Need a 9 Slide Powerpoint Due April 10th

Building Community Capacity and Fostering Disaster Resilience

Virginia Gil-Rivas and Ryan P. Kilmer

University of North Carolina, Charlotte

Objective: To describe, within an ecologically grounded framework, key principles, and recommen- dations for community-level intervention to build community capacity and promote disaster resilience. Method: Using an ecological framework, this article describes community resilience and related con- structs and key principles for community-level disaster preparedness and response. Results: Cur- rent research suggests the importance of focusing on bolstering resources that promote wellness and facilitate individual and community resilience in the face of disaster. Conclusion: We advocate for using an ecological framework grounded in such values as collaboration, social justice, empowerment, and an appreciation of diversity to guide disaster work with communities. We highlight the need to: (a) focus on building community-specific capacity for disaster preparedness, response, and recovery; (b) emphasize increasing the capacity and supportive potential of community members’ natural set- tings to promote wellness; (c) address power and resource inequities; and (d) enhance capacity to ensure contextually and culturally appropriate structures, methods, and interventions. C© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Clin. Psychol. 72:1318–1332, 2016.

Keywords: disasters; community; resilience; building capacity

Disasters are frequently defined as potentially traumatic events that are often overwhelming and sudden and experienced collectively (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies [IFRC], 2013; McFarlane & Norris, 2006). Natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes, tornados, fires, floods) affect a large number of individuals in the United States and around the world every year. Indeed, between 1980 and 2014, 178 natural disasters occurred in the United States alone, with an estimated cost of 1 trillion dollars (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2015). Worldwide, approximately 2.9 billion people were affected by a disaster and 1.2 million were killed, and disasters led directly to an estimated 1.7 trillion dollars in damage between 2000 and 2012 (United Nations Office of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2013). Importantly, disasters have the potential to disrupt the lives of individuals, families, and entire communities at multiple levels in their immediate aftermath as well as in the longer term.

A significant literature has documented the negative effect of natural disasters on individuals and communities. In the short term, disaster exposure can elicit psychological distress (Norris et al., 2002), somatic complaints (Jiao et al., 2012; Kim, Plumb, Gredig, Rankin, & Taylor, 2008), sleep problems, and psychosocial and behavioral problems (Norris & Elrod, 2006). In the longer term, some individuals may develop posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, and other mental health conditions (Norris & Elrod, 2006). This extensive body of work suggests that disaster vulnerability is best understood as the result of the combined effects of characteristics of the individual, group, or community, as well as the social, economic, and political factors that influence their capacity to anticipate the disaster, cope, and recover from the event and its aftermath (Galea et al., 2007; Kilmer & Gil-Rivas, 2010a; Norris et al., 2002; Norris & Elrod, 2006; Weisner, Blaikie, Cannon, & Davis, 2004).

Notwithstanding the documentation of heightened risk for diverse emotional and mental health concerns, only about 30% of those exposed to disasters report symptoms that require intervention (Norris et al., 2002). Others report low to moderate levels of psychological dif- ficulties that diminish in the first few months postevent, suggesting a pattern of recovery. Of

Please address correspondence to: Virginia Gil-Rivas, Associate Professor and Director of the Health Psychology PhD Program, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University City Blvd., Charlotte, NC. 28223-0001. E-mail: [email protected]

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 72(12), 1318–1332 (2016) C© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jclp). DOI: 10.1002/jclp.22281

Building Capacity and Fostering Community Resilience 1319

relevance, many report low levels of symptomatology and normal levels of functioning and have been labeled as “resilient” (Bonanno, Brewin, Kaniasty, & La Greca, 2010).

An ecological framework is particularly well suited for identifying factors and processes that may relate to resilience and facilitate positive adaptation of individuals (Kilmer & Gil-Rivas, 2010a; Weems & Overstreet, 2008) and communities (Trickett, 2009). At the level of the individual, this framework views development, coping efforts, and adaptation as occur- ring within dynamically interacting systems and contexts, ranging from the family, school, and workplace to the community and the larger society (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). At the community-level, functioning and well-being are best understood as the result of transactions across multiple settings (e.g., schools, social service agencies) and levels of influence (e.g., cul- tural, historical, environmental, political) that change over time (Kelly, 2006; Trickett, 2009). This approach accounts for the influence of contexts in which one engages in direct interaction (e.g., families, work groups, classrooms), as well as broader organizations and structures (e.g., schools, coalitions, local business groups), localities, and macro-level forces (e.g., societal values and belief systems, mass media; Kloos et al., 2012). In sum, this framework underscores the need for multiple levels of analysis and multiple levels of action; unitary solutions are inadequate.

Further, efforts to promote disaster resilience require moving beyond an exclusive focus on dysfunction to a focus on wellness and primary prevention (Norris, Stevens, Pfefferbaum, Wyche, & Pfefferbaum, 2008). Wellness was conceptualized by Cowen (1994, 2000) as encom- passing healthy functioning (i.e., academic, work, parenting), behavioral patterns, and a sense of well-being (i.e., self-efficacy, sense of hope, belonging, and purpose) at the individual and the community level. In the context of disasters, this approach is relevant not just for addressing the needs of those deemed to be at “risk,” but it is also appropriate for enhancing the capacity of individuals and communities to manage future adversity successfully (Norris et al., 2008). This perspective also acknowledges the need for disaster response efforts to go beyond a focus on the event itself, to consider the social, economic, historical, and cultural factors that shape the lives of individuals and communities and their capacity to cope (Kilmer & Gil-Rivas, 2010a; Norris et al., 2008; Weisner et al., 2004).

An ecological community approach is crucial for reducing vulnerability and fostering commu- nity resilience, as both formal and informal community organizations and groups are frequently the first to provide assistance to those affected by disasters (Aldrich, 2012; World Health Orga- nization [WHO], 2010). Among their central objectives, these efforts should aim to ameliorate the impact of the disaster, restore important resources, and build the coping capacity of the individual and the community (Hobfoll et al., 2007; Norris et al., 2008; Trickett, 2005).

Grounded in an ecological perspective and the resilience and disaster literatures, the following sections (a) provide a brief overview of community resilience and related constructs, (b) discuss key principles and values to guide community-level disaster response, and (c) put forth actionable strategies and recommendations for working with communities.

Community Resilience and Selected Relevant Constructs

Over the past decade, researchers, practitioners, and policy makers have begun to shift their attention from a sole focus on dysfunction to the factors and processes that may increase the capacity of individuals and communities to manage effectively the demands associated with a disaster (e.g., Bonanno et al., 2010; Gulf Research Program, 2015; Committee on Increasing National Resilience to Hazards and Disasters, 2012; Norris et al., 2008; Trickett, 2005). Indeed, federal and nongovernmental organizations have endorsed a resilience framework for guiding different aspects of disaster management (Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], 2012; WHO, 2010; also see Abramson et al., 2015).

Although the construct of resilience has garnered increased attention, there is some lack of conceptual clarity. At the individual level, resilience is best understood as a dynamic process that allows for successful functioning and adaptation despite adversity (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000; Masten, 2001; Masten & Narayan, 2012). A similar notion holds at the community level: Community resilience has been defined as “a process linking a set of networked adaptive capacities to a positive trajectory of functioning and adaptation” (Norris et al., 2008, p. 131).

1320 Journal of Clinical Psychology, December 2016

Overall, this body of research has underscored the notion that resilience reflects normative adaptive processes at work at both the individual (Bonanno et al., 2010; Masten, 2001) and the community level (Norris et al., 2008).

Facilitating resilience at the community level necessitates collective and coordinated efforts from a variety of groups, organizations, and social institutions to enhance key resources, namely, economic resources, social capital, communication and information systems, and competence (Norris et al., 2008). Economic resources such as stable employment, adequate income, housing, access to clean water and sanitation, availability and access to health and social services, and a strong and diverse financial system are important for reducing vulnerability. The strength of these resources depends on their number and diversity, and the way in which they are distributed in a society. Indeed, prior research indicates that the greatest human loss (Kahn, 2005) and psychosocial difficulties often occur in low-income communities and among disadvantaged groups (e.g., ethnic/racial minorities, those with disabilities, women, the elderly) who have limited access to economic resources and power (Canon, 1994; Inter-Agency Standing Committee [ISC], 2007; Norris et al., 2002; WHO, 2013; also see Cutter, 2006; Elliott & Pais, 2006). For example, race and poverty were associated with disaster preparedness and response in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Specifically, African Americans were less likely to evacuate (Spence, Lachlan, & Griffin, 2007) and more likely to die compared to Whites, and the majority of those who died were over the age of 75 (Jonkman, Maaskant, Boyd, & Levitan, 2009). Further, those living in poverty and from minority groups experienced more severe damage to their homes and were displaced for longer periods compared to their more affluent counterparts (Fussell, Sastry, & Van Landingham, 2010). These disparities may reflect the difficulties poor communities often have in initiating collective action to respond to disaster and in accessing necessary resources (Aldrich & Sawada, 2015).

Human and social aspects of communities are also key resources in the face of disaster. One relevant concept, social capital, refers to the existence of organizational networks that have reciprocal, supportive, and trusting relationships; have moderate levels of overlap with other networks; are able to form new associations with other social networks; and have the ability make joint decisions in a collaborative manner (Putnam, 1993). Social capital also encompasses supportive social relationships and networks (Aldrich, 2012). For example, in the face of disaster, individuals frequently turn to their families, members of their social net- work, and trusted organizations for information, support, and guidance. Consistent with that tendency, family, friends, neighbors, and coworkers are frequently the first to help those af- fected by disaster (Aldrich & Sawada, 2015; WHO, 2010) and play a crucial role in guid- ing governmental disaster responders (Bestor, 2013). Social relationships and the behavior of community members hold salience beyond the provision of postdisaster aid: Social connec- tions and the actions of community members can facilitate preparedness and increase the likelihood of evacuation (Aldrich & Sawada, 2015; Norris, Sherrieb, & Pfefferbaum, 2011) and joint social action (Shepard & Williams, 2014). Furthermore, social ties with a variety of formal (e.g., schools, national and local organizations) and informal (e.g., neighborhood) groups are also of relevance because they facilitate access to economic and informational re- sources and increase capacity to influence decision and policy makers (Aldrich & Meyer, 2015; Chamlee-Wright & Storr, 2009).

To the extent that social capital has been framed as including social-contextual factors, such as “networks, norms, and trust–that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives” (Putnam, 1996, p. 56), it may also be seen as associated with and reflecting elements of sense of community (SOC; see Kloos et al., 2012). One prominent conceptualization of SOC includes four elements: membership, influence, integration and fulfillment of needs, and shared emotional connection (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Membership refers to a personal sense of belonging to and investment in the community, which confers to individuals a sense of emotional safety and identification with the community (McMillan & Chavis, 1986, p. 9). According to McMillan and Chavis, influence refers to the effect each member has over the group and the reciprocal power the group has on individual members. The integration and fulfillment element refers to the degree to which individuals believe members of the group share their values and goals and the extent to which they believe group membership allows them to

Building Capacity and Fostering Community Resilience 1321

fulfill important needs and goals. The fourth element, shared emotional connection, is key and strengthened by the frequency and quality of interaction between group members and shared rituals (Goodman et al., 1998; Kloos et al., 2012; McMillan & Chavis, 1986). These different elements operate dynamically to influence the degree to which people are involved in community organizations and activities as well as their ability to plan and engage in shared action (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Participation in such groups and efforts is an important mechanism for creating a sense of self- and community-efficacy, factors associated with greater social capital and the capacity to cope with adversity (Perkins & Long, 2002).

Communication infrastructure and systems that are reliable and accessible are essential re- sources for facilitating coordination of preparedness and relief efforts (Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research [AP-NORC], 2013; FEMA, 2011; Longstaff & Yang, 2008). Communication in the disaster context requires the collaboration between groups at the national, state, and local levels and community organizations (e.g., neighborhood and faith-based orga- nizations [FBOs]). Mobile phones, the Internet, and social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) have increased the ability of agencies and organizations to share information and communicate with those affected by disasters (AP-NORC, 2013; IFRC, 2013). These technologies, when available and functional, can support efforts to identify community partners and resources, coordinate aid efforts, and take collective action. These technologies also serve as a mechanism by which community members can voice concerns, take a leadership role, and contribute actively to efforts to respond to the needs of their community (IFRC, 2013; Shklovski, Palen, & Sutton, 2008).

While communication systems and technologies are of great importance in disaster response, their efficacy depends on the extent to which the information provided is trusted, clear, and specific; identifies the likely consequences; and provides specific steps people can take to respond to the crisis (Reynolds & Seeger, 2005). Moreover, the information provided needs to be culturally relevant; this requires the use of multiple communication channels (e.g., radio, printed materials, social media) to address the diverse needs of community members (Longstaff & Yang, 2008; Vanderford, Nastoff, Telfef, & Bonzo, 2007). For example, adults aged 65 years and older, those with lower levels of education, and members of ethnic/racial minority groups are less likely to use cell phones, the internet, and social media to ask for help and communicate with others (AP-NORC, 2013). Further, person-to-person communication and interactions increase the likelihood of prosocial behaviors (e.g., sharing food or water, helping; AP-NORC, 2013) postdisaster.

The capacity to collaborate effectively, agree regarding goals, priorities, and strategies for achieving them, and engage in collective action indicates a community’s competence (Cottrell, 1976). Self-reflection by community stakeholders, effective collaboration, and flexible problem solving are viewed as necessary skills for community competence (Goodman et al., 1998). Further, community members’ ability to engage is largely influenced by their sense of collective self-efficacy, or their belief that they can collectively solve the problems they are facing and improve their lives (Bandura, 1997). Critically, community competence largely depends on social capital (i.e., participation, influence, sense of connection and caring) and communication, resources that will enhance the community’s capacity to reach joint decisions and take collective action to respond to and cope with disaster (Norris et al., 2008).

It is important to note that these community resources are linked to individual-level re- sources that are posited to buffer the effect of disasters (Abramson et al., 2014; Hobfoll, 2001). Specifically, according to the conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 2001), the threat or loss of important objects (e.g., housing, property), energies (e.g., income, access to economic resources), and personal (e.g., sense of safety, hope, meaning) and social (e.g., friends, family, FBOs) resources is one of the strongest predictors of psychosocial difficulties. Clearly, indicators of wellness and adaptive capacity at the community level are critical for reducing the likelihood of resource loss at the individual level (Norris et al., 2008).

Taken together, this literature suggests the importance of efforts that focus on bolstering resources that promote wellness and increase the capacity of individuals and communities to cope successfully with disaster. To that end, a challenge for those attempting to undertake this work is how to best translate these ideas into practice.

1322 Journal of Clinical Psychology, December 2016

Key Principles for Community-Level Disaster Preparedness and Response

Disaster recovery is conceptualized as a continuum that includes predisaster preparedness and extends to short-term, intermediate, and long-term response. Of salience here, the recently de- veloped National Disaster Response Framework (NDRF; FEMA, 2011) views the affected community as the leader in recovery efforts (FEMA, 2011). Further, these efforts should en- compass both activities aimed at reducing the negative effect of disaster and efforts to promote greater capacity to manage future events. This perspective is shared by several nongovernmental (e.g., Catholic Relief Services, IFRC, Save the Children) and professional organizations (i.e., Society for Community Research and Action [SCRA]).

In considering ways in which communities can prepare for and respond to disasters, it is necessary to operationalize what is meant by “community.” Community can be defined broadly, operationalized in a manner that reflects geographic- or locality-based or relational ties (see Kloos et al., 2012). The term community can also be used to refer to both formal settings and structures (i.e., community organizations, schools, FBOs) and informal contexts (e.g., neighborhood, grassroots, and support groups).

Multiple authors have put forth values and principles to guide and inform community-focused efforts to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disaster (e.g., Trickett, 2005). In particu- lar, collaboration and community strengths, empowerment, social justice, empirical grounding, and understanding and appreciation of diversity, central values of community psychology and SCRA (e.g., Kloos et al., 2012), are key principles for research and intervention (IASC. 2007; Jacobs, 2007) in the disaster context. As the brief overview below illustrates, these values are not independent, and many of the implications for action that grow out of one could be seen as reflecting another value as well. The specific distinctions are less salient here than the way(s) in which they, taken together, guide an overarching approach.

Collaboration and Community Strengths

Effective disaster preparedness and response rely on collaboration at multiple levels. Agencies, organizations, neighborhood groups, and public human service systems must work together to plan strategically and, critically, must coordinate their efforts (IASC, 2007). Such work also ne- cessitates collaboration across disciplines and sectors, to influence the economic, social, cultural, and political forces that shape the community. Ideally, work to foster these collaborations will take place before a disaster (Norris et al., 2008). Moreover, these efforts should be responsive to the unique characteristics of the disaster and the affected community and flexible enough so they can be adapted to fit the unexpected demands and changes in the community and larger social context over time (FEMA, 2011; Norris et al., 2008). Central to this approach is an emphasis on recognizing communities’ strengths and developing empowering collaborations with com- munity groups and organizations, with the goal of increasing community capacity to manage the demands associated with disaster.

Thus, it is crucial to partner with area residents and stakeholders, recognizing the strengths and assets that citizens bring to the table and appreciating their local knowledge and lived experience. Bolstering community resilience entails identifying and supporting existing leaders who are committed to their communities and who are trusted by community members (Norris et al., 2011). In brief, they are experts on their contexts, their families, and their needs, and it is imperative that professionals taking part in response and recovery work acknowledge and respond to the competence and capacities of community members. They must be prepared to listen, hear from community stakeholders, and respond and adapt to what they have learned so that their efforts can be well targeted. In turn, in optimal circumstances, disaster response will build on the capacity of natural and potential leaders in the community (IASC, 2007; Jacobs, 2007; SCRA Task Force, 2010) as well as informal resources and supports, such as FBOs (see Phillips & Jenkins, 2010). Efforts to enhance community capacity aim to build or enhance local resources for addressing current and future difficulties or to promote community wellness, by increasing the capacity of relevant organizations and/or of the community (IAC, 2007; Trickett,

Building Capacity and Fostering Community Resilience 1323

2009). One key mechanism for doing so is to establish plans, practices, and policies as well as a broader infrastructure that support communication and coordination in response.

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) provides a sound model for this partnership-focused process toward community action. CBPR has been defined as “a collab- orative research approach that is designed to ensure and establish structures for participation by communities affected by the issue being studied, representatives of organizations, and re- searchers in all aspects of the research process to improve health and well-being through taking action, including social change” (Viswanathan et al., 2004, p. 1). These collaborations between researchers and community members are necessarily characterized by mutual trust and respect (Christopher, Watts, McCormick, & Young, 2008), and key elements include co-learning and reciprocal transfer of expertise, shared decision making, and dual ownership of processes and products (Balcazar, Keys, Kaplan, & Suarez-Balcazar, 1998).

Such efforts can lead to ecologically valid approaches linking science and practice (Cook, 2005). As one case in point, some authors (Mercer, Kelman, Lloyd, & Suchet-Pearson, 2008; Pfefferbaum, Pfefferbaum, & Van Horn, 2011) have suggested a CBPR approach to disaster preparedness and response that involves community-level organizing to disseminate and increase access to information to promote accurate interpretation and create social norms that promote community-level action that facilitates information flow, evacuation, and support provision.

Empowerment

Particularly salient to the focus of this article, the value of empowerment can be framed as related to and growing out of an approach that involves collaboration and an appreciation of community members’ strengths. Creating opportunities and settings for people to have a voice and building on the capacities of community members and organizations can be empowering (e.g., Rappaport, 1981; Zimmerman, 1995). At its core, empowerment

accentuat[es] the idea of building, or development, of mastery whereby people lacking access to resources, gain by collective action greater access to and control over necessary resources. Following a disaster, community action is very much about empowering local people to take control over their own recovery (SCRA Task Force, 2010, p. 19).

Participation in decision-making and planning processes is critical, and as such community members (both leaders and residents) need to have meaningful involvement. Doing so would contrast with processes documented in many disaster-affected communities, in which historically disadvantaged and disempowered groups continued to be disenfranchised and marginalized in the wake of the disaster event (e.g., Bobo, 2006).

Social Justice

In light of disparities observed in many postdisaster responses (Bobo, 2006; Jonkman et al., 2009), social justice is another central value that should drive work in disaster readiness and response (IASC, 2007). Social justice can be seen as including two elements: procedural justice, which includes representation and having voice in decision-making processes, and distributive justice, which reflects equity in access to or allocation of resources, power, and opportunities (Kloos et al., 2012; Lind & Tyler, 1988). Processes that reflect procedural justice are necessary because preparation and response will be enhanced if community and public system leaders can provide opportunities for diverse stakeholders to have a voice and be heard. Distributive justice reflects a set of broad-based community change goals, including reducing disparities in availability and access of quality health care, educational opportunities, and the like. Such macro-level social and system change holds direct relevance to the disaster context – developing and enhancing environments that have the resources necessary to promote wellness, opportunity, social justice, and hope are crucial for promoting community resilience.

1324 Journal of Clinical Psychology, December 2016

Sociocultural Considerations and an Understanding and Appreciation of Diversity

Social, cultural, and historical factors shape the nature of the adverse events communities expe- rience, their perceptions of and responses to the events, the nature of the resources available, and how these resources are organized. These factors also influence community members’ percep- tions of the opportunities available and their investment in social settings and contexts (Trickett, 2009). They may also affect views about public service systems, help-seeking behavior, and the like. We advocate for a view of diversity that acknowledges the intersections among multiple social characteristics, categories, and identities (e.g., gender, race, ethnicity, age, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, faith or religious background) that jointly shape individual and com- munity identity and create ecological niches (Harrell & Bond, 2006). With that notion as back- drop, research, prevention, and intervention efforts need to be grounded in an understanding of the unique characteristics of individuals and communities.

Harrell and Bond (2006) offer three principles for research and practice with diverse com- munities that hold clear relevance for the disaster context. The principle of community culture asserts that “every community has multilayered cultural characteristics and dynamics” (p. 366); that is, researchers and practitioners need to identify aspects of diversity that are the most salient in a particular community and setting and understand community customs, norms, and values as well as the nature of the interactions among different groups. To this end, it is critical for professionals to employ an open, caring, and respectful approach to engage members of the community to gain an understanding of how the community views itself, including its strengths, goals, and difficulties.

The second principle, community in context, highlights the importance of recognizing the historical, sociopolitical, and institutional forces that shape the community. For example, in countries frequently exposed to natural disasters, entire communities have organized to carry out evacuation drills and to create physical reminders of prior disasters that can increase the community’s capacity to cope with future events (Aldrich & Sawada, 2015; Bestor, 2013). Sim- ilarly, helping the community identify culturally relevant activities that focus on remembering those who were lost, maintaining hope, and finding meaning can foster resilience (Bestor, 2013; James et al., 2012).

The third principle emphasizes the importance of being aware of how one’s own values, beliefs, identity, privilege, and history influence how researchers and practitioners relate to community members, their interpretations, and the work they conduct. In sum, working with the community requires endorsing a collaborative approach and a stance of “empowered humility,” or the willingness to keep an open mind and learn from the community, recognizing dynamic and multilayered aspects of diversity (Harrell & Bond, 2006, p. 366).

Empirical Grounding

Predisaster planning and postdisaster responses should be informed and guided by data when- ever possible. In some cases, this may warrant a large-scale formal community needs assessment. In others, it may simply involve a less formal survey of an organization, parent group, or school regarding the resources or supplies they need (and do not need). Such steps can support the work of aid agencies and efforts to provide well-targeted contributions. Overall, assessing both the needs and assets of a community can help to tailor recovery efforts and improve trust in and perceptions of those responding and their work (SCRA Task Force, 2010).

In addition, the specific strategies for action and intervention should also be supported by empirical evidence. A multitude of programs and intervention models have been developed, and there are growing resources for accessing information about and identifying evidence-guided or empirically-informed interventions for varying settings (e.g., Jaycox, Morse, Tanielian, & Stein, 2006) as well as the short-term (e.g., psychological first aid; National Child Traumatic Stress Network [NCTSN] and National Center for PTSD [NCPTSD], 2006) and longer term aftermath of disasters (e.g., NCTSN, 2010; Silverman, Allen, & Ortiz, 2010). Notably, the NCTSN and NCPTSD (2010) have developed the Skills for Psychological Recovery intervention, an evidence-informed, skill-building approach designed to be delivered in a wide range of settings

Building Capacity and Fostering Community Resilience 1325

postdisaster. Its foci include helping those affected by disasters to prioritize their needs, build problem-solving skills, and connect with social and community supports.

Recommendations and Future Directions

As Snider and colleagues (2010, p. 32) assert, “community resilience, normal recovery, and positive adaptation in the face of adversity are the rule, not the exception” and the interventions employed after a disaster “must recognize survivors’ strengths and resilience, assume they are competent, and help them to master the disaster experience.” These notions are consistent with the views posited here; they are grounded in both a recognition of the communities’ and community members’ strengths and adaptive capacities and the need to collaborate actively with community members.

These ideas, with the preceding material as backdrop – that is, the varied principles, values, and strategies outlined in the prior section – also point to several actionable recommendations, described below.

Focus on Ecology in Efforts to Build the Community’s Capacity for Disaster Preparedness, Response, and Recovery

Preparedness and postdisaster aid and intervention efforts need to be contextually grounded: An approach that proves effective in one community will not necessarily fit well in another context. In addition, consistent with the ecological framework, disaster preparedness and response war- rant multiple levels of analysis and action, from individuals, to families, to organizations, and to communities. While the need for a contextually appropriate response may complicate the fram- ing of “specific community resilience strategies with general application across communities” (Pfefferbaum, Pfefferbaum, & Norris, 2010, p. 284), an ecologically grounded model can inform diverse promotive and capacity building strategies. For instance, before a disaster, promotive strategies can be employed to help build children’s social and emotional competencies, including self-system resources (e.g., self-efficacy, positive future expectations), via school-based efforts.

There is a substantial literature documenting social and emotional resources and skills as- sociated with resilience (e.g., Cowen et al., 1992) and the effectiveness of efforts to build or strengthen these adaptive capacities (e.g., Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, 2012; Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011). Furthermore, recent work (Kilmer & Gil-Rivas, 2015) suggests that higher levels of child self-system resources can predict lower levels of posttraumatic stress and depressive symptoms subsequent to disaster.

Consistent with an ecological approach, efforts must also be targeted to the prime proximal influences in children’s lives: their parents and caregivers. Research has documented the im- portance of maintaining (or re-establishing) routines, providing consistent discipline, and using predictable and nurturant caregiving in facilitating positive adjustment after an adversity, in- cluding postdisaster (Masten & Narayan, 2012; Snider et al., 2010). In the resilience literature, connection with competent, responsive, caring adults is one of the most commonly reported protective factors, reducing the likelihood of problems in adjustment and increasing positive, healthy adaptation (Luthar et al., 2000). In that vein, efforts to help parents understand chil- dren’s responses to disaster coupled with programming designed to help parents support their children, talk with them about what happened, and guide their coping approaches can be fruit- ful (Gil-Rivas, Holman, & Silver, 2004; Gil-Rivas, Kilmer, Hypes, & Roof, 2010; Gil-Rivas & Kilmer, 2013).

Beyond such child- and caregiver- (or family-) focused steps, psychoeducation and dissemina- tion strategies are necessary to communicate to professionals, aid workers, and support agencies that families’ needs persist beyond the immediate aftermath or initial recovery period, a circum- stance for which they need to plan accordingly (Kilmer & Gil-Rivas, 2010b). These needs go beyond mental health-specific concerns, and prior disasters have demonstrated that a host of informal entities – FBOs, nonprofits, and other nongovernmental organizations as well as other informal supports (see Phillips & Jenkins, 2010) – can help meaningfully after disasters.

1326 Journal of Clinical Psychology, December 2016

In fact, efforts to build capacity can also focus on multiple settings and organizations, with a goal of identifying and bolstering key community resources associated with disaster resilience (cf. next section for more). In particular, these initiatives should focus on communication and coordination across sectors and organizations, including the development of mechanisms for integrative response efforts with FBOs and other nongovernmental organizations. Although considerable attention is justifiably focused on response and recovery efforts, optimally, a system or infrastructure to support this work should be put in place well before a disaster strikes. Developing such a network of support can enhance capacity for response proactively, result in greater efficiency in the aftermath of disaster, and reduce the risk of ill-targeted or duplicative services (e.g., Kilmer & Gil-Rivas, 2010c; Snider et al., 2010). Professional and nonprofessional community members could play roles in laying the groundwork for a collaborative system, one in which the needs of children and families are paramount. Moreover, agency leadership and staff can take steps before disasters to increase their capacity to provide trauma-informed care (Cooper, Masi, Dababnah, Aratani, & Knitzer, 2007; Ko et al., 2008).

Broadly, representatives from agencies and organizations need to communicate directly about their strengths and consider how to capitalize on their competencies in their specific responses; that is, rather than forging forward with the goal of being first or most important (Snider et al., 2010), they must identify and follow through on plans that use their complementary connec- tions, resources, and capacities. If necessary, someone outside of the organizations involved could facilitate the discussions and help coordinate response; Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster often serve this function (see http: //www.nvoad.org/about-us/). Moreover, in the process of decision making, needs assessment, and the like, community members can help iden- tify the community’s resources and its needs, its systems’ assets and gaps, and salient cultural and contextual factors (Center for Mental Health Services [CMHS], 2007; Jacobs, 2007; Kilmer & Gil-Rivas, 2010c).

Emphasize Increasing the Capacity and Supportive Potential of Community Members’ Natural Settings

Although it is clearly necessary to have a coordinated public human service system, with “struc- tures and practices that are responsive to individual and family needs and disaster planning process that has involved partnerships between professionals and nonprofessionals, empower- ing families and increasing the likelihood that services and supports will be well tailored to their needs” (Kilmer & Gil-Rivas, 2010b, p. 140; also see Kilmer & Gil-Rivas, 2010c; Landau, Mittal, & Wieling, 2008), it is also necessary to build the community’s capacity for informal supports and resources. One crucial means of doing so is to create opportunities and contexts that facilitate social connectedness and interaction.

Adults and children alike experience disruption to their social networks subsequent to disaster (Snider et al., 2010), and community members’ natural settings – schools, their faith-based communities, and the like–are well-suited targets for efforts to help children and families connect with others. Linkages within such natural support systems can provide mechanisms by which families may obtain tangible resources and supports (e.g., Landau, 2010). Further, community members and organizations can be trained in psychological first aid (NCTSN, NCPTSD, 2006) to enhance their capacity to respond to the needs of individuals and families in the immediate aftermath of disaster.

Given their central role as part of the infrastructure of a community, strengthening schools’ capacity to serve as a resource for children and families, both predisaster and postdisas- ter, can be beneficial. Schools frequently serve as a source of information, connection, and structure for youths and their families, and those characteristics can be a substantial as- set postdisaster (Kilmer, Gil-Rivas, & MacDonald, 2010; Snider et al., 2010). For example, Jacqueline MacDonald, principal of Mayfair Elementary School, which opened for students displaced by Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath, recognized the critical role her school could play for these children and their families (Kilmer et al., 2010). Overall, she acted in- tentionally to build sense of community, foster connections between school personnel and families as well as among families, establish opportunities for families to have a voice in

Building Capacity and Fostering Community Resilience 1327

the decisions affecting their children, and link families with a range of community agencies and resources (Kilmer et al., 2010). She also placed a priority on children’s socio–emotional needs. In fact, Mayfair used multiple strategies and programs to address children’s psychosocial concerns after Katrina; such school-based interventions can be used in the postdisaster context. It is beyond the scope of this article to outline the array of intervention programs and strategies that may be employed by educators and school mental health professionals after a disaster, but they have been described elsewhere (e.g., Jaycox et al., 2006; Kilmer, Gil-Rivas, & Hardy, 2013; Klingman & Cohen, 2004).

Moreover, in addition to postdisaster programming, schools are viewed as key settings for assessing and identifying youths deemed at risk for poor psychosocial outcomes and for deliv- ering universal prevention interventions (e.g., O’Connell, Boat, & Warner, 2009). Interventions that aim to help children develop and strengthen psychosocial skills (e.g., conflict resolution, emotion and behavioral regulation) and involve both teachers and children’s caregiver(s) hold promise for facilitating successful adjustment after a disaster.

FBOs are another natural target for capacity building. As others (Phillips & Jenkins, 2010) have advised, national FBOs can urge local affiliates to take steps to foster disaster resilience be- fore an adverse event, such as establishing and practicing disaster response plans and enhancing capacity via skill building (e.g., training to coordinate care for those affected by the disaster). Moreover, coalitions or partnerships can also be developed across FBOs, and these groups can outline plans for assisting with rebuilding, taking in and distributing donations, or outreach support efforts (Phillips & Jenkins, 2010).

Overall, while governmental and nongovernmental aid agencies will be onsite and be pro- viding an array of supplies, services, and supports in the immediate and short-term aftermath of disaster, there is significant potential for long-term support within natural settings such as those described here. Embedded in communities, schools and FBOs can be relevant structural and relational settings. They can also help re-establish or enhance individuals’ and families’ connections with others and their community. Building or enhancing capacity in such set- tings is consistent with the need to acknowledge local knowledge and support the empower- ment of communities and their members in their own recovery (Jacobs, 2007; Snider et al., 2010).

Address Power and Resource Inequities in the Community

Reducing economic and social inequities is of particular importance for fostering resilience at the individual and community level (Weisner et al., 2004; WHO, 2010). Societies with equitable political, social, and economic policies and practices are more likely to have communities that possess the adaptive capacities associated with resilience (Abramson et al., 2015; Norris et al., 2008). Unfortunately, in the United States, racial/ethnic minorities, women, children, older adults, those with disabilities, and those living in poverty have limited access to economic re- sources (education, income, employment) and political influence (Bolin, 2007), which diminishes their capacity to manage the challenges associated with disaster.

Further, racial stratification and experiences of discrimination are likely to influence indi- viduals’ perceptions of opportunities in their communities as well as their investment in their community and their trust in social and governmental institutions (Trickett, 2009). Discrimina- tion experiences have also been associated with increased symptoms of PTSD in ethnic minorities after disasters (e.g., Weems et al., 2007). More broadly, such conditions have implications for the community’s ability for collective planning and action in the face of disaster. Thus, both before and after disasters, efforts to reduce disparities in power and access to economic, infor- mational, and social resources, with particular attention to the most vulnerable groups, are nec- essary, and they must involve community members, professionals, and policy makers (Abramson et al., 2015; IASC, 2007; Norris et al., 2008). Such efforts are likely to promote community well- ness and enhance important resources associated with resilience (Kilmer & Gil-Rivas, 2010b; Norris et al., 2008).

1328 Journal of Clinical Psychology, December 2016

Enhance Capacity to Ensure Contextually and Culturally Appropriate Structures, Methods, and Interventions

Culture shapes the meaning and perceived impact of the disaster, community member behaviors (including disaster preparedness; Spence et al., 2007), and efforts to cope at the individual and community levels (Trickett, 2005). With this in mind, efforts to bolster processes and resources associated with resilience necessitate methods and interventions that are tailored to the contexts, settings, and culture of the specific community (IASC, 2007; Kilmer & Gil-Rivas, 2010c). For instance, community members should be involved in outreach activities, including the development of inclusive and culturally appropriate messaging strategies and, in some cases, in the provision of services and supports (CMHS, 2007; Jacobs, 2007).

Because they take into account the behaviors, beliefs, and attitudes of a particular commu- nity (Bernal, Jiménez-Chafey, & Domenech Rodrı́guez, 2009), interventions that are culturally and contextually informed are likely to have greater ecological validity and are more likely to contribute to community resilience in the face of disaster (Abramson et al., 2015). Schools, FBOs, and special interest groups (e.g., ethnic/racial groups or clubs) have knowledge about the history, culture, and expectations of community members and are frequently trusted sources of information and assistance (Kilmer et al., 2010; Phillips & Jenkins, 2010). Importantly, these groups can serve as key links between the community and national, state, and local organiza- tions, institutions, and policy makers; in fact, they can be viewed “as part of the workforce” (CMHS, 2007, p. 8). As such, researchers, practitioners, and those providing aid or supportive programming would benefit from partnering with these groups to engage community members in efforts to address resource inequities, identify strengths and resources available, and mobi- lize existing social networks to respond effectively to the diverse needs of community members postdisaster (Kilmer & Gil-Rivas, 2010c; Norris et al., 2008).

Conclusion

In sum, efforts to contribute to disaster resilience need to employ an ecological framework that emphasizes multiple strategies to bolster factors and conditions associated with community resilience processes. Such an approach is a necessary complement to risk- or vulnerability- driven research and action. The principles and ideas summarized here can guide researchers, practitioners, and community stakeholders in their efforts to enhance community capacity and, in turn, promote wellness in communities and their members postdisaster.

References

Abramson, D. M., Grattan, L. M., Mayer, B., Colten, C. E., Arosemena, F. A., Bedimo-Rung, A., & Lichtveld, M. (2014). The resilience activation framework: A conceptual model of how access to social resources promotes adaptation and rapid recovery in post-disaster settings. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 42, 42–43.

Aldrich, D. P. (2012). Building resilience: Social capital in post-disaster recovery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Aldrich, D. P., & Meyer, M. A. (2015). Social capital and community resilience. American Behavioral Scientist, 59, 254–269.

Aldrich, D. P., & Sawada, Y. (2015). The physical and social determinants of mortality in the 3.11 tsunami. Social Science & Medicine, 124, 66–75.

Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. (2013). Communication during disaster res- ponse and recovery. Retrieved from: http://www.apnorc.org/PDFs/Resilience%20in%20Superstorm% 20Sandy/Communications_Final.pdf

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bernal, G., Jiménez-Chafey, M. I., & Domenech Rodrı́guez, M. M. (2009). Cultural adaptation of treat- ments: A resource for considering culture in evidence-based practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 361–368.

Bestor, T. C. (2013). Disasters, natural and unnatural: Reflections on March 11, 2011, and its aftermath. The Journal of Asian Studies, 72, 763–782.

Building Capacity and Fostering Community Resilience 1329

Bobo, L. D. (2006). Katrina: Unmasking race, poverty, and politics in the 21st century. Du Bois Review, 3, 1–6.

Bolin, B. (2007). Race, class, ethnicity, and disaster vulnerability. In H. Rodrı́guez, E. L. Quarantelli, & R. R. Dynes (Eds.), Handbook of disaster research (pp. 113–129). New York: Springer.

Bonanno, G. A., Brewin, C. R., Kaniasty, K., & La Greca A. M. (2010). Weighing costs of disaster: Consequences, risks, and resilience in individuals, families, and communities. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 11, 1–49.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In W. R. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.) & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 793–828). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Center for Mental Health Services. (2007). Building bridges: Mental health consumers and representatives of the disaster response community in dialogue (Publication No. 4250). Rockville, MD: Author. Retrieved from: https://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content/SMA07-4250/SMA07-4250.pdf

Chamlee-Wright, E., & Storr, V. H. (2009). Club goods and post-disaster community return. Rationality and Society, 21, 429–458.

Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2012). 2013 CASEL guide: Effective social and emotional learning programs—Preschool and elementary school edition. Chicago, IL: Author.

Committee on Increasing National Resilience to Hazards and Disasters; Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy; Policy and Global Affairs; The National Academies. (2012). Disaster resilience: A national imperative. Washington DC: The National Academies. doi:10.17226/13457

Cooper, J. L., Masi, R., Dababnah, S., Aratani, Y., & Knitzer, J. (2007). Strengthening policies to support children, youth, and families who experience trauma (Unclaimed Children Revisited: Working Paper No. 2). Retrieved from: National Center for Children in Poverty website: http://www.nccp.org/ publications/pdf/text_737.pdf

Cowen, E. L. (1994). The enhancement of psychological wellness: Challenges and opportunities. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 149–179.

Cowen, E. L. (2000). Community psychology and routes to psychological wellness. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of community psychology (pp. 79–99). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Cowen, E. L., Work, W. C., Wyman, P. A., Parker, G. R., Wannon, M., & Gribble, P. A. (1992). Test comparisons among stress-affected, stress-resilient and nonclassified fourth through sixth grade urban children. Journal of Community Psychology, 20, 200–214.

Cutter, S. (2006). The geography of social vulnerability: Race, class, and catastrophe. Understanding Katrina: Perspectives from the social sciences. Retrieved from: http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Cutter

Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A.B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interven- tions. Child Development, 82, 405–432.

Elliott, J. R., & Pais, J. (2006). Race, class, and Hurricane Katrina: Social differences in human responses to disaster. Social Science Research, 35, 295–321.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2011). The National Disaster Recovery Framework: Streng- thening disaster recovery for the nation. Retrieved from: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/recoveryframe- work/ndrf.pdf

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2012). Crisis response and disaster resilience 2030: Forg- ing strategic action in and age of uncertainty. Retrieved from: http://www.fema.gov/media-library- data/20130726-1816-25045-5167/sfi_report_13.jan.2012_final.docx.pdf

Gil-Rivas, V., Holman, E. A., & Silver, R. C. (2004). Adolescent vulnerability following the September 11th

terrorist attacks: A study of parents and their children. Applied Developmental Science, 8, 130–142.

Gil-Rivas, V., & Kilmer, R. P. (2013). Children’s adjustment following Hurricane Katrina: The role of primary caregivers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 83, 413–421.

Gil-Rivas, V., Kilmer, R. P., Hypes, A. W., & Roof, K. A. (2010). The caregiver-child relationship and children’s adjustment following Hurricane Katrina. In R. P. Kilmer, V. Gil-Rivas, R. G. Tedeschi, & L. G. Calhoun (Eds.), Helping families and communities recover from disaster: Lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath (pp. 55–76). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Goodman, R. M., Speers, M. A., McLeroy, K., Fawcett, S., Kegler, M., Parker, E., . . . Wallerstein, N. (1998). Identifying and defining the dimensions of community capacity to provide a basis for measurement. Health Education & Behavior, 25, 258–278.

1330 Journal of Clinical Psychology, December 2016

Gulf Research Program. (2015). Opportunities for the Gulf Research Program: Community resilience and health: Summary of a workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Harrell S. P., & Bond, M. A. (2006). Listening to diversity stories: Principles for practice in community research and action. American Journal of Community Psychology, 37, 365–376.

Hobfall, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 337–421.

Hobfoll, S. E., Robertson, C. L., Savik, K., Bryant, R.A., Brymer, M. J., . . . Ursano, R. J. (2007). Five essential elements of immediate and mid-term mass trauma intervention: Empirical evidence. Psychiatry, 70, 283–315.

Inter-Agency Standing Committee. (2007). IASC guidelines on mental health and psychosocial support in emergency settings. Geneva: Author. http://www.who.int/mental_health/emergencies/ guidelines_iasc_mental_health_psychosocial_june_2007.pdf

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. (2013). World disasters report: Focus on technology and the future of humanitarian action. http://www.ifrc.org/PageFiles/134658/WDR% 202013%20complete.pdf

Jacobs, G. A. (2007). The development and maturation of humanitarian psychology. American Psychologist, 62, 932–941.

Jaycox, L. H., Morse, L. K., Tanielian, T., & Stein, B. D. (2006). How schools can help student recover from traumatic experiences: A tool kit for supporting long-term recovery (Tech. Rep. 413). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/ technical_reports/2006/RAND_TR413.pdf

Jonkman, S. N., Maaskant, B., Boyd, E., & Levitan, M. L. (2009). Loss of life caused by the flooding of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina: Analysis of the relationship between flood characteristics and mortality. Risk Analysis, 29, 679–698.

Kahn, M. E. (2005). The death toll from natural disasters: The role of income, geography, and institutions. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 87, 271–284.

Kelly, J. G. (2006). On becoming ecological: An expedition into community psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kilmer, R. P., & Gil-Rivas, V. (2010a). Introduction: Attending to ecology. In R. P. Kilmer, V. Gil-Rivas, R. G. Tedeschi, & L. G. Calhoun (Eds.), Helping families and communities recover from disaster: Lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath (pp. 3–24). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Kilmer, R. P., & Gil-Rivas, V. (2010b). Responding to the needs of children and families after a disaster: Linkages between unmet needs and caregiver functioning. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80, 135–142. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01016.x

Kilmer, R. P., & Gil-Rivas, V. (2010c). Epilogue: Meeting the needs of children, families, and communities post-disaster. In R. P. Kilmer, V. Gil-Rivas, R. G. Tedeschi, & L. G. Calhoun (Eds.), Helping families and communities recover from disaster: Lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath (pp. 313–322). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Kilmer, R. P., & Gil-Rivas, V. (2015). Associations between children’s self-system functioning and their depressive and posttraumatic stress symptoms following disaster. Manuscript in preparation.

Kilmer, R. P., Gil-Rivas, V., & Hardy, S. J. (2013). Natural disasters and terrorism. In E. Rossen & R. Hull (Eds.). Supporting and educating traumatized students: A guide for school-based professionals (pp. 229–250). New York: Oxford University Press.

Kilmer, R. P., Gil-Rivas, V., & MacDonald, J. (2010). Implications of major disasters for educators, admin- istrators, and school-based mental Health professionals: Needs, actions, and the example of Mayfair Elementary. In R. P. Kilmer, V. Gil-Rivas, R. G. Tedeschi, & L. G. Calhoun (Eds.), Helping families and communities recover from disaster: Lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath (pp. 167–192). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Klingman, A., & Cohen, E. (2004). School-based multisystemic interventions for mass trauma. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Kloos, B., Hill, J., Thomas, E., Wandersman, A., Elias, M. J., & Dalton, J. H. (2012). Community psychology. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.

Ko, S. J., Ford, J. D., Kassam-Adams, N., Berkowitz, S. J., Wilson, C., Wong, M., . . . Layne, C. (2008). Cre- ating trauma-informed systems: Child welfare, education, first responders, health care, juvenile justice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39, 396–404.

Building Capacity and Fostering Community Resilience 1331

Landau, J. (2010). Communities that care for families: The LINC model for enhancing individual, family, and community resilience. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80, 516–524.

Landau, J., Mittal, M., & Wieling, E. (2008). Linking human systems: Strengthening individuals, families, and communities in the wake of mass trauma. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 34, 193–209.

Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.

Longstaff, P. H., & Yang, S. (2008). Communication management and trust: Their role in building resilience to “surprises” such as natural disasters, pandemic flu, and terrorism. Ecology and Society, 13, 3.

Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71, 543–562.

Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56, 227–238.

Masten, A. S., & Narayan, A. J. (2012). Child development in the context of disaster, war, and terrorism: Pathways of risk and resilience. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 227–257.

Mercer, J., Kelman, I., Lloyd, K., & Suchet-Pearson, S. (2008). Reflections on use of participatory research for disaster risk reduction. Area, 40, 172–183.

McFarlane, A. C., & Norris, F. (2006). Definitions and concepts in disaster research. In F. Norris, S. Galea, M. Friedman, & P. Watson (Eds.), Methods for disaster mental health research (pp. 3–19). New York: Guilford Press.

McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6–23.

National Center for PTSD, NCTSN National Child Traumatic Stress Network. (2006). Psychological first aid operations guide (2nd ed.). Retrieved from: http://dmh.mo.gov/docs/diroffice/disaster/pfafieldope- rationsguide2ndedition.pdf

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2015). Billion-dollar U.S. weather/climate disasters 1980–2014. Retrieved from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events.pdf

Norris, F., Friedman, M.J., Watson, P. J., Byrne, C. M., Diaz, E., & Kaniasty, K. (2002). 60,000 victims speak: Part I, An empirical review of the literature, 1981–2001. Psychiatry, 65, 207–239.

Norris, F. H., & Elrod, C. L. (2006). Psychosocial consequences of disaster: A review of the literature. In F. Norris, S. Galea, M. Friedman, & P. Watson (Eds.), Methods for disaster mental health research (pp. 20–42). New York: Guilford Press.

Norris, F. H., Sherrieb, K., & Pfefferbaum, B. (2011). Community resilience: Concepts, assessment, and implications for intervention. In S. M. Southwick, B. T. Litz, D. Charney, & M. J. Friedman (Eds.), Resilience and mental health challenges across the lifespan (pp. 162–175). Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press.

Norris, F. H., Stevens, S. P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K. F., & Pfefferbaum, R. L. (2008). Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities and strategy for disaster readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 127–150.

O’Connell, M. E., Boat, T., & Warner, K. E. (2009). Preventing mental, emotional, and behavioral disor- ders among young people: Progress and possibilities. Washington DC: Institute of Medicine, National Research Council.

Perkins, D. D., & Long, D. A. (2002). Neighborhood sense of community and social capital: A multi- level analysis. In A. Fisher, C. Sonn, & B. Bishop (Eds.), Psychological sense of community: Research, applications, and implications (pp. 291–318). New York: Plenum.

Pfefferbaum, B., Pfefferbaum, R. L., & Norris, F. H. (2010). Community resilience and wellness for children exposed to Hurricane Katrina. In R. P. Kilmer, V. Gil-Rivas, R. G. Tedeschi, & L. G. Calhoun (Eds.), Helping families and communities recover from disaster: Lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath (pp. 265–288). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Pfefferbaum, R. L., Pfefferbaum, B., & Van Horn, R. L. (2011). Communities Advancing Resilience Toolkit (CART): The CART Integrated System. Oklahoma City, OK: Terrorism and Disaster Center at the Uni- versity of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. Retrieved from: http://www.oumedicine.com/docs/ad- psychiatry-workfiles/cart_online-final_042012.pdf?sfvrsn = 2

Phillips, B., & Jenkins, P. (2010). The roles of faith-based organizations after Hurricane Katrina. In R. P. Kilmer, V. Gil-Rivas, R. G. Tedeschi, & L. G. Calhoun (Eds.). Helping families and communities recover from disaster: Lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath (pp. 215–238). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

1332 Journal of Clinical Psychology, December 2016

Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 121–148.

Reynolds, B., & Seeger, M. W. (2005). Crisis and emergency risk communication as an integrated model. Journal of Health Communication, 10, 43–55.

Shklovski, I., Palen, L., & Sutton, J. (2008). Finding community through information and communication technology during disaster events. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, November 8–12.

Silverman, W. K., Allen, A., & Ortiz, C. D. (2010). In R. P. Kilmer, V. Gil-Rivas, R. G. Tedeschi, & L. G. Cal- houn (Eds.), Helping families and communities recover from disaster: Lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath (pp. 289–312). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Snider, L., Hoffman, Y., Littrell, M., Fry, M. W., & Thornburgh, M. (2010). Supporting children after Hurricane Katrina: Reflections on psychosocial principles in practice. In R. P. Kilmer, V. Gil-Rivas, R. G. Tedeschi, & L. G. Calhoun (Eds.), Helping families and communities recover from disaster: Lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath (pp. 25–51). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Society for Community Research and Action Task Force for Disaster, Community Readiness, and Recovery. (2010). How to help your community recover following disaster: A man- ual for planning and action. Society for Community Research and Action. Retrieved from http://www.scra27.org/files/2114/0605/7122/SCRA_Disaster_Recovery_Manual.pdf

Spence, P. R., Lachlan, K. A., & Griffin, D. R. (2007). Crisis communication, race, and natural disasters. Journal of Black Studies, 37, 539–544.

Trickett, E. J. (2005). The community context of disaster and traumatic stress: An ecological perspective from community psychology. In S. E. Hobfoll, & M. W. de Vries (Eds.), Extreme stress and communities: Impact and interventions (pp. 11–25). New York: Kluewer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Trickett, E. J. (2009). Community psychology: Individuals and interventions in community context. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 395–419.

United Nations Office of Disaster Risk Reduction. (2013). Disaster impacts/2000-2012. Retrieved from: http://www.preventionweb.net/files/31737_20130312disaster20002012copy.pdf

Vanderford, M. L., Nastoff, T., Telfer, J. L., & Bonzo, S. E. (2007). Emergency communication challenges in response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35, 9–25.

Viswanathan, M., Ammerman, A., Eng, E., Gartlehner, G., Lohr, K.N., Griffith, D., . . . Whitener, L. (2004). Community-Based Participatory Research: Assessing the Evidence. Evidence Report/Technology As- sessment No. 99 (Prepared by RTI—University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290–02–0016). AHRQ Publication 04–E022–2. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Re- search and Quality.

Weems, C. F., & Overstreet, S. (2008). Child and adolescent mental health research in the context of Hurricane Katrina: An ecological needs-based perspective and introduction to the Special Section. Journal of Clinical Childs and Adolescent Psychology, 37, 487–494.

Weems, C. F., Watts, S. E., Marsee, M. A., Taylor, L. K., Costa, N. M., Cannon, M. F., et al. (2007). The psychosocial impact of Hurricane Katrina: Contextual differences in psychological symptoms, social support, and discrimination. Behavior Research and Therapy, 45, 2295–2306.

Weisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., & Davis, I. (2004). At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disaster (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

World Health Organization. (2010). Community resilience in disasters: How the primary health care approach made a difference in recent emergencies in the WHO South-East Asia Region. New Delhi: India. Retrieved from: http://www.preventionweb.net/files/15750_ehacrd1.pdf

Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 581–599.

Copyright of Journal of Clinical Psychology is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.