to adequately consider and address the needs of the disabled community, and more specifically, the d/Deaf population

— Noik, 2018; Engelman, Craig and Iles, 2022; Calgaro et al., 2021

Emergency management has failed to adequately consider and address the needs of the disabled community, and more specifically, the d/Deaf population ( Noik, 2018; Engelman, Craig and Iles, 2022; Calgaro et al., 2021).

This article focuses on Canadian emergency management, but unfortunately, there is limited literature available on the Canadian context. For this reason, we include research from international contexts. Quigley and Lowe (2020) published Environmental Scan: Emergency Management Policies and Programs for People with Disabilities in Canada which may be helpful for anyone interested in better understanding the landscape of policies and programs in Canada.

While people within the d/Deaf community may share certain similar experiences or characteristics, they have a wide range of unique communication and accessibility needs that must be considered in all facets of disaster and emergency management. It is important to note that the considerations below are generalized and the most appropriate approach for one person may look very different from another. For this reason, it is best to directly ask each person how they can best be supported. Here, we reflect on documented challenges of the d/Deaf population as informed by scholarly work and a key informant (Jen), and suggest considerations for practitioners to improve the accessibility of emergency management at all stages (preparation, mitigation, response, and recovery). Most importantly, it needs to be stated that individuals with disabilities are capable of sustaining and supporting themselves with guidance from individuals with lived experience.

Representation and Accessible Participation

First and foremost, representation is key. In all aspects of emergency planning, including the development and testing of policies and procedures, it is critical to include representation from the d/Deaf community. In one U.S. study, it was found that only 31% of the reviewed 55 state and territorial-level emergency operations plans specifically considered the needs of d/Deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals (Ivey et al., 2014, p.150). As articulated by Gordon (2019, p. 5), the exclusion of d/Deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals from emergency planning processes elevates the risk of harm to members of the d/Deaf population and emergency responders, and increases strain on emergency resources. As one course participant reflected,

“This course was a thought-provoking, engaging and applied way to start thinking about DEI [Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion] in your line of work in emergency management whether it is in response, preparedness, or in planning for equity-denied communities. For example, do you have an alerting/warning system that does not rely on sound only? Are your frontline responders able to communicate with d/Deaf residents in the event of evacuation?”

However, inviting d/Deaf, Deafblind, and hard-of-hearing individuals to participate in these conversations is not sufficient. To allow for active and full participation, consider how to set up environments to support engagement from members of the d/Deaf community. A great example of this is from the City of Ottawa, who in February 2024 hosted an open community forum to discuss “emergency preparedness for persons with disabilities” (2024). The first half of the session provided residents with knowledge of existing resources and services, while the second half provided time for the Office of Emergency Management team to learn from the community about their needs and to answer questions. During the event registration processes participants were encouraged to advise organizers of any accommodation needs to ensure their ability to participate. This is a good example of facilitating a accessible space to allow for meaningful engagement for everyone, and recognizing that learning is a two way process – the community was also able to teach the emergency managers.

Considerations for creating accessible spaces

  • Seating close to the speaker
  • Live Captioning and an ASL interpreter
  • Assisted Listening Devices, such as loop systems
  • Designate Quiet Zones to minimize background noise
  • Convey information through visual, audible and written materials
  • Provide advance notice of available accommodations, and invite attendees to request specific accommodations in advance

Accessibility of physical and virtual spaces is an important consideration for supporting members of the d/Deaf community. As outlined above, there are a number of adjustments and supports that can be easily made to significantly increase the accessibility of a physical space. Messaging and services are increasingly delivered in a virtual environment so it is important to ensure that virtual environments are accessible by, for example, adding closed captioning to audio and video, providing written transcripts, and adding ASL interpreters to videos. Virtual meeting platforms such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, and Webex, are often improving or changing their accessibility tools. Key features to look out for when deciding which platform to use include captioning, generation of transcripts, adjustable video sizes, and recording. In physical spaces, there are also a number of technologies that can be utilized to support accessibility. For example, we are often overly reliant on audible directions, but providing accessible signage is a crucial component to supporting the independence and comfort of the d/Deaf population.

Office sign displaying the office number in both written numbers and braille. Photo by Brett Sayles, reproduced with permission

For individuals who are able to receive and interpret audible information, consider ways to increase the ease of understanding. For example, an evacuation reception centre may be a large, crowded and noisy environment that can overwhelm a d/Deaf person who may need to strain to hear, or ask for information to be repeated. For this reason, it’s important to consider the choice of room, group size, and to create space for one-on-one conversations. Similarly, these centres often do not have resources available to interpret or communicate using sign language, requiring individuals to communicate through verbal or written language. The CNIB provides Clearing Our Path, accessibility guidelines for the built environment for individuals living with sight loss, including those that are deafblind (2016). Similarly, the CAD-ASC’s Advancing Accessibility Standards for Deaf, Deaf-Blind and Hard of Hearing Canadians, provides a review of, and recommendations additional to, the Accessible Canada Act (2023).

Accessible Communication and Emergency Messaging

A lack of equitable access to emergency communication is a major hurdle for the d/Deaf community to prepare, mitigate, respond, and recover from emergencies and disasters

— Russell et al., 2018, p.7

Accessible communication for the d/Deaf population requires acknowledgement of the ranges of hearing abilities, communication preferences, literacy levels, and other disabilities. The term “deaf” does not always mean that audible information cannot be received and interpreted – although the ease and ability of receiving and interpreting this information may vary greatly. Skills and tools such as lip-reading, cochlear implants, and assistive listening devices can provide a level of hearing or comprehension of spoken language. For many d/Deaf individuals, their primary and preferred language is sign language – however, this is not the case for everyone.


Two seated people at a table having a conversation using ASL. Photo by SHVETS production, reproduced with permission

Further, Deafblind individuals often prefer to communicate through languages such as tactile ASL, Two-Hand Manual, and more recently, Protactile. Communication cards may be used to communicate immediate needs. Deafblind individuals may also be accompanied by, or require the support of, an intervenor – a professional who acts as ‘the eyes’ and ‘the ears’ of a Deafblind individual by providing information about the environment and enabling communication. Members of the d/Deaf community may use an interpreter- a professional who translates information from spoken language into another, often sign language, and vice versa. If an intervenor or interpreter is involved, always address the individual directly, not the interpreter or intervenor. Each person will have their own preferred method of communication and it is important to consider and address the potential implications of each of these.

It is essential to consider how we deliver information in a format that is designed to be accessible.

Individuals who primarily communicate using sign language have a wide range of literacy levels, and some may find written language difficult to understand. For this reason, information should be communicated in a variety of formats, including sign language, plain language, and easily understood visuals. A California study from 2013 evaluated emergency preparedness materials and found that the reviewed materials tested above the recommended U.S. grade 4 reading level (Neuhauser et al., 2013, p.7). A similar review in Canada could be the focus of future research.

One issue that has gained recent attention, is the accessibility of mainstream emergency alert systems (Noik, 2018). Traditionally, when a disaster strikes, alerts are sent out through television, radio, social media platforms, and wireless public alerting (e.g., Alert Ready). However, these systems are often not properly designed to communicate effectively with d/Deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals, causing critical information to be missed (Noik, 2018; Cooper et al., 2024). For example, in Canada the National Public Alerting System (NPAS) requires the accompaniment of an audible tone for all radio, TV, and wireless providers, but does not require the accompaniment of graphics or interpreted video. During disasters we often observe informal and formal channels of community support to address communication deficiencies. For example, in the US, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provided formal ASL updates on Hurricane Francine on YouTube; whereas in Canada, DeafDots, provided email notifications and ASL YouTube videos to provide critical updates during the 2023 Kelowna wildfire.

The World Federation of the Deaf and World Association of Sign Language Interpreters (WASLI) provide Guidelines on Access to Information in National Sign Languages During Emergency Broadcasts, which outlines recommendations for how to ensure emergency broadcasts are accessible for the d/Deaf community (2021). A key component of these recommendations is to ensure that sign language interpreters are qualified with national or internationally recognized qualifications (2021, p. 1).

Hurricane Irma: A Case Study
During 2017 Hurricane Irma, agencies used ASL interpreters to deliver evacuation orders, and situational updates to residents. The interpreters had a variety of experience and certification, from one having no formal training only personal experience from signing with a deaf brother, to a certified ASL interpreter, and a Certified Deaf Interpreter (CDI). The differences between these three interpreters can be clearly seen in a video created by YouTuber, Paul Simmmons who stitched clips of these three interpreters together for a informative comparison of ASL interpreters during Hurricane Irma. Famously, the residents of Manatee, Florida experienced significant confusion from receiving interpretation from an untrained interpreter who used incorrect signs and failed to properly communicate the necessary information (Burris, 2019, p.9-10). To support d/Deaf residents of Florida during this storm, the president of the Florida Association of the Deaf, Lissette Molina Wood, created a YouTube video to update residents using ASL. While no documented lives were lost because of this miscommunication, the potential for harm and loss of life due to the failure to communicate life-saving instructions is significant.

 

Accessible Preparation

As it is for all aspects of emergenc. bal Survey on Persons with Disabilities and Disasters and found that 84% of persons with disabilities did not have a personal disaster preparedness plan (2023, p.ix). Across Canada, there has been an increase in resources available to support the d/Deaf community to prepare for emergencies and disasters. For example, governments such as Emergency Management Ontario published the booklet, Emergency Preparedness Guide for People with Disabilities (2024); and the government of Nova Scotia provides specific suggestions for the d/Deaf community in, Are You Ready? Emergency Preparedness Guide for Persons with Disabilities and Older Adults in Nova Scotia. These include suggestions such as checking that your local emergency system can interact with TTY (teletypewriter) or internet-based relay service, and preparing communication cards to use with first responders or other response personnel (2021, p.10). Although these materials and tools are good starting points, author Jen McEachen notes, TTY is quite outdated and no longer used by many individuals in the d/Deaf community. For this reason, it is important that these documents are prepared in collaboration with members of the d/Deaf community, reviewed often, and, as always, adapted to individuals and their needs. Problematically, to access these resources, folks need to be aware of them and to actively seek them out. The resources themselves could be improved with more community engagement and by increasing awareness of their existence for those who need them.

Author Jen reflects on her own experience as an advocate and educator for the d/Deaf/Deafblind population, noting that “the few times that organizations have hosted training and invited me for knowledge-sharing opportunities with the d/Deaf and Deafblind population for emergency management and preparedness webinars, invitations to attend are rarely disseminated widely and often only advertised to their small clientele within their organization.” Jen adds, “unfortunately, at this time I am not aware of any organizations that focus on emergency management or preparedness for the d/Deaf and Deafblind – a huge and very concerning gap in our field”.

Gallaudet University, a private university for d/Deaf and hard-of-hearing students, provides a first-of-its-kind program, Disability-Inclusive Disaster Risk Reduction and Emergency Planning. No such program exists in Canada as of yet.

Conclusion

Improving accessibility is an ongoing commitment. Calgaro et al. (2021, p.1) identified one of the biggest inhibitors to building resilience is the “failures in understanding, engaging with and overcoming deeply embedded cultural divides that exist within the d/Deaf community and between the d/Deaf and hearing worlds.” Examining the knowledge and training of state emergency management agencies in the U.S., Engleman et al. (2013, p.1496) found a substantial gap in the knowledge and training that addressed the needs of the d/Deaf population. This is reinforced by the findings of Russell et al. (2018, p.2) who reported that Canadian emergency management organizations “have little or no working knowledge of how to communicate with d/Deaf, hard of hearing and Deafblind people during times of natural or man-made disasters.”

As emergency managers, we are responsible for providing equitable emergency services to everyone we serve. This means that we need to actively seek out opportunities for learning, engagement, and meaningful inclusion with the d/Deaf community. For 20 emergency managers in Canada, the ASL 010 course provided an important introduction to basic principles of d/Deaf culture and ASL. Although it was a great start, this course is only the beginning. We challenge all emergency managers to review their policies, involve members of the d/Deaf and Deafblind community, and adopt additional measures to improve the inclusion and accessibility of their programs. In all aspects of emergency programs, we as a field, need to make meaningful opportunities for the inclusion and contributions of persons of the disability community in all stages of disaster and emergency management.

Acknowledgements and Thanks

Thank you to Humber College and all those who participated in the ASL 010 course in June 2024. A special thank you to our peer reviewer who was a representative of the d/Deaf community for their time and guidance.

For those looking for support in increasing the accessibility of their practice, Jen provides consultation services through JLM Resiliency and Accessibility Consulting and welcomes anyone to reach out at JLM.accessconsulting@gmail.com.

We warmly invite organizations who are involved in delivering emergency management and emergency preparedness resources and services to the d/Deaf population to reach out to info@crhnet.ca for potential partnership opportunities to increase your reach.

References

AlertReady. (n.d.). Your Phone has the Power to Save a Life. https://www.alertready.ca/.
Burris, S. D. (2019). Deaf mis-interpretation during Hurricane Irma: A case study and evaluation.
Calgaro, E., Craig, N., Craig, L., Dominey-Howes, D., & Allen, J. (2021). Silent no more: Identifying and breaking through the barriers that d/Deaf people face in responding to hazards and disasters. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 57, 102156.
The Canadian Association of the Deaf (CAD-ASC). (n.d.). Terminology. https://cad-asc.ca/our-work/terminology/.
The Canadian Association of the Deaf (CAD-ASC). (2015). Statistics on Deaf Canadians. https://cad-asc.ca/issues-positions/statistics-on-deaf-canadians/.
The Canadian Association of the Deaf (CAD-ASC). (2023). Advancing Accessibility Standards for Deaf, Deaf-Blind, and Hard of Hearing Canadians. https://clearingourpath.ca/index.php/final-report-clearing-our-path-asc-project/.
Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB). (2016). Clearing our Path Version 2.0. https://clearingourpath.ca/.
The City of Ottawa. (2024). Join us for a discussion about emergency preparedness for persons with disabilities. https://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/city-news/newsroom/join-us-discussion-about-emergency-preparedness-persons-disabilities.
Cooper, A. C., Cooke, M. L., Takayama, K., Sumy, D. F., & McBride, S. (2024). From alert to action: earthquake early warning and deaf communities. Natural Hazards, 1-22.
Dawe, A. (2022). Indigenous Sign Languages of North America. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=headandheartprogram_2022.
Emergency Management Ontario (EMO). (2024). Booklet: Emergency Preparedness Guide for People with Disabilities. https://www.publications.gov.on.ca/store/20170501121/Free_Download_Files/301303.pdf.
Engelman, A., Ivey, S. L., Tseng, W., Dahrouge, D., Brune, J., & Neuhauser, L. (2013). Responding to the deaf in disasters: establishing the need for systematic training for state-level emergency management agencies and community organizations. BMC health services research, 13, 1-10.
Engelman, A., Craig, L., & Iles, A. (2022). Global Disability Justice In Climate Disasters: Mobilizing People With Disabilities As Change Agents: Analysis describes disability justice in climate emergencies and disasters, mobilizing people with disabilities as change agents. Health Affairs, 41(10), 1496-1504.
Gordon, J. P. (2019). The lived experience of the deaf and hard of hearing community in Cape Cod, Massachusetts with emergency preparedness and response planning: A narrative inquiry study (Doctoral dissertation, Northeastern University).
Ivey, S. L., Tseng, W., Dahrouge, D., Engelman, A., Neuhauser, L., Huang, D., & Gurung, S. (2014). Assessment of state-and territorial-level preparedness capacity for serving deaf and hard-of-hearing populations in disasters. Public Health Reports, 129(2), 148-155.
National Geographic Society. (2024). Sign Language. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/sign-language/.
Neuhauser, L., Ivey, S. L., Huang, D., Engelman, A., Tseng, W., Dahrouge, D., … & Kealey, M. (2013). Availability and readability of emergency preparedness materials for deaf and hard-of-hearing and older adult populations: Issues and assessments. PloS one, 8(2), e55614.
Noik, Sherry. (2018). Deaf Canadians ‘at risk’ in times of national emergency. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/deaf-canadians-at-risk-in-times-of-national-emergency-1.4832321.
Nova Scotia. (2021). Are You Ready? Emergency Preparedness Guide for Persons with Disabilities and Older Adults in Nova Scotia. https://novascotia.ca/emergency-education/docs/are-you-ready-emergency-disabilities-en.pdf.
Quigley, K., & Lowe, K. (2020). Environmental Scan: Emergency Management Policies and Programs for People with Disabilities in Canada. https://cdn.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/dept/maceachen-institute/Final%20Report%20-%20PwDs%20in%20Emergency%20Management.pdf.
Russell, D., McLaughlin, J., & Demko, R. (2018). Barrier-free emergency communication access and alerting system [Research Report]. Canadian Hearing Society.
Sayles, B. (n.d.). 4005 Sign. Pexels. https://www.pexels.com/photo/4005-sign-3217673/.
SHEVETS production. (n.d.). Young female friends communicating using sign language in library. Pexels. https://www.pexels.com/photo/young-female-friends-communicating-using-sign-language-in-library-7516283/.
Text with 9-1-1. (n.d.). Service Availability. https://www.textwith911.ca/en/service-availability/.
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR). (2023). 2023 Global Survey Report on Persons with Disabilities and Disasters. Geneva. https://www.undrr.org/media/90432/download?startDownload=20240914.
World Federation of the Deaf, and World Association of Sign Language Interpreters (WASLI). (2021). Guidelines on Access to Information in National Sign Languages During Emergency Broadcasts. https://wfdeaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WFD-WASLI-Guidelines-on-Access-to-Information-in-SL-During-Emergency-Broadcasts_Final.pdf.

List of Links Included In-Text

Author Bios

Caitlin Parker (MA-DEM) is currently pursuing a Master of Counselling program at City University of Seattle. She is also a recent graduate from Royal Roads University with a Master of Arts in Disaster and Emergency Management. Her research was in the field of psychosocial support for individuals experiencing intimate partner violence.

Jen McEachen (she/her) is the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility (DEIA) Director at CRHNet and the Coordinator, Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging at the Canadian Red Cross Society. She is a student at the Justice Institute of British Columbia (JIBC) where she also sits on JIBC’s Accessibility Advisory Committee. Jen is the owner of JLM Disaster Resiliency and Accessibility Consulting.

Sarah Cowan (MDEM) is Lab Manager and lead researcher with CEMPPR Lab (Collaboration for Emergency Management, Policy, and Preparedness Research) at York University. Her research interests include decision-making, risk perception, public policy, and inclusive whole-of-society resilience. Sarah is also an Emergency Preparedness Specialist with Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare (MAHC).

You may also like