i

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Research Method 5

Research Findings 7

Extent of Individual Preparedness 7

Disaster Supplies 7

Household Plan 9

Familiarity with Community Systems 10

Volunteerism 11

Knowledge of Immediate Response 13

Participation in Drills 15

Preparedness Training 16

Perceived Preparedness versus Actual Preparedness 18

Preparedness Barriers 19

Barriers to Preparedness Activities 19

Barriers to Preparedness Training 21

Expectation of Reliance on Others 22

Reliance on Others During an Evacuation 23

Perception of Risk and Utility of Preparedness 25

Perception of Risks 25

Perception of Severity 26

Utility of Advance Preparation 28

Confidence in Ability to Respond 29

Stages of Change in Preparedness 31

Preparedness Differences by Demographics 34

Disability Profile 34

Gender Profile 35

Community Type Profile 36

Race and Ethnicity Profile 37

Income Profile 38

Education Profile 39

Age Profile 41

Employment Profile 42

Volunteerism Profile 43

Religiousness Profile 44

Social Responsibility and Suspicious Behavior 45

Summary and Recommendations 47

Conclusion and Next Steps 55

Appendix A – Survey Script 57

Appendix B – Survey Respondents Profile 81
ii

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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 Reviews1

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.
2

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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 
3

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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. 
4

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
5

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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.
6

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

National Sampling2

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. 
7

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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.

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. 

To What Extent Have Individuals Gathered Disaster Supplies?

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.

To What Extent Are Individuals Prepared for Disasters?
8

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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?”

• 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%). 

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• 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. 
9

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

Relevant TCL Measure:

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.

• 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%). 

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.”

To What Extent Do Individuals Have a Household Emergency Plan?

 Table 3: Household Disaster Preparedness Plan*

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?”

• 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.

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• 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%).
10

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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-in-place, and 

maintaining skills.

Number of citizens prepared 

to evacuate or relocate to 

designated shelter (to include 

citizens with special needs).

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.

How Familiar Are Individuals with Their Community’s Disaster 

Preparedness Plans and Protocols?

Table 4: Familiarity with Community Plans/Systems*

Most Familiar Least Familiar

2007 +/- 2009 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%

Information on what your local 

hazards are --- --- 34% --- --- 48%

Shelter locations near you 31% -1% 30% 54% 1% 54% 

Community evacuation routes 26% 2% 28% 60% -2% 58%

* 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...?” 
11

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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?”

• 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 %). 

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• 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%). 

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 

What Is the Extent of Volunteer Support for Emergency Responders/Community Safety?
12

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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?”

 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%). 

• 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. 

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• Education: Individuals with college experience (66%) were significantly more willing to take a 20-

hour 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%). 

Relevant TCL Measure:

Number of trained citizens 

providing volunteer support 

to local emergency 

responder disciplines (law 

enforcement, fire, 

emergency medical, and 

public health services).
13

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

• 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%). 

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).

Do Individuals Know What To Do in the First Five Minutes After Specific Types of Disasters (Natural, 

Radiological, Explosion, or Chemical Release)?
14

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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

Confident Not Confident

2007 +/- 2009 2007 +/- 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...?”

• 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%).

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• 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%).
15

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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).

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.

What Is the Extent of Participation in Preparedness Drills/Exercises?

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%

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

• 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%). 

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• 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
16

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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%). 

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. 

How Many Individuals Have Received Training in Preparation for a 

Disaster?

 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%).

Relevant TCL 

Measures:

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.
17

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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% 

Other 20% -15% 5% 9% 14% 

*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?”

• 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%). 

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• 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. 
18

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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: 

How Does Perceived Preparedness Compare with Actual Preparedness?

• 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
19

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

• 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 

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.

What Are the Barriers to Undertaking Disaster Preparedness Activities?

What Barriers Do Individuals Perceive in Preparing for Disasters?
20

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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.”

• 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.

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• 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.
21

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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. 

What Are the Barriers to 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% 

Haven't thought about it --- --- 15% 3% 18% 

Don’t think it is important 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% 

*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?”

• 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%).

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• 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%). 
22

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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%). 

Who Will Individuals Look To For Help During the First 72 Hours? 

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% 

State and federal government agencies, 

including FEMA 34% -4% 30% 6% 36%

*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.”

• 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%).

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• 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 
23

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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). 

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. 

Do Individuals Expect to Need Help During an Evacuation?

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%).
24

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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?” 

• 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%).

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• 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%). 
25

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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. 

What Are Individuals’ Perceptions of Risks of Different Types of Disasters?

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*

*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?”

• 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. 

Demographic and Contextual Differences

37%

19%

22%

20%

40%

14%

23%

28%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Natural Disaster

Act of Terrorism

Hazardous Materials Accident

Disease Outbreak

2009 Survey 2007 Survey

What is the Perception of Vulnerability to Different Types of Disasters? How Do 

People Perceive the Utility of Preparedness?
26

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

• 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). 

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%). 

What Is the Perceived Severity of the Impact of Different Types of Disasters?
27

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

Figure 2: Perception of the Severity of Impact of Disaster*

*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?”

• 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. 

Demographics and Contextual Differences

• 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%). 

50%

59%

37%

44%

20% 19%

31%

25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Natural 

Disaster

Act of 

Terrorism

Hazardous 

Materials 

Accident

Disease 

Outbreak

High Perceived Severity

Low Perceived Severity
28

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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. 

What Is the Perceived Utility of Advance Preparation for Different Types of Disasters?

Figure 3: Utility of Advance Preparations for Different Types of Disasters*

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

11%

4%

9%

8%

82%

59%

65%

73%

6%

35%

25%

18%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%100%

Natural Disaster 2009

Act of Terrorism 2009

Hazardous Materials 

Accident 2009

Disease Outbreak 2009

I can handle the situation 

without any preparation

Preparation, planning, 

and emergency supplies 

will help me handle the 

situation

Nothing I do to prepare 

will help me handle the 

situation
29

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

• 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%). 

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• 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). 

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%).

What Is the Perceived Effectiveness of Advanced Preparation on Handling a Disaster?
30

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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?”

• 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.

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• 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 (22-

40%).

• 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). 
31

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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?”

• 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%).

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• 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%). 

Developed by Prochaska and DiClemente, the Stages of Change Model, or Transtheoretical Model of Behavior 

Change3

 

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.

, 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 

In Which Stage of the Stages of Change Model (Precontemplation, 

Contemplation, Preparation, Action, Maintenance) Are Individuals Relative to 

Disaster Preparedness?
32

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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 DESCRIPTION

Precontemplation

The individual is not intending to change or even thinking about 

change in the near future (usually measured as the next 6 

months).

Contemplation The individual is not prepared to take action at present, but is 

intending to take action within the next 6 months.

Preparation The individual is actively considering changing his or her 

behavior in the immediate future (e.g., within the next month).

Action

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).

Maintenance

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.

. 
33

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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?”
34

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

Relevant TCL Measure:

Number of citizens 

prepared to evacuate or 

relocate to designated 

shelter (to include citizens 

with special needs).

• 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%). 

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• 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%). 

•

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. 

What Is the Potential Impact of Disability on Disaster Preparedness?

• 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 

How Does Disaster Preparedness Differ by Demographic Characteristics?
35

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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). 

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. 

What Is the Potential Impact of Gender on Disaster Preparedness?

• 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%). 
36

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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). 

What Is the Potential Impact of Community Type on Disaster Preparedness?

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. 
37

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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.

What Is the Potential Impact of Race and Ethnicity on Disaster Preparedness?

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. 
38

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

• 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%).

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.

What Is the Potential Impact of Income on Disaster Preparedness?

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 
39

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

$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).

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.

What Is the Potential Impact of Education on Disaster Preparedness?
40

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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). 
41

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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. 

What Is the Potential Impact of Age on Disaster Preparedness?

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. 
42

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

• 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.

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.

What Is the Potential Impact of Employment on Disaster Preparedness? 

• 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). 
43

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

• 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).

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. 

What Is the Potential Impact of Volunteerism on Disaster Preparedness?

• 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). 
44

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

• 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). 

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.

What Is the Potential Impact of Religiousness on Disaster Preparedness?

• 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). 
45

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

14%

86%

In the past 12 months have 

you seen any suspicious 

behavior or circumstances?

Yes

No

As part of the survey, participants were asked about their prior experiences 

observing and reporting suspicious behavior or circumstances. Only 14 

percent of individuals reported that they had seen any suspicious behavior 

or circumstances in the past 12 months. Almost all of the respondents 

(96%) reported feeling that they had a personal responsibility to report 

such behavior to the authorities. When individuals who had seen 

suspicious behavior or circumstances were asked what they did in response 

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.

What Is the Willingness to Report Suspicious Behavior?

Figure 7: Observation of Suspicious Behavior

• 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.

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• 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.

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%

What Is the Perceived Social Responsibility for Reporting Suspicious Behavior?

Relevant TCL Measure:

Number of citizens within the 

jurisdiction who are alert to 

unusual behavior in others that 

might indicate potential 

terrorist activity and 

understand appropriate 

reporting procedures.
46

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

• 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%).
47

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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 
48

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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. 
49

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

• 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 
50

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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.
51

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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. 
52

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

Age

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.

: 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. 

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

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 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.

• 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.
53

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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. 
54

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
55

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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.
56

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

• 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. 
57

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

OMB Control #: 1670-0006

Expiration Date: 5/31/2010

Appendix A

2009 Citizen Corps National Survey Script

INTRODUCTION

//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 Yes, continue

02 No, non-residential [Go to S1_02]

03 Hang-up

04 Answering machine

07 Termination screen

14 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 YES //GO TO Intro2a//

02 NO [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 Yes, transferring

02 Not available //schedule callback//

99 REFUSED //TERMINATE, INITIAL REFUSAL//
58

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

//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 Continue

99 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//
59

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

A. SCREENER

//ASK ALL//

A1. In your current residence, do you live...?

01 With family members 

02 With roommates (including boyfriend/girlfriend)

03 With both family members and roommates

04 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 Work full-time

02 Work part-time

03 Student

04 Unemployed 

05 Retired

95 Other

97 DON’T KNOW

99 REFUSED
60

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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
61

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

//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? 
62

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

//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. A natural disaster, such as an earthquake, a hurricane, a flood, a tornado, or wildfires

b. An act of terrorism, such as biological , chemical, radiological, or explosive attack

c. A hazardous materials accident, such as a transportation accident or a power plant accident

d. 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
63

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

//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. I don’t know what I’m supposed to do.

b. I just haven’t had the time.

c. I don’t want to think about it

d. It costs too much.

e. I don’t think it will make a difference

f. I don’t think I’d be able to

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

01 A Primary Reason

02 Somewhat of a reason

03 Not a reason at all

97 DON’T KNOW

99 REFUSED
64

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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. Household members

b. People in my neighborhood

c. Non-profit organizations, such as the American Red Cross or the Salvation Army

d. My faith community, such as a congregation

e. Fire, police, emergency personnel

f. 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
65

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

//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 DON’T HAVE A PLACE TO GO

02 INFORMATION ON THE EVACUATION ROUTE

03 TRANSPORTATION OUT OF THE AREA

04 HAVE A DISABILITY AND NEED HELP GETTING OUT OF MY HOME/WORKPLACE

05 HELP EVACUATING MY PET(S) 

06 CONCERNED ABOUT GETTING GAS FOR MY VEHICLE

95 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. 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 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
66

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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

b. Attended CPR training 

c. Attended first aid skills training 

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

e. Talked about getting prepared with others in your community 

01 YES

02 NO

97 DON’T KNOW

99 REFUSED
67

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

[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 MANDATORY FOR JOB/SCHOOL

02 EASY TO SIGN UP (E.G., OFFERED AT WORK, SCHOOL OR PLACE OF WORSHIP) 

03 CONCERN FOR PERSONAL SAFETY

04 CONCERN FOR SAFETY OF FAMILY OR OTHERS

05 TO HAVE THE NECESSARY SKILLS TO HELP OTHERS 

06 GENERAL INTEREST/HOBBY

07 TO BE PREPARED

08 BECAUSE OTHERS (FAMILY OR FRIENDS) DID

95 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 LACK OF TIME

02 LACK OF MONEY/TOO EXPENSIVE

03 DON’T THINK IT’S IMPORTANT

04 HAVEN’T THOUGHT ABOUT IT

05 DIFFICULT TO GET INFORMATION ON WHAT TO DO

06 DON’T THINK IT WILL BE EFFECTIVE

07 ALREADY KNOW HOW TO BE PREPARED

08 PHYSICALLY UNABLE TO GET TO A TRAINING

97 DON’T KNOW

99 REFUSED
68

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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 CALLED POLICE AND/OR A TIPLINE

02 CALLED NEIGHBOR/FRIEND

03 WAITED FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO DO SOMETHING

04 LEFT THE AREA/SITUATION/EVENT

05 NOTHING

95 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
69

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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 ______________
70

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

//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
71

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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
72

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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. Alerts and warning systems in your community? 

b. Official sources of public safety information? 

c. Community evacuation routes?

d. Shelter locations near you?

e. How to get help with evacuating or getting to a shelter?

f. Information on what your local hazards are?

g. 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
73

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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 Local media

02 Local government official

03 Health care provider

04 Neighborhood association

05 Faith-based organization

06 Schools or childcare facilities

07 Workplace

08 None

09 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. ///ASK ALL/// A home

b. ///ASK ALL/// A 

evacuation drill

home

c. ///ASK IFA4=01 or 02/// A 

shelter in place drill 

workplace

d. ///ASK IFA4=01 or 02///A 

evacuation drill

workplace

e. ///ASK IF A3=01 OR A4=03///A 

shelter in place drill 

school

f. ///ASK IF A3=01 OR A4=03///A 

evacuation drill

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
74

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

//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
75

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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 Less than 12th Grade (no diploma)

02 High School Graduate or GED

03 Some College but No Degree

04 Associate Degree in College

05 Bachelor’s Degree

06 Masters Degree

07 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
76

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

//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 Very religious

02 Somewhat religious

03 Barely religious

04 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 White 

02 Black or African American 

03 Asian 

04 American Indian or Alaska Native

05 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

95 Something else (Specify)

97 DON’T KNOW

99 REFUSED

///ASK IF N7=95///

N7OTH. ENTER RESPONSE _____________________
77

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

//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 DON’T KNOW

9999 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 Less than $25,000

02 $25,000 to less than $50,000

03 $50,000 to less than $75,000

04 $75,000 or more

97 DON’T KNOW

99 REFUSED
78

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

//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 Idaho 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

///ASK IF N11=95///

N11OTH.. ENTER OTHER RESPONSE ______________

//ASK ALL//
79

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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. 
80

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
81

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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...? Weighted

With family members 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%
82

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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%
83

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY

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%
84

2009 CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY