6.6. Communicate with Empathy: Create Validating and Empathetic Messaging

Following consequential chemical incidents, particularly large-scale and mass casualty events, the public most likely will be experiencing strong emotions. They may have been displaced, be facing economic challenges including loss of homes and livelihoods, or have been injured or lost loved ones. They may feel frustration with the speed of the response and a potential perceived lack of urgency in achieving recovery outcomes and reoccupation of their homes or businesses. Empathetic messaging is a critical tool for sustaining the community and their continued support during difficult times. Validating the public’s fear, grief, and sadness before giving more information or instruction helps the public feel like their concerns are being heard and taken seriously and increases their trust in the response and recovery process. Regional coordination of messages to encourage continued support for people displaced by the incident, and for people continuing to respond to the incident, will be worthwhile.

From a communications perspective, this means that messages of empathy and validation must be prioritized. Thus, it is critical that staff plan communications strategies that address highly personal and potentially volatile topics, including mental health, reoccupation, and loss-of-life. Remember, too, that these factors affect response staff as well as the public.

Following a chemical incident, especially a large-scale or intentional incident, the affected population – including responders – should be advised regarding common behavioral and mental health effects of such stressful situations. Community-wide advice on individual and group resiliency strategies should be provided, along with information regarding available professional help and counseling. Open, honest, and frank communication about how individuals in the community are feeling helps increase trust and can help the public determine when someone they know may need professional mental and/or behavioral health help.

(See KPF 5, Augment Provision of Mass Care and Human Services to Affected Population, for further discussion of post-incident mental health challenges.)

Both the initial physical removal of people from their homes and their communities, and the need for extended population displacement due to health and safety concerns, will cause distress and other strong emotions. Messages should validate the experience of being displaced and encourage engagement with community cleanup processes, volunteer work, and other activities that may give people a greater sense of control over the situation.

Depending on the spread of contamination in an area, some residences, workspaces, and other facilities may be decontaminated and/or cleared for return quickly, while others may require long-term work and construction to mitigate contamination. Still others may never be reopened for return. The apparent inconsistencies in clearance will likely confuse and concern people who have been evacuated and raise questions about why some can return while others cannot. Messages surrounding return, relocation, and displacement should be clear and consistent and reiterate decision based on health and safety considerations. If levels of contamination are above established or agreed-upon protective limits, messages should talk about why returning to these areas would be dangerous. When discussing protective exposure limits, messages should explain why they afford appropriate protection, as well as the risks involved in exceeding these limits. If the expected dose is too low to cause health effects, state that explicitly.

Injury and death tolls from a large-scale chemical incident could range in the thousands to tens of thousands. Questions about the total number of people injured and lost will be constant; staff should not speculate on the conditions or numbers of people involved, but stick to confirmed facts. A mass casualty chemical release scenario could also have lasting effects on the health of residents and workers in the area for years to come.

There is no perfect way to acknowledge and answer loss-of-life questions. Pain, loss, and grief will always be attached to the event. Communicating respect and care in answers to these questions is therefore crucial from a public trust perspective. Acknowledgements of loss should come from a trusted member of the response— likely a trusted member of the affected community—and must come with a commitment message to the loved ones of those who died.

Recognize, too, that different faiths and cultures deal differently with death. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and SLTT public health agencies may be able to share information about these differences so they can be understood and respected in messaging. There will likely be questions about religious considerations in recovering and burying or cremating the remains of those who perished in the incident. The recovered remains may be contaminated (and/or considered evidence) and, therefore, will not be able to be given to the next of kin for burial or cremation. People who lost their loved ones will have to cope with the fact that they may never be able to bury their loved ones in the way designated by their religion. Again, providing empathetic and validating, accurate, and specific fatality management messages will increase the public’s confidence that fatality management is being handled with the utmost care and respect. Work closely with emergency planners and the response cadre to get as much specific information about fatality management as possible, and make sure to keep the public informed about plans, preparations, and actions taken to recover bodies.