bennett et al.: asl and emergency alerts international

Bennett et al.: ASL and Emergency Alerts

71

International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters

March 2018, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 71-87.

FEEDBACK FROM THE FIELD American Sign Language & Emergency Alerts: The Relationship between Language,

Disability, and Accessible Emergency Messaging

DeeDee Bennett* University of Nebraska at Omaha

Salimah LaForce

Georgia Institute of Technology

Christina Touzet Man-Machine Systems Assessment (MSA), Inc.

and

Kay Chiodo

Deaf Link, Inc

Email: [email protected]

Emergency alert messages are not always completely accessible for people who are Deaf that rely on American Sign Language (ASL). ASL is a visual and conceptual language that has its own unique syntax and grammar. ASL has no roots in English and is the 3rd most taught foreign language in our colleges today. Not all individuals who are deaf rely on ASL for “clear and effective” communication. For many individuals who become hard-of-hearing or deaf later in life (late-deafened), closed captioning can provide accommodations. For individuals who are Deaf and rely on ASL as their primary language, closed captioning is not a useful means of communication because the information is being conveyed in a language most ASL users do not fully comprehend. Similarly, emergency alert messages delivered via SMS text or email can also present confusion to ASL users who may struggle to understand the written English messages. One size does not fit all; and in this case, English text as a sole means of communication is not entirely accessible for people who rely on ASL. This paper outlines the relationship between language, disability, and emergency messaging as learned from several research studies examining the accessibility of public alerts and warnings. Keywords: emergency alerts, people with disabilities, American Sign Language, and accessibility

Bennett et al.: ASL and Emergency Alerts 72

American Sign Language & Emergency Alerts: The Relationship between Language,

Disability, and Accessible Emergency Messaging Considerations for people with disabilities has long been a challenge before, during and

after a disaster; one such area is with emergency communications. Communications during active emergencies impact individuals’ ability to prepare, respond, and recover from disasters. The importance placed on emergency communications can be seen from the consequences of individuals in at-risk areas not receiving alerts or warnings in a manner or modality that allows them to comprehend the alert and warning. Emergency communications include warnings, preparedness campaigns, and information during recovery, all of which can be inaccessible for some populations at risk. For example, in Saragosa, Texas where a tornado devastated the primarily Latino community, one researcher found that a lack of warnings and alerts in Spanish resulted in hundreds of individuals from this community being injured and disproportionately vulnerable to the disaster (Aguirre 1988). Other research on socially vulnerable populations indicates that communications (both methods by which it is received and perceptions of the receiver) shape how residents make protective action decisions (Lindell and Perry 2004; West and Orr 2007). Mitchell and colleagues (2011) found that the use of wireless technologies in emergency communications enhanced the accessibility of emergency messages for some of their survey respondents with disabilities. Survey respondents with certain disability types (i.e., blind and low vision) rated wireless devices more successful than others (Mitchell et al. 2011). However, there is limited research on the effectiveness of emergency alert messages (wireless or otherwise) for persons with cognitive, linguistic or unique perceptual abilities. While text-like messages on wireless technologies may be accessible to individuals who are Deaf, deaf (late-deafened) or hard-of-hearing, some may only benefit from the information if it is in American Sign Language (ASL). However, even the selection of interpreter has caused outrage and concern. During a press conference following the impacts of Hurricane Irma in 2017, an ASL interpreter allegedly signed gibberish, warning the public of ‘pizza’ and ‘monsters’ during the briefing (Caron 2017). This paper considers the consequences of English-only emergency messages on people who are Deaf and primarily conversant in ASL, as they experience a conflation of language and perceptual barriers.

Socially vulnerable populations often have the most difficult time during emergency response and recovery (Wisner et al. 2004). In the United States, socially vulnerable (previously called special needs) population segments are estimated to exceeding 50% of the general population (Kailes and Enders 2007). The challenges to emergency response and recovery for these populations often include communication, transportation, and shelter (Kailes and Enders 2007; Stough and Kelman 2017). For people with disabilities, these three functional areas impact them the most.


Similar to the findings of older adults, some ethnic minorities and people with disabilities in the U.S. may be inadvertently disconnected from community preparedness activities or neglected during the planning process (Aguirre 1988). Perry (1987) found that some population segments (many minorities) do not find civil authorities such as the police to be credible. Aguirre (1988) found that for some population segments warning messages are ineffective unless good translation is provided for those facing English language barriers. Similarly, Peguero (2006) noted that members of the Latino community preferred to receive preparedness information from friends and relatives. The National Council on Disability (NCD 2005) found that warning messages were often not available to many people with sensory disabilities. Like those ethnic minorities with language barriers, people with disabilities who lack multiple channels or adequate translation are less likely to rely on the official disaster warnings (NCD 2005). For people with disabilities, “friends, family, neighbors, and coworkers are all important conduits for information dissemination (NCD 2005: 76).” Even with newer media such as mobile devices, social media, and wearable technologies, many people with disabilities may not have proper access to the emergency messages (Bennett, Baker, and Mitchell 2017). These trends will hopefully improve in the future, but the impact on social networks are likely to remain the same (Bennett, Phillips, and Davis 2017).

Socio-political ecology theory posits that disasters may cause competition for resources resulting in winners and losers. Unfortunately, socially vulnerable populations are often on the losing side of the competition (Peacock 1997). System theory suggests that the resources at the heart of competition may be transportation, housing, information or communication, to name a few (Mileti 1999). Over the course of several research projects considering the needs of people with disabilities, the authors noted inconsistencies in the considerations for people who are Deaf, deaf, and hard-of-hearing. This paper outlines the relationship between language, disability and emergency messaging as learned from several research studies examining the accessibility of public alerts and warnings.

For hundreds of thousands of people in the United States, ASL is the primary form of communication, encompassing individuals with an array of capacities. Representing a diverse group of individuals, the Deaf community includes those who were born Deaf, deaf or born into families with Deaf members. There are individuals who were born Deaf that have an excellent command of English. However, for many people born Deaf, English is (at best) a second language that may not be able to provide them with access to "clear and effective" communication as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

U.S. estimates of individuals who are Deaf, deaf, or hard-of-hearing range from 4.8 million to 38 million people; with approximately 1 million of these individuals indicating severe hearing loss or deafness (Brault 2012; Gallaudet Research Institute 2014; Mitchell 2006; Pollard et al. 2009). Although a dearth of data makes estimates of ASL use even harder to confirm, Mitchell and colleagues (2006) found from previous research estimates that ASL is the primary language of anywhere from 100,000 to 2 million individuals. The


inconsistencies in estimates call attention to a need for proper census questions on disability in the U.S.

As noted by Pollard and colleagues (2009) people who are Deaf bear similarities to Limited English Proficient (LEP) populations. Not only do many Deaf individuals use ASL as their primary mode of communication, but many also have low levels of English literacy. According to one study by Montoya et al. (2004), high school students who are Deaf were found to have an English reading comprehension level of approximately grade 4.5. Yet, Friedman, Tanwar, and Richter (2008) found the average reading level of online emergency materials to be written above 10th-grade level.

In the context of life-saving emergency alerts, there is a need to ensure that all individuals, including those who use ASL, are being provided access to the information necessary to make informed decisions. Consequently, there is a great need within the Deaf community for certified ASL interpreters to translate government issued emergency alerts. This article describes the basis for this need and suggests a solution that will best aid government agencies in communicating effectively with ASL users in the Deaf community.

SIGNED LANGUAGES

According to the World Federation of the Deaf (WFD, 2014), there are over 70 million

Deaf, deaf, and hard-of-hearing people using some form of sign language as their “primary or mother language.” As a method of communication for these communities (including people with speech disabilities), there are various types of sign languages. Sign languages are complex in that they are not universal, they are not pantomimic, there are different forms, and they incorporate a series of facial and body movements, not exclusive to hand gestures (WFD 2014). Similar to spoken language in this regard, sign languages employ morphological, phonological, grammatical, and lexical structures that differ in dialect and difficulty. Though the preferred method of signed communication in the U.S. is ASL, other variants and derivative systems do exist: Pidgin Signed English, Signing Exact English, and International Sign.

Pidgin Signed English (PSE), or Signed English, is a sign language in the United States (Reilly and McIntire 1980). As noted by Reilly and McIntire, traditionally, Pidgin languages are found to “develop between two diverse linguistic communities in contact,” which denotes PSE a “convergent language” of ASL and English (1980: 26-27). Accordingly, PSE follows the word order presented in English. The structural similarity to English makes PSE more manageable for educators of the language by aiding in the instruction of reading and writing skills; likewise, the English word order is assistive to late-learners. However, even for people who are Deaf and fluent in ASL and PSE, ASL is most often used outside of the classroom environment and conversationally (Chiodo 2014).

Signing Exact English (SEE) is sometimes used in early childhood education of students that are Deaf. Since ASL has a different vocabulary, idioms, and syntax from


English, SEE modifies and supplements the vocabulary of ASL so learners can see clearly what is said in English (Kong and Ranganath 2007). The common criticism of SEE is that it is achromatic, colorlessly communicating unnecessary information.

With regard to language for casual and informal communication, International Sign Language (ISL) is the least commonly used mode of sign language in America. It is, however, the official form of signed communication for the World Federation of the Deaf, the United Nations, and the U.S. Congress. With the understanding that no language form is universal, ISL recognizes that emergency and priority information often requires signed communication, reaching outside of national borders. For this reason, ISL has a “very limited, conventionalized vocabulary” (Rosenstock 2008:131). Unlike most forms of signed and spoken language, ISL is not culturally or geographically-rooted; it functions as an international language auxiliary rather than a common vernacular.

AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE (ASL)

A common misconception of ASL is that it is similar to spoken English. In fact, ASL

is a completely separate language, not related to English and bears no grammatical, syntactical, or idiomatical relationship to English (Neidle 2000). For example, the English language uses past tense (-ed) and gerunds (-ing), to indicate events that have occurred or are occurring, respectively. These elements are expressed differently in ASL. ASL speakers spatially communicate time by signing along an invisible timeline, running in front of and behind their body. As well, the sentence order of ASL and English can be very different. An English speaker may say, “The boy loves his dog,” whereas an ASL speaker may say “BOY LOVE DOG” or “DOG, BOY LOVE” or even “BOY LOVE DOG BOY” (Neidle 2000: 89).2

ASL is a visual, conceptual language (see example in Figure 1) that uses a system of iconic and arbitrary elements to communicate. These elements follow systematic rules and manifest as signs produced by the hands of the speaker (Ferguson et al. 2004). Head tilts, eye gazes, eyebrow movements, and other body motions are also important and meaningful signals used to communicate in ASL. These movements do more than add emphasis to what is being communicated; they are also important in conveying the grammatical structure of a sentence (Bahan 1996).

Another common misconception is that ASL is simply English translated into signs; however, this is certainly not true. Signed English and Finger Spelling may be considered a visual expression of English. However, ASL is a language all its own (Bornstein 1983). ASL is rooted in French Sign Language, and many words, phrases, or idioms in English do not exist in ASL (National Association of the Deaf 2000; Woodward and Desantis 1977).

2 This example is being used to illustrate the differing word order. Because ASL is a visual language, when it appears in writing, like above, it is called “glossing” because it lacks the full interpretation/meaning that would be conveyed with facial expression and posture, as well as the signs.


For example, as noted by the National Association of the Deaf, “a direct translation of the English idiom ‘have to’ would mean ‘possess’ in ASL” (2000: 4).

Figure 1. The Concept of Help is Conveyed by Showing One Hand Supporting the Other and Lifting Up, As in Assisting or Help. ASL Sign for "Help" (hearmyhandsasl.com 2014).

Although there are individuals from Deaf community that rely on various forms of communication such as Signed English, Pidgin Signed English, Cued Speech, or speech reading, English is as much a foreign language to them as Hindi or German, for individuals whose primary language is ASL. As a result, many ASL speakers in the Deaf community have difficulty communicating, reading, and interpreting spoken or written English (Mitchell and Karchmer 2011; Schein 1989). These factors explain why many people in the Deaf community feel isolated in a predominately English speaking and largely English-text-dependent society (Johnson, Liddell, and Erting 1989; Smith 2010).

LEGISLATION

Federal agencies provide the underlying framework to ensure communications in

general and emergency communications specifically reach the whole community, including the diverse population of people with disabilities and those whose primary language is ASL. For example, difficulty in communication between English and ASL speakers resulted in the inclusion of ASL in the Bilingual Courts Act of 1974 which requires that ASL interpreters be provided for ASL speakers in U.S. courts (Beale 1973). Other efforts have succeeded in passing legislation regarding ASL at the State level (Reagan 2011). Currently, 40 states have identified ASL as a non-English language in various forms, either through identifying ASL as “the official and native language of Deaf people” as in Alabama or, more commonly, by stating that ASL can be counted as foreign language credit in primary, secondary, or post-secondary institutions (Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center 2000). Otherwise, accommodations for individuals who


are Deaf or hard-of-hearing, including the use of ASL interpreters or captioning, are covered under broad disability legislation, such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA), or the Communications Act of 1934. After the press conference for Hurricane Irma in Manatee County, Florida, Howard A. Rosenblum, the chief executive of the National Association of the Deaf considered the poor ASL interpretation a violation of the ADA (Caron, 2017).

Individuals with Disabilities Education (idea) Act

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, as amended (IDEA Act) was

passed to ensure free, equitable access to education by students with disabilities. IDEA recognizes that deafness can present barriers related to language. In the development of individual education programs (IEPs) for students in the Deaf community, the Act expressly stipulates that those responsible for the IEP:

‘‘(iv) consider the communication needs of the child, and in the case of a child who is Deaf or hard of hearing, consider the child’s language and communication needs, opportunities for direct communications with peers and professional personnel in the child’s language and communication mode, academic level, and full range of needs, including opportunities for direct instruction in the child’s language and communication mode…’ (IDEA ACT 2004)

Furthermore, IDEA stipulates that to avoid racial and cultural discrimination, any evaluations, or tests must be administered to children in their native language. The U.S. Department of Education (2006) regulations concerning IDEA clarifies that sign language may be the native language for children who are Deaf even if it is not the native language of the parents (e.g., hearing parents of a Deaf child). Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (As Amended)

Enacted in 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a comprehensive piece of civil rights legislation meant to ensure “the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities” (42 U.S.C. 12101(b)(1)). As noted by Jones (2010:1), although the ADA “does not include provisions specifically discussing its application to disasters, its nondiscrimination provisions apply to emergency preparedness and response to disasters.” In 2007, the Department of Justice (DOJ) also recognized that “despite good intentions,” many State and local communities needed additional guidance in order to properly implement the provisions of the ADA for more general government programs in addition to programs relating to emergency management (DOJ 2006). Regarding alerts and warnings, Chapter 7 of the DOJ toolkit highlights the need for multimodal alerting strategies that allow for all individuals to “have the information necessary to make sound


decisions and take appropriate, responsible action” (DOJ 2007: 3). This is also reiterated under Title III of the ADA, which notes the need for auxiliary aids and services, including interpreters, to ensure non-discrimination for publicly implemented programs and services (28 CFR Part 36.303 (Title III, Department of Justice)). Under the Communications Act, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has also implemented rules requiring that emergency information presented aurally must also be accessible to individuals with hearing disabilities either through captioning or “visual presentation.” (47 CFR 79.2) Warning, Alert and Response Network (WARN) Act and Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility (CVAA) Act

More recent legislation guiding accessibility in emergency alerting includes the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) and the Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act (WARN Act) of 2006. The CVAA ensures all communications and video programming is accessible to people with disabilities. This legislation and subsequent regulations require private alerting stakeholders to ensure all equipment that may be used to disseminate emergency alerts, as well as video programming of those alerts, is accessible to people with disabilities. Additionally, the WARN Act explicitly states that an integrated public alert and warning system needs to address the needs of people with disabilities. One response to that directive is the FCC’s 2007 Report and Order regarding Emergency Alert System (EAS) adoption of the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP 1.1), which enables messages to be sent in a variety of formats including text, audio, image, and video. CAP 1.1 makes the incorporation of ASL video alerts into government alerting systems such as EAS more practicable (FCC 2007).

HOW FAR DOES THE NEED FOR ASL REACH?

A key issue in determining the number of individuals who use ASL as their primary

form of communication is the collection of consistent, systematic data on both hearing status and language use. Efforts to enumerate the number of people who are Deaf or hard-of-hearing have been inconsistent (Gallaudet Research Institute 2014). For example, the current American Community Survey asks, “Is this person Deaf or does he or she have serious difficulty hearing?” (U.S. Census Bureau 2013). Yet the 2000 U.S. Census and 2006 American Community Survey asked: “Does this person have any of the following long-lasting conditions: Blindness, deafness, or a severe vision or hearing impairment?” (U.S. Census Bureau 2000; U.S. Census Bureau 2005) The 2010 Census did not ask questions on disability status. Further, the 2013 National Health Interview Survey asks about hearing status in relation to hearing aid use (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2014). Additionally, Mitchell (2006: 113) noted that “deafness is not


only an audiological condition but also a social label,” meaning that the style of the question may dictate the survey responses.

Although surveys enumerate the population of individuals who are Deaf or hard-of-hearing based on varying criteria, questions concerning ASL or language use are often not included. This is problematic as ASL use and hearing ability/deafness are not synonymous. As noted by Mitchell and colleagues (2006), federal efforts to collect language data have not considered ASL. For example, although the U.S. Census collects data on non-English language use in homes, ASL is not included (Mitchell et al. 2006). Instead, Mitchell and colleagues (2006: 309) noted that “any mention of an American signed language is coded as English by the U.S. Census Bureau, apparently on the curious grounds that signed languages are not written and, therefore, cannot be included in ballot materials.” Additionally, under the Bilingual Education Act of 1968, public schools survey languages used in the home, but ASL is often not listed (Mitchell et al. 2006). This, of course, often makes voting a challenge for the Deaf and hard-of-hearing community.

ASL users include “Deaf native signers, hearing children of Deaf parents, and adult Deaf signers who have learned ASL from other Deaf individuals” (Wilcox et al. 1999). Estimates of ASL too often rely on antiquated data, including a 1971 survey performed by the National Association of the Deaf. According to Mitchell and colleagues (2006) “no one has ever undertaken a study of [ASL] use in the general population (2006: 321).” Estimates of individuals who are Deaf or hard of hearing range from 4.8 million to 10 million people, with approximately 1 million of these individuals indicating severe hearing loss or deafness (Brault 2012; Mitchell 2006; Pollard et al. 2009).

EMERGENCY ALERTS

Emergency alerts communicate time-critical information targeted to geographically

relevant populations. The consequences of ineffective emergency alerting have been noted following many devastating disasters including Hurricane Katrina, the Southern California Wildfires, Hurricane Sandy, and most recently Hurricane Irma where emergency alerting efforts were described as inadequate for reaching the populations of people with disabilities (Kailes 2008; Townsend 2006; Santora and Weister 2013). The National Council on Disability (2005) stressed that emergency communication systems “are typically designed for people without disabilities, for whom escape or rescue involves walking, running, driving, seeing, hearing, and quickly responding to instructions, alerts, and evacuation announcements (2005: 12).”

Emergency alert messages and information may be sent in multiple formats, including as local television reports and radio broadcasts, phone calls or text messages, email messages and social media posts. These alerts are most often delivered through sound and text, though this provides many challenges for someone who relies on ASL for communication. For example, a local television news station reporter may verbally deliver


a message on an approaching severe storm, but this audible message is not accessible to the Deaf community. On-screen text and closed captioning provides a readable output of the reporter’s words, however as discussed in previous sections, many ASL speakers may have difficulty comprehending written English.

Those who have become deaf (late-deafened) or hard-of-hearing late in life can use closed captioning as an accommodation. These individuals grew up speaking an auditory, verbal language, such as English and can read the text or may be able to speech read. Nonetheless, a study by the National Association of the Deaf noted that “even the best speech readers in a one-to-one situation were found to understand only 26% of what was said and many bright individuals who Deaf, deaf (late-deafened) or hard-of-hearing grasp less than 5% (2000: 7).” This occurs due to many reasons, including that many sounds in English are made with the same lip movements, the view of the speaker’s lips are obstructed, or the lack of direct translation (grammar and vocabulary) between ASL and English (NAD 2000). Closed captioning is not a useful means of communication for those who rely on ASL because it is presented in a language many ASL users do not use or fully comprehend. Similarly, emergency alert messages delivered via SMS text or email can also present confusion to ASL users who may struggle to translate the written English messages. Comparable to other groups of individuals, one size does not fit all; and in this case, English text as a sole means of communication is not entirely accessible. Given the language diversity within the Deaf community, this should not be interpreted to mean that ASL can substitute closed captioning for all emergency information. In fact, for these messages to be accessible to the whole Deaf community, ASL and captioning should be used together (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Image Courtesy of Deaf Link


Third party translation apps exist that seek to translate emergency alert messages into ASL via an on-screen signing avatar. However, these are not sufficient and can present further communication misinterpretations for various reasons. For example, a common phrase used in emergency alerts is to “take cover.” To “take cover” is a meaningful command in the English language, but it does not translate into a culturally and linguistically competent message in ASL. It can be misinterpreted to mean take something to cover themselves (Mitchell et al. 2011).

Additionally, some emergency alert words, such as “evacuate,” may be finger-spelled by the translation app avatar instead of using the actual ASL sign conveying the concept. A human interpreter would use a sign with the same concept as “evacuate,” but it would bear no ecological relevance to the English word of “evacuate.” ASL translation apps, on the other hand, are often not flexible enough to appropriately translate these meanings. Instead, the app avatar might fingerspell the word “evacuate.” Finger-spelling the word “evacuate” using the ASL alphabet is the equivalent of using the written English word for “escape” with the only difference being that “evacuate” is spelled (finger-spelled) using the ASL alphabet instead. If the ASL user does not comprehend the written English word “evacuate,” they are not going to comprehend it finger-spelled in ASL either. Another key issue within ASL is the use of facial expressions and other body motions to convey meaning within the message such as punctuation or emotion. Many avatars are currently unable to portray adequate facial expressions (Kacorri et al. 2013). Therefore, current translation apps for emergency alert messages are not sufficient in informing individuals who are Deaf that rely on ASL.

CONCLUSIONS

Historically, people with sensory disabilities have not had access to emergency

information due to lack of technology that could provide access in the language and modality that best accommodates their communication needs. This is no longer the case; the ability to alert and warn persons with sensory disabilities was proven in 2005 when the first accessible alert was delivered to residents with disabilities in the Houston area before Hurricane Rita made landfall (Chiodo 2014). To appropriately serve the needs of the Deaf community, comply with ADA Title III requisite for effective communication, and make emergency alerts fully accessible, an ASL interpretation of emergency messages should be provided in addition to verbal and textual information. This would enable people who are Deaf and whose primary language is ASL to receive the message in the language they are most comfortable. This is a critical step to adequately inform ASL speakers of emergency situations and protective actions. An accessible ASL emergency alert would include a video of an ASL interpreter signing the message. This could be incorporated into a television broadcast, or link provided in a text or email to the individual. These messages would be pre-recorded or occur live. In the future, when technology has advanced, an


alternative to using a live interpreter may include using a third-party translation app, yet even then, considerations should be taken when using these systems. A solution would be the use of avatars that can convey the message using hand gestures, facial expressions, and mouth movements to accurately convey the seriousness of the situation.

To help understand the need for ASL interpretation for alerting purposes, consistent data collection is needed regarding both demographic information for people who are Deaf, deaf (late-deafened) or hard-of-hearing, and language use (specifically ASL use). In implementing data collection, a standardized demographic question should be used which not only counts individuals who are Deaf or hard-of-hearing separately from other sensory disabilities but also works to ensure the question is socially acceptable among this group. Data collection tools must also be presented in accessible formats to ensure that the survey instrument does not implement bias. For example, an individual who relies on ASL as their primary language may not be able to complete a survey presented in written English. Accordingly, their information may be missed if the survey announcement and survey are not in a format accessible to them. Not being counted can result in the false assumption that this population does not exist, depriving them of the needed resources and services that are afforded to those populations that are recognized.

It is important to address the inclusion of ASL in emergency communications through the lens of both policy and practice. This article serves to explain the utility of incorporating ASL into emergency communications. The information points to the need for more empirical research to answer the question posed earlier, how far does the need for ASL reach? To accurately describe this population, the U.S. Census form and American Community Survey should include a question about native language, and in the analysis, ASL should not be coded as English. Additionally, disability data should be collected in a manner that allows for a distinction to be made between people who are Deaf and people who are deaf (late-deafened) and hard-of-hearing. Possible wording for data collection to assure more accurate representation of ASL users might include:

If you have difficulty hearing, what is your level of hearing? □ Hard of hearing (significant difficulty hearing, even when using hearing aids) □ Deaf (no usable hearing) □ Not applicable

What is your primary language? □ English □ American Sign Language (ASL) □ Spanish □ Chinese □ French


The absence of an accurate accounting of the diversity within the Deaf community could account for the lack of emergency communication policies and practices that stipulate inclusion of ASL. As with other populations in the U.S., labels that assume homogeneity within a population are often faulty. Over-reliance on closed captioning and text-based messaging as an accommodation to people who are Deaf is a prime example of how such assumptions can go awry. More evidentiary support may be required to move the needle on this issue. Studies on emergency messaging and protective actions taken among the many different segments of the Deaf community could lead to a better understanding of the usefulness, effectiveness, and limitations of current methods for distribution of emergency messages. Ultimately leading to the development of new technologies that enable the widespread use of ASL translated emergency messages. This, of course, requires the use of certified ASL interpreters.

This article emphasizes the need to inform emergency communications stakeholders on the relationship between language, disability and accessible emergency messaging. Unfortunately, since the U.S. Census and other government survey tools have not included ASL as a separate language, the outside interpretation could be that there aren’t enough people to count or that ASL is simply signed English. Since individuals have not been asked, we cannot be certain on the exact numbers. The inclusion of ASL as a means of communication will assist in making emergency alerts accessible to the whole community. Moving forward, policy analysts should seek to identify this population, accessibly survey them, and determine if emergency response and other public services (e.g., voting) have been just out of reach for people who are Deaf and whose primary language is ASL.

Note

Uppercase “D” is often used when referring to a group of people who are Deaf and share a common culture and language (ASL). A lowercase “d” is used when referring to someone who has lost their hearing (late-deafened) because of illness, trauma or age. Carol Padden and Tom Humphries, Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture (1988).

References

Aguirre, Benigno E. 1988. "Feedback from the Field: The Lack of Warnings Before the Saragosa Tornado." International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 6(1): 65-74.

Bahan, Benjamin J. 1996. "Non-Manual Realization of Agreement in American Sign Language." Ph.D. Dissertation. Boston University, Boston, MA.

Beale, J. 1973. Prepared statement of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. In the Bilingual Courts Act: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-Third


Congress, Second Session, on S. 1724. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

Bennett, D., P. Baker, and H. Mitchell. 2017. "New Media and Accessible Emergency Communications." Pp. 119-130 in Disability and Social Media: Global Perspectives, edited by Katie Ellis and Mike Kent. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bennett, D., B. Phillips, and E. Davis. 2017. "The Future of Accessibility in Disaster Conditions: How Wireless Technologies Will Transform the Life Cycle of Emergency Management." Futures Journal 87: 122-32.

Bornstein, Harry, Karen L. Saulnier, Lillian B. Hamilton, and Ralph R. Miller. 1983. The Comprehensive Signed English Dictionary. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Brault, Matthew. W. 2012. Americans with Disabilities: 2010. Current Population Reports, P70-131, U.S. Census Bureau. Washington, DC. Retrieved October 12, 2012 (https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2012/demo/p70-131.html).

Caron, Christina. 2017. "Sign Language Interpreter Warned of ‘Pizza’ and ‘Bear Monster’ at Irma Briefing." New York Times. September 17, 2017. Retrieved September 29, 2017 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/17/us/sign-language-interpreter-irma.html).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2014. 2013 NHIS Questionnaire- Sample Adult. Retrieved July 28, 2014 (ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Health_Statistics/NCHS/Survey_Questionnaires/NHIS/2013/english/qadult.pdf).

Chiodo, Kay. 2014. Consultation with Kay Chiodo, Founder and CEO, Deaf Link: Accessible Emergency Messaging for People with Sensory Disabilities. An interview at the IPAWS Alerts for People with Disabilities or Language Differences (Contract # HSFE5-13-P-0434), Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.

Department of Justice (DOJ). 2006. "ADA Best Practices Toolkit for State and Local Governments: About this Toolkit." Washington, DC. Retrieved 15, 2014 (http://www.ada.gov/pcatoolkit/noticetoolkit.pdf).

---- . 2007. "Title II Checklist: General Effective Communication." ADA Best Practices Tool Kit for State and Local Governments. Washington, DC. Retrieved March 15, 2014 (http://www.ada.gov/pcatoolkit/abouttoolkit.pdf.).

Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 2007. In the matter of the Review of the Emergency Alert System. Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, (EB Docket No, 04-296). Washington, DC.

Ferguson, Charles A., Edward Finegan, Shirley B. Heath, and John.R. Rickford. 2004. Language in the USA: Themes for the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.


Friedman, Daniela B., Manju Tanwar, and Jane V.E. Richter. 2008. "Evaluation of Online Disaster and Emergency Preparedness Resources." Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 23(5): 438-46.

Gallaudet Research Institute. 2014. "Deaf population of the U.S." Retrieved August 7, 2014 (http://libguides.gallaudet.edu/content.php?pid=119476&sid=1029190).

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004). Johnson, Robert E., Scott K. Liddell, and Carol J. Erting. 1989. Unlocking the

Curriculum: Principles for Achieving Access in Deaf Education. Gallaudet Research Institute Working Paper, Gallaudet University, Washington, DC.

Jones, Nancy L. 2010. The Americans with Disabilities Act and Emergency Preparedness and Response. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC. Retrieved March 12, 2014 (http://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RS22254.pdf).

Kacorri, Hernisa, Pengfei Lu, and Matt Huenerfauth. 2013. "Evaluating facial expressions in American sign language animations for accessible online information." Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Design Methods, Tools, and Interaction Techniques for eInclusion. 8009: 510-19.

Kailes, June I. 2008. 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. Retrieved March 10, 2014 (http://www.jik.com/CaliforniaWildfires.pdf).

Kailes, J.I. and A. Enders. 2007. "Moving beyond Special Needs: A function-based Framework for Emergency Management and Planning." Journal of Disability Policy Studies 17(4): 230-37.

Kong, W.W., and S. Ranganath. 2010. "Sign Language Phoneme Transcription with Rule-based Hand Trajectory Segmentation." J Sign Process Syst 59:211-22.

Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center. 2000. States that Recognize American Sign Language as a Foreign Language. Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center, Gallaudet University, Washington, DC.

Lindell, Michael. K. and Ronald W. Perry. 2004. Communicating Environmental Risk in Multiethnic Communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Mileti, Dennis. 1999. Disasters by design. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press. Mitchell, Ross E. 2006. "How Many Deaf People Are There in the United States?

Estimates from the Survey of Income Program Participation." Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 11(1): 112-19.

Mitchell, Helena, J. Johnson, Salimah LaForce, Frank Lucia, Ed Price, and John Morris. 2011. "Ex Parte Comments filed." Pp.9-17 in the Open proceedings of the Emergency Alert System [04-296] and the Commercial Mobile Alert System [07-287]. Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC, April 25, 2011.


Mitchell, Ross E, and Michael A. Karchmer. 2011. "Demographic and Achievement Characteristics of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students." Oxford handbook of Deaf studies, language, and education 1: 18-31.

Mitchell, Ross. E., Travas A. Young, and Bellamie Bachleda. 2006. "How many people use ASL in the United States? Why estimates need updating." Sign Language Studies 6(3): 306-35.

Montoya, Louise A., Reginald Engatovich, Elizabeth A. Echardt, Marjorie T. Goldstein, Richard A. Goldstein, and Annie G. Steinberg. 2004. "Translation Challenges and Strategies: The ASL Translation of a Computer-Based, Psychiatric Diagnostic Interview." Sign Language Studies 4(4): 314-44.

National Association of the Deaf. 2000. Legal Rights, 5th Ed.: The Guide for Deaf and Hard of Hearing People. Gallaudet University Press, Washington, DC.

National Council on Disability. 2005. Saving Lives: Including People with Disabilities in Emergency Planning. Washington, DC.

Neidle, Carol J. 2000. The Syntax of American Sign Language: Functional Categories and Hierarchical Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Padden, C. and T. Humphries. 1988. Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Peacock, W.G., C. Girard, B.H. Morrow, H. Gladwin, and K.A. Ragsdale. 1997. "Social systems, ecological networks and disasters: toward a socio-political ecology of disasters." Pp. 20-35 in Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, Gender, and the Sociology of Disasters, edited by Peacock, et al. New York, NY: Routledge.

Peguero, A.A. 2006. "Latino disaster vulnerability: the dissemination of hurricane mitigation information among Florida’s homeowners." Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 28(1), 5-22.

Perry, R. (1987). "Racial and Ethnic Minority Citizens in Disasters." Pp. 87-99 in Sociology of Disasters, edited by R. Dynes and C. Pelanda. Goriza, Italy: Franco Angelli.

Pollard Jr., Robert Q., Robyn K. Dean, Amanda O’Hearn, and Sharon L. Haynes. 2009. "Adapting Health Education Material for Deaf Audiences." Rehabilitation Psychology 54.2(2009): 232-38.

Reagan, Timothy. 2011. "Ideological Barriers to American Sign Language: Unpacking Linguistic Resistance." Sign Language Studies 11(4): 606-36.

Reilly, Judy and Marina L. McIntire. 1980. "American Sign Language and Pidgin Sign English: What’s the Difference?" Sign Language Studies 27: 151-92.

Rosenstock, Rachel. 2008. "The Role of Iconicity in International Sign." Sign Language Studies 8(2): 131-218.

Santora, Marc and Benjamin Weiser. 2013. "Court Says New York Neglected Disabled in Emergencies." New York Times. November 7. Retrieved February 5, 2014


(https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/nyregion/new-yorks-emergency-plans-violate-disabilities-act-judge-says.html).

Schein, Jerome D. 1989. At Home among Strangers. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Smith, Robert C. 2010. The Case About Amy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Stough, L. M. and I. Kelman. 2017. "People with disabilities and disasters." Pp. 225-42 in

Handbook of disaster research, edited by H. Rodríguez, E.L. Quarantelli, and R.R. Dynes. New York, NY: Springer.

Townsend, Frances F. 2006. The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons learned. Washington, DC: The White House.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Index of Questions: 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved July 28, 2014 (https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/index_of_questions/2000_1.html).

---- . 2005. The American Community Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved July 28, 2014 (http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/questionnaires/Quest05to06.pdf).

---- . 2013. American Community Survey (ACS): Questions on the Form and Why We Ask. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved July 28, 2014 (http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/QbyQfact/Population14.pdf).

U.S. Department of Education (USED). 2006. "Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities and Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities: Final Rule." 34 C.F.R. § 300 and 301, Federal Register, 71: 156: 46540-845.

West, Darrell M. and Marion Orr. 2007. "Race, Gender, and Communications in Natural Disasters." Policy Studies Journal 35: 569-86.

Wilcox, Sherman and Joy Kreeft Peyton. 1999. "American Sign Language as Foreign Language." CAL Digest February 1999:159-60. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Wisner, Ben, P. Blaikie, T. Cannon, and I. Davis, 2004. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability and Disasters. New York, NY: Routledge.

Woodward, James and Susan Desantis. 1977. "Negative Incorporation in French and American Sign Language." Language in Society 6(3): 379-88.

World Federation of the Deaf. n.d. "Sign Language." WFD World Federation of the Deaf. Retrieved June 15, 2014 (http://wfDeaf.org/human-rights/crpd/sign-language).

bennett et al.: asl and emergency alerts international

Documents