A total of 100 surveys were completed via random digit phone surveying in the municipalities of Duquesne, West Mifflin and McKeesport. The small sample size (n=100) permitted a simple frequencies analysis. Although the sample of survey participants was small, the demographic profile of the sample was consistent with the 2000 Census Bureau demographic profiles of the municipalities surveyed (see Table 6).
Table 6. Demographic profiles of municipalities (Duquesne, West Mifflin, McKeesport) from the 2000 Census as compared to the demographic profile of the sample population surveyed.
Demographic Characteristic
2000 Census
Bureau Survey
Male 46% 46.70%
Female 54% 53.30%
African American 22% 29%
Asian 0.36% 1%
White 77% 67%
American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.55% 1%
4.3.1 Survey Results: Threats to the Individual and Community
Individuals were asked to share their level of concern about different threats to their community.
Sixty percent of individuals surveyed were ‘concerned’ or ‘very concerned’ about the public school system or education for youth in the community, 50% of individuals surveyed were
‘concerned’ or ‘very concerned’ about violence in the community, 43% of individuals surveyed were ‘concerned’ or ‘very concerned’ about theft, burglary or other intentional damage to personal property, and 42% of individuals surveyed were ‘concerned’ or ‘very concerned’ about low wage jobs. In addition to these, 32% were ‘concerned’ or ‘very concerned’ about fires, blizzards, ice storms or flooding, 20% were ‘concerned’ or ‘very concerned’ about illness or
naturally occurring disease and 13% of individuals surveyed were ‘worried’ or ‘very worried’
about terrorism. Compared to other threats, terrorism was of least concern to individuals surveyed.
4.3.2 Survey Results: Trusted Sources of Information and News
When asked what their primary source of information or news about a local or national emergency, 95% of survey participants identified television. Other popular sources of information and news included family, friends and neighbors (78%); newspaper (71%), radio (55%) and the internet (48%). The least popular sources of news and information were local officials (22%) and community newsletters (21%). Individuals were asked who they most trusted as a source of information and news. Television was trusted most by 52% of people surveyed, whereas only 4% of those surveyed identified local officials as the most trusted sources of information. Survey participants were also asked who they would trust and rely on for help during an emergency: 38% of individuals surveyed would rely on fire/police/emergency workers, 37% would rely on household members and 15% of individuals surveyed would rely on neighbors and friends.
4.3.3 Survey Results: Ability to Respond to an Emergency and Preparing for an Emergency
When asked about the likelihood of experiencing a widespread emergency while living or working in the Mon Valley, 17% of individuals surveyed thought it was ‘very likely’ or ‘likely’
while 52% thought it was ‘unlikely’ or ‘very unlikely.’ Fifty-seven percent of individuals
surveyed felt that planning and preparing for an emergency was ‘very important’ or ‘important’
whereas 7% of people felt it was ‘of little importance’ or ‘not at all important.’ Preparedness was defined as having an emergency plan and/or emergency supplies. In regards to reported level of personal preparedness, 28% of people surveyed felt they were ‘very prepared’ or
‘prepared’ for an emergency situation. Forty-five percent of people surveyed felt they were
‘moderately prepared’ and 27% of people surveyed felt they were ‘a little prepared’ or ‘not at all prepared.’ Individuals who felt they were either ‘a little prepared’ or ‘not at all prepared’ were asked why they were not prepared. Of individuals who were not prepared, 22% did not have time to prepare, 15% did not know how to prepare, 15% thought it was too expensive to prepare and 4% did not think it was important to prepare for an emergency.
In addition to levels of personal preparedness, survey participants were asked about community preparedness. Thirty-one percent of individuals surveyed did not know if their community was prepared, 25% of individuals surveyed felt their community was ‘a little prepared’ or ‘not at all prepared’ for dealing with an emergency situation, and 22% of individuals surveyed felt their community was ‘very prepared’ or ‘prepared’ for dealing with an emergency situation. Survey participants were asked if there was a safe place to go in the community during an emergency. Thirty-one percent knew of a safe place to go in their community during a wide spread emergency while 13% of individuals surveyed indicated that there was not a safe place in their community and 56% of individuals surveyed did not know if there is a safe place to go. When asked about safe places to go outside of the community during an emergency, 10% did not have a place to go outside of the community.
Related to travel outside of their immediate community, participants were asked about transportation usage. Twenty-one percent of people surveyed relied on public transportation and
16% relied on rides from family, friends or neighbors with a personal car as their primary source of transportation.
When asked about interest level in learning more about preparing for emergencies, 41%
of individuals surveyed were ‘moderately’ interested in learning more about emergencies, 39%
of individuals surveyed were slightly or not at all interested in learning more about preparing for emergencies and 17% of individuals surveyed were ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ interested in learning more about preparing for emergencies.