ShakeOut 2011 CUS Survey Report - Central U.S. Earthquake ... Following the drill, ShakeOut registrants

  • View
    4

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Text of ShakeOut 2011 CUS Survey Report - Central U.S. Earthquake ... Following the drill, ShakeOut...

  • 2011 Central United States Survey Report

  • 2

    Marla Petal1 and Rebekah Green1, 2

    with Michele Wood3 and Andrea Nguyen2, 4 1Risk RED 2Western Washington University, Resilience Institute

    3California State University, Fullerton 4Rhode Island School of Design

    Keywords: earthquake drills, disaster risk reduction, ShakeOut

    Acknowledgements Our thanks to Mark Benthien, Southern California Earthquake Center, for their support in the development and delivery of the annual ShakeOut survey, and to our partners Central U.S. Earthquake Consortium, FEMA, and ICF International.

  • 3

    Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 5 I. INTRODUCTION: ............................................................................................................ 9 Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 9 Survey Methods & Scope ................................................................................................ 10 Drill Participants and Survey Respondents ................................................................... 11 II. SCHOOL & ORGANIZATIONAL PREPAREDNESS AND RISK REDUCTION .......... 18 Assessment & Planning Activities ................................................................................ 18 Physical Protection Measures ....................................................................................... 24 Response Capacity Development Activities ................................................................ 26 III. SCHOOL & ORGANIZATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF SHAKEOUT DRILL ........ 33 Drill Implementation ....................................................................................................... 33 Drill Evaluation ................................................................................................................ 39 Reinforcing Learning ...................................................................................................... 44 IV. INDIVIDUAL & HOUSEHOLD INSIGHTS .................................................................. 46 Information Sources, Channels, Quantity and Sharing .............................................. 46 Individual Drill Participation .......................................................................................... 46 Preparedness Activities at Home ................................................................................. 46 V. LOOKING AHEAD ....................................................................................................... 48 Expectations of Problems During a Real Disaster ...................................................... 48 Improvement, Lessons Learned and Participant Recommendations ....................... 50 Participation Next Year .................................................................................................. 52 VI. DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 52 Assessment & Planning ................................................................................................. 52 Physical Protection ........................................................................................................ 53 Response Capacity Development ................................................................................. 54 Drill Participation & Evaluation ..................................................................................... 55 Future Research ............................................................................................................. 57

  • 4

    List of Tables I. INTRODUCTION Table 1 OVERVIEW OF SURVEY RESPONDSES ................................................... 12 Table 2 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDSES ................................... 13 Table 3 TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY RESPONDENTS ...... 13 Table 4 CHARACTERISTICS OF LOCATIONS OF RESPONDENTS ...................... 14 Table 5 FREE LUNCH & ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS ................................ 15 Table 6 TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONDERS ......................................... 16 Table 7 CHARACTERISTICS OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONDERS .............................. 16 II. SCHOOL & ORGANIZATIONAL PREPAREDNESS AND RISK REDUCTION

    Table 8 EMERGENCY/DISASTER PREPAREDNESS PLANS & COMMITTEES19/20 Table 9 PLANNING ACTIVITIES ..................................................................... 21/22/23 Table 10 BEFORE/AFTER SCHOOL ACTIVITY EMERGENCY PLANS ................. 24 Table 11 STRUCTURAL SAFETY MEASURES .................................................. 25/26 Table 12 NON-STRUCTURAL SAFETY MEASURES ......................................... 26/27 Table 13 PARTICIPATION IN DRILLS ...................................................................... 29 Table 14 RESPONSE PREPAREDNESS MEASURES ............................................ 31 Table 15 RESPONSE SKILLS ................................................................................... 32 Table 16 FAMILY REUNIFICATION MEASURES ..................................................... 33 III. SCHOOL & ORGANIZATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF SHAKEOUT DRILL Table 17 DRILL PARTICIPATION IN SCHOOLS & ORGANIZATIONS .................... 34 Table 18 DRILL ELEMENTS PRACTICED ................................................................ 35 Table 19 PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE DRiLL ........................................................... 37 Table 20 PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES IN THE DRILL ............................................ 38 Table 21 OTHER ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN THE DRILL .............................. 39 Table 22 EVALUATING THE DRILL .......................................................................... 40 Table 23 PROBLEMS DURING THE DRILL .............................................................. 41 Table 24 EVALUATION OF DCH & BUILDING EVACUATION DRILL ELEMENTS . 42 Table 25 EVALUATION OF FULL SIMULATION DRILL ELEMENTS .................. 43/44 Table 26 METHODS TO REINFORCE LEARNING ................................................ 45/46 Table 27 USE OF SHAKEOUT RESOURCES ............................................................ 46 V. LOOKING AHEAD Table 28 EXPECTATION OF SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS .......................................... 49 Table 29 IMPROVEMENTS DUE TO SHAKEOUT ..................................................... 50

  • 5

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2011, the Central United States Earthquake Consortium organized its first regional ShakeOut drill on April 28, 2011 at 10:15am. The drill was promoted in eight states across the Southeast and Midwest: Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indianna, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee. In these eight states, nearly 10,000 people registered themselves or their organizations for the drill. Taken together, more than 3 million people were registered for this drill. Central US ShakeOut Drill Central US ShakeOut Survey Registrants Participants represented Respondents

    Participants represented

    School districts 2,839* 2.5 million

    69 182,628 K-12 Individual schools 296 273,803

    Colleges and universities 146 0.5 million 34 250,837

    Organizations 3,328 740 324,428 Individuals 3,602 10,000 767 >767

    TOTAL 9,915 Approx. 3 million 1,906 Approx. 1 million

    The drill was intended to both encourage participants to practice how to protect themselves during an earthquake and to recognize risk reduction measures that they could take now. Following the drill, ShakeOut registrants were invited to complete an online questionnaire covering pre-ShakeOut preparedness, drill participation and immediate impacts. More than 1,900 responded to the survey, representing about 1 million of the 3 million ShakeOut participants. This report summarizes the results of that survey.

    Assessment, Planning and Physical Protection Emergency or disaster preparedness plans are almost universal at individual schools, groups of schools, universities and colleges, and organizations responding to the survey. However, fewer had committees or designated individuals to organize response or update plans. A third of the K-12 schools reported not teaching students about disaster impacts at all. Few respondents have seriously considered how to assure their own organizational continuity. While three-quarters have made plans for alternate learning or work sites, fewer have considered plans for alternative schedules in a post-disaster situation. Organizations showed the highest rates of planning for continuity; institutions of higher education showed the lowest rates. Responders noted a widespread lack of awareness of the earthquake hazards and risks in this region, a problem an annual ShakeOut drill could address by providing a focal point and leverage.

  • 6

    The survey highlighted issues with physical protection. Fewer than half the respondents across all categories stated their buildings met all current standards for earthquake safety. Most schools with portable classrooms did not have them securely fastened to their foundations. Only half the schools had secured tall and heavy furnishings and even fewer higher education institutions had. However, a large majority of respondents had ensured appropriate exit routes, lighting, and fire suppression systems. Selected Findings on Disaster Prepar