National Prevention Summit
Establishing a Culture of Preparedness
October 27, 2006

(image: ORC Macro logo)

NCDP DATA:

• < 1/3 of Americans (31%) have a basic family emergency plan (two days supply of food and water, a flashlight, a portable radio, spare batteries, and emergency phone numbers and a meeting place)
• 66% feel personally unprepared
• In New York State and NYC, fewer people (26%) have a basic family preparedness plan compared to 31% nationally

ORC MACRO DATA:

• Does your household have a disaster plan at home that includes instructions about where to go and what to do during a disaster situation? Pre-Katrina: 58%; Post-Katrina: 43%
• Have you discussed this disaster plan with others in your household, such as family or roommates? 39% (2005)
• Does your disaster plan include a specific meeting location for all members of the household to meet during or after a disaster? 37% (2005)

(image: photos of Hurricane Katrina and it's damage)

CEG/Red Cross

Have not thought about it	52%
Nothing they do would really be effective	45%
Don't know what they should do	44%
Cost	37%
Time	35%

ORC Macro, 2005

You indicated that you were not prepared, can you tell me why?	Don't know how to get prepared	54.4%
	Don't have the money	33.2%
	Don't think its important	22.1%
What is the main reason you do not have an emergency supply kit at home?	Don't think it's important	25.4%
	Haven't had time	12.4%
	Don't know how to put one together	10.0%
	Too expensive	7.9%

Our efforts to communicate to the public how and what they can do to increase their personal preparedness for disasters need to improve.

FIRST STEP: Determine what motivates and deters Americans to engage in effective and sustained preparedness.

• Purpose
  • To describe the factors that influence people's motivation for to engage in recommended preparedness behaviors and describe ways to target those factors through communication and outreach in an effort to increase personal preparedness.
• Theoretical Development
  • Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM)
  • Stages of Change/Transtheoretical Model
• Key Model Components
  • Individual factors
  • Individual Threat/Efficacy Preparedness Profile
  • Social marketing/outreach activities
  • Social marketing/outreach outcomes
  • Preparedness behavior outcomes
• Next Steps
  • Focus groups to test the model's constructs
  • Household survey will examine some of the model's components

Protection Motivation Theory
Health Belief Model
Socio-Ecological Model
Stages of Change
Social Cognitive Theory
Persuasive Health Message Framework

(image: diagram titled "Extended Parallel Processing Model" illustrating that if a person does not perceive that he is at risk for a particular disaster, then he will not engage in protective behaviors)

(image: diagram titled "Extended Parallel Processing Model" illustrating that if a person has a high perception of threat, but low perceived efficacy, the person will not engage in preparedness or protective actions; instead they may be in denial, rationalize the situation or ignore the situation)

(image: diagram titled "Extended Parallel Processing Model" illustrating when perceived threat is high AND perceived efficacy is high, a person engages in danger control response - which is another way of saying, they are motivated to protect themselves from the danger)

(image: diagram titled "Stages of Change Model" illustrating that people possess varying degrees of readiness to change or actual involvement in behavior change. The five stages are precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance)

(image: diagram titled "Citizen Corps Personal Behavior Change Model for Disaster Preparedness")

• Age
• Sex
• Race/ethnicity
• SES (education, income, etc.)
• Language and culture
• Trust in government
• Civic engagement experience
• Prior experience with disasters
• Religiosity
• Disability/ability
• Occupation and work environment
• Home structural characteristics
• Perceived community/social norms
• Modes of transportation
• Geographic location

Unaware or dismissive of threat because of perceived low susceptibility, urgency, and/or severity: is unreceptive to preparedness messages.

Low Perceived Threat Profile

1. People who do not believe a threat is likely to occur (low susceptibility)
2. People who do not believe a threat will impact them significantly (low severity)
3. People do not believe that the threat is imminent (low urgency)

Understands susceptibility to, and severity of, threat yet perceives varied barriers to preparedness behaviors: is unprepared

Low Perceived Efficacy Profile

1. People who do not believe they can carry out the recommended behavior (because of lack of knowledge or skill; Self-Efficacy)
2. People who do not believe the recommended strategy will be effective in helping him survive or manage a disaster (Response-Efficacy)
3. People who believe there is a barrier to successfully carrying out the recommended strategy (External Barriers)

(image: diagram titled "Outreach and Social Marketing to Address Low Perceived Threat" illustrating the importance to increase an individual's understanding of actual threat susceptibility, severity or urgency. Outreach and marketing efforts to motivate those with this profile should focus on risk-based preparedness messages)

(image: diagram titled "Outreach and Social Marketing to Address Low Perceived Efficacy" illustrating that social marketing and outreach efforts designed for individuals who know they are at risk, but are still not engaging in preparedness activities must focus on increasing people's knowledge of recommended preparedness actions, describing the simplicity of completing the actions (self-efficacy), and explaining why the recommended measures will make a difference in a disaster situation (response-efficacy)

(image: diagram titled "Behavior Maintenance" illustrates that social marketing messages should serve as reminders and cues to action that prompt people to re-assess and update their preparedness measures. These maintenance messages also are required to create a true, sustained culture of preparedness throughout the country)

External Motivation: External factors that influence personal preparedness: Policies, school/workplace initiatives, incentives (e.g., tax-free purchases, insurance benefits)

(image: diagram titled "Preparedness Behavior Outcomes" illustrates an arrow showing a progressive movement through the stages of change to the ultimate outcome of increased numbers of individuals maintaining recommended preparedness behaviors)

• Tracking and Analysis of Citizen Preparedness Research:
  • Citizen Preparedness Reviews available at http://www.citizencorps.gov/ready/research.shtm
• Preparedness Behavior Change Model
• Telephone Survey of U.S. Households
  • Tracking Preparedness Measures (Based on TCLs)
  • Behavioral Measures (Based on Behavior Change Model)
• Media Framing Study
  • Triangulated analysis of how the media presents disaster preparedness information, research and communication campaigns to consumers
• Research with the Responder Community
  • Research with representatives from emergency management, emergency medical/public health, law enforcement, and fire service

Please send us your comments on the model as well as future preparedness surveys.

ORC Macro Contacts:

Stephanie Kamin
Project Manager
ORC Macro
3 Corporate Square Suite 370
Atlanta, GA 30329
404-321-3211(tel.)
404-321-3688 (fax)
Stephanie.L.Kamin@orcmacro.com

Carol Freeman
Principal
ORC Macro
11785 Beltsville Drive
Calverton, MD 20705
301-572-0581(tel.)
301-572-0999 (fax)
Carol.S.Freeman@orcmacro.com