2009 Citizen Corps Survey Findings

Table of Contents
Introduction
Research Method
Research Findings
Extent of Individual Preparedness
Disaster Supplies
Household Plan
Familiarity with Community Systems
Volunteerism
Knowledge of Immediate Response
Participation in Drills
Preparedness Training
Perceived Preparedness versus Actual Preparedness
Preparedness Barriers
Barriers to Preparedness Activities
Barriers to Preparedness Training
Expectation of Reliance on Others
Reliance on Others During an Evacuation
Perception of Risk and Utility of Preparedness
Perception of Risks
Perception of Severity
Utility of Advance Preparation
Confidence in Ability to Respond
Stages of Change in Preparedness
Preparedness Differences by Demographics
Disability Profile
Gender Profile
Community Type Profile
Race and Ethnicity Profile
Income Profile
Education Profile
Age Profile
Employment Profile
Volunteerism Profile
Religiousness Profile
Social Responsibility and Suspicious Behavior
Summary and Recommendations
Conclusion and Next Steps
Appendix A – Survey Script
Appendix B – Survey Respondents Profile

1
5
7
7
7
9
10
11
13
15
16
18
19
19
21
22
23
25
25
26
28
29
31
34
34
35
36
37
38
39
41
42
43
44
45
47
55
57
81

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

i

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

ii

Introduction
Disaster preparedness became a renewed priority for our Nation as a direct response to the devastation of the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Following the tragedies of that day, government at all levels has
embedded stronger collaboration with nongovernmental civic and private sector organizations and the general
public in policies and practices. The Citizen Corps grassroots model of community preparedness has spread
across the country, and Americans have been asked to become fully aware, trained, and practiced on how to
respond to potential threats and hazards.
To evaluate the Nation’s progress on personal preparedness, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s
(FEMA’s) Community Preparedness Division conducts Citizen Corps National Surveys to measure the public’s
knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors relative to preparing for a range of hazards. This report provides a summary
of the findings from the 2009 Citizen Corps National Survey.

Research Objectives
The research objectives and survey questions for the Citizen Corps National Survey were developed based on
previous research, preparedness modeling, and policy and guidance from the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). In 2003, Citizen Corps conducted a national survey to provide baseline data on individual preparedness
for disasters. In 2007, the Citizen Corps National Survey was designed to incorporate additional areas of
examination and to refine the questioning, while retaining several specific questions from the 2003 survey to
provide trend data. The 2009 Citizen Corps National Survey includes several more small refinements.
Comparisons between the findings from the 2003, 2007, and 2009 surveys are noted throughout the report.
Citizen Preparedness Reviews 1
FEMA’s Community Preparedness Division publishes the Citizen Preparedness Review to highlight specific
areas of research regarding community preparedness and to summarize research findings from multiple sources.
To assess the research landscape on preparedness, Citizen Corps has developed and maintains the Citizen
Preparedness Surveys Database of surveys on personal and business preparedness conducted in the United
States since September 11, 2001. As of August 2009, the database contains 102 surveys on individual
preparedness, 29 surveys on business, and 11 surveys on school preparedness. Analyzing research from this
wide variety of sources allows larger preparedness trends and research gaps to be identified.
Citizen Preparedness Review Issue 3, Patterns in Current Research and Future Research Opportunities
(published summer 2006), made several recommendations for future research that were taken into consideration

1

The Citizen Preparedness Reviews and other preparedness research are available at:
http://www.citizencorps.gov/ready/research.shtm.
2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

1

in the development of the Citizen Corps National Survey implemented in 2007 and 2009. These
recommendations included:
• More fully explore participants’ knowledge of the correct preparedness measures and appropriate
responses for different types of hazards.
•

Investigate a more comprehensive range of knowledge, supplies, and skills related to disaster
preparedness, such as knowledge of warning systems, evacuation routes, and training for specific
skills.

• More fully explore motivational barriers to preparedness, such as the degree of uncertainty about
ability to perform recommended measures or perceptions that recommended measures will not make a
difference in disaster situations.
• Investigate demographic and contextual characteristics as they relate to preparedness including: prior
experience with disasters, disability/ability factors, and community engagement.
• Examine individuals’ preparedness in multiple locations in addition to their homes, such as the school,
workplace, and community.
An important finding from the Citizen Preparedness Surveys Database is that perceived preparedness can be
very different from the specific preparedness measures taken. In nearly all cases, these surveys substantiate that
the proportion of those who have taken appropriate preparedness measures is much lower than those that
indicate that they are prepared.
Personal Disaster Preparedness Model
Citizen Corps Preparedness Review Issue 4, Citizen Corps Personal Behavior Change Model for Disaster
Preparedness, presented the Citizen Corps Personal Disaster Preparedness (PDP) Model. This behavioral model
describes the various factors that may influence whether or not a person engages in disaster preparedness
activities. Based on two theoretical models common to the social science field that have been applied in other
risk assessment and protection motivation work, the Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM) and the Stages of
Change/Transtheoretical Model, the PDP Model explores personal motivation factors and identifies ways to
target individuals based on their motivation for, or perceived barriers to, preparedness. Several questions in the
Citizen Corps National Survey were designed to test the PDP Model.
Community Preparedness and Participation Target Capability
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD-8) on National Preparedness, enacted December 17, 2003,
directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a national all-hazards preparedness goal. To execute
this directive, in March 2005, DHS released the Interim National Preparedness Goal. In September 2007, the
National Preparedness Guidelines and accompanying Target Capabilities List (TCL) were updated and
published. The guidelines define what it means for the Nation to be prepared for all hazards. The Target
Capabilities List denotes 37 specific capabilities that communities, the private sector, and all levels of
government should collectively possess in order to respond effectively to disasters. The Target Capabilities are
2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

2

currently being revised with the updated Community Preparedness and Participation capability expected to be
released in December 2009.
The Community Preparedness and Participation (CPP) Target Capability is one of four common capabilities
that support all mission areas and all other Target Capabilities. The CPP Capability encourages government to
collaborate with civic leaders from all sectors to strengthen community preparedness and resilience, to integrate
nongovernmental resources and assets in government plans and protocols, and to engage citizens in personal
preparedness, exercises, ongoing volunteer programs, and surge capacity response.
For individuals, the CPP Capability outlines the goal that everyone in America become fully aware, trained, and
practiced on how to prevent, protect, mitigate, prepare for, and respond to all threats and hazards. Several
questions in the Citizen Corps National Survey were designed to provide strategic insight into specific aspects
of the CPP TCL goals, including the following:
•

Percent of residents within the jurisdiction who are alert to unusual behavior—indicative of potential
criminal/terrorist activity—and who understand appropriate reporting procedures, until 80 percent of
residents maintain knowledge.

•

Percent of households that conduct pre-incident preparation to include creating and maintaining a
communication plan, obtaining disaster supplies, and practicing evacuation/shelter-in-place and
additional maintenance skills, until 80 percent of households maintain pre-incident preparation.

•

Percent of residents prepared to evacuate or relocate to designated shelter (to include residents with
special needs), until 80 percent of the population is prepared.

•

Percent of a jurisdiction’s population that is knowledgeable of workplace, school, and community
emergency plans, until 80 percent of population maintains knowledge.

•

Percent of residents prepared to shelter-in-place and have emergency supplies on hand as advised by
local authorities, until 80 percent of population is thus prepared.

•

Percent of annual increase in number of residents trained in basic first aid, until 80 percent of population
maintains these skills.

•

Percent of residents educated and trained in risk-based capabilities for high-threat incidents in their area,
to include natural hazards, technological hazards, and terrorism, until 72 percent of population (80% of
those living in high-threat areas) are educated and trained per appropriate hazard.

•

Percent of trained residents providing volunteer support to local emergency responder disciplines (law
enforcement, fire, emergency medical, and public health services), until 10 percent of the population
volunteers an average of 20 hours per year, to equal 560 million hours per year.

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

3

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

4

Research Method
Under contract to FEMA’s Community Preparedness Division, ICF Macro, an applied research and consulting
firm, supported the survey design, data collection, and analysis and reporting of the 2003, 2007, and 2009
Citizen Corps surveys.
Survey Design
The 2009 survey instrument consists of 56 items covering the following topics:
•

Utility/Response Efficacy

•

Self-Efficacy

•

Drills/Exercises

•

Risk Awareness/Perception

•

Prevention

•

Volunteering

•

Severity

•

Disaster Supplies

•

Demographics

•

Stages of Change

•

Household Plan

•

Reliance

•

Community Plan

In addition, the survey included questions relative to four different types of disasters: natural disasters, an act of
terrorism, a hazardous materials accident, and a several disease outbreak. See Appendix A for the survey
instrument.
Office of Management and Budget Approval
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved a
multiyear collection on May 18, 2007. The OMB Control Number for this survey is 1670-0006.
Institutional Review Board Exemption Approval
In addition to OMB approval, the research survey was also granted Institutional Review Board (IRB) exemption
from ICF Macro’s internal IRB under 45 CFR 46.101(b) (2b).
Survey Administration
The 2009 Citizen Corps National Survey was fielded from April 2009 to May 2009. The survey was
administered using ICF Macro’s computer-assisted telephone interviewing system. ICF Macro also provided
Spanish-speaking interviewers as an option for Spanish-speaking respondents. During the survey fielding, there
was an H1N1 influenza outbreak that was reported repeated in the national news. An analysis of the potential
impact of this outbreak on survey responses will be provided at a later date.
2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

5

National Sampling 2
ICF Macro conducted the survey with a sample size of 4,461 U.S. households. Some counties in California
were inadvertently excluded from the sampling frame. The survey sample represents 96.5% of U.S. households,
providing overall results at +/-3.27 percent sampling error (at a 95% confidence level). Findings that have a
higher percentage than the sampling error are more likely to be accurate and are considered to be statistically
significant.
The sample was selected via random digit dialing (RDD) from a list-assisted sampling frame. The RDD
sampling frame represents the noninstitutionalized U.S. adult population residing in households equipped with
landline telephones. The frame excludes adults in penal, mental, or other institutions; adults living in other
group quarters such as dormitories, barracks, convents, or boarding houses (with 10 or more unrelated
residents); adults living in a household without a telephone; and/or adults who did not speak English or Spanish
well enough to be interviewed in either language.
Weighting
Each telephone number in the national sample had an equal chance of selection. However, operational aspects
associated with RDD surveys, such as nonresponse and landline saturation, may produce respondents that overrepresent or under-represent certain population segments. ICF Macro accounted for these potential biases by
weighting the data according to geography, age, gender, and race. (See Appendix B for the survey respondents’
profile based on the weighted data.) This adjusted the sample’s demographic distributions to match the
distribution in the 2007 U.S. Census population estimates.
Research Questions
Building on the findings of previous research, the understanding of disaster preparedness garnered from Citizen
Preparedness Reviews, the Citizen Corps PDP Model, and the CPP TCL, the following research questions were
developed to guide the design and analysis of the Citizen Corps National Survey:
• To what extent are individuals prepared for disasters? What barriers do individuals perceive in
preparing for disasters?
• What is the perception of vulnerability to different types of disasters? How do people perceive the
utility of preparedness?
• In which stage of the Stages of Change model (Precontemplation, Contemplation, Preparation, Action,
Maintenance) are individuals relative to disaster preparedness?
• How does disaster preparedness differ by demographic characteristics?
• What is the perceived social responsibility for reporting suspicious behavior?
2

To provide greater insight in preparedness in an urban environment, an additional oversample of 3,077 respondents was drawn from
six jurisdictions in the Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program: Chicago, IL; Houston, TX; Long Beach/Los Angeles, CA;
National Capital Area; New York City, NY/Newark, NJ; and San Francisco, CA.
2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

6

Research Findings
Results from the 2009 Citizen Corps National Survey are organized according to the research questions to
further inform these critical aspects of preparedness. Statistically significant differences across demographics
or contextual variables such as religiousness or employment status are also provided. Findings relevant to the
CPP Target Capability are highlighted in callout boxes throughout the report. References to the exact wording
of survey questions are noted in quotation marks.

To What Extent Are Individuals Prepared for Disasters?
To What Extent Have Individuals Gathered Disaster Supplies?
The extent to which individuals report having gathered and maintained specific disaster supplies has been used
as an important indicator of actual preparedness (versus perceived preparedness). Participants were asked about
the existence of disaster preparedness supplies in their home, workplace, and cars. Just over one-half of
individuals (57%) reported having “supplies set aside in their home to be used only in the case of a disaster.”
Participants were also asked if they had disaster preparedness supplies in their cars and workplace (as
appropriate for their employment status). Only one-third of individuals (34%) said they had supplies set aside in
their car, while 45 percent of individuals indicated they had set aside supplies in their workplace.
Table 1: Disaster Supplies in Multiple Locations*
2003

+/-

2007

+/-

2009

In your home

50%

3%

53%

4%

57%

In your workplace

41%

4%

45%

0%

45%

In your car

34%

-4%

30%

4%

34%

* Do you have supplies set aside in … to be used only in the case of a disaster?

If participants indicated they had set supplies aside in their home, they were then asked to list those supplies;
unaided responses were then coded according to predetermined categories. The supplies most frequently
mentioned included a supply of packaged food (74%) and bottled water (71%), with many fewer individuals
mentioning other essential supplies such as a flashlight (42%), first aid kit (39%) or portable radio (20%). Less
than half of the respondents (44%) reported updating their supplies once a year, while 3 percent reported never
updating their supplies. When asked directly, 71 percent of respondents reported having copies of important
financial documents in a safe place, yet only 1 percent specifically mentioned the documents unaided as part of
their household disaster supplies.
2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

7

Table 2: Home Disaster Supplies*
2003

+/-

2007

+/-

2009

Supply of packaged food

45%

26%

71%

3%

74%

Supply of bottled water

54%

19%

73%

-2%

71%

Flashlight

41%

-1%

40%

2%

42%

First aid kit

64%

-30%

34%

5%

39%

Batteries

21%

4%

25%

2%

27%

Portable, battery-powered radio

14%

9%

23%

-3%

20%

Medications

---

---

9%

2%

11%

Cash

---

---

3%

-1%

2%

Financial documents

---

---

2%

-1%

1%

Photocopies of personal
identification

---

---

1%

0%

1%

Eyeglasses

---

---

1%

0%

1%

*These responses were unaided and asked as part of a multiple response question. The results represent the total percent of respondents mentioning
the existence of the particular item in their home as part of their disaster preparedness supplies. Respondents were asked “Could you tell me the
disaster supplies you have in your home?”

Demographic and Contextual Differences
• Age: Individuals between the ages of 18 to 34 (38%) and ages 35 to 54 (35%) were significantly more
likely to have disaster supplies set aside in their cars than individuals aged 55 years and older (29%).
• Education: Individuals with some college education (36%) were significantly more likely than less
educated individuals (29%) to have supplies set aside in their cars.
• Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic individuals (73%) were significantly more likely than Hispanic individuals
(60%) to have a supply of bottled water as part of their home disaster supplies. Non-Hispanic
individuals (73%) were significantly more likely to have copies of important financial and insurance
documents in a safe place than Hispanic individuals (59%).
• Household income: Households making $25,000 - $49,000 (75%), and $50,000 - $74,000 (74%) and
more than $75,000 (73%) were significantly more likely than households earning less to have a supply
of bottled water in their home (58%). Households earning $50,000 - $74,000 (81%) were significantly
more likely to have a supply of packaged food in their home than households making less than $25,000
(67%).
• Race: White individuals (76%) were significantly more likely than Black individuals (55%) to have a
supply of bottled water as part of their home disaster supplies.

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

8

• Volunteerism: Individuals who have volunteered for an emergency responder organization or a
community safety program (74% ) and/or volunteered in response to a disaster (71%) were significantly
more likely to have supplies set aside in their home, compared to those who have not (52% and 50%,
respectively).
• Employment: Individuals who work full-time (77%) were significantly more likely to have packaged
food as part of their disaster supplies than those who work only part-time (61%) or were unemployed
(65%).
To What Extent Do Individuals Have a Household Emergency Plan?
Less than half of individuals (44%) reported having a household emergency plan “that included instructions for
household members about where to go and what to do in the event of a disaster.”
Table 3: Household Disaster Preparedness Plan*

Relevant TCL Measure:

2003

+/-

2007

+/-

2009

Yes

58%

-16%

42%

2%

44%

No

42%

16%

58%

-3%

55%

* Respondents were asked “Does your household have an emergency plan that includes
instructions for household members about where to go and what to do in the event of a disaster?”

Number of households that
conduct pre-incident
preparation—to include
maintaining a communication
plan, gathering disasters
supplies, practicing
evacuation/shelter-in-place,
and maintaining skills.

Demographic and Contextual Differences
• Age: Individuals between the ages of 18 to 34 and 35 to 54 (97% and 94% respectively) were
significantly more likely than individuals aged 55 or over (85%) to have discussed their household plan
with other members in their household.
• Household Income: Households earning over $50,000 (72-74%) were significantly more likely to have
copies of important financial and insurance documents in a safe place than households making less than
$25,000 (62%).
• Religiousness: Individuals that considered themselves to be very religious (50%) were significantly
more likely to have a home emergency plan than those individuals that considered themselves
somewhat religious and barely religious (43% and 37% respectively).
• Volunteerism: Individuals who had volunteered in response to a disaster (59%) were significantly more
likely to have a household emergency plan than those who did not (37%).

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

9

How Familiar Are Individuals with Their Community’s Disaster
Preparedness Plans and Protocols?

Relevant TCL Measures:
Jurisdiction’s population that is
knowledgeable of workplace,
school, and community
emergency plans.

Participants were asked to rate their familiarity with community disaster
preparedness plans and protocols. Consistent with the 2007 survey,
respondents reported familiarity with alerts and warning systems (50%) and
official sources of public safety information (38%). Some individuals
(59%) who said they had a child attending a school outside of their home,
including day care or part-time kindergarten, said they were aware of the
details of the emergency or evacuation plan of their children’s school,
including where the school planned to evacuate and how to get information
about the child in the event of a disaster. Also similar to the 2007 survey
results, respondents also reported being least familiar with community
evacuation routes (58%) and shelter locations (54%). Questions new to the
survey in 2009 showed that almost half of the respondents (48%) were
familiar with how to get information regarding a public health emergency
such as the H1N1 virus or swine flu, while only 34 percent of respondents
were familiar with information regarding local hazards in their area.

Number of households that
conduct pre-incident
preparation—to include
maintaining a communication
plan, gathering disaster
supplies, practicing
evacuation/shelter-in-place, and
maintaining skills.

Number of citizens prepared
to evacuate or relocate to
designated shelter (to include
citizens with special needs).

Table 4: Familiarity with Community Plans/Systems*
Most Familiar
2007
+/2009

Least Familiar
2007
+/2009

Alerts and warning systems in
your community

45%

5%

50%

33%

-3%

30%

How to get local information
about a public health
emergency, such as the H1N1
virus or swine flu

---

---

48%

---

---

31%

Official sources of public
safety information

34%

4%

38%

43%

-5%

38%

How to get help with
evacuating or getting to a
shelter

29%

4%

34%

49%

2%

47%

---

---

34%

---

---

48%

Shelter locations near you

31%

-1%

30%

54%

1%

54%

Community evacuation routes

26%

2%

28%

60%

-2%

58%

Information on what your local
hazards are

* Each percentage represents top-and-bottom-box scores, respectively. Those stating 4 or 5 (top-box, most familiar) and 1 or 2 (bottom-box, least
familiar) are measured on a scale of 1 to 5; with 5 being “very familiar” and 1 being “not at all familiar”). Respondents were asked “Using a scale of
1 to 5 with 5 being ‘very familiar’ and 1 being ‘not at all familiar,’ how familiar are you with…?”

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

10

In early May, following news of the Spring 2009 H1N1 pandemic, participants were asked about the sources
from which they received information regarding the pandemic. Results showed that 86 percent of respondents
received information from a local media source. The next most common sources were an individual’s
workplace (25%) followed by an individual’s school or childcare facility (23%).
Table 5: Sources for information on H1N1*
2009
Media

86%

Workplace

25%

Schools or Childcare Facilities

23%

Healthcare Provider

18%

Local Government Official

14%

Faith-Based Organization

7%

Neighborhood Association

3%

None

5%

Other

3%

*Not included in the 2003 and 2007 survey. These responses were unaided and asked as part of a multiple response question. Respondents were
asked, “From which organizations in your community have you received information about the recent outbreak of the H1N1 virus or swine flu?”

Demographic and Contextual Differences
• Age: Individuals ages 35 to 54 and 55 and older were significantly more likely to be very familiar with
community evacuation routes than individuals ages 18 to 34 (20% and 21% compared to 10%). They
were also significantly more likely to be very familiar with shelter locations (22% and 23% compared to
16 %).
• Geography: Rural residents were significantly more likely to be very familiar with information on their
local hazards (22%) and community evacuation routes (22%) than suburban residents (15% and 13%,
respectively). Rural residents (24%) were also more likely to be very familiar with how to get help with
evacuating or getting to a shelter than suburban residents (15%).
• Employment: Individuals who worked full-time (35%) were significantly more likely to be very
familiar with community alerts and warning systems than those who were unemployed (25%).
What Is the Extent of Volunteer Support for Emergency Responders/Community Safety?
Nearly one-quarter (23%) of individuals stated they had given some time in the past 12 months to support
emergency responder organizations or an organization that focuses on community safety, such as Neighborhood
Watch, which was a similar finding in the 2007 and 2003 surveys (23% and 22%, respectively). About one-third

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

11

of participants (34%) indicated that they had volunteered to help in a disaster at some point in the past. The
most frequently mentioned organizations for which individuals had volunteered their time included
Neighborhood Watch (41%), fire/police/EMT (30%), and The American Red Cross (10%).
Table 6: Volunteering for Emergency Responder/Community Safety*
2003

+/-

2007

+/-

2009

Yes

22%

1%

23%

0%

23%

No

78%

-1%

77%

0%

77%

* Respondents were asked, “During the past 12 months, have you given any time to help
support emergency responder organization or an organization that focuses on community
safety, such as Neighborhood Watch?”

Relevant TCL Measure:
Number of trained citizens
providing volunteer support
to local emergency
responder disciplines (law
enforcement, fire,
emergency medical, and
public health services).

Table 7: Volunteering to Help in a Disaster*
2003

+/-

2007

+/-

2009

Yes

28%

4%

32%

2%

34%

No

72%

-4%

68%

-2%

66%

* Respondents were asked, “Have you ever volunteer to help in a disaster?”

An encouraging 64 percent of individuals said they would be “willing to take a 20-hour training course to
become qualified to help their community recover from a disaster.” The respondents who were least willing to
take the training class included individuals over 55 years old (41%), and respondents who had an education of
high school or below (37%).
Demographic and Contextual Differences
• Age: Individuals between the ages of 18 to 54 (64–72%) were significantly more likely than those over
age 55 (55%) to indicate willingness to take a 20-hour disaster recovery training course. Also,
individuals between the ages of 35 to 54 (72%) were significantly more likely than individuals between
the ages of 18 to 34 (64%) to indicate willingness to take a 20-hour disaster recovery training course.
• Education: Individuals with college experience (66%) were significantly more willing to take a 20hour disaster recovery training course than individuals with less than a college education (60%).
Individuals with college experience (37%) were also significantly more likely to have volunteered in a
disaster than individuals with less education (27%).
• Employment: Individuals employed full-time (69%), part-time (67%) and unemployed individuals
(73%) were significantly more likely to report a willingness to take a 20-hour training course than
individuals who report being retired (52%). However individuals reporting full-time (38%) and parttime (35%) employment and retired individuals (32%) were significantly more likely to report having
volunteered to help in a disaster than unemployed individuals (20%).

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

12

• Gender: Men (40%) were significantly more likely to have volunteered during a disaster than women
(29%).
• Geography: Individuals living in rural residential areas (30%) were significantly more likely to have
volunteered during the past 12 months to support an emergency responder organization than suburban
and urban residents (19% and 22%, respectively). Urban residents (69%) were significantly more
willing than rural residents (60%) to express willingness to take a 20-hour disaster recovery training
course.
• Household income: Individuals with a household annual income of $75,000 (25%) or more and
individuals with a household annual income of $25,000 - $49,000 (24%) were more likely to volunteer
in the past 12 months than individuals with a household annual income of $25,000 or less (17%).
Do Individuals Know What To Do in the First Five Minutes After Specific Types of Disasters (Natural,
Radiological, Explosion, or Chemical Release)?
This section of the survey focused on the first 5 minutes following disasters that might occur without warning.
These survey items also continued to probe individuals’ perceptions of their abilities to become prepared for a
disaster (self-efficacy), as well as the response efficacy of the action—the belief that the preparedness actions
they might take could make a difference in the event of a disaster. Participants were asked how confident they
were in their own abilities and knowledge of what they should do in the first 5 minutes for four different types
of disasters. Over 5 in 10 individuals 53% expressed confidence in their abilities to know what to do in the first
5 minutes of a sudden natural disaster such as an earthquake or tornado. Reported confidence levels of
respondents were significantly lower for man-made disasters such as radiological explosions or dirty bombs, the
release of chemical agents, or other explosions or bombs (20%, 26%, and 31% confidence, respectively).
Individuals reported the least confidence in their abilities to handle an explosion of a radiological or dirty bomb,
or release of a chemical agent (59% and 50% not confident, respectively). However, there is a general upward
trend in confidence since the 2007 survey in respondent’s reported ability to know what to do in the first 5
minutes of a terrorist act or hazardous materials accident (19% compared to 20% and 23% compared to 26%,
respectively). There was a slight decrease in reported confidence levels for explosions/bombs and a sudden
natural disaster (33% to 31% and 57% to 53%, comparatively).

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

13

Table 8: Confidence in Knowledge of How to Respond in the First Five Minutes*

2007

Confident
+/-

2009

2007

Not Confident
+/2009

A sudden national disaster such
as an earthquake or tornado that
occurs without warning

57%

-4%

53%

18%

4%

22%

An explosion or bomb

33%

-2%

31%

42%

2%

44%

A hazardous material accident
such as the release of a
chemical agent

23%

3%

26%

59%

-9%

50%

A terrorist act such as an
explosion of a radiological or
dirty bomb

19%

1%

20%

62%

-3%

59%

*Each percentage represents top-and-bottom-box scores, respectively. Those stating 4 or 5 (top-box, confident) and 1 or 2 (bottom-box, not
confident) are measured on a scale of 1 to 5; with 5 being “very confident” and 1 being “not at all confident”). Respondents were asked “How
confident are you in your ability to know what to do in the first 5 minutes of…?”

Demographic and Contextual Differences
• Education: Individuals with no college experience (13%) were significantly more likely to report being
very confident in their abilities to know what to do in the first 5 minutes of a radiological/dirty bomb
explosion than those with more educational experience (7%).
• Gender: Men were significantly more likely to report being very confident in their abilities to know
what to do in the first 5 minutes of any type of disaster (confidence scores for different types of
disasters ranged from 12–36%) than women (confidence scores for different types of disaster ranged
from 6–20%).
• Geography: Rural residents were significantly more likely to report being very confident in their
abilities to know what to do in the first 5 minutes of a radiological/dirty bomb explosion (11%) and a
release of a chemical agent (17%) than those living in suburban residential areas (6% and 10%,
respectively).
Volunteerism: Those who had volunteered in their community safety programs were significantly more
confident in their abilities to know what to do in the first 5 minutes of any type of disaster (13–36%)
than those who had not (8–25%). Those who had also volunteered in response to a disaster were also
significantly more confident across all disaster categories (12–36%).

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

14

What Is the Extent of Participation in Preparedness Drills/Exercises?
Participants were asked if they had participated in a variety of disaster-related
drills in their home, workplace, or school in the past 12 months. While 4 in 10
individuals (42%) reported having participated in a workplace evacuation drill,
only 27 percent had participated in a workplace shelter-in-place drill. Even fewer
individuals had participated in school- or home-based shelter-in-place drills
(14% and 10%, respectively). Only 14 percent reported having participated in a
home evacuation drill. Compared to 2007, there was little change in the percent
of respondents who reported having participated in each type of drill or exercise.
In the case of a school evacuation drill there was a slight increase of 4 percent in
2009 compared to 2007.
Table 9: Participation in Drills*
2007

+/-

2009

Workplace evacuation drill

41%

1%

42%

Workplace shelter-in-place drill

27%

0%

27%

School evacuation drill

19%

4%

23%

School shelter-in-place drill

14%

0%

14%

Home evacuation drill

13%

1%

14%

Home shelter in place drill

10%

0%

10%

Relevant TCL
Measures:
Jurisdiction’s population
that is knowledgeable of
workplace, school, and
community emergency
plans.
Number of households
that conduct pre-incident
preparation—to include
maintaining a
communication plan,
gathering disaster
supplies, practicing
evacuation/shelter-inplace, and maintaining
skills.
Number of citizens
prepared to evacuate or
relocate to designated
shelter (to include citizens
with special needs).

*Respondents indicating they had participated in the specific type of drill in the past 12 months.

Demographic and Contextual Differences
• Age: Individuals between the ages of 18 to 54 (14–19%) were significantly more likely to have
participated in a home evacuation drill than older individuals (8%).
• Employment: Individuals who worked full-time (17%) and part-time (14%) as well as students (17%)
were all significantly more likely to have participated in a home evacuation drill than retired (8%)
individuals. In addition, individuals who worked full-time (17%) were significantly more likely to have
participated in a home evacuation drill than unemployed individuals (10%). Individuals reporting to be
full-time employees (13%) were also significantly more likely than the unemployed (7%) and retired
(7%) to have participated in a home shelter-in-place drill.
• Race: Black individuals (55%) were significantly more likely to have participated in a workplace
evacuation drill than White individuals (40%).
• Religiousness: Individuals reporting to be barely or not at all religious (92%) were significantly more
likely than individuals reporting to be somewhat religious (85%) to report having never participated in a

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

15

home evacuation drill. Very religious individuals (13%) and somewhat religious individuals (9%) were
significantly more likely to report having participated in a home shelter-in-place drill than barely or not
at all religious individuals (5%). Very religious individuals (13%) were significantly more likely to
report having participated in a home shelter-in-place drill than somewhat religious (9%) individuals.
• Income: Individuals who reported earning $25,000-$49,000 (88%) and individuals who reported
earning more than $75,000 (87%) were significantly more likely to never have participated in a school
shelter in place drill than individuals making less than $25,000 (74%).
Relevant TCL
Measures:

How Many Individuals Have Received Training in Preparation for a
Disaster?
Participants were asked if they had engaged in any sort of emergency-related
training programs in the past 2 years. Attending first aid skills training was found
to be the most common (37%). Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training
was the next most common response (36%). Approximately 1 in 8 individuals
(13%) had attended training as part of a Community Emergency Response Team
or CERT. These findings were similar to those from the 2003 and 2007 surveys.

Number of citizens
trained in basic first aid.
Number of citizens
educated and trained in
risk-based capabilities
for high-threat incidents
in their area, including
natural hazards,
technological hazards,
and terrorism.

Table 10: Preparedness Training Programs*
2003

+/-

2007

+/-

2009

Attended first aid skills training

37%

-4%

33%

4%

37%

Attended CPR training

37%

-2%

35%

1%

36%

Talked about getting prepared with
others in their community

---

---

---

---

35%

Attended a meeting on how to be better
prepared for a disaster

---

---

23%

2%

25%

Attended training as part of a
Community Emergency Response Team
or CERT

10%

0%

10%

3%

13%

*Respondents indicating they had conducted the action in the past 2 years.

Most individuals taking preparedness classes or emergency training attributed their motivation to a mandatory
function of their job or school (48%). The second most common response was for the concern and safety of
family or others (21%). Some respondents (14%) also reported taking preparedness training because family or
friends did. Other responses included reasons for taking training as an increased awareness of training from the
media (2%) and a work, community, or school-based position that prompted them to take the training (3%).

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

16

Table 11: Motivators for Preparedness Training*
2003

+/-

2007

+/-

2009

Mandatory for job/school

47%

4%

51%

-3%

48%

Concern for safety of family or friends

20%

-5%

15%

6%

21%

Because others (family or friends) did

---

---

4%

10%

14%

General interest/hobby

11%

-5%

6%

-1%

5%

Concern for personal safety

6%

1%

7%

0%

7%

To have the necessary skill to help others

---

---

7%

2%

9%

Easy to sign up

---

---

7%

0%

7%

Desire to be prepared

---

---

16%

-2%

14%

20%

-15%

5%

9%

14%

Other

*These responses were unaided and asked as part of a multiple response question. The results represent the total percent of respondents mentioning
the particular motivator from the list. Respondents were asked, “What motivated you to take this training?”

Demographic and Contextual Differences
• Age: Individuals ages 18 to 54 (36–44%) were significantly more likely to have taken a CPR class than
older adults (26%). Individuals between the ages of 35-54 (44%) were more likely to have taken a CPR
class than individuals between the ages of 18-34 (36%).
• Employment: Full-time employees (33%) were significantly more likely than part-time employees
(20%), unemployed individuals (14%), students (16%) and retired individuals (20%) to have attended a
meeting on how to be better prepared for a disaster. Full-time (44%) employees were the most likely to
have completed CPR training than students (26%), unemployed individuals (32%) and retired
individuals (23%). Finally, full-time employees (18%) were more likely than all other groups, except
for students (7%), to have attended training as part of a Community Emergency Response Team.
• Geography: Rural residents (30%) were significantly more likely to have attended a meeting on how to
be better prepared for a disaster than suburban residents (21%).
• Household income: Individuals with an annual household income of $25,000 or more (28- 29%) were
more likely to have attended a meeting on how to become better prepared for a disaster or taken a CPR
class (38-42%) than individuals with a household annual income of $25,000 or less (16% and 26%,
respectively).
• Religiousness: Individuals that considered themselves to be somewhat religious (40%) were
significantly more likely to have attended a first aid skill training meeting than those who considered
themselves to be barely or not at all religious (33%). Very religious individuals (40%) were more likely
than somewhat (33%) and barely or not at all (31%) religious individuals to have talked with others in
their community about getting prepared.
2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

17

How Does Perceived Preparedness Compare with Actual Preparedness?
Past research has found that often, participants perceive themselves to be more prepared than their reported
actions would indicate. To examine this finding further, the Citizen Corps National Survey asked individuals to
name specific preparedness actions that they had taken including household planning, gathering supplies,
preparedness training, volunteering, as well as to self-assess their preparedness stage (from contemplating
becoming prepared to having been prepared for the last six months). Individuals’ perceptions of their level of
preparedness were compared with their self-reported specific preparedness activities. Individuals who reported
being prepared were indeed more likely to have taken specific preparedness measures. It should be noted,
however, that even those who reported being prepared were lacking some critical elements of preparedness, e.g.
just over a third who said they “have been prepared for at least the past six months” did not have a household
plan, nearly 80 percent had not conducted a home evacuation drill, and nearly 70 percent did not know their
community’s evacuation routes. Compared to those who had not prepared, but intend to prepare in the next one
to six months, the respondents who stated they had been prepared for at least the last six months were
significantly more likely to:
•

•

•

•

Have disaster supplies in their home, car, and workplace
•

Home: 84 percent compared to 40 percent

•

Car: 49 percent compared to 25 percent

•

Workplace: 55 percent compared to 45 percent

Have a household plan and have discussed it with household members
•

Have a household plan: 65 percent compared to 33 percent

•

Of those with a plan, discussed plan with household members: 95 percent compared to 90 percent

•

Have copies of important financials and insurance documents: 86 percent compared to 65 percent

Be aware of community preparedness resources
•

Alerts and warning systems: 44 percent compared to 44 percent

•

Official sources of public safety information: 32 percent compared to 27 percent

•

Evacuation routes: 27 percent compared to 21 percent

•

Shelter locations: 32 percent compared to 27 percent

•

How to get help with evacuating or getting to a shelter: 30 percent compared to 26 percent

•

Children’s school emergency/evacuation plan: 72 percent compared to 51 percent

Be confident in their abilities to handle each type of disaster
•

Dirty bombs: 32 percent compared to 13 percent

•

Chemical agents: 39 percent compared 18 percent

•

Explosion/bombs: 44 percent compared to 20 percent

•

Natural disaster: 72 percent compared to 36 percent
2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

18

•

•

•

•

Be confident that preparing for disasters will make a difference
•

Dirty bombs: 50 percent compared to 35 percent

•

Chemical agents: 56 percent compared 52 percent

•

Explosion/bombs: 54 percent compared to 48 percent

•

Natural disaster: 78 percent compared to 67 percent

•

Severe infectious disease: 58 percent compared to 54 percent

Have taken training
•

Preparedness meeting: 41 percent compared to 15 percent

•

CPR training: 46 percent compared to 35 percent

•

First aid skills training: 49 percent compared to 34 percent

•

CERT training: 21 percent compared to 10 percent

•

Willing to take a 20-hour training: 66 percent compared to 68 percent

Have taken part in drills or exercises
•

Home evacuation: 23 percent compared to 8 percent

•

Home shelter-in-place: 19 percent compared to 4 percent

•

Workplace shelter-in-place: 33 percent compared to 29 percent

•

School evacuation: 24 percent compared to 24 percent

•

School shelter-in-place: 17 percent compared to 13 percent

Have volunteered
•

Community safety: 35 percent compared to 16 percent

•

Disaster response: 51 percent compared to 27 percent

What Barriers Do Individuals Perceive in Preparing for Disasters?

What Are the Barriers to Undertaking Disaster Preparedness Activities?
In order to identify the barriers to preparedness, respondents who said they had not yet begun to prepare or were
not intending to prepare were asked to respond to a list of possible reasons for why they had not taken any
preparedness steps. They were asked to indicate whether the stated barrier was a primary reason, somewhat of a
reason, or not a reason at all. The most commonly mentioned primary reason for not preparing was the belief
that emergency responders such as fire, police, or emergency personnel would help them (29%). Other primary
reasons included lack of knowledge (24%) and lack of time (26%). These findings are similar to the 2007
survey findings with a notable 8% decrease in reliance on emergency responders from 2007 to 2009.

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

19

Table 12: Primary Reasons Cited as Barriers to Preparedness*
Primary Reason

Not A Reason At All

2007

+/-

2009

2007

+/-

2009

I think that emergency
responders, such as fire, police
or emergency personnel will
help me

37%

- 8%%

29%

28%

5%

33%

I just have not had the time

24%

2% %

26%

48%

-2%

46%

I do not know what I am
supposed to do

27%

-3%

24%

43%

0%

43%

It costs too much

17%

1%

18%

63%

-5%

58%

I do not think that it will make a
difference

17%

-1%

16%

57%

2%

59%

I do not want to think about it

19%

-2%

17%

56%

1%

57%

I do not think I would be able to

13%

0%

13%

70%

-2%

68%

*Respondents were asked to identify potential reasons for not preparing as a “primary reason, somewhat of a reason, or not a reason at all.”

Demographic and Contextual Differences
• Age: Individuals over the age of 55 (43%) were significantly more likely not to take disaster
preparedness steps due to reliance on emergency responders such as fire, police, or emergency
personnel than younger individuals (20-28%). Individuals over 55 (24%) were also significantly more
likely than younger individuals (8-10%) to indicate that doubts of their abilities (low self-efficacy) were
a primary reason for not preparing.
• Education: Individuals with a high school degree or less (45%) were significantly more likely not to
have prepared because of perceived reliance on emergency responders such as fire, police, or
emergency personnel, than more educated individuals (23%). Individuals with a high school degree or
less (32%) were significantly more likely than higher educated individuals (21%) to state that a lack of
knowledge was a primary reason for not preparing.
• Employment: Retired individuals (43%) were significantly more likely to say that a reliance on
emergency responders was a primary reason for not preparing than were employed individuals (25%)
and students (25%).
• Household income: Households earning less than $25,000 (46%) were significantly more likely not to
have prepared because of reliance on emergency responders—fire, police, or emergency personnel—
than those earning more annually (22-26%). As income levels increased, individuals were significantly
less likely to say that cost was a primary reason for not taking any preparedness steps.

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

20

What Are the Barriers to Taking Preparedness Training?
Participants who indicated they had not taken any type of disaster preparedness training were asked what had
prevented them from doing so. Unaided responses were then coded according to predetermined categories. Of
these participants, the most common reasons given were that it was difficult for them to get information on what
to do (31%), they had not had the time (22%), or they hadn’t thought about it (18%). Few respondents (4%)
provided as a reason that they did not believe training would be effective or that the cost for training was too
much (2%). Other responses included the respondent reporting that they already knew how to be prepared
(12%) and being physically unable to get to training (5%) as barriers for taking preparedness training.
Table 13: Barriers to Preparedness Training*
2003

+/-

2007

+/-

2009

Difficult to get information on what to do

14%

1%

15%

16%

31%

Lack of time

19%

-3%

16%

6%

22%

---

---

15%

3%

18%

16%

-11%

5%

4%

9%

Don't think it will be effective

---

---

2%

2%

4%

Lack of money/too expensive

2%

0%

2%

0%

2%

Other

53%

0%

53%

-36%

17%

Haven't thought about it
Don’t think it is important

*These responses were unaided and asked as part of a multiple response question. The results represent the total percent of respondents mentioning
the particular motivator from the list. Respondents were asked, “What is the main reason you have not received any preparedness training?”

Demographic and Contextual Differences
• Age: Individuals ages 18–34 (32%) were more likely to report a lack of time being a primary barrier to
not taking part in any preparedness training than individuals 55+ (21%).
• Education: Individuals with less than a high school degree (9%) compared to individuals with some
college experience (4%) were more likely to report being physically unable to get training as a primary
barrier to taking part in preparedness training.
• Gender: Males (12%) were significantly more likely than females (7%) to report that they were not
participating in preparedness training because they did not think it was important.
• Employment: Full-time employees (36%), part-time employees (13%), students (26%) and
unemployed individuals (24%) were significantly more likely to report lack of time as the primary
barrier to taking preparedness training courses than retired individuals (5%).

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

21

Who Will Individuals Look To For Help During the First 72 Hours?
Participants were asked to describe how much they believed they would rely on certain groups of individuals or
organizations for assistance in the first 72 hours following a disaster. A large majority of individuals (70%)
indicated that they would rely on household members most, while 61 percent of respondents expect to rely on
fire, police, and emergency personnel. Respondents also expect to rely on people in their neighborhood (49%),
nonprofit organizations (42%), faith-based communities (39%), and state and federal government agencies,
including FEMA (36%).
Table 14: Expectation of Reliance on Others*
2003

+/-

2007

+/-

2009

Household members

68%

3%

71%

-1%

70%

Fire, police, and emergency personnel

62%

-5%

57%

4%

61%

People in my neighborhood

39%

9%

48%

1%

49%

Nonprofit organizations, such as The
American Red Cross or the Salvation
Army

---

---

40%

2%

42%

Faith-based community, such as
congregation

---

---

39%

0%

39%

34%

-4%

30%

6%

36%

State and federal government agencies,
including FEMA

*Each percentage represents top-box scores. Those stating 4 or 5 (top-box, most relied upon) are on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being “expect to rely on
a great deal” and 1 being “do not expect to rely on at all” for assistance in the first 72 hours following a disaster. Respondents were asked, “In the
first 72 hours following a disaster, please indicate how much you would expect to rely on the following for assistance.”

Demographic and Contextual Differences
• Education: Individuals with no college experience were significantly more likely than individuals with
some college experience to expect to rely a great deal on state and federal government agencies (28%
compared to 17%), nonprofit organizations (34% compared to 16%), people in their neighborhood
(31% compared to 25%), their faith-based community (36% compared to 20%), and fire, police, and
emergency personnel (48% compared to 34%).
• Gender: Women were significantly more likely than men to expect to rely on household members
(61% compared to 49%), people in their neighborhood (29% compared to 24%), nonprofit
organizations (25% compared to 15%), their faith-based community (28% compared to 19%) and fire,
police, and emergency personnel (42% compared to 32%).
• Geography: Rural residents were significantly more likely than suburban individuals to expect to rely a
great deal nonprofit organizations (22% compared to 15%) in the first 72 hours of a disaster.
• Household income: Individuals with an annual income greater than $75,000 (58%) were significantly
more likely than individuals making less than $25,000 (50%) to expect to rely a great deal on their
household members. Individuals with an annual household income of less than $25,000 were
2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

22

significantly more likely than individuals making over $75,000 to rely a great deal on state and federal
government agencies (28% compared to 17%), fire, police, and emergency personnel (45% compared to
35%), their faith-based community (31% compared to 17%), and nonprofit organization, (31%
compared to 14%) in the first 72 hours of a disaster.
• Race: Black individuals were significantly more likely than White individuals to expect to rely a great
deal on their faith-based community (40% compared to 22%), nonprofit organizations (34% compared
to 17%), fire, police, and emergency personnel (48% compared to 35%) and state and federal
government agencies (36% compared to 16%) in the first 72 hours of a disaster.
• Religiousness: Very religious individuals were more likely to rely on their faith-based communities
(45%), household members (60%) and nonprofit organizations (24%) as compared to those who are
barely or not at all religious (7%, 51%, and 14%, respectively).
Do Individuals Expect to Need Help During an Evacuation?
Respondents were also asked specifically if they would expect to need help to evacuate or get to a shelter in the
event of a disaster. Four in 10 individuals said they would expect to need help to evacuate or get to a shelter in
the event of a disaster.
Table 15: Reliance on Help from Others During an Evacuation*
2007

+/-

2009

Yes

38%

4%

42%

No

62%

-7%

55%

*Respondents were asked, “In the event of a disaster, would you expect to need help to evacuate from the area?”

Individuals who indicated they would need help in an evacuation were asked an unaided follow-up question
about the kind of help they would need. These unaided responses were then coded according to predetermined
categories. Half of respondents reported needing help with transportation out of the area (50%), while nearly a
quarter (22%) reported needing information on the evacuation route. Respondents also reported needing help
from state or federal government agencies (9%) and not having a place to go after the evacuation (8%). “Other”
responses included needing officials directing evacuation traffic (2%), disaster supplies including food and
water (5.1%), and medical supplies and assistance (2.5%).

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

23

Table 16: The Kind of Help Needed to Evacuate*
2009
Transportation out of the area

50%

Information on the evacuation route

22%

State or federal government agency

9%

Don’t have a place to go

8%

Have a disability and need help getting out of
home/workplace

5%

Concerned about getting gas for my vehicle

3%

Help evacuating pets

1%

Other

16%

*Not included in the 2003 and 2007 surveys. These responses were unaided and asked as part of a multiple response question. The results represent
the total percent of respondents mentioning a need for help with evacuation. Respondents who indicated they would “expect to need help to evacuate
the area” were asked, “What kind of help do you think you would need to evacuate from the area?”

Demographic and Contextual Differences
• Education: Individuals with no college experience (49%) were significantly more likely to need help
from others during an evacuation than individuals with some college experience (40%).
• Employment: Individuals employed full-time (59%) and part-time (58%) were significantly more
likely than individuals who reported being retired (48%) to say they did not expect to need help
evacuating from their area in the event of an emergency.
• Race: Black individuals (67%) were significantly more likely than White individuals (35%) to report
needing help to evacuate or get to a shelter.
• Ethnicity: Hispanic individuals (57%) were significantly more likely than non-Hispanic individuals
(40%) to expect to need help from others during an evacuation.
• Gender: Women (49%) were significantly more likely to expect to need help from others during an
evacuation than men (35%).
• Geography: Individuals living in urban areas (57%) were significantly more likely to expect to need
help from others in the event of an evacuation than suburban (41%) or rural residents (31%).
• Household income: Individuals with an annual household income of less than $25,000 (59%) were
significantly more likely to need help to evacuate or get to a shelter than individuals with an annual
household income of $25,000 or more (35–42%).

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

24

What is the Perception of Vulnerability to Different Types of Disasters? How Do
People Perceive the Utility of Preparedness?
What Are Individuals’ Perceptions of Risks of Different Types of Disasters?
The Citizen Corps National Survey assesses an individual’s perceptions of their vulnerability to four different
categories of disasters. Participants were asked to state how likely (using a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 signifying “not
likely at all” and 5 signifying “very likely”) they thought it was that a specific type of disaster would ever occur
in their community.
Of the four specific types of disasters investigated, a natural disaster such as an earthquake, flood, hurricane,
tornado, or wildfire was rated as the disaster most likely to occur. It is interesting to note, however, that 4 in 10
40% reported thinking that a natural disaster would ever affect their community. Only 14 percent of individuals
felt a terrorist act would ever occur in their community. These low levels of perceived susceptibility were also
echoed in the responses related to a severe disease outbreak and hazardous materials accident (28% and 23%,
respectively). These findings are consistent with the 2007 survey findings with a notable increase in the
perception of risk of a severe disease outbreak from 2007 to 2009, which may be due to the Spring 2009 H1N1
pandemic occurring during the survey fielding. Further analysis of the 2009 survey results will provide
additional insight to this possible correlation.
Figure 1: Perception of the Risk of a Disaster*

Disease Outbreak

28%

20%
23%
22%

Hazardous Materials Accident
14%

Act of Terrorism

19%
40%
37%

Natural Disaster
0%

10%

2009 Survey

20%

30%

40%

50%

2007 Survey

*Likelihood each disaster would occur, top-box scores (those stating 4 or 5, on a scale of 1 to 5; 5 being “very likely” that the disaster would occur
and 1 being “not likely at all” that the disaster would occur). Respondents were asked, “On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being ‘very likely’ and 1 being
‘not likely at all,’ how likely do you think some type of …will ever occur in your community?”

Demographic and Contextual Differences
• Age: Individuals ages 35–54 (26%) were significantly more likely than older individuals (22%) to
believe that a natural disaster was very likely ever to occur in their community.

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

25

• Education: Individuals with less than a college education were significantly more likely to believe that
a terrorist and hazardous materials disaster would ever occur in their community (11% and 14%,
respectively) than individuals with college experience (5% and 8 %, respectively).
• Geography: Urban residents (13%) were significantly more likely than suburban residents (7%) and
rural residents (8%) to believe that a hazardous materials accident was very likely ever to occur in their
community. Rural residents (42%) were significantly more likely than suburban residents (32%) and
urban residents (26%) to believe that an act of terrorism was not at all likely ever to occur in their
community.
• Household Income: Households earning less than $25,000 annually were significantly more likely than
individuals earning more to believe that a terrorist attack (11%), hazardous materials accident (14%),
and disease outbreak (18%) was very likely ever to occur than households with an income of $75,000 or
more (5%, 6%, and 8%, respectively).
• Race: Blacks were significantly more likely than Whites to believe that a terrorist attack (15% and 5%
respectively), hazardous materials accident (18% and 7%, respectively), and disease outbreak (20% and
10%, respectively) were very likely ever to occur in their communities.
• Volunteerism: Individuals that had volunteered in response to a disaster (29%) were significantly more
likely to believe that a natural disaster was very likely to occur in their community than those who had
not (20%). Also, individuals that had volunteered for organizations focusing on community safety were
significantly more likely to believe that a natural disaster (28%) and a hazardous materials accident
(13%) were very likely ever to occur in their community, as opposed to those who had not (21% and
8%, respectively).
What Is the Perceived Severity of the Impact of Different Types of Disasters?
To explore further the potential effect of individuals’ perception of the likely severity of different types of
disasters, individuals were asked a new question in 2009 about their perception of how severe the impact of
different types of disasters would be on their lives (using a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being “very severe” and 1
being “not severe at all”). The same four types of disasters: a natural disaster, an act of terrorism, a hazardous
materials accident, and a severe disease outbreak, the survey asked if the disaster occurred in your community,
“how severe do you think the impact would be to you.” Over half of participants (59%) believed that the impact
of an act of terrorism in their community would be severe (rated a 4 or 5 on a 5 point scale), followed by a
natural disaster (50%). One-quarter of individuals perceived that a contagious disease outbreak would not be
very severe (25%) and 3 in 10 individuals did not believe a hazardous materials accident would be severe
(31%).

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

26

Figure 2: Perception of the Severity of Impact of Disaster*
70%
60%
50%

59%
50%
44%
37%

40%
30%
20%

31%
20%

25%
19%

High Perceived Severity
Low Perceived Severity

10%
0%
Natural
Disaster

Act of Hazardous Disease
Terrorism Materials Outbreak
Accident

*Perceived severity of the impact of each disaster, top-box scores (those stating 4 or 5, on a scale of 1 to 5; 5 being “very severe” disaster and 1 being
“not severe at all” for a perceived impact of a disaster). Respondents were asked, “If a…were to happen in your community, how severe do you think
the impact would be to you?”

Demographics and Contextual Differences
• Age: More individuals older than 55 significantly felt that the impact of a natural disaster would be not
severe at all (9%) as compared to the other age groups.
• Gender: Across all disaster categories, women significantly felt that the impact of disasters in their
community would be very severe for them, with the most severe disaster being a terrorist attack (38%).
• Geography: Urban (22–27%) and rural (20–27%) perceived all of the disaster types, excluding
terrorism, to be severe more than suburban residents (13-20%).
• Household Income: Individuals with a household income less than $25,000 (13%) were significantly
more likely than those earning more to perceive that a disease outbreak would not be severe to them at
all (4–7%).
• Race: Black individuals were significantly more likely to feel that a hazardous materials accident would
severely impact them, as compared to White individuals (26% versus 16%, respectively).
• Ethnicity: Hispanic individuals (36%) were significantly more likely to feel that a natural disaster
would have a severe impact on them personally, as compared to non-Hispanic individuals (22%).
• Religiousness: Across all disaster categories, except for a severe disease outbreak, individuals who
reported being very religious felt that the impact of disasters in their community would be very severe
for them (20–37%), as compared to those who were barely or not at all religious (14–27%).
• Volunteerism: Individuals who had never volunteered in response to a disaster (35%) were
significantly more likely to believe that an act of terrorism would severely impact them personally, as
compared to those who had volunteered in response to a disaster (29%).

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

27

What Is the Perceived Utility of Advance Preparation for Different Types of Disasters?
The survey sought to measure individuals’ perceptions of the efficacy or utility of preparing in advance for a
disaster. Participants were asked whether preparation, planning, and emergency supplies would help them
handle the situation in the event of four different categories of disasters—a natural disaster, an act of terrorism,
a hazardous materials accident, and a severe disease outbreak. Roughly 8 out of 10 82% individuals felt that
preparation, planning, and emergency supplies would help them handle a natural disaster. Eleven percent of
individuals believed they could handle a natural disaster without advance preparation. In response to dealing
with an act of terrorism, 59 percent of individuals felt preparation, planning, and supplies would help them. This
lower level of response efficacy for a terrorist event (lack of belief that recommended preparedness measures
will mitigate the personal impact of a disaster) is coupled with relatively high levels of fatalism, with over onethird of individuals (35%) reporting the belief that nothing they do to prepare would help them handle an act of
terrorism. While participants indicated greater response efficacy related to threats such as a severe disease
outbreak or hazardous materials accidents (73% and 65%, respectively), about 1 out of 5 individuals believed
that nothing would help them respond to those threats.
Figure 3: Utility of Advance Preparations for Different Types of Disasters*
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%100%
11%
Natural Disaster 2009

82%
I can handle the situation
without any preparation

6%
4%
Act of Terrorism 2009

59%
35%

Hazardous Materials
Accident 2009

9%
65%
25%

Preparation, planning,
and emergency supplies
will help me handle the
situation
Nothing I do to prepare
will help me handle the
situation

8%
Disease Outbreak 2009

73%
18%

*Respondents were asked, “In a…which of the following statements best represents you belief?”

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

28

Demographic and Contextual Differences
• Employment: Full-time employed individuals (69%) were significantly more likely to think
preparation, planning, and emergency supplies would help them handle a hazardous materials accident
than those who were unemployed (58%).
• Gender: Men were significantly more likely than women to believe they could handle a natural
disaster, terrorist attack, or a hazardous materials accident without any preparation (14% versus 9%; 6%
versus 3%; and 11% versus 6%). Women (68%) were significantly more likely than men (62%) to feel
that preparation, planning and emergency supplies would help them handle a hazardous materials
accident.
• Geography: Rural residents (20%) were significantly more likely than urban (14%) to believe that
nothing they could do would help them handle a severe disease outbreak.
• Household Income: Individuals with an annual household income of $75,000 or more were
significantly more likely to believe that preparation, planning, and emergency supplies would help them
handle a natural disaster (86%) or a hazardous materials accident (68%) than individuals with an annual
household income of $25,000 or less (72% and 59%, respectively).
• Ethnicity: Hispanic individuals (12%) were significantly more likely to believe that nothing they do
would help them prepare for a natural disaster, as compared to non-Hispanic individuals (6%).
• Religiousness: Individuals who reported being very religious were significantly more likely to think
that preparation, planning, and emergency supplies would help them handle an act of terrorism (61)than
those who are barely or not at all religious (54%).
• Volunteerism: Individuals who had never volunteered in a community safety program or in response to
a major disaster were significantly more likely to believe that there is nothing they can do to help them
prepare for a natural disaster (7% and 8%, respectively), as compared to those that have volunteered
(3% and 4%, respectively).
What Is the Perceived Effectiveness of Advanced Preparation on Handling a Disaster?
Participants were also asked how much preparing in advance would help them be able to handle specific types
of disasters: a terrorist act, a hazardous materials accident, an explosion or bomb, a highly contagious disease
outbreak, and a natural disaster. Individuals felt that preparing for a natural disaster would help them the most
(67%), compared to other types of disasters (45–52%). The disaster with which most individuals felt
preparation would not help much at all was a terrorist attack (34%), compared to a natural disaster (13%) and a
severe disease outbreak (24%).

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

29

Table 17: Perceptions of Effectiveness of Advance Preparations*
Useful

Not Useful

Natural Disaster

67%

13%

Terrorist Act

45%

34%

Hazardous Materials Accident

49%

29%

Explosion or Bomb

47%

32%

Disease Outbreak

52%

24%

*Utility of advance preparation for disasters, top-box scores (those stating 4 or 5, on a scale of 1 to 5; 5 being “very much” useful and 1 being “not at
all” useful). Respondents were asked, “How much do you think preparing for a…will make a difference in how you handle the situation?”

Demographic and Contextual Differences
• Age: Across all disasters, except for a severe disease outbreak, individuals ages 35-54 (33-47%) were
significantly more likely than those over the age of 55 (29–39%) to think that preparing for a disaster
would help them very much.
• Household Income: Individuals with a household income of less than $25,000 were significantly more
likely to think that preparing for a hazardous materials accident (40%) would help them very much, as
compared to households earning more than $75,000 (32%).
• Race: Black individuals (46–52%) were significantly more likely to think preparing for all disasters
would help them very much as compared to White (29–41%) and Asian individuals (16–25%).
• Religiousness: Across all disasters, individuals who considered themselves to be very religious (37–
48%) were significantly more likely to think that preparing for a disaster would help them very much,
than were those who did not consider themselves to be somewhat, barely, or not at all religious (2240%).
• Volunteerism: Individuals who had volunteered to help in a disaster in the past (47%) were
significantly more likely to think that preparing for a natural disaster would help them very much, than
those who had not (40%).
The survey also sought to measure perceptions relative to self-efficacy, the belief in one’s ability to perform an
action. Survey participants were asked how confident they felt in their ability to prepare for a disaster, using a
scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being “very confident” and 1 being “not at all confident.” Over half (61%) the survey
participants had confidence in their ability to prepare for a disaster (rated a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale), whereas
14 percent indicated low levels of confidence (rated a 1 or 2 on the 5-point scale).

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

30

Table 18: Levels in Confidence in Ability to Prepare for Disasters*
2009
Very Confident

61%

Not At All Confident

14%

*Levels in confidence in ability to prepare for disasters, top-box scores (those stating 4 or 5, on a scale of 1 to 5; 5 being ”very” confident and 1
being ”not at all” confident). Respondents were asked, “How confident are you about your own ability to prepare for a disaster?”

Demographic and Contextual Differences
• Age: Individuals in the 35–54 age groups (29%) were significantly more confident in their ability to
prepare for a disaster than the younger group (21%).
• Race: Both White (26%) and Black (27%) individuals were significantly more confident in their ability
to prepare for a disaster than Asian individuals (7%).
• Household income: Individuals earning an annual income greater than $75,000 (30%) were
significantly more confident in their ability to prepare for a disaster than those in households earning
$25,000–$49,999 (21%). Individuals earning less than $25,000 (14%) were the least confident in their
ability to prepare for a disaster as compared to all other income groups.
• Geography: Both urban (7%) and rural residents (6%) were significantly less confident in their ability
to prepare for a disaster as compared to those residents in suburban areas (2%).
• Education: Those who have not received a college education (10%) were significantly less confident in
their ability to prepare for a disaster when compared to those who had some college education (4%).
• Volunteerism: Individuals who had volunteered in response to a disaster (33%) were significantly more
confident in their ability to prepare for a disaster as compared to those who had not (22%).

In Which Stage of the Stages of Change Model (Precontemplation,
Contemplation, Preparation, Action, Maintenance) Are Individuals Relative to
Disaster Preparedness?
Developed by Prochaska and DiClemente, the Stages of Change Model, or Transtheoretical Model of Behavior
Change 3, states that behavior change is not an event, but rather a process. In this conceptualization, individuals
move through five distinct stages that indicate their readiness to attempt, make, or sustain behavior change.
These five stages are precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance. The stages are
not linear, as individuals do not necessarily progress from one stage to the next, but instead individuals may
relapse to earlier stages and begin the change process again. Often, social marketing campaigns are targeted
3

Prochaska, J.O., and C.C. DiClemente. 1982. Transtheoretical therapy: Toward a more integrative model of change. Psychotherapy: Theory,

Research and Practice, 20, 161–173.

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

31

toward individuals in the contemplation stage, as these individuals may be more readily prompted to take action
if given assistance.
Figure 4: Stages of Change model
STAGE
Precontemplation
Contemplation
Preparation
Action

Maintenance

DESCRIPTION
The individual is not intending to change or even thinking about
change in the near future (usually measured as the next 6
months).
The individual is not prepared to take action at present, but is
intending to take action within the next 6 months.
The individual is actively considering changing his or her
behavior in the immediate future (e.g., within the next month).
The individual has actually made an overt behavior change in
the recent past, but the changes are not well established
(maintained for 6 months or less).
The individual changed his or her behavior, maintained the
change for more than 6 months, and is working to sustain the
change.

The Stages of Change model was used in this survey to determine individuals’ perceptions of their relative stage
of change within the preparedness change process. Participants were asked which of the statements in the chart
below best matched their level of preparedness. The stages with the greatest percentage of individuals
represented both ends of the Stage of Change spectrum, with over one-third of individuals (35%) stating that
they had been prepared for at least the past six months, and the second largest number stating they were not
planning to do anything about preparing (23%) 4.

4

The question on Stages of Change originated from and was used with the permission of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness (NCDP).

2007. The American Preparedness Project: Where the US public stands in 2007 on terrorism, security, and disaster preparedness. New York, NY:
NCDP.

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

32

Figure 5: Stages of Change (2007)*

*Respondents were asked, “In thinking about preparing yourself for a major disaster, which best represents your preparedness?”

Figure 6: Stages of Change (2009)*

*Respondents were asked, “In thinking about preparing yourself for a major disaster, which best represents your preparedness?”

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

33

Demographic and Contextual Differences
• Age: Individuals ages 35 to 54 years (40%) and ages 55 and more (36%) were significantly more likely
to have been prepared for the last six months than individuals ages 18 to 34 (27%); however, both age
groups 18 to 34 and 35 to 54 (19% and 16% respectively) were significantly more likely to fall within
the contemplation stage of preparedness as compared to individuals over 55 (11%).
• Employment: Full-time employed individuals (17%) were more likely to be in the contemplation stage
(planning to prepare within the next six months) than retired individuals (9%).
• Gender: Men (39%) were significantly more likely than women (31%) to have been prepared for the
last six months.
• Household income: Households earning less than $25,000 annually (24%) were significantly less likely
to have been prepared for the last six months than those earning more than $50,000 annually (37% to
41%, depending on income level).
• Religiousness: Individuals that considered themselves not to be religious (30%) were significantly
more likely to be in the precontemplation stage (not planning to do anything about preparing) than
those that considered themselves to be very religious (20%).
• Volunteerism: Individuals who had volunteered to help in a disaster (52%) were significantly more
likely to report being prepared for the last six months than those who had not volunteered (26%).
• Race: Black individuals were significantly more likely to be in the contemplation or preparation stage
(24% and 17%, respectively) than White individuals (14% and 7%, respectively).
• Education: Those with college experience (37%) were significantly more likely to have been prepared
for the last six months than those who did not have college experience (27%).
•

How Does Disaster Preparedness Differ by Demographic Characteristics?

What Is the Potential Impact of Disability on Disaster Preparedness?
In the event of a disaster, individuals with physical or mental disabilities may
have unique challenges relative to their ability to respond to a disaster. Of the
survey participants, 15 percent reported having a physical or other disability
that would affect their capacity to respond to an emergency situation. Another
14 percent of survey participants indicated they lived with and/or cared for
someone with a physical or other disability.

Relevant TCL Measure:
Number of citizens
prepared to evacuate or
relocate to designated
shelter (to include citizens
with special needs).

• Plan: Caretakers of individuals with a disability (47%) were significantly more likely to have a
household emergency plan as those who were not caretakers of an individual with a disability (43%).
• Preparedness training programs: Individuals with a disability were significantly less likely to have
attended a preparedness meeting (20%), taken a CPR training class (28%), or taken first aid skills
training (28%) than those without a disability (26%, 39%, and 39%, respectively). Individuals with

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

34

disabilities were also significantly less willing to attend a 20-hour training course (55%) than those
without disabilities (66%).
• Perceptions of the utility of preparing in advance for a disaster: Individuals with a disability (74%)
were significantly less likely to believe that preparation, planning, and emergency supplies would help
them handle a natural disaster than those without a disability (83%).
• Barriers: Individuals with disabilities were significantly more likely to not have taken disaster
preparedness steps because they don’t think they will be able to (30%), don’t want to think about it
(27%), and emergency responders will help them (41%) as compared to those without a disability
(10%, 15%, and 27%, respectively).
What Is the Potential Impact of Gender on Disaster Preparedness?
Per survey protocol, gender was determined by the interviewer, based on the voice of the participant. In
general, men reported greater levels of preparedness and confidence in their abilities to handle the situation.
This was also reflected in the finding that fewer men expected to need help in the event of an evacuation.
• Ability to respond in the first five minutes of a disaster: Men (12–36%) were significantly more
confident in their abilities to know what to do in the first 5 minutes of any type of disaster than women
(6–20%).
• Barriers: Women were significantly more likely to not take any disaster preparedness steps due to
lack of knowledge (28%) than men (20%).
• Perceptions of the utility of preparing in advance of a disaster: Men were significantly more likely
than women to believe they could handle a natural disaster, terrorist attack, or a hazardous materials
accident, without any preparation (14% versus 9%; 6% versus 3%; and 11% versus 6%, respectively).
Women (68%) were significantly more likely than men (62%) to feel that preparation, planning and
emergency supplies would help them handle a hazardous materials accident.
• Reliance on others: Women were significantly more likely to rely on household members and people
in their neighborhood (61% and 29%, respectively), than men (49% and 24%, respectively). Women
(49%) were also significantly more likely to report needing help to evacuate or get to a shelter than
men (35%).
• Perceptions of severity of impact of disasters: Women were significantly more likely to believe that
a severe disease outbreak (25%), hazardous materials accidents (21%), act of terrorism (38%) and
natural disaster (30%) would very severely impact them, as compared to men (15–28%).
• Stages of Change: Men were significantly more likely than women to report having been prepared for
the last 6 months (39% versus 31%).
• Perceptions of risk: Women were significantly more likely (8%) to believe that an act of terrorism is
very likely to occur in their community, as compared to men (5%).
• Volunteering: Men (40%) were significantly more likely to have volunteered during a disaster than
women (29%).

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

35

What Is the Potential Impact of Community Type on Disaster Preparedness?
Each respondent was asked to describe his/her location as urban, suburban, or rural. Overall, rural respondents
were more likely to report having volunteered, taken preparedness training, and to feel more confident about
their preparedness (or in other words, their ability to respond in the early stages of a disaster and believing that
preparing for a disaster could actually aid in reducing harm).
Suburban respondents overall were less prepared than were urban respondents. Mostly, suburban residents were
equally confident in their ability to respond in the first 5 minutes of a disaster. Although urban residents were
not as confident in their ability to act in the event of a disaster, except for a terrorist attack, they indicated that
they were significantly more willing to take a 20-hour disaster recovery training course than rural residents
• Volunteering: Individuals living in rural residential areas (38%) were significantly more likely to have
volunteered to help in a disaster than suburban residents (32%). Urban residents (69%) were
significantly more willing than rural residents (60%) to express willingness to take a 20-hour disaster
recovery training course.
• Community plan: Rural residents (22%) and urban residents (18%) were significantly more likely to
be familiar with their evacuation routes as opposed to suburban residents (13%).
• Perceptions of the severity of impact of disasters: Both urban and rural residents were significantly
more likely to feel that a severe disease outbreak (24% and 22%, respectively), hazardous materials
accident (22% and 20% respectively) and natural disaster (27% and 27% respectively) would severely
impact them as compared to suburban residents (16%, 13%, and 20%, respectively).
• Perceptions of the utility of preparing in advance of a disaster: Suburban residents (85%) were
significantly more likely than urban or rural residents (80% reported for both) to believe that
preparation, planning, and emergency supplies would help them handle a natural disaster.
• Perception of risks: Urban residents (13%) were significantly more likely to believe that a hazardous
materials accident would ever occur in their community, as compared to suburban (7%) and rural
residents (8%).
• Preparedness training programs: Rural residents (30%) were significantly more likely to have
attended a meeting on how to be better prepared for a disaster than suburban residents (21%).
• Reliance on others: Rural residents (30%) were significantly more likely than suburban individuals
(24%) to rely a great deal on people in their neighborhood in the first 72 hours of a disaster.

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

36

What Is the Potential Impact of Race and Ethnicity on Disaster Preparedness?
A respondent’s race was solicited by asking the respondent to select one of the following categories: White,
Black or African American, Asian, American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, Other Pacific Islander,
or something else. A respondent’s ethnicity was solicited by asking whether or not they were of Hispanic,
Latino, or Spanish origin.
Black respondents were more likely to have higher risk perceptions about disasters; that is, they were more
likely than White respondents to believe that the majority of the disasters discussed were likely to occur in their
communities. Additionally, black respondents were more likely to expect to rely on others (especially their
faith-based communities) in the event of an evacuation. Black respondents were also more prepared in terms of
having participated in a workplace evacuation drill.
White respondents were more likely to be prepared for the last six months than Black respondents and had
stronger beliefs in their own responsibility to report suspicious behavior.
Non-Hispanic respondents were more likely to be prepared, by having important financial and insurance
documents in a safe place.
• Plan: Non-Hispanic individuals (73%) were also significantly more likely to have copies of important
financial and insurance documents in a safe place than Hispanic individuals (59%).
• Reliance on others: Black individuals were significantly more likely to rely a great deal on their faithbased community (40%) or nonprofit organizations (34%) in the first 72 hours of a disaster than White
individuals (22% and 17%, respectively) and Hispanic individuals (30%) were significantly more
likely to rely a great deal on nonprofit organizations than non-Hispanic individuals (19%). Blacks
(67%) were also significantly more likely to expect to need help to evacuate or to get to a shelter than
Whites (36%).
• Perceptions of the utility of preparing in advance of a disaster: Hispanic individuals (12%) were
significantly more likely to believe that nothing they did could help them prepare for a natural disaster,
as compared to non-Hispanic individuals (6%).
• Perception of risks: Blacks were significantly more likely than Whites to believe that a terrorist attack
(15% and 5% respectively), hazardous materials accident (18% and 7%, respectively), and disease
outbreak (20% and 10%, respectively) were very likely ever to occur in their communities.

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

37

• Participation in preparedness drills and exercises: Black individuals (55%) were significantly more
likely to have participated in workplace evacuation drills than White individuals (40%).
• Willingness to report suspicious behavior: White individuals (97%) were significantly more likely
than Black individuals (93%) to feel that they had a personal responsibility to report suspicious
behavior or circumstances to the authorities.
• Stages of Change: White individuals (38%) were significantly more likely to have been prepared for
the last six months than Black individuals (23%).
• Barriers: Blacks were significantly more likely to report that cost (30%) and ability to take action
(25%) were primary reasons they have not taken any disaster preparedness steps as compared to White
individuals (16% and 10%, respectively).
• Perceptions of severity of impact of disasters: Hispanic individuals (36%) were significantly more
likely to feel that a natural disaster would have a severe impact on them personally, as compared to
non-Hispanic individuals (22%).
What Is the Potential Impact of Income on Disaster Preparedness?
A respondent’s household income was solicited by asking which of the following categories applied to his/her
household: less than $25,000; $25,000 to $50,000; $50,000 to $75,000; and $75,000 or more. Across several
constructs measuring preparedness—including self-reported preparedness activities, attitudes around
preparedness, and awareness of preparedness groups and plans—the data indicate a direct relationship between
income level and preparedness: as income increased so did measures of preparedness. For example, respondents
with household incomes of $50,000 or more were more likely than those with a lesser income to have disaster
supplies in their cars, communicated this household disaster plan with others, volunteered to help in a disaster,
taken a preparedness training or CPR course, communicated the importance of preparing to someone else, and
believe that preparedness would actually help them handle a disaster situation.
Conversely, those with lower household incomes were less likely to have taken preparedness measures and
indicated an increased need for help in an evacuation. Individuals with lower household incomes were more
likely to cite cost as a barrier to preparing than were those with higher incomes. Furthermore, individuals
reporting lower household incomes were also more likely to have different attitudes about preparedness than
those with higher incomes. For instance, they reported little to no confidence in their ability to know what to do
in the first 5 minutes and an increased belief that a terrorist attack was likely to occur in their community.
• Disaster Supplies: Households earning $50,000 to $75,000 (38%) were significantly more likely to
have supplies set aside in their cars than households making less than $25,000 (28%).
• Plan: Those who reported incomes $75,000 and over were significantly more likely to have discussed
their household plan with other household members (97%) than those earning less than $25,000
(84%). Survey respondents from households that reported making more than

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

38

$75,000 (72%) were significantly more likely to have copies of important financial and insurance
documents in a safe place than households earning less than $25,000 (62%).
• Volunteering: Individuals with an annual household income of $75,000 or more (37%) were
significantly more likely to have volunteered to help in a disaster than individuals with an annual
household income of $25,000 or less (27%).
• Reliance on others: Households earning less than $25,000 expected to rely on state and federal
government agencies (28%), as well as fire, police, and emergency personnel (45%) in the first 72
hours of a disaster than those earning more (17-19%, and 34-36%, respectively). Additionally, these
individuals were significantly more likely to need help evacuating or getting to a shelter 59%).
• Confidence in ability to respond in a disaster: Individuals with a household income of less than
$25,000 were significantly more likely to have no confidence in their own ability to handle the first 5
minutes of a natural disaster (20%) than were households earning more than $25,000 (7–12%).
• Preparedness training programs: Individuals in households earning $75,000 or more were more
likely to attend a meeting on how to become better prepared for a disaster (29%) or take a CPR class
(40%) than those earning $25,00 and below (16% and 26%, respectively).
• Barriers: Households earning less than $25,000 were significantly more likely not to have taken
disaster preparedness steps due to reliance on emergency responders (45%)—fire, police, or
emergency personnel—than those earning more (22–26%). As income levels increased, individuals
were significantly less likely to say that cost was their primary reason for not taking any preparedness
steps.
• Perceptions of the utility of preparing in advance of a disaster: Individuals in households earning
$75,000 or more believed that preparation, planning, and emergency supplies would help them handle
a natural disaster (86%) or a hazardous materials accident (68%) than those earning $25,00 and below
(72% and 59% respectively).
• Perception of risks: Households earning less than $25,000 were significantly more likely to believe
that a terrorist attack was very likely to occur in the next 12 months (11%) than individuals earning
$75,000 and over (5%).
• Stages of Change: Households earning less than $25,000 were significantly more likely to have not
prepared but intend to in the next 6 months (21%) or 1 month (13%) than those earning over $75,000
(13% and 7% respectively).
What Is the Potential Impact of Education on Disaster Preparedness?
A respondent’s education was solicited by asking which of the following categories applied to him or her: less
than 12th grade (no diploma); high school graduate or GED; some college but no degree; associate degree in
college; bachelor’s degree; master’s degree; or doctorate degree. The data show that individuals with some
college experience were overwhelmingly more aware, prepared, and confident in the benefits of disaster
preparedness. These measures include keeping disaster supplies in their vehicles and having volunteered with a
local emergency response group.

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

39

Individuals with no college education were less prepared among all the measures previously mentioned.
Furthermore, people with no college experience perceived two significant barriers to personal preparedness:
reliance on emergency responders and a lack of knowledge about how to prepare. Also, people with no college
experience had a greater perception that several types of disasters would occur in their community. Both groups
(those with some college and those with no college experience) predicted a reliance on others in the first 72
hours of a disaster: individuals with no college experience predicted they would rely on people in their
neighborhood, nonprofit organizations, and state and federal government agencies.
• Disaster Supplies: Individuals with some college education (36%) were significantly more likely than
those with less education (29%) to have supplies set aside in their cars.
• Volunteering: Individuals with college experience (37%) were significantly more likely to have
volunteered in a disaster than individuals with less education (27%).
• Reliance on others: Individuals with only a high school education (31%) were significantly more
likely than individuals with college experience (25%) to rely on people in their neighborhood.
Individuals without college experience were more likely to rely a great deal on state and federal
government agencies (28%), as well as fire, police, and emergency personnel (48%) than individuals
with college experience (17% and 34%, respectively).
• Ability to respond in the first five minutes of a disaster: Individuals with only a high school
education (13%) were significantly more confident in their abilities to know what to do in the first 5
minutes of a radiological/dirty bomb explosion than those with more educational experience (7%).
• Barriers: Individuals with less than a high school degree were significantly more likely not to have
taken disaster preparedness steps due to expected reliance on emergency responders such as fire,
police, or emergency personnel (45%) than were higher educated individuals (23%). Individuals with
less than a high school degree (32%) were significantly more likely than higher educated individuals
(21%) to state that a lack of knowledge was their primary reason for not taking any preparedness steps.
• Perception of risks: Across disaster categories, individuals without college education were more
likely to believe that a hazardous materials accident (14%) or act of terrorism (11%) was very likely to
occur in their community than individuals with college experience (8% and 5%, respectively).
• Perceptions of the utility of preparing in advance of a disaster: Individuals with a college
education (84%) were significantly more likely to believe that preparation, planning, and emergency
supplies would help them handle a natural disaster than those with less than a college education (74%).
• Perceptions of the severity of impact of disasters: Individuals with less than a college degree were
significantly more likely to believe that a hazardous materials accident (29%) and a severe disease
outbreak (27%) would have a severe impact as opposed to those with a college degree (15% and 18%,
respectively).

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

40

What Is the Potential Impact of Age on Disaster Preparedness?
A respondent’s age was solicited by asking in what year the respondent was born. Respondents’ years of birth
were grouped into the age categories of 18 to 34, 35 to 54, and 55 and over. The data suggest that the most
prepared age group was individuals 18 to 34 years old and 35 to 54 years old. For example, these groups were
more likely than older individuals to have household plans, be willing to volunteer to take a 20-hour disaster
training course, and have taken a CPR course or a preparedness course They were also more likely to have
participated in an evacuation drill and believe that preparing would be effective in preventing harm in the event
of a disaster (high response efficacy). The primary barrier to being prepared reported by these groups was an
anticipated reliance on emergency responders.
There were some nuances among these two more prepared groups, however. For example, the 35- to 54-yearolds were more likely to be in the action stage of the Stages of Change model; whereas, the 18- to 34-year-olds
were more likely than other groups to be in the precontemplation stage. Also, individuals 35+ years old were
more likely to feel it was their responsibility to report suspicious behavior.
Adults 55+ years old were less prepared among some of the measures mentioned earlier. For example, this age
group perceived many barriers to being prepared, including higher reliance than younger groups on emergency
responders in the event of a disaster. The data do suggest, however, that older adults are aware of community
groups and plans. For example, individuals 55+ years old were more likely to be aware of their community’s
shelter locations and evacuation routes.
• Disaster Supplies: Individuals between the ages of 18 to 54 were significantly more likely to have
disaster supply kits set aside in their cars (35–38%) than individuals older than 55 years (29%).
• Plan: Individuals between the ages of 18 to 54 were significantly more likely to have discussed their
household plan with other members in their household (94-97%) than older individuals (85%).
• Volunteering: Individuals between the ages of 18 to 54 were significantly more likely to indicate
willingness to take a 20-hour disaster recovery training course (64-72%) than older individuals (55%).
• Confidence in ability to respond in a disaster: Individuals ages 35 to 54 (10%) were significantly
more likely than those over the age of 55 (5%) to be confident in their ability to respond in the first
five minutes of an explosion of a radiological or dirty bomb.
• Preparedness training programs: Individuals ages 18 to 34 and 35 to 54 (36% and 44%,
respectively) were significantly more likely to have taken a CPR class than older adults (26%).
• Barriers: Individuals over the age of 55 (43%) were significantly more likely not to have taken
disaster preparedness steps due to expected reliance on emergency responders such as fire, police, or
emergency personnel than younger individuals (20–28%). Individuals over the age of 55 (24%) were
also significantly more likely than younger individuals (8–10%) to indicate that doubts regarding their
abilities to take action were a primary reason for not taking any preparedness steps.

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

41

• Stages of Change: Individuals 35 to 54 (40%) were significantly more likely to have been prepared
for the last 6 months than individuals ages 18 to 34 (27%). This younger group was significantly more
likely to fall within the precontemplation stage of preparedness (19%) than individuals over the age of
55 (11%).
• Community Plan: Individuals over the age of 35 were significantly more likely to be very familiar
with their community’s evacuation routes (20–21%), as well as shelter locations (22–23%) than were
younger individuals (10–16%).
• Participation in preparedness drills and exercises: Individuals between the ages of 18 and 54 (14–
19%) were significantly more likely to have participated in a home evacuation drill than older
individuals (8%).
• Willingness to report suspicious behavior: Individuals over the age of 35 (97%) were significantly
more likely than younger individuals (93%) to feel that they had a personal responsibility to report
suspicious behavior to the authorities.
What Is the Potential Impact of Employment on Disaster Preparedness?
Each participant was asked to describe their job status according to the following categories: works full-time,
works part-time, student, unemployed, retired, or other. Overall, employed individuals were more likely to take
part in various training programs and volunteer opportunities than unemployed individuals. Also, employed
individuals were more likely than retired individuals to be in the contemplation phase of the Stages of Change
model; whereas, retired individuals were more likely to be in the precontemplation stage than full-time
individuals. Retired individuals were also more likely to experience more barriers to taking disaster
preparedness steps than those who work full-time.
• Plan: Individuals who are employed full-time (71%) were significantly more likely to have copies of
important financial and insurance documents in a safe place than those who were unemployed (63%).
• Perception of risks: Individuals who were unemployed were significantly more likely to believe that a
terrorist attack (9%) and a hazardous materials accident (14%) would ever occur in their community,
as compared to individuals who work full-time (5% and 8%, respectively).
• Perceptions of utility of preparing in advance of a disaster: Individuals who work full-time (86%)
were significantly more likely to believe that preparation, planning, and having emergency supplies
would help them handle a natural disaster, as compared to those who are unemployed (73%) or retired
(71%).
• Community plan: Employed individuals (35%) were significantly more likely to be familiar with
community alerts and warning systems than those who were unemployed (26%).
• Stages of Change: Retired individuals (29%) were significantly more likely to be in the
precontemplation stage than full-time individuals (21%).
• Barriers: Retired individuals were significantly more likely to not have taken disaster preparedness
steps due to reliance on emergency responders (43%) and their lack of knowledge (35%) as opposed to
those who work full-time (25% and 22%, respectively).

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

42

• Volunteerism: Individuals who work full-time were significantly more likely to volunteer in a
community safety program (26%) or a disaster response team (38%) than those who are unemployed
(17% and 20%, respectively).
• Preparedness training programs: Full-time employed individuals were more likely to have attended
a meeting on disaster preparedness (33%), CPR training (44%) and a session on first aid (45%), as
compared to unemployed individuals (14%, 32%, and 31%, respectively).
What Is the Potential Impact of Volunteerism on Disaster Preparedness?
Individuals who had volunteered to help in their community or during a disaster were more likely to have a
disaster supplies and a household plan in place, were more willing to prepare for disasters, and had more
confidence in their abilities to prepare for disasters. Individuals who had volunteered to help during a disaster
were also more likely to be in the action stage of the stages of change model. Finally, individuals who have
volunteered in the past were more likely to have participated in various training programs.
• Confidence in ability to respond in a disaster: Individuals who had volunteered to help in a disaster
in the past (33%) were significantly more likely to have confidence in their ability to handle a disaster
than those who had not (22%).
• Community plan: Individuals who have volunteered in response to a disaster were more likely to be
familiar with community alerts and warning systems (42%), evacuation routes (24%) and shelter
locations (30%) than those who have not volunteered (26%, 13%, and 15%, respectively).
• Stages of Change: Individuals who had volunteered to help in a disaster (52%) were significantly
more likely than those who had not volunteered to have been prepared for the last six months (26%).
• Perceptions of the severity of impact of disasters: Individuals who had not volunteered in response
to a disaster (35%) were significantly more likely to believe that an act of terrorism would severely
impact them personally, as compared to those who have volunteered in response to a disaster (29%).
• Plan: Individuals who had volunteered in a community safety program (67%) or a disaster response
team (59%) were significantly more likely to have a household emergency plan as compared to those
who had not volunteered (38% and 37%, respectively).
• Perceptions of the utility of preparing in advance of a disaster: Individuals who had volunteered in
response to a disaster were significantly more likely to believe that preparation, planning and
emergency supplies would help them handle a severe disease outbreak (77%), as compared to those
who have not (71%).
• Perception of risks: Individuals that had volunteered in response to a disaster (29%) were
significantly more likely to believe that a natural disaster was very likely to occur in their community
than those who have not (20%). Also, individuals who had volunteered with organizations focusing on
community safety were significantly more likely to believe that a natural disaster (28%) and a
hazardous materials accident (13%) were very likely ever to occur in their community, as opposed to
those who had not volunteered (21% and 8%, respectively).

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

43

• Preparedness training programs: Individuals who had volunteered in a community safety program
were significantly more likely to had attended a meeting on disaster preparedness (51%), CPR training
(51%) and first aid training (56%) than those who had not volunteered (17%, 32%, and 31%,
respectively).
• Disaster Supplies: Individuals who had volunteered in a community safety program (74%) or a
disaster response team (71%) were significantly more likely to have disaster supplies in their home as
compared to those who had not volunteered (52% and 50%, respectively).
What Is the Potential Impact of Religiousness on Disaster Preparedness?
Survey participants were also asked how religious they believed they were, according to the following
categories: very religious, somewhat religious, barely religious, and not at all religious. Those who considered
themselves to be very religious felt that disasters would have a great impact on them personally, and in the
event of a disaster they would rely heavily on their faith communities, household members, and local nonprofit
organizations. Very religious individuals were also more likely to participate in home shelter-in-place drills and
have a household emergency plan.
• Plan: Individuals who were very religious (50%) were significantly more likely to have a household
emergency plan in place, as compared to those who report being barely to not at all religious (37%).
• Perceptions of the severity of impact of disasters: Individuals who are very religious significantly
felt that the impact of natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and hazardous materials accidents in their
community would be very severe for them (27%, 37%, and 20%, respectively) compared to those who
were barely or not at all religious (18%, 27%, and 14%, respectively).
• Perceptions of the utility of preparing in advance of a disaster: Individuals who reported being
very religious were significantly more likely to think that preparation, planning, and emergency
supplies would help them handle an act of terrorism (61%) than those who report being barely or not
at all religious (54%).
• Stages of Change: Individuals that considered themselves not to be religious (30%) were significantly
more likely to report not planning to do anything about preparing than those that considered
themselves to be very religious (20%).
• Participation in preparedness drills and exercises: Very religious individuals (13%) were
significantly more likely to have participated in a home shelter-in-place drill than those who consider
themselves to be barely or not at all religious (5%).
• Barriers: Individuals who consider themselves to be very religious are more likely to report not
having taken any disaster preparedness steps because of cost (25%) and a belief that it won’t make a
difference (19%) compared to those who consider themselves to be somewhat religious (14% and
11%, respectively).
• Reliance on others: Very religious individuals were more likely to rely on their faith-based
communities (45%), household members (60%) and nonprofit organizations (24%) as compared to
those who are barely or not at all religious (7%, 51%, and 14% respectively).

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

44

What Is the Perceived Social Responsibility for Reporting Suspicious Behavior?
What Is the Willingness to Report Suspicious Behavior?

Relevant TCL Measure:

As part of the survey, participants were asked about their prior experiences
Number of citizens within the
observing and reporting suspicious behavior or circumstances. Only 14
jurisdiction who are alert to
percent of individuals reported that they had seen any suspicious behavior
unusual behavior in others that
or circumstances in the past 12 months. Almost all of the respondents
might indicate potential
(96%) reported feeling that they had a personal responsibility to report
terrorist activity and
such behavior to the authorities. When individuals who had seen
suspicious behavior or circumstances were asked what they did in response understand appropriate
reporting procedures.
to the behavior, 7 out of 10 respondents (70%) reported having taken some
proactive action (called police or neighbor/friend) in response to observing
the behavior/circumstance. However, 14 percent reported not taking any action. The majority of individuals
who observed suspicious behavior and took action reported their observation to the police or a tip-line (64%).
“Other” responses (13%) included intervening or confronting the perpetrator, and observing or taking notes.

Figure 7: Observation of Suspicious Behavior

In the past 12 months have
you seen any suspicious
behavior or circumstances?
14%
Yes
86%

No

Demographic and Contextual Differences

What Did You Do?

2009

Called Police and/or a tip line

64%

Nothing

11%

Called neighbor/friend

6%

Left the area/situation/event

2%

Waited for someone else to do
something

1%

Other

13%

• Age: Individuals over the age of 35 (97%) were significantly more likely than younger individuals
(93%) to feel that they had a personal responsibility to report suspicious behavior to the authorities.
• Race: White individuals (97%) were significantly more likely than Black individuals (93%) to feel that
they had a personal responsibility to report suspicious behavior or circumstances to the authorities.

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

45

• Household income: Individuals in households earning more than $50,000 (97-98%) were significantly
more likely to feel that they had a personal responsibility to report suspicious behavior to the
authorities than those earning less than $25,000 (92%).
• Religiousness: Very religious individuals (98%) were significantly more likely to feel a personal
responsibility to report suspicious behavior than individuals who are barely or not at all religious
(93%).

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

46

Summary and Recommendations
The following recommendations are based on specific findings from the 2007 and 2009 Citizen Corps National
surveys and are intended to assist researchers and practitioners in increasing personal preparedness, civic
engagement, and community resilience. Unless noted otherwise, all data cited is from the 2009 survey results.
•

Individuals’ high expectations of assistance from emergency responders may inhibit
individual preparedness. Communicating more realistic expectations and personal
responsibilities is critical.
From a list of possible reasons why individuals had not prepared, 29 percent of individuals indicated that a
primary reason they had not prepared was because they believed that emergency personnel would help them
in the event of a disaster. Further, 61 percent of participants indicated they expected to rely on emergency
responders in the first 72 hours following a disaster.
Communication to the public must emphasize the importance of self-reliance and convey a more realistic
understanding of emergency response capacity. Especially in large-scale events, emergency responders will
not be able to assist all individuals in an affected area. Messaging should speak to a shared responsibility
and stress that everyone has a role to play in preparedness and response.

•

Too few people had stocked disaster supplies, and most supplies were incomplete. More
emphasis is needed on the importance of stocking disaster supplies in multiple locations,
and more specificity is needed on critical items to include, such as flashlights, radios,
batteries, first aid kits, and personal documents.
The lack of progress in the number of individuals with critical disaster supplies at home and in other
locations remains a concern. While more than half of individuals (57%) reported having emergency supplies
set aside in their homes to be used only in the case of a disaster, when they were asked to list the supplies
unaided, only food and bottled water were mentioned by more than half the respondents (74% and 71%,
respectively). A flashlight and first aid kit the next most common supplies mentioned (42% and 39%,
respectively), with the percentage naming other supplies dropping off considerably, batteries (27%),
portable radio (20%), and medications (11%). Only 1 percent mentioned photocopies of personal
identification or financial documents as part of disaster supplies unaided. With respect to other locations,
45% of individuals indicated having emergency supplies at their workplaces, and 34% had emergency
supplies in their cars.
Because disasters can happen at any time, greater emphasis is needed on the importance of maintaining
supplies in multiple locations. In addition, more prominence is needed on the importance of specific
supplies and why they are so critical. In any type of disaster that impacts electricity, communications will
be limited to battery or crank-operated devices, yet less than one-quarter of respondents reported having a
battery-powered radio in the home. Employers and managers should stress the importance of emergency

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

47

supplies in the workplace and in vehicles and have preparedness days to test and restock supplies. Car
dealers, auto stores, car service companies, and motor vehicle departments and administrations should be
encouraged to provide information about the need for preparedness supplies in cars.
•

Greater appreciation for the importance of household plans and knowledge of local
community emergency procedures and response resources is needed. Individuals who
reported being prepared lacked critical plans and information.
Fewer than half of individuals (44%) had an emergency plan for their home. Additionally, individuals’ low
level of familiarity with critical local information such as the community alerts and warning systems (30%),
shelter locations (55%), and community evacuation routes (58%) indicated that these essential elements
were missing or incomplete from household planning efforts. Surprisingly, even those who reported that
they had been prepared for the past six months had not completed important preparedness activities or did
not have a sound understanding of community plans. Of those who perceived themselves to be prepared, 35
percent did not have a household plan, 81 percent had not conducted a home shelter-in-place drill, and 68
percent did not know their community’s shelter locations.
Local outreach efforts on personal preparedness need to provide individuals with community level
preparedness information regarding disaster vulnerabilities, alerts and warning systems, evacuation plans
and other local procedures, and explain how household, workplace, school, and organizational plans support
community preparedness and resilience. Messages should also target individuals who may think they are
prepared to encourage a reassessment of their preparedness actions.

•

Practicing response protocols is critical for effective execution. Greater emphasis on drills
and exercises is needed.
Fewer than half of individuals (42%) had participated in a workplace evacuation drill in the past 12 months,
and only 27 percent had participated in a workplace shelter-in-place drill. Few individuals had participated
in home-based drills or, of those in school or with children in school, in-school drills (37% participated in an
evacuation drill and 32% participated in a shelter-in-place drill). While the majority of individuals who
indicated their household had an emergency plan (44% of total respondents) reported that they had
discussed their plan with other members in their household (92%), only a quarter had ever practiced or
drilled those household plans (14% had practiced a home evacuation plan and 10% had practiced a home
shelter-in-place drill). Of those who said they did not have a household plan (55% of total respondents),
only 3% had conducted a home evacuation drill and only 3% had conducted a home shelter-in-place drill.
Greater emphasis is needed on drills and exercises and they should be conducted through social networks,
including households and neighborhoods, the workplace, schools, and faith communities. While many
organizations hold required fire drills, far fewer drill on evacuations for other hazards or practice sheltering
in place. In addition, community members need to be included more effectively in government-sponsored
community exercises.

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

48

•

An awareness of vulnerabilities to natural disasters motivates individuals to prepare. Most
individuals, however, did not believe their communities will ever be affected by any type of
disaster.
The survey data indicated a correlation between awareness of vulnerability to natural disasters and
motivation to prepare. Interestingly, this correlation was not as strong for terrorist events or severe disease
outbreaks, perhaps due to a lower perceived response efficacy of preparedness measures for these events.
Most individuals, however, were skeptical about the likelihood that their communities would ever be
impacted by any type of disaster, including natural disasters. Only 40 percent of individuals thought a
natural disaster was likely ever to impact their communities, with even less believing in the likelihood of an
act of terrorism, hazardous materials accident, or severe disease outbreak (14%, 23%, and 28% respectively)
ever impacting their communities. In 2007, participants were also asked about the potential for a disaster to
occur in the next 12 months. Between 10 and 20 percent of the participants in 2007 thought any of the
disasters were likely to impact their communities in this timeframe.
Educating individuals about their communities’ vulnerabilities to natural disasters as well as concerns with
utility outages, extreme heat or cold, and other disruptive circumstances should increase awareness of risks
and, in turn, increase motivation to prepare. Before perceptions of vulnerability to terrorism or disease
outbreak lead to an increase in individuals’ motivation to prepare for these hazards, a greater appreciation of
the utility and effectiveness of advance preparation for these types of events is needed.

•

Perceptions of the utility of preparedness and confidence in ability to respond varied
significantly by type of hazard. Because all-hazards messaging may dilute critical
differences in preparedness and response protocols, preparedness and response
education should include a focus on hazard-specific actions appropriate for each
community.
The survey results indicated that individuals’ perceived utility of preparing and their confidence in their
ability to respond varies significantly by disaster type. Over half (54%) of individuals felt confident about
their abilities to respond in the event of a natural disaster, while only 22 percent did not feel confident in
their response abilities. In stark contrast, over half of individuals were not confident in their abilities to
handle manmade disasters, such as a dirty bomb or a chemical agent (59% and 50%, respectively).
Additionally, while most individuals (66%) believed that preparing for a natural disaster would help them
better handle the disaster, individuals had significantly lower response efficacy regarding acts of terrorism,
with 35 percent of individuals indicating that preparing for a terrorist attack would not help them respond to
that type of event.
Outreach, social marketing, and risk communication strategies should take into account that motivators to
undertake preparedness activities may be different for natural disasters as compared to other disasters.
Communication strategies that seek to increase preparedness for terrorist-related threats must address
susceptibility and response efficacy. Individuals should be better educated about specific disasters and the
training necessary to respond to each type of disaster likely for their community. Special attention should be

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

49

focused on helping engage individuals in basic preparedness for explosions, dirty bombs, and release of
chemical agents, if appropriate for their community.
•

Social networks, such as households, neighborhoods, the workplace, schools, and faithbased communities, and the concepts of mutual support should be emphasized.
The majority of individuals (69%) expected to rely on their household members in the event of a disaster
and a little less than half (48%) expected to rely on others in their neighborhood. In 2007, of the 4 in 10
who had spoken to someone regarding the need to be prepared, only 34 percent had spoken with household
members, and only 26 percent had talked with people in their neighborhoods. In 2009, 3 in 10 individuals
(35%) reported talking about getting prepared with others in their community. In an event, the effectiveness
of assistance provided by household members and neighbors will be limited by lack of prior discussion and
planning.
Messages and activities should encourage greater discussion and evaluation of knowledge, skills, and
supplies necessary to support resilience within social networks, such as households and neighborhoods, the
workplace, schools, and faith-based communities, and should promote drills and exercises to test response
capabilities.

•

Focusing on individuals in the contemplation and preparation stages for personal
preparedness may yield greater results. Messaging and community outreach efforts should
be designed to support those already considering taking action.
Nearly one quarter of individuals (25%) indicated that they intended to prepare in the next 1 to 6 months. A
further 16 percent reported that they had recently begun to prepare. Communication efforts should be
designed specifically towards targeting those in the contemplation and preparation stages of the Stages of
Change model to leverage their interest and intention to prepare and to support them in moving from
contemplation to action.

•

Individuals’ strong interest in attending training courses and volunteering should be
harnessed through social networks. Training and volunteer service should be linked with a
responsibility for educating and encouraging others to prepare.
Encouragingly, over half (64%) of individuals said they would be willing to take a 20-hour training course
for the purpose of helping their communities recover from disasters. The most fertile ground for training
may lie in partnerships with schools and workplaces, as the majority of individuals who participated in
training programs (48%) indicated they were motivated to do so because it was mandatory for a job or
school.
Individuals are also willing to support their community. Nearly one-quarter (23%) of individuals stated they
had given some time in the past 12 months to support emergency responder or community safety
organizations. Over one-third (34%) indicated they had volunteered to help in a disaster at some point in
the past. Those who had volunteered in past disasters were significantly more likely to report that they had
been prepared for the last six months.
2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

50

Training in emergency response skills and basic first aid must become more accessible and more established
in the core social network arenas, workplace, neighborhoods, schools, faith-based communities, and civic
organizations. Opportunities to volunteer to support emergency services, both year-round and in a response
or recovery effort, must also continue to be offered and valued. Volunteers in past disasters should be
marshaled as ambassadors for preparedness in the community.
•

Specific sociodemographic characteristics correlated with attitudes toward and actions for
preparedness. Insights into these differences offer the ability to tailor outreach efforts to
targeted audiences.
Individuals with Disabilities: Fifteen percent reported having a physical or other disability that would
affect their capacity to respond to an emergency situation. Alarmingly, however, less than one-third of
individuals with disabilities had taken specific actions to help them respond safely in the event of an
emergency, with only 20 percent attending a meeting on how to get prepared and 28 percent attending CPR
or first aid training. Another 14 percent of survey participants indicated they lived with and/or cared for
someone with a physical or other disability. Of these individuals only 23 percent attended a meeting on
preparing, 37 percent attended CPR training, and 40 percent attended first aid training – about the same as
individuals who did not identify themselves as caregivers (25%, 36%, and 37%, respectively).
Gender: In general, men reported greater levels of preparedness and confidence in their abilities to handle
situations. Male confidence was also reflected in the finding that fewer men expected to need help in the
event of an evacuation.
Race and Ethnicity: Individuals’ preparedness and need for support varied based on race and ethnicity.
White respondents were significantly more likely than Black respondents to report being prepared for the
past 6 months. Black respondents were more likely to have participated in a workplace evacuation drill.
Black respondents were also more likely than White respondents to believe that the majority of the disasters
discussed were likely to occur in their communities. In terms of ethnicity, Non-Hispanic respondents were
more likely to be prepared, by having important financial and insurance documents in a safe place.
Hispanics were also more likely to cite expected reliance on emergency personnel as primary reason for not
being prepared for disasters.
Income: Across several constructs measuring self-reported attitudes around preparedness and preparedness
activities, the data indicated a direct relationship between higher income and higher levels of preparedness.
Conversely, those with lower incomes were less likely to have taken preparedness measures and indicated
an increased anticipated need for help in an evacuation.
Education: Individuals with some college experience were overwhelmingly more aware, prepared, and
confident in the benefits of disaster preparedness than respondents with no college experience. People with
no college experience who had not prepared gave two prominent reasons: expected assistance from
emergency responders and a lack of knowledge about how to prepare.

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

51

Age: Individuals 18 to 34 years old and 35 to 54 years old were more likely to have undertaken several
different preparedness activities. For example, these groups were more likely to have household plans, have
taken training courses, and be willing to volunteer to take a 20-hour disaster training course. Individuals in
these groups reported a lack of time to prepare as their primary reason for not preparing.
The most unprepared group surveyed were adults 55+ years old. This age group perceived many barriers to
being prepared, including, higher reliance on emergency responders.
Employment: Individuals with full-time employment were significantly more likely than unemployed
individuals to have disaster plans, be aware of community plans, and take part in various training programs
and volunteer opportunities. Retired individuals were more likely to report barriers to taking preparedness
steps, such as reliance on emergency responders.
Volunteerism: Previous volunteering for community safety programs or during a disaster had a significant
impact on individuals’ likelihood to be prepared. Individuals with volunteer experience were more likely to
have disaster supplies and a household plan and to have participated in various training programs. This
group was more likely to be in the action stage of preparedness.
Religiousness: Individuals reporting being very religious perceived the impact of all types of disasters,
except disease outbreaks, to be potentially very severe compared to barely or not at all religious individuals.
Very religious individuals were also more likely to participate in drills and to have household plans.
Individuals who were barely or not at all religious were more likely to be in the precontemplation stage than
very religious individuals.
Research, outreach, and communication should take into account the needs of different audience segments
where preparedness disparities exist. Specific strategies should be developed that focus on the reasons
given for not preparing for these different segments, such as improving accessibility of education materials
and training for people with disabilities, and incorporating preparedness education and training in existing
social network activities to alleviate time constraints. Strategies should include working more closely with
associations and organizations that provide support services to identified audience segments to integrate
preparedness into their activities. Additional research should focus on identifying optimal outreach methods
activities, messages, and spokespersons.
•

Individuals believed they had a personal responsibility to report suspicious behavior, but
greater collaboration between citizens and law enforcement is needed.
Encouragingly, a very high percentage (96%) of individuals believed that they had a personal responsibility
to report suspicious behavior to the appropriate authorities. Despite this high level of perceived
responsibility, 13 percent of individuals who had witnessed suspicious behavior or circumstances failed to
report the activity or did not take any action.

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

52

Additional research should examine why people who have witnessed unusual behavior fail to alert
authorities. Outreach and education should address these barriers. Furthermore, because individuals have a
high sense of responsibility to report suspicious behavior, individuals should be educated about what
behaviors should be considered suspicious, how to contact law enforcement or security, and what types of
information or details are most useful to authorities.

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

53

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

54

Conclusion and Next Steps
FEMA’s Community Preparedness Division 2009 Citizen Corps National Survey offers a comprehensive source
of data on the public’s thoughts, perceptions, and behaviors related to preparedness and community safety for
multiple hazard types. Survey questions addressed several critical areas in the field of disaster preparedness
research including elements of personal preparedness such as stocked supplies, plans, knowledge of community
protocols, and training; elicited insights on barriers and motivators to preparedness; and tested social-behavior
modeling on disaster preparedness, the Citizen Corps Personal Disaster Preparedness Model.
Findings from this study have important implications for the development of more effective communication and
outreach strategies to achieve greater levels of preparedness and participation. While the federal government
and national leaders must continue to emphasize the importance of preparedness from a national platform, it is
clear that effective strategies for preparedness must be implemented at the community level and through social
networks. DHS and FEMA national policy and guidelines issued since September 11, 2001 have recognized the
importance of government collaboration with nongovernment sectors and the importance of supporting
grassroots efforts such as Citizen Corps.
In addition to the analysis of the Citizen Corps National Survey provided in this report, FEMA’s Community
Preparedness Divisions plans to conduct more in-depth analysis of the 2009 survey results and to continue to
review other surveys in the public domain. Areas of planned exploration include:
• Further examination of the demographic characteristics of groups who share similar beliefs, attitudes,
and behaviors relative to preparedness.
• Evaluation and potential review of the Citizen Corps Personal Disaster Preparedness Model, especially
in light of findings that indicate stark differences in the perceived utility of preparing for natural vs.
mandmade disasters.
• An in-depth examination of the impact of the H1N1 influenza pandemic on individual preparedness
and shifts in attitudes and behaviors related to infectious diseases, and public outreach specific to
H1N1.
There are also many other areas of needed research to understand more fully the complexities of motivating and
sustaining personal preparedness and participation. Areas for future research include:
• An exploration of different perceptions of hazard types and how perception affects preparedness, to
include terminology such as “disaster,” “terrorism,” “pandemic flu,” and “preparedness.”
• A clearer assessment of the most critical knowledge, skills, and supplies needed for effective personal
response, to include an examination of survivor and nonsurvivor behavior in actual events.
Understanding response will, in turn, inform appropriate areas of emphasis for preparedness training
and education.

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

55

• How sociodemographic factors relate to preparedness and how outreach strategies should be tailored to
achieve the greatest impact for targeted audiences.
• Qualitative research such as focus groups or interviews to explore more fully how individuals
understand the issues of threat, self-efficacy, and response efficacy and to explore internal and external
barriers and motivators to preparedness.
• Testing specific messages, spokespersons, and social marketing strategies that will have greater impact
on individuals’ understanding of their role in preparedness and willingness to engage in preparedness
activities, to include targeted audiences from sociodemographics segments and from the Stages of
Change model.
• An exploration of better ways to deliver training and to practice response skills through multiple and
varied types of exercises.
• How social networks such as neighborhoods, the workplace, schools, and faith-based communities can
be better used to institutionalize preparedness information, training, and drills, and how civic leaders
from these sectors can be more fully engaged in government-led community resilience efforts.
Civic engagement and personal responsibility are rooted in the founding ideology of our Nation, and these
principles have deep and abiding implications for our continued national resilience. Comprehensive assessment
of personal preparedness in America must be multifaceted, adaptive, and enduring. It requires investment and
leadership from all sectors. In the end, it is the toll on human life and on our way of life that makes resilience
such a crucial endeavor. We must work together to strengthen social capital, we must learn from each other and
learn to help each other, and we must continue to pursue a culture of preparedness through the active
participation of all.

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

56

Appendix A
2009 Citizen Corps National Survey Script

OMB Control #: 1670-0006

INTRODUCTION
Expiration Date: 5/31/2010
//ASK ALL//
S1.
Hello, my name is ____________ and I am calling from Macro
International. We are conducting public opinion research under contract with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). For this research, we are obtaining people’s views about how well prepared they
are for an emergency or disaster in their communities. Is this a private residence?
01
02
03
04
07
14

Yes, continue
No, non-residential
[Go to S1_02]
Hang-up
Answering machine
Termination screen
CONTINUE IN SPANISH

99

REFUSED

[TERMINATE, INITIAL REFUSAL]

//ASK IF S1=02//
(S1_02) Thank you very much, but we are only interviewing private residences. Thank you for your time.
//ASK IF S1=01//
S2.

I would like to speak with an adult, age 18 or older, who lives in the household. Would that be you?
01
02

YES
NO

//GO TO Intro2a//
[ASK TO TRANSFER TO ADULT]

99

REFUSED

//TERMINATE, INITIAL REFUSAL//

//ASK IF S2=02//
NEWS2.

May I speak with an adult member of the household?

01
02

Yes, transferring
Not available //schedule callback//

99

REFUSED

//TERMINATE, INITIAL REFUSAL//

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

57

//ASK IF NewS2=01//
S3.
Hello, my name is ____________ and I am calling from Macro International. We are conducting public
opinion research under contract with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). For this research,
we are obtaining people’s views about how well prepared they are for an emergency or disaster in their
communities.
01
99

Continue
REFUSED

//ASK IF S2=01 or S3=01//
INTRO2A.

The survey will only take about 15 minutes.

Your telephone number was chosen randomly. I will not ask for your name, address, or other personal
information that can identify you. You do not have to answer any question you do not want to, and you can end
the interview at any time. Your participation in this survey is entirely voluntary. Your answers to the survey
questions will be held confidential by Macro International. Your name or any other information that could
identify you will not be associated with your responses or used in any reports. If you have any questions, I will
provide a telephone number—either here at Macro International or FEMA—for you to call to get more
information or to validate this research.
This interview may be monitored for quality assurance purposes.
01 Continue
02 RESPONDENT WANTS MORE INFORMATION
99 REFUSED

//TERMINATE, INITIAL REFUSAL//

///ASK IF INTRO2A=02///
INTRO2B.
For questions about the survey administration/confidentiality concerns: Nicole Vincent (Macro International)
240-747-4942
For questions about the nature of the study or validity of the study: Jenelle Gabriele (FEMA) 202 786-9463
IF RESPONDENT REQUESTS A CALLBACK, TYPE SUSPEND
01 Continue
99 REFUSED
//TERMINATE, INITIAL REFUSAL//

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

58

A. SCREENER
//ASK ALL//
A1. In your current residence, do you live…?
01
02
03
04

With family members
With roommates (including boyfriend/girlfriend)
With both family members and roommates
Alone

97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED
//ASK IF A1=01 or 02 or 03//
A2. Are there children under the age of 18 living in your residence?
01 YES
02 NO
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED
//ASK IF A2=01//
A3. Does at least one of the children currently attend a school outside of your home, including day care or
part-time kindergarten?
02 YES
03 NO
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED
//ASK ALL//
A4. Which best describes your job status?
[INTERVIEWER: READ LIST, CHOOSE UP TO TWO RESPONSES]
///MUL=2///
01
02
03
04
05
95

Work full-time
Work part-time
Student
Unemployed
Retired
Other

97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

59

B. UTILITY
//ASK ALL//
B1T. I’d like to ask you some questions about different kinds of disasters. Throughout this survey, when I use
the term “disaster”, I am referring to events that could disrupt water, power, transportation, and also emergency
and public services for up to three days.
//SPECIAL// THROUGHOUT SURVEY MAKE THIS STATEMENT AVAILABLE TO CALLERS WHEN
THEY TYPE “SPECIAL”:
Throughout this survey, when I use the term “disaster”, I am referring to events that could disrupt water, power,
transportation, and also emergency and public services for up to three days.
//ASK ALL//
B1. In a natural disaster, such as an earthquake, a hurricane, a flood, a tornado, or wildfires, which of the
following statements best represents your belief?
01 I can handle the situation without any preparation.
02 Preparation, planning, and emergency supplies will help me handle the situation.
03 Nothing I do to prepare will help me handle the situation.
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED
//ROTATE B2, B3, B4//
///START ROTATE///
//ASK ALL//
B2. In an act of terrorism, such as a biological, chemical, radiological, or explosive attack, which of the
following statements best represents your belief?
01 I can handle the situation without any preparation.
02 Preparation, planning, and emergency supplies will help me handle the situation.
03 Nothing I do to prepare will help me handle the situation.
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

60

//ASK ALL//
B3. In a hazardous materials accident, such as a transportation accident or a power plant accident, which of
the following statements best represents your belief?
01 I can handle the situation without any preparation.
02 Preparation, planning, and emergency supplies will help me handle the situation.
03 Nothing I do to prepare will help me handle the situation.
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED
//ASK ALL//
B4. In a severe disease outbreak, such as a bird flu epidemic, which of the following statements best
represents your belief?
01 I can handle the situation without any preparation.
02 Preparation, planning, and emergency supplies will help me handle the situation.
03 Nothing I do to prepare will help me handle the situation.
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED
///END ROTATE///
C. RISK AWARENESS / PERCEPTION
//ASK ALL//
On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being “very likely” and 1 being “not likely at all,” how likely do you think…?
C1. Some type of natural disaster will ever occur in your community?
05 VERY LIKELY
04
03
02
01 NOT LIKELY AT ALL
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED
[CATI: DISPLAY LEAD STATEMENT FROM SECTION C INTRO FOR ITEMS C2through C8: “On a scale
of 1 to 5, with 5 being “very likely” and 1 being “not likely at all,” how likely do you think…?”]
//ASK ALL//
C2. Some type of terrorism will ever occur in your community?
//ASK ALL//
C3. Some type of hazardous materials accident will ever occur in your community?
2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

61

//ASK ALL//
C4. Some type of disease outbreak will ever occur in your community?
D. SEVERITY
//ASK ALL//
D1. If a [fill in from below] were to happen in your community how severe do you think the impact would be
to you? Please use a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being “very severe” and 1 being “not severe at all.”
//ROTATE A - D//
a.
b.
c.
d.

A natural disaster, such as an earthquake, a hurricane, a flood, a tornado, or wildfires
An act of terrorism, such as biological , chemical, radiological, or explosive attack
A hazardous materials accident, such as a transportation accident or a power plant accident
A highly contagious disease outbreak, such as a bird flu epidemic

05 VERY SEVERE
04
03
02
01 NOT SEVERE AT ALL
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED
E. STAGES OF CHANGE
//ASK ALL//
EINTRO. As we continue with the survey, I will ask you questions about being prepared for a disaster. When I
use the words “preparing” or “prepared”, I’m referring to actions people can take at any time to prevent or
reduce the impact of disasters on their lives.
//ASK ALL//
E1. How confident are you about your own ability to prepare for a disaster? Please use a scale of 1 to 5, with 5
being “very confident” and 1 being “not at all confident.”
05 VERY CONFIDENT
04
03
02
01 NOT VERY CONFIDENT
97 DON’T KNOW
98 REFUSED

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

62

//ASK ALL//
E2. In thinking about preparing yourself for a major disaster, which best represents your preparedness?
[INTERVIEWER: READ ENTIRE LIST, CHECK ONLY ONE RESPONSE]
01 I have not yet prepared but I intend to in the next 6 months
02 I have not yet prepared but I intend to in the next month
03 I just recently began preparing
04 I have been prepared for at least the past 6 months
05 I am not planning to do anything about preparing
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED
//ASK IF E2=01, 02, or 05//
E3. For each of the following statements, please tell me whether it is “The primary reason”, “Somewhat of a
reason,” or “Not a reason at all” why you have not taken any disaster preparedness steps?
//ROTATE A - G//
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.

I don’t know what I’m supposed to do.
I just haven’t had the time.
I don’t want to think about it
It costs too much.
I don’t think it will make a difference
I don’t think I’d be able to
I think that emergency responders, such as fire, police or emergency personnel, will help me.

01
02
03
97
99

A Primary Reason
Somewhat of a reason
Not a reason at all
DON’T KNOW
REFUSED

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

63

F. RELIANCE
//ASK ALL//
F1. In the first 72 hours following a disaster, please indicate how much you would expect to rely on the
following for assistance. Please use a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being “expect to rely on a great deal” and 1
being “do not expect to rely on at all.”
//ROTATE A - F//
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

Household members
People in my neighborhood
Non-profit organizations, such as the American Red Cross or the Salvation Army
My faith community, such as a congregation
Fire, police, emergency personnel
State and Federal Government agencies, including FEMA

05 EXPECT TO RELY ON A GREAT DEAL
04
03
02
01 DO NOT EXPECT TO RELY ON AT ALL
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED
//ASK ALL//
F2. In the event of a disaster, would you expect to need help to evacuate from the area?
01 YES
02 NO
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

64

//ASK IF F2=01//
F3. What kind of help do you think you would need to evacuate from the area?
//DO NOT READ LIST//
[PROBE: ANYTHING ELSE? RECORD ALL RESPONSES]
///MUL=7///
01
02
03
04
05
06
95

DON’T HAVE A PLACE TO GO
INFORMATION ON THE EVACUATION ROUTE
TRANSPORTATION OUT OF THE AREA
HAVE A DISABILITY AND NEED HELP GETTING OUT OF MY HOME/WORKPLACE
HELP EVACUATING MY PET(S)
CONCERNED ABOUT GETTING GAS FOR MY VEHICLE
OTHER [RECORD RESPONSE]

97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED
///ASK IF F3=95
F3OTH.

ENTER OTHER RESPONSE ______________

G. PERSONAL RESPONSE/EFFICACY
//ASK ALL//
G1. How confident are you in your ability to know what to do in the first 5 minutes of [fill in from below]?
Please use a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being “very confident” and 1 being “not at all confident.”
///ROTATE A-D///
a.
b.
c.
d.

A terrorist act such as an explosion of a radiological or dirty bomb?
A hazardous materials accident such as the release of a chemical agent?
An explosion or bomb?
A sudden natural disaster such as an earthquake or tornado that occurs without warning?

05 VERY CONFIDENT
04
03
02
01 NOT VERY CONFIDENT
97 DON’T KNOW
100REFUSED

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

65

//ASK ALL//
G2. How much do you think preparing for a ///FILL IN FROM BELOW/// will make a difference in how you
handle the situation? Please use a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being “very much” and 1 being “not much at all.”
///ROTATE A - D///
a. A terrorist act such as an explosion of a radiological or dirty bomb?
b. A hazardous materials accident such as the release of a chemical agent?
c. An explosion or bomb?
d. A highly contagious disease outbreak such as bird flu?
e. A natural disaster?
05 VERY MUCH
04
03
02
01 NOT MUCH AT ALL
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED
//ASK ALL//
G3. In the past 2 years, have you done any of the following? Have you… ///ROTATE ITEMS a-e///
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Attended a meeting on how to be better prepared for a disaster
Attended CPR training
Attended first aid skills training
Attended training as part of a Community Emergency Response Team or CERT
Talked about getting prepared with others in your community

01 YES
02 NO
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

66

[If any of G3a-d=01]
G4. What motivated you to take this training?
[INTERVIEWER: DO NOT READ LIST]
[PROBE: Anything else? Record all responses]
///MUL=9///
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
95

MANDATORY FOR JOB/SCHOOL
EASY TO SIGN UP (E.G., OFFERED AT WORK, SCHOOL OR PLACE OF WORSHIP)
CONCERN FOR PERSONAL SAFETY
CONCERN FOR SAFETY OF FAMILY OR OTHERS
TO HAVE THE NECESSARY SKILLS TO HELP OTHERS
GENERAL INTEREST/HOBBY
TO BE PREPARED
BECAUSE OTHERS (FAMILY OR FRIENDS) DID
OTHER (Specify)

97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED
///ASK IF G4=95
G4OTH.
ENTER OTHER RESPONSE ______________
[If all of G3a-d <> 01 ask G5]
G5. What is the main reason you have not received any preparedness training? DO NOT READ LIST.
[PROBE: Anything else? Record all responses]
//MUL=8//
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
97
99

LACK OF TIME
LACK OF MONEY/TOO EXPENSIVE
DON’T THINK IT’S IMPORTANT
HAVEN’T THOUGHT ABOUT IT
DIFFICULT TO GET INFORMATION ON WHAT TO DO
DON’T THINK IT WILL BE EFFECTIVE
ALREADY KNOW HOW TO BE PREPARED
PHYSICALLY UNABLE TO GET TO A TRAINING
DON’T KNOW
REFUSED

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

67

H. PREVENTION
//ASK ALL//
Now I’d like to ask you a series of questions about noticing and reporting suspicious behavior or circumstances.
H1. In the past 12 months, have you seen any suspicious behavior or circumstances?
01 YES
02 NO
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED
//ASK If H1=01//
H2. What did you do?
[INTERVIEWER: DO NOT READ LIST, RECORD ALL RESPONSES]
///MUL=5///
01
02
03
04
05
95

CALLED POLICE AND/OR A TIPLINE
CALLED NEIGHBOR/FRIEND
WAITED FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO DO SOMETHING
LEFT THE AREA/SITUATION/EVENT
NOTHING
OTHER (Specify)

97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED
///ASK IF H2=95
H2OTH.

ENTER OTHER RESPONSE ______________

//ASK ALL//
H3. Do you feel you have a personal responsibility to report suspicious behavior or circumstances to the
authorities?
01 YES
02 NO
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

68

I. DISASTER SUPPLIES
//ASK ALL//
For this next set of questions, I’d like to ask you about some specific things you may or may not have done to
prepare yourself and/or your household.

I1.

Do you have supplies set aside in your home to be used only in the case of a disaster?
01 YES
02 NO
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED

//ASK IF I1=01//
I2. Could you tell me the disaster supplies you have in your home?

[DO NOT READ LIST]
[PROBE: ANYTHING ELSE?. RECORD ALL RESPONSES]

///MUL=12///
1 A SUPPLY OF BOTTLED WATER
2 A SUPPLY OF PACKAGED FOOD
3 A FLASHLIGHT
4 A PORTABLE, BATTERY-POWERED RADIO
5 BATTERIES
6 A FIRST AID KIT
7 EYEGLASSES
8 MEDICATIONS
9 PHOTOCOPIES OF PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION
10 FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS
11 CASH
95 OTHER (Specify)
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED
///ASK IF I2=95
I2OTH.

ENTER OTHER RESPONSE ______________
2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

69

//ASK IF I1=01//
I3. How often do you update these supplies? Would you say…
01 Never
02 Less than once a year
03 Once a year
04 More than once a year
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED
//ASK ALL//
I4.

Do you have supplies set aside in your car to be used only in the case of a disaster?
01 YES
02 NO
03 DON’T OWN A CAR
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED

//ASK IFA4=01 or 02//
I5. Do you have supplies set aside in your workplace to be used only in the case of a disaster?
01 YES
02 NO
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

70

J. HOUSEHOLD PLAN
//ASK ALL//
J1.

Does your household have an emergency plan that includes instructions for household members about
where to go and what to do in the event of a disaster?

01 YES
02 NO
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED

//ASK IFJ1=01//
J2. Have you discussed this plan with other members in your household?
01 YES
02 NO
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED

//ASK ALL//
J3.

Do you have copies of important financial or insurance documents in a safe place to help you rebuild or
seek assistance following a disaster?

01 YES
02 NO
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

71

K. COMMUNITY PLAN
//ASK ALL//
K1. Using a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being “very familiar” and 1 being “not at all familiar,” how familiar are you
with…
//ROTATE A - F//
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.

Alerts and warning systems in your community?
Official sources of public safety information?
Community evacuation routes?
Shelter locations near you?
How to get help with evacuating or getting to a shelter?
Information on what your local hazards are?
How to get local information about a public health emergency, such as the H1N1 virus or swine flu?

01 NOT AT ALL FAMILIAR
02
03
04
05 VERY FAMILIAR
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED
//ASK IF A3=01//
K2. Are you aware of the details of the emergency or evacuation plan of the child(ren)’s school including
where the school plans to evacuate and how to get information about the child in the event of a disaster?
01 YES
02 NO
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

72

K3. From which organizations in your community have you received information about the recent outbreak of
the H1N1 virus or swine flu? We are talking about information that may have been provided through tv/radio,
emails, flyers, presentation, phone calls),? [read all responses. Multiple choices allowed]
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09

Local media
Local government official
Health care provider
Neighborhood association
Faith-based organization
Schools or childcare facilities
Workplace
None
Other [record response]

L. DRILLS/EXERCISES
//ASK ALL//
L1. Aside from a fire drill, in the past 12 months, have you participated in any of the following?
//ROTATE LIST //
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

///ASK ALL/// A home evacuation drill
///ASK ALL/// A home shelter in place drill
///ASK IFA4=01 or 02/// A workplace evacuation drill
///ASK IFA4=01 or 02///A workplace shelter in place drill
///ASK IF A3=01 OR A4=03///A school evacuation drill
///ASK IF A3=01 OR A4=03///A school shelter in place drill

01 YES
02 NO
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED

M. VOLUNTEERING
//ASK ALL//
M1. During the past 12 months, have you given any time to help support emergency responder organizations or
an organization that focuses on community safety, such as Neighborhood Watch?
01 YES
02 NO
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

73

//ASK IFM1=01//
M2. Which one or ones?
01 [Record all responses]
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED
///ASK IF M2=01///
M2O. ENTER RESPONSE ___________________
//ASK ALL//
M3. Have you ever volunteered to help in a disaster?
01 YES
02 NO
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED

//ASK ALL//
M4. Would you be willing to take a 20 hour training course to be qualified to help your community recover
from disasters?
01 YES
02 NO
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

74

N. DEMOGRAPHICS AND CONTEXT
//ASK ALL//
Lastly, I would like to ask you for some information about you and your household. Again, all information that
you provide will be held confidential.
N1. Would you describe the location of your residence as…?
01 Urban
02 Suburban
03 Rural
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED
//ASK IF A4=01,02,03//
N2 Do you generally use public transportation, such as subways or buses, to get to school or work?
01 YES
02 NO
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED
//ASK ALL//
N3. What is the highest level of education that you attained? Would it be…?
01
02
03
04
05
06
07

Less than 12th Grade (no diploma)
High School Graduate or GED
Some College but No Degree
Associate Degree in College
Bachelor’s Degree
Masters Degree
Doctorate Degree

97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED
//ASK ALL//
N4. Do you have a disability that would affect your capacity to respond to an emergency situation?
01 YES
02 NO
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

75

//ASK ALL//
N5. Do you currently live with or care for someone with a disability, including someone elderly who requires
assistance?
01 YES
02 NO
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED
//ASK ALL//
N6. How religious would you say you are? Would you say…
01
02
03
04

Very religious
Somewhat religious
Barely religious
Not at all religious

97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED
//ASK ALL//
N7. Which of the following best describes your race? Would you consider yourself to be…?
///MUL=6///
01
02
03
04
05
95

White
Black or African American
Asian
American Indian or Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
Something else (Specify)

97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED
///ASK IF N7=95///
N7OTH.

ENTER RESPONSE _____________________

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

76

//ASK ALL//
N8. Are you of Hispanic or Latino or Spanish origin?
01 YES
02 NO
97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED

//ASK ALL//
N9. In what year were you born?
Enter response

_ _ _ _ [RANGE 1900-1991//]

9997
9999

DON’T KNOW
REFUSED

//ASK ALL//
N10. Which of the following income ranges represents your annual household income in 2008? Feel free to stop
me at the correct range. Was your household income…?
01
02
03
04

Less than $25,000
$25,000 to less than $50,000
$50,000 to less than $75,000
$75,000 or more

97 DON’T KNOW
99 REFUSED

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

77

//ASK ALL//
N11. What state do you live in? _ _

AL Alabama

MD

Maryland

SC

South Carolina

AK Alaska

MA

Massachusetts

SD

South Dakota

AZ Arizona

MI

Michigan

TN

Tennessee

AR Arkansas

MN

Minnesota

TX

Texas

CA California

MS

Mississippi

UT

Utah

CO Colorado

MO

Missouri

VT

Vermont

CT Connecticut

MT

Montana

VA

Virginia

DE Delaware

NE

Nebraska

WA

Washington

DC District of Columbia NV

Nevada

WI

Wisconsin

FL Florida

NH

New Hampshire WV

West Virginia

GA Georgia

NJ

New Jersey

WY

Wyoming

HI Hawaii

NM

New Mexico

ID

NY

New York

AS

American Samoa

IL Illinois

NC

North Carolina

CN

Northern Mariana Islands

IN Indiana

ND

North Dakota

GU

Guam

IA Iowa

OH

Ohio

PR

Puerto Rico

KS Kansas

OK

Oklahoma

VI

Virgin Islands

KY Kentucky

OR

Oregon

95

Other

LA Louisiana

PA

Pennsylvania

97

DON'T KNOW

ME Maine

RI

Rhode Island

99

REFUSED

Idaho

///ASK IF N11=95///
N11OTH..

ENTER OTHER RESPONSE ______________

//ASK ALL//
2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

78

N12. What is your zip code? _ _ _ _ _ //RANGE 00000-99996//
99997 DON’T KNOW
99999 REFUSED
///ASK ALL///
N13. Record gender [DO NOT ASK]
01 Men
02 Women
CLOSE1. Those are all of the questions that I have. On behalf of Macro International and FEMA, I would like
to thank you for your time and participation. Thank you again.

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

79

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

80

Appendix B
Survey Respondents’ Profile
To understand the National results we begin with the overall demographic profile. The charts below display the
distribution of demographics across the national sample:
In your current residence, do you live…?
With family members

Weighted
80%

With roommates (including boyfriend/girlfriend)

3%

With both family members and roommates

2%

Alone

15%

Are there children under the age of 18 living in your residence?

Weighted

Yes

52%

No

48%

Does at least one of the children currently attend a school outside of your
home, including day care or part-time kindergarten?

Weighted

Yes

83%

No

17%

Which best describes your job status?

Weighted

Work full-time

49%

Work part-time

12%

Student

6%

Unemployed

9%

Retired

19%

Other

7%

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

81

Would you describe the location of your residence as…?

Weighted

Urban

25%

Suburban

43%

Rural

30%

Do you generally use public transportation, such as subways or buses, to get to
school or work?

Weighted

Yes

10%

No

90%

Gender

Weighted

Male

49%

Female

51%

Do you have a disability that would affect your capacity to respond to an
emergency situation?

Weighted

Yes

15%

No

85%

Do you currently live with or care for someone with a disability, including some
elderly who requires assistance?

Weighted

Yes

14%

No

86%

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

82

What is the highest level of education you have received?

Weighted

Less than 12th grade

6%

High School Graduate or GED

19%

Some College but No Degree

23%

Associate Degree in College

13%

Bachelor's Degree

23%

Master’s Degree

12%

Doctorate Degree

4%

How religious would you say you are? Would you say…

Weighted

Very Religious

37%

Somewhat Religious

41%

Barely Religious

10%

Not at all religious

11%

Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?

Weighted

Yes

13%

No

86%

Which of the following income ranges represents your annual household
income in 2006?

Weighted

Less than $25,000

16%

$25,000 to less than $50,000

20%

$50,000 to less than $75,000

19%

$75,000 or more

32%

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

83

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

84