Personal Preparedness 

In America:

Findings From the 

Citizen Corps National Survey

June 2009

FEMA

CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page i of 83 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 1 

Research Method 5 

Survey Findings 

 Extent of Individual Preparedness 7 

 Disaster Supplies 7 

 Household Plan 9 

 Familiarity with Community Systems 10 

 Volunteerism 11 

 Knowledge of Immediate Response 12 

 Participation in Drills 13 

 Preparedness Training 14 

 Perceived Preparedness vs. Actual Preparedness 15 

Preparedness Barriers 17 

 Barriers to Preparedness Activities 17 

 Barriers to Preparedness Training 18 

 Expectation of Reliance on Others 19 

 Reliance on Others During an Evacuation 20 

Perception of Risk and Utility of Preparedness 21 

 Perception of Risks 21 

 Utility of Advance Preparation 22 

 Confidence in Ability to Respond 24 

Stages of Change in Preparedness 25 

Preparedness Differences by Demographics 27 

 Disability Profile 27 

 Gender Profile 27 

 Community Type Profile 28 

 Race and Ethnicity Profile 29 

 Income Profile 30 

 Education Profile 32 

 Age Profile 33 

 Other Demographics and Sociographics Profile 35 

Citizen Corps Personal Disaster Preparedness Model 36 

 Model Constructs 36 

 PDP Model Analysis 37 

 Threat-Efficacy Profile Construction 37 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page ii of 83 

 Threat-Efficacy Profiles & Individual Factors 39 

 Threat-Efficacy Profiles & Preparedness Stages of Change 44 

 Examining Predictors of Preparedness 47 

 Evaluation of the PDP Model 48 

 Recommendations for PDP Model Revisions 49 

Social Responsibility and Suspicious Behavior 51 

Awareness of Federal Programs and Communication Preferences 52 

 Awareness of Campaigns 52 

 Communication/Outreach 52 

Summary and Recommendations 54 

Conclusion and Next Steps 61 

Appendix A – Survey Respondents Profile 63 

Appendix B – Survey Script 65
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 1 of 83 

INTRODUCTION 

Disaster preparedness became a renewed priority for our nation as a direct response to the 

devastation of September 11, 2001. Following the tragedies of that day, government at all levels 

has imbedded stronger collaboration with non-governmental 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 and Citizen Corps conduct national 

household 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 2007 

Citizen Corps National Survey. 

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 

The research objectives and survey questions for the 2007 Citizen Corps National Survey were 

developed based on previous research, preparedness modeling, and policy and guidance from the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

2003 Citizen Corps National Survey

In 2003, Citizen Corps conducted a similar national survey that provided baseline data on 

individual preparedness for disasters. Several specific questions from this survey were retained 

in the 2007 survey to provide trend data. Comparisons between the findings from the 2003 and 

the 2007 surveys are noted throughout the report. 

Citizen Preparedness Reviews1

FEMA’s Community Preparedness Division periodically 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. Currently, the database contains 81 surveys on individual preparedness, 28 

surveys on business, and 10 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 in summer 2006), made several recommendations for future research 

that were taken into consideration in the development of the 2007 Citizen Corps National Survey 

including to: 

 

1

 The Citizen Preparedness Reviews and other preparedness research are available at: 

http://www.citizencorps.gov/ready/research.shtm 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 2 of 83 

• 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 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, 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)2 and the Stages of Change/Transtheoretical 

Model3

, 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 2007 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 allhazards 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 

 

2

 Witte, K. 1998. Fear as motivator, fear as inhibitor: Using the extended parallel process models to explain fear 

appeal successes and failures, P.A. Anderson and L.K. Guerrero (eds). The handbook of communication and 

emotion: Research, theory, applications, and contexts. New York Academic Press, 423-450. 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. 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 3 of 83 

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 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 by integrating nongovernmental resources and assets in 

government plans and protocols, and engaging 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. Desired outcomes include all three of the following: 

• The education and training of the public in the four homeland security mission areas: 

prevention, protection, response, and recovery; 

• The participation of individuals in volunteer programs; and 

• That the public be able to provide surge capacity support. 

Several survey questions in the 2007 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 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. 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 4 of 83 

• 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 area) 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/year. 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 5 of 83 

RESEARCH METHOD 

Under contract to FEMA’s Community Preparedness Division, Macro International Inc. (Macro) 

an applied research and consulting firm, supported the survey design, data collection and 

analysis and reporting of the 2003 and 2007 Citizen Corps Surveys.

Survey Design

The survey instrument consists of 55 items covering the following topics: 

• Severity/Efficacy • Prevention • Volunteering 

• Risk Awareness/Perception • Disaster Supplies • Disability 

• Stages of Change • Household Plan • Outreach 

• Reliance • Community Plan • Brand Awareness 

• Personal Response • Drills/Exercises • Demographics 

Office of Management and Budget Approval

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

approved a multi-year 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 Macro International’s internal IRB under 45 CFR 46.101(b) (2b). 

Survey Administration

The 2007 Citizen Corps National Survey was fielded from July 2007 to November 2007. 

The survey was administered using Macro’s computer-assisted telephone interviewing system. 

Macro also provided Spanish-speaking interviewers as an option for Spanish-speaking 

respondents. 

National Sampling4

Macro conducted the survey with a target sample size of 2,400 U.S. households. This provides 

overall results at +/–2 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 non-institutionalized U.S. adult population residing in 

households equipped with land-line telephones. The frame excludes adults in penal, mental, or 

other institutions; adults living in other group quarters such as dormitories, barracks, convents, or 

 

4

 To provide greater insight in preparedness in an urban environment, an additional oversample of 2,000 respondents 

was drawn from four Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) areas: 

Indianapolis, IN; New York City, NY: Houston, TX: and San Francisco, CA. A separate report, Personal 

Preparedness in America: Findings from the Citizen Corps Survey of Four Urban Areas,, provides the analysis of 

that data. 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 6 of 83 

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 non-response and landline saturation, 

may produce respondents that over-represent or under-represent certain population segments. 

Macro accounted for these potential biases by weighting the data according to geography, age, 

gender, and race. (See Appendix A for the survey respondents’ profile based on the weighted 

date.) 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 the 2003 Citizen Corps National Survey, 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 this study: 

• 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? 

• How do the findings inform the Citizen Corps PDP Model? 

• What is the perceived social responsibility for reporting suspicious behavior? 

• How aware are individuals of specific Federally sponsored community preparedness 

programs, and what are their communication preferences about these programs? 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 7 of 83 

RESEARCH FINDINGS 

Results from the 2007 Citizen Corps National Survey are organized according to the research 

questions to further inform these critical aspects of preparedness. Statistically significant 

differences across different demographics or contextual variables such as religiousness or 

employment status are also provided (See Appendix B for the survey instrument). Findings 

relevant to the specific CPP Target Capability are highlighted in callout boxes throughout the 

report. 

To What Extent Have Individuals Gathered Disaster Supplies?

The extent to which individuals report having gathered and maintained specific disaster supplies 

has been used as an important indicator of actual preparedness (versus perceived preparedness). 

Participants were asked about the existence of disaster preparedness supplies in their home, 

workplace, and cars. Just over one-half of individuals (53%) reported having supplies set aside in 

their home, to be used only in the case of a disaster. This showed a slight increase from the 2003 

survey, where 50 percent reported to have a home disaster kit. 

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 bottled water (73%) and packaged food 

(71%), with many fewer individuals mentioning other essential supplies such as a flashlight 

(40%) or a first aid kit (34%). Most of these 2007 percentages were an increase from 2003—

except for having a first aid kit, whose mention dropped from 64 percent to 30 percent. In 

addition, only 23 percent mentioned a battery powered radio for receiving information in the 

event that a disaster causes an electricity outage. Most individuals with supplies (80%) reported 

that they update their supplies at least once a year, with 5 percent stating that they never update 

their supplies. 

To What Extent Are Individuals Prepared for Disasters? 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 8 of 83 

Table 1: Home Disaster Supply Kits*

2003 2007 +/-

A supply of bottled water 54% 73% 19%

A supply of packaged food 45% 71% 26%

A flashlight 41% 40% -1%

A first aid kit 64% 34% -30%

Batteries 21% 25% 4%

A portable, battery-powered radio 14% 23% 9%

Medications --- 9% ---

Cash --- 3% ---

Financial documents --- 2% ---

Eyeglasses --- 1% ---

Photocopies of personal identification --- 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 kit. 

Participants were also asked if they had disaster preparedness kits in their cars and workplace (as 

appropriate for their employment status). Only one-third of individuals (30%) said they had 

supplies set aside in their car, a decline from the 2003 survey where 34 percent reported to have 

a kit in their car. However, the number of individuals who indicated they had set aside supplies 

in their workplace increased from 2003 (41% to 45%). 

Table 2: Disaster Supply Kits in Multiple Locations 

2003 2007 +/-

In your home 50% 53% 3%

In your car 34% 30% -4%

In your workplace 41% 45% 4%

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• Age: Individuals between the ages of 18 to 34 (54%) were significantly more likely to 

have disaster supply kits set aside in their workplace than individuals between 35-54 and 

55 and older (41% and 39% respectively). 

• Education: Individuals with some college education (57%) were significantly more 

likely than less educated individuals (44%) to have supplies set aside in their homes. 

Likewise, individuals with some college education (33%) were significantly more likely 

than those with less education (22%) to have supplies set aside in their car. 

• Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic individuals (75% and 73%, respectively) were significantly 

more likely than Hispanic individuals (60% and 57%, respectively) to have a supply of 

bottled water and a supply of packaged food set aside as part of their home disaster 

supply kit.

• Household Income: Households making more than $50K were significantly more likely 

than households earning less to have a disaster supply kit in their home (58% and 47% 

respectively). Households earning over $50K were significantly more likely to have 

supplies set aside in their cars than households making less than $25K (32% and 22% 

respectively). 

Relevant TCL Measures: 

Number of households that conduct preincident preparation, to include 

maintaining a communication plan, 

gathering disaster supplies, practicing 

evacuation/shelter-in-place, and

maintaining skills. 

Numbers of citizens prepared to shelterin-place and who have emergency 

supplies on hand as advised by local 

authorities. 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 9 of 83 

• Race: White individuals (55%) were significantly more likely than Black individuals 

(41%) to have a disaster supply kit set aside in their home. Whites (76%) were 

significantly more likely than Blacks (59%) to have a supply of bottled water and a 

supply of packaged food set aside as part of their home disaster supply kit. Blacks (59%) 

were significantly more likely to have a flashlight as part of their kit than Whites (37%). 

• Religiousness: Individuals that considered themselves to be somewhat religious (47%) 

were significantly more likely to have supplies set aside in their workplace than those 

who considered themselves barely religious (38%).

To What Extent Do Individuals Have a Household Emergency Plan?

Less than half of individuals (42%) 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. 

This was a decline from the 58 percent that reported having such a plan in 2003. Most 

individuals with a plan discussed this plan with other members of their household (88%). 

Additionally, 7 in 10 individuals (70%) disclosed that they had placed copies of important 

financial and insurance documents in a safe place so as to help them rebuild or seek assistance 

following a disaster. 

Table 3: Household Disaster Preparedness Plan

2003 2007 +/-

Yes 58% 42% -16%

No 42% 58% 16%

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• Age: Individuals between the ages of 35 to 54 (94%) were significantly more likely than 

other age groups (18 to 35, and over 55—85% and 82% respectively), to have discussed 

their household plan with other members in their household.

• Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic individuals (71%) were significantly more likely to have copies 

of important financial and insurance documents in a safe place than Hispanic individuals 

(58%).

• Household Income: Households with an income over $75K (48%) were significantly 

more likely to have an emergency plan in the event of a disaster than households earning 

less than $49K (38%). Households with incomes over $75K (97%) were significantly 

more likely to have discussed their household plan with other members in the home than 

households making less than $25K (74%). Likewise, households making over $75K 

(76%) were significantly more likely to have copies of important financial and insurance 

documents in a safe place than households making less than 49K (68%).

• Religiousness: Individuals that considered themselves to be somewhat religious (44%) 

were significantly more likely to have a home emergency plan than those that considered 

themselves barely religious (36%).

Relevant TCL Measure: 

Number of households that conduct 

pre-incident preparation—to include 

maintaining a communication plan, 

gathering disasters supplies, 

practicing evacuation/shelter-inplace, and maintaining skills. 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 10 of 83 

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). 

How Familiar Are Individuals with Their Community-based Disaster Preparedness 

Systems?

Participants were asked to rate their familiarity with various community-based disaster 

preparedness systems. Fewer than half of respondents were familiar with the alert and warning 

systems in their communities (45%) and official sources of public safety information (34%). 

Individuals reported even lower levels of familiarity with community evacuation routes (26%) or 

their local shelter locations (31%). Approximately 6 in 10 (58%) of individuals 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. 

Table 4: Familiarity with Community Plans/Systems* 

Most Familiar Least Familiar

Alerts and warning systems in your 

community? 45% 33%

Official sources of public safety 

information? 34% 43%

Shelter locations near you? 31% 54%

How to get help with evacuating or 

getting to a shelter? 29% 49%

Community evacuation routes? 26% 60%

* 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’) 

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• Age: Individuals over the age of 55 (32%) were significantly more likely to be very 

familiar with their community’s alert and warning systems, as well as evacuation routes, 

than were individuals between 18-34 and 35-54 (25% and 26% respectively). 

• Geography: Rural residents (68%) were significantly more likely to know the details of 

their children’s school emergency and evacuation plans than individuals from suburban 

and urban residential areas (both 55%). 

• Religiousness: Individuals that considered themselves to be somewhat religious (60%) 

were significantly more likely to know the details of their children’s school emergency 

and evacuation plans than those that considered themselves barely religious (48%). 

Religious individuals were significantly more likely to be very familiar with shelter 

locations (22%), and how to get help evacuating to a shelter (19%) than non-religious 

individuals (17% and 13% respectively).
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 11 of 83 

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

Nearly one-quarter (23%) of individuals stated they had given some time in the past 12 months 

to support emergency responder organizations or an organization that focuses on community 

safety, such as Neighborhood Watch (a similar finding to the 2003 survey; 22%). About onethird of participants (32%) disclosed that they had volunteered to help in a disaster at some point 

in the past, a new item in the 2007 survey. The most frequently mentioned organizations for 

which individuals had volunteered their time included Neighborhood Watch, the American Red 

Cross, and local fire and police departments. 

An encouraging 65 percent of individuals said they would be willing to take a 20-hour training 

course to become qualified to help their community recover from disasters. The respondents that 

were least willing to take the training class included individuals over 55 years old, and 

respondents from households making less than $25K. 

Table 5: Volunteering for Emergency Responder/Community Safety 

2003 2007 +/-

Yes 22% 23% 1%

No 78% 77% -1%

Table 6: Volunteering to Help in a Disaster 

2003 2007 +/-

Yes 28% 32% 4%

No 72% 68% -4%

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• Age: Individuals between the ages of 18 to 54 (67–74%) were significantly more likely 

than older individuals (52%) to indicate willingness to take a 20 hour disaster recovery 

training course. 

• Education: Individuals with college experience (36%) were significantly more likely to 

have volunteered in a disaster than individuals with less education (23%). 

• Employment: Employed individuals (25%) were significantly more likely to have given 

some time to support emergency responder organizations or an organization that focuses 

on community safety than the unemployed (21%). Those with a job (35%) were also 

significantly more likely to have volunteered to help in a disaster than those without one 

(28%). Employed individuals (72%) are significantly more likely to be willing to take a 

20-hour training course than unemployed individuals (56%).

• Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic individuals (24%) were significantly more likely than Hispanic 

individuals (14%) to have given time to help support emergency responder organizations 

or an organization that focuses on community safety. 

• Gender: Men (37%) were significantly more likely to have volunteered during a disaster 

than women (27%). 

Relevant TCL Measure: 

Number of trained citizens providing 

volunteer support to local emergency 

responder disciplines (law enforcement, fire, 

emergency medical, and public health 

services). 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 12 of 83 

• Geography: Individuals living in suburban or rural residential areas (25% and 26%, 

respectively) were significantly more likely to have volunteered time than urban residents 

(18%). Suburban residents (69%) were significantly more willing than rural or urban 

residents (60% and 63%) to express willingness to take a 20-hour disaster recovery 

training course. 

• Household Income: Individuals with a household annual income of $75K or more were 

more likely to volunteer in the past 12 months (30%) than individuals with a household 

annual income of $25K or less (14%). 

• Religiousness: Individuals that considered themselves to be somewhat religious (24%) 

were significantly more likely to have given some time to support emergency responder 

organizations or an organization that focuses on community safety than those that 

considered themselves barely religious (17%). 

Do Individuals Know What To Do in the First Five Minutes After Specific Types of 

Disasters (Natural, Radiological, Explosion, or Chemical Release)?

This section of the survey focused on the first 5 minutes following disasters that might occur 

without warning. These survey items also continued to probe individuals’ perceptions of their 

abilities to become prepared for a disaster (self-efficacy), as well as the response efficacy of the 

action—the belief that the preparedness actions they might take could make a difference in the 

event of a disaster. Participants were asked how confident they were in their own abilities and 

knowledge of what they should do in the first 5 minutes of a disaster (scale of 1–5, where 1 

means “not at all confident,” and 5 means “very confident”). Nearly 6 in 10 individuals (57%) 

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 were significantly 

lower for man-made disasters such as radiological explosions (or dirty bombs), the release of 

chemical agents, or other explosions or bombs (19%, 23%, and 33% confidence, respectively). 

Individuals had the least confidence in their abilities to handle an explosion of a radiological or 

dirty bomb, or release of a chemical agent (62% and 59% non-confidence, respectively). 

Table 7: Knowledge of How to Respond in the First 

Five Minutes* 

Confident Not Confident

A sudden natural disaster such as an 

earthquake or tornado? 57% 18%

An explosion or bomb? 33% 42%

The release of a chemical agent? 23% 59%

An explosion of a radiological or 

dirty bomb? 19% 62%

*Each percentage represents top-and-bottom-box scores, respectively. Those stating 4 or 5 (top-box, very confident) and 1 or 2 

(bottom-box, not very confident) on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being ‘very confident’ and 1 being ‘not very confident’ in their abilities to 

know what to do in the first 5 minutes following a disaster ) 

Relevant TCL Measure: 

The number of citizens who 

know the appropriate 

detailed response for 

specific high-threat 

incidents in their area, to 

include multiple incidents 

where appropriate. 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 13 of 83 

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• Education: Individuals with some college experience (33%) were significantly more 

confident in their abilities to know what to do in the first 5 minutes of a natural disaster 

than those with less educational experience (26%).

• Gender: Men were significantly more confident in their abilities to know what to do in 

the first 5 minutes of any type of disaster (scores for different types of disaster ranged 

from 17–37%) than women (scores for different types of disaster ranged from 8–25%). 

Men were also more likely than women to be very confident in their own ability to handle 

a disaster (31% vs. 18%).

• Geography: Suburban and rural residents (32% and 35%) were significantly more 

confident in their abilities to know what to do in the first 5 minutes of a natural disaster 

than those living in an urban residential area (26%).

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

Participants were asked if they had participated in a variety of disaster-related drills in their 

home, workplace, or school—aside from fire drills. While 4 in 10 individuals (41%) 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 homebased shelter-in-place drills (14% and 10%, respectively). Only 13 percent reported having 

participated in a home evacuation drill, and just 10 percent stated they had taken part in a home 

shelter-in-place drill. 

Table 8: Participation in Drills

Yes, I have 

participated

A workplace evacuation drill 41%

A workplace shelter-in-place drill 27%

A school evacuation drill 19%

A school shelter-in-place drill 14%

A home evacuation drill 13%

A home shelter-in-place drill 10%

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• Age: Individuals between the ages of 18 to 54 (13–16%) were significantly more likely to 

have participated in a home evacuation drill than older individuals (7%).

• Education: Besides home-based drills, individuals with some college experience were 

significantly more likely to have participated in drills than those without college 

experience: a workplace evacuation drill (44% and 33% respectively), a workplace 

shelter-in-place drill (29% and 21% respectively), a school evacuation drill (22% and 

11% respectively) and a school evacuation shelter-in-place drill (16% and 8% 

respectively).

• Employment: Employed individuals (16%) were significantly more likely to have 

participated in a home evacuation drill than unemployed individuals (8%). 

• Race: Black individuals (56%) were significantly more likely to have participated in a 

workplace evacuation drill than White individuals (40%).

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). 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 14 of 83 

• Religiousness: Very religious individuals (43%) were significantly more likely to have 

participated in a workplace evacuation drill than individuals who were not religious at all 

(33%). 

How Many Individuals Have Received Training in Preparation for a Disaster?

Participants were asked if they had engaged in any sort of emergency-related training programs. 

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) training was found to be the most common, taken by over 

one-third of individuals (35%), which was a minor decrease from the 2003 Citizen Corps survey 

(–2%). There was also a decline (–4%) from the 2003 study in the number of individuals who 

had taken first aid skills training (33%). One in ten individuals (10%) had attended training as 

part of a Community Emergency Response Team (CERT). Nearly one-quarter of individuals 

(23%) reported having attended a meeting on how to become better prepared for a disaster—a 

question not asked in the 2003 survey. 

Table 9: Preparedness Training Programs 

2003 2007 +/-

Attended CPR training 37% 35% -2%

Attended first aid skills training 37% 33% -4%

Attended a meeting on how to be 

better prepared for a disaster** --- 23% ---

Attended training as part of a 

Community Emergency Response 

Team or CERT

10% 10% 0%

** Was not included in the 2003 survey 

Most individuals taking preparedness classes or emergency training attributed their motivation to 

a mandatory function of their job or school (51%). The second most common responses were for 

personal preparedness (16%) or out of concern for the safety of family or others (15%). These 

numbers are consistent with the results from the 2003 survey asking the same question. 

Table 10: Motivators for Preparedness Training* 

2003 2007 +/-

Mandatory for job/school 47% 51% 4%

To be prepared** --- 16% ---

Concern for safety of family or others 20% 15% -5%

Easy to sign up** --- 7% ---

Concern for personal safety 6% 7% 1%

To have the necessary skills to help others** --- 7% ---

General interest/hobby 11% 6% -5%

Because others (family or friends) did** --- 4% ---

Other 20% 5% -15%

*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. 

** Was not included in the 2003 survey 

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. 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 15 of 83 

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• Age: Individuals ages 18 to 54 (37–46%) were significantly more likely to have taken a 

CPR class than older adults (23%). Individuals over the age of 35 (18–22%) were 

significantly more likely than younger individuals (8%) to have taken part in 

preparedness training with the motivation of becoming personally prepared. Individuals 

between the ages of 18 to 54 (52–57%) were significantly more likely to have taken 

training because it was mandatory for their school or job than individuals over 55 (40%). 

• Employment: Employed individuals were significantly more likely to have taken part in 

some sort of preparedness training (preparedness meeting, CPR, first aid skills, or CERT 

training) than those without a job. 

• Geography: Suburban residents (29%) were significantly more likely to have attended a 

meeting on how to be better prepared for a disaster than urban residents (19%). 

• Household Income: Individuals with an annual household income of $75K or more were 

more likely to had attended a meeting on how to become better prepared for a disaster or 

taken a CPR class (32% and 41% respectively) than individuals with a household annual 

income of $25K or less (12% and 27% respectively). 

• Race: Black individuals (42%) were significantly more likely than White individuals 

(32%) to have attended first aid skills training. 

• Religiousness: Individuals that considered themselves to be somewhat religious (24%) 

were significantly more likely to have attended a preparedness meeting than those that 

considered themselves barely religious (17%).

How Does Perceived Preparedness Compare with Actual Preparedness?

Past research has found that often, participants perceive themselves to be more prepared than 

their reported actions would indicate. In this survey, Citizen Corps asked individuals to name 

specific preparedness actions that they had taken including household planning, gathering 

supplies, preparedness training, volunteering, etc., 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 reports of 

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. nearly 40 

percent who said they “have been prepared for at least the past six months” did not have a 

household plan, 80 percent had not conducted a home evacuation drill, and nearly 60 percent did 

not know their community’s evacuation routes. Respondents who stated they had been prepared 

for at least the last six months compared to those who had not prepared were significantly more 

likely to: 

• Have a kit in their home, car, and workplace 

o Home kit: 86% compared to 39% 

o Car kit: 48% compared to 24% 

o Workplace kit: 57% compared to 40% 

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

o Have a household plan: 61% compared to 34% 

o Of those with a plan, discussed plan with household members: 93% compared to 

85% 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 16 of 83 

o Have copies of important financials and insurance documents: 83% compared to 

64% 

• Be aware of community preparedness resources 

o Alerts and warning systems: 59% compared to 39% 

o Official sources of public safety information: 46% compared to 27% 

o Evacuation routes: 42% compared to 19% 

o Shelter locations: 46% compared to 25% 

o How to get help with evacuating or getting to a shelter: 42% compared to 24% 

o Children’s school emergency/evacuation plan: 68% compared to 54% 

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

o Dirty bombs: 33% compared to 13% 

o Chemical agents: 33% compared 18% 

o Explosion/bombs: 52% compared to 25% 

o Natural disaster: 75% compared to 50% 

• Be confident that preparing for disasters that may affect them is helpful and worthwhile 

o Help very much: 69% compared to 48% 

o Help somewhat: 26% compared to 38% 

o Help very little: 4% compared to 10% 

o Help not at all: 1% compared to 4% 

• Have taken training 

o Preparedness meeting: 37% compared to 17% 

o CPR training: 43% compared to 32% 

o First Aid skills training: 44% compared to 28% 

o CERT training: 17% compared to 7% 

o Disability-specific emergency training: 50% compared to 22% 

o Willing to take a 20-hour training: 67% compared to 64% 

• Have taken part in drills or exercises 

o Home evacuation: 20% compared to 10% 

o Home shelter-in-place: 17% compared to 7% 

o Workplace shelter-in-place: 31% compared to 25% 

o School evacuation: 23% compared to 18% 

o School shelter-in-place: 18% compared to 12% 

• Have volunteered 

o Community safety: 35% compared to 18% 

o Disaster response: 46% compared to 26% 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 17 of 83 

What Are the Barriers to Undertaking Disaster Preparedness Activities?

In order to identify the barriers to preparedness, respondents who said they had not yet begun to 

prepare or were not intending to prepare were asked to respond to a list of potential barriers and 

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 reason for not preparing was the belief that 

emergency responders such as fire, police, or emergency personnel would help them (37%). 

Other primary reasons included lack of knowledge (27%) and lack of time (24%). Almost one in 

five also cited that they did not want to think about it (19%). Some individuals didn’t think 

preparing for a disaster would make a difference (17%; although 26% cited that as somewhat of 

a reason). Fewer (13%) cited as a primary reason that they didn’t think they would be able to 

prepare, and 70 percent of individuals felt that inability was not a reason at all. 

Table 11: Barriers to Preparedness 

Primary Reason Not a Reason at All

I think that emergency responders, such as fire, 

police or emergency personnel, will help me. 37% 28%

I don’t know what I’m supposed to do 27% 43%

I just haven’t had the time 24% 48%

I don’t want to think about it 19% 56%

It costs too much 17% 63%

I don’t think it will make a difference 17% 57%

I don’t think I’d be able to 13% 70%

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• Age: Individuals over the age of 55 (46%) were significantly more likely to not take 

disaster preparedness steps due to reliance on emergency responders such as fire, police, 

or emergency personnel than younger individuals (33–36%). Individuals less than 54 

years of age (23–30%) were significantly more likely than individuals 55 and older 

(17%) to say a lack of time was their primary reason for not preparing. As age increased, 

individuals were significantly more likely to say that not believing their actions would 

make a difference (low response-efficacy) was their primary reason for not preparing. 

Individuals over 55 (21%) were also significantly more likely than younger individuals 

(8–13%) to indicate that doubts of their abilities (low self-efficacy) were a primary 

reason for not preparing. 

• Education: Individuals with less than a high school degree (51%) 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 (30%). 

Individuals with less than a high school degree (34%) were significantly more likely than 

higher educated individuals (23%) to state that a lack of knowledge was their primary 

reason for not preparing. 

• Employment: Unemployed individuals (47%) were significantly more likely to rely on 

emergency responders to help them as a primary reason for not preparing than were 

employed individuals (31%). 

What Barriers Do Individuals Perceive in Preparing for Disasters? 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 18 of 83 

• Household Income: Households earning less than $25K annually (33%) were 

significantly more likely to not prepare because of reliance on emergency responders—

fire, police, or emergency personnel—than those earning more annually (31–19%). As 

income levels increased, individuals were significantly less likely to say that cost was 

their primary reason for not taking any preparedness steps.

What Are the Barriers to Taking Preparedness Training?

Participants who indicated they had not taken any type of disaster preparedness training were 

asked what had prevented them from doing so. Unaided responses were then coded according to 

predetermined categories. Of these participants, the most common reasons given were either they 

had not had the time (16%), they hadn’t thought about it (15%), or that it was difficult for them 

to get information on what to do (15%). Few respondents (2%) provided as a reason that they did 

not believe that this training would be effective. The majority of individuals (53%) provided 

reasons not included in the survey’s predetermined categories. Many of these “other” reasons 

referred to not knowing about any available training courses, not having been offered training, or 

having taken training prior to the 2-year limit stated in the question. Again, these barriers were 

similar to the ones noted in the 2003 survey. 

Table 12: Barriers to Preparedness Training* 

2003 2007 +/-

Lack of time 19% 16% -3%

Haven't thought about it** --- 15% ---

Difficult to get information on what to do 14% 15% 1%

Don't think it is important 16% 5% -11%

Lack of money/Too expensive 2% 2% 0%

Don't think it will be effective** --- 2% ---

Other 53% 53% 0%

*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. 

** Was not included as a pre-coded option for the interviewer in the 2003 survey 

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• Age: Individuals ages 18-34 (24%) were more likely to report a lack of time being a 

primary barrier to not taking part in any preparedness training than individuals 55+ (8%). 

• Education: Individuals with less than a high school degree compared to individuals with 

some college were more likely to report primary barriers of having not thought about 

(19% and 13% respectively) or having difficulty getting information on what to do (20% 

and 12% respectively) to take part in any preparedness training. 

• Ethnicity: Hispanic individuals (29%) were significantly more likely than non-Hispanics 

(14%) to report a lack of time as being their primary barrier to not taking part in any 

preparedness training.
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 19 of 83 

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

Participants were asked to describe how much they believed they would rely on certain groups of 

individuals or organizations for assistance in the first 72 hours following a disaster. A large 

majority of individuals (71%) indicated that they would rely on household members most, a 

slight increase from 2003 (+3%). There was also a considerable increase in the number of 

individuals who would expect to rely on others in their neighborhood, increasing from 39 to 48 

percent. 

However, only 29 percent of individuals would expect to rely on State and Federal Government 

agencies, including FEMA, in the first 72 hours following a disaster. In fact, over a quarter of 

individuals (27%) said they would not expect to rely on State and Federal Government agencies 

at all. Two new categories of organizations were added in this 2007 survey—non-profit 

organizations and faith communities. Both of these rated fairly high, with 4 of 10 individuals 

indicating they would rely on these types of organizations. 

Table 13: Expectation of Reliance on Others* 

2003 2007 +/-

Household members 68% 71% 3%

Fire, police, emergency personnel 62% 57% -5%

People in my neighborhood 39% 48% 9%

Non-profit organizations, such as the American 

Red Cross or the Salvation Army** --- 40% ---

My faith community, such as a congregation** --- 39% ---

State and Federal Government agencies, including 

FEMA 34% 30% -4%

*Each percentage represents top-box scores, respectively. 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 

** Was not included in the 2003 survey 

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• Education: Individuals with college experience (60%) were significantly more likely 

than individuals with only a high school education (54%) to rely on household members. 

Individuals without college experience (25%) were significantly more likely than 

individuals with college experience (15%) to rely on State and Federal Government 

agencies, as well as fire, police, and emergency personnel. 

• Gender: Women were significantly more likely to rely on household members and 

people in their neighborhood (65% and 31%, respectively) than men (50% and 24%, 

respectively). 

• Geography: Suburban and rural residents (both 61%) were significantly more likely than 

urban individuals (50%) to rely a great deal on household members in the first 72 hours 

of a disaster. Individuals from rural areas (31%) were significantly more likely than urban 

residents (24%) to rely on people in their neighborhood. 

• Household Income: Individuals with an annual household income of less than $25K 

were significantly more likely to rely a great deal on State and Federal Government 

agencies (26%), as well as fire, police, and emergency personnel (42%), in the first 72 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 20 of 83 

hours of a disaster than individuals with an annual household income of $75K or more 

(14% and 33% respectively). 

• Race: Black individuals (35%) were significantly more likely to rely a great deal on their 

faith community or non-profit organizations in the first 72 hours of a disaster than White 

individuals (24%). 

• Religiousness: Individuals that considered themselves to be somewhat religious (45%) 

were significantly more likely to rely on their faith-based community than those that 

considered themselves barely religious (16%) in the first 72 hours following a disaster. 

Religious individuals (60%) were also more likely to rely a great deal on household 

members than non-religious individuals (49%).

Do Individuals Expect to Need Help During an Evacuation?

Respondents were also asked specifically if they would expect to need help to evacuate or get to 

a shelter in the event of a disaster. Nearly 4 in 10 individuals (38%) said they would expect to 

need help to evacuate or get to a shelter in the event of a disaster. 

Table 14: Reliance on Help from Others During an Evacuation 

National

Yes 38%

No 62%

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• Education: Individuals with no high school diploma (70%) were significantly more 

likely to need help from others during an evacuation than individuals with a bachelor’s 

degree (28%). 

• Employment: Unemployed individuals (45%) were significantly more likely to need 

help from others than employed individuals (34%). 

• Race: Blacks (61%) were twice as likely as Whites (31%) to need help to evacuate or get 

to a shelter. 

• Ethnicity: Hispanic individuals (66%) were significantly more likely than non-Hispanic 

individuals (34%) to need help from others during an evacuation. 

• Gender: Women (46%) were significantly more likely to need help from others during 

an evacuation than men (31%). 

• Geography: Individuals living in urban areas (47%) were significantly more likely to 

need help from others in the event of an evacuation than suburban (35%) or rural 

residents (31%). 

• Household Income: Individuals with an annual household income of $25K or less (63%) 

were significantly more likely to need help to evacuate or get to a shelter than individuals 

with an annual household income of $75K or more (27%). 

Relevant TCL Measure: 

The number of citizens prepared to 

evacuate or relocate to designated 

shelter (to include citizens with 

special needs). 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 21 of 83 

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

Individual’s perceptions of their vulnerability to disasters and the relative urgency of the risks to 

their community (for different categories of disasters) were assessed in two different ways. First, 

participants were asked to state how likely (using a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 signifying not very 

likely and 5 signifying very likely) they thought it was that a specific type of disaster would 

occur in their community in the next 12 months. Then, participants were asked how likely they 

thought it was that a specific disaster would ever occur in their community. 

Of the four specific types of disasters investigated, a natural disaster such as an earthquake, 

flood, hurricane, tornado, or wildfire was rated as the disaster most likely to occur. However, 

only 2 in 10 individuals thought a natural disaster would occur in the next 12 months, and fewer 

than 4 in 10 (37%) reported thinking that a natural disaster would ever affect their community. 

Only 10 percent of individuals felt an act of terrorism would impact their community in the next 

12 months, and only 19 percent felt a terrorist act would ever occur in their community. These 

low levels of susceptibility and urgency were echoed in the responses related to a severe disease 

outbreak (9% within 12 months and 20% ever). 

Figure 1: Perception of the Risk of a Disaster* 

*Likeliness 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 very likely’ that the disaster would occur) 

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• Age: As individuals’ age increased, the percentage that believed a natural disaster would 

very likely impact their community in the next 12 months also increased. 

• Education: Across all disaster categories, individuals with less than a college education 

were significantly more likely to believe that a disaster would occur in their community 

in the next 12 months than individuals with college experience. 

• Geography: Suburban residents (24%) were significantly more likely than urban 

residents (18%) to believe that a natural disaster was very likely to ever occur in their 

What Is the Perception of Vulnerability to Different Types of Disasters? How 

Do People Perceive the Utility of Preparedness? 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 22 of 83 

community. Rural residents (60%) were significantly more likely than urban (46%) and 

suburban residents (47%) to believe that an act of terrorism was not very likely to occur 

in the next 12 months. 

• Household Income: Households earning less than $25K annually (12%) were 

significantly more likely than individuals earning more (<6%) to believe that a terrorist 

attack was very likely to occur in the next 12 months. As household income increased, 

however, the percentage that believed a hazardous materials accident would occur in their 

community in the next 12 months decreased. 

• Race: Across disaster categories, Blacks were significantly more likely than Whites to 

believe that all types of disasters were very likely to occur in their communities in the 

next 12 months. 

• Religiousness: Individuals that considered themselves to be somewhat religious were 

significantly more likely to believe that some type of hazardous materials accident or 

widespread disease outbreak (14% and 10% respectively) would occur in the next 12 

months than were those that considered themselves barely religious (7% and 4% 

respectively).

What Is the Perceived Effect of the Utility of Advance Preparation for Different Types of 

Disasters?

The survey sought to measure individual’s perceptions of the efficacy or utility of preparing in 

advance of a disaster. Participants were asked about 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. Almost 8 out of 10 (78%) individuals felt that preparation, planning, and 

emergency supplies would help them handle a natural disaster. Fourteen percent of individuals 

believed they could handle a natural disaster without advance preparation. In response to dealing 

with an act of terrorism, only 61 percent of individuals felt preparation, planning, and supplies 

would help them deal with an act of terrorism. 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 one-third of 

individuals (35%) reporting the belief that nothing they could 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 (69% and 67%, 

respectively), more than 2 out of 10 individuals believed that nothing would help them respond 

to those threats. 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 23 of 83 

Figure 2: Utility of Advance Preparations for Different Types of Disasters 

78%

61% 67% 69%

8%

35%

14% 23% 23%

4% 10% 8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Natural

Disaster

Act of

Terrorism

Hazardous

Materials

Accident

Severe

Disease

Outbreak

Preparation, planning,

and emergency

supplies will help me

handle the situation

Nothing I do will help

me in the situation

I can handle the

situation without any

preparation

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• Employment: Employed individuals (69%) were significantly more likely to think 

preparation, planning, and emergency supplies would help them handle a hazardous 

materials accident than those without a job (64%). 

• Gender: Men were significantly more likely than women to believe they could handle a 

natural disaster or a hazardous materials accident without any preparation (19% vs. 10%; 

and 14% vs. 7%, respectively). Women (26%) were significantly more likely than men 

(19%) to feel that nothing they did to prepare for a hazardous materials accident would 

help them handle it. 

• Geography: Suburban residents (64%) were significantly more likely than urban (58%) 

or rural residents (59%) to believe that preparation, planning, and emergency supplies 

would help them handle an act of terrorism. 

• Household Income: Individuals with an annual household income of $75K or more were 

significantly more likely to believe that preparation, planning, and emergency supplies 

would help them handle a natural disaster (83%) or severe disease outbreak (72%) than 

individuals with an annual household income of $25K or less (74% and 64% 

respectively). 

• Race: Black individuals (14%) were significantly more likely than White individuals 

(7%) to feel that nothing they did to prepare for a natural disaster would help them handle 

it.

• Religiousness: Individuals who reported being not at all religious (15%) were more 

likely to think they could handle a natural disaster without any preparation than those that 

considered themselves to be very religious (12%). Very religious individuals were 

significantly more likely to think preparation, planning, and emergency supplies would 

help them handle an act of terrorism or a severe disease outbreak (64%, 71%) than were 

individuals who reported being not at all religious (49%, 60%).
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 24 of 83 

What Is the Perceived Effect of Advance Preparation on Ability to Respond to Disasters?

Participants were also asked if preparing in advance would help them personally be able to 

handle a disaster. While the majority of individuals (89%) agreed that preparing would help them 

to handle the disaster either very much (55%) or somewhat (34%), only half of individuals (50%) 

had confidence in their own personal ability to respond to a disaster (rated as 4 or 5 on a 5 point 

scale), and 15 percent indicated low levels of confidence (rated 1 and 2 on a 5 point scale). One 

in four individuals (39%) indicated that they had talked to someone about the need to be 

prepared for disasters that might affect their community. These individuals had primarily talked 

to other household members (34%) or people from their neighborhood (26%) about disaster 

preparedness. 

Figure 3: Perceptions of Effectiveness of Advance Preparations 

How much do you think preparing for a 

disaster will help you handle the disaster?

34% 55%

8% 3%

Very much

Somewhat

Very little

Not at all

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• Age: Individuals ages 18 to 54 (55–59%) were significantly more likely than those over 

the age of 55 (48%) to think that preparing for a disaster would help them very much. 

• Employment: Employed individuals (57%) were significantly more likely to think 

preparing for a disaster would help them very much, than were those without a job 

(52%). 

• Household Income: Individuals with a household income of less than $25K (14%) were 

significantly more likely to have no confidence in their own ability to handle a disaster 

than households earning more (3–7%). As household income increased, so did the 

likelihood that the individuals had talked to someone about the need to be prepared for 

disasters. 

• Race: White individuals (41%) were significantly more likely to have talked to someone 

about the need to be prepared for disasters that may affect their community than Black 

individuals (30%). 

• Religiousness: Individuals who considered themselves to be religious (57%) 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 religious (44%).

• Volunteerism: Individuals who had volunteered to help in a disaster in the past (34%) 

were significantly more likely than those who had not (20%) to have confidence in their 

abilities to handle a disaster. 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 25 of 83 

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

Model of Behavior Change5, 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 

towards 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 

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 nearly one-third of individuals (32%) stating that they had been prepared for at 

least the past 6 months, and the second largest number stating they were not planning to do 

anything about preparing (27%). (See Figure 5)6

. 

 

5

 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. 6

 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. 

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

Contemplation, Preparation, Action, Maintenance) 

Are Individuals Relative to Disaster Preparedness? 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 26 of 83 

Figure 5: Stages of Change Preparedness 

32%

14% 20%

27%

7%

I am not planning to do anything

about preparing

I have not yet prepared, but I

intend to in the next 6 months

I have not yet prepared, but I

intend to in the next month

I just recently began preparing

I have been prepared for at least

the past 6 months

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• Age: Individuals over 35 (33–34%) were significantly more likely to have been prepared 

for the last 6 months than individuals ages 18 to 34 (26%); however, this younger group 

was significantly more likely to fall within the contemplation stage of preparedness 

(28%) than any other age range (<18%). 

• Disability: Individuals with a disability (34%) were more likely to not have plans for 

preparing than those without disabilities (25%). 

• Employment: Unemployed individuals (29%) were more likely to be in the 

precontemplation stage (not planning to do anything about preparing) than employed 

individuals (25%). 

• Gender: Men were significantly more likely than women to have been prepared for the 

last 6 months (36% vs. 27%, respectively). 

• Household Income: Households earning less than $25K annually (20%) were 

significantly less likely to have been prepared for the last 6 months than those earning 

more annually (28% to 39%, depending on income level). 

• Religiousness: Individuals that considered themselves not to be religious (34%) were 

significantly more likely to be in the precontemplation stage (not planning to do anything 

about preparing) than those that considered themselves to be religious (25%).

• Volunteerism: Individuals who had volunteered to help in a disaster (45%) were 

significantly more likely than those who had not volunteered to have been prepared for 

the last 6 months (25%). 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 27 of 83 

Relevant TCL Measure:

Number of citizens prepared 

to evacuate or relocate to 

designated shelter (to include 

citizens with special needs). 

What Is the Potential Impact of Disability on Disaster 

Preparedness?

In the event of a disaster, individuals with physical or mental 

disabilities may have unique challenges relative to their 

abilities to respond to a disaster. Of the survey participants, 

almost 2 in 10 individuals (19%) reported having a physical 

or other disability that would affect their capacity to respond to an emergency situation. These 

participants were then asked if they had received training or had made special preparations that 

would allow them to better respond. Of these individuals, only one-quarter (24%) had either 

received training or made preparations specific to their disability that would allow them to 

respond better in the event of a disaster or emergency situation. Another 13 percent of survey 

participants reported that they currently lived with or cared for someone with a physical or other 

disability, including someone elderly. Of these individuals, only 30 percent reported receiving 

specific information or training in order to assist that person in the event of a disaster. To 

compare these two groups, more individuals with the responsibility for caring for someone else 

have reported taken any training or preparation (32%) than individuals with disabilities who 

reported undertaking training for themselves (23%). When combined (individuals having a 

disability or caring for someone with a disability), 32 percent of individuals may need extra help 

for themselves or those they care for in the event of a disaster. 

• Home Supply Kit: Individuals who reported having a disability (55%) were as likely to 

have prepared a home disaster supply kit as individuals without a disability (53%). 

• Household Emergency Plan: Individuals with a disability (43%) were just as likely to 

have a household emergency plan as those without a disability (42%). 

• Training Programs: Individuals with a disability were significantly less likely to have 

attended a preparedness meeting (19%), taken a CPR training class (22%), or taken first 

aid skills training (21%) than those without a disability (24%, 35%, and 33% 

respectively). 

What Is the Potential Impact of Gender on Disaster Preparedness?

Per survey protocol, gender was determined by the interviewer, based on the voice of the 

participant. In general, men reported greater levels of preparedness and confidence in their 

abilities to handle the situation. This was also reflected in that fewer men expected to need help 

in the event of an evacuation. 

• Ability to respond in the first five minutes of a disaster: Men (17–37%) were 

significantly more confident in their abilities to know what to do in the first 5 minutes of 

any type of disaster than women (8–25%), and more likely to be very confident in their 

own ability to handle a disaster (31% vs. 18%).

How Does Disaster Preparedness Differ by Demographic Characteristics? 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 28 of 83 

• 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, or a 

hazardous materials accident, without any preparation (19% vs. 10%; and 14% vs. 7%, 

respectively). Women (26%) were significantly more likely than men (19%) to feel that 

nothing they did to prepare for a hazardous materials accident would help them handle it. 

• Reliance on others and the need for help during an evacuation: Women were 

significantly more likely to rely on household members and people in their neighborhood 

(65% and 31%, respectively), than men (50% and 24%, respectively). Women (46%) 

were also significantly more likely to report needing help to evacuate or get to a shelter 

than men (31%). 

• Stages of Change: Men were significantly more likely than women to report having been 

prepared for the last 6 months (36% vs. 27%, respectively). 

• Volunteering: Men (37%) were significantly more likely to have volunteered during a 

disaster than women (27%). 

• Disaster Supplies: Men (57%) were significantly more likely than women (50%) to have 

a home disaster kit. 

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

Each respondent was asked to describe his/her location as; urban, suburban, or rural. Overall, 

suburban respondents were more likely to report having volunteered and taken preparedness 

training, having more confidence about preparedness (that is, in their abilities to respond in the 

early stages of a disaster as well as believing that preparing for a disaster could actually aid in 

reducing harm), and having more awareness of external programs such as Citizen Corps. 

Rural respondents overall were less prepared than were suburban respondents; although, they 

were equally confident in their abilities to respond early in a disaster. Rural residents also were 

significantly more aware of community plans. 

Although urban residents were not as prepared and aware in categories of preparedness, they 

indicated that they would rely less on others in the event of an evacuation than did suburban and 

rural respondents. 

• Volunteering: Individuals living in suburban or rural residential areas (25% and 26%, 

respectively) were significantly more likely to have volunteered time than urban residents 

(18%). Suburban residents (69%) were significantly more willing than rural or urban 

residents (60% and 63%) to express willingness to take a 20-hour disaster recovery 

training course. 

• Ability to respond in the first five minutes of a disaster: Suburban and rural residents 

(32% and 35%) were significantly more confident in their abilities to know what to do in 

the first five minutes of a natural disaster than those living in an urban residential area 

(26%).

• Community Plan: Rural residents (68%) were significantly more likely to know the 

details of their children’s school emergency and evacuation plans than individuals from 

suburban and urban residential areas (both 55%).

• Perceptions of the utility of preparing in advance of a disaster: Suburban residents 

(64%) were significantly more likely than urban or rural residents (58% and 59%, 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 29 of 83 

respectively) to believe that preparation, planning, and emergency supplies would help 

them handle an act of terrorism. 

• Preparedness training programs: Suburban residents (29%) were significantly more 

likely to have attended a meeting on how to be better prepared for a disaster than urban 

residents (19%) and rural areas (22%). 

• Reliance on Others: Suburban and rural residents (both 61%) were significantly more 

likely than urban individuals (50%) to rely a great deal on household members in the first 

72 hours of a disaster. Individuals from rural areas (31%) were significantly more likely 

than urban residents (24%) to rely on people in their neighborhoods. 

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

A respondent’s race was solicited by asking the respondent to select one of the following 

categories: White, Black or African American, Asian, American Indian, Alaska Native, Native 

Hawaiian, Other Pacific Islander, or something else (which was then specified by the 

respondent). A respondent’s ethnicity was solicited by asking whether or not they were of 

Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin. 

Black respondents were more likely to have higher risk perceptions about disasters; that is, they 

were more likely than White respondents to believe that all of the disasters discussed were likely 

to occur in the next 12 months in their communities. Despite the higher perception of the threat 

of a disaster, Black respondents were less likely than White respondents to have prepared a 

disaster kit. Black respondents were more likely to expect to rely on others in the event of an 

evacuation. Black respondents were more prepared in terms of having taken first aid training as 

well as having participated in a workplace evacuation drill. 

Regarding attitudes around disaster preparedness, White respondents reported higher levels of 

response efficacy, more confidence in sharing preparedness information, and stronger beliefs in 

their own responsibility to report suspicious behavior. White respondents were more likely than 

respondents from all other races to have heard of CERT. 

Non-Hispanic respondents were more likely to be prepared across a number of measures, 

including having certain supplies in their disaster kits, having put important financial and 

insurance documents in a safe place, and volunteering time to a preparedness group. Hispanics 

were more likely to cite lack of time as a barrier to being prepared for disasters. 

• Kit: White individuals (55%) were significantly more likely than Black individuals 

(41%) to have a disaster supply kit set aside in their home. Specifically, Whites (76%) 

were significantly more likely than Blacks (59%) to have a supply of bottled water and a 

supply of packaged food set aside as part of their home disaster supply kit. Blacks (59%), 

however, were significantly more likely to have a flashlight as part of their kit than 

Whites (37%). Non-Hispanic individuals were significantly more likely to have a supply 

of bottled water and a supply of packaged food set aside (75% and 73%, respectively) as 

part of their home disaster supply kit than Hispanic individuals (60% and 57%, 

respectively). 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 30 of 83 

• Plan: Non-Hispanic individuals (71%) were significantly more likely to have copies of 

important financial and insurance documents in a safe place than Hispanic individuals 

(58%).

• Reliance on others during an evacuation: Black individuals (35%) were significantly 

more likely to rely a great deal on their faith community or non-profit organizations in 

the first 72 hours of a disaster than White individuals (24%). Blacks (61%) were also 

significantly more likely to expect needing help to evacuate or get to a shelter than were 

Whites (31%). 

• Confidence in ability to respond in a disaster: White individuals (41%) were 

significantly more likely to have talked to someone about the need to be prepared for 

disasters that may affect their communities than Black individuals (30%). 

• Preparedness training programs: Black individuals (42%) were significantly more 

likely than White individuals (32%) to have attended first aid skills training. Hispanic 

individuals (28%) were less likely to have attended first aid skills training than nonHispanics (34%). Hispanic individuals (29%) were significantly more likely than nonHispanics (14%) to report a lack of time as being their primary barrier to not having 

received any preparedness training. 

• Perceptions of the utility of preparing in advance of a disaster: Black individuals 

(14%) were significantly more likely than were White individuals (7%) to have a 

fatalistic perception and believe that nothing they did to prepare for a natural disaster 

would help them handle it. 

• Perception of risks: Across disaster categories, Blacks were significantly more likely 

than Whites to believe that all types of disasters were very likely to occur in the next 12 

months. 

• Volunteering: Non-Hispanic individuals (24%) were significantly more likely than 

Hispanic individuals (14%) to have given time to help support emergency responder 

organizations or organizations that focus on community safety. 

• Participation in preparedness drills and exercises: Black individuals (56%) 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 (91%) to feel that they had a personal responsibility to 

report suspicious behavior or circumstances to the authorities.

What Is the Potential Impact of Income on Disaster Preparedness?

A respondent’s household income was solicited by asking which of the following categories 

applied to his/her household: Less than $25,000; $25,000 to less than $50,000; $50,000 to less 

than $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, in that as income increased, so did these measures of preparedness. For example, 

respondents with household incomes of $50,000 or more were more likely than those with lower 

incomes to have a disaster kit, to have disaster supplies in their cars, to have a household disaster 

plan, to have communicated this plan with others, to have volunteered with a preparedness 

group, to have taken a preparedness training course, to have taken a CPR course, to have 

communicated the importance of preparing to someone else, to believe that preparedness would 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 31 of 83 

actually reduce harm in the event of a disaster, and to have heard of CERT. Respondents with 

household incomes over $50,000 preferred to receive preparedness information through email. 

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 less likely to have been prepared during the past six months, and they 

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, such as little to no 

confidence in their abilities to handle disaster and increased belief that a terrorist attack was 

likely in the next 12 months. Finally, lower income respondents were more likely to prefer 

personal communication about preparedness than mediated communication. 

• Kit: Households making over $50K (58%) were significantly more likely than 

households earning less than $49K (48%) to have a disaster supply kit in their home. 

Households earning over $50K (33%) were significantly more likely to have supplies set 

aside in their cars than households making less than $25K (22%). 

• Plan: Households with an income over $50K (47%) were significantly more likely to 

have a household plan in the event of a disaster than households earning less (38%). 

Those with incomes over $50K were significantly more likely to have discussed their 

household plan with other household members (95%) than those earning less than $49K 

(82%). Households making over $75K (76%) were significantly more likely to have 

copies of important financial and insurance documents in a safe place than households 

earning less than $49K (62%).

• Volunteering: Individuals with an annual household income of $75K or more (39%) 

were significantly more likely to have volunteered to help in a disaster than individuals 

with an annual household income of $25K or less (26%). 

• Reliance on others during an evacuation: Households earning less than $25K expected 

to rely on State and Federal Government agencies (27%), as well as fire, police, and 

emergency personnel (44%) in the first 72 hours of a disaster. Additionally, individuals in 

this household income range were significantly more likely to need help to evacuate or 

get to a shelter (60%). 

• Confidence in ability to respond in a disaster: Individuals with a household income of 

less than $25K were significantly more likely to have no confidence in their own ability 

to handle a disaster (14%) than were households earning more (3–7%). As household 

income increased, so did the likelihood that the individuals had talked to someone about 

the need to be prepared for disasters. 

• Preparedness training programs: Individuals in households earning $75K or more 

annually were more likely to attend a meeting on how to become better prepared for a 

disaster (37%) or take a CPR class (33%). 

• Barriers: Households earning less than $25K annually were significantly more likely to 

not have taken disaster preparedness steps due to reliance on emergency responders 

(33%)—fire, police, or emergency personnel—than those earning more annually (19-

31%). As income level increased, individuals were significantly less likely to say that 

cost was their primary reason for not taking any preparedness steps.
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 32 of 83 

• Perceptions of the utility of preparing in advance of a disaster: Individuals in 

households annually earning $75K or more believed that preparation, planning, and 

emergency supplies would help them handle a natural disaster (29%) or a severe disease 

outbreak (28%). 

• Perception of risks: Households earning less than $25K annually were significantly 

more likely to believe that a terrorist attack was very likely to occur in the next 12 

months (12%) than individuals earning more (<6%). As household income increased, 

however, the percentage that believed a hazardous materials accident would occur in the 

next 12 months decreased. 

• Stages of Change: Households earning less than $25K annually were significantly less 

likely to have been prepared for the last 6 months (20%) than those earning more 

annually (28-39%, varying by income level). 

• Communication/Outreach: Individuals in households annually earning $75K or more 

preferred to receive preparedness training and information through e-mail as their 

primary choice (28%). Conversely, individuals in households earning $25K or less 

annually most preferred to receive preparedness training and information through 

personal contact by phone or in person (34%).

What Is the Potential Impact of Education on Disaster Preparedness?

A respondent’s education was solicited by asking which of the following categories applied to 

him or her: less than 12th grade (no diploma); high school graduate or GED; some college but no 

degree; associate degree in college; bachelor’s degree; master’s degree; or doctorate degree. 

These data show that individuals with some college experience were overwhelmingly more 

aware, prepared, and positive about disaster preparedness. These measures include having a 

disaster kit at home, keeping disaster supplies in their vehicles, having volunteered with a local 

emergency response group, having participated in a workplace or school-based disaster drill, 

feeling confident in their abilities to respond early in a disaster, and feeling personal 

responsibility to report suspicious behavior. 

Individuals with no college education were less prepared among all the measures mentioned 

previously. 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 perceived that each disaster would occur in 

their community in the next 12 months. Both groups (those with some college and those with no 

college) predicted a reliance on others in the event of an evacuation: individuals with some 

college predicted they would rely on family members, while people without college experience 

expected to rely on State and Federal Government agencies. 

• Kit: Individuals with some college education (57%) were significantly more likely than 

less educated individuals (44%) to have supplies set aside in their homes. Likewise, 

individuals with some college education (33%) were significantly more likely than those 

with less education (22%) to have supplies set aside in their cars. 

• Volunteering: Individuals with college experience (36%) were significantly more likely 

to have volunteered in a disaster than individuals with less education (23%). 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 33 of 83 

• Reliance on others during an evacuation: Individuals with college experience (60%) 

were significantly more likely than individuals with only a high school education (54%) 

to rely on household members. Individuals without college experience were more likely 

to rely a great deal on State and Federal Government agencies (25%), as well as fire, 

police, and emergency personnel (42%) than individuals with college experience (15% 

and 35% respectively). 

• Ability to respond in the first five minutes of a disaster: Individuals with some college 

experience (33%) were significantly more confident in their abilities to know what to do 

in the first 5 minutes of a natural disaster than those with less education experience 

(26%).

• Barriers: Individuals with less than a high school degree were significantly more likely 

to not have taken disaster preparedness steps due to reliance on emergency responders 

such as fire, police, or emergency personnel (51%) than were higher educated individuals 

(30%). Individuals with less than a high school degree (34%) were significantly more 

likely than higher educated individuals (23%) 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 natural disaster (14%), hazardous materials accident 

(9%), act of terrorism (11%) or severe disease outbreak (11%) was very likely to occur in 

the next 12 months than individuals with college experience (9%, 5%, 3%, and 2% 

respectively). 

• Communication/Outreach: Individuals with college experience (11–14%) were 

significantly more likely than those with less education (7%) to prefer e-mail or the 

Internet as a channel of communication for preparedness information. 

• Participation in preparedness drills and exercises: Besides home-based drills, 

individuals with some college experience were significantly more likely to have 

participated in a workplace evacuation drill (44%), workplace shelter-in-place drill 

(29%), school evacuation drill (22%), or school shelter-in-place drill (16%) than those 

without college experience (33%, 21%, 11%, 8% respectively).

• Willingness to report suspicious behavior: Individuals with college experience were 

significantly more likely to feel that they had a personal responsibility to report 

suspicious behavior (97%) than those with less education (92%). 

What Is the Potential Impact of Age on Disaster Preparedness?

A respondent’s age was solicited by asking in what year the respondent was born. 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 disaster kits in 

their workplaces; to have household plans; to be willing to volunteer to take a 20-hour disaster 

training course; to have taken a CPR course; to have taken a preparedness course in order to 

become personally prepared or because it was mandatory for either school or a job; to have 

participated in an evacuation drill; and to 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 a lack of time to prepare. 

There were some nuances among these two more prepared groups, however. For example, the 

35- to 54-year-olds were more likely to be in the action stage of the Stages of Change Model; 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 34 of 83 

whereas, the 18- to 34-year-olds were more likely than other groups to be in the contemplation

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 feeling low 

response efficacy about preparedness actions, higher reliance than younger groups on emergency 

responders in the event of a disaster, and low confidence in their abilities to respond early in a 

disaster. This group was also more likely than any other age group to believe that all types of 

disasters would occur in the next 12 months. 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 warning/alert systems and evacuation routes. 

• Kit: Individuals between the ages of 18 to 34 were significantly more likely to have 

disaster supply kits set aside in their workplaces (54%) than older individuals (39-41%).

• Plan: Individuals between the ages of 35 to 54 were significantly more likely to have 

discussed their household plan with other members in their household (94%) than other 

age groups (82-85%).

• 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 (67–74%) than 

older individuals (52%). 

• Confidence in ability to respond in a disaster: Individuals ages 18 to 54 (55–59%) 

were significantly more likely than those over the age of 55 (48%) to think that preparing 

for a disaster would help them very much. 

• Preparedness training programs: Individuals ages 18 to 54 (37–46%) were 

significantly more likely to have taken a CPR class than older adults (23%). Individuals 

over the age of 35 (18–22%) were significantly more likely than younger individuals 

(8%) to have taken part in preparedness training with the motivation of becoming 

personally prepared. Individuals between the ages of 18 to 54 (52–57%) were 

significantly more likely to have taken training because it was mandatory for their school 

or job than individuals over 55 (40%). 

• Barriers: Individuals over the age of 55 (46%) were significantly more likely to not have 

taken disaster preparedness steps due to reliance on emergency responders such as fire, 

police, or emergency personnel than younger individuals (33–36%). Individuals less than 

54 years of age (23-30%) were significantly more likely than individuals 55 and older 

(17%) to say a lack of time was their primary reason for not preparing. As age increased, 

individuals were significantly more likely to say that not believing their actions would 

make a difference (low response-efficacy) was their primary reason for not taking any 

preparedness steps. Individuals over the age of 55 (21%) were significantly more likely 

than younger individuals (8–13%) to indicate that doubts of their abilities (low selfefficacy) were a primary reason for not taking any preparedness steps. 

• Perception of risks: As the age of the participant increased, the percentage that believed 

a natural disaster would very likely occur in the next 12 months also increased. 

• Stages of Change: Individuals over 35 (33–34%) were significantly more likely to have 

been prepared for the last 6 months than individuals ages 18 to 34 (26%. This younger 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 35 of 83 

group was significantly more likely to fall within the contemplation stage of preparedness 

(28%) than any other age range (<18%). 

• Communication/Outreach: Individuals between the ages of 18 to 54 (13–15%) were 

significantly more likely to prefer contact through e-mail than those over the age of 55 

(7%).

• Community Plan: Individuals over the age of 55 (32%) were significantly more likely to 

be very familiar with their community’s alert and warning systems, as well as evacuation 

routes than were younger individuals (25–26%). 

• Participation in preparedness drills and exercises: Individuals between the ages of 18 

to 54 (13–16%) were significantly more likely to have participated in a home evacuation 

drill than older individuals (7%).

• Willingness to report suspicious behavior: Individuals over the age of 35 (97%) were 

significantly more likely than younger individuals (91%) to feel that they had a personal 

responsibility to report suspicious behavior to the authorities. 

What Are Other Demographic and Sociographic Impacts on Disaster Preparedness?

Other characteristics further explained how people from particular backgrounds were 

differentially prepared. For example, unemployed individuals were more likely than employed 

individuals to be in the contemplation phase of the Stages of Change Model; whereas, employed 

individuals were more likely to be in the action stage. Individuals who had volunteered to help 

during a disaster were also more likely to be in the action stage of the model. Finally, individuals 

who had volunteered were more likely to be confident in their abilities to respond in the event of 

a disaster. 

• Employment - Stages of Change: Unemployed individuals were more likely to be 

contemplating preparing in the next 6 months (9%), compared to full-time or part-time 

employed individuals, who were more likely to have been prepared for the last 6 months 

(53%). 

• Volunteerism - Confidence in ability to respond in a disaster: Individuals who had 

volunteered to help in a disaster in the past (34%) were significantly more likely to have 

confidence in their abilities to handle a disaster than those who had not (20%). 

• Volunteerism - Stages of Change: Individuals who had volunteered to help in a disaster 

(45%) were significantly more likely than those who had not volunteered to have been 

prepared for the last 6 months (25%). 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 36 of 83 

In addition to assessing the level of individual preparedness in America, another objective of the 

2007 Citizen Corps National Survey was to test and evaluate the Citizen Corps Personal Disaster 

Preparedness Model and to inform a model for community preparedness. 

What Are the Model Constructs?

Building on the Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM), the Citizen Corps PDP Model 

categorizes individuals by how motivated they are to engage in sustained preparedness activities. 

According to the model, individuals fall into one of three “Threat-Efficacy Profiles constructed 

by their awareness and attitudes about threats and protective actions.”The Threat-Efficacy 

Profiles include: 1) Unaware or dismissive of threat because of low perceived susceptibility, 

urgency, and/or severity—unreceptive to preparedness messages; 2) Understands susceptibility 

to and severity of threat, yet perceives varied barriers to preparedness behaviors—unprepared; 

and 3) Understands threat and has high belief in self- and response-efficacy—prepared. Based 

upon these Threat-Efficacy Profiles, the PDP Model identifies appropriate messages for each 

profile to reduce barriers and increase motivation to take action or maintain their preparedness 

behaviors. In the PDP Model, the focus and outcomes of the targeted outreach and social 

marketing approaches are color-coded to match the designated Threat/Efficacy Profiles to which 

each applies. 

Perceived Threat Profile: The factors that lead to active preparedness include an assessment of 

the threat. According to the EPPM, individuals consider two aspects of the threat; susceptibility 

(e.g., How at risk am I of experiencing this threat?) and severity (e.g., How severely could I be 

harmed by this threat?). Because the timing of most disasters is unpredictable, the Citizen Corps 

PDP Model includes the factor of urgency (e.g., How imminent is this threat?). Though urgency 

can be included in the assessment of susceptibility, it is a useful distinction in this instance 

because a person might believe that a disaster will occur at some point, but might not believe that 

there is any urgency to the threat. 

Perceived Efficacy Profile: The EPPM also identifies perceived efficacy as a factor that 

influences a person’s response to a threat. Two components make up an individual’s perceived 

efficacy: self-efficacy (e.g., I am able to create a disaster preparedness kit for my home) and 

response efficacy (e.g., Having a disaster preparedness kit for my home will help me survive in 

the event of a hurricane). In addition to the efficacy factors represented in the EPPM, real and 

perceived external barriers can also greatly influence a person’s perceived self- or responseefficacy. These include factors such as cost or access to information. For example, when 

individuals state that they do not have proper preparedness materials in their home because they 

cannot afford to buy the materials, they are revealing that their perceived ability to prepare is 

compromised because of an external barrier (external meaning outside of their own control). 

Finally, preparedness behavior can also be examined using the Stages of Change Model. 

According to this model, people demonstrate varying degrees of readiness to change at different 

How Do the Findings Inform the Citizen Corps Personal Disaster 

Preparedness (PDP) Model? 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 37 of 83 

stages of actual activity. As previously addressed, the Citizen Corps PDP Model places 

individuals into five stages that indicate their readiness to attempt, make, or sustain behavior 

change. The five stages are precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and 

maintenance. 

PDP Model Analysis 

Table 15 shows the items from the 2007 Citizen Corps National Survey designed to correspond 

with the Citizen Corps PDP Model constructs. These survey items were used in the analysis to 

test the PDP Model. 

Table 15: 2007 Citizen Corps National Survey Questions Used to Assess Citizen Corps PDP 

Model Constructs 

Constructs of the 

Citizen Corps PDP Model 

Associated 2007 Citizen Corps 

National Survey Questions 

Perceived Threat 

(urgency, susceptibility, severity)

• C1 (natural disaster - threat urgency) 

• C2 (natural disaster - threat susceptibility) 

• B1 (natural disaster - threat severity) 

• C3 (terrorism - threat urgency) 

• C4 (terrorism - threat susceptibility) 

• B2 (terrorism - threat severity) 

• C5 (hazmat accident - threat urgency) 

• C6 (hazmat accident - threat susceptibility) 

• B3 (hazmat accident - threat severity) 

• C7 (disease outbreak - threat urgency) 

• C8 (disease outbreak - threat susceptibility) 

• B4 (disease outbreak - threat severity) 

Perceived Efficacy 

(knowledge, self-efficacy, responseefficacy)

• F1 (knowledge about preparedness; self-efficacy) 

• F2 (response efficacy) 

• F3 (self-efficacy) 

Stages of Change • D1(stage of change) 

Preparedness Outcomes (preparedness 

score) 

• H1, H2, H4, H5 (supplies); 

• I1-I3 (household plan); 

• K1a-f (drills/exercises); 

• L1, L3, L5 (volunteering); 

Individual Factors • A1-A4, M1, M3, P1-P14 

Threat-Efficacy Profile Construction

According to the Citizen Corps PDP Model, individuals fall into one of three categories: Low 

Threat (LT) based on low perceived threat susceptibility, urgency, or severity; High Threat/Low 

Efficacy (HT/LE), based on some perceived threat and low self- or response-efficacy; and High 

Threat/High Efficacy (HT/HE), based on some perceived threat and some self- and responseefficacy. 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 38 of 83 

Figure 6: Threat-Efficacy Profiles 

The three Threat-Efficacy Profiles were based on the frequency distribution for the four types of 

hazards included in the 2007 Citizen Corps National Survey (natural disasters, terrorism, 

hazardous materials accidents, and disease outbreaks). For each hazard type, a large majority of 

individuals were categorized as having a Low Threat profile, meaning they perceived low 

severity, urgency, or susceptibility for each of the disaster types. Close to 8 out of 10 respondents 

fell into this category for disease outbreaks (79%), and 77 percent fell into this category for the 

threat of a terrorist attack. This would indicate that many respondents did not perceive these 

events as “high” threats (either because they perceived low severity, low urgency, or low 

likelihood of the event ever happening). A significantly lower percentage of respondents (59%) 

were categorized as Low Threat for natural disasters. 

Individuals who perceived high severity, urgency, or susceptibility but low self- or responseefficacy (High Threat/Low Efficacy) were the second largest grouping for each type of hazard, 

ranging from disease outbreaks (14%) to natural disasters (26%). Lastly, individuals categorized 

as High Threat/High Efficacy ranged from 7 percent for disease outbreak and terrorism to 15 

percent for natural disasters. This finding indicates that few respondents perceive some threat of 

disaster and feel they are able to take effective steps to prepare themselves for a disaster. 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 39 of 83 

Figure 7: Percentage of Respondents Categorized by Threat-Efficacy Profiles for Hazard 

Types 

How Do Individual Factors Affect the Threat-Efficacy Profiles?

Citizen Corps examined the differences between respondents who were categorized as Low 

Threat, High Threat/Low Efficacy, and High Threat/High Efficacy for each of the hazards. 

Summary results are listed below for each of the hazard types. 

Natural Disaster- Demographic and Contextual Differences

• Age group: Younger individuals were more likely to be in the LT category than HT/LE 

or HT/HE, and a greater percentage of 45- to 54-year-olds were represented in the 

HT/HE group, indicating that younger respondents were more likely to perceive little or 

no threat compared with this middle-aged group. Children under 18 years old living at 

home: People with children under 18 years of age living at home were more likely to be 

categorized as HT/LE than LT or HT/HE, indicating that they perceived some threat, but 

perceived limited self- or response-efficacy. 

• Children attending school: There were no differences in Threat-Efficacy Profiles 

between individuals with children attending school and those without. 

• Disability: There were no differences in Threat-Efficacy Profiles between individuals 

who had disabilities and those who did not. 

• Education: The HT/LE group was the least educated, with a greater number of 

respondents with a high school degree or less.

• Employment status: There were no differences in Threat-Efficacy Profiles between 

individuals who were employed and those who were not. 

• Geography: The HT/HE group had a higher percentage of suburban respondents than the 

LT and HT/LE groups, indicating that suburban respondents perceived greater threat and 

had higher efficacy. 

• Higher perceived responsibility due to job: People who perceived a higher 

responsibility because of their jobs were more likely to be categorized as HT/LE or 

HT/HE than LT, indicating they perceived some threat; although, only some perceived 

high efficacy. 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 40 of 83 

• Household composition: A greater percentage of individuals in the LT and HT/LE 

groups lived alone than in the HT/HE group; the HT/HE group members had more family 

members compared to the individuals in the LT and HT/LE groups, indicating that 

respondents who lived with family members perceived greater threat and had higher 

efficacy compared with those who lived alone. 

• Income: The HT/HE group had higher household incomes compared to the LT and 

HT/LE groups, indicating that the respondents with higher incomes were more likely to 

perceive greater threat and have higher efficacy. 

• Pet or service animal: A higher percentage of respondents in the HT/HE group had a pet 

or service animal at home compared to individuals in the LT and HT/LE groups. 

• Public transportation: People who used public transportation were most likely to be 

categorized as HT/LE, followed by LT, and then HT/HE, indicating that they perceived a 

greater threat, but did not have high efficacy. 

• Race/Ethnicity: Within the HT/HE group, the greatest percentage of individuals were 

White; the LT and HT/LE groups had a greater percentage of Black respondents and 

Asian respondents compared to the HT/HE group; the HT/LE group had the highest 

percentage of Hispanic/Latino respondents of the three groups. 

• Religiousness: Individuals in the LT group were less religious compared to the HT/LE 

and HT/HE groups, indicating that people who were less religious were more likely to 

perceive little or no threat. 

• Risk associated with job: People who perceive that they were at greater risk of a disaster 

because of their job-type or location were more likely to be categorized as HT/LE or 

HT/HE than LT. 

• Sex: Women were more likely to be either in the HT/LE or HT/HE groups than men, 

whereas men were more likely to be in the LT group, indicating men were more likely to 

perceive little or no threat.

Terrorism- Demographic and Contextual Differences

• Age group: Individuals ages 55 and older were more likely to be in the HT/LE group 

compared to the LT or HT/HE groups; on the opposite end of the spectrum, a greater 

percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds were categorized as HT/HE compared to LT and 

HT/LE (inconsistent with natural disasters); 25- to 34-year-olds were more likely to be 

categorized as LT or HT/LE compared to HT/HE.

• Children under 18 years old living at home: There were no differences in ThreatEfficacy Profiles between individuals with children under 18 years old living at home and 

those without. 

• Children attending school: Respondents with children attending school were more 

likely to be categorized as HT/LE than LT or HT/HE. 

• Disability: Respondents with a disability were more likely to be categorized as HT/LE 

than LT or HT/HE; the LT group had fewer respondents who lived with someone with a 

disability compared to the HT/LE and HT/HE groups. 

• Education: The HT/LE group was the least educated, with a greater number of 

respondents having a high school degree or less (consistent with natural disasters).

• Employment status: There were no differences in Threat-Efficacy Profiles between 

individuals who were employed and those who were not. 

• Geography: The HT/HE group had a higher percentage of suburban respondents than the 

LT and HT/LE groups (consistent with natural disasters). 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 41 of 83 

• Higher perceived responsibility due to job: People who perceive a higher employment 

responsibility were more likely to be categorized as HT/LE than LT or HT/HE 

(consistent with natural disasters). 

• Household composition: The HT/LE group had a greater percentage of people who lived 

alone compared to the LT and HT/HE groups. The HT/HE group had the most family 

members, followed by the LT group, and then the HT/LE group. The LT group was more 

likely to live with roommates compared to the HT/HE group (somewhat consistent with 

natural disasters).

• Income: The HT/LE group had the lowest income, with a greater percentage of 

respondents making less than $25K, compared to the LT and HT/HE groups; the LT 

group had more respondents making $75K or more than did the HT/LE and HT/HE group 

(opposite of natural disasters).

• Pet or service animal: A higher percentage of respondents in the LT group had a pet or 

service animal at home compared to the HT/LE group (opposite of natural disasters).

• Public transportation: People who used public transportation were most likely to be 

categorized as HT/LE than LT or HT/HE (consistent with natural disasters). 

• Race/Ethnicity: Whites were more likely to be categorized as LT than HT/LE or HT/HE; 

the HT/LE group had a greater percentage of Black respondents than the LT group; the 

HT/LE group had the highest percentage of Hispanic/Latino respondents (partial 

consistency with natural disasters). 

• Religiousness: The HT/HE group had a greater percentage of “very religious” 

respondents, compared to the HT/LE and LT groups; whereas the LT and HT/LE groups 

had more respondents who reported being “not at all” religious, compared to the HT/HE 

group (consistent with natural disasters). 

• Risk associated with job: People who perceived that they were at greater risk of a 

disaster because of their job-type or location were more likely to be categorized as 

HT/LE than LT or HT/HE (consistent with natural disasters). 

• Sex: Women were more likely to be in the HT/LE group than men; whereas, men were 

more likely to be in the LT and HT/HE groups (consistent with natural disasters).

Hazardous Materials Accidents- Demographic and Contextual Differences

• Age group: Individuals ages 55 and older were more likely to be in the HT/LE group 

compared to the LT or HT/HE groups; 45- to 54-year-olds were more likely to be in the 

HT/HE group compared to the LT and HT/LE groups; a greater percentage of 18- to 24- 

year-olds were categorized as LT compared to HT/LE and HT/HE (consistent with 

natural disasters). 

• Children under 18 years old living at home: People who had children less than 18 

years of age living at home were more likely to be categorized as HT/LE than HT/HE or 

LT (consistent with natural disasters). 

• Children attending school: Respondents with children attending school were more 

likely to be categorized as HT/LE than LT or HT/HE (consistent with terrorism). 

• Disability: Respondents with a disability were more likely to be categorized as HT/LE 

than LT or HT/HE; the LT group had fewer respondents who lived with someone with a 

disability compared to the HT/LE group. 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 42 of 83 

• Education: The HT/LE group was the least educated, with a greater number of 

respondents having a high school degree or less (consistent with natural disasters and 

terrorism).

• Employment: People who perceived a higher employment responsibility were more 

likely to be categorized as HT/LE than LT or HT/HE (consistent with natural disasters 

and terrorism). 

• Geography: The HT/LE group had fewer rural respondents and more urban respondents 

than the LT and HT/HE groups (inconsistent with natural disasters and terrorism).

• Household composition: The LT and HT/LE groups had a greater percentage of people 

who lived alone compared to the HT/HE group; the LT and HT/HE groups had a greater 

percentage of family members compared to the HT/LE group (consistent with natural 

disasters and terrorism). 

• Income: The HT/LE group had the lowest income, with a greater percentage of 

respondents making less than $50K compared to the LT group and the HT/HE group; the 

LT group had more respondents making $75K or more than the HT/LE and HT/HE 

groups (consistent with terrorism). 

• Pet or service animal: A higher percentage of respondents in the HT/HE group had a pet 

or service animal at home compared to the HT/LE group (consistent with natural 

disasters, but inconsistent with terrorism).

• Public transportation: People who used public transportation were most likely to be 

categorized as HT/LE than LT or HT/HE (consistent with natural disasters and 

terrorism). 

• Race/Ethnicity: Whites were more likely to be categorized as LT than HT/LE or HT/HE. 

The HT/LE group had a greater percentage of Black respondents than the LT group. 

Asian/Pacific Islander respondents were more likely to be categorized as LT than HT/LE 

or HT/HE. The LT group had a lower percentage of Hispanic/Latino respondents 

compared to the HT/LE and HT/HE groups (consistent with terrorism). 

• Religiousness: The LT group was more likely to be “barely” or “not at all” religious 

compared to the HT/LE and HT/HE groups (consistent with natural disasters and 

terrorism). 

• Risk associated with job: People who perceived that they were at greater risk of a 

disaster because of their job type or location were less likely to be categorized as LT than 

HT/LE or HT/HE (consistent with natural disasters and terrorism). 

• Sex: Women were more likely to be in the HT/LE group than were men; whereas, men 

were more likely to be in the LT and HT/HE groups (consistent with natural disasters and 

terrorism).

Disease Outbreak Demographic and Contextual Differences

• Age group: 25- to 34-year-olds were most likely to be categorized as HT/LE, followed 

by LT, and then HT/HE (consistent with terrorism). 

• Children under 18 years old living at home: People who had children less than 18 

years of age living at home were more likely to be categorized as HT/LE than LT or 

HT/HE (consistent with natural disasters and hazardous materials accidents). 

• Children attending school: Respondents with children attending school were more 

likely to be categorized as LT than HT/LE (inconsistent with terrorism and hazardous 

materials accidents). 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 43 of 83 

• Disability: Respondents with a disability were more likely to be categorized as HT/LE 

than LT; the LT group had fewer respondents who lived with someone with a disability 

compared to the HT/HE group (consistent with terrorism and hazardous materials 

accidents). 

• Education: The HT/LE group was the least educated, with a greater number of 

respondents having a high school degree or less compared to the LT and HT/HE groups; 

the LT group was the most educated, with a greater percentage of respondents with 

bachelor’s and graduate degrees, compared to the HT/LE and HT/HE groups (consistent 

with natural disasters, terrorism, and hazardous materials accidents).

• Employment status: Full-time employees were more likely to be categorized as LT than 

HT/LE or HT/HE; the HT/LE group had more unemployed respondents than the LT and 

HT/HE groups; the HT/HE group had more part-time employees than the LT and HT/LE 

groups and more students than the LT group (unique finding). 

• Geography: The HT/LE group had a greater percentage of urban respondents compared 

to the LT and HT/HE groups; the HT/LE group also had a greater percentage of rural 

respondents compared to the LT and HT/HE groups (inconsistent with natural disasters, 

terrorism and hazardous materials accidents). 

• Higher perceived responsibility due to job: People who perceived a higher work 

responsibility were more likely to be categorized as HT/LE than LT or HT/HE 

(consistent with natural disasters, terrorism, and hazardous materials accidents). 

• Household composition: The LT and HT/LE groups had a greater percentage of people 

who lived alone compared to the HT/HE group; the HT/HE group had a greater 

percentage of family members compared to the LT and HT/LE groups (consistent with 

natural disasters, terrorism, and hazardous materials accidents). 

• Income: The HT/LE group had the lowest incomes, with a greater percentage of 

respondents making less than $25K, compared to the LT and HT/HE groups; the LT 

group had more respondents making $75K or more than did the HT/LE and HT/HE 

groups (consistent with terrorism and hazardous materials accidents). 

• Pet or service animal: A higher percentage of respondents in the LT group had a pet or 

service animal at home compared to the HT/LE group (consistent with terrorism). 

• Public transportation: People who used public transportation were most likely to be 

categorized as HT/LE compared with LT or HT/HE (consistent with natural disasters, 

terrorism, and hazardous materials accidents). 

• Race/Ethnicity: A greater percentage of Black respondents were categorized as HT/LE 

and HT/HE than LT. Asian/Pacific Islander respondents were more likely to be 

categorized as LT or HT/LE than HT/HE. The HT/LE group had a higher percentage of 

Hispanic/Latino respondents compared to the LT and HT/HE groups (partial consistency 

with terrorism and hazardous materials accidents). 

• Religiousness: The LT group was more likely to be “barely” or “not at all” religious 

compared to the HT/LE and HT/HE groups; the HT/LE and HT/HE groups were more 

likely to be “very” religious than was the LT group (consistent with natural disasters, 

terrorism, and hazardous materials accidents). 

• Risk associated with job: People who perceived that they were at greater risk of a 

disaster because of their job type or location were more likely to be categorized as HT/LE 

than LT or HT/HE (consistent with natural disasters, terrorism, and hazardous materials 

accidents). 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 44 of 83 

• Sex: Women were more likely to be in the HT/LE group compared to the LT and HT/HE 

groups; whereas, men were more likely to be in the LT and HT/HE groups compared to 

the HT/LE group (consistent with natural disasters, terrorism, and hazardous materials 

accidents).

How Do Threat-Efficacy Profiles Correlate With the Preparedness Stages of Change?

All of the hazard Threat-Efficacy Profiles were positively correlated with general preparedness 

stages of change (statistically significant; p<.01), indicating that as general preparedness stages 

of change progress, people move from LT, to HT/LE, to HT/HE, thus supporting the model’s 

presumptions. The threat-efficacy profile for natural disasters was the most closely related 

hazard to the general preparedness stage of change. Though also statistically significant, the 

threat-efficacy profile for a hazardous materials accident was related to general preparedness 

stage of change to a lesser degree, and terrorism and disease outbreaks had the weakest 

relationships to stage of change. 

Citizen Corps examined the Stages of Change frequency distributions for the various ThreatEfficacy Profiles. Citizen Corps saw consistent distributions across the four hazard types, with 

the fewest numbers of individuals, regardless of threat-efficacy profile, responding that they 

planned to prepare in the next month (see Table 16 and Figures 8-11 below). Differences were 

also seen between the three threat-efficacy profile categories. Individuals categorized as LT for 

all of the hazard types follow a reverse bell-curve, indicating that about the same high number of 

individuals in this group were both not planning on doing anything to prepare and had been 

prepared for at least the last 6 months. This finding implies that something other than the 

perception of a threat was motivating some members of this group to take preparedness 

measures. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the HT/HE group, who should have been the 

most prepared based on the Citizen Corps PDP Model, did appear to be the most prepared, with 

most of this group responding that they had been prepared for at least the past 6 months. The 

HT/LE group was least likely to report being prepared for the past 6 months. Instead, the 

majority of individuals in the HT/LE group reported that they either planned to prepare in the 

next 6 months, or they did not plan on preparing. These findings suggest that further examination 

of the model constructs is needed to better understand the relationship between the ThreatEfficacy Profiles and Stages of Change. 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 45 of 83 

Table 16: Non-Weighted Frequency Distributions and Correlations between ThreatEfficacy and Preparedness Stages of Change 

Threat-Efficacy Profile Statistic7 Preparedness Stages of Change 

Natural disaster 

threat-efficacy profile group Pearson Correlation 0.183* 

Terrorism threat-efficacy profile group Pearson Correlation 0.080* 

Hazardous materials accident threat-efficacy profile 

group Pearson Correlation 0.131* 

Disease outbreak threat-efficacy profile group Pearson Correlation 0.090* 

* Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). (N=2405) 

Figure 8: Natural Disaster Threat-Efficacy Profiles and Preparedness Stages of Change 

 

7 The Pearson Correlation is a number between -1 and +1 that measures the strength of association between two 

variables. 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 46 of 83 

Figure 9: Terrorism Threat-Efficacy Profiles & Preparedness Stages of Change 

Figure 10: Hazardous Materials Accidents Threat-Efficacy Profiles & Preparedness 

Stages of Change 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 47 of 83 

Figure 11: Disease Outbreak Accidents Threat-Efficacy Profiles and Preparedness Stages 

of Change 

Examining Predictors of Preparedness Using Regression Analysis

To better understand how key factors impact an individual’s level of preparedness in relation to 

the four disaster types (natural disaster, terrorism, hazardous materials accidents, and disease 

outbreak), separate regression analyses were conducted using the Threat-Efficacy Profiles for 

each disaster. This enabled us to examine threat severity, susceptibility, and urgency, and selfefficacy and response-efficacy to see which of these specific attitudes were most likely 

influencing the Threat-Efficacy Profile relationship to Stages of Change. 

The natural disaster and hazardous materials accident Threat-Efficacy Profiles were significant 

predictors of preparedness Stages of Change. In both cases, people who held stronger beliefs and 

perceptions about the severity, urgency, and susceptibility of a disaster were also more likely to 

rate themselves as being or becoming prepared for a disaster. That is, they had higher levels of 

awareness for the need to plan and take action in preparation of disaster events. In the case of 

natural disasters and hazardous materials accidents, susceptibility to disaster emerged as the key 

predictor of preparedness Stages of Change. Susceptibility was not a significant predictor of 

preparedness for terrorism or disease outbreak disasters. Instead, severity was a significant 

predictor of preparedness for terrorism and disease outbreak, with an inverse relationship 

indicating that higher perceived severity was associated with less preparedness. 

For all of the disaster types, age, response-efficacy, self-efficacy, and readiness (self-reported 

preparedness actions) were significant predictors of preparedness Stages of Change. Specifically, 

as respondent age increased, respondents were more likely to say that they were further along in 

being or becoming prepared for a disaster than younger respondents. Additionally, people who 

reported higher levels of response-efficacy (i.e., preparing for a disaster will help you to handle 

the disaster) and higher levels of self-efficacy (i.e., confidence in their own ability to handle a 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 48 of 83 

disaster) were more likely to say that they had taken or planned to take steps to prepare for a 

disaster in general. As the Citizen Corps PDP Model suggests, individuals who were more likely 

to have plans in place and supplies stored in the event of a disaster were also more likely to rate 

themselves higher on preparedness stages of change. For all disaster types, readiness had the 

strongest positive relationship to the Stages of Change, followed by response-efficacy, indicating 

that these two measures were strong predictors of preparedness Stages of Change. 

Evaluation of Citizen Corps PDP Model

The 2007 Citizen Corps National Survey dataset offers a comprehensive source of data on the 

public’s thoughts, perceptions, and behaviors related to disasters and preparedness. Analyses of 

the 2007 Citizen Corps National Survey data provide support for some aspects of the Citizen 

Corps PDP Model and raise questions for further inquiry. 

First, the survey dataset offers a unique opportunity for comparison of fundamental riskperception constructs (i.e., perceived threat and efficacy) across multiple hazard types. The 

results varied depending on the hazard type, which indicates that individuals thought differently 

about different hazards. In particular, more people perceived natural hazards to be a real threat, 

but more people also believed that they could do more to prepare for natural hazards. Terrorism 

and disease outbreaks appeared to be the most “unclear” hazards in terms of threat, self-efficacy, 

and response-efficacy. This finding supports the need to continue studying the public’s thoughts, 

attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors about specific types of threats rather than surveying the public 

about threats in general. All-hazards terminology may mask important nuances relative to 

assessing personal preparedness for specific hazards. 

Second, a strong, positive relationship exists between Stages of Change and preparedness 

outcomes, as measured by a composite score of survey items, meaning respondents who were 

more prepared tended to fall into the latter stages of change (preparedness and maintenance). 

This supports the use of Stages of Change in the Citizen Corps PDP Model. The proposed 

relationship between Threat-Efficacy Profiles and Stages of Change was supported by the data 

only with respect to natural disasters and a hazardous materials accident, meaning that for these 

hazards, respondents who were in either the low threat or low efficacy profiles tended to be in a 

lower stage of change (pre-contemplation or contemplation), and respondents who had high 

threat perception and high efficacy scores tended to be in latter stages of change (preparation, 

action, or maintenance). The relationship between Stages of Change and threat-efficacy profile 

was not supported for terrorism or disease outbreak. 

The household data indicate that self-efficacy and response-efficacy were consistent predictors 

of Stages of Change, while susceptibility was a statistically significant predictor for three of the 

four disasters (natural disasters, hazardous materials, and disease outbreak) but not for terrorism. 

Perceived severity had an inverse relationship with preparedness for terrorism and disease 

outbreaks. This finding is interesting in that it suggests that perceived extreme severity may deter 

people from preparing and, therefore, there may be a “severity threshold” relevant to disaster 

preparedness that renders the severity component of the Extended Parallel Process Model (the 

basis of the Citizen Corps PDP Model) problematic for this particular set of threats. 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 49 of 83 

Third, across the individual factors explored in the survey, several have consistent or partially 

consistent influences on the profiles for the various disaster types. Specifically, the following 

factors yielded consistent results across disaster types: 

• Geography: Suburban respondents perceived greater threat and had higher efficacy. 

• Education: The HT/LE group was the least educated, with a greater number of respondents 

being non-college educated compared to the LT and HT/HE groups.

• Sex: Men were more likely to be in the LT or HT/HE groups, indicating men were more 

likely to perceive little or no threat, or perceive some threat and high efficacy, than were 

women.

• Ethnicity: Hispanic/Latino individuals were more likely to perceive some threat and have 

low efficacy (HT/LE).

• Age group: Generally, younger respondents were more likely to perceive little or no threat 

compared to older respondents, placing them in the LT profile.

• Household composition: The LT and HT/LE groups had greater percentages of people 

who lived alone compared to the HT/HE group; the HT/HE group had a greater percentage 

of family members compared to the LT and HT/LE groups.

• Public transportation: People who used public transportation were more likely to be 

categorized as HT/LE than LT or HT/HE.

• Risk associated with job: People who perceived that they were at greater risk of disaster 

because of their job type or location were more likely to be categorized as HT/LE than LT 

or HT/HE. 

• Higher perceived responsibility due to job: People who perceived a higher responsibility 

because of their job were more likely to be categorized as HT/LE than LT or HT/HE. 

• Religiousness: Those in the LT profile were more likely to be “barely” or “not at all” 

religious compared to the HT/LE and HT/HE groups; the HT/LE and HT/HE groups were 

more likely to be “very” religious, compared to the LT group. 

Recommendations for the Citizen Corps PDP Model Revisions

Overall, the Citizen Corps PDP Model testing results supported the inclusion of Stages of 

Change in the Model. As expected, Stages of Change was positively correlated with selfreported, objective preparedness (referred to as readiness for clarity purposes above), meaning 

the more preparedness actions people say they have taken, the further along they are in Stages of 

Change. The Model testing results only partially validated the proposed relationship between the 

Threat-Efficacy Profiles and Stages of Change for all hazard types, indicating that modifications 

to the model and further testing is needed. 

In-depth analysis of the Threat-Efficacy Profiles (LT, HT/LE, and HT/HE) for the various hazard 

types revealed an inconsistency in the ways the constructs relate to self-reported preparedness 

actions. While the Citizen Corps PDP Model was developed for all-hazards, it appears that the 

Model works best for natural disasters and hazardous materials accidents compared to terrorist 

related threats and severe disease outbreaks. The analysis indicates that this may be due to issues 

of perceived severity and associated fatalism with respect to terrorism and disease outbreaks 

which may counteract a person’s willingness to take preparedness actions. The analysis also 

identified the following areas for further exploration relative to the Model: 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 50 of 83 

• Some challenges with respect to the construction of the Model’s threat profiles arose from 

the analysis of the three types of threat perception— urgency, susceptibility, and severity. 

The data indicate that perceived severity of the threat is less of a predictor of preparedness 

than overall susceptibility. Urgency was not a predictor of preparedness for any of the 

hazards, and should be removed from the Model. The data also suggest that if perceived 

severity reaches a certain threshold, the perception of threat may no longer motivate 

preparation and countermeasures, and may instead deter preparedness behavior. This is an 

important point for further research, for it may be wise to measure severity differently and 

to develop more refined questions to assess the threat-efficacy profiles in future studies. 

• Further examination of the Model related to preparedness is advisable given the large 

number of participants who reported being prepared for at least the past 6 months. One 

potential challenge with testing this Model may be that “preparedness” is not a universally 

defined term that is clearly understood by the public. Therefore, respondents may be 

responding to questions using their own definition of preparedness, which may or may not 

reflect the intention of the researchers. 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 51 of 83 

 

What Is the Willingness to Report Suspicious Behavior?

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

reporting suspicious behavior or circumstances. Only 1 in 10 individuals reported that they had 

seen any suspicious behavior or circumstances in the past 12 months. Of these individuals, 95 

percent agreed 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, nearly half of respondents (47%) reported having taken some 

proactive action (called police or neighbor/friend) in response to observing the 

behavior/circumstance. However, 28 percent reported not taking any action. These individuals 

chose to wait for someone else to report the behavior (1%), left the area (7%), or did nothing 

(20%). The majority of individuals who observed suspicious behavior and took action reported 

their observation to the police or a tip-line (40%). “Other” responses (29%) were composed 

primarily of actions taken involving other individuals, such as reporting it to the FBI, reporting 

to other officials, or at least monitoring the situation until it was safe. 

Figure 12: Observation of Suspicious Behavior 

In the past 12 months have 

you seen any suspicious 

behavior or circumstances?

10%

90%

Yes

No

 

Called police and/or a tipline 40%

Nothing 20%

Called neighbor/friend 7%

Left the area/situation/event 7%

Waited for someone else to do something 1%

Other 29%

What did you do?

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• Age: Individuals over the age of 35 (97%) were significantly more likely than younger 

individuals (91%) to feel that they had a personal responsibility to report suspicious 

behavior to the authorities. 

• Education: Individuals with some college experience (97%) were significantly more 

likely to feel that they had a personal responsibility to report suspicious behavior than 

those with less education (92%). 

• Gender: Women (14%) were significantly more likely than men (2%) to report 

suspicious behavior to a neighbor or friend. 

• Race: White individuals (97%) were significantly more likely than Black individuals 

(91%) to feel that they had a personal responsibility to report suspicious behavior or 

circumstances to the authorities. 

• Religiousness: Religious individuals (96%) were significantly more likely to feel a 

personal responsibility to report suspicious behavior than non-religious individuals 

(93%). 

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. 

What Is the Perceived Social Responsibility for Reporting 

Suspicious Behavior? 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 52 of 83 

What Is Individuals’ Awareness of Preparedness Campaigns and Programs?

In order to gauge awareness and understanding of Federally-sponsored community preparedness 

programs, individuals were asked about Citizen Corps, the CERT Program, and Ready.gov. 

While 50 percent recalled having heard of CERT, only 11 percent and 16 percent of individuals 

expressed awareness of Citizen Corps or Ready.gov, respectively. When asked to describe each 

program, however, the majority of respondents were unable to demonstrate a firm understanding. 

Only 1 percent of the total respondents showed a firm understanding of Citizen Corps, 4 percent 

of CERT, and 2 percent of Ready.gov. Many were unfamiliar with the specific role and purpose 

of these organizations in their communities, although some were aware that these organizations 

were composed of volunteers within their communities. Some participants were able to identify 

Ready.gov as a Web site that helps to inform people about emergency preparedness steps.

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• Age: Individuals under the age of 34 (13%) were significantly more likely to have heard 

of Citizen Corps than those over the age of 55 (9%). As age decreased, the percentage of 

individuals who had heard of Ready.gov increased. Conversely, as age increased, the 

percentage of individuals who had heard of CERT also increased.

• Employment: Employed individuals (19%) were significantly more likely to have heard 

of Ready.gov than unemployed individuals (11%). 

• Geography: Residents of suburban areas (13%) were significantly more likely to have 

heard of Citizen Corps than those living in urban residential areas (8%). 

• Household Income: As household income increased, the percentage of individuals who 

had heard of CERT also increased.

• Race: White individuals (53%) were significantly more likely to have heard of CERT 

than were other races (35 to 41%). 

What Are the Preferred Methods of Communication/Outreach?

Individuals were asked how they would prefer to receive information on preparedness and 

training from official organizations. Individuals most often cited regular mail (48%) as a 

preferred communication vehicle for receiving this information. Responses for mail actually 

increased from 41 percent in 2003 to almost half of all individuals in 2007. Television or radio 

broadcasts (17%) and e-mail (12%) were also identified as good ways to reach individuals. 

How Aware Are Individuals of Specific Federally-Sponsored Community 

Preparedness Programs, and What Are Their Communication Preferences 

About These Programs? 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 53 of 83 

Table 17: Communication Preferences* 

2003 2007 +/-

Regular mail 41% 48% 7%

TV or Radio broadcasts 24% 17% -7%

E-mail 6% 12% 6%

Personal contact by phone or in person 10% 12% 2%

Internet 6% 9% 3%

Local newspaper 15% 8% -7%

Community events 14% 8% -6%

Information placed at local businesses, 

libraries, post offices 4% 4% 0%

Schools 3% 3% 0%

Place of worship 1% 2% 1%

Place of employment 1% 2% 1%

Other 29% 17% -12%

*These responses were unaided and asked as part of a multiple response question. The results represent the total percent of 

respondents mentioning the particular communication preference from the list. 

Demographic and Contextual Differences

• Age: Individuals between the ages of 18 to 54 (13–15%) were significantly more likely to 

prefer contact through e-mail than those over the age of 55 (7%).

• Education: Individuals with a college education (11 to 14%) were significantly more 

likely than those with less education (both 7%) to prefer e-mail or the Internet as a 

channel of communication for preparedness information. 

• Household Income: As household income increased, the percentage of individuals who 

preferred to receive preparedness training and information through e-mail also increased. 

Conversely, as household income decreased, the percentage of individuals who preferred 

to receive preparedness training and information through personal contact by phone or inperson increased.

• Religiousness: Non-religious individuals (23%) were more likely to prefer contact 

through e-mail than religious individuals (14%). Religious individuals (12%) were also 

more likely to prefer receiving outreach training or preparedness information during 

community events than non-religious individuals (4%).

Participants were also asked how they would expect to find out what was happening or where to 

go if a disaster happened in their community. Although the question was an open-ended response 

question, most individuals answered radio, TV, or calling 911. Since prior surveys had identified 

these as typical responses, and since electricity is often not available in the aftermath of a 

disaster, participants were given a follow-up question to ask what they would do if their first 

option wasn’t available. The majority of responses centered on word of mouth, radio, or 

telephone. 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 54 of 83 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The following recommendations are based on specific findings from the 2007 Citizen Corps 

National Survey and are intended to assist researchers and practitioners in increasing personal 

preparedness, civic engagement, and community resilience. 

• 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 37 percent of individuals thought a natural disaster 

was likely ever to impact their communities, with even less—20 percent—believing in the 

likelihood that any of the other disasters asked about would ever impact their communities. 

When asked about the potential for a disaster to occur in the next 12 months, only between 

10 and 20 percent of participants 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 allhazards 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 (57%) of 

individuals felt confident about their abilities to respond in the event of a natural disaster, 

while only 18 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 (64% and 59%, respectively). 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 55 of 83 

Additionally, while most individuals (78%) believed that preparing for a natural disaster 

would help them better handle the disaster, individuals had significantly lower responseefficacy 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 focused on helping engage 

individuals in basic preparedness for explosions, dirty bombs, and release of chemical agents. 

• Individuals’ high expectations of assistance from emergency 

responders may inhibit individual preparedness. Communicating 

more realistic expectations and personal responsibilities is critical. 

From among the list of reasons why individuals had not prepared, 37 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, 57 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. 

• Social networks, such as households, neighborhoods, the 

workplace, schools, and faith communities, and the concepts of 

mutual support should be emphasized. 

The majority of individuals (70%) expected to rely on their family members in the event of a 

disaster and a little less than half (48%) expected to rely on others in their neighborhood. Of 

the 4 in 10 who had spoken to someone regarding the need to be prepared, however, only 34 

percent had spoken with household members, and 26 percent had talked with people in their 

neighborhoods. 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 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 56 of 83 

households and neighborhoods, the workplace, schools, and faith-communities, and should 

promote drills and exercises to test response capabilities. 

• 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 half of individuals (53%) reported having 

emergency supplies set aside in their homes to be used only in the case of a disaster, most 

supplies were incomplete. Beyond bottled water and food, fewer than half of individuals 

indicated that they had a flashlight, radio, batteries, or a first aid kit, and less than 3 percent 

had photocopies of personal identification or financial documents. With respect to other 

locations, less than one-half (45%) of individuals indicated having emergency supplies at 

their workplaces, and less than one-third (30%) 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 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 emergency community procedures and 

response resources is needed. Individuals who reported being 

prepared lacked critical plans and information.

Fewer than half of individuals (42%) 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 (45%), shelter locations (31%), and community evacuation routes 

(26%) indicate that these essential elements are 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, 

nearly 40 percent did not have a household plan, 80 percent had not conducted a home 

evacuation drill, and nearly 60 percent did not know their community’s evacuation routes. 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 57 of 83 

Local outreach efforts on personal preparedness need to provide individuals with community 

level preparedness information regarding disaster vulnerabilities, alerts and warning systems, 

evacuation routes, 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 and awareness. 

• Practicing response protocols is critical for effective execution. 

Greater emphasis on drills and exercises is needed. 

Fewer than half of individuals (41%) had participated in a workplace evacuation drill, and 

only 27 percent had participated in a workplace shelter-in-place drill. Very few individuals 

had participated in home-based drills (13%) or, of those with children in school, in school 

drills (14%). While the majority of individuals who indicated their household had an 

emergency plan reported that they had discussed their plan with other family members 

(88%), few had ever practiced or drilled those household plans (13% had practiced a home 

evacuation drill and 10% had practiced a home shelter-in-place drill). 

Greater emphasis is needed on drills and exercises for multiple hazards and multiple 

responses to 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 governmentsponsored community exercises. 

• Focusing on individuals in the contemplation stage for personal 

preparedness may yield greater results. Messaging and community 

outreach efforts should be designed to support those already 

considering taking action. 

Over 25 percent of individuals indicated that they intended to prepare in the next 1 to 6 

months. A further 14 percent reported that they had recently begun to prepare. Younger 

individuals (between ages 18 and 34) were more likely to be in the contemplation stage (33% 

of the 25%) than other age groups. 

Communication efforts should be designed specifically towards targeting those in the 

contemplation stage of the Stages of Change Model to leverage their interest and intention to 

prepare and to support them in moving from contemplation to action. 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 58 of 83 

• 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 (65%) 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 school and workplaces, as the 

majority of individuals who participated in training programs (51%) 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. Almost one third (32%) 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 and to have confidence in their abilities to handle a disaster. 

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 

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 socio-demographic 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: Almost 2 in 10 individuals reported having a physical or other 

disability that would affect their capacity to respond to an emergency situation. Alarmingly, 

however, only one-quarter (24%) of individuals with disabilities had made preparations 

specific to their disability to help them respond safely in the event of an emergency. Those 

with disabilities were similar to the rest of the population in how many had supplies and a 

plan, but they were significantly less likely to have attended a preparedness meeting or taken 

first aid/CPR training. Another 13 percent of survey participants indicated they lived with 

and/or cared for someone with a physical or other disability. Of these individuals only 30 

percent reported having specific information or training to better assist those they cared for. 

Gender: In general, men reported greater levels of preparedness and confidence in their 

abilities to handle situations. Male confidence is also reflected in the finding that fewer men 

expected to need help in the event of an evacuation. 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 59 of 83 

Race and Ethnicity: Individuals’ preparedness and need for support varied largely based on 

race and ethnicity. In some areas, such as in having assembled disaster kits, White 

respondents were more prepared. In other areas, such as having participated in preparedness 

drills, first aid, or volunteer preparedness training, Black respondents were more active. 

Black individuals were more likely to rely a great deal on their faith communities or nonprofit organizations and to expect to need help to evacuate. Regarding the measures of 

ethnicity, non-Hispanic respondents were more likely to be prepared across a number of 

measures, while Hispanic respondents were more likely to cite lack of time as a barrier to 

being prepared. 

Income: Across several constructs measuring self-reported attitudes around preparedness, 

awareness of preparedness groups and plans, 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 need for help in an evacuation. 

Education: Individuals with some college experience were overwhelmingly more prepared, 

aware, and positive about disaster preparedness than respondents with no college experience. 

People with no college experience perceived two significant barriers to preparing: expected 

assistance from emergency responders and a lack of knowledge about how to prepare. 

Age: Individuals 18 to 34 years old and 35 to 54 years old are more likely to have undertaken 

several different preparedness activities. For example, these groups were more likely to have 

disaster kits in their workplaces, 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 barrier. 

The most unprepared group surveyed were adults 55+ years old. This age group perceived 

many barriers to being prepared, including feeling low response efficacy about preparedness 

actions, higher reliance on emergency responders, and low confidence in their abilities to 

respond early in a disaster. 

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 barriers of 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. 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 60 of 83 

• Residents in urban areas appeared to be least engaged in 

preparedness activities. With the added vulnerabilities of dense 

population centers, urban areas should be a targeted focus of 

preparedness outreach efforts. 

Overall, suburban respondents were more likely to report having volunteered and having 

taken preparedness training, to hold more confident attitudes around their abilities to respond 

in the early stages of a disaster, and to believe that preparing for a disaster could make a 

difference. While rural respondents were less prepared than suburban respondents, they were 

equally confident in their abilities to respond early in a disaster. 

The easy accessibility of transportation, food, and other resources in urban settings may 

inadvertently provide a false sense of security for urban residents. Because the population 

density of urban cities makes these locations more vulnerable to certain types of disasters, 

such as terrorism and disease outbreak, and makes the response to large scale disasters more 

complex, communications and outreach strategies in urban areas must continue to be a 

priority. 

• 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 (95%) of individuals believed that they had a personal 

responsibility to report suspicious behavior to the appropriate authorities. Despite this high 

level of perceived responsibility, just over one-quarter (28%) of individuals who had 

witnessed suspicious behavior or circumstances failed to report the activity or did not take 

any action. 

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. 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 61 of 83 

CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS 

FEMA’s Community Preparedness Division 2007 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 PDP 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 non-government sectors and the importance of 

supporting grassroots efforts such as Citizen Corps. 

In addition to repeating the Citizen Corps National Survey periodically to track changes in 

preparedness and shifts in attitudes and behavior, there are 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 non-survivor 

behavior in actual events. Understanding response will, in turn, inform appropriate areas 

of emphasis for preparedness training and education. 

• How socio-demographic 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 

communities can be better used to institutionalize preparedness information, training, and 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 62 of 83 

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 multi-faceted, 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. 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 63 of 83 

APPENDIX A

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 75% 

With roommates (including boyfriend/girlfriend) 5% 

With both family members and roommates 2% 

Alone 18% 

 

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 79% 

No 21% 

 

Which best describes your job status? Weighted

Work full-time 46% 

Work part-time 10% 

Student 6% 

Unemployed 7% 

Retired 21% 

Other 11% 

 

Would you describe the location of your residence as...? Weighted

Urban 28% 

Suburban 43% 

Rural 29% 

 

Do you generally use public transportation, such as subways or 

buses, to get to school or work? 

Weighted

Yes 11% 

No 89% 

 

Do you feel that, based on the type or location of your job, you are 

at higher risk for certain types of disasters or emergencies? 

Weighted

Yes 42% 

No 58% 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 64 of 83 

 

Do you feel that, based on the type or location of your job, you will 

have a higher level of responsibility in the event of certain types of 

disasters or emergencies? 

Weighted

Yes 59% 

No 41% 

 

Does your household have a pet or service animal? Weighted

Yes 51% 

No 49% 

 

What is the highest level of education you have received? Weighted

Less than 12th grade 7% 

High School Graduate or GED 24% 

Some College but No Degree 23% 

Associate Degree in College 11% 

Bachelor's Degree 20% 

Master’s Degree 11% 

Doctorate Degree 3% 

 

How religious would you say you are? Would you say... Weighted

Very Religious 37% 

Somewhat Religious 43% 

Barely Religious 11% 

Not at all religious 10% 

 

Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin? Weighted

Yes 13% 

No 87% 

 

Which of the following income ranges represents your annual 

household income in 2006? 

Weighted

Less than $25,000 20% 

$25,000 to less than $50,000 27% 

$50,000 to less than $75,000 22% 

$75,000 or more 30% 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 65 of 83 

APPENDIX B

2007 Citizen Corps National Survey Script

INTRODUCTION 

S1. Hello, my name is ____________ and I am calling from Macro International. We are 

conducting public opinion research under contract with the U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security. 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] 

//If S1=02// 

(S1_02) Thank you very much, but we are only interviewing private residences. Thank you for 

your time. 

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 Intro2// 

02 No [ASK TO TRANSFER TO ADULT] 

 99 REFUSED //TERMINATE, INITIAL REFUSAL// 

NewS2. May I speak with an adult member of the household? 

01 Yes, transferring 

02 Not available //schedule callback// 

99 REFUSED //TERMINATE, INITIAL REFUSAL// 

S3. Hello, my name is ____________ and I am calling from Macro International. We are 

conducting public opinion research under contract with the U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security. 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 

Intro2a. The survey will only take about 15 minutes. 

OMB Control #: 1670-0006 

Expiration Date: 5/31/2010
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 66 of 83 

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 at the Department of Homeland Security—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// 

//IF Intro2a=02// 

Intro2b. 

[For questions about the survey administration/confidentiality concerns: Carol Freeman (Macro 

International) 301-572-0581] 

[For questions about the nature of the study or validity of the study: Jacqueline Snelling (DHS) 

202 786-9577] 

 01 Continue 

 02 Requested callback 

 99 REFUSED //TERMINATE, INITIAL REFUSAL// 

A. SCREENER 

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 

98 Don’t Know 

99 Refused 

[if A1=01 or 02 or 03] 

A2. Are there children under the age of 18 living in your residence? 

01 Yes 

 02 No 

 98 Don’t Know 

 99 Refused 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 67 of 83 

[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? 

01 Yes 

02 No 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

A4. Which best describes your job status? [READ LIST] [MUL=2] 

01 Work full-time 

02 Work part-time 

03 Student 

04 Unemployed 

05 Retired 

06 Other 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

B. SEVERITY / EFFICACY 

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. 

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. 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

//ROTATE B2-B4// 

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. 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 68 of 83 

02 Preparation, planning, and emergency supplies will help me handle the situation. 

03 Nothing I do to prepare will help me handle the situation. 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

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. 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

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. 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

C. RISK AWARENESS / PERCEPTION 

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 such as earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and 

wildfires will occur in your community in the next 12 months? 

 05 VERY LIKELY 

 04 

 03 

 02 

 01 NOT VERY LIKELY 

98 Don’t know 

 99 Refused 

CATI: DISPLAY LEAD STATEMENT FROM SECTION C INTRO FOR ITEMS C2-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...?” 

[If C1=01-04] 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 69 of 83 

C2. Some type of natural disaster will ever occur in your community? Please use the same 

scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being “very likely” and 1 being “not likely at all.” 

//ROTATE C3, C5, C7// 

C3. Some type of terrorism, including biological, chemical, radiological, or explosive attack 

will occur in your community in the next 12 months? 

[If C3=01-04] 

C4. Some type of terrorism will ever occur in your community? [repeat scale as necessary] 

C5. Some type of hazardous materials accident, such as a chemical transportation accident or a 

power plant accident will occur in your community in the next 12 months? 

[If C5=01-04] 

C6. Some type of hazardous materials accident will ever occur in your community? [repeat 

scale as necessary] 

C7. Some type of widespread disease outbreak such as the bird flu will occur in your 

community in the next 12 months? 

[If C7=01-04] 

C8. Some type of disease outbreak will ever occur in your community? [repeat scale as 

necessary] 

D. STAGES OF CHANGE 

D1. In thinking about preparing yourself for a major disaster, which best represents your 

preparedness? 

 [SINGLE 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 

 98 Don’t know 

 99 Refused 

[If D1=01, 02, or 05] 

D2. 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? 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 70 of 83 

 01 A Primary Reason 

 02 Somewhat of a reason 

 03 Not a reason at all 

 98 DON’T KNOW 

 99 REFUSED 

//ROTATE LIST// 

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. 

E. RELIANCE 

E1. 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.” 

 05 EXPECT TO RELY ON A GREAT DEAL 

 04 

 03 

 02 

 01 DO NOT EXPECT TO RELY ON AT ALL 

98 DON’T KNOW 

 99 REFUSED 

 //ROTATE LIST// 

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 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 71 of 83 

E2a. If a disaster happened in your community, how would you find out what was happening or 

where to go and what to do? 

 

 01 [Record response] 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

//IF E2a=01// 

E2b. If that does not work, what would you do next? 

[IF RESPONDENT SAYS ANYTHING THAT REQUIRES ELECTRICITY OR 

SIMILAR, ASK THEM WHAT THEY WOULD DO IF THERE WAS NO POWER. 

PROBE UNTIL UNPRODUCTIVE AND INCLUDE ALL RESPONSES.] 

 01 [Record response] 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

E3. In the event of a disaster, would you expect to need help to evacuate or get to a shelter? 

01 Yes 

02 No 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

F. PERSONAL RESPONSE 

F1. 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. An explosion of a radiological or dirty bomb? 

b. The release of a chemical agent? 

c. An explosion or bomb? 

d. A sudden natural disaster such as an earthquake or tornado? 

 05 VERY CONFIDENT 

 04 

 03 

 02 

 01 NOT VERY CONFIDENT 

98 Don’t know 

 99 Refused 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 72 of 83 

F2. How much do you think preparing for a disaster will help you to handle the disaster? 

Would you say... 

01 Very much 

02 Somewhat 

03 Very little 

04 Not at all 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

F3. How confident are you about your own ability to handle 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 

98 Don’t know 

 99 Refused 

F4. Have you talked to anyone about the need to be prepared for disasters that may affect your 

community? 

01 Yes 

02 No 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

[If F4=01] 

F5. Who have you talked to? DO NOT READ LIST 

 [PROBE: Anyone else? [MUL=5] 

 01 HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS 

02 PEOPLE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD 

03 PEOPLE FROM WORK/SCHOOL 

04 MY FAITH COMMUNITY 

05 OTHER [RECORD RESPONSE] 

98 DON’T KNOW 

99 REFUSED 

F6. In the past 2 years, have you done any of the following? //ROTATE ITEMS a-d// 

01 Yes 

02 No 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 73 of 83 

98 DON’T KNOW 

99 REFUSED 

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

b. Attended CPR training (yes/no) 

c. Attended first aid skills training (yes/no) 

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

(yes/no) 

[If any of F6a-d=01] 

F7. What motivated you to take this training? 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 

09 OTHER [RECORD RESPONSE] 

98 DON’T KNOW 

99 REFUSED 

[If all of F6a-d <> 01 ask F8] 

F8. What is the main reason you have not received any preparedness training? DO NOT READ 

LIST. 

[PROBE: Anything else? Record all responses] MUL=7 

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 OTHER [RECORD RESPONSE] 

98 DON’T KNOW 

99 REFUSED 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 74 of 83 

G. PREVENTION 

Now I’d like to ask you a series of questions about your past experiences ... 

G1. In the past 12 months, have you seen any suspicious behavior or circumstances? 

01 Yes 

02 No 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

[If G1=01] 

G2. What did you do? [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 

06 OTHER [RECORD RESPONSE] 

98 DON’T KNOW 

99 REFUSED 

G3. Do you feel you have a personal responsibility to report suspicious behavior or 

circumstances to the authorities? 

01 Yes 

02 No 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

H. DISASTER SUPPLIES

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. 

H1. Do you have supplies set aside in your home to be used only in the case of a disaster? 

01 Yes 

02 No 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 75 of 83 

[if H1=01] 

H2. 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 

12 OTHER [RECORD RESPONSE] 

98 DON’T KNOW 

99 REFUSED 

[if H1=01] 

H3. 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 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

H4. 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 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

[if A4=01 or 02] 

H5. Do you have supplies set aside in your workplace to be used only in the case of a disaster? 

01 Yes 

02 No 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 76 of 83 

I. HOUSEHOLD PLAN 

I1. 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 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

[if I1=01] 

I2. Have you discussed this plan with other members in your household? 

01 Yes 

02 No 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

I3. Do you have copies of important financial and insurance documents in a safe place to help 

you rebuild or seek assistance following a disaster? 

01 Yes 

02 No 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

J. COMMUNITY PLAN 

 

J1. 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. 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? 

 

 01 NOT AT ALL FAMILIAR 

 02 

 03 

 04 

 05 VERY FAMILIAR 

 98 Don’t know 

 99 Refused 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 77 of 83 

[if A3=01] 

J2. 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 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

K. DRILLS/EXERCISES 

K1. Aside from a fire drill, in the past 12 months, have you participated in any of the following? 

 //ROTATE ITEMS// 

a. A home evacuation drill 

01 Yes 

02 No 

 98 Don’t know 

 99 Refused 

b. A home shelter in place drill (yes/no) 

[if A4=01 or 02] 

c. A workplace evacuation drill (yes/no) 

[if A4=01 or 02] 

d. A workplace shelter in place drill (yes/no) 

[if A3=01 OR A4=03] 

e. A school evacuation drill (yes/no) 

[if A3=01 OR A4=03] 

f. A school shelter in place drill (yes/no) 

L. VOLUNTEERING 

L1. 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? 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 78 of 83 

01 Yes 

02 No 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

[if L1=01] 

L2. Which one or ones? 

 01 [Record all responses] 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

L3. Have you ever volunteered to help in a disaster? 

01 Yes 

02 No 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

[if L3=01] 

L4. What role did you play? 

 

 01 [Record all responses] 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

L5. 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 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

M. DISABILITY 

M1. Do you have a physical or other disability that would affect your capacity to respond to an 

emergency situation? 

01 Yes 

02 No 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

[if M1=01] 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 79 of 83 

M2. Have you received any training or done any preparations, specific to your disability, that 

would allow you to respond better in the event of a disaster or emergency situation? 

01 Yes 

02 No 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

M3. Do you currently live with or care for someone with a physical or other disability, 

including someone elderly who requires assistance? 

01 Yes 

02 No 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

[if M3=01] 

M4. Have you received any specific information or training in order to assist that person in the 

event of a disaster or emergency situation? 

01 Yes 

02 No 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

N. OUTREACH 

There are several organizations that are responsible for helping citizens such as yourself 

understand preparedness and assist you in being more prepared for disasters. 

N1. What would be the best way for an official organization to provide you with information on 

preparedness and training to help make you safer in a disaster? 

DO NOT READ LIST. 

 [PROBE: Anything else? Record all responses] MUL=12

01 REGULAR MAIL 

02 E-MAIL 

03 INTERNET 

04 TV OR RADIO BROADCASTS 

05 LOCAL NEWSPAPER 

06 COMMUNITY EVENTS 

07 PLACE OF WORSHIP 

08 INFORMATION PLACED AT LOCAL BUSINESSES, LIBRARIES, POST 

OFFICES 

09 PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 80 of 83 

10 SCHOOLS 

11 PERSONAL CONTACT BY PHONE OR IN PERSON 

12 OTHER [RECORD RESPONSE] 

98 DON’T KNOW 

99 REFUSED 

O. BRAND AWARENESS 

Next I’d like to ask you about a few specific organizations that you may or may not have heard 

of. 

O1. Have you ever heard of Citizen Corps? 

01 Yes 

02 No 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

[if O1=01] 

O2. How would you describe Citizen Corps? [Record response] 

01 Record response 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

O3. Before taking this survey, had you ever heard of Community Emergency Response Teams 

or CERT? 

01 Yes 

02 No 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

[if O3=01] 

O4. How would you describe CERT? [Record response] 

02 Record response 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

O5. Have you ever heard of Ready.gov? 

01 Yes 

02 No 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 81 of 83 

[if O5=01] 

O6. How would you describe Ready.gov? [Record response. Probe for more than “Web site.”] 

01 Record response 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

P. DEMOGRAPHICS AND CONTEXT 

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. 

P1. Would you describe the location of your residence as...? 

01 Urban 

02 Suburban 

03 Rural 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

[if A4=01-03] 

P2 Do you generally use public transportation, such as subways or buses, to get to school or 

work? 

01 Yes 

02 No 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

[if A4=01-02] 

P3. Do you feel that, based on the type or location of your job, you are at higher risk for certain 

types of disasters or emergencies? 

01 Yes 

02 No 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

[if A4=01-02] 

P4 Do you feel that, based on the type or location of your job, you will have a higher level of 

responsibility in the event of certain types of disasters or emergencies? 

01 Yes 

02 No 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 82 of 83 

P5. Does your household have a pet or service animal? 

01 Yes 

02 No 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

P6. 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 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

P7. How religious would you say you are? Would you say... 

01 Very religious 

02 Somewhat religious 

03 Barely religious 

04 Not at all religious 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

P8. 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 

06 Something else (Specify) 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

P9. Are you of Hispanic or Latino or Spanish origin? 

01 Yes 

02 No 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 
CITIZEN CORPS NATIONAL SURVEY 

June 2009 Page 83 of 83 

P10. In what year were you born? 

 01 Enter response _ _ _ _ //RANGE 1900-1989// 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

P11. Which of the following income ranges represents your annual household income in 2006? 

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 

98 Don’t know 

99 Refused 

P12. What state do you live in? _ _ 

P13. What is your zip code? _ _ _ _ _ //RANGE 5-digit// 

P14. Record gender [Do not ask] 

01 Men 

02 Women 

Those are all of the questions that I have. On behalf of Macro International and the Department 

of Homeland Security, I would like to thank you for your time and participation. Thank you 

again. 


Attn: Community Preparedness Division

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

800 K St. NW

Washington, DC 20472-3630

Fax: 202-786-9922

citizencorps@dhs.gov

www.citizencorps.gov