Table 2.
Communications and activities in jurisdictions with and without written heat action plans (HAP)
| Overall N = 38 % (n) |
Has HAP N = 23 % (n) |
No HAP N = 15 % (n) |
P-Value (Fisher’s) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Communication Activities | ||||
| Issues Communication Around Extrem Heat (N = 37) | 100 (37) | 100 (22) | 100 (15) | - |
| Issues Comminications at Beginning of Summer (N = 38) | 60.5 (23) | 65.2 (15) | 53.33 (8) | 0.46 |
| Issues Communications in Advance of Forecasted Heat Event (N = 38) | 94.7 (36) | 95.7 (22) | 93.33 (14) | 1 |
| Issues Communications During Heat Event (N = 38) | 84.2 (32) | 87.0 (20) | 80 (12) | 0.36 |
| Issues Communication in Different Languages (N = 38) | 72.2 (26) | 71.4 (15) | 60 (11) | 1 |
| Issues Communications Directly to At-Risk Populations (N = 36) | 41.7 (15) | 47.6 (10) | 33.33 (5) | 0.50 |
| Other Heat-related Activities | ||||
| Has Definition of Excessive Heat (N = 37) | 75.7 (28) | 90.9 (20) | 53.3 (8) | 0.01 |
| Conducts Surveillance (N = 36) | 61.1 (22) | 77.2 (17) | 35.7 (5) | 0.02 |
| Provides Extended Sheltering for People experiencing Homelessness During Heat Event (N = 37) | 54.1 (20) | 63.6 (14) | 40.0 (6) | 0.19 |
| Has Provisions for Power Outages (N = 37) | 53.1 9170 | 47.8 (11) | 66.7 (6) | 0.44 |
| Increases Access to Fans/AC (N = 31) | 48.4 (15) | 43.5 (10) | 62.5 (6) | 0.43 |
| Developed Vulnerability Heat Map (N = 37) | 43.2 (16) | 40.9 (9) | 46.7 (7) | 0.74 |
| Conduct Evaluation (N = 38) | 34.2 (13) | 39.1 (9) | 26.7 (4) | 0.50 |
| Performs Communications or Response Activities that Target At-Risk Populations (N = 27) | 88.9 (24) | 85.0 (17) | 100 (7) | 0.55 |