Persons using assistive technology might not be able to fully access information in this file. For assistance, please send e-mail to: mmwrq@cdc.gov. Type 508 Accommodation and the title of the report in the subject line of e-mail.

Household Preparedness for Public Health Emergencies \u2014 14 States, 2006\u20132010

Please note: An erratum has been published for this article. To view the erratum, please click here.

\n \n \n

Populations affected by disaster increase the demand on emergency response and public health systems and on acute care hospitals, often causing disruptions of services (1). Household preparedness measures, such as having a 3-day supply of food, water, and medication and a written household evacuation plan, can improve a population's ability to cope with service disruption, decreasing the number of persons who might otherwise overwhelm emergency services and health-care systems (2). To estimate current levels of self-reported household preparedness by state and sociodemographic characteristics, CDC analyzed Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey data collected in 14 states during 2006\u20132010. The results of this analysis indicated that an estimated 94.8% of households had a working battery-operated flashlight, 89.7% had a 3-day supply of medications for everyone who required them, 82.9% had a 3-day supply of food, 77.7% had a working battery-operated radio, 53.6% had a 3-day supply of water, and 21.1% had a written evacuation plan. Non-English speaking and minority respondents, particularly Hispanics, were less likely to report household preparedness for an emergency or disaster, suggesting that more outreach activities should be directed toward these populations.

BRFSS is a state-based, random-digit\u2013dialed telephone survey of the noninstitutionalized U.S. civilian population aged \u226518 years.* The survey collects information on health risk behaviors, preventive health practices, health-care access, and disease status. The General Preparedness module was included in BRFSS surveys conducted by 14 states during 2006\u20132010. Two states, Nebraska and Montana, collected data for multiple years. Comparison of data collected by these two states showed no significant increases or decreases in preparedness measures over time. Therefore, data for Nebraska and Montana were combined across years. Significance of differences between percentages was determined by chi-square test (p<0.05).

During 2006\u20132010, preparedness data were collected (with Council of American Survey and Research Organizations response rates indicated) from the following states: 2006, Connecticut (44.3%), Montana (54.8%), Nevada (50.1%), and Tennessee (56.7%); 2007, Delaware (43.2%), Louisiana (41.0%), Maryland (31.4%), Nebraska (65.4%), and New Hampshire (37.7%); 2008, Georgia (55.1%), Montana (48.3%), Nebraska (65.5%), New York (40.0%), and Pennsylvania (45.6%); 2009, Mississippi (49.3%); and 2010, Montana (65.4%) and North Carolina (41.1%).

Household disaster preparedness measures, as defined by the BRFSS questionnaire, included the following items: having 3-day supplies of food, prescription medications, and water, a written evacuation plan, a working battery-powered radio, and a working battery-powered flashlight. Respondents were asked the following six questions: 1) \"Does your household have a 3-day supply of nonperishable food for everyone who lives there? By nonperishable we mean food that does not require refrigeration or cooking.\" 2) \"Does your household have a 3-day supply of water for everyone who lives there? A 3-day supply of water is 1 gallon of water per person per day.\" 3) \"Does your household have a 3-day supply of prescription medications for each person in your household who takes prescription medications?\" 4) \"Does your household have a working battery-operated radio and working batteries for use if the electricity is out?\" 5) \"Does your household have a working flashlight and working batteries for use if the electricity is out?\" 6) \"Does your household have a written evacuation plan for how you will leave your home in case of a large-scale disaster or emergency that requires evacuation?\"

Overall, an estimated 94.8% of households had a working battery-operated flashlight, 89.7% had a 3-day supply of medications for everyone who required them, 82.9% had a 3-day supply of food, 77.7% had a working battery-operated radio, 53.6% had a 3-day supply of water, and 21.1% had a written evacuation plan (Table 1). With the exception of having a 3-day supply of medication and a written evacuation plan, which were not significantly different by sex, men were significantly more likely than women to report their households were prepared. Significant differences ranged from 1.6 percentage points (95.6% compared with 94.0%) for having a working, battery-powered flashlight to 6.9 percentage points (57.2% compared with 50.3%) for having a 3-day supply of water (Table 1). By race/ethnicity, Hispanics were significantly less likely than all other race/ethnicities to have a 3-day supply of food (75.0%), a 3-day supply of medication (69.0%), and a working battery-operated radio (67.1%), and flashlight (84.4%). In general, as the age of respondents increased, reported household preparedness increased. With the exceptions of having a 3-day supply of water and a written evacuation plan, persons with a high school diploma were more likely to indicate preparedness than those with less than a high school diploma. With the exception of having a written evacuation plan, which was most prevalent among respondents who were unable to work, in general, retired respondents were most likely to indicate that their household was prepared.

Respondents who requested that the survey be conducted in Spanish (68.2%) were less likely to report their households had a 3-day supply of food than those administered the survey in English (83.2%) (Figure). A similar pattern was observed for having a 3-day supply of medication (Spanish, 51.7%; English, 90.6%), a working battery-operated radio (Spanish, 56.5%; English, 78.1%), and a working battery-operated flashlight (Spanish, 74.7%; English, 95.2%). However, respondents who requested the survey be conducted in Spanish were significantly more likely to report their households had a 3-day supply of water (Spanish, 64.5%; English, 53.6%) and were as likely as those interviewed in English to report that the household had a written evacuation plan (Spanish, 25.6%; English, 20.6%; p=0.066).

By state, Montana respondents were most likely (88.1%) and Nevada respondents were least likely (78.5%) to report their household had a 3-day supply of food (Table 2). Pennsylvania respondents were most likely (93.7%) and Nevada respondents were least likely (80.7%) to report a 3-day supply of medication. Louisiana respondents were most likely (67.1%) and Nebraska respondents were least likely (45.5%) to report a 3-day supply of water. Louisiana respondents were most likely (54.0%) and Pennsylvania respondents were least likely (15.0%) to have a written evacuation plan. Louisiana respondents were most likely (85.2%) and Nevada respondents were least likely (72.3%) to report a working battery-powered radio. New Hampshire respondents were most likely (97.2%) and New York respondents were least likely (93.4%) to report a working battery-powered flashlight.

Reported by

Summer D. DeBastiani MPH, Tara W Strine, PhD, Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response, CDC. Corresponding contributor: Summer D. DeBastiani, sdebastiani@cdc.gov, 404-639-3101.

Editorial Note

Similar to previous studies, the findings in this report generally indicate increased levels of disaster and emergency preparedness among men, English-speaking persons, and adults with more education (3,4). Also similar to previous research, this analysis indicates limited evacuation planning among households (3,4). With the notable exception of Louisiana, where in 2007, 2 years after devastating Hurricane Katrina, 54.0% of respondents said they had a written evacuation plan, no state reported a prevalence as high as 35%. Therefore, increased efforts encouraging the adoption of a written household evacuation plan are needed.

Beginning in 2003, the federal government launched two preparedness campaigns for the purpose of increasing household preparedness: Ready.gov and the Citizen Corps (5,6). Both campaigns encourage the general population to prepare for disasters by being informed, assembling an emergency kit, and having a plan (Box). Ready.gov is an Internet-based disaster preparedness initiative, and the Citizen Corps encourages government and community leaders to involve the general population in all-hazards emergency preparedness activities (5,6). The primary method to access preparedness materials and information through these organizations is via predominantly English language websites, creating a possible barrier for non-English speaking adults, persons of low socioeconomic status, and those without Internet access. An increased effort to make household preparedness materials and information more accessible, particularly by those with resource and language barriers, is needed.

The findings in this report are subject to at least five limitations. First, during 2006\u20132010, BRFSS sampled only households with a landline telephone, thus excluding homes with only cellular telephones. Second, responses were dependent on the participant's understanding of preparedness measures taken in the household; for example, some respondents might not have known that the household had a 3-day supply of food, water, and medications. In addition, respondents were not required to present any evidence that a preparedness measure (e.g., 3-day supply of water or a working flashlight) had been met. Third, the response rates were low; only approximately one of every two persons contacted agreed to participate in the survey. Fourth, several of the questions failed to account for all types of preparedness technology (e.g., hand-cranked flashlights). Finally, the General Preparedness module was only implemented in 14 states during 2006\u20132010, with only a few states using the module in any given year; therefore, the findings are not generalizable to the U.S. population.

Since the 2001 terrorist attacks, the federal government has increased its emphasis on emergency preparedness, including the response and recovery capabilities of emergency management agencies, hospitals, and public health systems (7). CDC uses preparedness metrics to assess systems, with the findings disseminated to states and used to inform Healthy People 2020 objectives. Outcomes associated with individual household preparedness activities, however, are not similarly assessed or shared (3,8). To help improve household disaster preparedness in the general population and to inform national and state preparedness planning and policy, systematically measured, generalizable state-based household preparedness data are needed (9).

References

Hick JL, Hanfling D, Burstein JL, et al. Health care facility and community strategies for patient care surge capacity. Ann Emerg Med 2004;44:253\u201361.
Paton D, Johnston DM. Disaster resilience: an integrated approach. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas; 2006:105\u20136.
Ablah E, Konda K, Kelley CL. Factors predicting individual emergency preparedness: a multi-state analysis of the 2006 BRFSS data. Biosecur Bioterror 2009;7:317\u201330.
Murphy ST, Cody M, Frank LB, Glik D, Ang A. Predictors of emergency preparedness and compliance. Disaster Med Public Health Prep 2009;7:S1\u20138.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Ready. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2012. Available at http://www.ready.gov. Accessed September 7, 2012.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Citizen Corps. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2012. Available at http://citizencorps.gov. Accessed September 7, 2012.
CDC. Public health preparedness capabilities: national standards for state and local planning. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2011. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/capabilities. Accessed September 7, 2012.
CDC. Public Health Emergency Preparedness Program: budget period 1. Performance measures specifications and implementation guidance. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2012. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/documents/phep+bp1+pm+specifications+and+implementation+guidance_v1_1.pdf. Accessed September 7, 2012.

\n
\n

* Additional information available at http://www.cdc.gov/brfss.

\n
\n

What is already known on this topic?

Household preparedness measures, such as having a 3-day supply of food, water, and medications and a written household evacuation plan, can improve a population's ability to cope with disasters and emergencies, decreasing the number of persons who might otherwise strain emergency and health-care services.

What is added by this report?

Results from Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys of household preparedness in 14 states during 2006\u20132010 indicated that an estimated 94.8% of households had a working battery-operated flashlight, 89.7% had a 3-day supply of medications for everyone who required them, 82.9% had a 3-day supply of food, 77.7% had a working battery-operated radio, 53.6% had a 3-day supply of water, and only 21.1% of U.S. residents had a written evacuation plan.

What are the implications for public health practice?

Greater effort is needed to stress the importance of disaster and emergency preparedness, especially the need for a written evacuation plan. Public health and emergency services agencies should increase the accessibility of household preparedness materials and information to the Hispanic population and persons with resource and language barriers.

\n
\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

BOX. Recommendations to prepare a household for emergency or disaster \u2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2012
\n \n Be informed \n Knowing about the local emergency plans for shelter and evacuation and local emergency contacts will help you develop your household plan and also will aid you during a crisis. \n Make a kit \n A disaster supplies kit is simply a collection of basic items your household might need in the event of an emergency. \n \n Water, 1 gallon of water per person per day for at least 3 days, for drinking and sanitation. \n Food, at least a 3-day supply of nonperishable food. \n At least a 3-day supply of medications for each person who takes prescription medications. \n Battery-powered or hand crank radio and a National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration weather radio with tone alert and extra batteries for both. \n Flashlight and extra batteries. \n \n Have a plan \n Emergency planning should address the care of pets, aiding family members with access and functional needs and safely shutting off utilities. Practice your plan at least twice a year and update it according to any issues that arise. \n
Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency. Ready. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2012. Available at http://www.ready.gov.

BOX. Recommendations to prepare a household for emergency or disaster \u2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2012

Be informed

Knowing about the local emergency plans for shelter and evacuation and local emergency contacts will help you develop your household plan and also will aid you during a crisis.

Make a kit

A disaster supplies kit is simply a collection of basic items your household might need in the event of an emergency.

Water, 1 gallon of water per person per day for at least 3 days, for drinking and sanitation.
Food, at least a 3-day supply of nonperishable food.
At least a 3-day supply of medications for each person who takes prescription medications.
Battery-powered or hand crank radio and a National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration weather radio with tone alert and extra batteries for both.
Flashlight and extra batteries.

Have a plan

Emergency planning should address the care of pets, aiding family members with access and functional needs and safely shutting off utilities. Practice your plan at least twice a year and update it according to any issues that arise.

Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency. Ready. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2012. Available at http://www.ready.gov.

\n
\n

FIGURE. Percentage of participants reporting household disaster or emergency preparedness, by preparedness measure and language used in the interview \u2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 14 states, 2006\u20132010

\n $\"The$ \n

* 95% confidence interval.

Alternate Text: The figure above shows the percentage of participants reporting household disaster or emergency preparedness, by preparedness measure and language (English or Spanish) used in the interview, in 14 states during 2006-2010. Respondents surveyed in Spanish were less likely (68.2%) to report their households had a 3-day supply of food than those administered the survey in English (83.2%). A similar pattern was observed for having a 3-day supply of medication and working battery-operated radio and flashlight. However, respondents surveyed in Spanish were significantly more likely to report a 3-day supply of water (Spanish, 64.5%; English, 53.6%), and there was no significant difference, by language, in the proportion reporting that the household had a written evacuation plan.

\n
\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n

TABLE 1. Percentage of participants reporting household disaster or emergency preparedness, by preparedness measures and sociodemographic characteristics \u2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 14 states, 2006\u20132010
Characteristic	Have a 3-day supply of food	Have a 3-day supply of medication	Have a 3-day supply of water
No. in sample	Weighted no.	%	(95% CI)	No. in sample	Weighted no.	%	(95% CI)	No. in sample	Weighted no.	%	(95% CI)
Overall	83,965	49,939,735	82.9	(82.4\u201383.5)	80,351	47,083,817	89.7	(89.2\u201390.1)	55,323	32,222,914	53.6	(52.9\u201354.3)
Sex
Men	31,975	24,297,666	84.2	(83.3\u201385.0)	29,855	22,484,121	90.2	(89.4\u201390.9)	22,374	16,514,103	57.2	(56.1\u201358.3)
Women	51,990	25,642,069	81.8	(81.1\u201382.5)	50,496	24,599,696	89.2	(88.6\u201389.8)	32,949	15,708,811	50.3	(49.4\u201351.1)
Race/Ethnicity*
White	79,764	38,059,253	84.8	(84.2\u201385.4)	67,007	36,730,925	92.8	(92.4\u201393.2)	44,179	23,349,524	52.1	(51.3\u201352.9)
Black	7,889	6,322,382	77.9	(76.1\u201379.5)	7,423	5,726,674	82.6	(81.0\u201384.2)	6,078	4,733,017	58.2	(56.3\u201360.2)
Hispanic	2,262	2,744,511	75.0	(71.6\u201378.1)	1,849	2,060,575	69.0	(65.1\u201372.7)	1,715	2,025,186	55.0	(51.4\u201358.7)
Other race/Multirace	3,753	2,365,541	78.7	(75.5\u201381.6)	3,378	2,159,139	84.9	(81.7\u201387.6)	2,789	1,780,008	60.4	(57.0\u201363.7)
Age group (yrs)
18\u201324	2,576	4,683,190	79.7	(77.1\u201382.1)	2,102	3,918,690	79.8	(76.9\u201382.4)	1,689	3,088,207	53.1	(50.0\u201356.3)
25\u201334	7,241	8,345,572	77.8	(76.1\u201379.5)	5,871	7,000,146	83.7	(82.0\u201385.3)	4,294	5,202,686	48.4	(46.5\u201350.4)
35\u201344	12,053	10,274,805	80.8	(79.5\u201382.1)	10,610	9,310,066	87.7	(86.5\u201388.9)	7,251	6,166,027	48.6	(47.0\u201350.2)
45\u201354	16,863	9,621,520	83.5	(82.5\u201384.5)	15,961	9,248,143	90.5	(89.6\u201391.3)	10,821	6,093,993	52.9	(51.6\u201354.3)
\u226555	44,575	16,673,720	87.9	(87.4\u201388.5)	45,192	17,268,658	95.8	(95.4\u201396.1)	30,764	11,402,504	60.2	(59.4\u201361.1)
Education
Less than a high school diploma	7,910	4,316,121	80.0	(78.0\u201381.8)	7,632	3,831,918	79.3	(77.0\u201381.3)	6,013	3,199,648	59.7	(57.4\u201361.9)
High school diploma	26,255	15,048,742	83.8	(82.8\u201384.7)	25,123	13,965,053	88.3	(87.3\u201389.1)	17,666	10,206,329	57.0	(55.7\u201358.2)
More than a high school diploma	49,670	30,516,047	83.0	(82.3\u201383.7)	47,472	29,231,941	92.0	(91.4\u201392.5)	31,535	18,764,811	51.0	(50.2\u201351.9)
Employment status
Currently employed	43,599	30,335,878	82.4	(81.7\u201383.2)	39,696	27,434,623	88.7	(88.0\u201389.4)	27,586	18,994,551	51.7	(50.7\u201352.6)
Unemployed	3,409	2,686,613	78.5	(75.4\u201381.2)	3,135	2,500,045	84.9	(82.1\u201387.3)	2,346	1,834,715	53.5	(50.2\u201356.8)
Retired	23,643	8,673,886	89.2	(88.4\u201389.9)	24,209	9,107,235	96.5	(96.1\u201396.9)	16,496	6,092,790	62.9	(61.7\u201364.0)
Unable to work	5,568	2,619,215	78.4	(76.2\u201380.5)	6,106	2,895,877	89.2	(87.4\u201390.7)	4,028	1,852,808	55.7	(53.2\u201358.3)
Housewife/Student	7,551	5,528,482	81.5	(79.7\u201383.1)	7,020	5,051,584	86.5	(84.8\u201388.1)	4,720	3,376,956	49.9	(47.7\u201352.1)
Marital status
Currently married	48,066	30,831,168	84.3	(83.7\u201385.0)	46,635	29,645,628	91.7	(91.1\u201392.2)	30,395	19,343,368	52.9	(52.1\u201353.8)
Previously married\u2020	25,166	8,731,801	83.0	(82.0\u201384.0)	24,297	8,419,916	90.1	(89.2\u201390.9)	17,555	5,930,648	56.6	(55.3\u201357.8)
Never married\u00a7	10,469	10,227,723	78.9	(77.4\u201380.4)	9,193	8,875,935	83.3	(81.7\u201384.7)	7,178	6,825,329	52.9	(51.0\u201354.7)
Interview language
English	82,140	47,896,583	83.2	(82.7\u201383.8)	78,730	45,313,761	90.6	(90.1\u201391.1)	54,047	30,767,692	53.6	(52.9\u201354.3)
Spanish	552	666,986	68.2	(62.1\u201373.7)	348	432,069	51.7	(44.6\u201358.6)	514	627,984	64.5	(58.2\u201370.2)
Children in household
Yes	23,462	20,454,775	80.9	(80.0\u201381.9)	20,767	18,129,679	86.7	(85.7\u201387.6)	13,764	12,200,949	48.4	(47.2\u201349.6)
No	60,392	29,425,652	84.4	(83.8\u201385.1)	59,498	28,905,485	91.7	(91.1\u201392.2)	41,481	19,981,656	57.4	(56.6\u201358.2)

\n
\n

TABLE 1. (Continued) Percentage of participants reporting household disaster or emergency preparedness, by preparedness measures and sociodemographic characteristics \u2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 14 states, 2006\u20132010
Characteristic	Have a written evacuation plan	Have a working battery-operated radio	Have a working battery-operated flashlight
No. in sample	Weighted no.	%	(95% CI)	No. in sample	Weighted no.	%	(95% CI)	No. in sample	Weighted no.	%	(95% CI)
Overall	22,522	12,661,492	21.1	(20.6\u201321.7)	74,331	46,538,951	77.7	(77.2\u201378.3)	93,831	57,256,195	94.8	(94.4\u201395.1)
Sex
Men	8,385	6,051,319	21.0	(20.2\u201321.9)	28,986	22,906,709	79.6	(78.6\u201380.5)	35,529	27,730,509	95.6	(95.1\u201396.1)
Women	14,137	6,610,173	21.3	(20.6\u201321.9)	45,345	23,632,242	76.1	(75.3\u201376.8)	58,302	29,525,687	94.0	(93.6\u201394.4)
Race/Ethnicity*
White	17,498	8,761,404	19.6	(19.0\u201320.2)	61,565	35,783,853	80.4	(79.8\u201381.0)	77,536	43,646,594	97.0	(96.7\u201397.2)
Black	2,620	2,103,974	26.2	(24.7\u201327.9)	6,931	5,878,861	72.4	(70.5\u201374.1)	8,703	7,232,129	89.1	(87.8\u201390.2)
Hispanic	907	980,547	26.8	(23.9\u201329.9)	2,005	2,465,690	67.1	(63.5\u201370.4)	2,559	3,116,057	84.4	(81.5\u201386.9)
Other race/Multirace	1,272	706,156	23.9	(21.3\u201326.7)	3,195	2,021,506	67.3	(63.7\u201370.8)	4,206	2,747,172	90.8	(88.4\u201392.8)
Age group (yrs)
18\u201324	694	1,038,145	17.9	(15.9\u201320.1)	2,389	4,401,518	75.6	(72.8\u201378.2)	2,940	5,408,379	92.0	(90.2\u201393.5)
25\u201334	1,896	1,959,055	18.3	(17.0\u201319.8)	6,667	7,937,548	74.2	(72.4\u201375.9)	8,450	9,962,729	92.7	(91.6\u201393.6)
35\u201344	3,235	2,660,066	21.0	(19.7\u201322.3)	11,455	9,925,954	78.4	(77.0\u201379.8)	13,920	12,025,987	94.3	(93.5\u201395.1)
45\u201354	4,453	2,471,297	21.5	(20.5\u201322.6)	15,444	9,077,234	79.5	(78.4\u201380.5)	19,108	11,047,242	95.8	(95.2\u201396.3)
\u226555	12,036	4,419,004	23.5	(22.8\u201324.2)	37,769	14,866,044	78.8	(78.1\u201379.5)	48,663	18,405,331	96.5	(96.1\u201396.8)
Education
Less than a high school diploma	2,502	1,408,864	26.7	(24.8\u201328.6)	6,414	3,651,230	67.8	(65.6\u201370.0)	8,677	4,761,831	88.3	(86.6\u201389.8)
High school diploma	7,757	4,415,355	24.8	(23.8\u201325.8)	23,338	14,060,524	78.6	(77.5\u201379.6)	29,233	17,045,577	94.5	(94.0\u201395.1)
More than a high school diploma	12,219	6,813,722	18.6	(17.9\u201319.2)	44,467	28,769,462	78.8	(78.1\u201379.5)	55,771	35,376,690	95.8	(95.4\u201396.2)
Employment status
Currently employed	10,867	7,144,636	19.5	(18.8\u201320.2)	39,991	28,909,540	79.0	(78.2\u201379.7)	49,522	35,152,226	95.3	(94.9\u201395.7)
Unemployed	958	742,373	22.0	(19.5\u201324.8)	3,025	2,452,521	72.5	(69.3\u201375.4)	3,865	3,146,645	91.9	(89.9\u201393.5)
Retired	6,688	2,457,513	25.6	(24.6\u201326.6)	19,787	7,642,923	79.0	(78.1\u201379.9)	25,535	9,457,148	96.6	(96.2\u201397.0)
Unable to work	1,891	904,303	27.5	(25.4\u201329.8)	4,640	2,280,968	68.7	(66.2\u201371.1)	6,169	2,952,544	88.4	(86.6\u201390.0)
Housewife/ Student	2,048	1,372,799	20.2	(18.7\u201321.9)	6,721	5,162,344	76.5	(74.5\u201378.4)	8,518	6,430,010	94.1	(93.0\u201395.0)
Marital status
Currently married	12,082	7,572,189	20.7	(20.1\u201321.4)	44,388	29,358,964	80.8	(80.1\u201381.5)	53,879	35,453,676	96.7	(96.3\u201397.0)
Previously married\u2020	7,499	2,614,001	25.1	(24.1\u201326.2)	20,383	7,540,051	71.9	(70.8\u201373.0)	27,707	9,762,064	92.4	(91.7\u201393.1)
Never married\u00a7	2,855	2,434,013	19.0	(17.7\u201320.3)	9,334	9,492,166	73.8	(72.1\u201375.4)	11,941	11,863,771	91.3	(90.3\u201392.3)
Interview language
English	21,689	11,819,518	20.6	(20.1\u201321.2)	72,706	44,672,616	78.1	(77.5\u201378.7)	91,753	54,940,267	95.2	(94.8\u201395.5)
Spanish	251	249,308	25.6	(20.7\u201331.2)	451	555,298	56.5	(50.0\u201362.7)	615	735,069	74.7	(68.7\u201379.9)
Children in household
Yes	6,540	5,239,598	20.8	(20.0\u201321.8)	22,172	19,678,184	78.2	(77.2\u201379.2)	26,937	23,878,858	94.3	(93.7\u201394.8)
No	15,934	7,392,433	21.3	(20.7\u201321.9)	52,054	26,797,544	77.4	(76.7\u201378.1)	66,771	33,299,418	95.1	(94.7\u201395.5)
Abbreviation: CI = confidence interval. * Persons identified as Hispanic might be of any race. Persons identified as white, black, or other race/multirace are all non-Hispanic. The four racial/ethnic categories are mutually exclusive. \u2020 Includes divorced, widowed, and separated persons. \u00a7 Includes never married persons and members of unmarried couples.

\n
\n

TABLE 2. Percentage of participants reporting household disaster or emergency preparedness, by preparedness measures and state \u2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 14 states, 2006\u20132010
State	Year	Have a 3-day supply of food	Have a 3-day supply of medication	Have a 3-day supply of water
No. in sample	Weighted no.	%	(95% CI)	No. in sample	Weighted no.	%	(95% CI)	No. in sample	Weighted no.	%	(95% CI)
Overall		83,965	49,939,735	82.9	(82.4\u201383.5)	80,351	47,083,817	89.7	(89.2\u201390.1)	55,323	32,222,914	53.6	(52.9\u201354.3)
Connecticut	2006	3,483	1,953,333	80.7	(78.1\u201382.3)	3,430	1,897,278	88.5	(87.0\u201389.8)	2,289	1,250,486	51.6	(49.7\u201353.6)
Delaware	2007	3,402	559,508	85.6	(83.9\u201387.1)	3,232	519,317	91.5	(90.0\u201392.8)	2,374	393,933	60.2	(58.0\u201362.4)
Georgia	2008	4,686	5,704,548	83.8	(82.1\u201385.3)	4,552	5,326,005	91.0	(89.7\u201392.2)	2,952	3,548,334	52.2	(50.2\u201354.2)
Louisiana	2007	5,263	2,503,903	84.7	(83.4\u201386.0)	4,840	2,225,833	85.2	(83.8\u201386.4)	4,180	1,986,970	67.1\u2020	(65.5\u201368.8)
Maryland	2007	3,377	3,081,163	79.7	(77.7\u201381.5)	3,393	2,971,525	86.3	(84.2\u201388.1)	2,309	2,141,650	55.1	(52.9\u201357.3)
Mississippi	2009	8,780	1,665,142	83.3	(82.2\u201384.4)	8,829	1,602,641	90.8	(89.7\u201391.7)	6,051	1,129,593	56.6	(55.1\u201358.0)
Montana	2006 2008 2010	16,737	1,827,338	88.1\u2020	(87.4\u201388.8)	15,185	1,620,819	91.1	(90.4\u201391.9)	10,896	1,133,622	54.7	(53.6\u201355.8)
Nebraska	2007 2008	8,736	2,082,276	83.8	(82.1\u201385.4)	8,398	1,957,109	91.0	(89.5\u201392.3)	4,745	1,130,401	45.5*	(43.5\u201347.6)
Nevada	2006	2,772	1,300,038	78.5*	(76.1\u201380.7)	2,559	1,170,845	80.7*	(78.1\u201383.1)	2,102	1,041,549	63.0	(60.4\u201365.5)
New Hampshire	2007	4,615	776,298	81.7	(80.3\u201382.9)	4,540	752,438	90.8	(89.6\u201391.9)	3,122	5,167,704	54.2	(52.6\u201355.9)
New York	2008	3,032	11,086,539	79.8	(78.0\u201381.4)	3,040	10,742,654	89.6	(87.9\u201391.0)	1,953	6,979,891	50.4	(48.4\u201352.5)
North Carolina	2010	10,227	5,869,875	84.7	(84.5\u201386.8)	9,803	5,367,481	91.4	(90.3\u201392.4)	6,707	3,866,292	56.7	(55.2\u201358.1)
Pennsylvania	2008	5,435	7,995,514	86.1	(84.7\u201387.5)	5,246	7,614,674	93.7\u2020	(92.5\u201394.8)	3,579	4,947,353	53.4	(51.5\u201355.4)
Tennessee	2006	3,420	3,534,261	82.0	(80.2\u201383.6)	3,304	3,315,199	84.4	(82.5\u201386.2)	2,064	2,156,136	50.0	(47.7\u201352.3)

\n
\n

TABLE 2. (Continued) Percentage of participants reporting household disaster or emergency preparedness, by preparedness measures and state \u2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 14 states, 2006\u20132010
State	Year	Have a written evacuation plan	Have a working battery-operated radio	Have a working battery-operated flashlight
No. in sample	Weighted no.	%	(95% CI)	No. in sample	Weighted no.	%	(95% CI)	No. in sample	Weighted no.	%	(95% CI)
Overall		22,522	12,661,492	21.1	(20.6\u201321.7)	74,331	46,538,951	77.7	(77.2\u201378.3)	93,831	57,256,195	94.8	(94.4\u201395.1)
Connecticut	2006	967	544,187	22.4	(20.8\u201324.1)	3,338	1,915,855	79.2	(77.6\u201380.8)	4,121	2,328,965	95.5	(94.6\u201396.2)
Delaware	2007	947	148,878	22.8	(20.8\u201325.0)	3,062	514,735	79.0	(77.1\u201380.7)	3,771	627,163	95.7	(94.7\u201396.6)
Georgia	2008	957	1,082,355	16.0	(14.7\u201317.5)	4,027	5,088,753	75.1	(73.3\u201376.8)	5,172	6,461,497	94.6	(93.6\u201395.4)
Louisiana	2007	3,224	1,585,357	54.0\u2020	(52.3\u201355.7)	5,191	2,513,071	85.2\u2020	(83.9\u201386.4)	5,882	2,836,825	95.4	(94.6\u201396.1)
Maryland	2007	1,136	1,031,932	26.9	(25.0\u201328.8)	3,207	3,050,542	79.7	(77.7\u201381.5)	3,910	3,668,318	94.9	(93.6\u201395.9)
Mississippi	2009	1,901	357,999	18.0	(16.9\u201319.3)	7,842	1,568,763	78.7	(77.6\u201379.9)	9,946	1,896,225	94.7	(94.1\u201395.3)
Montana	2006 2008 2010	3,776	397,797	19.2	(18.4\u201320.1)	13,284	1,522,456	74.2	(73.3\u201375.2)	18,177	2,004,263	96.4	(96.0\u201396.8)
Nebraska	2007 2008	2,231	519,381	21.0	(19.4\u201322.7)	8,197	2,043,232	82.6	(81.0\u201384.1)	9,793	2,404,766	96.5	(95.7\u201397.2)
Nevada	2006	1,029	473,114	28.6	(26.4\u201330.9)	2,479	1,191,252	72.3*	(69.7\u201374.7)	3,148	1,505,890	90.5	(88.3\u201392.2)
New Hampshire	2007	1,252	196,826	20.7	(19.5\u201322.1)	4,318	751,036	79.4	(78.1\u201380.7)	5,446	926,119	97.2\u2020	(96.5\u201397.7)
New York	2008	669	2,272,831	16.5	(15.1\u201318.0)	2,828	10,608,454	76.7	(74.9\u201378.4)	3,514	3,059,551	93.4*	(92.3\u201394.4)
North Carolina	2010	1,883	1,171,601	17.2	(16.1\u201318.5)	8,692	5,251,368	77.2	(76.0\u201378.5)	11,153	6,543,028	95.2	(94.5\u201395.8)
Pennsylvania	2008	1,081	1,392,433	15.0*	(13.7\u201316.4)	4,720	7,159,537	77.7	(76.0\u201379.3)	6,017	8,976,868	96.3	(95.5\u201397.0)
Tennessee	2006	1,469	1,486,798	34.6	(32.5\u201336.8)	3,146	3,359,894	78.5	(76.6\u201380.3)	3,881	4,016,717	93.8	(92.5\u201394.9)
Abbreviation: CI = confidence interval. * Lowest percentage for preparedness measure among the 14 states. \u2020 Highest percentage for preparedness measure among the 14 states.

\n \n