Emergency kit statistics show a wide gap between awareness, confidence, and the supplies households actually report having. The figures below cover the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, with measurement periods ranging from 2014 to 2025. Because the studies use different questions and populations, their percentages are best read as separate snapshots rather than as a single trend line.
Contents
- United States household readiness
- What preparedness items people have
- Knowledge, beliefs, and kit ownership
- Food and water for three days
- Canadian household and vehicle kits
- City-level differences in Canada
- UK supplies and disaster information
United States household readiness
The U.S. Census Bureau reported in 2015 that 51.5% of U.S. homes had a prepared emergency evacuation kit. That figure describes a little more than half of homes, leaving a substantial share without a reported kit prepared for evacuation. The same U.S. Census Bureau press release reported a higher level in two metropolitan areas: about 70% of homes in the Miami metro area and about 70% of homes in the Tampa metro area had emergency supplies readily available for evacuation.
These figures measure reported household availability, not whether every item was current, accessible, or sufficient for every person in a household. They also use a national comparison alongside two metropolitan-area estimates, so geography matters when interpreting the difference.
A separate CDC/BRFSS preparedness study from 2015 measured perceived readiness and recommended items. In that study, 25.3% of respondents felt they were well prepared for a public health emergency. Only 12.3% had all five recommended preparedness items, while 34.1% had four or more. Feeling prepared therefore appeared more common than having all five measured items, although these are different measures and should not be treated as a direct cause-and-effect comparison.
What preparedness items people have
The CDC MMWR 2014 Ready preparedness intervention sample provides more detail about the kinds of supplies associated with preparedness knowledge. The sample was not a general population profile: 63% of respondents were aged 45 or older, 64% were female, and 73% were part of an unmarried or married couple. In addition, 67% had a master’s degree or higher, 85% owned their home, and 54% had no disaster deployment experience.
Within this sample, 28% had advanced preparedness knowledge. Reported possession of selected items differed sharply between respondents with advanced and basic preparedness knowledge.
| Item | Advanced preparedness knowledge | Basic preparedness knowledge |
|---|---|---|
| Multipurpose tool | 83% | 58% |
| Emergency blanket | 67% | 42% |
| First aid kit | 84% | 59% |
The first aid kit was the most commonly reported of these three items in both groups: 84% among respondents with advanced preparedness knowledge and 59% among those with basic knowledge. A multipurpose tool was reported by 83% of the advanced-knowledge group and 58% of the basic-knowledge group. Emergency blankets were reported by 67% and 42%, respectively.
These results describe associations within the CDC MMWR 2014 intervention sample. They do not establish that owning an item produces advanced knowledge, or that knowledge alone produces ownership. The sample characteristics also mean that the percentages should not be presented as estimates for every U.S. household.
Knowledge, beliefs, and kit ownership
The same CDC MMWR 2014 sample measured kit ownership alongside risk perception, preparedness beliefs, and self-efficacy beliefs. Thirty percent of respondents with strong risk perception beliefs reported having a kit, compared with 21% of respondents with weak risk perception beliefs. For preparedness beliefs, 26% of the strong-belief group possessed an emergency kit, compared with 14% of the weak-belief group.
The largest reported difference in this set concerned self-efficacy beliefs. Twenty-nine percent of respondents with strong self-efficacy beliefs possessed an emergency kit, compared with 8% of respondents with weak self-efficacy beliefs. In other words, the study’s groups with stronger beliefs reported higher kit ownership, but the figures remain group comparisons from that specific sample.
The pattern is useful for everyday preparedness planning because it separates several ideas that are often combined. A person may perceive risk, believe preparation is worthwhile, or feel capable of preparing; the study measured those dimensions separately. The reported kit percentages were 30% versus 21% for strong and weak risk perception, 26% versus 14% for strong and weak preparedness beliefs, and 29% versus 8% for strong and weak self-efficacy beliefs.
Food and water for three days
The CDC MMWR 2014 figures also compare access to a three-day food supply and a three-day water supply by self-efficacy beliefs. Among respondents with strong self-efficacy beliefs, 59% had a three-day food supply, while 29% of those with weak self-efficacy beliefs had one. For a three-day water supply, the corresponding figures were 46% for strong self-efficacy beliefs and 18% for weak self-efficacy beliefs.
| Three-day supply | Strong self-efficacy beliefs | Weak self-efficacy beliefs |
|---|---|---|
| Food | 59% | 29% |
| Water | 46% | 18% |
Food was reported more often than water in both belief groups. The difference was 30 percentage points for food and 28 percentage points for water when comparing the strong- and weak-belief groups. Those arithmetic comparisons are included only to clarify the supplied percentages; they are not estimates of national household coverage.
The food and water figures also show why “having an emergency kit” can conceal important variation. A kit may be reported while a household still lacks one of the supplies measured separately. For readers building or checking a kit, the study’s categories point to a practical distinction between a general kit label and specific contents such as food and water.
Canadian household and vehicle kits
Statistics Canada’s Emergency preparedness in Canada data from 2014 measured several household preparedness arrangements. Sixty percent of Canadian households had a household emergency exit plan, while 33% had a designated meeting place for household members and 55% had a contact plan for household members.
For supplies, 47% had a household emergency supply kit and 59% had a vehicle emergency supply kit. The distinction matters: a vehicle kit is a separate reported category and should not be assumed to be interchangeable with a household kit. The same source reported that 53% had extra copies of important documents, 69% had a list of emergency contact numbers, and 62% had a plan for meeting special health needs.
| Canadian preparedness measure | Households reporting it |
|---|---|
| Household emergency exit plan | 60% |
| Designated household meeting place | 33% |
| Household contact plan | 55% |
| Household emergency supply kit | 47% |
| Vehicle emergency supply kit | 59% |
| Extra copies of important documents | 53% |
| Emergency contact number list | 69% |
| Plan for special health needs | 62% |
The highest percentage in this Canadian set was the 69% reporting a list of emergency contact numbers. The lowest was the 33% reporting a designated household meeting place. A household can therefore have one preparedness feature without having all of the others.
City-level differences in Canada
Statistics Canada also reported household emergency supply kit percentages for selected Canadian cities in 2014. Victoria had the highest reported percentage in this city group, at 63%, followed by Vancouver at 54% and Saint John at 52%. St. John’s was at 50%.
Several cities clustered between 47% and 48%: Halifax and Ottawa-Gatineau were each at 48%, while Quebec City and Toronto were each at 47%. Moncton and Calgary were each at 43%, and Winnipeg was at 41%.
| City | Households with a household emergency supply kit |
|---|---|
| Victoria | 63% |
| Vancouver | 54% |
| Saint John | 52% |
| St. John’s | 50% |
| Halifax | 48% |
| Ottawa-Gatineau | 48% |
| Quebec City | 47% |
| Toronto | 47% |
| Moncton | 43% |
| Calgary | 43% |
| Winnipeg | 41% |
These city figures are not a ranking of current conditions. They are 2014 Statistics Canada measurements for the specific locations and question reported. The spread from 41% in Winnipeg to 63% in Victoria also illustrates why a national percentage can hide meaningful local variation.
UK supplies and disaster information
The UK Public Survey of Risk Perception, Resilience and Preparedness 2025 measured reported household supplies and preparedness information. Sixty-seven percent of UK respondents reported having hand sanitiser at home. Sixty-six percent reported non-perishable food that would last approximately three days, while 48% reported non-perishable food that would last approximately seven days.
Water responses were distributed across several categories. Forty-three percent reported having no bottled or mineral water at home, 14% reported having 1–2 litres, and 43% reported having 3 litres or more. Within the reported water categories, 14% reported having 6–10 litres. These categories should be kept separate because the supplied figures describe different reported amounts and are not a complete estimate of total household water volume beyond those labels.
FEMA’s 2024 National Household Survey on Disaster Preparedness found that 78% of respondents had read, seen, or heard at least some information about how to get better prepared for a disaster in the last year. Forty-two percent had received information about emergency supply kits. Other reported information topics included emergency plans at 34%, sign-up for alerts and warnings at 32%, evacuation plans and routes at 27%, and how to protect the home at 26%.
The survey also reported information about saving money at 25%, protecting important documents at 24%, and keeping in contact with family at 23%. Twenty-one percent had received information about practicing emergency drills, and 21% had received information about property insurance. Nineteen percent had received information about getting involved in the community, while 18% had received information about helping neighbors during a disaster.
Together, the 2025 UK supply figures and FEMA’s 2024 information figures distinguish possession from exposure to preparedness guidance. Hearing preparedness information does not measure whether a kit exists, and having food, water, or hand sanitiser does not by itself measure whether a household has received formal guidance. The percentages are most useful when each is kept tied to its source, geography, question, and measurement period.