For decades, Americans have expected the federal government to take the lead when disaster strikes—coordinating response, funding recovery, and setting the standard for preparedness. That expectation is now being quietly but decisively upended. We’re in an era of federal retrenchment in disaster management, with Washington shifting more responsibility to states, local governments, tribes, and territories.
This transition comes at a challenging time. Disasters are growing more frequent, more severe, and more expensive. Yet the capacity for state and local governments to respond is anything but uniform. Some jurisdictions have built strong emergency management systems, but many—particularly rural, tribal, and under-resourced communities—have limited staff and strained budgets. As federal involvement shrinks, these gaps are likely to widen.
In this new environment, the question of preparedness becomes a local—and even household-level—concern. With the federal safety net receding, communities and individuals must ask themselves: Are we truly ready to face the next crisis on our own?
An Outdated Preparedness Message
Campaigns promoting disaster preparedness have historically offered simple, reassuring messages to the public: Have a kit. Have a plan. Be informed. These slogans, circulated by government agencies and nonprofits like the American Red Cross, suggest that readiness is a consumer behavior. We are ready if we learn about area hazards, come up with a plan, and then buy the right supplies. These steps seem logical, and indeed may be helpful, but they weren’t derived from research evidence from actual disasters.
In practice, such preparedness messaging has left people out—particularly those who cannot afford, acquire, or store emergency supplies. It also reinforced a misguided notion of individualistic preparedness: that survival depends solely on personal foresight.
Over half a century of empirical study—from hurricanes and wildfires to earthquakes and pandemics—tells a very different story. Preparedness is not a checklist; it is a condition. It is best measured by what people know, who they are connected to, and how they adapt under pressure—not just the facts and supplies they have on hand.
These findings have coalesced into what’s called the Holistic Individual Preparedness Model. Among the six capacities it identifies, three stand out as contrasts to traditional preparedness marketing: mental and physical adaptive capacity, social integration, and information-source integration.
Investing in one’s health is always a good idea. Those who aren’t suffering from mental or physical health conditions also have greater ability to get away from danger independently, which leads to better outcomes after a disaster.
Community integration is perhaps the single most consistent predictor of positive disaster outcomes. People who are socially connected—to neighbors, coworkers, religious communities, or civic groups—receive information faster, find help more easily, and recover more quickly. Social networks often mobilize assistance long before official aid arrives and keep meeting needs long after. In nearly every disaster studied, social ties have proven decisive in determining who fares well and who struggles most.
The ability to gather, interpret, and verify information from multiple sources is also a vital life skill in a crisis. Misinformation spreads quickly; those who depend on a single channel risk confusion or inaction. By cross-checking information—turning to official updates, local networks, and trusted voices—individuals are better positioned to make timely, informed decisions that protect themselves and their families.
