“FEMA can be more agile if it had culturally- sensitive and inclusive-oriented staff on the ground that it can mobilize.”
—Survey Participant
In disaster response, cultural knowledge is a crucial component that significantly influences the efficacy and inclusivity of relief efforts. The 2005 study published in Berkeley Law by Seidenberg, “Cultural Competency in Disaster Recovery: Lessons Learned from the Hurricane Katrina Experience for Better Serving Marginalized Communities” underscores how a lack of understanding about local communities’ cultural norms can hinder the trust and participation necessary for efficient relief work.
For instance, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the failure to adequately acknowledge cultural and socio-economic differences led to delays in support and an uneven distribution of aid. This resulted in extensive individual harm as well as long term displacement of communities who scattered unable to obtain resources to remain during rebuilding. This case highlighted the critical need for responders to be culturally centered to foster an environment where community members feel seen, heard, respected, and willing to engage with authorities.
Why Culturally Centered Disaster Response?
Cultural awareness in disaster management goes beyond language barriers and extends to understanding traditions, religious practices, social structures, and community hierarchies. When response teams are equipped with this knowledge, they can tailor their approaches to resonate more effectively with affected populations. In the area of behavioral health care, lack of cultural awareness has been found to decrease mental health seeking behavior for underserved populations when this care is needed most during a crisis.
In the study, “Cultural Factors in Disaster Response Among Diverse Children and Youth Around the World,” researchers Rahmani, M., Muzwagi, A., & Pumariega, A. J. found that the lack of culturally sensitive interventions led to lower rates of cooperation, help-seeking behavior, and mental health outcomes among disaster survivors. These findings reinforce the argument that an inclusive strategy—one that prioritizes cultural respect and understanding—helps dismantle barriers that might otherwise delay crucial aid and support.
Moreover, disaster responses that lack cultural awareness or fail to integrate cultural knowledge can unintentionally heighten vulnerabilities. Seidenberg’s work emphasizes that marginalized groups often face more severe consequences during disasters because of systemic neglect and insufficiently tailored response measures. For instance, communities with deeply rooted customs or religious practices may not utilize shelters or services that do not align with their beliefs. A culturally centered disaster response approach can bridge this gap by involving local leaders and organizations to create solutions that are respectful and effective. This cooperation not only ensures that aid reaches those who need it most but also builds resilience within the community by empowering them to be active participants in the recovery process.
Culturally centered disaster response is not just an ethical imperative; it is a practical necessity. Publicly available studies, such as those from Seidenberg and findings from Rahmani, M., Muzwagi, A., & Pumariega, A. J., make it clear that embracing the diverse makeup of communities enhances both immediate relief and long-term recovery. When responders understand and integrate the cultural nuances of affected populations, they cultivate trust, improve the efficiency of their operations, and foster resilient partnerships. The lessons learned from past responses show that, moving forward, investing in cultural knowledge must be a cornerstone of disaster response strategies to build safer, more inclusive support systems for all communities in the short-term as well as long-term. For behavioral health care providers and their community partners, building capacity for a culturally centered disaster response is essential.
FEEDBACK METHODOLOGY
In alignment with Disaster Preparedness Month in September 2024, the AANHPI ‘Ohana Center of Excellence (CoE) wanted to gain insight into community perceptions regarding disaster preparedness and entities providing disaster response and aid. The feedback was gathered using an optional survey that was housed on the CoE website. A total of 35 participants completed the full survey. All feedback was collected anonymously and was promoted on the CoE’s email list and social media.
We hope that by sharing these findings, it will empower those affected and foster awareness for those providing relief.
QUESTIONS WE ASKED
The survey contained eight questions:
- What is your zip code?
- What ethnicity/ies do you identify with? Choose all that apply.
- What advice would you give to organizations like FEMA to ensure their resources are inclusive and culturally sensitive for all members of your community?
- Can you share an example of when outside help during a crisis was either beneficial or harmful to your community? What made the difference?
- What specific needs or concerns should be prioritized when developing disaster response plans for your community?
- In what ways can organizations better communicate with your community before, during, and after a disaster?
- How can outside organizations build trust and partnerships with your community in preparation for potential future crises?
- Is there anything else that you would like to add?
RESULTS: ETHNICITIES SELECTED
The survey participants came from diverse ethnic backgrounds, including African American, Caucasian, Chamorro/CHamoru, Cheokee Indian, Chinese, Chuukese, Filipino, Japanese, Kānaka Maoli (Native Hawaiian), Korean, Laotian, Marshallese, Samoan, Thai, Tongan, and Vietnamese. 12 of the 35 respondents chose 2 or more ethnicities. The ethnic distribution shown in the graph below reflects data from participants who completed the full survey.
RESULTS: GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION BY ZIP CODE
The geographic location of the 35 survey participants was within the U.S (Hawai‘i, Arizona, California, Washington, Indiana, Oregon, Florida, Alaska, New York) and also included responses from other countries such as Australia, South Africa, Guam, and Saipan.
RESULTS: TRENDS & FEEDBACK
Note: the initial analysis was conducted using AI tools, with staff closely overseeing and reviewing the process to ensure accuracy and reliability.
Summary
There was a recurring suggestion that organizations that provide disaster response aid should provide culturally centered training to their staff. This includes awareness of specific community traditions, values, and social norms, particularly in multicultural regions. There was also a recurring theme of language barriers and for organizations to create more language access in their response and aid provided. Lastly, there was a recurring theme that organizations lacked community trust because they were not including the communities they served in their decision making—whether it be short-term immediate needs or long-term needs.
Examples of Beneficial and Harmful Aid
Beneficial Aid: The respondents appreciated support that addressed specific cultural or geographic needs, such as Hawaii’s efforts during wildfires and COVID testing accessibility. In some cases, having local residents on the ground to provide direct assistance was highlighted as effective.
Harmful Aid: There were instances where aid was perceived as being insensitive or exclusionary, particularly when national organizations that respond to disasters appeared to prioritize wealthier or more easily accessible areas, leaving behind marginalized communities. Additionally, the bureaucratic nature of FEMA’s processes was criticized for exacerbating trauma in disaster response.
Prioritizing Community Needs in Disaster Response Plans
Multigenerational Household Considerations: Several respondents highlighted the need for disaster response plans to accommodate multigenerational families, particularly in regions like Hawaii where such households are common.
Language Access: Another common theme was the importance of language access and interpretation services for those with limited English proficiency. This would enable communities to better understand and navigate disaster recovery efforts.
Basic Necessities and Continuity: Many respondents stressed the importance of ensuring that basic necessities (like clean water, food, and shelter) are prioritized. Moreover, the need for stable shelter, without the fear of being moved between different locations, was emphasized for disaster victims.
Effective Communication Before, During, and After Disasters
Radio and Flyers: In several communities, radio remains a critical communication tool during disasters. Respondents suggested using local radio stations to keep people informed. Printed flyers were also recommended for individuals who may not have access to technology.
Tailored Communication: Respondents called for communication in multiple languages, especially for non-English speakers. They recommended using radio, flyers, and social media platforms like WeChat (for Chinese) to spread timely disaster information.
Personal and Direct Communication: Face-to-face interaction was viewed as more effective than electronic communication, especially for vulnerable populations like the elderly who may not be tech-savvy. Many respondents requested town halls or in-person meetings for information sharing.
Building Trust and Partnerships with Communities
Long-Term Relationship Building: Respondents expressed that trust cannot be built during a crisis. Organizations should establish ongoing relationships with community members and leaders, helping to build trust that will carry into disaster situations.
Inclusion of Community Leaders: Several respondents emphasized the importance of involving trusted local leaders or liaisons in disaster preparedness and response. This ensures that community members can trust the organizations, as these leaders often bridge the gap between official aid and community needs.
Culturally Inclusive Decision-Making: Several respondents emphasized the importance of having community members involved in disaster preparedness planning, to ensure that plans reflect local values and concerns.
Other Concerns and Suggestions
Economic Realities: Many respondents pointed out that economic disparities, particularly in Hawaii, create challenges for recovery. The high cost of living, housing shortages, and limited financial support make disaster recovery even more difficult for already struggling families.
Holistic Disaster Planning: Beyond natural disasters, respondents suggested considering additional crisis scenarios such as financial instability, infrastructure breakdowns, and food insecurity when developing preparedness plans.
REFERENCES
Seidenberg, D. A. (2006). Disaster planning for libraries and archives: Understanding the legal issues. Berkeley Law. Retrieved from https://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/resources/disasters/Seidenberg.pdf
Rahmani, M., Muzwagi, A., & Pumariega, A. J. (2022). Cultural Factors in Disaster Response Among Diverse Children and Youth Around the World. Current Psychiatry Reports, 24(10). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-022-01356-x
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
The survey results analysis and this article were written by Momi Lievan, student intern with the ‘Ohana Center of Excellence.
I hold the honor of being named after my grandmother, Momi. I am a mother, student, and God-fearing woman. I was born and raised on the island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i where I love to spend time with family, nature, and enjoy the simple things in life. I am currently pursuing my master’s degree in social work at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa as I aspire to empower individuals and communities in becoming the best version of themselves. I hope that these findings serve you well and that you may give yourself grace when navigating the challenges in life.
