Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

INCREASING PUBLIC PREPAREDNESS RESEARCH FINDINGS & EVIDENCE-BASED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION PROVIDERS 44 th Annual Governor’s Conference on.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "INCREASING PUBLIC PREPAREDNESS RESEARCH FINDINGS & EVIDENCE-BASED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION PROVIDERS 44 th Annual Governor’s Conference on."— Presentation transcript:

1 INCREASING PUBLIC PREPAREDNESS RESEARCH FINDINGS & EVIDENCE-BASED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION PROVIDERS 44 th Annual Governor’s Conference on Homeland Security and Emergency Management March 3, 2011 Dennis S. Mileti, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus University of Colorado at Boulder 1

2 DISCLAIMER Supported by: – U.S. Department of Homeland Security – Science & Technology Directorate – Grant # N00140510629 – START Center, Univ. of Maryland, College Park However: – Opinions, findings & conclusions are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of DHS Dennis S. Mileti - March 20112

3 CONTRIBUTORS (alphabetical order) Linda B. Bourque, Ph.D. – University of California at Los Angeles Megumi Kano, Dr. P.H. – World Health Organization, Kobe, Japan Dennis S. Mileti, Ph.D. – University of Colorado at Boulder Michele M. Wood, Ph.D. – California State University at Fullerton Dennis S. Mileti - March 20113

4 PURPOSE Describe: – Recent scientific evidence about the… – Public information PROCESS that best:  Reaches, teaches & motivates the public to learn & prepare for disaster Provide Practitioners With: – Evidence-based ideas for increasing public preparedness And Answer the Question….. Dennis S. Mileti - March 20114

5 HOW DO YOU HELP PEOPLE STOP…. LISTEN…. LEARN…. & GET READY…. Dennis S. Mileti - March 20115

6 FOR DISASTERS Most People Think: – Won’t really happen And if They Do Will: – Happen to other people….not them Dennis S. Mileti - March 20116

7 WHY DO PEOPLE THINK THAT WAY? Most People Don’t Perceive Risk: – To high consequence low probability events They Perceive Personal Safety: – From nature’s fury and other disaster types & They’re Right (most of the time) Dennis S. Mileti - March 20117

8 TWO BASIC DEFINITIONS Dennis S. Mileti - March 20118

9 WHAT IS PREPAREDNESS? (clarifying the dependent variables) Public Preparedness: – Means different things to different people A Clear Definition is Important: – Frames the public actions want to influence Public Preparedness is More Than: – 72 hours of water, flashlight & batteries, canned food, & duct tape Dennis S. Mileti - March 20119

10 7 PUBLIC PREPAREDNESS ACTION CATEGORIES 1. Learn How to Be Prepared:  What to do before, during, & after an event to stay safe & more 2. Plan What to Do:  Household disaster plan & more 3. Train & Practice:  Learn first aid & more 4. Organize Supplies & Equipment:  Stockpile enough of what you’ll need & more 5. Secure Building Contents:  Attach heavy furniture to the walls & other non-structural mitigation 6. Protect Building Structure:  Evaluate the safety of your home & other structural mitigation 7. Safeguard Finances:  Buy insurance and have cash on hand & more Dennis S. Mileti - March 201110

11 IT LOOKS LIKE THIS Safeguard Finances Train & Practice Plan What to Do Organize Supplies & Equipment Secure Building Contents Cost Protect Building Structure Learn How to Prepare Many of the things people can do to prepare are free! & People may already have some things in place. 11

12 WHAT IS PREPAREDNESS INFORMATION? (cataloguing the independent variables)  Includes Different Things, e.g.,  Brochures, internet sites, television & radio spots  School coloring books & grocery bag messages  Museum displays & refrigerator magnets  School, workplace, & neighborhood activities  Delivered in Different Ways:  One-shot information events or long-lived campaigns  Different information from different organizations  A coordinated campaign across organizations  & more Dennis S. Mileti - March 201112

13 THE RESEARCH BASIS Dennis S. Mileti - March 201113

14 RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS On What Factors: – Motivate people to take action 50+ Years Communication Research: – Different disaster types – From education to warnings Many Research Publications in Print Dennis S. Mileti - March 201114

15 ACCESS THE RESEARCH 350 Page Annotated Bibliography (with findings summarized, 1 page per publication): http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/publications/informer/ infrmr2/pubhazbibann.pdf Note that: – One study = findings – Finding across all studies = knowledge Dennis S. Mileti - March 201115

16 BIBLIOGRAPHY CONTENTS Full Publication Reference: – Author, title, publication outlet Summary Paragraph: – Event studied & research methods Hypotheses Supported, e.g., – “A” caused “B” but only when “C” was present Dennis S. Mileti - March 201116

17 QUALITY RESEARCH TRAITS (if you explore the publications) All Research Isn’t Good Research Good Research Uses: – Past research as its context (not just a poll) – Probability samples – Multivariate analysis ( control for “X & Z” when examining effect of “A on B”) Tests Determinants of Behavior: – Respondents don’t speculate “why” Dennis S. Mileti - March 201117

18 QUALITY RESEARCH (cont’d) Distinguishes Between: – What people “think” vs. “do” (they’re different) – Good measures of what’s being studied vs. self-reports:  Medical exam self-report: “On a scale of 1 to 5, how much cancer do you think you have?”  Readiness self-report equivalent: “On a scale of 1 to 5, how prepared do you think you are?” Practice Recommendations Best Based on: – Replicated findings across studies Dennis S. Mileti - March 201118

19 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS Dennis S. Mileti - March 201119

20 ABOUT THE FINDINGS Research Record: – Contains many different conclusions Lessons Learned Piecemeal: – Studies of small local populations – Findings synthesis possible, but clarity, consistency, & confidence could be higher Lacked “Clear Evidence” for: – What’s most vs. least important Dennis S. Mileti - March 201120

21 PUBLIC PREPAREDNESS CORRELATES 1. Information Received:  # sources, # channels, frequency, telling them what to do, consistency 2. Information Observed:  Observable social & physical cues 3. Statuses:  Income, education, occupation, age, race, gender, ethnicity, country of origin Dennis S. Mileti - March 201121

22 RESEARCH FINDINGS (cont’d) 4. Roles:  Partnership, family, children 5. Experience:  Disasters experienced 6. Information Belief:  Information received, source credibility 7. Knowledge:  What to do, where to get more information Dennis S. Mileti - March 201122

23 RESEARCH FINDINGS (cont’d) 8. Perceived Risk:  Probability of occurrence, personalization 9. Perceived Actions Effectiveness:  Link between actions to take & cutting losses 10. Milling:  Talking it over with other, seeking more information, confirmation Dennis S. Mileti - March 201123

24 WHAT WAS MISSING Clear Knowledge About: – What’s most important & what isn’t How Factors Relate to Form: – “The process whereby information received is converted into public preparedness actions” In Other Words.……. Dennis S. Mileti - March 201124

25 WHAT MATTERS MOST & IN WHAT ORDER? STATUS ROLES EXPERI- ENCE CUES INFO RECEIVED MILLING KNOW- LEDGE PERCEP- TION ACTION INFO BELIEF RISK Dennis S. Mileti - March 201125

26 BUT NOW WE KNOW MEGA-STUDY Completed: – “Manhattan project” for public preparedness – Studied public preparedness for “any reason” Findings = “Impeccable” Evidence: – Clear, consistent, & replicated Applications Ready: – Confident pathways to public preparedness Dennis S. Mileti - March 201126

27 MEGA-STUDY SAMPLE Geographic Areas (N = 3,300): – Rest of 48 statesN = 2,298 (69.6%) – New York CityN = 390 (11.8%) – Washington, D.C.N = 200 (6.1%) – Los AngelesN = 412 (12.5%) Racial/Ethnic Groups (N = 3,300): – WhiteN = 2,312 (70.1%) – HispanicN = 416 (12.6%) – African AmericanN = 314 (10.4%) – Asian/Pacific IslanderN = 109 (3.3%) – OtherN = 119 (3.6%) Dennis S. Mileti - March 201127

28 28 PROFILE OF THE NATION (weighted sample: n = 3,300; for any reason) 1 Developed emergency plans 2 Stockpiled supplies 3 Purchased things to be safer 4 Learned about terrorism 5 Duplicated documents 6 Became more vigilant 7 Reduced plane travel 8 Reduced train travel 9 Reduced public transit 10 Changed mail handling 11 Avoided certain cities 12 Avoided tall buildings 13 Avoided national landmarks %

29 MEGA-STUDY CORRELATIONS Dennis S. Mileti - March 201129

30 WHAT THE CORRELATIONS SHOWED The 2 Variable Correlations: – Virtually the same conclusions as everyone else who ever did this kind of research – Dozens of factors correlate (most of them weakly) with public readiness action-taking What the Mega-study Did Next….. Dennis S. Mileti - March 201130

31 31 MODELED SOCIAL PROCESS Goal: – Identify KEY factors/processes that motivate the public to take preparedness actions Approach: – START: examine effects of all factors ever found to correlate with public action-taking – USE: analysis approach informed by theory – END: short list of “key factors” & how they relate to form human process 31Dennis S. Mileti - March 201131

32 Demographics Experience Cues Information MODELS CONSTRUCTED Action Knowledge Perceived Effectiveness Perceived Risk Milling Dennis S. Mileti - March 201132

33 THE FINAL MODEL (national data) Dennis S. Mileti - March 201133

34 MODEL VARIABLES X1X1 X2X2 X3X3 X4X4 X5X5 X6X6 X7X7 X 1 Content of preparedness information received 1.00 X 2 Density of preparedness information received.47*1.00 X 3 Preparedness action information observed.42*.36*1.00 X 4 Knowledge of preparedness actions.38*.41*.29*1.00 X 5 Perceived effectiveness of preparedness actions.19*.12*.23*.10*1.00 X 6 Milling about preparedness actions.37*.42*.29*.41*.10*1.00 X 7 Preparedness actions taken.43*.31*.51*.35*.31*.32*1.00 p <.001 CORRELATIONS CORRELATIONS

35 Endogenous Variable*BetaEstimateSER2R2 X 4 Knowledge β 41 β 42 Β 43.22.27.10.02.01.02.22 X 5 Perceived Effectiveness β 51 β 53.12.18.02.06 X 6 Milling β 61 β 62 β 63 β 64.14.22.08.24.04.03.04.06.27 X 7 Preparedness Actions Taken β 71 β 73 β 74 β 75 β 76.17.33.14.18.09.02.03.02.01.38 Robust Maximum Likelihood Estimation Satorra-Bentler χ 2 = 8.58, df = 4, p =.07; CFI =.998; RMSEA =.020, 90% CI (.000 -.039) All paths and equations significant at p <.001; N = 2,811 X 1 = content of information received, X 2 =density of information received, and X 3 =information observed MODEL ESTIMATES MODEL ESTIMATES

36 X1X1 X2X2 X3X3 X4X4 X5X5 X6X6 X7X7.22.27.10.14.22.08.12.18.33.18.24.09.14.17 e 4 =.78 e 6 =.73 e 5 =.94 e 7 =.62.47.36.42 Error terms = 1-R 2 All paths significant, p <.001 All equations significant, p <.001 X 1 =Information Content X 2 =Information Density X 3 =Information Observed (cues) X 4 =Knowledge X 5 =Perceived Effectiveness X 6 =Information Seeking (milling) X 7 =Preparedness Actions Satora-Bentler χ 2 = 8.58, df = 4, p =.07 RMSEA = 0.020, 90% CI (.000 -.039) CFI = 0.998 36

37 BREAKTHROUGH RESULTS “Consistent”(very rare) Findings:  ALL GROUPS: Hispanics, African Americans, Asian/Pacific Islanders, Anglos, Other  ALL AREAS: New York City, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., the Nation “Strong”(also rare) Findings:  High explained variance (about 40%) in all models Dennis S. Mileti - March 201137

38 THE KEY FACTORS THAT MOTIVATE PREPAREDNESS CAN BE SUMMARIZED In 1 Slide…. Dennis S. Mileti - March 201138

39 3 KEY FACTORS Information OBSERVED/HEARD: – Cues: actions others have already taken Information CONTENT: – About: what preparedness actions to take – Explains: how actions cut losses – That’s: consistent across messages Information DELIVERY: – From: multiple sources – Over: multiple communication channels Dennis S. Mileti - March 201139

40 THESE FACTORS DRIVE ACTION 2 WAYS DIRECTLY: Information motivates action INDIRECTLY: Information also motivates action by increasing 3 other “intervening” factors that also motivate action: – Knowledge: What’s known about actions – Perceived Effectiveness: How they cut losses – Milling: Talking about & seeking more information about actions Dennis S. Mileti - March 201140

41 IT LOOKS LIKE THIS (colored lines = major effects) INFO CONTENT + DELIVERY INFO OBSERVED KNOW- LEDGE PERC’ED- EFFECT MILLING ACTION TAKING Dennis S. Mileti - March 201141

42 INFORMATION Content Delivery Seen/Heard MEDIATORS Knowledge Perceived Effectiveness Milling ACTION-TAKING AND IT MEAN THIS 42Dennis S. Mileti - March 2011

43 THESE DISCOVERIES Provide Clear & Consistent Evidence And Can be Put into Practice: – Because public information is “pliable” & can be shaped by policy & programs Dennis S. Mileti - March 201143

44 AND THEY TURN PRACTICE UPSIDE-DOWN Traditionally Many: – Communicate risk to the public – Hope people: “infer action” The New Evidence Suggests: – Communicate actions to the public – Let people: “infer risk” Dennis S. Mileti - March 201144

45 OTHER THINGS JUST DON’T MATTER MUCH Some Other Factors Aren’t: – Statistically significantly related to readiness Some Other Factors Are, But Either: – Effects aren’t real (go away when other factors are controlled), or – Effects are so small that they might as well be ignored Dennis S. Mileti - March 201145

46 SOME EXAMPLES Perceived Risk (indirect & weak): – Increased probabilities don’t increase public preparedness action-taking – Fear doesn’t sell preparedness either Demographics (little predictive value): – Tiny effect on “preparedness motivation” – But can impact action-taking affordability & information pathway effectiveness Dennis S. Mileti - March 201146

47 RESEARCH BASED IDEAS FOR GROWING PUBLIC PREPAREDNES Dennis S. Mileti - March 201147

48 THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE Information is the KEY Factor that Motivates Preparedness: – Works everywhere for everyone (in U.S.)  Mainstream Americans & minorities  Across the country & in different cities – Rich exposure to preparedness information (received & seen) yields public action-taking Here are the steps in the “tool kit”…. Dennis S. Mileti - March 201148

49 STEP 1: USE EVIDENCE BASED APPROACHES All Public Education & Information Campaigns Aren’t Equal: – More could be accomplished if we redesign & distribute public readiness information that…. – “Uses research-based evidence about how to make it effective” Dennis S. Mileti - March 201149

50 STEP 2: STOP DOING THINGS THAT DON’T WORK Don’t Try to “Motivate” the Public with Higher Probabilities or Fear: – People need to be aware of unknown hazards – Increased probabilities may be useful for many things & other audiences but…. – “Increasing perceived risk does not motivate or predict PUBLIC preparedness action-taking” Dennis S. Mileti - March 201150

51 STEP 3: USE MULTIPLE INFORMATION SOURCES Provide Information from as Many Different Sources as Possible: – “Regardless of who you are, you alone can’t provide very effective public information” – You need partners to be “really” effective:  The more partners = the more sources  The more sources = the more the public does  Many different groups currently give information Dennis S. Mileti - March 201151

52 STEP 4: STANDARDIZE THE MESSAGE It’s About the Public Not You : – “Brand the message, not the messenger” Convince Groups (including your own) To Stop Providing Unique Messages: – Work with other information providers so everyone tells the public the same thing – “Standardized messages would work better” Dennis S. Mileti - March 201152

53 STEP 5: USE MULTIPLE DISSEMINATION CHANNELS Distribute Information Over Diverse Channels: – “People do more when they get the same information different ways” Dennis S. Mileti - March 201153

54 PUBLIC IT LOOKS LIKE THIS GROCERY BAGS SIGNS & PLACARDS WEB SITES SCHOOL COLORING BOOKS SOCIAL MEDIA RADIO NEWSPAPERS TV BROCHURES 54

55 STEP 6: COMMUNICATE OVER THE “LONG-HAUL” Its Better to Communicate: – Over time (not just for a day or week) – Using coordinated distribution across information-providing partners – “People do more after receiving the same message many times” And its Best if Communication is: – “Sustained, ongoing & doesn’t end” Dennis S. Mileti - March 201155

56 STEP 7: FOCUS PROVIDED INFORMATION ON ACTIONS The Most Effective Thing to Say to Motivate People to Prepare is: “What they should do to prepare” “And where to find more about how to do it” For example….. Dennis S. Mileti - March 201156

57 “WHAT TO DO” BROCHURE Dennis S. Mileti - March 201157

58 STEP 8: EXPLAIN CONSEQUENCE REDUCTION Tell Them How Recommended Preparedness Actions Reduce Losses: “People are more likely to take actions if information explains how actions can cut their losses if something happens” Dennis S. Mileti - March 201158

59 STEP 9: GIVE PEOPLE CUES Get Public Preparedness Out of the Closet and Into the Streets: Target people who have already prepared to share what they’ve done with others (social media could help): “People are most likely to prepare if they see what others have done and if people they know tell them about it” Make preparedness visible in communities 59Dennis S. Mileti - March 2011

60 STEP 10: DO CONSEQUENCE BASED EVALUATIONS Measure Your Starting Place:  Get a “baseline” of public preparedness Measure Changes:  Is public preparedness changing over time Evaluate Effectiveness & Fine Tune Your Program if Needed:  Which information components work/don’t work  Revise information provided based on findings Dennis S. Mileti - March 201160

61 SURVEYS CAN DO THAT INTERVIEWER: DATE: RESPONDENT ID: HOUSEHOLD READINESS SURVEYINTERVIEW START TIME: ______ : ______ AM / PM INTRODUCTION Hello, I ’ m … calling from the University of California. We are interviewing people to find out what they think should be done to prepare for emergencies and disasters in their community. This information may help us improve responses to emergencies like Hurricane Katrina and other disasters. As a thank you, participants will receive a $20 gift certificate. I need to ask just a few questions to see if you are eligible to participate. S1A.Have I reached you at your home phone? YESSKIP TO S1D 1 NOASK S1B 2 S1B.Is this a residence? YESASK S1E1 NOTERMINATE, DIAL AGAIN2 For this survey, I have to speak with someone who lives there who is 18 years old or older. Are you 18 or over? YESSKIP TO S1F 1 NOASK S1E 2 NO ONE IN HH IS 18 OR OLDER,TERMINATE3 Dennis S. Mileti - March 201161

62 THE STEPS SUMMARIZED Many Sources/Channels: – Partnerships – Someone in charge Standard & Orchestrated Message Across Partners Over Time/Long-Haul – Repetitive messaging Actions to Take Plus: – How actions cut losses – Encourage talking Visible Action-taking Cues Evaluate & Revise ORCHESTRA LEADER GovernmentNgo’sBusiness Dennis S. Mileti - March 201162

63 TWO PATHWAYS (summary of the summary) 1. Distribute Information: – Of a “particular type” and disseminated in a “particular way” 2. Foster Community Change: – So neighbors & friends “share” preparedness with neighbors & friends Dennis S. Mileti - March 201163

64 A FEW MORE POINTS Dennis S. Mileti - March 201164

65 POST SCRIPT 1 Everything Doesn’t Have to Say Everything: – Refer them to other places to find out more – Seeking additional information (or milling) on their own increases the odds that they’ll take action Dennis S. Mileti - March 201165

66 POST SCRIPT 2 Remove Wrong Information: – Not just about putting in “good” information – Also about taking out “bad” information – They don’t know they believe wrong things, they think what they believe is true Dennis S. Mileti - March 201166

67 POST SCRIPT 3 Issues Remain for Low Resource People: – The same “motivation” process applies – But the level of preparedness they can afford can be constrained:  Point out “no cost” actions to take  Work with NGOs to fill the readiness gap Dennis S. Mileti - March 201167

68 POST SCRIPT 4 Demographics Don’t Really Impact the Motivation Process But They Can Be Important for Other Reasons, e.g., – Selecting right mix of communication channels – Identifying people we can’t afford it – & more Dennis S. Mileti - March 201168

69 POST SCRIPT 5 We Didn’t Cover Everything We Covered: – PROCESS to “motivate” public readiness We Didn’t Cover Information: – CONTENT (exactly what to say):  Some are generic, others are hazard-specific – STYLE (how it’s presented):  Format, order, colors, wording & more Dennis S. Mileti - March 201169

70 Dennis S. Mileti - March 201170 QUESTIONS? dennis.mileti@colorado.edu 303-520-3400


Download ppt "INCREASING PUBLIC PREPAREDNESS RESEARCH FINDINGS & EVIDENCE-BASED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION PROVIDERS 44 th Annual Governor’s Conference on."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google