There are 27 items on Ready.govâ€™s list of supplies to incorporate into an emergency kit, divided by recommended suppliesÂ (12) and additional items to consider (15). At the All-Hazards,Â All-Stakeholders Summit on March 25 in Seattle, formerÂ FEMA Region VIII Administrator Garry Briese said the costÂ of these items can exceed $375 and many require replenishment, like water and food. He said although many emergencyÂ managers take comfort in telling the public to purchase theseÂ items, a communityâ€™s economic realities need to be considered when emergency supply lists are developed.
â€œI think we need to continue personal preparedness, absolutely, but I want people to work on the top 10 things we wantÂ them to have,â€ Briese said. â€œI donâ€™t care if they have plasticÂ wrap and duct tape. How do we simplify our message? Weâ€™reÂ asking too much and sending mixed messages to the public.â€
As Pittman notes in her article, some emergency management officials have been raising questions about the personal preparedness recommendations now being given to the public. For the past few years, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Ready.Gov and the American Red Cross (along with many local authorities) have used the “Get A Kit. Make A Plan & Be Informed” framework, which was developed to keep the call to action as streamlined and consistent as possible.
In fact, the nation’s top emergency management official, FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate, last year inÂ public statements began tweaking that three-step message. He’s been putting an emphasis on asking AmericansÂ to â€œmake a planâ€, but largely omitting mention of a “getting a kit” and adding “getting trained,” particularly in CPR & CERT. The theme of the upcoming National Preparedness Month is “Plan Now. Work Together. Be Ready,” though the ‘kit, plan, informed’ slogan is still used on the Ready.Gov site.
From the Ready.Gov website
The push back, as Pittman’s piece highlights, comes from officials who have seen their pleas rebuffed (or just plain ignored) by most of the public. Even though the Get A Kit, Make A Plan, Be Informed approach was developed to keep things simple for the public, it still has turned out to be too muchÂ financially and logistically.
In anÂ article I wrote a couple years ago forÂ The Washington Post Outlook Section, I cited a Red Cross survey that found 93% of Americans are not prepared for disasters. It’s an eye catching statistic. But in about eight years of reporting on this issue, I don’t think I’ve found any of those 7% who are fully prepared. Most every American is somewhere in the 93%, which is where we will always be. The paradox of preparedness is that you’re never going to be fully prepared for disaster, but you are now probably more prepared than you think.
The fact is that many Americans have some of the elements of the recommended supply kit, and it is often just a matter of taking stock, organizing, and/or updating them.Â Further, the reality is that most of us by our life experiences and skills are prepared to some extent for crisis and are resilient by nature. A key question is determining what can be done to best bolster that existing readiness. To me, it starts with figuring out what we’re trying to do in, and then bringing to bear all aspects of society to achieve it.
From theÂ American Red Cross website
First, it’s time to define — or more precisely redefine — what preparedness means when it comes to the public. What do we want everyone to have and know? What is feasible? Or maybe preparedness is not the right word. The Obama Administration has been emphasizing the concept of societal resilience. Should emergency management officials be talking about citizen resilience in their communitiesÂ rather than preparedness? If so,Â that too will require a clearer definition for what it means for the public. If we are serious about the public preparing for disasters (and it would seem based on recent events to be an important goal), then we need to reevaluate what is being asked of them.
The confusion and lack of attention on public preparedness is not because the subject is unimportant to emergency responders, but instead is largely a result of so many other (and often more pressing) responsibilities on their plates. And, it is not as if the public or their elected representatives are banging down their doors asking for a more focused and useful preparedness message. Also, I think there has been some hesitation about talking about the terrorism part of preparedness for fear of being called a fearmonger.
But if government officials are serious about increasing public preparedness, new focus and attention should be given to the subject. I would suggest DHS/FEMA first put together a group of experts from stakeholders inside and out of government both in preparedness content (emergency management, homelandÂ security, public health, etc) and communications platforms, including social media. With such an initiative,Â I think there is a way to create a new definition of preparedness that is useable and feasible and will increase the resilience of the public in crisis situations.