American Pursuit of Preparedness against Disaster - Coursework Example

While it may seem problematic that individuals indicate low levels of preparedness, evidence suggests that the situation is more severe in businesses and institutions. From a survey of 2500 business owners in 2007, the responses indicated that 71% of small businesses lacked a disaster plan and 64% indicated that they did not need the plan. A further 63% stated that they were confident of their ability to resume business in less than three days after the occurrence of disaster (US Chamber of Commerce, 2012, p. 6).

The statistics from the survey suggest immensely high degrees of ignorance among business owners and decision-makers regarding the occurrence of disaster. This does spell disaster in the event anything happens. The absence of a disaster response plan suggests lack of preparedness for issues relating to employee injury, death, or losses from destruction of property. Considering the investments in assets, regardless of the size or type of business, property destruction in the event of catastrophes is likely to hinder any ability to resume activities for long periods after the event. As a consequence, the losses associated with catastrophes run into the millions of dollars, notwithstanding the deaths. The recovery process following a disaster is thus greatly hampered when individuals lose almost everything and thus requiring government aid and charity from individuals and groups.

Evidence to the contrary of the beliefs held by these businesses indicates that of the businesses caught in disaster without a plan, 43% never resume activities. From the 57% that manage to reopen, only 29% of them manage to survive beyond the two year mark after the occurrence of the disaster (US Chamber of Commerce, 2012, p. 6). These perspectives have compounded the importance of disaster preparedness among businesses, with plans usually expected to incorporate both the affairs of the firms as well as the welfare of employees. Business emergency or disaster preparedness plans emphasize on simplicity, enabling the regular testing of their components annually even when the disasters do not occur. The plans are expected, however, to contain details on employee records, backup plans for data, as well as insurance plans for the business assets (US Chamber of Commerce, 2012, p. 7).

Businesses have obligations to their communities, which they often express more in the form of disaster response as opposed to the preparedness effort. The current framework, however, may limit the degree to which they can be involved in efforts for preparedness and resilience (National Center for Disaster Preparedness, 2015, par.4). Businesses have been major contributors to recovery efforts, but their role in community preparedness remains limited in the progress towards resilience. The nature of the disaster preparedness approach of the US has been such that majority of the power is held by government agencies (National Center for Disaster Preparedness, 2015). Nevertheless, businesses also have a role to play such as through engaging staff in extensive training for this purpose. While employees may be unwilling to attend government-organized meetings on such, making them compulsory within organizations may facilitate better training.

Sources of Preparedness Information and Civilian Trust

The delivery of preparedness information drives trends in civilian preparedness for disaster, but this preparedness is also dependent on the perceptions that people have regarding the usefulness of this information. 63% of the American population has received preparedness information, which is a considerably high number (Federal Emergency Management Authority, 2012, p. 22). The most common source of preparedness information is the media. The data reported that 92% of the population has received information from the media, while 77% got the information from social media sources (Federal Emergency Management Authority, 2012, p. 23). The reception of information on preparedness from community sources is slightly lower (77%) than the same from the media (Federal Emergency Management Authority, 2012). Community sources are inclusive of conversations with neighbors, work, and information from the schools that their children attend. Ironically, the least cited sources of information are government sources. While these sources often distribute this information to other potential sources, direct reference to them is rare.

The data on the sources of information indicates the social nature of disaster resilience and preparedness in the USA. Americans have strong tendencies towards the media, regardless of the form. Their social networks, are also a significant portion of their sourcing for information on serious matters. While the government is the primary driver of efforts on disaster preparedness and resilience, there is minimal civilian reference to its direct information. These trends, however, are questionable in the face of previous data on disaster preparedness. Where the access to the media and social discussions is as dominant as the data indicates, the outcome should be more extensive practices of preparedness. It is possible that even as the people receive this information, their reception of it is casual and as part of the routine. The attitude may explain the reasons for declining trends in preparedness even as the population continues receiving information.

Further pursuit of the sources of preparedness information explores the degree of usefulness of information. While government sources record the lowest recall, those that used these sources attested to usefulness of about 91% (Federal Emergency Management Authority, 2012, p. 25). This score matched the perceived usefulness of other sources like the community and the media. The trend has significant implications for the government agencies that propagate disaster resilience and preparedness. Collaborating with the community sources and the media will be essential to achieving better responses, as opposed to pursuing the attempts as sole projects (National Center for Disaster Preparedness, 2013, par.4). However, this position is specific to only the federal government agencies. People have higher trust levels for the local government and their families than the federal agencies, both in sourcing information and seeking assistance in case of the occurrence of disaster (Zogby, 2013, par. 9). Ultimately, it becomes the responsibility of agencies like FEMA to form collaborations with local communities and local governments in order to develop more comprehensive information and strategies of intervention.

Role of Beliefs in Determining Preparedness

Across the statistics on preparedness and trends towards resilience, trends are under the influence of aspects of belief in the occurrence of disaster. FEMA, in its survey, suggests that beliefs in the possibility of disaster are indications of higher likelihoods for exercises in preparedness. The belief in the occurrence of natural disasters and the need for preparedness is higher in the USA than the same surrounding terrorist acts. The belief that a natural disaster will occur in the community as of 2012 had escalated to 46%, against only 37% in 2007 (Federal Emergency Management Authority, 2012, p. 15). The perceptions of severity also tend to influence the degree of preparedness in which an individual engages.

However, there are particular deviations from this norm where disasters relating to terrorism occur. While Americans state having awareness of the possibility of disasters from terror, only 36% actually have any emergency plan to handle the occurrence of these types of disaster (Zogby, 2013, par.1). Primarily, the differential is due to the belief that preparedness will not have any significant effect on the outcomes of the disaster. The same difference emergence where the population expresses reluctant support for activities meant to combat terrorism activities. Activities such as bag searches at the office, retinal scans, and chips for monitoring on people suspected of terrorist links had low support levels of between 23% and 34% (Zogby, 2013, par. 6). The reluctance is mostly due to the perceptions of the importance of privacy in everyday activities, and the inherent belief in the inability to avert the occurrence of such disasters.

Regardless, a study by the CDC suggests that the beliefs will not always match the visible levels of preparedness among Americans. For instance, while people may be willing to create emergency stock for events, limitations such as space and finances may prevent these actions (Thomas, Leander-Griffith, Harp, & Cioffi, 2015, par.12). The implication is that preparedness may be adopted more readily when the tasks in question are simple. However, as the tasks become more complex, people reduce the willingness to engage in them (Thomas, Leander-Griffith, Harp, & Cioffi, 2015). The strength of the belief, therefore, may become relevant in this context as well as the extension of such beliefs to self-efficacy. The attitudes among majority Americans indicate trends of helplessness where terrorist disasters are involved. Consequently, while they may believe the possibility of its occurrence, their likelihood to take any measures for preparedness diminishes due to the weak perceptions of self-efficacy in the face of these types of disaster.

As such, transforming the American degrees of preparedness will require an approach that focuses on their inherent beliefs and the resulting influence of these beliefs on individual actions. A significant aspect emerging from the data is the duality of belief, whereby the belief in the probability of disaster couples with the belief in the role of self-efficacy to determine preparedness. Consequently, the approach will have to consider both elements in order to accomplish an effective intervention towards achieving greater degrees of resilience.

Action Plan

Achieving community resilience within the USA in the face of future disasters is dependent on the capacity of the government bodies to increase the community preparedness. Current efforts have achieved a measure of success, but the levels of preparedness indicate the need for more efforts by the bodies in charge. The development of the action plan, therefore, will require recognizing the main areas of weakness and building on the bases of progress. Essentially, the statistics indicate that Americans have grown in their awareness and belief of the possibility of disaster. Nevertheless, the belief is tempered by the variations in the beliefs of self-efficacy. Their belief in self-efficacy especially in the event of terrorist disasters is limited. At the same time, indications are that local community efforts have been more successful than the federal efforts at propagating preparedness.

FEMA currently operates along the three-step framework, “Be informed, make a plan, make a kit” (Federal Emergency Management Authority, 2012, p. 33). However, it will be essential to explore the details of various audience segments while developing this strategy for improved results in the future. Current plan limitations feature differences in financing and perceptions regarding specific aspects of preparedness. The implementation of these future efforts, therefore, will require considerations for changes in defining preparedness. It is also essential to select messengers deliberately, such as exploring the types of media that are likely to elicit proper responses within the community.

The progress from the current position should involve the establishment of deliberate collaborations between FEMA, businesses, the local governments, and community institutions. These collaborations will primarily focus on establishing comprehensive training programs with information on preparedness for civil education. While FEMA can currently claim such collaborations, they require being elaborate and with specific measures for monitoring of implementation across all the parties involved in the effort. Businesses should receive manuals along which to draft their disaster preparedness training, as well as additional requirements for their engaging in employee education.

Additional focus on businesses and institutions as they relate to the community requires their involvement in all the phases of the pursuit for resilience. This is especially necessary when addressing the time that the government and external charitable organizations take to respond to disasters. The action involving vulnerable members of the community requires actors close to them, which leaves institutions like schools, churches, and local health providers with the greatest responsibilities. Businesses should also increase the commitment to ensuring the welfare of their employees beyond the scope of their provision of services. This will greatly help eliminate the pressure on the aid organizations. With better support from businesses and companies, addressing most of the basic concerns in the immediate aftermath of the disaster. Statistics prove that much can be saved if the immediate individuals, groups and organizations respond appropriately. Lives can be saved, and property rescued if the response comes almost immediately.

The plan for the future is inherent on the additional efforts of all the agencies in the USA. Federal agencies, local governments, and institutions within the community must make additional efforts towards encouraging more preparedness among individuals and their families. Furthermore, it is necessary that individuals take the initiative to learn of inherent potential disasters and how best to cope, in the event that they do occur. Preparedness is certainly the best approach when dealing with events or circumstances that cannot be prevented.

Sources of Preparedness Information and Civilian Trust

The delivery of preparedness information drives trends in civilian preparedness for disaster, but this preparedness is also dependent on the perceptions that people have regarding the usefulness of this information. 63% of the American population has received preparedness information, which is a considerably high number (Federal Emergency Management Authority, 2012, p. 22). The most common source of preparedness information is the media. The data reported that 92% of the population has received information from the media, while 77% got the information from social media sources (Federal Emergency Management Authority, 2012, p. 23). The reception of information on preparedness from community sources is slightly lower (77%) than the same from the media (Federal Emergency Management Authority, 2012). Community sources are inclusive of conversations with neighbors, work, and information from the schools that their children attend. Ironically, the least cited sources of information are government sources. While these sources often distribute this information to other potential sources, direct reference to them is rare.

The data on the sources of information indicates the social nature of disaster resilience and preparedness in the USA. Americans have strong tendencies towards the media, regardless of the form. Their social networks, are also a significant portion of their sourcing for information on serious matters. While the government is the primary driver of efforts on disaster preparedness and resilience, there is minimal civilian reference to its direct information. These trends, however, are questionable in the face of previous data on disaster preparedness. Where the access to the media and social discussions is as dominant as the data indicates, the outcome should be more extensive practices of preparedness. It is possible that even as the people receive this information, their reception of it is casual and as part of the routine. The attitude may explain the reasons for declining trends in preparedness even as the population continues receiving information.

Further pursuit of the sources of preparedness information explores the degree of usefulness of information. While government sources record the lowest recall, those that used these sources attested to usefulness of about 91% (Federal Emergency Management Authority, 2012, p. 25). This score matched the perceived usefulness of other sources like the community and the media. The trend has significant implications for the government agencies that propagate disaster resilience and preparedness. Collaborating with the community sources and the media will be essential to achieving better responses, as opposed to pursuing the attempts as sole projects (National Center for Disaster Preparedness, 2013, par.4). However, this position is specific to only the federal government agencies. People have higher trust levels for the local government and their families than the federal agencies, both in sourcing information and seeking assistance in case of the occurrence of disaster (Zogby, 2013, par. 9). Ultimately, it becomes the responsibility of agencies like FEMA to form collaborations with local communities and local governments in order to develop more comprehensive information and strategies of intervention.

Role of Beliefs in Determining Preparedness

Across the statistics on preparedness and trends towards resilience, trends are under the influence of aspects of belief in the occurrence of disaster. Read More