Earthquake preparedness is measurable in several ways: people can learn safety procedures, store supplies, strengthen homes, make reunification plans, and rehearse their response. Available figures show a clear pattern. Participation in public drills can reach millions, while some household actions—especially structural protection, neighborhood planning, and stored water—remain much less common.
Contents
- What the latest ShakeOut registration shows
- Which organizations are participating
- What Californians report learning
- Household supplies and emergency equipment
- Planning, training, and home protection
- What the older USGS household survey measured
- How earthquake drill participation changed over time
What the latest ShakeOut registration shows
The 2026 Great ShakeOut Earthquake Drills had 1,931,795 registered participants worldwide as of May 25, 2026. This is a registration count, not a measurement of every person who ultimately practiced. The same source lists 3,004 registered individuals and families, alongside registrations from schools, governments, businesses, health organizations, and community groups.
The breadth of the registration is useful for understanding preparedness as a community activity. It includes formal institutions and households, so the total does not describe one uniform type of participant. It does show that earthquake practice can be organized across many settings at the same time.
The 2026 participation figures from Great ShakeOut Earthquake Drills, “2026 Who is Participating?” include the following registration categories:
| Registration category | Registered in 2026 |
|---|---|
| K-12 schools and districts | 839,180 |
| Colleges and universities | 333,432 |
| Healthcare organizations | 89,860 |
| Businesses | 43,807 |
| Local government organizations | 39,446 |
| State government organizations | 23,376 |
| Federal or national government, including military | 18,544 |
| Non-profit organizations | 11,151 |
These counts show particularly large registration totals in K-12 schools and districts and in colleges and universities. Healthcare organizations and businesses also represent substantial participation. The categories should not be added together as an independent estimate of people because the source presents them as registration groups, while the worldwide total is a participant count.
Which organizations are participating
The 2026 registration list extends well beyond schools and government. It includes 7,203 childcare and pre-schools, 10,064 senior facilities or communities, and 867 disability or access-and-functional-needs organizations. These settings can involve people who may need different communication, mobility, supervision, or continuity arrangements during an earthquake.
Community participation is also visible in the counts for 3,167 neighborhood groups, 494 preparedness organizations, 6,072 faith-based organizations, and 11,151 non-profit organizations. The list includes 557 volunteer or service clubs and 201 youth organizations. Together, these figures describe a preparedness network that reaches local groups as well as formal institutions.
Other 2026 registration categories included 205 hotels and other lodgings, 1,999 museums, libraries, parks, and similar organizations, 36 animal shelter or service providers, and 833 volunteer radio groups. Science and engineering organizations accounted for 7,180 registrations, while 331 media organizations were listed. Tribes and Indigenous Peoples accounted for 373 registrations, and 1,764 organizations were classified as Other.
The Great ShakeOut figures also included 43,807 businesses and 18,544 federal or national government participants, including military organizations. Because these are organization registrations, they indicate the settings in which drills were arranged; they do not establish that every employee, resident, student, or visitor took part.
What Californians report learning
The California Earthquake Preparedness Survey facts show a stronger reach for basic safety information than for some protective actions. More than 60% of Californians had learned how to be safe during an earthquake, and more than 60% had learned about supplies they should have on hand.
The results were lower for household risk reduction. Less than 35% had learned how to make their home structure safer, and less than 35% had learned how to safeguard their finances in case of an earthquake. These are different forms of preparedness: knowing the immediate response is not the same as reducing building risk or protecting financial continuity.
The same survey reported that more than 65% of Californians said they were trained in first aid. Yet fewer than 50% had participated in disaster training at work, and less than 20% had received specific disaster training. The figures suggest that general first-aid experience and earthquake-specific training were not equally common in the surveyed population.
Family and neighborhood planning also lagged behind basic awareness. Only 40% of Californians had made family disaster plans, while less than 20% had participated in neighborhood disaster planning. A family plan can address communication and reunification; neighborhood planning addresses coordination among nearby households. The survey figures measure reported participation in these actions, not whether plans were complete or recently tested.
Household supplies and emergency equipment
Basic equipment was common in the California survey. More than 80% of California households had first-aid kits, flashlights, and batteries in the house. These three figures describe separate items, so they do not show how many households had all three at once.
Other equipment was less widespread. Fewer than 50% of households had dust masks, fewer than 50% had tools to rescue trapped people, and fewer than 50% had an extra set of emergency supplies in the car. Only 40% kept the recommended minimum of three gallons of water stored per person.
The water figure is especially distinct from simply owning emergency supplies. It measures whether households met a stated minimum volume per person. A household could have some water available without reaching that threshold, but the supplied survey fact does not quantify those intermediate amounts.
The California findings can be read as a practical checklist of uneven readiness:
- More than 80% had first-aid kits.
- More than 80% had flashlights.
- More than 80% had batteries.
- Fewer than 50% had dust masks.
- Fewer than 50% had rescue tools.
- Fewer than 50% had an extra emergency-supply set in the car.
- Only 40% stored at least three gallons of water per person.
The older USGS 1985 household preparedness survey measured several similar supplies, but it should be treated as historical evidence rather than a current estimate. In that survey, 88% of households had a working flashlight, 66% had first-aid supplies, 63% had a working battery-operated radio, 34% had any other supplies, 32% stored food, and 10% stored water. The supplied record identifies the survey as a 1985 USGS household preparedness survey and does not provide a more specific direct page link.
Planning, training, and home protection
Preparedness also involves changing the home and coordinating with other people. In the California Earthquake Preparedness Survey, fewer than 20% of California households had structurally reinforced their home, fewer than 20% had their home inspected for earthquake resistance, and fewer than 20% had purchased earthquake insurance. These findings concern reported household actions; they do not estimate the engineering condition of every home.
The survey also found that less than 35% of Californians had learned how to make their home structure safer. This learning figure and the fewer-than-20% action figures are related but not interchangeable. Someone may know that structural protection matters without having completed reinforcement, inspection, or insurance purchase.
Historical USGS figures provide another reference point. In the 1985 household preparedness survey, 12% of households had rearranged cupboards to make them safer, and 25% had safe cupboard latches. Among owner-occupied households, 13% had reinforced their home, 17% had inquired about earthquake insurance, and 13% had purchased earthquake insurance.
The 1985 survey recorded low levels of neighborhood coordination: 3% of households knew emergency procedures at their residence, 4% had contacted neighbors about emergency measures, and 1% had made neighborhood responsibility plans. Among households with children, 14% had instructed children what to do during an earthquake, while 81% had made plans for household reuniting.
These historical percentages come from a different period and should not be presented as a current baseline. Their value is that they distinguish several specific preparedness behaviors—safe storage, home reinforcement, insurance inquiries, child instruction, and reunification planning—rather than combining them into one readiness score.
What the older USGS household survey measured
The 1985 USGS findings illustrate why earthquake preparedness statistics need clear definitions. “Having supplies” was not one single measure. The survey separately counted water, food, radios, flashlights, first-aid supplies, and other supplies. It also separated owner-occupied households from the broader household sample for some home-protection measures.
The reported historical figures were:
| Measure in the USGS 1985 survey | Share reported |
|---|---|
| Working flashlight | 88% of households |
| First-aid supplies | 66% of households |
| Working battery-operated radio | 63% of households |
| Food stored | 32% of households |
| Water stored | 10% of households |
| Rearranged cupboards for safety | 12% of households |
| Safe cupboard latches | 25% of households |
| Reinforced home | 13% of owner-occupied households |
| Purchased earthquake insurance | 13% of owner-occupied households |
The same source reported 17% of owner-occupied households had inquired about earthquake insurance. That is an inquiry measure, not a purchase measure, and the two should not be combined. The survey also reported 81% of households with children had made household-reuniting plans, compared with 14% that had instructed children what to do during an earthquake.
How earthquake drill participation changed over time
The USGS ShakeOut record documents growth in drill participation, but the milestones come from different years and sources. The 2008 Great Southern California ShakeOut registered 5.47 million participants, described as about one-quarter of the region’s population in a USGS ShakeOut conference paper. A separate USGS ShakeOut drill history describes the first Southern California ShakeOut as reaching about 5.5 million participants.
The near-match between 5.47 million and about 5.5 million reflects two descriptions of the first event, not two separate populations to add together. The conference paper also reported that sales of earthquake safety products at Home Depot rose 260% during the month of the 2008 ShakeOut.
Participation expanded in later historical reports. By 2012, the ShakeOut had more than 19.5 million participants, according to a USGS ShakeOut podcast from 2013. In 2013, USGS said more than 20 million people were anticipated to be involved in ShakeOut events worldwide. In 2015, USGS Volcano Watch reported that almost 40 million participants were registered in worldwide ShakeOut events.
The first annual Great Hawaii ShakeOut had 15,000 registered participants, according to USGS Volcano Watch’s account of the first official Great Hawaii ShakeOut. That same source stated that the probability of a destructive magnitude-6.5 or higher earthquake striking the Hawaiian Islands in the next 10 years was 50%. This is a forecast probability for a defined period and magnitude threshold, not a count of earthquakes or a statement that an event was certain.
More recent California indicators include a Cal OES MyShake announcement reporting that the app surpassed 4 million downloads, equal to more than 10% of the state. The Great California ShakeOut 2025 announcement said more than 10.6 million Californians had registered the previous year to practice Drop, Cover, and Hold On. Cal OES also reported that California’s major faults could affect 36 counties and 104 cities in its Earthquake Preparedness information.
These participation, download, and geographic-reach figures measure different things. Drill registrations count planned participants, app downloads count installations, and the county and city figures describe potential geographic reach. None of them alone measures how many households can respond effectively after an earthquake.