EngagingCaliforniansin a Shared Vision for Resiliency: … · 2019-02-11 · California ShakeOut drill, (2) document prior ShakeOut evaluation efforts and key findings, and (3) develop

Engaging Californians in a Shared Vision for Resiliency:

Practical Lessons Learned from the Great California Shakeout

February, 2013

Prepared by:

Michele M. Wood,PhD

CSUFullertonDepartment of HealthScience

With:

DeborahGlik,ScD

CommunityHealthScienceDepartment,Schoolof PublicHealth,

UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles

Supported by:

The Alfred E.AlquistSeismicSafety Commission (#SSC 2011‐02)

CSSC13‐02

Table of Contents

1. ExecutiveSummary ............................................................................................................................ 1

2. Purpose.................................................................................................................................................... 5

3. HistoryofCalifornia’s GreatShakeOutDrill............................................................................. 5

4. ShakeOutEvaluationEfforts ........................................................................................................... 7

5. Findings:ShakeOut2008.................................................................................................................. 9

6. Findings:ShakeOut2009‐2010 ..................................................................................................... 21

7. ChallengesandOpportunities ........................................................................................................ 29

8. KeyFindings .......................................................................................................................................... 32

9. Recommendations............................................................................................................................... 33

References ...................................................................................................................................................... 35

Appendix ......................................................................................................................................................... 37

A.2008 ShakeOutMedia‐FocusedEvaluationFindings,Wave1

1. Executive Summary

Purpose

The purpose ofthisprojectistosummarize the historyand development of theCaliforniaShakeOutdrill,documentpriorShakeOutevaluationefforts andkeyfindings,anddeveloprecommendationstoguide futureplanningandcoordinationofearthquakedrillactivitiesin thestateof Californiawithparticularemphasis onbusinessrecoveryand preservation ofCalifornia’seconomic health.

The ShakeOut Drill

The “Great Southern CaliforniaShakeOut”isan annualcommunity‐wideearthquake drillthatbeganin 2008. The goalof thedrillisto provide southernCalifornianswith an opportunity tolearn whattodo before,during,andafteran earthquake.Thedrillisbased ontheShakeOutScenario, atheoretical large earthquakethatcouldoccuralongthe southernportionof the SanAndreas Fault.TheShakeOutScenariowascreatedbytheUnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey’sMulti‐HazardDemonstrationProjectand hasbeen usedto helpunderstandtheeffect that alarge earthquake couldhave on theeconomiesand communities ofsouthern California.Sincethe first year itwasimplemented, theShakeOut drillhasspreadtootherstates andseveral othercountries,aswell.

Evaluating the ShakeOut

EvaluationoftheShakeOutdrillshasoccurredsincethefirst drillin2008, buthas beenlimitedbythelack of funding availableforassessmentactivities.

In the years that followed, funding forevaluating the ShakeOuthasnot been readily available.SouthernCaliforniaEarthquake Council(SCEC) formed aResearch and EvaluationCommitteeconsistingoflocalearthquakepreparednessresearcherstodevelopandimplementevaluationactivitiesforShakeOutdrillsbeginningin 2009. TheCommittee conducteda survey ofShakeOutRegistrants,whichhas beenimplemented each year from 2009‐2012.

The Seismic Safety Commissionhelpedfundastatewidehousehold preparedness surveythatconcludedroughlyfouryearsago. The results from thatstudy can be used as baseline datato evaluate theimpact ofthe ShakeOuton householdpreparedness throughoutthestate.

1

Key Findings

Severalkeyfindingsemergedfromthisproject.

Justasreal earthquakes prompt preparednessbehavior,simulated eventsliketheShakeOutdrillalsopromptinformationseekingandpreparednessaction.

Californiaschoolsremainanunderutilizedresourcefor promotinghouseholdearthquakepreparednessandcandomoreto encourage staff and studentfamiliestopreparefor disastersathome andprovide supportmaterialsfor doingso.

Businessesandotherorganizations alsoremainunderutilizedin effortstopromotehouseholdpreparednessandcanhaveatremendousimpact onthe levelofpreparedness andrateofrecoveryinlocalcommunities.

TheShakeOutdrillhasbeensuccessfulinpromptingindividuals totalkto othersabout thedrillitselfand about earthquakesafety andpreparedness, whichhasbeenshown tobeaneffectivestrategyformotivating household preparedness.

Recommendations

Thisproject identified a numberof challenges and opportunities,andyieldedthe followingkey recommendations.Manyof the recommendationsmay be beyondthe scope orcapabilityofthe Commissionatthistime,buttheCommissionshouldplayapivotalroleinbringingtogetherentitiesthathavetheresponsibilityand authoritytoimplement the recommendations.

#1. Target businesses and other organizations for an increased role in motivating preparedness. Getting business back to business after a natural disaster must be a top priority for California:

Only38%of smallemployershave an emergencypreparedness plan;

Atleast30%ofsmallbusinesses havebeenclosedfor24hours orlongerin thepastthree yearsfollowing a naturaldisaster;

Businessesandbusinessorganizationsshouldplayalarger role inconducting ShakeOutdrills,distributingearthquakesafety and preparednessinformation,and modelingpreparednessefforts;

Disasterpreparedness,havingan emergency response plan inplace,andhavingtheequipmentandsuppliesnecessarytoenablebusinesscontinuity, increasethe

2

likelihoodthatbusinesseswill recoverfollowingdisaster.Thelonger abusinessis closedoronreducedoperationsthe lesslikelyitis toreopen;

Ifworkersandtheirhouseholds are betterpreparedfor a major earthquake,they willbeableandwillingtoreturn to workmore quickly,leadingtoincreasedcommunityresilience and fasterrecovery.

Recommendation: Efforts should be made to identify and recognize businesses and other organizations that can serve as role models because of their participation in the ShakeOut drill and evaluation, and their efforts to foster preparedness within the workforce and broader community. The effort should include seeking ways to motivate businesses to provide their employees with earthquake kits and information, and encourage increased preparedness within households.

#2. Target schools for an increased role in motivating household preparedness:

Schoolscanandshouldplayalargerrolein motivatinghouseholdpreparednessthrough thetransmissionofinformation,supportmaterials,and engagement from studentstotheirfamilies. Thiscanhelp reachhundredsofadditionalpeople at each school;

The ShakeOutalreadyprovidesmaterialstoschoolstofacilitatethiseffort,andthisactivityshouldbeexpanded;

Recognition thatcan bepostedon schoolwebsites canhelpschool’spublicizetheirefforts,andcanhelpmotivate studentsandtheirfamilies,as wellasother schools, totake action.

Recommendation: Key schools that can serve as role models because of their participation in the ShakeOut drill and evaluation should be identified. The efforts they have made to motivate students and families should be held up as examples for other schools to emulate. Efforts should also be made to motivate schools to encourage increased preparedness within employee and student households.

#3. Use the ShakeOut as an opportunity to test and provide public education about new alert and warning systems:

Publicandprivateearthquakeearlywarningsystemsare currentlyisbeingtestedin Californiaandcanprovideupto aminutewarningbeforestrong shakingisfelt;

The CommercialMobileAlertSystem(CMAS)deliversalertsandwarningstohandheldmobiledevices through commercialproviders,andiscurrentlybeingtestedinselectedcommunitiespriortonationwiderelease;

3

Alertand warningmessagescanbe passedthrough Twitterand otherformsof socialmedia;

TheShakeOutdrillprovidesanidealopportunity to acquaint thepublicwiththesesystems and toprovide publiceducation about whatthey are and howthey work;

Usingthe ShakeOut as a vehicle forintroducingthesemobilealertsystemstothepublicandproviding needededucationcan helppeoplelearn whattodowhentheyreceiveearthquakerelatedalertmessagesinthefuture.

Recommendation: Future ShakeOut events should include testing of public and private earthquake early warning systems in connection with the ShakeOut drill to test the systems and to help educate the public about them.

#4. Support program evaluation:

In‐kind,volunteereffortscoordinatedthrough theEarthquake CountryAllianceformalcommitteestructuretoevaluate the ShakeOut can provide usefuldatato guideprogramactivities;

Effortstoincreasedataintegrity andcredibilitythrough longitudinalevaluationand linkagewith registrant datashouldbeencouraged to increasethescientific reliabilityconclusionsdrawnfromtheexercise;

In‐kindeffortshave createdawealth ofdata,but lackof fundinghaslimited data analysisanddocumentation;

Recommendation: California should identify ways to provide support for cost‐efficient evaluation efforts so that the effects of the ShakeOut can be assessed and the program can be improved. This may include identifying ways to provide incentives to businesses that make financial contributions to ShakeOut evaluation efforts.

#5. Facilitate a follow‐up statewide household preparedness survey:

The statewidehousehold preparedness survey shouldberepeated atregular intervalsto provideongoingmonitoring;

Datacollectionforthestatewide householdpreparednesssurvey concludedroughly four yearsago,and much hashappenedsincethat time;

The questionnairethatwasusedin the baseline surveyshould bere‐administeredwithminimalchangetofacilitatebaselinecomparisonandtomaintain cost‐efficiency;

Followupdatashouldbecollected atafractionoftheinitial baselinecost;

4

Data can be usedto:

a. AssesstheimpactoftheShakeOut throughoutthestate;

b. Guidefutureprogram activities;and

c. Helpfirstrespondersand emergency managers anticipate communityneeds followinga major earthquake.

Recommendation: The Commission should facilitate identification of resources to fund a follow up cross‐sectional survey to assess change over time.

5

2. Purpose

The purpose ofthisprojectisto:(1)summarize thehistory and development oftheCaliforniaShakeOutdrill,(2)documentpriorShakeOutevaluationeffortsandkeyfindings,and(3)develop recommendationstoguidefuture planning and coordinationof earthquake drillactivitiesinthestateofCalifornia.Thisincludeshow Californiaengagesbusinessandindustryinmitigationandpreparedness.Recommendationshave beenformulatedtoassisttheCalifornia Seismic SafetyCommission,Californiagovernment officials,andotherrelated agenciesin improvingthequality and maximizing theimpactof futureShakeOutearthquakedrillandrelatedactivities.Methodsincludeddocument review and analysisof existing data.

3. History of California’s “Great ShakeOut” Drill

The Role of Drills

Disasterdrillsareanimportantcomponent ofemergencypreparednessin schools, organizations,businesses, andcommunities(DeMars,Buss,&Cleland, 1980). Many typesofdrills,includingfiredrills,tornadodrills,tsunamidrills, andearthquakedrills,havebeenconductedin manycountriesaroundtheworldin an effort tosupportacultureof preparedness inworldpopulationsand todecreaselossof life duringvarioustypes disasters(Manion&Golden, 2004; Parsizadeh & Ghafory‐Ashtiany, 2010;Schumacher, Lindsey,Schumacheret al.,2010; Simpson,2002). Drillshave been identifiedasa methodof helpingincreasereadinessamongparticipantsso that,inthe event ofa real disaster, individualswillknowhow toappropriatelyandautomaticallyrespond(Johnston,2007).Disasterdrillsarefrequentlyconductedinorganizationalsettings such as hospital and schoolastheselocationsholdat‐riskpopulationsaswellas theorganizationalstructure necessarytocoordinatesuccessfuldrills(Fujieda, 2008; Hosseini&Izadkhah,2006; Lao & Lao,1997).Earthquakedrills,in particular,arebecomingincreasinglywellorganizedand are expandingquickly in responseto thelarge‐scale hazardpotential andtheirrelativelackofpredictability.Earthquakedrills,inadditiontoearthquake mitigation,havethepotential todecreasephysical,socio‐economic,andotherlossesrelated toearthquakes(Nateghi‐A,2000).

The ShakeOut Earthquake Drill

The “Great Southern CaliforniaShakeOut”wasa widespreadearthquakedrillfirst conductedin 2008toencouragedisseminationofearthquakepreparedness andmitigationtechniquestothepublic.Thegoalofthedrillwastoprovide southernCalifornianswith anopportunity tolearn whattodo before,during,andafteran earthquake.Thedrillwas basedon the ShakeOutScenario, consistingofatheoreticalearthquakeof magnitude 7.8 thatcouldoccuralongthesouthern portionof the SanAndreas fault(Jones,Bernknopf,Cox et al., 2008). Anearthquake of thisnatureoccurs,onaverage, every 150years.Basedon an analysis of earthquakeprobabilitiesinCalifornia,ithasbeen determined that there isa 99.7% chanceof a 6.7 Magnitude or greater earthquake occurring inthestateinthe next 30

6

years. The Scenario was created byinterdisciplinarymembersoftheUnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey’sMulti‐Hazard DemonstrationProjectinorder tohelpunderstandthe effectsan eventofthissizewouldhaveonthe economiesand communities ofsouthern California (Jones,Bernknopf,Cox etal.,2008).

The Earthquake Country Alliance(ECA)coordinatedthedevelopment andimplementationof the firstShakeOut drill,which wasconducted onNovember 13,2008 at 10:00 amin Southern California andemphasizedthemessage, “drop,cover,andholdon.” The ECA was created by theSouthern CaliforniaEarthquake Center(SCEC),theUnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey(USGS), CaliforniaEmergencyManagementAgency(CalEMA),theAmerican Red Cross(ARC),andothersto mitigatetheeffectsof earthquakes byincreasingpublicawareness,creatingtools tosharemessagesaboutearthquakes,and sharingand developingresources.Stakeholders of the ECAalong withgovernmentofficials,businesses,schools,andindividualshelped to organizeandexecutethedrill(SouthernCaliforniaEarthquakeCenter,2012).Thedrillwasintendedasaone‐time event toincreasepreparedness,andtook placeconcurrentwith theannual2008GoldenGuardianeventtoencouragecollaboration ofemergency respondersandto maximize participation.The “GoldenGuardian”event seriesisan annual comprehensive statewideexercisetoassessemergencyoperationsplans,policies,andproceduresforcatastrophicincidentsatthelocal,regional,and state levels.Initiatedin 2004,thisannualexercise hasbecomethemostcomprehensiveexerciseprogramnationwide(CaliforniaEmergency ManagementAgency, 2011). The 2008 ShakeOutincluded5.4millionparticipantsineight countiesofCalifornia, making it thelargest earthquake drillinUnitedStateshistory at thetime(Petal&Green, 2009).

The 2008GreatSouthern CaliforniaShakeOut resonatedwithstakeholders, elicitingbroadparticipationandcommunity engagement. Deemed asuccess,itwas determinedthatthedrillshouldbecontinuedin subsequentyearsandexpanded to include other areas of California.Inthefollowingyear,morethan 6.9 million individualsacrosseverycountyin Californiaparticipatedin the2009 Great California ShakeOut event,whichoccurredon October15, 2009 at 10:15 am.Expansionofthe earthquakedrill in2009requiredincreased coordination,resultingin theEarthquakeCountryAlliancegrowingto a statewideeffort,withpartneralliances intheBay Area andNorthCoast.ThisresultedinthedivisionofCaliforniainto11areasforwhichearthquakehazardinformationwas organizedon the ShakeOut website.In addition,the ShakeOutearthquake drillspreadto areasoutsidethe stateof California forthe firsttime in 2009. The GreatWest CoastShakeOut inNew Zealand wasthefirstexampleofthisexpansion(SouthernCalifornia EarthquakeCenter,2011),

Inthethirdyearofimplementation,the2010California ShakeOutwasheldon October21, 2010 at 10:21 am andinvolvedover 7.9million participants.Theeventincludedanadditional message,“secureyourspace”,and encouragedCaliforniansto ready theirhomes for an earthquake. The ShakeOutsubsequentlyhas expandedtoNevada,Guam, BritishColumbia,Oregon,and11 CentralU.S.states,allofwhichhavefacilitatedsuccessfulShakeOutdrills(SouthernCaliforniaEarthquakeCenter,2011). Table 1 summarizes CaliforniaShakeOutparticipationtodate.

7

Animportantelement of theShakeOut’ssuccesshasbeeneffortstomaintain consistencyin ShakeOut‐related communications,includingwebsites,distributionmaterials,andmessages.This,inadditiontoextensiveadvertisingandmedia outreach,hasallowedmillionsofpeopleto hearthe ShakeOut messageandparticipateinthedrills.Variousgamesandmediatoolshave been developedtoencourage publicparticipationand interactive learning. “Dare to Prepare” is an earthquake readiness campaigncreatedbytheEarthquakeCountryAlliancethat promotedthenotion that although theearthquake threat persists(i.e., “ShiftHappens”),peoplestillhavetheability tominimizepotentialdamage(Earthquake Country Alliance, 2011). “Putting DownRootsin EarthquakeCountry”isahandbook aboutearthquakepreparednessthat was originallypublishedbySCECin1995.In theyearssinceitwas publishedithas been adapted tomany of theregions whereShakeOut drillshavebeen held,includingthe San Francisco Bay Area,NorthernCalifornia,Utah,the CentralU.S.,Nevada,andAlaska (ECA, 2011).Widespreadcollaborationbetween SCEC in California and stakeholdersinother regionswishing to conduct large‐scaleShakeOutdrillshasallowedtheadaptationofinformationandresourceswhilemaintainingsufficientconsistencyto fosterpublicinterestandattention.TheShakeOut website,maintained by SCEC,isa key channel for delivering andreceiving consistent informationaboutthe ShakeOut drill.Thespreadofthedrillacrossthenationand beyondincreasesitsvisibilitywithinthe state,as wellas itspotential impact.

Table 1. California ShakeOut Participation

Estimated Estimated

Number of Number of

Year Date Region Participants Registrants

2008 11/13/08 8Southern CaliforniaCounties 5.4 million 11,746 a

2009 10/15/09 State of California 6.9 million 11,008



a In2008,registration forhouseholdsandorganizationstookplacein separatedatasystems;dataforhouseholdsconsistedofregisteredparticipantsonly.

8

4. ShakeOut Evaluation Efforts

Overview

Formalevaluation oftheShakeOutdrillsisongoing andhasbeenlimitedby thelack of funding available for assessment activities.Theinitial2008drillresultedinthree differenttypesoffunded evaluations: (1) a comprehensive program evaluation(Davoudi, Onuma,& Glik,2009),(2) an evaluationofthe educationsector (Petal& Green,2009),and(3)a media‐focusedevaluation(Blakley,Chen,& Kaplan,2009).

TheinitialShakeOut drillwas praisedasasuccessbasedinpartontheresultsofthese early evaluations,butalso onthetremendous visibility of,media attentionon,and communityinterestin the event. Although the ShakeOutdrillcontinuedinsubsequent years,funding forongoing evaluation wasnot available.Inpreparation for the2009 ShakeOut,theRiskRedevaluation teamofferedto repeat the onlinesurvey in‐kind.This survey focusedon the education sectoronly,however.Given theseconstraintsandin an effortto move the evaluationprocess forward,SCECinvitedalocaldisasterandsurveyresearchertoassistinthedevelopment of an online survey thatbuilton previousworkinpreparation forthe2009 ShakeOutdrill,alsoin‐kind.Asthe twoevaluationeffortsadvanced,concernaboutconductingsimultaneoussurveysdeveloped,andthetwoevaluation effortswere mergedtoreducerespondentconfusionandburden.Toaccomplishthis,SCECformeda ResearchandEvaluationcommittee tointegrateandcoordinateevaluationeffortsacrossall participationcategories.

Together, the committee developedaquestionnaireto collectdata from five differentsectors: 1)households,2)K‐12schools,3)K‐12 schooldistricts,4)colleges and universities, and5) other organizations.Committeetasksincludeddevelopingsurveyquestions,programmingtheonline survey,pretesting andpilot testing thesurvey, emailinginvitation and reminder emailsto ShakeOutregistrants,analyzingquantitativeand qualitativedata, andpreparingsummaryreports. The resultwasamore coordinated and better‐integratedevaluationeffortacrosssectors,butthe lackfundingseverelylimiteddata analysisandreporting.

A summary of evaluation effortsto dateispresentedin Table 2.

9

Table 2. ShakeOut Evaluation Efforts

Year Lead Funding Method Sample

2008 Comprehensive Contract fromProgram Evaluation: SCEC; part of a

muchlargerDavoudiConsulting, overallSCEC Inc. program

evaluation

Administrativedata,secondary data,key‐informantinterviews,onlinesurveys,observations

120participantstories

Education Sector: Provided by RiskRed/Western SCEC WashingtonUniversity

Pre‐ShakeOutPreparednessonlinesurveyadministered11/06/08‐12/30/08

197K‐12schoolsand9 schooldistricts

Post‐ShakeOut DrillEvaluation onlinesurveyadministered11/13/08‐01/31/09

378K‐12schoolsand30 schooldistricts

Media Focus: Grant from theInnovation Fund

TheNormal Lear attheAnnenbergCenter,USC School forAnnenberg Communication

Onlinesurveyintwowaves(12/15/08‐12/30/08,04/01/09‐04/30/09)

3,068of 11,746householdsregistrants(26%)

2009 SCECResearch& In‐kind EvaluationCommittee

OnlineSurveyadministered12/17/09‐2/1/10

N =1,695of11,008ShakeOutRegistrants







10

5. Findings: ShakeOut 2008

Background,Methods,Findings, andDiscussionforeachofthreefundedevaluationsconductedforthe 2008 ShakeOut are presented.

Comprehensive Program Evaluation ‐ 2008

Background. In 2009, anexternalevaluation teamwashiredto conducta mixed‐methodsevaluationtoassessselectedareasandthe broaderimpactsoftheSCECCEO(Communication,Education,andOutreach)program.TheSCECCEO program,partof the SCECprogram based atUniversity of Southern California,isactively engaged withoutreach andpartnershipactivities toimproveandencourageactionsto prevent, mitigate,respondto,andrecoverfrom earthquake lossesamongthe generalpublic aswellasbusinesses, schools,universities,governmental,andnon governmentalagencies.

The evaluationteam consistedofDavoudiConsultingandDeborahGlik,ScD,UCLA, assistedbySCECCEOprogram affiliates.SCECCEO isalarge broad‐basedprogramthatwas evaluated in 2009 in anticipation of its funding renewal.Thus, theactualevaluationwas broaderthan reported here.However,threeof the sixSCEC CEO program componentsselectedforthebroaderevaluationdirectlyrelatedtothe2008 Shakeout.Thesewere: 1) EarthquakeCountryAllianceandtheGreatSouthernCaliforniaShakeOut,2)the Putting Down Roots in Earthquake Country booklet,and 3)MediaCommunicationsandRelations. Evaluation componentsare summarizedin Table 3.

Theevaluationusedadministrativedata,previouslycollectedsecondarydata,newly‐collectedprimarydatafrom key‐informant interviews,onlinesurveys,andobservations,includingprocessandoutputdatarelatedtothe implementationof the 2008

Table 3. Comprehensive Program Evaluation and the 2008 ShakeOut

Component a Method

EarthquakeCountryAllianceandthe Documentreview,keyinformant interviewofECA ShakeOut members(N = 6)

Putting Down Roots in Earthquake Country Website trackingdata, online survey ofindividuals booklet requesting the handbook(N =1,234)

MediaCommunications and Relations Mediacontent analysis ofinternallyproducedmediaandnews stories(N =92“earned”media stories)

a Threeof six overallSCEC program componentsevaluated.

11

GreatCaliforniaShakeout.

Earthquake Country Alliance. The ShakeOut islinkedto and aproductof the EarthquakeCountryAlliance(ECA).TheECA isacoalitionofscientistsand engineers, preparedness experts,responseand recovery officials, news mediarepresentatives,communityleaders,and education specialistscommittedtofosterearthquakeandtsunamireadinessin California.Founded in 2004,thiscoalitionhassponsoredanumberofcampaignsandstudiesthatledtotheinceptionand development ofthe Shakeoutcampaign in2008.

Methods. Twomethodswereused to evaluatetheEarthquakeCountryAlliance—documentreviewandkeyinformantinterviewing. Document review includedperusalofthe ShakeOut websiteandotherelectronicandprintmaterials,ShakeOutparticipantstories, a ShakeOut “PolicyPaper”,an ECA communicationsdocument,anda DebriefingReport(Dec4,2008).In addition,qualitative key informantsinterviewswereheldwithselected ECAmembers.Research questionsguidingdata analysis includedthe formationofthe ECA, SCECCEO’srole,ECA coordination andimpact,andbenefits ECA membersreceived as aresultoftheirparticipation.Likewise,research questions guidingdata analysisof feedbackfromShakeOutparticipantsincludedwhotheyareandwhatthey did,aswellaswhattypesof activitiesthey engaged inafterthe event.

Findings. Beginning in2004,SCEC convened andfacilitatedtheECA.Keyinformant interviews(N = 6) indicated that theECA’s foundationanddevelopment wasdependent on having a centralorganization(i.e.,SCEC)that had boththe scientificcredibilityandcapacity toconvene andleadadiversearray ofengagedstakeholders.SCEC’scollaborativeandscience‐basedapproachencouragedparticipationamongECAmembersandcreatedaflexible environment, with added value for members. These benefitsincluded:a)networking,b)coordination,c)abilitytoparticipateatdifferent levels andin varyingroles overtime(fluidparticipation), d)opportunitiestocontribute to thedialogue abouthazardpreparedness,responseandmitigation,e) abilitytoadapt information and materialstolocalcontexts andforlocalaudiences,andf)publicity.

Thiscoalitionbuildingactivitycanbe seen asthedriverfor a numberof linked outreachandresearchactivities that ECAsponsored,including DARE to Prepare (ECA’s 2007 earthquake readinesscampaign), Policy Summits (2007 and 2008), the USGS Southern San Andreas Shakeout Scenario,anda numberofstudiesof earthquakepreparedness, includingastatewidesurvey.These activitiesculminatedintheGreatSouthernCalifornia ShakeOut in November 2008.Aswell,ECA expandeditsscope, becomingastatewidecoalition. Thus,laterShakeouts becamestatewideevents.

Keyinformantinterviewsrevealedthatmuchofthestrategyof the 2008Shakeout wasbasedon ECA member’sinputs includingmodelingidealbehavior,simulationsof earthquake impacts,and theincorporation of socialmediathat capturedparticipantfeedback.Moreover,monthsofcomprehensivecommunication andmediapublicityweredirectlytiedtoSCECinvolvementaswellasnotionsofcomprehensive marketing;SCEC

12

websitedata showed more than 11,000 registrationsontheShakeoutwebsite,representing morethan5millionpeople,manyof whomwere affiliatedwithschools.

SCECCEOalsowas able to collectstoriesofparticipantsthroughitsinteractivewebsiteposts—120participantstories,sharedthroughpostings ontheShakeOutwebsiteafter thedrill—whichprovideinformationaboutthevalueofthedrillfrom theperspective ofthe participants. These storiesmay be viewed as demonstrationsofthetypesof activities,challenges,promptedbehaviors,andlessonslearned byparticipantsduringthedrill,which mayhelpguidecomprehensivestudies ofparticipant involvement and responsetothe drillinthe future.Usinganopen‐codingqualitative method,thestories werereviewed,andkeymessages(e.g. activitiesconducted,lessons learned,etc.)were extracted,grouped, and tabulatedtounderstand theoverarchingthemes.

The majorfindingsfrom thesestories werethat the ShakeOutdrill:a)increased individualandorganizational awarenessabout earthquake hazards,b)enhanced understandingofwhattoexpect during a highmagnitude earthquake and howto respond, andc)promptedawholerangeof preparednessbehaviorsincludinggettingsupplies, respondingto “drop,cover,hold on”commands,becomingawareof evacuation andshelteringinplacedirectives, andlearningabouttheimportanceofgoodcommunicationwithfamily, friends,andneighbors.The initial “success”of theShakeoutstimulateditsevolutionto becomingastatewide eventaswellas itsmigration/adoptionin otherstates andearthquake‐proneregions.

Putting Down Roots in Earthquake Country.Concurrent withtheGreatSouthern California Earthquake,anewversionofthe booklet, Putting Down Roots in Earthquake Country, gearedtohelphomeownersinCaliforniaandotherearthquakeproneregionstomitigate earthquakeimpactfortheirhomes,was reissuedandpostedfor downloadon the SCEC–CEOwebsite.While thisactivityisonlysomewhatrelated tothe Shakeout,its evaluation indicateshowtheShakeout notonlyimpactsimmediate behaviorsinresponseto adrill,butalsomore generalpreparednessbehaviors.

Methods. Twomethodswereused toassessthebooklet.First,thetiming and numberof acquisitionsofthe handbookvia the ECA website was evaluatedusingGoogleAnalyticssoftwareto determine the week‐by‐weekorder history ofthepublicationtobetterunderstandtheeventsprompting individualstoregister and orderthepublication.Second,theQualtricsonline survey tool wasusedtoinvite individuals andorganizationsrequesting thehandbook onlineto provideadditional feedback.Atotalof 9,002registrantswho orderedthe publication between June 1, 2008 and May 30,2009wereinvitedtocomplete the39‐item onlinesurvey duringatwo‐weekperiod,between July 15 and July31, 2009.

A total of 1,234registrantsrespondedtothesurvey(14%); 1,035completed the surveyinits entirety (84%).Researchquestionsfocusedon the typesofeventsthatpromptedincreaseddemandforthe handbook,whetherthehandbookpromotedpreparedness,anduser feedback. For registrants whoordered handbooksfortheir organization,asetofadditionalquestionsabout organizational usewas asked.

13

Findings. Googleanalytics webutilization software showedthathandbook ordering spikedattwopointsintimeduringtheyear: 1) aftera real earthquake(ChinoHills,July29, 2008)and,2)onthedayofthe Shakeoutdrill(November13,2008),suggestingthatrealandsimulatedevents,alike,may foster information seekingand preparednessbehavior. Onlinesurveyparticipants represented adistinctsegment ofthepopulation—thosewho wereover 35 yearsof age,homeowners,andcollege educated.

Media Communications and Relations. ForpublicizingtheShakeout2008,SCEC CEOanditspartnersutilizedstandard“mediarelations”tools suchaspressconferencesandnewsreleasessothatreporters couldpublicizeeventsin“earned media”,thatis, not paidadvertising.Thiseffortgeneratedmanynewsarticles.Additionally,SCECusedsocialmediasitessuchasYouTubetoconveyinformation about theShakeout and consequences of earthquakesmoregenerally.SCEC CEOwasdiligentaboutcollectingandstoringtheirownproducedmedia(e.g.,SCEConlinenewsletters)as wellasexternally generated media(i.e., newsstories)intheircentraldatabase.

Methods. Amediacontent analysisofrecentnewsstories in2008abouttheShakeoutwasconducted.Theemphasiswas on identifyingwhichcomponents werewellimplemented,whichneededimprovement, andwaysthatSCEC’smediaaspectmightbefurtherdeveloped.SCEConlinenewsarticlespertainingtoShakeout collectedin 2008 and storedinthe main program database werereviewedandcontentanalyzedforfrequency, typesof themesincluded,andmentionof organizationalnames inthearticles.Anadditional 92 newsstoriesaboutthe 2008 Shakeoutwerereviewedandcoded fortype of media thatcarriedthestoryas wellasthemesandmessagesthatwerepublicized.Themesweregroupedunder major message headingsandtabulated.Researchquestionswere: What did the news media report about the Shakeout in 2008?” and“Which organizations were mentioned most frequently in news media articles about the Shakeout?”

Findings. MostoftheShakeOutarticlesinthe news media occurredimmediately before,during, and immediatelyafter the shakeout eventin November of 2008.Storiescoveredthe eventitself, preparedness,consequencesofa major southernCaliforniaearthquake,andthekindsofthingsdifferentagenciesweredoinginanticipationofanactualevent.Moststoriesoccurredjust priortothe Shakeout drill.Shakeoutstorieswererepresented invariousoutletsrepresentingprintandonlinearticles,mediaadvisories,blogposts,andvideoclips,postedbyvariousnewschannelsandmediums,andbydifferentreporters.Therewasa lotofdiscussionoflocalearthquakes. Giventhat the ShakeOutScenariois aUSGSproduct,it isnotsurprisingthattheUSGS was mentionedin the media farmorethanotherorganizations,includingSCEC andthe ECA. Moreover,thisreflectsSCEC’sexplicitintentiontopromotetheShakeOutdrillitself ratherthanitsownorganizationalbanner.

Discussion. Thiscomprehensive program evaluationbenefited from relatively well‐definedSCECCEOprogramsthatcollectedareasonableamount ofadministrative, programmatic,andparticipantdata.The time andeffort spentonthisevaluationwassplit betweenorganizing andanalyzing pre‐existingdatabasesaswell ascollectingnewdatato supplement informationthatwasnot readily available.Data usedforthisanalysiswere

14

derivedfromprogramdocuments, keyinformants,participantfeedbackcollectedthroughonlinesurveys,observations,and mediacontent analysis.Thetypesof availabledata(inputsand activities)drivethetypes ofdatareceivedas wellasfindings/indicatorsthatcouldbeassessedforeach programmaticactivity aspartofthisevaluation.TheECAcomponentand“PuttingDownRoots”booklethadmoredataavailable than theMedia Relationscomponent.Although thisevaluationtookplaceinatimeandresourceconstrainedcontext,theexistingdataprovidedbySCECCEOand supplementedby new datacollectedbytheevaluation teamcontributedtoward understanding: a) whatSCEC CEO does,andb) theoutcomes (actual orpotential)itcouldachieve.

Someofthelimitationsofthis evaluationarethatonlysome data wereavailable, data mainly describeprogram implementation processesand outputs,andtherewas,withtheexceptionofsomeGoogleAnalyticsandanonlinesurveyaboutthose who acquiredthe Putting Down Roots in Earthquake Country materials,minimalimpactdata. More to the point,there wasno formalresearchevaluationstudydesign, andthe ad hoc nature of dataacquisition, bothqualitative andquantitative,clearlyhadsamplingorselectionbiasissues,withpersons whowereinterviewedpossiblydifferentthan those whowere not.

Education Sector Evaluation ‐ 2008

Anevaluationfocusingspecificallyontheeducationsectorwas undertakenbythe internationalnon‐profitorganization, RiskRED(RiskReduction EducationforDisasters),todetermine the effectiveness of theShakeOutinmotivatingschooldisasterpreparedness.SupportfromtheEarthquake Country Alliance and ProVentionConsortiumallowedtheRisk REDteam and theirpartnerstoconductan analysis ofthe effectivenessoftheShakeOut drillinschools(Petal& Kelman,2011).RiskRED workedwith theCoalition for Global SchoolSafetyandDisasterPreventionEducationandwithWesternWashington University’sInstitutefor GlobalandCommunityResilience.RiskRED’steam assembled materialsandself‐evaluationchecklists forschoolsinsupportoftheShakeOut,andafter investigatingthebodyofresearchonCaliforniaschooldisastermanagement,the collaboratingpartiesdevelopeda School Disaster Preparedness Survey and School Post‐Drill Evaluation Survey.A panelofschoolsafetyactivistsfromaroundtheworldassembledtoobserveschoolresponsestothedrill.

Methods. The evaluation team consisted of13schoolsafetyactivists, includingseveralinternationalmembers.Qualitativeaswellasquantitativedatawerecollected.

QualitativeData.Qualitativedataconsistedof school‐siteobservations anddebriefings.TheteamobservedtheShakeOut drillconductedin aprivateelementaryschool,apublicmiddleschool,apublic highschool,andat a districtemergencyoperations center.In addition,assortedblogcommentswere reviewed, and aconveniencesampleofstudentsand parents fromtheLosAngeles area wasinterviewed followingthedrill.

Quantitative Data. Quantitative data werecollected throughtwo online school surveys: 1) apre‐ShakeOut“SchoolPreparedness”survey and 2) apost‐ShakeOut“Drill

15

Evaluation” survey.Schoolsthat had registered onthe ShakeOutwebsitetoparticipateinthedrillwere invitedby email to also participate in the evaluation;links to bothsurvey questionnaireswere postedon theShakeOutwebsite.Table 4reportsparticipation.

Thepre‐ShakeOut School Preparedness surveyfocusedonassessmentandplanning,physicalandenvironmentalrisk reduction,andresponsecapacitydevelopment.Thepost‐ShakeOut Drill Evaluation surveyfocusedondrillsconductedaswellastheschool’sevaluationoftheirparticipationin the ShakeOutdrillandthe variousresponseelements practiced.Specifictopics included:1)drillfrequency,process,andevaluation,2)“Drop,cover,holdon”andevacuationdrills,3)IncidentCommandSystems(ICS),4)theNational Incident Management System(NIMS), and5) Safety andEnvironmentalManagement Systems(SEMS).

Table 4. Education Sector ShakeOut and Survey Participation

Public Private School

Schools Schools a Districts

TotalnumberinCalifornia 4,356 3,369 308

Registeredtoparticipatein 277/4,356 650/3,369 207/308 ShakeOut

(6%) (19%) (67%)

Preparedness Survey 76/277 121/650 12/207

(11/06/08– 12/31/08) (27%) (19%) (6%)

DrillEvaluationSurvey 187/277 191/650 30/207

(11/13/08– 01/31/09) (68%) (29%) (14%)

a Totalrepresentsthoseprivate schoolshaving6ormorestudents.

Results. Keyfindings fromthePre‐ShakeOut Preparedness andPost‐ShakeOutDrill Evaluation surveysare presented in Tables5 and6.Qualitativedatacollectedthrough schoolobservations and debriefingsandquantitativedata collectedthrough pre‐andpost‐ShakeOut surveysledtothefollowingconclusions,amongothers:

Broadparticipationisessential tosuccessfulschooldisaster prevention andresponseplanning;

Principlesunderlying“Drop,Cover,andHoldOn”arenotwellunderstoodandnotwell‐practicedinsettings withoutdesksortables;

Many schoolsmaybenefitfrom ICS training;

16

Pre‐drillplanningandpost‐drilldiscussionarethemostimportantpartof the drill experience;

Schoolemergency plans shouldnotbestatic,butratherinconstantrevisionbythe peoplepracticingthem;

Drillsrequirerealismand variety to maximize effectiveness;

Studentsare neitherfully engagedin disasterprevention and preparednessnorincarryingsuchmessageshome;

Child‐to‐familydisasterknowledge transferholds great anduntappedpotential;

Drillsprovideopportunitiesfor student experiential learning before,during,and after conductofthedrill;and

Home‐based licensedchild‐careproviderswouldbenefitfromregulationsandclear guidance aboutdisaster planning.

Discussion. Although this volunteersample ofShakeOutregistrantsinterviewedin thequantitativecomponentisnot representativeofCalifornia schoolsingeneral,itcanbe saidtoreflectthe most engaged schoolsandschool districtsthatregisteredtoparticipateintheShakeOut.Thus,survey findings provideinsight onissues relatedtopreparednessand thepracticeofdrillsthatare facedbythe most engaged schoolsandschooldistrictsandcan beusedinthe designof future evaluationandprogram efforts. A unique aspectofthis evaluation is that quantitative datawerecollected separately forprivateschools,about whichlittleis known intermsofdisasterpreparedness.Althoughalargeportionofschooldistrictsregisteredtoparticipatein the ShakeOut(67%),the numberofdistrictregistrants surveyed wassmall(pre‐ShakeOut, n =12;post‐ShakeOut, n = 30). Datacollectionforthepre‐ShakeOutpreparednessandpost‐ShakeOut drillevaluationsurveysoverlapped,whichmayhavecausedconfusionorreportingerrors.Ideally,these twosurveyswouldhavehadseparatedatacollectionperiods.Nonetheless,thisevaluation providesusefulinsightsfor future planning. The qualitative case studieshighlightstrengthsandongoingconcernsfor schooldisasterpreparedness,and the quantitative datashedlighton the challengesfaced bythe mostengagedschools.

17

Table 5. Pre‐ShakeOut School Preparedness Survey: Frequency of Schools Reporting Preparedness Actions Taken (N=197)

Preparedness Action (%)

Assessment and Planning Activities

Administrative‐LevelPreparednessActions: n = 190

Haveaschoolpreparednesscommittee 95

Have mapsandidentifiedevacuationroutes 48

Haveplansforalternateschoolsite 23

Haveplansforcontinuing instructionsfollowingextendedclosure 17

Staff‐LevelPreparednessActions: n = 186

All/moststaffawareexpectedto stay onjob asdisasterservice worker 92

All/moststaffcompleted ownfamilydisasterplan 14

Physical Protection Activities

PhysicalEnvironmentRisk Reduction: n = 180

All/mostschoolbuildingsmeetallcurrentearthquakesafetystandards 71

All/mostportableclassroomsare fastenedtotheground/foundation 39

All/mosttall andheavyfurnishingsarefastened 72

All/mosthazardousmaterialshavebeenlimited,isolated,secured 70

All/mostsmokedetectors,firealarms, automaticsprinklersystems,firehoses 90 andextinguishersareinplaceandmaintainedregularly

Capacity Development

StudentResponseSkills: n = 175

All/moststudentshavepracticed “Drop,Cover,HoldOn”and evacuation 91

All/mostsciencelabstudentsknow howto extinguish flames,isolatehazardous materials 20

One ormorestaff members have training in: n = 174

BasicFirstAid 97

AdvancedFirst Aid 62

18

55 Crisiscounseling

RedCrossdisasterclass 31

CERT 25

Firesuppression 20

Amateurradio(HAM) 13

19

Table 6. Post‐ShakeOut Drill Evaluation: Frequency of Schools (N=378) and Districts (N=30) Practicing Key Drill Components

Individual School Schools Districts

Drill Activity (%) (%)

General Drill Frequency, Process, & Evaluation n = 347 n = 29

Practicefiredrillsatleastmonthly 66 83

Practiceevacuation ICS/SEMS atleastannually 64 79

Practicelock‐downorshelter‐in‐place atleastannually 70 86

Drills Practiced for 2008 ShakeOut Event n = 347

Drop,Cover,HoldOn(DCH)only 13 ‐

DCHand BuildingEvacuationonly 54 ‐

DCH,BuildingEvacuation,andICS/SEMS 33 ‐

ShakeOut “Drop, Cover, Hold On” & Evacuation Drills n = 352 n = 22

Allstudents dropped,covered,heldonduringdrill 76 82

Allteachersdropped,covered,heldonduringdrill 60 77

Following“shaking”allstaffleftdoorsignsindicatingstatus 29 23

Following“shaking”allstudentsandstaffassembled insafe area 85 91

ShakeOut ICS, NIMS, and SEMS Drills n = 338 n = 22

Incidentcommandcenter met/exceededexpectations 77 82

Communications,publicinformationmet/exceededexpectations 65 73

Emergencysuppliesmet/exceededexpectations 59 77

FirstAid/mentalhealthteammet/exceededexpectations 67 87

Simple/lightsearch&rescueteam met/exceeded expectations 64 82

Assembly area met/exceededexpectations 83 95

Securityincludingutilities met/exceededexpectations 68 73

Sanitation andshelter met/exceeded expectations 51 55

20

Media‐Focused Evaluation ‐ 2008

Background.Hollywood Health& Society,aprogramwithintheUniversity of Southern CaliforniaAnnenbergNormanLearCenter,received agrant from theInnovation FundattheAnnenbergSchoolfor Communication tocomplete anevaluationof the 2008ShakeOutdrillfocusingonmedia effects(Blakley,Chen,&Kaplan, 2009). The surveyassessedthe effectiveness ofthe “entertainment education‐based”technique,whichhas been usedto disseminate information tothe ShakeOutdrillparticipants,and was incorporatedintothe L.A. Earthquake: Get Ready campaign.Thissurvey,whichusedas itssampleindividualswho wereregisteredforthe 2008GreatSouthernCaliforniaShakeOut,wasdesignedtoassessthepreparednessknowledge,beliefs, attitudesandbehaviorsaswellassocio‐demographiccharacteristicsofrespondents whohada highlikelihoodofalso participatinginShakeoutevents.

Specifically,thesurveywasdesignedto:(1)assessthedegreetowhichindividualswhowereregisteredfortheGreatShakeout online registryrecognizedand adheredto campaign messages,(2)investigate what factorspredictparticipants’attitudesandbeliefsrelatedtoearthquakepreparedness,response,and recovery,and (3)describe the populationgroupsthat wereregisteredonthesite, andhowtheyreceivedandtransmittedinformation toothers.Thus,itwasintendedthatthesamplewouldrepresentindividualswho already had some level of engagementinearthquakepreparedness.

Methods.Arepeatedcrosssectionalsurvey of adults,aged 18 yearsandolder,who hadregisteredtoparticipatein the 2008ShakeOutwasconductedintwo wavesdata collection.Participationinthe second wavewasnotcontingent oncompletingthe first wave. Thefirstsurvey was conducted one month afterthe ShakeOutdrill;the second was conductedfivemonthspost‐drill todetermine the longer‐term impact ofShakeOut activities.Responseratesare presentedin Table 7.

Table 7. 2008 ShakeOut Media‐Focused Evaluation Survey Participation

Response Complete

Wave N Rate Data Timing

1 3,068 26% (3,068/11,746) 80% (2,467/3,068) 1‐monthpost‐drill

2 2,390a 20% (2,390/11,746) 86% (2,044/2,390) 5‐monthspost‐drill

a Approximately40%ofWave2respondents alsowererespondents in Wave 1.

21

Datawerecollectedthroughonlinequestionnairesemailedtoadults,aged 18yearsorolder,whohadregisteredtoparticipate ontheShakeOutwebsite.Forbothwavesofdata collection,invitations wereemailedto the completelistofregistrants.Thequestionnaireincluded items measuring socio‐demographics, mass media channelsofmessageexposure,interpersonalcommunicationaboutearthquakes,knowledge,perceivedsalience,self‐efficacy,outcome effectiveness, barrierstopreparedness,preparedness,and drill participation.

Findings—Wave 1. A report summarizing Wave 1 findingswasproducedbythe Lear Center (Blakley,Chen,&Kaplan,2009);findingsaresummarizedinTables8‐10.

The sample representeda highly engagedpopulation.Nearly all respondents (97%)saidtheywouldcontinuetoparticipateifanearthquakedrill wasconductedannually,andknowledgeof recommendedprotective actionswasrelatively high.Interestingly,amonth after thedrill,morethanhalf (56%) felt“somewhat”prepared, 12% felt “verywell” prepared,andathird(32%)either felt“fairly”preparedor“totally”unpreparedto handlealarge‐scaleearthquake,suggestingthatthesamplemay representapopulationwith elevatedconcernsabout earthquakes.Comparedto the general populationinCalifornia(U.S.CensusBureau,2009),Wave 1respondentsincludedahigherpercentageofwomen(67% v. 50%), whites (75% v. 42%),andresidents ofPasadena andthearea surroundingtheUniversityofSouthern California, presumably becauseof highregistrationratesforUSC faculty,staff,andstudents.

Thelargemajorityofregistrantssurveyed(79%)reportedthat theyhadengagedin theprimarybehavioral objective oftheShakeOut—a“Drop, Cover,HoldOn”exercise—on thedayof the drill.Whileknowledge aboutrecommendedprotectiveactionswashigh, only 22% ofrespondentswereabletovolunteer the keyShakeOut messagein exactterms(i.e., “Drop,Cover,andHoldOn”).However,subsequent analysisof thedatasuggestedthatthe lowunpromptedrecallof the ShakeOut’s “key message”waslargely due to measurement errorassociatedwith:1)questionstructure,2)miscategorizationof correct responses,and 3)participant confusion.Moreover,thepremisethat“Drop,Cover,HoldOn”wastheprimary message isfaulty. Indeed,subsequent ShakeOutevents have sought tonarrowthe focusof the widevariety of messages thatwerepromotedin anticipation of the initialdrill.

Table 8. 2008 ShakeOut Media‐Focused Evaluation Findings—Media

22

Degreeto whichindividualswhowereregistered fortheGreat Shakeout onlineregistry recognized andadheredtocampaign messages:

The majority (79%) of thosewho registeredon the ShakeOut websitereported having physicallyparticipatedin the “Drop,Cover,HoldOn”exercise.

Only22%ofregistrantswhoparticipatedin the survey were ableto recallthekey message:“Drop,Cover,andHoldOn”,unprompted.

Respondents reported arelatively highlevelofknowledge about appropriate protectiveactionstotake duringanearthquakein variedsituations (ingeneral, 87%;outside,92%;inbed,44%,driving,94%).

Amonth afterthedrill,morethanhalf (56%) felt“somewhat” prepared,12%felt“verywell”preparedtohandlea large‐scaleearthquake, and a third(32%) either felt“fairly”preparedor “totally”unprepared.

Nearlyallrespondents(97%)said theywouldcontinuetoparticipatein an annual earthquakedrill.

(Blakeley, Chen,& Kaplan,2009)

Table 9. 2008 ShakeOut Media‐Focused Evaluation Findings—Attitudes and Beliefs

Factors that predict participants’ attitudes and beliefs related to earthquake preparedness, response, and recovery:

Peoplewho participatedinthedrillwerelesslikely (20 v. 28%) to endorse the discredited“TriangleofLife”recommendationas anadvisableprotectiveaction.

Drillparticipantsweresignificantly less likely (12% v. 17%) to endorse“gettingunderadoorway”(onlyrecommendedinadobestructures)asanadvisableprotectiveactionduring anearthquake.


Findings—Wave 2. AnalysisofWave2 data (not includedintheoriginalreport) wasconductedfor thisreportby DeborahGlik,PhD,one ofthe researchersinvolvedinthe original media‐focusedevaluation.SeeAppendixAfor datafromWaves 1 and2.

Participation.Therewerenosignificantdifferencesinsocio‐demographicfactors betweensurvey waves.(SeeAppendix A, TableA‐1.)Aboutthree‐quartersofrespondents (77% ofWave 1 respondentsand 71% ofWave 2 respondents)reportedthatthattheyhad“dropped,covered,andheldon”duringthedrill(TableA‐2). About half (49%) had

23

practicedtheirplans,43% hadhelpedothers,and 35% hadparticipatedinameetingabout theseissues. Many fewer reportedusing games or socialmedia applications.ByWave 2adherencetotheseactivitieshaddroppedslightly(TableA‐2).

InformationSources andCommunication. The majorityofrespondentsreported thattheyreceivedtheirinformation aboutthe ShakeOutandearthquakepreparednessthroughconventionalnewsmediasuchasTVnews,newspapers,radio,theInternet,andinterpersonalconversations.Amajorityof respondentsdiscussedearthquakepreparedness withfamily, friends,andcolleagues,suggestingthat respondents were engagedindisaster preparedness.(See Tables A‐3 andA‐4.)

24

Table 10. 2008 ShakeOut Media‐Focused Evaluation Findings—Information

Population groups who were registered on the site, and how they both received and transmitted information to others:

Comparedto the general population inCalifornia (U.S.CensusBureau,2009),Wave1respondentsincludedahigherpercentage ofwomen (67% v.50%),whites(66%v.43%),individualsaged 50 yearsandolder(42% v.37%), and individualswithhigher annualincomes($66,000 v.$29,000).

Mostwho participatedwereeither at work(47%) orhome(35%)atthetimeofthe drill.

Peoplewhophysicallyparticipatedindrillwerenearlythreetimesaslikely(14%v.5%)toparticipateinonline earthquake‐related games.

Two‐thirds(66%)receivedearthquakeinformationfromtelevision,andjustoverhalf(55%) fromprint newspaper.

The ShakeOutwebsite wasthe most frequent sourceofonlineinformation (86%).

Three‐quarters(75%)reportedhaving heardorseensomething about the ShakeOut fourormoretimesin the past30 days.

Drillparticipantsweremorelikely to have foundinformationononlinenews sites thanthosewhoregistered,butdidnot participate (36% v.20%).

Not quite half (44%)had receivedprintmaterialsrelatedtothedrill.

Peoplewho talkedto othersabout earthquake preparednessin themonth following thedrillwere morelikelytohaveparticipatedinthedrill(79% v. 55%) than those whodidnot.

Thosewhophysicallyparticipatedweremorelikely torecruitotherstoparticipate (84%v.70%)practiceotheraspects oftheirdisasterplan (49% v.27%) andto assistothers intheirearthquakepreparations (46% v.18%)thanthosewhodidnot participate.


Knowledge. There waswidevariation inunderstanding ofwhat protective actions totakeduring andafter anearthquake.Although a large majorityknewto drop,cover,and holdon(86% inWave 1, 83% inWave 2) aswellas topullover iftheywerein acar(92%in Wave 1, 91%inWave 2),therewas stillsomeconfusion about whattodo inothersettings. Moreover,nearlyaquarter(22%)endorsedthediscredited“TriangleofLife”strategy.Interestingly,knowledgelevelremainedconsistent inthemonthsfollowingthedrill.(See TableA‐5.)

25

Self‐AssessedPreparedness.Amongthisself‐selected,engaged sample withrelativelyhighlevelsofknowledge, 82%consideredthemselves only“fairlyprepared”or“somewhatunprepared.” Avery small percentage, 12%inboth Waves,felttheywere“veryprepared”,and6% at bothtimes consideredthemselvesto be “totallyunprepared”(see TableA‐6). Those whoreportedthat theyweretotallyunprepared(6%) appeared morelikelytobeminorities,women, younger adults, andpeople with lowerincomes;thosewho saidtheywere more preparedtendedtobewhite,olderadultswithhigherincomes.Women,thosewhoidentifiedas white/Caucasian, andthosewhoreportedhigherincomesweremorelikelytoparticipate in the “Drop,Cover, andHoldOn”drill.There wasnoclearagegradient relatedto drillparticipation.Therewaslittle attenuation in responses overtimesuggestingrelativestabilityof salience andbehavior. (SeeTables A‐7 and A‐8.)

Discussion. The sample wasnot representative ofthestate as awhole,butrather ofCaliforniaresidentswhoregistered for the ShakeOut and alsovolunteeredtotakethesurvey.Itcanbeassumedthatthisself‐selectedgroupwas more engagedand motivated thantheoverallpopulation.Generally,thesample was highly knowledgeablewithpositiveattitudesandskillsaboutpreparedness.Thelack of attenuationofknowledge,beliefs,attitudes,and practicesfromWave 1 toWave 2 suggeststhat formotivatedparticipants,suchfactorsarereinforcedbyactivitiessuchastheShakeOut drill.Atthesame time,highratesofparticipationinthedrillaswellascriticalself‐assessmentsoflevel ofpreparednesssuggestthattheShakeOutreinforcedawarenessaboutearthquake preparednesseven amongan already engaged population.

Anissue for thisevaluationisthatthesamplerepresentsaspecialpopulationthat,unlikethe generalpopulation,ishighly engagedin earthquake safety.Among this group, theresponse rate wasrelatively high, andthe samplecan be consideredrepresentative of registrants.Thisbearsonthe generalizeabilityoffindings, whichshedlight onhow motivatedindividualsrespondedtotheShakeOutdrill.

Intermsoftheprimarydrillobjective, asubstantial portion ofthesample(roughly three‐quarters)reportedthatthey had participatedinthe “Drop,Cover,Hold On”drill exercise,and alarger proportionknewwhatself‐protectiveactionstotake duringan earthquake. Preparednessactionstakenwere measuredasself‐perceivedpreparedness (“How prepared to you feel you are to handle a large‐scale earthquake?”),whichmay be inaccurate because respondentsdonotknow howpreparedtheyare,and may inadvertentlycollectdataabout fear of earthquakes,ratherthanlevel ofpreparednessorparticipationinpreparednessbehaviors.

The factthat only 12% of thispopulationfeltthey weretotally prepared,andthelargemajority—over80%—saidtheywereonlypartiallyprepared, isanomalous,astheseassessmentsaremuchlowerthanthatfindingsfrompopulation‐basedsurveys.Forexample,inaLosAngelessurvey conductedin2004,48%reportedhavingadequatedisastersuppliesand40%reported having a familycommunicationplan, andratesof preparedness wereloweramongethnic minoritygroups,personswithlowerincome,andpersonswithchronicillnesses(Eisenman,Glik,Ong etal.,2009). However, eventhesetypesofoverallstatisticscanbe misleading, aspeople mayhave some butnot allneededsupplies,

26

andhavingadisastercommunicationplanisevenlesslikelythanhavingsupplies(Murphy,Cody,Frank etal.,2009). Furthermore,thisisa subjective assessmentofpreparednessamonga somewhat motivated and engagedgroup,andself‐assessmentsmayreflectamoreidealizedstandard than the norm.

Oneof the conclusionsdrawnwasthattoo many earthquake‐relatedevents(e.g.,the “Drop,Cover,HoldOn”drill,theGoldenGuardian event,the InternationalEarthquake Conference, theShakeOut Scenario andassociated visualizations,theGetReadyRide,etc.) tookplace inarelativelyshort timeperiod,promotingtoomanysimultaneousmessages.

Because there was notrue baseline,withboth surveystakingplaceafterthedrill, thisevaluationcannot definitivelyassessimpact oftheShakeout onsubsequent preparedness behavior.Ontheotherhand,thosewhodidparticipatewere more knowledgeableandhad strongerand morepositiveattitudesand beliefsabout preparedness.The degreeto whichthisisaceiling effect—apopulationwhoalreadyscoreshighonselectedindicatorsand henceisunlikelytochange—is a realpossibility.For these reasonsit is notpossible touse these datato assess impact. Theusefulnessofthesedata, however,isto describethe typesofaudiencesthat theShakeOutDrillisattracting.Clearly,byimplication,the audiencesnotwell represented arethosewhoare youngerandpoorerandmoreethnicallydiverse.Thus,changingwho participates in the ShakeOutovertimeis quiterelevant.

6. Findings: ShakeOut, 2009 – 2010

Although interestincontinuing annualdrillsincreasedfollowing the success ofthe firstShakeOut,funding forevaluating these effortswasnot readilyavailable,andinitial attemptstosecureindependent funding wereunsuccessful.To facilitateanintegratedevaluationapproachthatwouldprovideconsistencyofmethod acrossparticipationcategories,SCECformedaResearchandEvaluationCommittee1 consistingoflocalearthquakepreparednessresearcherstodevelopandimplementevaluationactivitiesforfutureShakeOutdrills.

Methods

The ECA Research andEvaluation committee developedaquestionnairetocollectprocessandoutcomedata fromfiveShakeOutparticipationcategories: 1) households,2)K‐12schools,3)schooldistricts, 4)colleges/universities,and 5)otherorganizations.Individualsbeganthequestionnaireansweringitemsfor theparticipationcategoryunderwhichthey registered, and then wereinvitedtocompleteother relevantsectionsofthe questionnaire.Topicsincludedcurrentandpriorparticipation inthe ShakeOut,experience

1 Committee memberswereMarkBenthien,SCEC,RebekahGreen,PhD andMarla Petal, PhD,RiskRed,MicheleWood,PhD,CSUFullerton.

27

practicingdrills,disasterplanning and preparedness andmitigationefforts,individualand organizationaldemographics,and for individuals,additionaldatawerecollectedaboutinformationsourcesandchannels,informationseeking,andcommunication.Inaddition,open‐ended itemswereincludedto collectinformationaboutlessonslearnedand suggestions forfutureShakeOuts.

Thequestionnairewasadministered onlineusingSurveyMonkey software. In 2009, thequestionnairewas available 8‐16 weeks followingthe ShakeOut;in 2010,2‐6 weeks followingthe ShakeOut, andin 2011, 2‐8weeks followingthe ShakeOut (seeTables1 and 2).Invitationswithpersonalizedsurvey linkswereemailedto thosewhoprovidedavalid addresswhen theyregisteredon the ShakeOut website.Reminderswereemailedtothose whodidnot completethesurvey.Correspondencewassentunder coveroftheShakeOut ([email protected]) via SCECDirectorofCommunication,Education,andOutreachandECAExecutiveDirector(MarkBenthien).ThequestionnairewaspretestedbyagroupofECAAssociatespriortolaunch. SeeTable11forinformation aboutsurveysamplingand administration.

Results

Asubstantial amount ofdatahas beencollectedoverthepastthree years,butwithout funding,analysis anddocumentation has been slow.A draftreport hasbeen preparedfor the 2009 Education sector,butitisstillunderrevision.The followingtables reportselectedfindingsbased. Frequencies forkey variables arepresentedbelow for 2009 and2010. Theserepresenta small fractionof the totaldata available. (Datafor2011 are currentlybeingcleaned.)

28

https://[email protected])

Table 11. 2009‐2011 ShakeOut Evaluation: Respondents and Registrants by Participation Category a, b

2009 2010 2011

N N N

ParticipationCategory

Households 631 566 801

K‐12 Schools 215 274 304

SchoolDistricts 69 85 124

Colleges/Universities 52 47 64

OtherOrganizations 728 836 1,046

c Total 1,695/11,008 1,808/11,658 2,339/11,850

(15%) (16%) (20%)

a Includesindividualswhodidnot receive asurvey invitation because their email addresswas invalidor they hadpreviouslyopted outof SurveyMonkey.

b Someindividualscompletedmultiplesections of thesurvey; primaryparticipation categoryisreported.

c Totalincludespeoplewho: 1)indicatedthat they were atleast18 yearsof age,2) responded“yes”when askedwhether they wanted tocomplete the survey,3) reported beingaCaliforniaresident,and 4)providedtheir ShakeOut participationcategory;some stoppedanswering questionsbeforetheycompletedthe entire survey.

Households/Individuals.In 2009,631respondentsinitiated thequestionnaire as individuals(566 in 2010). Ofthose whoalsoindicatedtheir gender,35%(175/500) were men (2010: 43%, 219/505) and 65% (325/500) werewomen (2010: 56%, 282/505; 1% preferred nottosay,4/505).

29

Ofthosewhoindicatedtheirrace/ethnicity,80%(375/472)werewhite(2010:71%, 350/494),11%(50/472)were Hispanic/Latino(2010: 11%,56/494), 2% (10/472)wereblackorAfrican American(2010:3%, 16/494),6%(26/472) were Asian(2010:6%,29/494), and1%(6/472) wasAmericanIndian orAlaskan Native(2010:1%,3/494).(In 2010, 4% were “Mixed”, 19/494, <1%were Native Hawaiian orotherPacificIslander 1/494; and 1%,20/494,preferred not tosay.

Intermsof age,in 2009, 10%were 18‐29, 32% werein their 30sor 40s,32% were intheir 50s, 21%werein their 60s,and5%werein their 70s orolder(n=485). This compares to 6%,18‐29; 32%,30sor 40s; 32%, 50s;22%,60s; and 8%,70sorolderin 2010 (n=477).

In 2009,respondentswereasked iftheyhadreceivedprint materialsabout the ShakeOut priortothedrill,and 34%reportedthat they had.Whenaskedaboutsourcesof information about earthquake safety andpreparedness,the most commonresponsesin2010were governmental agencies (48%)andECA (47%),with relativelyfewerreceiving information from employers(21%)and schools(11%).(See Table 12.) In 2010, respondents were askedabouttheirpreferredways ofreceiving informationabout earthquake safety andpreparedness; 68%indicatedemail(382/566),56% theinternet(316/566),41%television(231/566),28% newspapers(160/566), 26% face‐to‐face (150/566),23%radio (131/566), and11% cellphone voice ortextmessages(61/566). Thelargeproportionpreferringemail andthe Internetsuggests atechnologysavvy sample.

Whenrespondentswere askedwhattheydidto getready for the ShakeOut in2009, 84%(486/580)saidthat they encouragedotherstoparticipate (69%, 392/566in 2010), 71%(414/580)saidthat they revieweddrillmanualsfrom the ShakeOutwebsite to plan their drill (53%, 305/566 in 2010), 43% (250/580) said that theyhelpedotherspreparefor theirShakeOutdrill(24%,138/566in 2010), 40% (233/580)said they developed new earthquake response plans (23%,132/566 in2010), 34% (195/580) said theydistributed information tootherpeopleintheirorganization(37%, 210/566 in 2010), 28%(160/580)saidtheyparticipatedinameetingintheirworkplaceorschoolabout preparing for earthquakes (18%, 101/566in 2010), and25%(145/580)said they playedthe“Beatthe Quake” gameon the ShakeOutwebsite(12%,65/566 in 2010). Arelativelysmaller proportion(<10%)indicatedthattheyjoinedtheShakeOut Facebookgrouporfollowedthe ShakeOut Twitterfeed.

Nearlythree‐quarters(2009: 75%, 419/564; 2010: 82%, 443/542) saidthatthey practiced“Drop,Cover,andHold on”onthedayof theShakeOut.Mostpracticedthedrillat home (2009: 52%, 293/564; 2010: 57%,284/502).About a thirdwereat work(2009: 33%, 187/564; 2010: 31%,157/502).Nearly allsaidthat they plantoparticipateinthe next year’s ShakeOut (2009: 87%,442/509; 2010: 90%,457/509).

30

Table 12. 2009‐2010 ShakeOut Evaluation: Usual Sources of Information about Earthquake Safety and Preparedness – Households

2009 2010

(N=631)a (N=566)

Activity % N % N

Wheredoyou usuallyget informationabout earthquake safetyandpreparedness?

CityorStateGovernmentagencies ‐‐b 48 271/566

EarthquakeCountryAlliance(ECA) /ShakeOut ‐‐b 47 266/566

Televisionanchors/reporters 64 372/580 43 242/566

Friendsorrelatives 47 270/580 28 159/566

U.S.GeologicalSurvey 46 268/580 39 222/566

Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) or Department ofHomeland Security(DHS)

‐‐b 29 162/566

American Red Cross 40 235/580 27 155/566

Emergency Management Agencies 35 203/580 ‐‐b

Southern California Earthquake Center(SCEC) 34 196/580 22 22/566

“PuttingDownRootsin Earthquake Country” handbook 34 196/580 ‐‐b

Employers 27 159/580 21 120/566

Homeowner’sGuideto EarthquakeSafety 27 157/580 ‐‐b

Insurancerepresentatives 12 69/580 6 31/566

Received no earthquake information beforethe 2009 ShakeOut

13 74/580 12 2/566

31

Schools 30 171/580 11 61/566

a 580/631completedthis section.

b These item wasrevisedin 2010.

Table13showsdifferentpreparednessactionsthatrespondents mayhave taken by theirreasonsfortakingaction. Athird(32%) learnedwhat to dotostaysafeduringan earthquake because oftheShakeOut.

Table 13. 2010 ShakeOut Evaluation: Preparedness Actions Taken Because of the ShakeOut – Households (N=525)

Done Starte NOT dbut Not

Because because not Plannin Plannin of of Finish gto Do gto Do

ShakeOut ShakeOut ed It It Whatthingshaveyou/yourhouseholddone…? % % % % %

Secureheavyfurnituretothewall 13 36 21 21 9

Move heavier itemstolowershelves 20 38 19 13 10

Completeorupdateafamilyplan 21 33 23 16 7

Identify an out‐of‐state contactperson 22 47 8 18 5

Keep shoes andflashlights bythe bed 21 53 8 13 5

CompleteFirstAidtraining 11 51 8 18 12

Keep fire extinguisher nearby 13 58 5 16 8

Haveoccasionalearthquakedrills 20 17 8 30 25

Copyimportantdocuments 11 38 18 27 6

HaveaFirstAidkit 16 67 7 8 2

Storeat least3daysof foodathome 20 58 10 10 2

32

Storeat least3daysof waterat home 18 57 11 11 3

Have an evacuation bagready 15 37 18 23 7

Haveportableradioandbatteries 16 56 7 16 5

Talk toan expert toevaluate buildingandearthquake risks

7 21 6 17 49

Strengthenorrepairhomeforearthquake safety

8 25 8 17 42

Purchaseearthquakeinsurance 7 27 4 12 50

Identify safe spotsinevery room 26 30 15 23 6

Learn what todoto stay safe during an earthquake

32 45 10 10 3

Learn when/howto shut offthe main gas valve

19 57 4 15 5

K‐12 Schools.Ofthe215K‐12school representativesthatinitiatedthe questionnairein 2009, 200 completed one ormore sections.Ofthese, 122 represented publicschools(61%), and 78,private schools(39%).In 2010, 90 ofthe274 initial respondentscompletedoneor more sections.Ofthese,180 (66%)representedpublic schools,and94(34%)representedprivate schools. Table 14 presents frequencies for selecteditemsfor publicschools.

Whilethe majorityof schoolspracticeda“drop,cover,holdon” drillwiththe ShakeOut withthe 2009 and2010ShakeOuts(87%,99%),onlyabout a quarterused theopportunitytopracticeafull simulationexercise (26%, 27%). Areasofconcernincludetherelativelylowproportionofschoolswithallormostheavyfurnishingsand equipmentsecured(78%,71%),limitedknowledgeabouttheschool’sroleservingas an emergency shelter(50%,57%), andtherelativelylowproportionof schoolsinwhichallormost teachers and staffknoworhave receivedtraining inhow touse fire extinguishers(72%, 35%).2 When asked about specificimprovementsthatresulted from theirparticipationin

2 The wording forthisquestionchanged;in 2009 thewording included“teachers/staff knowhowto use”,and in 2010thelanguage waschangedto “are instructed onhowtouse,” possiblyaccounting forthedifference between the twoyears.

33

theShakeOut,most(71%,66%)reportedimprovementsto theirschool’sdisasterplan,policies,orprocedures.AsubstantialportionalsoreportedthattheShakeOutledtoimprovements in educating studentsabout disaster prevention (71%,60%).Thisfinding, alongwiththenumberofschoolrepresentatives whoindicated thattheirschoolencouragesstaffandstudentstopreparefordisastersathomeandprovidessupportmaterialsfordoingso (67%, 76%) suggeststhat thismay be a viable and notyet fullyrealizedapproachto disseminatingShakeOutpreparedness messages.

34

Table 14. 2009‐2010 ShakeOut Evaluation: Frequencies for Selected Variables – K‐12 Schools

2009 2010

(N=122)a (N=180)b

Activity % N % N

Participatedincurrent ShakeOut 96 111/115 89 160/180

Practiced“drop,cover,holdon” withShakeOut 87 96/11199 158/160

Practicedfull simulationexercise withShakeOut 26 25/111 27 43/160

Have disaster/emergency management committee 85 39/46 88 141/160

Schoolbuildingsmeet standardsfor earthquakesafety 67 31/46 74 119/160

Encouragestaff/studentstopreparefordisastersat home, providesupportmaterials

67 31/46 76 121/160

Knowwhetherexpectedto provideemergencyshelterw/localRedCrosschapter/government

50 23/46 57 91/160

All/mosttall/heavyfurnishings thatcouldslideorfallandkillorinjurepeoplearesecuredtowallstuds

78 36/46 71 113/160

All/mostteachers/staffare taught/knowhowto usefire extinguishers

72 33/46 35 56/160

c Thisyear’sShakeOut led toimprovementsin:

Disasterplan/policies/procedures 71 15/21 66 104/157

Seekingneededtraining 43 9/21 36 57/157

Educatingstudentsfordisasterprevention 71 15/21 60 95/157

Noimprovements 5 1/21 3 5/157

35

Table 14. 2009‐2010 ShakeOut Evaluation: Frequencies for Selected Variables – K‐12 Schools

a Datarepresent122publicschool respondentsthatcompleted at leastonesectionofthe questionnaire.

b Datarepresent 180publicschool respondentsthatcompleted at leastone sectionof the questionnaire.

c The 2009 survey referredtoimprovementsas a resultofthe previous(2008)ShakeOut, thusfor 2009, N reflectsorganizationsthatrespondedtothequestionandalso participated in2008.

School Districts.In2009,atotalof 69school districtsresponded.Theserepresentedpublicschooldistrictsorcountyofficesofeducation. In 2010, 85 schooldistrictsresponded.Ofthese,59(70%)representedpublicschooldistricts,and8,countyoffices ofeducation (9%);the remainder(18) represented a groupofprivateschools(21%).Table 15presentsselectedfindingsforpublicschooldistricts andcountyofficesof education.

The pattern reflectsa similar,but perhapsslightly morepositive,representationcomparedto individualschools.Whenaskedaboutimprovements resultingfromShakeOutparticipation,veryfew schooldistrictrepresentatives(5%,3%)indicatedthatparticipatinginthe ShakeOutresulted inno improvements.(Onlythree ofnineimprovements asked about arepresented here.)

36

Table 15. 2009‐2010 ShakeOut Evaluation: Frequencies for Selected Variables – School Districts

2009 2010

(N=69)a (N=67)b

Activity % N % N

Abletoreportondistrict’sparticipationin the currentShakeOut c 91 63/69 76 49/67

All/mostclassroomspracticeddrop,cover,holdonwithShakeOut 92 58/63 98 48/49

All/mostschoolspracticedfull simulationexercisewithShakeOut 16 9/58 31 15/49

Hasdisaster/emergency management committee 78 21/27 76 41/54

All/mostschoolbuildingsmeetstandardsforearthquake safety 82 22/27 85 45/53

All/moststaff/studentsencouragedtopreparefordisastersathome,providedsupportmaterials

67 18/27 69 35/51

All/mostschoolsknow whether expectedtoprovideemergencyshelterw/localRedCross chapter/government

70 19/27 76 39/51

All/mostfurnishings/equipment that couldkillorinjurepeople aresecuredtowallstuds

89 24/27 74 40/54

d Thisyear’sShakeOut led toimprovementsin:



Educatingstaff/students fordisaster prevention 80 12/15 35 17/49

Noimprovements ‐ 6 3/49

37

a Datarepresent69(of69)public schooldistrictsthatcompletedatleastone section ofthe questionnaire.

b Datarepresent67(of67)public schooldistrictsthatcompletedatleastone section ofthe questionnaire.

c For2009,thisitem asked respondentswhether theirdistrictparticipatedinthecurrent ShakeOutdrill.

d The 2009survey referredtoimprovementsasa resultoftheprevious (2008) ShakeOut, thus N reflectsorganizationsthat respondedtothequestion and also participatedin2008.

Colleges/Universities. In2009,52college/university representativesinitiatedthesurvey.Ofthese,28(54%)were publiccolleges/universities, 15(29%)wereprivate,and9 (17%) did not state. In 2010, 47 respondentsinitiatedthe survey. Ofthese,37 (79%) were public;10 (21%)wereprivate. Table 16reportsdata forthepubliccollegesand universities.

Nearlyallrespondentsatthecollege/universitylevel(96%,88%)indicated thattheirinstitutionencouragesstaff andstudentsto prepare theirhouseholdsfor earthquakesandotherdisasters,andprovidessupportmaterials.AmongthissmallvolunteersamplethatregisteredtoparticipateintheShakeOut and alsoagreed toparticipate in an evaluation ofthe ShakeOut,engagement seems particularly high.Thismayindicateopportunitiestohelpprovide colleges and universities withthetoolsthey need inorderto implementthe preparedness outreach andeducation they are alreadyperforming inthebest,most effective waypossible.Sharingstateoftheart,science‐and theory‐basedmethodsformotivatingpreparednesswouldseemaneffectiveapproachfor thisgroup,inparticular.

38

Table 15. 2009‐2010 ShakeOut Evaluation: Frequencies for Selected Variables – Colleges/Univ.

2009 2010

(N=23)a (N=33)b

Activity % N % N

Practiced“drop,cover, holdon”withShakeOut c 86 18/21 94 29/31

PracticedafullsimulationexercisewithShakeOut c 19 4/21 27 9/31

Have disaster/emergencymanagementcommittee 91 21/23 82 27/33

All/mostschoolbuildingsmeetstandardsforearthquake safety 74 17/23 64 20/31

Encourage staffto prepare fordisastersathome,providesupport materials

96 22/23 88 29/33

Knowwhetherexpectedto provideemergencyshelterw/localRedCrosschapter/government

70 16/23 73 24/33

All/mostfurnishings/equipment that couldkillorinjurepeople aresecuredtowallstuds

70 16/23 47 14/30

All/mostteachers/staffare taught/knowhowto usefire extinguishers

61 14/23 20 6/30

a Datarepresent23(of28)public colleges/universitiesthatcompletedat leastone section.

b Datarepresent33(of37)public colleges/universitiesthatcompletedat leastone section.

c For2009,dataincludeonlythosecolleges/universitiesthatreportedthat theyparticipated inthe ShakeOut(21/23).

Organizations.In2009,728respondentsinitiated thesurvey representing organizations.Themajoritywere businesses(210/693,30%),governmentorganizations(189/693, 27%), non‐profit organizations(101/693,15%), and health organizations (49/696, 7%).In 2010,836respondentsinitiated thesurvey. Thepatternoforganizationalrepresentationwas similartothepreviousyear,withthemajorityrepresentingbusinesses(229/836,27%),government organizations (251/836, 30%), non‐profit organizations (134/836, 16%), andhealth organizations (65/836, 8%). (SeeTable 17.)

39

A majorityofrespondents representingorganizations(87%,91%)reportedthattheirorganization encouragedstaffto prepare for disastersat home,providingsupportmaterialsfor doingso.Organizationsmaybenefitevenmorethancolleges anduniversitiesfromreceivingguidanceabout,andtoolstosupport,motivating employeestotake earthquakepreparednessactions. Interestingly,asmallerproportion(65%, 56%) indicatedthattheirorganization’s participationintheShakeOutledto improvements intheirencouragingstafftopreparefor earthquakesand otherdisastersathome,suggestingthatthismay be an area inwhichtheShakeOutcan make furthercontributionstostatewide householdreadiness.

Table 17. 2009‐2010 ShakeOut Evaluation: Frequencies for Selected Variables – Organizations

2009 2010

N=611a N=794b

Activity % N % N

Participated inthe ShakeOutdrill 97 591/611 98 774/794

Practiced“drop,cover, holdon”withShakeOut 83 489/591 94 678/718

Practicedfull simulation exercise withShakeOut 19 116/591 37 266/718

Have disaster/emergencymanagementcommittee 70 428/611 71 566/794

Encourage staffto prepare fordisastersathome,providesupport 87 532/611 91 725/794 materials

All/mostfurnishings/equipment that couldkillorinjurepeople 70 430/611 55 408/746 aresecuredtowallstuds

All/mostteachers/staffare taught/knowhowto usefire 69 339/611 50 387/772 extinguishers

c Thisyear’sShakeOut led toimprovementsin:



40

Educatingstafffordisasterprevention 72 294/408 58 406/705

Encouragingdisasterplanningat home 65 264/408 56 391/705

Noimprovements 4 16/408 13 92/705

a Datarepresent 611 (of 728) organizationsthat completed atleastone section.

b Datarepresent794 (of 836)organizationsthatcompleted atleastonesection.

c The 2009 survey referredtoimprovementsasa resultoftheprevious (2008) ShakeOut, thus N reflectsorganizationsthat respondedtothequestion and also participatedin2008.

Discussion

These datareflect a motivated volunteersample of ShakeOutregistrants.Theways inwhichShakeOutregistrantsmay differ from non‐registrants areunclear,however,itiscertainlythecasethatregistrantsrepresent an engagedpopulation.Otherlimitationsincludethecross‐sectionalnature of the data, inconsistent data collectionwindows,the numberofskippeditems, andsampling bias associatedwiththe internet. Thesedata cannot beusedtogeneralizeto thestateasawhole,norcan theybeusedto assessimpact.

Nonetheless,thedatacan be usefulin providinginsightsaboutprogramdirection andfuture evaluation needs.Itisclearthat the ShakeOut drillhasprovidedschools,school districts,andcolleges/universitieswithan assortmentof opportunitiesto prepare for and mitigateagainstearthquakesand otherdisasters.Businesses,inparticular,representanimportant and yet untapped resourceforincreasingthestate’s overallearthquakepreparedness andmitigationefforts.

LiketheShakeOutdrill,itself,thissurvey hasimprovedover time,becominga simplerandmorestraightforward process,andfeedbackabout thesurvey hasbecomeincreasinglypositive.Itseems likelythatthesurveyprocess itselfservesasan “intervention”,having the effectofpromptingadditionalearthquakepreparednessand mitigationactions.

FutureDirections.In the pastyear,the ECA ShakeOutResearch and Evaluationcommitteehasplannedforchanges infuturedatacollectionefforts.These include:1)developingaprotocolforsharingdatawithother researchers, 2)changingfromconfidentialtoanonymousdatacollectionsothatindividualscan be followedovertime,3)sharingdataandideas withother ECA committees moreformally, and4)plotting geographicallybusinessesthathaveregistered for theShakeOut andthatrepresentlocal “champions” throughout thestate.Inaddition,thecommitteeisconsideringagreateremphasisonclientsatisfaction andprogrammaticfeedback.

41

7. Challenges and Opportunities

Review ofexistingreports anddataledtothe identification ofseveralchallenges andopportunitiesintermsofprogramas wellas evaluation.

Program

BecauseShakeOutregistrantevaluationsamplesrepresentthevery most engaged,thisgroupcanplayakeyroleaslocalcommunitychampionsfor earthquake preparedness. Theory‐based causal modelinghasestablishedthat1) observing otherstakeaction to prepare for andmitigate against earthquakes,and 2)talkingto othersabout earthquake readiness actionsare effectivetoolsfor motivating othersto act(Wood,Mileti,Kanoetal., 2012). Thus, measuring “talking” thathasoccurred becauseof theShakeOut may bea reasonableendpointinthislight. The factthatthe ShakeOut seemsto beeffective atencouragingveryengagedindividualstotalktoothersaboutearthquakesafetyandpreparedness suggeststhatperhapstheShakeOut may impact knowledgeandactioninthis veryway. In anycase,it makessense toincorporatethe principlesofsocial modeling to encouragepeopletotalkwithothers,andtomeasuretheextent towhichthemostengaged doso.

ECA’s5‐year strategicplancurrentlyincludes engaging the alreadyprepared.This effortshould be continuedandexpanded.The ECAshouldactivelyrecruitandencourage individualsto talk to othersaboutpreparedness.That is,in additiontodevelopingmessagesandprogramactivitiestomotivate people to take preparednessaction,ECAeffortsalsoshoulddevelopmessages andactivities specificallydesigned tomotivate people tomotivateothers.Thisapplies tobusinessesandotherorganizations,aswell.

Aspartoffurtherexpansionof the ShakeOut’s“whole”communityeffort,businesses andotherorganizationsshouldplayalargerrolein conducting ShakeOut drills,distributing earthquake safety andpreparednessinformation, andmodelingpreparednessefforts.Ifworkersand theirhouseholdsare betterpreparedfor a major earthquake,theywillbeabletoreturntoworkmore quickly, therebyincreasingcommunity resilience andspeedingrecovery.Expandingtheroleof businesses,inparticular,may help strengthen communityresilienceandtherateofrecovery,not onlyfor thebusinesses affected,butforthelargercommunityaswell.Disasterpreparedness,having an emergency responseplanin place, andhaving theequipment andsuppliesnecessary toenable businesscontinuity,increasethelikelihoodthatbusinesses willrecoverfollowingdisaster (Tierney,Lindell,&Perry,2001). A studyconductedinSanta CruzCounty,CA foundthat priortotheLomaPrieta earthquake,only10% ofrespondents hada businessesrecovery plan,andonly23%had an emergencyplan(Wasileski,Rodriguez,&Diaz,2011).The2004 NationalSmallBusinesspollfoundthatatleast30%of smallbusinesseshavebeenclosedfor24hoursorlonger inthepast three years following a naturaldisaster,andthat 38% ofsmallemployershaveanemergencypreparedness plan(NationalFederationofIndependent Businesses,2004).The fieldofbusinessanddisasterresearchiscurrentlyquitelimited, butitiswidelyheldthatdisasterpreparednesscontributes tohowbusinessesreacttoandrecoverfromdisasters.

42

Schoolsrepresentastrategicopportunityfortransmittingmessagestothegeneralpublicinthat gaining the supportofoneschool can potentially affect hundreds,and perhaps,thousands,ofindividuals.Schoolscanandshouldplay a largerrole in motivating householdpreparednessthrough thetransmission ofinformation, supportmaterials,and engagement from students totheir families.TheShakeOut alreadyprovidesmaterialstoschoolstofacilitatethiseffort,andthis activityshouldbe expanded.Recognitionthatcan bepostedon schoolwebsitescan helpschool’spublicizetheir efforts,andcan help motivate families,as wellasother schools,toalsotake action.

Anyandallevaluationactivitiescan be usedto reinforcepreparednessmessages. Evaluationactivitiescanactas potent motivators,themselves. Forthisreason,respondentswhoreachtheendofaShakeOut questionnaireshouldreceivea briefprogram messageencouraging them totalk toothersaboutearthquakesafety and preparednessandto enlist othersto become betterprepared.

The advent of social mediaischangingtheway peoplecommunicate.Althoughthesetoolsallowforinformation sharing amonglarge numbers ofpeople,they alsorequire planning,ongoingmonitoring,andevaluation.Costsassociated withsocial media developmentandoversightcanbe prohibitive and candivert resourcesfromthemainfocus of a program without a well‐developedsocialmediaplan.TheShakeOut cautiouslyhas made use of socialmedia tosupport andenhance itsprogram messageand activities.This shouldbepursuedwithin thecontextofacarefullydesignedsocial media plan to minimize resourcesexpendedandmaximize resultsgained.Newguidelines have been developed by theCenter’sforDiseaseControlandPreventionthatprovidea framework fordesigning and implementing asocial mediapresence topromote publichealthandpreparedness programs.Thesetoolshelpinsurethatsocialmediaactivities areefficientandalignedwith programgoalsandobjectives.

Finally,theShakeOut providesan ideal opportunitytotest andprovidepubliceducation aboutnew alertandwarningsystems. TheEarthquake EarlyWarningsystem(EEW)currentlyisbeingtestedinCalifornia andcan provide up to a minutewarningbeforestrongshakingisfelt.MessagescanbepassedthroughTwitter andother forms of social media. The Commercial Mobile Alert System(CMAS),an“opt‐out” systemthatenablesthe deliveryof alertsandwarnings to handheldmobile devices throughcommercialproviders, iscurrently being tested inselectedcommunities fornationwiderelease. Thistechnology may be used toprovide post‐eventalertsandwarnings.The ShakeOutdrillprovidesanidealopportunitytoacquaintthepublicwiththese systems and toprovidepubliceducation about what they are and howthey work.Usingthe ShakeOut as a vehicleforintroducing these mobile alertsystems tothe public andproviding needed educationcanhelppeople learnwhattodowhentheyreceive earthquakerelated alert messagesinthefuture.

43

Evaluation

Oneissuethathasemergedisthe importance ofconsensus aboutwhat to measure. Thisinvolveshaving a clearunderstanding ofprimary and secondarygoalsoftheShakeOuton any given year,and on thepurpose ofthe evaluation.The ShakeOuthasbecome alargeevent,withmultiplegoals,objectives,andstakeholders.Becausethedrillisimplementedatthelocal level,thereisrisk ofpotentialdivergenceofmessage.Periodicreview,update,anddistributionofasimpleschemaor“logicmodel”canhelpcommunicateprogramgoals,resources,inputs,outputs,and desiredoutcomestothemanyindividualsandgroupsthatimplementtheShakeOut acrossthestate. Thiscan helpincreasecoordinationand consistencyofmessage atmultiplelevels.

Another issueisthe use ofproxy measuresfor actualpreparednessactionstaken.Measuringperceptionsofearthquakepreparednessislessaccurate andless informativethan asking about specific behaviors given thatpeopleare not alwaysaware ofwhatit meansto be prepared.Moreover,thosewho are more knowledgeable aboutearthquake preparedness andwho have taken morestepsto prepare may rate theirlevelof preparedness lowerthanthosewho have done lessbecauseof theirgreaterawareness of waysin whichitispossibleto prepare. Because ofthelarge numberofactionsinvolved, levelof earthquakepreparednesscan onlybe teasedapartin a morerigorousstudy.

Generalizabilityhas been an ongoing problem for ShakeOut evaluations.Only population‐basedrepresentativesamplescan be usedto generalizeto the stateas a whole. Respondents fortheShakeOutevaluationstodatecanonlyrepresentShakeOutregistrants,andinsomecases,ShakeOutregistrantswhoparticipatedinthe given evaluation. The state conductedapopulation basedhouseholdsurveynearlyfiveyears ago,whichcanserveasa baseline foranyfutureefforts toassessimpactof theShakeOutonthestate as a whole, and tomonitorlevelsofhouseholdpreparedness.Forthepurpose ofcostefficiency,itmakes senseto refocusthescope ofthecurrentShakeOut evaluation activitythatisimplementedthrough theexistingSCECcommitteestructuretoprimarilyinputs(resourcesinvested)andoutputs(processmeasuresofimplementationand programquality/participantsatisfaction). In addition,these effortsmay also beuseful in describingthe effects ofthe ShakeOut on the very mostengaged. Thisnarrowedscopecan helpensurethatdatacollectedarestreamlinedandcan beusedtomonitorandimproveprogram implementation.Any futureeffort to evaluate the impact ofthe ShakeOut shouldinvolvea statewidehouseholdsurveythatlargelyreplicates thebaseline statesurvey to minimize cost.

Giventimeandresources, moreformalizedtypes ofprogram evaluation mightbeconsidered.Conductingatheory‐basedevaluation canhelptoidentifyhowconceptualmodelsare driven bytheoriesand evidence‐basedbestpractices.Truepopulation‐basedsurveyscanbemoreaptindescribingthepopulationswho doanddonotrespondto theShakeoutannualevents,campaigns,andauxiliarymaterials.Whetherprospective,whichgreatlyincreasescost,orcross sectional,whichareinformativewhenmultiplecross‐sectionsare assessedovertime,suchsurveyscouldbeusedto monitor theimpactofparticipationonhouseholdparticipantsaswellasmonitor how participationchangesover

44

timewithindifferentpopulations.As well,costeffectiveness evaluationscanhelpto identify howSCEC CEOresourcesarespent andassistprogramplanningeffortswithdecisionson whereto allocate(aswellasdetract)futureresources.However,suchevaluationstaketimeandresources.Suchanallocation ofresourcesmightbeworththeexpendituregiven the ongoingneedforShakeoutactivities.

The ShakeOutstructure facilitates a communitywideapproach to communicating preparedness messagesthrough multiplesources,channels,andsectorstoincreasemessageengagement,consistency, andsynergy. Whilethe ShakeOut’s“wholecommunity”approachis commonly believedtobe effective,evaluation effortstodatehavenot formally examinedthe effectof disseminatingShakeOut preparednessand earthquakesafetymessagestohouseholds throughschools,businesses,andother organizations.Establishing whether ornotmessages that arrivethrough multiplecommunity institutionsincreases theireffectwouldbeaworthwhileendeavor.

Datacollectionforthestatewide householdpreparednesssurveyconcludedroughlyfour yearsago,and much hashappenedsincethat time. The surveyshouldberepeatedat regular intervalstoprovideongoing monitoring.TheCommissionshould,withstate partners,help identifyresourcestofundafollowupcross‐sectionalsurveyto assesschangeovertime. Thequestionnairethatwasusedin the baselinesurveyshouldbere‐administered withminimalchange tofacilitatebaseline comparisonandto maintaincost‐efficiency.Followupdatashouldbecollectedatafractionoftheinitial baselinecost.Datacanbeusedtoassesstheimpact ofthe ShakeOut throughoutthe state,guidefutureprogramactivities,andhelpfirstrespondersandemergency managersanticipatecommunityneeds following a majorearthquake.

8. Key Findings

Although a vastamountofdata hasbeencollected,analysishas been limited becauseof thein‐kind nature ofevaluation activitiesfollowingtheinitialyearthedrillwas implemented,in2008. Key findings thathave emergedinclude:

SCEC and the ECA have been successful in their efforts to promote the ShakeOut rather than their own organizations. Thisexpliciteffort onthe partofSCEC andECA to take a “backseat”tothe drillactivitiesandthemessageofearthquakesafety andpreparednessis likelyresponsiblefor the rapidadoptionofthedrillthroughoutthe state and beyondas wellasthe amount ofpublicityithas received acrossnewsand other media. The factthatthemediawasmorelikelytomentionUSGS,theoriginand authoroftheScenario,ratherthanSCECorECAreflectsthis.

45

Just as real earthquake events prompt behavior, simulated events such as the ShakeOut drill also can prompt information seeking and preparedness action. Thefactthatthereweretwopeaksin downloading ofthe “PuttingDown Roots”handbook—immediatelyfollowingarealearthquake (ChinoHills,July29,2008) and onthe dayof the ShakeOutdrill—demonstratesthattheShakeOutdrill,whileonlyasimulation,canaffectactualbehavior.

California schools remain an underutilized resource for promoting household earthquake preparedness. Schoolscando moreto encourage staffandstudentfamilies toprepare fordisasters athome and provide supportmaterialsfor doingso. Assumingthat ShakeOutregistrantsand evaluation participantsrepresent theverymost engaged,in 2009,only 67%ofrespondersindicatedthattheirschoolsencouragestaff and students toprepare for disastersat home andproviderelatedmaterials. Thisnumberroseto 76% in2010.Amongindividualorhouseholdrespondents,only11%indicatedthat they receivedinformation aboutearthquake safety and preparedness from schools.Because schoolshavetheabilityto influence hundredsorthousandsof households,theactionsofasingle schoolcan have atremendous impact onthelevelof preparednessinlocalcommunities.

Businesses and other organizations also remain underutilized in efforts to promote household preparedness and community resilience.Again,assumingthat ShakeOutregistrantsandevaluationparticipantsrepresentthevery most engaged, in 2009,only 70%of respondersindicatedthattheirbusinessororganizationhasadisaster/emergency managementcommittee. Thisnumber wasnearly identicalin 2010.Moreover,only69% reportedthatallormoststaff know oraretaughtorknow how touse fire extinguishers. Among individual orhouseholdresponders,only 21%indicatedthattheyreceivedinformationabout earthquake safetyand preparedness from their employers. Asisthecase withschools,theactions ofthe businesscommunity aswellas organizations canhavea tremendous impactonthelevelof preparednessin localcommunities,and subsequent rateofrecovery.

The ShakeOut drill has encouraged individuals to talk to others about the drill itself and about earthquake safety and preparedness. More thantwo‐thirds(69%)in 2010 saidthatthey encouragedothers to participatein the drill,and71% said theyrevieweddrillmanualspostedon theShakeOut website. Theresearch recordhasdemonstrated thatsocialcuessuchasordinarypeopletalkingtoothersaboutpreparing forearthquakes isan effectivestrategy for motivating action.Although respondents representthe very most engaged,this groupis exactlywho shouldbetargeted ascommunityrolemodelsand theinitiators ofsuch socialcuesto takingpreparedness action.

46

9. Recommendations

Thisprojectyieldedthefollowingrecommendations.

1. Target businesses and other organizations for an increased role in motivating household preparedness. TheCommissionshould identifyandrecognizebusinesses andotherorganizationsthatcan serve asrole modelsbecause oftheirparticipationin theShakeOut drillandevaluation,and theireffortstofoster preparednesswithintheworkforceandbroader community. The Commissionalsoshouldseekwaystomotivate businessesto provide theiremployees withearthquake kits and information,and encourageincreasedpreparednesswithinhouseholds.

2. Target schools for an increased role in motivating household preparedness. The Commission should identify and recognize schoolsthat can serve asrolemodels becauseof theirparticipationin the ShakeOut drillandevaluation,andtheeffortsthey have madeto motivatestudentsandfamilies.TheCommissionalsoshouldseekwaystomotivateschoolstoencourageincreasedpreparednesswithinemployeeandstudenthouseholds.

3. Use the ShakeOut as an opportunity to test and provide public education about new alert and warning systems. TheCommissionshouldorganizepilottestingoftheEarthquakeEarlyWarningsystem(EEW)andtheCommercialMobile AlertandSystem (CMAS)in connection with the ShakeOutdrilltotestthesystemsandto help educate thepublicaboutthem.

4. Support program evaluation. The Commission shouldidentifywaystoprovide supportforcost‐efficient evaluation effortssothattheeffectsoftheShakeOutcanbeassessedand theprogramcanbeimproved.ThismayincludeidentifyingwaystoprovideincentivestobusinessesthatmakefinancialcontributionstoShakeOutevaluation efforts.

5. Facilitate a follow‐up statewide household preparedness survey. The Commissionshould,withstatepartners,helpidentifyresourcestofunda followupcross‐sectionalsurveytoassesschange overtime.

47

References

Blakley, J., Chen, N., & Kaplan, M. (2009). An evaluation of the first Great Southern California ShakeOut: The Norman Lear Center, University of Southern California: Los Angeles, California.

California Emergency Management Agency. (2011). Golden Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.calema.ca.gov/TrainingandExercises/Pages/Golden‐Guardian.aspx

Davoudi, M., Onuma, H., & Glik, D. (2009). Southern California Earthquake Center Communication Education and Outreach 2009 evaluation report: Davoudi Consulting Services (DCS), LLC.

DeMars, M., Buss, R., & Cleland, L. (1980). Victim‐tracking cards in a community disaster drill,. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 9(4), 207‐209.

Eisenman, D. P., Glik, D., Ong, M., Zhou, Q., Tseng, C.‐H., Long, A., Fielding, J., & Asch, S. (2009). Terrorism‐Related Fear and Avoidance Behavior in a Multiethnic Urban Population. American Journal of Public Health, 99(1), 168‐174.

Fujieda, A. (2008). Promoting school earthquake in Asia and Pacific. Retrieved from http://www.earoph.info/pdf/2008papers/4‐12.pdf

Hosseini, M., & Izadkhah, Y. (2006). Earthquake disaster risk management planning in schools. Disaster Prevention and Management, 15(4), 649‐661.

Johnston, D., Becker, J., Gregg, C., Houghton, B., Paton, D., Leonard, G., & Garside, R. (2007). , 16(2), . . (2007). Developing warning and disaster response capacity in the tourism sector of coastal Washington, USA. Disaster Prevention and Management, 16(2), 210‐216.

Jones, L. M., Bernknopf, R., Cox, D., Goltz, J., Hudnut, K., Mileti, D., Perry, S., Ponti, D., Porter, K., Reichle, M., Seligson, H., Shoaf, K., Treiman, J., & Wein, A. (2008). The ShakeOut Scenario. Retrieved from http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1150/

Lao, P., & Lao, C. (1997). A disaster drill in Hong Kong. Accident and Emergency Nursing, 5, 34‐38.

Manion, P., & Golden, I. (2004). Vertical evacuation drill of an intensive care unit: design, implementation, and evaluation. Disaster Management and Response, 2(1), 14‐19.

Murphy, S. T., Cody, M. J., Frank, L. B., Glik, D., & Ang, A. (2009). Predictors of preparedness and compliance in natural disasters and terrorist attacks.

48

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1150

http://www.earoph.info/pdf/2008papers/4-12.pdf

http://www.calema.ca.gov/TrainingandExercises/Pages/Golden

Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 3(2), 1‐10. doi: 10.1001/DMP.0b013e3181a9c6c5

Nateghi‐A, F. (2000). Disaster mitigation strategies in Tehran, Iran. Disaster Prevention and Management, 9(3), 205‐211.

National Federation of Independent Businesses. (2004). National Small Businesses Poll. Disasters, 4(5).

Parsizadeh, F., & Ghafory‐Ashtiany, M. (2010). Iran public education and awareness program and its achievements. Disaster Prevention and Management, 19(1), 32‐47.

Petal, M., & Green, R. (2009). School disaster readiness: Lessons from the first Great Southern California ShakeOut. U.S.: Risk RED and Coalition for Global School Safety & Disaster Prevention Education.

Schumacher, R., Lindsey, D., Schumacher, A., Braun, J., Miller, S., & Demuth, J. (2010). Multidisciplinary analysis of an unusual tornado: meteorology, climatology, and the communication and interpretation of warnings. Weather and Forecasting, 25, 1412‐1429.

Simpson, D. (2002). Earthquake drills and simulations in community‐based training and preparedness programmes. Disasters, 26(1), 55‐69.

Southern California Earthquake Center. (2011). ShakeOut past present and future. Retrieved from http://www.shakeout.org/history/

Southern California Earthquake Center. (2012). Great ShakeOut Earthquake Drills. Retrieved from http://www.shakeout.org

Tierney, K., Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (2001). Facing the unexpected: Disaster preparedness and response in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.

Wasileski, G., Rodriguez, H., & Diaz, W. (2011). Business closure and relocation: A comparative analysis of the Loma Prieta earthquake and Hurricane Andrew. Disasters, 35(1), 102‐129.

Wood, M. M., Mileti, D. S., Kano, M., Kelley, M. M., Regan, R., & Bourque, L. B. (2012). Communicating Actionable Risk for Terrorism and Other Hazards. Risk Analysis, 32(4), 601‐615. doi: 10.1111/j.1539‐6924.2011.01645.x

49

http://www.shakeout.org

http://www.shakeout.org/history

Appendix A

50

Table A‐1. 2008 ShakeOut Media‐Focused Evaluation: Sample Description

Wave 1 Wave 2

Demographic (N = 2,475) (N = 2,052) California

Characteristic n % n % Population

Gender

Female 1613 67 1357 68 50%

Male 799 33 642 32 50%

Ethnicity

White 1643 66 1349 80 43%

African‐American 75 3 69 3 6%

Latino 321 13 260 13 36%

Asian 154 6 135 7 12%

Missing 282 11 239 12 ‐‐

Age

18‐29 224 9 180 9 24%

30‐39 346 14 275 13 19%

40‐49 560 23 492 24 20%

50‐59 587 24 583 28 16%

> 60 448 18 455 22 21%

Missing 310 13 67 3 ‐‐

PersonalIncome

Average $65,965 $65,309 $29,405

<$25,000 231 9 214 10 ‐‐

51

$25,000‐$49,999 425 17 324 16 ‐‐

$50,000‐$74,999 468 19 389 19 ‐‐

$75,000 or more 766 31 617 30 ‐‐

Missing 585 24 508 25 ‐‐

52

Table A‐2. 2008 ShakeOut Media‐Focused Evaluation: Drill Participation

“Did you participate in any of the following activities related to the Great Southern California

Shake Out?”

Wave 1 Wave 2

(N = 2,475) (N = 2,052)

Activities n % n %

PrimaryObjective

Dropped,covered,heldon 1899 77 1457 71

SecondaryObjectives

Practiceddisasterplan 1218 49 807 39

Helpedothersprepare 1067 43 808 39

Participatedinameeting 868 35 683 33

Played"Beat theQuake" game 322 13 241 12

Played"AfterShock"game 189 8 171 8

Joined Facebookgroup 73 3 54 3

AttendedShakeOutrally 27 1 23 1

Joined MySpace group 13 0.5 7 0

Table A‐3. 2008 ShakeOut Media‐Focused Evaluation: Information Sources

“In the past month, have you heard or seen anything about earthquakes from any of the following sources?” a

Wave 1 Wave 2

Sources (N = 2,475) (N = 2,052)

53

n % n %

TV News 1599 65 1470 72

Internet 1485 60 1275 62

Newspapers 1349 55 1208 59

Conversations 1236 50 1076 52

Radio 986 40 816 40

PrimetimeTV 611 25 640 31

DaytimeTV 498 20 470 23

PSA 394 16 280 14

Magazines 252 10 307 15

Outdoor Ads 141 6 118 6

a Time2useda5‐monthrecallperiod.

54

Table A‐4. 2008 ShakeOut Media‐Focused Evaluation: Communication with Others

“In the past month, have you talked with family or friends about the following things?a

Wave 1 Wave 2

(N = 2,475) (N = 2,052)

Topic n % n %

Earthquakesin general 2281 92 1933 94

Earthquake kits 2141 87 1817 89

Disastercommunicationplan 1792 72 1510 74

Preparingyourhome for an earthquake 1746 71 1504 73

Having extra cashon hand 1445 58 1289 63

Communitydisasterplan 756 31 709 35

a Time2useda5‐monthrecallperiod.

55

Table A‐5. 2008 ShakeOut Media‐Focused Evaluation: Knowledge

Wave 1 Wave 2

(N = 2,475) (N = 2,052)

Protective Action n % n %

“If you are inside during an earthquake, you should…”

Drop,cover,andholdon 2133 86 1706 83

Findthe “Triangle of Life” 534 22 452 22

Getunderadoorway 317 13 273 13

“If you are outside during an earthquake, you should…”

Drop,cover,andholdon 2200 89 1835 89

Getclosetoalargeobject 140 6 127 6

Run inside a building 68 3 74 4

“If you are in bed during an earthquake, you should…”

Stayinbedandcoveryourhead witha pillow 1081 44 872 43

Quicklymovetoanother locationwhereyoucandrop,coverandholdon

1011 41 842 41

Rolltothe floor 456 18 396 19

“If you are driving during an earthquake, you should…”

Pullofftheroadandset your emergencybrake 2275 92 1865 91

Stopand get outofthevehicle 148 6 146 7

Continue driving 58 2 53 3

56

“What should you do after an earthquake?”

Checkinjuries

Prepareforaftershocks

Checkgas,fire,&electric hazards

Check forsafetywarnings

Callout‐of‐areacontact

Callfamily

Move injured people

Search forsurvivorsindamagedbuildings

Call911

Getin your car

2413

2343

2249

1928

1642

555

468

117

25

9

97 1981 97

95 1902 93

91 1889 92

78 1584 77

66 1357 66

22 445 22

19 430 21

5 91 4

1 23 1

0 10 0

57

Table A‐6. 2008 ShakeOut Media‐Focused Evaluation: Self‐Assessed Preparedness

“How prepared do you feel you are to handle a large scale earthquake?”

Wave 1 Wave 2

(N = 2,475) (N = 2,052)

n % n %

Totallyunprepared 152 6 123 6

Fairlyunprepared 645 26 499 24

Somewhatunprepared 1390 56 1176 57

Verywellprepared 288 12 254 12

Table A‐7. 2008 ShakeOut Media‐Focused Evaluation: Self‐Assessed Preparedness by Demographic Characteristics

“TotallyUnprepared” (6%) “VeryWellPrepared”(12%)

Wave1 Wave2 Wave1 Wave2

Characteristic n % n % n % n %

Race

White/Caucasian 68 45 59 48 219 76 190 75

African American 8 5 5 4 4 1 10 4

Hispanic/Latino 37 24 37 30 19 7 16 6

AsianAm./Pac.Isldr. 15 10 12 10 9 3 10 4

Missing 24 16 10 8 37 13 28 11

Gender

Female 114 75 100 81 155 54 125 49

Male 31 20 19 15 130 45 124 49

Missing 7 5 4 3 3 1 5 2

58

Age

18‐29 26 17 21 17 13 5 5 2

30‐39 32 21 25 20 18 6 17 7

40‐49 35 23 34 28 54 19 54 21

50‐59 19 13 25 20 89 31 91 36

60or older 15 10 13 11 75 26 81 32

Missing 25 16 5 4 39 14 6 2

Income

Less than $25,000 23 15 22 18 26 9 24 9

$25,000‐$49,999 32 21 18 15 47 16 43 17

$50,000‐$74,999 31 20 27 22 39 14 48 19

$75,000 or more 33 22 31 25 104 36 79 31

Missing 33 22 25 ‐ 72 25 60 24

59

Table A‐8. 2008 ShakeOut Media‐Focused Evaluation: Drill Participation by Demographic Characteristics

Wave 1 Wave 2

(N = 2,475) (N = 2,052)

Characteristic n % n %

Race

White/Caucasian 1239 65 933 64

African American 60 3 56 4

Hispanic/Latino 269 14 213 15

AsianAm./Pac.Isldr. 121 6 95 7

Missing 210 11 160 11

Gender

Female 1283 68 993 68

Male 570 30 431 30

Missing 46 2 33 2

Age

18‐29 186 10 137 9

30‐39 277 15 201 14

40‐49 436 23 373 26

50‐59 455 24 419 29

60 orolder 313 16 290 20

Missing 232 12 37 3

Income

Less than $25,000 171 9 149 10

$25,000 ‐ $49,999 325 17 240 16

$50,000 ‐ $74,999 367 19 273 19

$75,000 ormore 598 31 443 30

60

Missing 438 23 352 24

61

Documents

EngagingCaliforniansin a Shared Vision for Resiliency: … · 2019-02-11 · California ShakeOut drill, (2) document prior ShakeOut evaluation efforts and key findings, and (3) develop