National preparedness planning: the historical context and current state of the U.S. public's readiness, 1940-2005.

• Author: Redlener, Irwin
• Position: PREVENTION, MITIGATION and PREPAREDNESS

In the United States, national public preparedness efforts meant to ready individuals and families for disasters have been driven primarily by international threats, actual or anticipated. These include terrorism, war and the potential for global instability such as the millennium Y2K computer error. The national dialogue on public preparedness following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the fall of 2005 is a notable departure from the more typical focus of public preparedness, which is oriented toward terrorism and international threats. However, the response to the hurricanes was largely viewed as an unanticipated test of the public's readiness for a disaster and the penetration of the public preparedness messages that have been actively promulgated since 11 September 2001. As such, we argue that the poor state of public readiness that was found in the U.S. Gulf Coast region after the hurricanes actually reflects a national state of unpreparedness for emergency events despite the post-September 11th calls from all levels of government for the U.S. public to be prepared. (1)

Since 11 September 200l, a renewed national focus on the U.S. public's readiness for international aggression emerged. This focus was heightened by the anthrax mailings shortly after September 11th and the alleged threat of an Iraqi attack using unconventional weapons, specifically smallpox, on the U.S. homeland. The post-September 11th focus on national public preparedness came almost two years after calls had ended for the public to prepare for the millennium Y2K computer error and its potential to disrupt everything from alarm clocks to the power supply. Prior to the millennium, the national public had engaged in a preparedness dialogue born during the Second World War amid calls for the public to engage in air raid and naval watches that continued throughout the Cold War and its threat of nuclear attacks. The post-September 11th national public preparedness dialogue reignited a theme in government-public communications that has existed since the years leading up to the Second World War: government calls for the public to prepare for doomsday scenarios arising from an international threat.

It is important to distinguish between nationally led calls to prepare centered on international threats versus regional preparedness endeavors based on local natural or emergency weather events, such as earthquake drills in California or tornado shelter constructions in the Midwest. Taken as a whole, the period of 1940 to the present represents what can be viewed as a federal government-public preparedness dialogue born out of national security. This is unique from natural disaster preparedness efforts, which are typically led by state and local governments. Such efforts lack the heightened importance of a national call framed around an international threat in which the American way of life is perceived to be at stake if the nation--including the public--is insufficiently prepared. During this nearly continuous sixty-five year period--with a notable gap from the early 1980s, through the collapse of the Soviet Union, until the mid-1990s prior to the focus on the millennium Y2K threat--the dialogue has been led by federal agencies--some now defunct, like the Department of War--the succession of White House administrations, and a host of non-governmental organizations, most notably the American Red Cross. We find that regardless of the administration or context of the threat, the U.S. public has regarded itself as unprepared when called on by the federal government to take measures in response to or in anticipation of international threats. In other words, the failure of the U.S. public to be prepared for terrorism in 2005 bears little difference to the state of public preparedness during other periods in which national calls were issued. The same holds true, as it turns out, for public preparedness with respect to natural disasters.

We present data from our 2005 annual national survey, and the follow-up survey after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, of the U.S. public's views on terrorism, preparedness and other topics germane to emergency events. Our first surveys took place in the months after September 11th, and we continued conducting them once every summer beginning in 2003. Findings from the 2005 surveys present a U.S. public confused about what "prepared" means, an unchanging and even declining engagement of the preparedness message and mixed perceptions as to who is in charge in various disaster scenarios. We compare the findings from these surveys with other national surveys conducted between 1940 and 2000, when, by and large, public preparedness became a national focus because of international threats. These key points for this comparison include the period prior to and during the Second World War, the height of the Cold War including the Cuban Missile Crisis and the millennium Y2K preparations. We consider the public preparedness data in the context of how the message is framed and the level of public belief that an attack will actually happen and will affect them. We suggest several factors that may determine the likelihood of the public to embrace a national preparedness message and conclude with a perspective on the importance of public preparedness.

METHODS

The National Center for Disaster Preparedness (NCDP) at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health annually conducts a nationwide survey of households in the United States. The surveys began in the immediate aftermath of 11 September 2001, with the first polls completed three and six months after and then annually each August beginning in 2003. The surveys are administered in the field by the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion in July and August, with the exception of the 2005 follow-up to the 2005 annual survey, which was administered in the field in October. Both of the 2005 surveys as well as prior years' surveys employ the same methodology: they have an approximate sample size of 1,200, a margin of error of roughly [+ or -] 3.0 and are at a 95 percent confidence interval. Each survey includes trended questions, as well as "one-off" questions appropriate to the given time period. Trended questions include confidence in the government and the health care system, willingness and ability to evacuate, personal and family preparedness plans, personal sacrifice, community preparedness, perceptions and engagement of all-hazard preparedness and other questions thematic to emergency preparedness and response. All questions are cross-tabulated with a variety of demographics including race, age, gender, income, region, size of community, political affiliation and education. Surveys are conducted in both English and Spanish. (2)

Telephone numbers are selected based upon a complete list of telephone exchanges from throughout the nation. The exchanges are selected to ensure that each census division is represented in proportion to its population. A national random digit dial (RDD) equal probability selection method (EPSEM) is used to draw the telephone numbers. This sampling design gives every telephone number within active telephone blocks in the contiguous forty-eight states and the District of Columbia an equal chance of being selected. The final sample is compared with data based on the 2000 U.S. Census to ensure the sample is representative in terms of geographic distribution, gender and race. To correct for any discrepancies between the final sample and the population estimates, the dataset is weighted in aggregate by census division and then balanced by 2000 U.S. Census population estimates for gender and race of adults eighteen years of age or older. The sample size is preserved throughout the weighting process.

The surveys observed from 1940 to 2000 are primarily from the Gallup Organization. Gallup polling arguably represents the most comprehensive, longest running and most methodologically sound surveys of the U.S. public. The Gallup questions on public preparedness during the Second World War and in the early years of the Cold War are unique in that they were the only questions of their type asked in national, trended public polls. As such, the questions are invaluable data points for understanding the U.S. public's engagement with the federal government's public preparedness agenda. While other organizations, notably the National Public Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago, have also administered surveys asking questions on public preparedness, the Gallup surveys incorporated public preparedness as a thematic category, giving a broader range of questions across more years than any other organization.

THE STATE OF THE U.S. PUBLIC'S READINESS: 2001-2005

If one regards preparedness as the public's readiness for an international threat, then the U.S. public is not prepared. This has been established in public polls and corroborated, if not confirmed, by the events of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. (3) The hurricanes, which were the first major test of the U.S. public's ability to respond to a disaster since a renewed focus on homeland security emerged after September 11th, revealed a regional population largely unprepared for a disaster, natural or otherwise. Our research shows that the failure of the public to prepare along the Gulf Coast is, in fact, a national problem. The region's failures to stock provisions or evacuate effectively, as well as its poor levels of awareness about community disaster plans, are found throughout the United States with little variation across region or size of community. In a sense, the hurricanes were an unanticipated test of the nation's preparedness for terrorist threats.

The central preparedness message...