Redefining Readiness Program
The Redefining Readiness study was designed to answer the question: Is the public's current role in emergency preparedness appropriate, or is their limited and passive involvement something that we should be concerned about?
Conducted in 2003-2004, the Redefining Readiness study gave the American people an opportunity to describe how they would handle two kinds of emergencies: a smallpox outbreak and a dirty bomb explosion. Comprehensive and rigorous, the study involved in-depth conversations with government and private-sector planners, 14 group discussions with diverse community residents around the country, and a telephone survey of 2,545 randomly selected adults in the continental United States. To capture perspectives that would otherwise be under-represented, the survey was conducted in English and Spanish and oversampled African Americans and people in the cities that experienced the 9/11 attacks (New York City and Washington, D.C.).
Rather than asking people to think about emergencies in the abstract or to give their opinions about plans or policies, the study used scenarios that put people in specific and realistic situations at a place and time they would be likely to hear about the emergency and be told what to do. The smallpox scenario explored how people would react to instructions to go to a public site to be vaccinated if some residents in their community and people in other parts of the country became sick with smallpox after having been exposed to the virus in a terrorist attack at a major airport. The dirty bomb scenario explored how people would react to instructions to stay inside a building other than their own home if a dirty bomb exploded a mile from where they were and a cloud containing radioactive dust were moving in their direction.
The Redefining Readiness study documented this problem in preparations for shelter-in-place emergencies and deadly contagious disease outbreaks, predicting that large numbers of people would suffer and die unnecessarily if response strategies are not based on what people will actually face when a disaster strikes. This prediction was proven to be correct during Hurricane Katrina, when many people could not follow instructions to evacuate due to barriers that had not been identified or addressed beforehand.
To evolve to a more grassroots-centered approach, four Redefining Readiness demonstration sites have developed powerful new community engagement practices to harness the knowledge and experiences of the broad range of people who need to be protected in emergencies. Practical tools based on the combined insights of almost 2,000 diverse community residents in the demonstration sites can help households, work places, schools and early childhood/youth programs, and governments throughout the country prepare to respond more effectively to shelter-in-place emergencies and deadly contagious disease outbreaks. Communities can also use the Redefining Readiness small group discussion process to explore what residents would face in the kinds of emergencies most likely to occur in their locality.
Redefining Readiness is organized by the Center for the Advancement of Collaborative Strategies in Health at The New York Academy of Medicine and is funded by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation.
For additional information on outcomes of the Redefining Readiness study, please see:
Conducted in 2003-2004, the Redefining Readiness study gave the American people an opportunity to describe how they would handle two kinds of emergencies: a smallpox outbreak and a dirty bomb explosion. Comprehensive and rigorous, the study involved in-depth conversations with government and private-sector planners, 14 group discussions with diverse community residents around the country, and a telephone survey of 2,545 randomly selected adults in the continental United States. To capture perspectives that would otherwise be under-represented, the survey was conducted in English and Spanish and oversampled African Americans and people in the cities that experienced the 9/11 attacks (New York City and Washington, D.C.).
Rather than asking people to think about emergencies in the abstract or to give their opinions about plans or policies, the study used scenarios that put people in specific and realistic situations at a place and time they would be likely to hear about the emergency and be told what to do. The smallpox scenario explored how people would react to instructions to go to a public site to be vaccinated if some residents in their community and people in other parts of the country became sick with smallpox after having been exposed to the virus in a terrorist attack at a major airport. The dirty bomb scenario explored how people would react to instructions to stay inside a building other than their own home if a dirty bomb exploded a mile from where they were and a cloud containing radioactive dust were moving in their direction.
The Redefining Readiness study documented this problem in preparations for shelter-in-place emergencies and deadly contagious disease outbreaks, predicting that large numbers of people would suffer and die unnecessarily if response strategies are not based on what people will actually face when a disaster strikes. This prediction was proven to be correct during Hurricane Katrina, when many people could not follow instructions to evacuate due to barriers that had not been identified or addressed beforehand.
To evolve to a more grassroots-centered approach, four Redefining Readiness demonstration sites have developed powerful new community engagement practices to harness the knowledge and experiences of the broad range of people who need to be protected in emergencies. Practical tools based on the combined insights of almost 2,000 diverse community residents in the demonstration sites can help households, work places, schools and early childhood/youth programs, and governments throughout the country prepare to respond more effectively to shelter-in-place emergencies and deadly contagious disease outbreaks. Communities can also use the Redefining Readiness small group discussion process to explore what residents would face in the kinds of emergencies most likely to occur in their locality.
Redefining Readiness is organized by the Center for the Advancement of Collaborative Strategies in Health at The New York Academy of Medicine and is funded by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation.
For additional information on outcomes of the Redefining Readiness study, please see:
|
|
||||||
For more detailed information, questions, and comments with regards to Redefining Readiness, please email .