A question came up recently on the Emergency Management Issues Facebook Page regarding the basis for the 72 hour preparedness model. It's always fun to see the reasons people come up with to explain it. I know - I've done it myself. The simple fact is that there really is no empirical basis for preparing for 72 hours as opposed to say, 96 or 120 (3, 4 and 5 days).
The earliest we can trace the 72 hours preparedness model is to a Red Cross brochure from 1928 that my colleague Rocky Lopes has in his possession. My colleague Valerie Lucus-McEwen has also traced it back to the Cold War and Civil Defense planning. The origins of the model are lost in the mists of time.
So why do we continue to tell people they must be prepared for 72 hours (or three days, which is easier for them to visualize)? The answer is that we assume that someone, somewhere had a good reason for coming up with this idea and that, since we're all using it, it must be correct. We simply accept that it is a "good thing" without questioning whether it is the "right thing".
Now there's a lot to be said for consistency of message and any preparedness is better than no preparedness but the fact is, as I've said over and over, one size does not fit all. Three days of supplies in one location may be appropriate but may be woefully inadequate in another. Water needs change based on climate. The best approach is to tailor the message to local conditions, which would be difficult but not impossible. The message of stockpiling supplies also doesn't resonate with the people most likely to suffer most in a disaster: those with limited economic resources.
Now I'm not suggesting that we abandon our preparedness message or that trying to keep our message consistent is a bad thing. I do think, though, that it's time we question the way we have traditionally done things, whether it's planning or community preparedness. The one-size-fits-all approach often results in mediocrity. We owe our communities better.
Comments