>>>Karen Marsh: I know everyone's very energized from Amanda's presentation and the stories and now I'm going to give you the counterpart because this presentation really is the numbers. We believe very strongly that what we do in terms of policy and... program development, program support, that it really does need to be based in research. And so we have conducted our, our own primary research. We've done a 2003 national survey, 2007, and now I'm going to present on the data that was collected in 2009, so this is very fresh, new data. And we also analyze research that's conducted by others, so we also have a database that's posted on our Web site with now over 100 surveys that have been conducted since 9/11 on individual preparedness, business preparedness, and school preparedness. So again, we need to have the underpinning of the research, coupled with anecdotal stories and the science that Amanda referenced earlier. So... let me find the little thing here. And before I start, I do also, I want to recognize ICF Macro, Carol Freeman and Nicole Vincent... don't where Nicole, Nicole Vincent, who have been instrumental in, in this research. So I, I certainly thank them, it was a lot, a lot of numbers to crunch in a very short period of time, so. So... there you are. Alright, so the purpose of this of course is to measure the pub's... the public's knowledge, attitude, and behaviors relative to preparing for disasters. As I said, we've done some previous national surveys, we have a baseline survey that was done in 2003. In 2007, we did a national survey and then we oversampled in four urban areas. This year what we did is a national sample, as you see, over 3,000 households surveyed. They were stratified into the 10 FEMA regions, which means that we have the same sample size for each of the 10 FEMA regions so we can do additional analysis down to the regional level. And then we oversampled in these jurisdictions, these are the six RCPGP, the Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program jurisdictions and we oversampled in these urban areas as well. And there are some data points in the presentation to reference those. The survey was done via phone from April to May of this year and it was put on hold in early May for about two days because of the national breaking news story of the H1N1 pandemic. So what's interesting here is that national story broke while we were doing the fielding, which means we had sufficient surveys completed before the news broke and after, so we could actually have statistically valid pre- and post statistics, which is really helpful especially as we're moving into the fall season and the presentation tomorrow. There are about 56 questions in the survey and it took about 19 minutes to complete, so it's a pretty significant survey. But of course, you know, this is social science, it's not empirical. And this is a highly complex issue, this is not a binary situation where it's, for example, a lot of times people compare it to the, the seatbelts. So it's... with the seatbelt you're either wearing the seatbelt or you're not. Or you're either smoking or you're not. But, but this issue is much, much more complex so I just want to say that on the onset so that you bear that in mind, that this really is social science and this is a nuanced process. So all of this data, keep that in mind. So what's the best way to find out if people are prepared? Well one of the ways is to ask them, which we did. And we asked them point blank, in thinking about preparing yourself for a major disaster, which best represents your preparedness? Okay, so this is self-reported, self-perception, but there are... these questions were based on the changes of the state, stages of change model, which was developed by Procheska (ph.) and Declamenty (ph.) and it is a, sort of... a very common... social marketing model to use because it tracks people where they are relative to changing their behavior. Does not mean that this is a linear process, people can bounce around in the different stages, but it helps to get a sense of where people are in terms of taking action, modifying, changing their behavior. So the questions were, I'm not planning to do anything about preparing, which is that blue, 25 percent, that light blue. I have not yet prepared but I intend to in the next 6 months, longer horizon. Next, I haven't yet, but I intend to in the next month, shorter horizon; I've just recently started; and then I have been prepared for at least 6 months. So what this correlates to in the stages of change model is you have pre-contemplation, which means, I'm not even thinking about it, I'm not going to do it. The contemplation, where you're starting to think about it, the 6 months out; preparation, 1 month out; action, I've just started in maintenance. So those are the, those are the stages of the stages of change model that we were looking at. And what's useful... in, in this model is that you can sort of target a segment of the population that is thinking about it. So if you look at sort of that... those, those three smaller pieces of the pie, those are the people who are thinking about it or just getting started. So often in social marketing campaigns, you really target those people to try to move them into that red piece of pie so that they are actually maintaining this behavioral change. So... we also looked at the top half of that circle, so the people who said, I have not, I have not, 6 months... but I will in 6 months; I have not, in 1 month. And we asked them why not? So the people who said, I have, I am not prepared right now, we wanted to know why. One of our findings in this is that, individuals have a high expectation of assistance from emergency managers and that that expectation may actually inhibit their own personal preparedness. So of course to, to counteract that, we need to communicate much more clearly so the people have a realistic expectation. As you heard from Amanda when she was telling, talking about that evac... evacuation drill, where he said, I wanted it to be a realistic so I didn't have emergency responders there. We need to start having this message of shared responsibility and the government will absolutely do their job, but just looking at the numbers in terms of per capita, uniform first responders really are only about 1 percent of the population. So clearly we need to make sure people understand and appreciate that... an expectation of reliance for first responders is, is unrealistic. So... when we asked the question, why haven't you prepared, we asked them to tell us, we gave, we gave them a list of things. And we asked them to tell if it was a primary reason, somewhat of a reason, or not at all a reason. So, as you can see there, the yellow box, you have 37... 30, I'm sorry, 30 percent in 2009, we've got the comparative chart here of responses in 2007 and 2009. In 2009, we have 30 percent of people saying, I have not prepared, a primary reason is because I expect to rely on emergency responders. So we are seeing, you know, the difference between '07 and '09 is, is somewhat encouraging. Again, this is social science so you can't, it's, it's not an immediate, empirical drop. You know this is trend data. But certainly that, that overarching theme that people, that the most commonly sited reason for why they have not personally taken action for their own responsibility, is because the expectation of first responders. And I think in part that is what Amanda was talking about, this sort of hero-heroine story that, that gets told. So we really do need to be cognizant of that. And then 31 percent expected to rely on emergency responders greatly in the first 72 hours. So one of our next findings, too few people have actually stocked supplies and the supplies that they have stocked are somewhat insufficient. Furthermore, the people who say that they are prepared, so the people in that first pie chart who said, yep, I'm, I'm prepared. When you cross reference them in, in the data in terms of how they answered some of the other questions, you find out that well, they, they actually haven't taken some really critical steps, things like having a household plan, having the supplies or information about their community. So we have a lot to overcome here. So we need to be a lot more specific in terms of what we're asking people to do and then, as you heard with Deputy Secretary Lute, you have to always combine the what with the why, to give them the rationale, to give them the, the reason that we're telling them to do that and explain to them that it will make a difference. So just looking at disaster supplies in their home, 56 percent of respondents said, yes, I have supplies set aside in the home to be used only in the case of disaster. And then as you see, 46 in the workplace, 35 in their cars. So then we asked an unaided response and what that means is, is that it was just an open, open-ended question. So rather then giving them the list and letting them tell us that they had those things, we said, oh well, you know tell us about those supplies. So clearly you can see the food and water are the most commonly things mentioned. And then it, it quickly drops from there. So especially looking at this battery-powered radio, we all know how important it is to get information when, when electricity is out. And yet only 20 percent of people mentioned it. Now I want to be clear that that doesn't necessarily mean that they don't have a radio in their house and an example of that is that, that financial documents, only 1 percent of people unaided, associated financial documents with having "disaster supplies" because when we asked them that question point blank in another part of the survey. We asked them, do you have copies of important financial and insurance documents, 72 percent said yes. So the point here is that people are not making the association of certain items as related to disaster preparation, disaster supplies that will help them in an event. With respect to the household plans, fewer then 44... fewer then half, 44 percent of people said yes, I have a household plan and... the encouraging thing is that 91 percent of those people state that they have in fact discussed the plan with household members, which is great. But then, only 26 percent have actually practiced an evacuation plan and 19 practice a sheltering in-place plan. So those are the people who have plans. Of the people who do not have a plan, 5 percent have practiced evacuation and only 3 percent, sheltering in-place. So again, the point, the point here is that even people who think that yes, I, I'm prepared, only 44 percent had plans and, and they're not sufficiently practicing. And again, from Amanda's presentation, we know how important it is that we all practice... practice what we, what we need to do, should something happen. Then moving into community plans and resources, we asked a series of questions about whether or not people were informed about their community's plans, the community's resources. And as you see here, you have at least half of Americans aren't, are not familiar with community preparedness plans and resources. We asked this on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being not at all familiar and 5, very familiar. And so what you're seeing here is the bottom two of that 5-point scale, so that's what these percentages are here. But if you just go down the list there, you see that... no, no... it doesn't go higher then 50 percent. So less then half the country is really uninformed about what the community's plans are.  This is reporting on that bottom one, on the 5-point scale. So you see the range here and you're starting to see some of this regional data that, that we captured through the urban oversampling. So you have here people who are saying that they are not at all familiar with their community alerts and warnings. At the national level that's 18. Chicago, which is the lowest, is at 14 and then you have... Los Angeles, New York, and Washington, DC, all the same level, as 27 percent. And one other point I want to mention here is that, when you do surveys, there's, there's a phenomenon called social desirability. And that means that when people are asked a question, they tend to kind of skew more positive. So they tend to want to say, you know, they don't want to really admit that they haven't done something or, you know, whatever their opinion maybe. So there's a social desirability, but what's interesting is that here, you're having so many people say, I am not at all familiar, that, that the bottom run of that scale. So it's, it's interesting that people, you know so... if there is social desirability, that means that number is actually, probably greater. Mmm, is it moving? Next slide. I think we need to go back one. Yep, thank you. Okay, so here's the same question, question on the location of, of shelters in their area. National is at 40, Houston is only at 30, maybe they've had some practice. And then you have San Francisco and Washington, DC, with 53 percent. Okay and then evacuation moves. Over 40 percent reported not at all familiar, again, we see that Houston, practice makes a difference. They're the lowest at 13, it really tells you something. Nat... national it's 45 and then Chicago, which is the highest, there's 56 percent, 56 percent of people in Chicago area say that they are not at all familiar, not at all familiar with how to evacuate... the city. We also asked about their expect... expectation of needing assistance in an evacuation. Forty-two percent of people said that they would expect to need assistance. In all of the urban areas, that percentage was higher, so in an urban environment, you have more people who are going to need help. So then we asked the follow-up question, we said, what kind of assistance do you expect that you're going to need? So 42 percent... in the national survey and then up to 56 percent in the urban areas, said that they're going to need transportation. Now again, this was an unaided question, so that was the first thing that they, that was the thing that more people said was that I will need transportation. But also information about how to evacuate was, was the second highest. And of course you see there, the third line is help from State or Federal Government and so that was if they said that explicitly. So we didn't ask, when they said I'm going to need help with transportation out of the area, we didn't ask, who do you think is going to provide that? So, but you can, you can start to see that people have a very, very high level of expectation of government and other community leaders, community organizations. So the next, next topic to talk about... is practice. I don't know how many of you took piano lessons, but practice, practice, practice was the, you know. And it, it holds for this as well. Too few people have actually practiced, have gotten that muscle memory, have had that experiential understanding of what they're going to need to do. Again, Amanda's saying, he made them, Rick made them get out into the stairwells to understand what it was going to be like so that when something happens, the brain isn't just circulating, trying to find a reference point. There's that quick reference point of the drill to help them execute more quickly. We've got to have greater emphasis on drills and exercises and make them more realistic, more effective. So you see here, especially in the home, so few people have done drills or exercises based in the home, the highest of course is the workplace, which kind of makes sense of course, cause many of, it's required in many places. But we need to take advantage of that, we need to start talking to community organizations and making sure that they start to institutionalize exercising and drills so that it isn't seen as like, ah, you know. I mean it's the reaction everybody has when the fire alarm goes off. Nobody wants to leave their work, they don't want to... end their conversation. They don't want to hang up their phone, they... we've got to start changing that and understanding how important it is and to see it as a positive thing instead of, a reluctant... interruption. Next slide. Alright, the next thing is perception of the likelihood of a disaster and when we asked this question, we, we said that we were going to ask them about disasters, which we described as events that could disrupt water, power, transportation, and also emergency and public service for up to 3 days. So that was their reference point when they were going through this, this questionnaire. And then we actually asked about four different types of disaster which I think is, is extremely useful and you'll see why in a minute. We asked about natural disasters, described as, such as an earthquake, a hurricane, a flood or tornado, or wildfire. An act of terrorism such as a biological, chemical, radiological, or explosive attack; hazardous materials accident, such as transportation accident or a power plant accident; and a severe disease outbreak such as a bird flu epidemic. So... you'll see that we, we've learn... we learned a great deal in asking these questions about the different kinds of... disasters. And what's interesting is that most people simply don't think it's going to happen in their community. But interestingly, there is a correlation between people's expectation of a natural event occurring and their preparedness. So there's a connection in terms of that, the... the perception of the likelihood, the urgency, and taking action, for natural disasters. However, nationwide, only 36 percent of people believe that there's a high likelihood of a natural event ever happening in their community. So we asked them very specifically, do you think those four types of hazards would ever occur in their community? So you have 36 percent for the natural disaster; for disease outbreak, it drops to 28 percent; 23 percent for hazardous... accident; and then terrorism, is only 14 percent and you see that drop from 2007 data to 2009 data. And I think that that also speaks to a little of what... Deputy Secretary Lute was saying is that, you know, the longer we get away from the reminder that it is, it is certainly possible here, people tend to not, not think it is. It's the denial, it's... it's all related. Okay, so even in urban areas that have a high frequency of large-scale disasters, it's still only, I mean Houston is still only 68 percent of people think it will ever happen. San Francisco, San Francisco you've got, you know, 60 percent of people in San Francisco who, who think it will never happen. So again, we have, we have a lot to, a lot to overcome. We also asked the question about severity, if it did happen, how severe do people think it was going to be? So similarly, however, only about 58 to 65 percent of people in an urban area, with a history of devastating events, think it'll be severe. So at the national you've got there, it's a 49 percent who think that it'll be severe; Houston, 65 percent think it'll be severe���it is higher, it is higher. And then in DC, it's about 42 percent who think that any of these events will be, the natural disaster will be severe in their community. So the reason this is important is, as I said, that relationship between the likelihood of a natural event and preparedness. That correlation does not show for some of these other events, especially for terrorism and that's the next point that, that we're going to get to. So we really wanted to explore the why, this, this concept of what really motivates people and do they perceive that the preparedness actions that are being recommended really will make a difference? So what is the utility of the preparedness and what is their confidence in their ability to respond? So what's very interesting here is that there are marked differences between different types of hazards. So we do need to start looking at providing information for specific hazards. So in other words, the, the terminology of kind of the all hazards, you know FEMA's all hazards, this... by, by talking about all hazards, we're diluting the message of it and people are not, not hearing the nuances and the, the differences for what they need to do for different types of disasters. So I hope that'll be a little clearer as we go through these slides. Okay, so this is prob... this is a great slide because it really shows you the difference between how, how people think about these different types of disasters. We asked them... we asked them for each of these disasters, which, which was what they believed? So the word we used was what do you believe? Nothing I do to prepare will help me. Preparedness will help and I can handle the situation without any preparedness. So you see for the natural disasters, people do make the association between what they do to prepare and having it help them in an actual event. But at the top there, the dark blue for terrorism, you have 35 percent of people who are saying, nothing I do is going to help. I'm, I'm toast, what do you mean, you can't survive something like that. So, so it's very, again, it's really critical that we start to examine this and we start to provide specific information relative to different hazards in terms of not only what the preparation actions are, but the utility of those. And we translate that into the story of why it's going to make a difference for you. So that's what's really critical here and again, the, the natural disasters, there's already that association, that appreciation of, oh yeah, you know. Because, because we've seen them more, people have experienced them more, people have talked about those types of incidences more with their, with their families and with their friends. So, so this is a very, very interesting slide on this, this notion of sort of the fatalism. And we need to really educate that people that these events are survivable and that what people do makes a huge difference in terms of their own survivability and their friends and family. Sorry I'm having such a problem with this. Okay, so we also wanted to know, do people feel confident that they know what to do in the first 5 minutes? We all know that you're on your own for those first 5 minutes. You're not going to get authoritative advice within 5 minutes. You have to make that decision that we heard from Amanda, you have to make that decision and do you have the ability to assess the situation and make the best decision for you and those around you? So we really wanted to explore this and again, you see quite a difference here between people's confidence for natural disasters and for terrorism. Just to give you some of the numbers here, for terrorism in the national survey, it was 20 percent of people felt confident; the low there was San Francisco, DC was the highest at 23 percent. And then for natural disasters, the national number was 53 percent; highest is San Francisco, 68 percent; New York actually the lowest, 35 percent. So the next point here is the importance of community. It's very clear that in individual's connections to their community, it's, it's prominent in their motivation to prepare, who they expect to rely on, and in volunteering. So we need to start tapping these social networks, we need to really tap neighborhood organizations, the workplace, schools, faith communities. And, and really emphasize this notion of mutual aid at, at the absolute lowest level, mutual aid person-to-person, neighbor-to-neighbor. So when you ask people if they had taken training in the last 2 years, we ask them, you know, what motivated them to take that training? And as you see there, for many of them it was mandatory for job or school and, and not... that's not a bad thing, that's a good thing. We need to explore these policies more, make it more accessible to people, make it easier for them to take training, to get information on preparedness, to practice. We need to start institutionalizing, embedding it in these social networks. And then, and then you see the second highest reason is concern for family and for friends. Interestingly at the bottom you'll see that it's 64 percent of people said, that they would be willing to take a 20 hour training course. I'm sure you all know it takes 20 hours, generally, around the country. So we were trying to find out if... the interest in taking CERT and, you know, while people said, 64 percent of