How Rural Contexts Shape Disaster Recovery

Publication Date: 2024

Abstract

This study is based in Happy Camp, California, a small, rural town that was devastated by the Slater Fire of 2020. It aims to better understand how recovery from a wildfire disaster develops in rural communities—which typically have less resources, funding, and capacity to respond to disasters—by identifying factors that serve as barriers to recovery and those that contribute to it. In addition to focusing on the rural community’s recovery in general, this study takes a targeted interest in children and their recovery trajectories over the three years since the disaster struck. We conducted interviews, focus groups, and pre-interview questionnaires with Happy Camp community members and key informants between February and May 2024 to understand their recovery experience. Results indicate that survivors have a strong commitment to Happy Camp. There is a rich culture in this rural community that needs to be understood in order to support recovery. Community infrastructure, like local community partners and trusted external partners, are integral to recovery and resilience, and trust is the critical factor needed in order to effectively serve the community. Additionally, schools have the potential to function as a pillar of the community during disaster recovery if they are properly supported. Barriers concerning adequate housing and funding after disaster negatively impact schools’ ability to recruit needed support staff and inhibit the ability of residents to rebuild and continue strengthening the community. Unlike urban areas that can leverage resources in neighboring communities while rebuilding, the rural isolation of Happy Camp makes adequate housing and funding an immediate necessity during recovery in order to house educators, caseworkers, and other disaster support staff. Children noted that they were still processing the impacts of the fire, both emotionally and logistically after returning to school. Children’s recovery seems to mirror the overall recovery of their families, where children of parents who were further along in recovery or coping well felt less impacted by the disaster recovery process.

Introduction

Happy Camp, California, is a rural, isolated community located in the Klamath National Forest. The town was originally inhabited by the Karuk tribe and the tribe still plays a critical role in the culture and political organization of the town, with the Karuk Tribe Administration providing numerous community services including but not limited to health and dental care, human services programming, and emergency management services (Karuk Tribe, n.d.¹). The town received the name Happy Camp in the 1800s after a prospector, James Camp, exclaimed that seeing the area was the happiest day of his life (Gudde & Bright, 1998²). For the next century, logging was the dominant industry in the community, but the 1990s brought changes in environmental logging requirements that drastically changed the economy of the town (Paddock, 1995³). While the population in Happy Camp has been declining, those that reside in Happy Camp express their appreciation for its rural beauty and sense of community and are committed to seeing Happy Camp thrive. The population is estimated at 844 people with an average household income of $46,015 (DataUSA, 2023⁴). The poverty rate is 32.1%. Ethnic groups in Happy Camp appear in Table 1.

Table 1. Ethnic Groups in Happy Camp

The National Risk Index published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA, n.d.-a⁵) rates Happy Camp as socially vulnerable and in a high-hazard risk zone. In fact, FEMA ranks Happy Camp in the 98th percentile for wildfire risk. The state of California, using data from its Office of Environmental Health, named Happy Camp a disadvantaged community with priority population status (California Climate Investments, 2023⁶). The U.S. Department of Agriculture classifies Happy Camp as a Level 4 Frontier and Remote (FAR) community. FAR communities are small in population and geographically remote, with Level 4 being the most remote with regards to distance to any urban area (Economic Research Service, n.d.⁷). Indeed, the nearest incorporated city to Happy Camp is over 1.5 hours away.

In September of 2020, the Slater Fire destroyed 212 of Happy Camp's homes, the equivalent of 40% of the community’s housing (RISE Collaborative, 2023⁸). The community has been focused on recovery efforts over the last three years. In addition to researching rural community recovery, this study takes a targeted interest in the recovery experience of children impacted by wildfires. As a whole, wildfires across the world are increasingly larger, more severe, and incurring unprecedented costs (Xu et al., 2020⁹). In the United States, wildfires have become larger (mean size increased by 78% from 1992–2015), more frequent (by 12%), and the wildfire season has become longer (17%) (Thomas et al., 2022¹⁰). In California, the estimated economic impacts from lost infrastructure and homes, healthcare costs, and business and employment disruptions reached $148.5 billion in 2018, or roughly 1.5% of the state’s Gross Domestic Product (Wang et al., 2021¹¹). Increasing wildfires and their impacts necessitate further understanding into how vulnerable communities can strengthen their abilities to recover. Happy Camp continues to experience wildfires, including the Happy Camp Complex Fire that burned 21,725 acres between August and October of 2023 (CalFire, 2023¹²).

This study aims to establish positive recovery pathways for rural communities and, more specifically, the recovery needs of children in rural contexts. We use the results to identify opportunities to improve disaster preparedness and recovery planning in rural communities. Our study also establishes priorities for future rural disaster recovery research and shares insights into children's perspectives on disaster recovery to better inform how to support them in future disasters.

Literature Review

Rural Communities, Climate Change, and Vulnerabilities

In recent years, most of the published disaster health literature concerns urban areas (Chan et al., 2019¹³) and cannot be applied to rural communities. Rural communities are disproportionately vulnerable to climate-related hazards, as rural populations tend to be older, less affluent, have lower education levels, and suffer from higher levels of unemployment and poverty than urban residents (Isserman et al., 2009¹⁴; Basu & Samet, 2002¹⁵; Houghton et al., 2017¹⁶). Rural preparedness has been identified as a national vulnerability since 2002 (FEMA, n.d.-b¹⁷). Rural areas have also been made more vulnerable to hazards and disasters due to historical marginalization and disinvestment. Common challenges include limited financial resources and government funding, aging or inadequate infrastructure, less capacity to support disaster response, fewer social service and support organizations, and challenges with communication infrastructure, all of which hinder the disaster preparedness, response, and recovery efforts (Rural Health Information Hub, n.d.¹⁸; Kappel et al., 2023¹⁹). Rural economies also tend to be less diverse, which make them extremely vulnerable when dominant industries are affected by disasters (Kapucu et al., 2014²⁰). At the same time, their size may place them at a disadvantage in competing for federal or state recovery grants that are awarded in part based on population (Kapucu et al., 2014). In order to strengthen their resilience to disasters, rural communities need more information about policies and approaches that reduce the unequal burden that they experience and protect the most socially vulnerable members of their populations (Hansen et al., 2022²¹).

During disaster recovery, communities have specific needs. One study explored the barriers to recovery in both urban and rural communities (Safapour et al., 2021²²). The most common barriers include ineffective coordination and management, delays in reconstruction process, cost overruns, financial corruption, and lack of commitment (Safapour et al., 2021).

Children’s Recovery From Disasters

Despite recognition of young people's vulnerabilities in disaster, relatively little research has explored their specific needs or their perspectives on recovery and resilience (Cox et al., 2017²³). Previous studies of youth and disasters are largely devoted to mental health outcomes (Clemens et al., 2022²⁴). Research has shown that children affected by disasters, for example, report psychological distress and display symptoms of post-traumatic stress with comorbid depression (Lai et al., 2013²⁵). Investigations of young people's lived experiences of disaster recovery, however, remain a critical need (Cox et al., 2017). Our research aims to expand the understanding of children’s recovery from disasters by learning and evaluating their experience, as shared directly by the children. This will facilitate insights that are aligned with the perspective of children so that we can better adapt recovery efforts to meet their unique needs.

Families and Schools in Children’s Disaster Recovery

Schools and families play critical roles in supporting children’s recovery from disasters. Parental mental health after a disaster, for example, has known impacts on children’s recovery path. Research has shown that children who experience post-disaster behavior changes, including increased fear or worry, are more likely to have parents with a post-disaster psychiatric disorder (North et al., 2018²⁶). These findings emphasize the need to support the entire family during disaster recovery as a way of supporting the children.

Schools provide a sense of normalcy and can teach coping skills for children recovering from disasters (Mooney et al., 2019²⁷). Teacher-based interventions have been shown to reduce post-traumatic stress disorder in children after disasters, when teachers are trained and supported (Wolmer et al., 2011²⁸). While we have a general understanding of the impact that schools and families can have on children’s disaster recovery, it is not well understood how these implications manifest in rural communities. Rural families and schools are vulnerable due to challenges of inequitable funding and teacher shortages compounded by the fact that multigenerational poverty is more common in rural areas than in metropolitan areas (Tieken & Montgomery, 2019²⁹). This research intends to explore how rural vulnerabilities shape the ability of families and schools to support children through disaster recovery.

Research Questions

Rural communities are a critical space to study surrounding disasters. Hazard and disaster research and practice that focuses on urban communities frequently does not account for the specific needs of rural communities and the limited resources available to them. Additionally, there is limited research concerning the specific needs of children with regards to recovery and resilience. This study aims to address these gaps in current research by answering three questions:

1. What are the drivers of recovery and resilience in the children and families that survived the Slater Fire in a small rural community?
2. What are the barriers to recovery and resilience in the children and families that survived the Slater Fire in a small rural community?
3. What roles do schools and other community-based infrastructure play in shaping a small rural community’s recovery from the Slater Fire?

Research Design

The research design for this study leverages both qualitative and quantitative methods. All adult participants were provided with a pre-interview questionnaire to assess their overall recovery experiences and provide researchers with more information on their demographic backgrounds. Additionally, researchers conducted one-on-one interviews with key informants and focus groups with community members to identify factors that contribute to residents’ resilience and recovery and those that serve as barriers. Focus groups were held with children ages eleven and above. This age was selected based on what we know about child development. By age eleven, children have started middle school and begin to use logic to solve problems (Adler et al., 2019³⁰). Children are also able to judge their own abilities and become more adept at communicating their thoughts and feelings (DeHart et al., 2004³¹), which is an essential component of a successful focus group. For children aged eleven and older who participated in the focus group, they were at least eight years old when the fire occurred. During that age, important cognitive changes take place, such as an improved ability to use language (Doherty & Hughes, 2013³²). Using a mixed-method design provided an opportunity to identify qualitative themes which were further contextualized by the accompanying questionnaire data.

Research Details

The interdisciplinary team working on the study includes Dr. Rita Burke who served as the Principal Investigator for the project. She is a trained epidemiologist and is an Associate Professor in the Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California with a joint appointment in the Department of Pediatrics. She has over a decade of experience working in community-based partnerships (Balasuriya et al., 2012³³; Burke et al., 2015³⁴; Mar et al., 2019³⁵; Muller et al., 2014³⁶) She is an expert on pediatric disaster preparedness (Anthony et al., 2017³⁷; Koeffler et al., 2019³⁸; Navis et al., 2023³⁹) and in the use of mixed methods (Berg et al., 2014⁴⁰; Burke et al., 2014⁴¹; Chin et al., 2020⁴²; McLaughlin et al., 2019⁴³).

The co-investigator for the project is Dr. Santina Contreras, a trained structural engineer and urban planner, who is currently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Urban Planning and Spatial Analysis, Sol Price School of Public Policy, University of Southern California. Contreras' research centers on addressing community engagement and equity considerations in hazard and disaster settings. Contreras has extensive experience working domestically and internationally on the design and implementation of hazard planning and development projects. She is an expert in the use of quantitative and qualitative methods for use in exploring community engagement and equity dynamics surrounding hazards and disasters (Contreras, 2019⁴⁴; Contreras & Niles, 2022⁴⁵; Goodrich et al., 2020⁴⁶).

Our local community collaborators include Jasmine Borgatti and Abigail Yeager. Abigail Yeager is the Executive Director of Happy Camp Community Action (HCCA). HCCA is a non-profit organization committed to improving the future of Happy Camp. HCCA was at the forefront of disaster response to the 2020 Slater Fire. The organization provided immediate assistance to survivors in the wake of the disaster, including financial stipends, tangible goods, and case management services. It now continues to provide long-term support in the form of programs and activities that benefit children, families, and the economy.

Jasmine Borgatti is Chief Resilience Officer of RISE Collaborative—RISE stands for R: Resilience, I: Inclusion, S: Support, and E: Education. Originally known as Slater Fire Long-Term Recovery Group, the RISE Collaborative was designed to serve survivor’s the immediate needs in six committees, focusing on case management, housing and construction, and crisis and spiritual care, among other services. RISE Collaborative continues to offer their original emergency response services through their committees as well as building long-term resilience for residents of Happy Camp. With their integral knowledge of Happy Camp’s recovery journey and ties to the Happy Camp community, Abigail and Jasmine played a key role in coordinating and connecting researchers with study participants.

The assembled team of academic and community partners exemplifies convergence-based research, an interdisciplinary approach that integrates diverse fields of study to address complex issues arising from disasters. This type of research emphasizes collaboration to develop comprehensive solutions that are more effective and sustainable.

Study Site and Access

One quarter of the population in California is at high or extremely high fire risk (California Air Resources Board, n.d.⁴⁷). The state has roughly 2.3 million residents that reside in rural communities, with every county in the state having rural populations, aside from San Francisco County (Johnson & Mejia, 2024⁴⁸). Wildfires threaten rural economies and disrupt their ability to supply agricultural goods and other resources to their urban neighbors in the state and nation (National Climate Assessment, 2014). While Happy Camp’s Level 4 FAR means it is more remote than most rural communities, understanding its recovery needs will provide insights that are transferable to other frontier communities and rural areas.

Happy Camp is now three years into their recovery, which includes the experience of reopening of schools after a disaster. Happy Camp Elementary School hosts 115 students in kindergarten through eighth grade, while Happy Camp High School provides education for grades nine through twelve (Happy Camp Union, 2024⁴⁹). Many of the students have been experiencing the recovery from the Slater Fire firsthand and provide valuable insight into what recovering from a disaster looks like from a child’s perspective.

We connected with our community partner Abigail Yeager through Project: Camp, an organization that provides day camp for children that have been evacuated. Ms. Yeager facilitated the connection with Jasmine Borgatti and, after exchanging emails describing the project, both agreed to participate as community partners. Having them on our team has given us ample knowledge of the Happy Camp community and of the recovery efforts that have taken place. They were also engaged in creating all the data collection tools. Insight and support from community partners was critical to ensure sensitivity to the experiences of the community members. Due to her extensive knowledge of the recovery efforts in Happy Camp, Abigail was integral in recruiting members of the community for focus groups and key informants for interviews. She also coordinated the locations for the interviews and focus groups.

Focus Groups

The purpose of the focus groups was to better understand the challenges that Happy Camp residents have faced during its recovery and what the drivers of recovery were directly from members of the community that survived the Slater Fire. Focus group participants had unique perspectives on the strengths and challenges that rural living presents and shared the experience of the Slater Fire.

Sampling Strategy

Community partners were critical in providing access to focus group participants. Our community partner and co-author, Abigail Yeager, facilitated recruitment of focus group participants. Abigail is a leader and trusted member of the Happy Camp community. She is a Slater Fire survivor herself and has been deeply embedded in the recovery efforts. We deferred to her knowledge to inform us which members of the community would be willing to participate. Focus groups were open to all interested Slater Fire survivors. There was no demographic consideration implemented as part of the recruitment. Both adults and children participated in focus groups, with separate focus groups conducted for minors and adults. Please see Table 2 for a summary of participant details.

Table 2. Adult Focus Group Participant Details

All focus groups were conducted in person, in English, and were audio-recorded to provide an accurate record of the discussion for analysis. Nine adults participated in the adult focus groups. The two adult focus groups were 30 and 45 minutes, respectively . They were held in the Happy Camp Community Center and moderated by Rita Burke and Santina Contreras. Prior to the focus group, all nine adult participants completed the pre-interview questionnaire described in more detail below.

Twelve middle school students participated in the child-centered focus groups, all 12 of whom had been elementary students in Happy Camp during the 2020 Slater Fire and had experiences with the Slater Fire. To recruit these students, our community partners reached out to the school and local families to disseminate the information about the opportunity to participate in the focus groups.. The focus groups took place at the local school and were moderated by Rita Burke and Santina Contreras. The two child focus groups were 28 minutes and 39 minutes, respectively. The pre-interview questionnaire was not administered to children who participated in the focus groups. See below for a description of how we obtained parental consent and child assent.

Focus Group Guide

The interview guides for the adult and child focus groups were developed in partnership with our community partners prior to the initiation of the focus groups. This was done in collaboration with our community partners as they thoroughly understand the culture of Happy Camp and could help us develop questions that would be most helpful in addressing our research questions while also remaining cognizant of our participants' lived experience. Focus groups for both adults and children attempted to elicit an understanding of what the recovery process has been like in Happy Camp, how the rural community context impacted recovery, what opportunities there are for improvement, and the positive and negative aspects of the recovery process. Both focus group guides had similar questions, with more simplified language for the children’s focus groups.

Key Informant Interviews

Participant Recruitment and Consent

People who played an active role in the recovery from the Slater Fire were selected for key informant interviews. These individuals included members of the community who mobilized internal recovery efforts or leaders from external organizations or partners that came in to support Happy Camp during their recovery. The purpose of the key informant interviews was to learn directly from these individuals and focus on understanding what challenges leaders experienced supporting recovery efforts and what contributed to any successful recovery outcomes. Key informant interviews were conducted with the chairperson from the Karuk tribe to provide insights into what role the tribe had in the overall recovery of Happy Camp. Interviews were also held with leaders from local community organizations, including nonprofits like HCCA and The RISE Collaborative, which provided immediate and long-term recovery services to Happy Camp. Finally, interviews were also conducted with leaders from other agencies, such as the Mid-Klamath Watershed Council, Northern Valley Catholic Social Services, and Hope Crisis Response Network, all of which provided support for Happy Camp recovery efforts. Participant recruitment was conducted by Abigail Yeager. A total of 10 interviews were conducted with an average interview time of 41.25 minutes. Seven of the 10 key informant interviewees completed the pre-interview questionnaire, described in more detail below.

Interview Setting and Other Details

Interviews were conducted in person at the Happy Camp Community Center, in English and audio-recorded, with consent, to provide an accurate record of the discussion for analysis.

Interview Guide

An interview guide was developed in partnership with our community partners prior to administring the interviews. Interviews focused on understanding what Happy Camp has been like since the fire, what resources were most important to the community during recovery, what recovery has looked like for children in the community, and what role the schools have played during the recovery process.

Data Analysis Procedures

All interviews were transcribed using Otter.ai and identifying information was removed to protect participant confidentiality. Researchers participated in review and analysis of transcripts. Analysis was done to immediately establish patterns and themes emerging from the interviews.

Pre-Interview Questionnaire

All adult focus group participants and key informants were asked to fill out a pre-interview questionnaire. The pre-interview questionnaire aimed to provide an understanding of the demographics of the participants and their general satisfaction with the recovery efforts surrounding the Slater Fire. Ascertaining participants' level of satisfaction with the recovery provides valuable perspective from those with lived experience. It is important to understand Slater Fire survivors’ expectations of the recovery process to help identify inhibitors and contributors to that process, as well as better inform future disaster recovery planning.

Sampling Strategy

The research team provided a one-page overview with details about participation and our community partners facilitated the recruitment of the participants.

Pre-Interview Questionnaire Measures

Participant Demographics. The questionnaire captured participant demographics regarding age, gender, race, marital status, parental status, education, income, home ownership pre- and post-Slater fire, and time residing in Happy Camp.

Recovery Satisfaction. Participants were asked questions on a Likert scale regarding whether or not they felt recovered from the Slater Fire with regards to employment, housing, health, well-being, rebuilding, and overall recovery status. Participants were also asked about their level of satisfaction regarding access to recovery assistance services like mental health support and general recovery funding.

Pre-Interview Questionnaire Sample

Sixteen surveys were completed in total, with nine coming from focus group participants and seven from key informants.

Data Analysis Procedures

Participants completed surveys by scanning a QR code on their phones or through a printed paper version if phone access was not possible. Results were then compiled into an Excel spreadsheet for trend analysis.

Ethical Considerations and Reciprocity

Consent was acquired from all participants in the focus groups and interviews. During the consent explanation, participants were informed that their participation was voluntary and that they could stop participation at any point. Focus group participants received a $40 gift card to the local grocery store as a token of appreciation for their time. Interview participants received a $50 gift card. Prior to the pre-interview questionnaire, participants were informed that their responses would remain anonymous and that they could skip any questions they felt uncomfortable answering.

Children were sent home with a copy of the consent and assent form so that parents had ample time to review. If they decided to participate, they signed the forms and sent them back with their children on the day of the focus group. Parents were able to contact the principal investigator or the community partners to ask questions to allay any concerns about participation.

In our work, reciprocity played a central role. We fostered tight connections with community partners, ensuring a two-way flow of support and knowledge. This ethical commitment was vital for building trust and ensuring that our research was beneficial to the community. Additionally, we carefully addressed ethical concerns when conducting research with children, implementing strict protocols to protect their privacy, and prioritizing their well-being throughout the study. This dual focus on reciprocity and ethical rigor underscores our dedication to both the community and ethical research practices. Institutional Review Board approval (UP-21-01222) was obtained for this study on January 16, 2024.

Findings

Drivers of and Barriers to Recovery From the Slater Fire

The most prevalent driver of recovery in Happy Camp was the community's commitment to the town. The rural community environment of Happy Camp is a tight-knit community with a culture of perseverance that has led the town to continue to rebuild despite numerous challenges. Study participants shared the value that community gatherings like school sports and town events had helped build the commitment to the town. Even many children voiced the sentiment of never wanting to leave Happy Camp and shared the nostalgia of a pre-Slater Fire Happy Camp. Other factors that contributed to the recovery of Happy Camp included internal organizations and partnerships like RISE Collaborative, Happy Camp Community Action, and the Karuk tribe. Their pre-established relationships with the community made them trusted places for individuals to turn to in times of need and allowed them to understand the cultural needs of the community.

With regards to overall recovery, 18% of the 16 responses collected from the pre-interview questionnaire showed that participants felt that they had fully recovered from the Slater Fire and 45% felt they had not recovered at all. The remaining participants felt that they had either somewhat or almost recovered. Based on the pre-interview questionnaire results, rebuilding housing appears to be one of the more prominent barriers with regards to recovery. Regarding the question, “If your home was lost during the Slater Fire, were you able to rebuild,” roughly 67% stated that they were not able to rebuild and have not even been able to start yet. Recovery funding programs were difficult to access and navigate for residents. Residents cited complicated application processes that varied between each funding application and many renters did not qualify for the same benefits as homeowners did. Case workers shared that the barriers and challenges that went into applying for small business loans meant that some residents missed the opportunity. The lack of housing inventory after the fire combined with the isolation of the town resulted in challenges drawing in needed skilled laborers to help with rebuilding and teachers needed for the schools. Participants expanded on these challenges during the focus groups and the main themes can be seen in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Recovery From the Slater Fire: Key Drivers and Barriers

Recovery from Slater Fire was shaped by local community partners, many of which continue to provide long-term recovery resources and support. Among many examples of this was the Karuk tribe leveraging COVID funding to secure trailers for many of the residents of Happy Camp. RISE Collaborative continues to provide disaster case management and home rebuilding programs. HCCA helped establish the Slater Fire Long Term Recovery Group, a collaborative built to support various Happy Camp recovery efforts. While the examples of local recovery efforts extend well beyond this list, the resounding message from the community was that these local efforts were integral pieces of the recovery process. Their pre-established relationships with the community made them trusted places for individuals and thus these groups were able to make significant impacts.

Observations Regarding Children’s Recovery From the Slater Fire

The return to school provided students with a sense of normalcy and a chance to reunite with friends. Students were very much still processing the impacts of the fire after returning to school. Many students were displaced from their homes when the schools reopened, and some mentioned not having adequate clothing or school supplies for class. Children voiced that focusing on school was challenging, as they were still dealing with losses from the Slater Fire. Many parents noted behavioral changes in their children. Some children also began displaying behavioral concerns in the classroom. Barriers and drivers to children’s recovery from the Slater Fire are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4. Barriers and Drivers to Children’s Recovery From the Slater Fire

Acknowledging children's recovery from disaster continues beyond the restarting of school provides an opportunity for schools to play a supportive role during that time. Participants spoke about how the children often felt the recovery stressors that the adults in their families experienced. Residents spoke about how children mirrored the stress that their parents were feeling while the children mentioned wanting to be able to help their families. Reducing the earlier mentioned logistical barriers, like funding and housing, could reduce stress on parents and help provide children with a faster return to normalcy. Providing parents with skills to help teach reframing, acceptance, and other protective traits may help reduce the emotional impact disasters can have on children (Cobham et al., 2016⁵⁰).

Barriers

Rural schools often face staffing challenges, including recruiting and retaining qualified staff (Goldhaber et al. 2020⁵¹). Happy Camp community members shared that the school was struggling prior to the Slater Fire and that the fire further exacerbated these challenges. Educators were also recovering from the Slater Fire, with some displaced educators residing in trailers in the school parking lot. Students returned to school processing the loss of housing, pets, community, and sometimes loved ones. Despite the dedication of the educators at the Happy Camp Union district, the school still needed additional staff and funding to adequately manage the increased needs of students. Schools play a key role in providing routine and a safe environment (Krug et al., 2015). Supporting rural schools before and after disaster can better position them to play a supportive role in children's recovery. Additional details regarding schools and recovery from Slater Fire can be seen below in Table 5.

Table 5. School Recovery Barriers From the Slater Fire

Conclusions

Public Health Implications

The implications of this study suggest that disasters in rural areas exacerbate inequities within the Social Determinants of Health. This was seen in Happy Camp, especially in the neighborhood and built environment, after the Slater Fire. The lack of housing posed challenges to economic stability and education access. Children experiencing behavioral changes after a disaster should be supported and monitored, as some behavioral changes may be indicative of post-traumatic stress (Lai et al., 2013). The greatest drivers of recovery that were seen in Happy Camp came from community commitment and the strength of the support that came from internal organizations. Continuing to provide rural communities with the tools that they need to nurture those internal strengths and extending that support to the school system may provide rural communities a greater opportunity to recover after disasters. Understanding and addressing these social vulnerabilities of rural communities as part of a broader disaster preparedness plan could contribute to higher overall resilience and more targeted recovery solutions.

Limitations

Focus groups participants may not be representative of all of the views of residents in Happy Camp, and, as a result, we may have missed important perspectives. We have made the best efforts to include diverse perspectives.

Future Research Directions

This study provided a number of potential future research directions. The first of which is to further explore demographic factors associated with children’s recovery. This study provided a general overview of children’s experiences, but it would be valuable to understand how factors like race and socioeconomic status impact their recovery trajectory. Additionally, this study illustrated the important role that the Karuk tribe had in disaster recovery. Further exploring the contributions of Native communities in disaster recovery would be a valuable effort.

Acknowledgments. We are especially grateful for our community partnership residents of Happy Camp for welcoming and trusting us to share their experiences.

References