National Poll Report for IOG Sept 2014
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
NATIONAL POLL REPORT<br />
THE POLLING CENTER<br />
THE INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT<br />
JACKSON STATE UNIVERSITY<br />
<strong>Sept</strong>ember <strong>2014</strong><br />
Institute of Government <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center
Statement of Confidentiality and Ownership<br />
All of the analyses, findings and recommendations contained within this report are the<br />
exclusive property of the Institute of Government at Jackson State University.<br />
As required by the Code of Ethics of the <strong>National</strong> Council on Public <strong>Poll</strong>s and the United<br />
States Privacy Act of 1974, The Institute of Government <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center maintains the<br />
anonymity of respondents to surveys the Center conducts. No in<strong>for</strong>mation will be released<br />
that might, in any way, reveal the identity of the respondent.<br />
Moreover, no in<strong>for</strong>mation regarding these findings will be released without the written<br />
consent of an authorized representative of Institute of Government.<br />
Institute of Government <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS<br />
1<br />
SECTION<br />
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. Page 4<br />
2<br />
SECTION<br />
Methodology ............................................................................................................................. Page 5<br />
3<br />
SECTION<br />
Highlights ................................................................................................................................... Page 7<br />
4<br />
SECTION<br />
Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................... Page 15<br />
Law En<strong>for</strong>cement ................................................ 15<br />
Gun Control / Ownership ................................. 22<br />
Identification ........................................................ 26<br />
Demographics ...................................................... 29<br />
5<br />
SECTION<br />
Appendix .................................................................................................................................. Page 31<br />
Survey Instrument<br />
Composite Aggregate Data<br />
Cross Tabulations of Data<br />
Institute of Government <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center Page 3
1<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
The <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center at the Institute of Government is pleased to present the results of a<br />
national poll of Americans.<br />
The poll was designed to assess public views regarding law en<strong>for</strong>cement, gun control and<br />
ownership and uses <strong>for</strong> identification such as voting and employment.<br />
The research study included survey responses from 900 respondents nationally<br />
approximately proportional to state population contribution.<br />
The national poll included the following areas <strong>for</strong> investigation:<br />
‣ Views on safety in respondent communities;<br />
‣ Perceptions of the job police and police departments are doing;<br />
‣ Support / opposition to specific policing strategies;<br />
‣ Trust and confidence held in police and the judicial system;<br />
‣ Views on gun control;<br />
‣ History and reasons <strong>for</strong> ownership of firearms;<br />
‣ Support / opposition to gun controls;<br />
‣ Policy views regarding gun ownership and use;<br />
‣ Opinions on identification requirements;<br />
‣ Views on voter identification;<br />
‣ General trust in identification reliability; and<br />
‣ Demographics.<br />
Section II of this report discusses the Methodology used in the study, while Section III<br />
includes Highlights derived from an analysis of the quantitative research. Section IV is a<br />
Summary of Findings from the online survey.<br />
Section V is an Appendix to the report containing the composite aggregate data, cross<br />
tabulations and the survey instrument employed.<br />
Institute of Government <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center Page 4
2<br />
METHODOLOGY<br />
Using a quantitative research design, the Center completed 900 online surveys nationally.<br />
Survey design input was provided by the membership of the <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center’s Oversight<br />
Committee – a subcommittee of the Institute of Government at Jackson State University.<br />
Survey design is a careful, deliberative process to ensure fair, objective and balanced surveys.<br />
Staff members, with years of survey design experience, edit out any bias. Further, all scales<br />
used by the Center (either numeric, such as one through ten, or wording such as strongly<br />
agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly agree) are balanced evenly.<br />
Additionally, placement of questions is carefully accomplished so that order has minimal<br />
impact.<br />
This survey was conducted <strong>Sept</strong>ember 1 – 9, <strong>2014</strong>.<br />
Respondents qualified <strong>for</strong> the survey if they were a resident of the United States and 18 years<br />
of age or older. Responses were approximately proportional to each state’s population.<br />
All facets of the study were completed by the <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center’s senior staff and researchers.<br />
These aspects include: survey design, pre-test, computer programming, fielding, coding,<br />
editing, verification, validation and logic checks, computer analysis, analysis, and report<br />
writing.<br />
Statistically, a sample of 900 completed surveys has an associated margin <strong>for</strong> error of<br />
+/- 3.5% at a 95% confidence level.<br />
Results throughout this report are presented <strong>for</strong> composite results – all 900 cases. Many<br />
tables and graphs will also hold results among respondents from the South (Alabama,<br />
Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and<br />
Virginia).<br />
Readers of this report should note that any survey is analogous to a snapshot in time and<br />
results are only reflective of the time period in which the survey was undertaken. Should<br />
concerted public relations or in<strong>for</strong>mation campaigns be undertaken during or shortly after<br />
the fielding of the survey, the results contained herein may be expected to change and<br />
should be, there<strong>for</strong>e, carefully interpreted and extrapolated.<br />
Institute of Government <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center Page 5
Furthermore, it is important to note that all surveys contain some component of “sampling<br />
error”. Error that is attributable to systematic bias has been significantly reduced by utilizing<br />
strict random probability procedures. This sample was strictly random in that selection of<br />
each potential respondent was an independent event based on known probabilities.<br />
Each qualified online panel member within the United States had an equal chance <strong>for</strong><br />
participating in the study. Statistical random error, however, can never be eliminated but<br />
may be significantly reduced by increasing sample size.<br />
Institute of Government <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center Page 6
3<br />
HIGHLIGHTS<br />
ON LAW ENFORCEMENT…<br />
‣ Most Americans, 98.1%, report feeling very or somewhat safe in their own<br />
neighborhoods during the day. Fewer suggested the same <strong>for</strong> their own<br />
neighborhoods at night, their community’s downtown areas during the day,<br />
and their own neighborhood’s downtown areas at night – 91.6%, 91.2% and<br />
71.2% respectively.<br />
‣ Just over one-third of those surveyed, 35.6%, could report knowing a police<br />
officer. Further, 41.2% indicated they’ve had interactions with officers <strong>for</strong><br />
reasons other than law en<strong>for</strong>cement issues or problems.<br />
‣ Ratings of local police departments, community police officers and state<br />
police were only fair – 72.8%, 73.1% and 72.2% respectively. Most service<br />
organizations strive to attain satisfaction ratings in the high eighties and low<br />
nineties. Worse, just 50.1% of those surveyed provided positive ratings <strong>for</strong><br />
TSA officers at airports. In each case, “don’t know” respondents were<br />
removed from the data.<br />
‣ There exists strong support <strong>for</strong> a number of policing strategies such as foot<br />
patrols and community policing with substations – 91.6% and 86.3%<br />
respectively. There is more moderate, but majority, support <strong>for</strong> “stop and<br />
frisk” - allowing officers to stop suspicious individuals to check <strong>for</strong> weapons<br />
or drugs without a warrant (61.8%) and <strong>for</strong> police departments accepting used<br />
military weapons and equipment (58.6%).<br />
‣ Trust and confidence in police officers, police departments and the judicial<br />
system is only fair. Just two-thirds of Americans surveyed, 67.8% reported<br />
strong trust in police officers while 66.0% held strong trust in police<br />
departments and a slim majority, 55.6%, could say they have strong trust in<br />
the judicial system of courts, prosecutors, and judges.<br />
Institute of Government <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center Page 7
‣ Nearly one-in five of those surveyed, 17.1%, indicated they have experienced<br />
verbal abuse, condescending remarks, or intimidation by police officers.<br />
Further, 15.1% suggested they had been profiled or believed they were<br />
stopped by officers because they “appeared” suspicious.<br />
‣ While offering only moderate satisfaction ratings <strong>for</strong> police, 60.9% indicated<br />
they would be willing to pay more in taxes to increase pay in order to attract<br />
quality officers.<br />
‣ Un<strong>for</strong>tunately, 34.3% suggested they “do all that they can to avoid police<br />
officers” while another 11.4% said they have taught children to avoid police<br />
officers.<br />
‣ Just short of one-half of all respondents, 47.6%, agreed with a statement that<br />
read: “Based on all that I know or have heard, African-Americans are<br />
justified when they report fearing the police.” When “don’t know”<br />
respondents are removed from the data, this percentage moves to 52.6%.<br />
ON GUN CONTROL / OWNERSHIP…<br />
‣ Over one-quarter of Americans surveyed, 26.8%, reported owning a firearm<br />
such as hand guns, rifles, assault weapons and shot guns.<br />
‣ Of this group of owners, three-quarters (78.1%) have participated in training<br />
in the use of or the safe use of the firearms owned.<br />
‣ Owned firearms were reported to be stored in a safe, kept individually locked<br />
and kept unloaded – 37.6%, 48.3% and 65.3% respectively.<br />
‣ The primary reasons <strong>for</strong> owning or “someday owning” a firearm included (in<br />
declining order) personal and family protection in the home, personal and<br />
family protection when away from home, hunting, sporting, slow police<br />
response time, wild animals, collect firearms, and jealous <strong>for</strong>mer<br />
boy/girlfriends/spouses.<br />
‣ While 7.2% of those surveyed believed there should be no regulations or<br />
controls <strong>for</strong> any reason on firearms, 79.0% suggested they can see some<br />
limited licensing or permitting and some restrictions on certain arms such as<br />
assault weapons. Another 7.2% believe firearms should not be privately<br />
owned.<br />
Institute of Government <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center Page 8
‣ There exists varying levels of agreement (strongly and somewhat) on a<br />
number of firearm related issues….<br />
Having the right to use a firearm in my own home against an intruder –<br />
88.7%<br />
Allowing active duty military members to carry arms on their own bases –<br />
70.0%<br />
Having a right to use a firearm in public if I fear <strong>for</strong> my own life – 61.9%<br />
The government is encroaching on 2 nd Amendment rights to carry and<br />
own arms – 49.3%<br />
Feeling safer when with others who are carrying firearms in public – 34.6%<br />
Allowing teachers and administrators in public schools to carry arms –<br />
33.1%<br />
That tensions in places like Ferguson, Missouri would be lessened by<br />
more gun controls – 28.7%<br />
Feeling safer when carrying a firearm in public - 27.4%<br />
Sellers and manufacturers of firearms should be held responsible <strong>for</strong><br />
deaths caused – 23.1%<br />
ON IDENTIFICATION…<br />
‣ Surveyed Americans were asked to report when an identification requirement<br />
would be a reasonable request. In rotating and random order, respondents<br />
indicated which of 30 instances a request <strong>for</strong> identification would be<br />
considered reasonable.<br />
‣ Identification requests were considered most reasonable <strong>for</strong> obtaining a<br />
passport (95.7%), applying <strong>for</strong> a loan (91.1%), opening a bank account<br />
(90.3%), buying a gun (89.8%), applying <strong>for</strong> food stamps (87.0%, and applying<br />
<strong>for</strong> welfare (86.3%).<br />
Institute of Government <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center Page 9
‣ A strong majority, 81.4%, considered an identification requirement <strong>for</strong> voting<br />
was reasonable.<br />
‣ Instances where an identification requirement was seen as least reasonable<br />
included: buying an M-rated video (40.3%), wearing ID at work (38.8%),<br />
adopting a pet (32.3%) and holding a protest or rally (21.8%).<br />
‣ In a follow-up question specific to voting, a large majority (80.3%) indicated<br />
they strongly (58.9%) or somewhat (21.3%) supported a voter identification<br />
requirement.<br />
‣ Under one-quarter said taxpayer dollars should be used to pay <strong>for</strong><br />
transportation and childcare to help those without secure government<br />
identification.<br />
‣ Just over one-half of Americans surveyed, 51.8% indicated they believed that<br />
voter fraud in the country is either very serious (18.6%) or somewhat serious<br />
(33.2%).<br />
‣ Under half of all those surveyed, 47.2%, trusted the reliability of today’s<br />
identification measures given counterfeiting that occurs.<br />
ON CROSS TABULATIONS…<br />
Cross tabulations of data provide a view of the issues covered within the survey (core<br />
questions) by the various demographics collected such as age, race, ethnicity,<br />
education, rural/suburban/urban, gender, with/without children, marital status,<br />
income and political party inclination. Readers are encouraged to review the nine<br />
crosstab tables held within the appendix to this report. The following are some<br />
observations based on a review of these cross tabulations.<br />
Age<br />
Generally, younger respondents (18-39) feel less safe in their neighborhoods and<br />
communities during both day and night than their older peers.<br />
Younger respondents are significantly less likely to provide positive ratings (57.4%)<br />
<strong>for</strong> local police than those 40-64 years of age (73.0%) and those 65+ (80.9%). The<br />
same holds true <strong>for</strong> community police departments, the State Police and TSA.<br />
Institute of Government <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center Page 10
Younger respondents are significantly less supportive (46.4%) than 40-64 and 65+<br />
peers of “Stop and Frisk” – 62.4% and 70.9% respectively. Younger respondents are<br />
similarly less supportive of other policing strategies such as community policing,<br />
foot patrols and providing local police departments with used military weaponry.<br />
Older respondents, 65+, are nearly twice as likely to report trusting their local police,<br />
police departments and the judicial system as those 18-39 years of age.<br />
Younger respondents are three and four times as likely to report being verbally<br />
abused and profiled by police than those 65+ and significantly more likely than those<br />
aged 40-64.<br />
Those 40-64 and 65+ were significantly more likely, 84.6% and 81.4% respectively, to<br />
suggest they supported voter ID laws than younger (18-39) respondents at 70.5%.<br />
Race/Ethnicity<br />
Hispanics (61.4%) were less likely to report feeling safe downtown at night than<br />
either whites (73.4%) or African-Americans (71.1%).<br />
Whites were more likely (38.4%) to report knowing a police officer than African-<br />
American respondents (29.8%).<br />
On rating local police, community police departments, the State Police, and TSA,<br />
African-Americans provided significantly lower positive ratings than whites or<br />
Hispanics surveyed. On rating local police, the positive ratings among Hispanics,<br />
whites and African-Americans was 65.6%, 79.3% and 49.0% respectively, <strong>for</strong> example.<br />
While “Stop and Frisk” was supported by 68.1% of whites surveyed, just 36.8% of<br />
African-Americans supported the same. Among Hispanics the percent was 56.4%.<br />
Further, African-Americans were much less likely to support (38.6%) the transfer of<br />
used military weapons to local police departments than whites (63.6%) or Hispanics<br />
(55.7%).<br />
Trust, overall, <strong>for</strong> officers, police departments and the judicial system was<br />
significantly stronger among whites and Hispanics than African-Americans. For the<br />
judicial system, trust was recorded <strong>for</strong> Hispanics, whites and African-Americans at<br />
48.6%, 61.9%, and 38.6% respectively. Even on a composite level (55.6%) trust in the<br />
judicial system in the U.S. would be considered poor.<br />
Institute of Government <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center Page 11
African-American respondents were significantly more likely to indicate they tend to<br />
avoid police and teach children to avoid police than their white or Hispanic<br />
neighbors. Those Hispanics, whites and African-Americans who reported teaching<br />
their children to avoid police was 14.3%, 7.2% and 29.8% respectively.<br />
Hispanics were most opposed (10.0%) to any <strong>for</strong>m of gun control compared to whites<br />
at 8.2% and 0.0% among African-Americans.<br />
Rural/Suburban/Urban<br />
Rural respondents were significantly more likely (81.5%) to report feeling safe in their<br />
community’s downtown area at night than suburban and urban respondents – 72.8%<br />
and 62.1% respectively.<br />
Rural resident respondents were twice as likely (52.6%) than urban resident<br />
respondents (28.1%) to report knowing a police officer.<br />
Ratings <strong>for</strong> local police, police departments, State Police and TSA were significantly<br />
higher among rural respondents and suburban respondents than urban respondents.<br />
“Stop and Frisk” was support more strongly by rural and suburban respondents –<br />
65.3% and 62.1% respectively than urban respondents (56.3%).<br />
<strong>Report</strong>s of being profiled by police was more frequent among urban respondents<br />
(23.2%) than rural respondents (15.0%) or suburban respondents (11.4%).<br />
Firearm ownership was 41.6% among rural respondents while at 26.6% and 17.0%<br />
among suburban and urban respondents respectively.<br />
Rural resident respondents were significantly more likely (15.0%) to oppose any <strong>for</strong>m<br />
of gun control compared to their suburban and urban peers at 5.1% and 6.3%<br />
respectively.<br />
Institute of Government <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center Page 12
Party Affiliation or Inclination<br />
Republicans provided significantly higher positive ratings <strong>for</strong> law en<strong>for</strong>cement than<br />
their Democratic and unaffiliated neighbors.<br />
Republicans were more likely to know a police officer (43.0%) than Democrats<br />
(31.7%).<br />
Trust in police officers, departments, and the judicial system was significantly higher<br />
among Republicans than Democrats and those unaffiliated. For example, trust in<br />
local police departments among Republicans was 83.8% while at 59.0% among<br />
Democrats and 50.1% among unaffiliated voters.<br />
Firearm ownership was higher among Republicans (34.6%) and unaffiliated (30.8%)<br />
than Democrats (18.3%).<br />
Republicans were significantly more likely (96.9%) to support voter ID laws than<br />
Democrats (70.1%) and unaffiliated voters (80.6%).<br />
Further, Democrats (37.1%) were less likely to describe voter fraud as a serious<br />
problem in the U.S. than either Republicans (73.2%) or unaffiliated voters (50.7%).<br />
Income Levels<br />
Lower income respondents (under $40K annual) are significantly less likely to report<br />
feeling safe in their communities at night than higher income peers.<br />
This lower income group is significantly less likely to know a police officer or report<br />
having exchanges with police that are not related to en<strong>for</strong>cement issues. While<br />
26.9% of lower income respondents reported knowing an officer, 38.4% of those<br />
earning 40K to 130K and 39.5% of those earning over 130K reported the same.<br />
Trust <strong>for</strong> police officers, trust in police departments and trust in the judicial system is<br />
about 20.0% lower among lower income respondents that those in income categories<br />
above 40K annually.<br />
Institute of Government <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center Page 13
Gender<br />
Males are more likely to be willing to pay more in taxes to support the hiring of more<br />
qualified police officers than females – 64.1% to 57.9%.<br />
Males were more than twice as likely, 38.0% to 16.7%, to report owning a firearm<br />
than females.<br />
Males were more likely to provide higher trust level ratings <strong>for</strong> local police<br />
departments (71.1%) than females (61.3%).<br />
Institute of Government <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center Page 14
4<br />
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS<br />
Readers are reminded that the narrative throughout this report refers to composite aggregate<br />
data – the 900 completed surveys. Tables throughout present national results while many<br />
graphs also present results southern states – Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana,<br />
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.<br />
LAW ENFORCEMENT<br />
Community<br />
All respondents were asked to think <strong>for</strong> a moment about how safe they personally felt in a<br />
number of community settings or locations. For each, respondents were asked if they felt<br />
very safe, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe or not at all safe.<br />
A large majority, 98.1%, suggested they felt safe in their own neighborhoods during the<br />
day while fewer, 71.2%, indicated the same in their community’s downtown at night.<br />
The following graph and table present the results as collected.<br />
Feeling Very or Somewhat Safe<br />
98.1<br />
97.7<br />
91.6<br />
91.7<br />
91.2<br />
88.7<br />
71.2<br />
72.9<br />
NEIGHBORHOOD DURING<br />
THE DAY<br />
NEIGHBORHOOD DURING<br />
THE NIGHT<br />
COMMUNITY'S<br />
DOWNTOWN AT NIGHT<br />
COMMUNITY'S<br />
DOWNTOWN DURING THE<br />
DAY<br />
USA<br />
South<br />
Institute of Government <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center Page 15
Characteristic<br />
Very<br />
Safe<br />
Somewhat<br />
Safe<br />
Somewhat<br />
Unsafe<br />
Not at<br />
all<br />
Safe<br />
Unsure<br />
In your neighborhood during the 78.2 19.9 1.3 0.1 0.4<br />
day<br />
In your neighborhood at night 54.6 37.0 6.6 1.2 0.7<br />
Downtown in your community at 25.2 46.0 17.9 7.2 3.7<br />
night<br />
Downtown in your community<br />
during the day<br />
54.8 36.4 6.0 1.1 1.7<br />
All respondents were asked if they knew a police officer in their own community or had<br />
an interaction with police officers <strong>for</strong> other than law en<strong>for</strong>cement issues or problems.<br />
Over one-third, 35.6%, reported knowing a community police officer. Results are<br />
presented here.<br />
Know or Interact with Officers?<br />
41.2<br />
45.1<br />
35.6<br />
35.3<br />
KNOW A POLICE OFFICER<br />
INTERACTION WITH OFFICERS<br />
Yes / US<br />
Yes / South<br />
Interactions with Officers Yes No Unsure<br />
Know a police officer 35.6 62.3 2.1<br />
Have had interactions or conversations with<br />
police officers other than on law<br />
en<strong>for</strong>cement issues/problems/offenses<br />
41.2 57.8 1.0<br />
Institute of Government <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center Page 16
Ratings<br />
Law en<strong>for</strong>cement organizations were rated by respondents on quality and professionalism<br />
using a scale of one to ten where one was very good and ten is very poor.<br />
Most service organizations and businesses in the United States strive to attain and<br />
maintain satisfaction ratings in the high eighties or low nineties. Only “fair” ratings were<br />
provided by Americans surveyed <strong>for</strong> their community police officers (73.1%).<br />
The following graph presents the cumulative total positive ratings of one through four on<br />
the ten point scale. “Don’t know” respondents were removed from the data.<br />
Positive Ratings of Law En<strong>for</strong>cement<br />
72.8 73.1 72.2<br />
65 64.8 64.1<br />
50.1<br />
39.3<br />
LOCAL POLICE<br />
DEPARTMENT<br />
COMMUNITY POLICE<br />
OFFICERS<br />
STATE POLICE<br />
TSA OFFICERS AT AIRPORTS<br />
USA<br />
South<br />
Rating Police and<br />
Police Departments:<br />
Positive Ratings of<br />
1-4<br />
My local police<br />
department overall<br />
The police officers in<br />
my community<br />
USA:<br />
Positive<br />
Rating<br />
with DK<br />
USA:<br />
Positive<br />
Rating<br />
w/o DK<br />
South:<br />
Positive<br />
Rating<br />
with DK<br />
South:<br />
Positive<br />
Rating<br />
w/o DK<br />
68.6 72.8 61.7 65.0<br />
68.2 73.1 60.9 64.8<br />
State Police officers 60.9 72.2 56.4 64.1<br />
TSA officers at<br />
41.0 50.1 31.6 39.3<br />
airports<br />
Institute of Government <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center Page 17
Strategies<br />
Respondents were presented with a number of policing strategies that have been used, to<br />
varied degrees, by police departments over time. Respondents were asked to indicate if<br />
they strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose each<br />
policing strategy. The following graph depicts the cumulative totals <strong>for</strong> those strongly<br />
and somewhat supporting these initiatives or strategies.<br />
Support <strong>for</strong> Policing Strategies<br />
86.3<br />
82<br />
91.6<br />
88<br />
61.8<br />
58.6<br />
58.6<br />
54.9<br />
"STOP & FRISK"<br />
COMMUITY POLICING<br />
WITH SUBSTATIONS<br />
FOOT PATROLS<br />
ACCEPTING USED<br />
MILITARY<br />
WEAPONS/EQUIPMENT<br />
USA<br />
South<br />
USA: Support/Opposition to<br />
Policing Strategies<br />
“Stop and Frisk” – allowing<br />
officers to stop suspicious<br />
individuals to check <strong>for</strong><br />
weapons or drugs without a<br />
warrant<br />
Community policing including<br />
substations housed within<br />
communities<br />
Foot patrols by police officers<br />
in the communities they serve<br />
Accepting used military<br />
weapons and equipment<br />
provided to police departments<br />
<strong>for</strong> municipal use as needed<br />
Strongly<br />
Support<br />
Somewhat<br />
Support<br />
Somewhat<br />
Oppose<br />
Strongly<br />
Oppose<br />
Unsure<br />
26.0 35.8 17.4 15.9 4.9<br />
52.4 33.9 4.4 2.4 6.8<br />
64.2 27.3 3.7 1.1 3.7<br />
26.3 32.3 18.4 13.0 10.0<br />
Institute of Government <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center Page 18
Trust and Confidence<br />
Survey participants were asked to think <strong>for</strong> a moment about their own trust and<br />
confidence in police officers, police departments, and the judicial system. Each was<br />
asked to rate their trust that they would be treated in a fair, impartial and objective<br />
manner if involved with law en<strong>for</strong>cement. Each used a scale of one to ten where one<br />
meant they had strong trust and confidence and ten meant they held no trust or<br />
confidence.<br />
Two-thirds could report “trust and confidence” in their police officers or their<br />
departments – 67.8% and 66.0% respectively.<br />
The following graph and tables present the cumulative totals <strong>for</strong> ratings of 1 – 4 (strong<br />
trust) and 7-10 (little to no trust).<br />
Trust and Confidence<br />
67.8<br />
66<br />
59.4 60.2<br />
55.6<br />
48.1<br />
13 13.6 13.7<br />
15.1<br />
19.2<br />
24.1<br />
TRUST IN POLICE OFFICERS TRUST IN POLICE DEPARTMENTS TRUST IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM<br />
USA: Strong Trust USA: Little/No Trust South: Strong Trust South: Little/No Trust<br />
USA: Trust and Confidence<br />
in…<br />
Strong Trust Little to No Trust<br />
at All<br />
Trust in police officers 67.8 13.0<br />
Trust in police departments 66.0 13.7<br />
Trust in the judicial system<br />
including courts, prosecutors, and<br />
judges<br />
55.6 19.2<br />
Institute of Government <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center Page 19
Experiences<br />
Respondents were questioned about any verbal abuse or profiling they feel they have<br />
experienced.<br />
Nearly two out of ten Americans surveyed, 17.1%, suggested they have experienced<br />
verbal abuse, condescending remarks or intimidation by officers. Another 15.1%<br />
suggested they believe they were profiled as suspicious in a stop.<br />
The following graph presents the results as collected.<br />
Experiences with Law En<strong>for</strong>cement<br />
22.6 23.3<br />
17.1<br />
15.1<br />
VERBAL ABUSE, CONDESCENSION,<br />
INTIMIDATION<br />
PROFILED BECAUSE OF APPEARANCE<br />
USA<br />
South<br />
Experiences with Police Officers USA: Yes USA: No USA: Unsure<br />
Verbal abuse, condescending remarks or 17.1 80.1 2.8<br />
intimidation by the officer(s)<br />
Profiled or you believe you were stopped<br />
because you “appeared” suspicious to the<br />
officer(s)<br />
15.1 80.3 4.6<br />
Institute of Government <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center Page 20
Issue Statements<br />
The survey included some questions on issues surrounding police and policing.<br />
A number of statements about police and policing were created. For each, respondents<br />
were asked if they strongly agreed, somewhat agreed, somewhat disagreed or strongly<br />
disagreed.<br />
Nearly two-thirds of all Americans, 60.9%, suggested they would be willing to pay more<br />
in taxes in order to increase pay and attract quality police officers. And, just under half,<br />
47.6%, indicated African-Americans are justified when they report fearing the police.<br />
When “don’t know” respondents are removed from the data, this percent moves to<br />
52.6%.<br />
The follow graph presents the results as collected.<br />
Strongly & Somewhat Agree<br />
60.9<br />
55.6<br />
34.3<br />
41.4<br />
47.6<br />
46.6<br />
11.4<br />
13.5<br />
WILLING TO PAY MORE<br />
TAXES TO ATTRACT QUALITY<br />
OFFICERS<br />
I DO ALL THAT I CAN TO<br />
AVOID POLICE OFFICERS<br />
I HAVE TAUGHT CHILDREN<br />
TO AVOID POLICE OFFICERS<br />
AFRICAN AMERICANS ARE<br />
JUSTIFIED FEARING POLICE<br />
USA<br />
South<br />
Institute of Government <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center Page 21
Statements<br />
I would be willing to pay more<br />
in taxes to increase police pay<br />
to attract quality officers<br />
I do all that I can to avoid police<br />
officers<br />
I have taught children or my<br />
own children to avoid police<br />
officers<br />
Based on all I know or have<br />
heard, African-Americans are<br />
justified when they report<br />
fearing the police<br />
Strongly<br />
Agree<br />
Somewhat<br />
Agree<br />
Somewhat<br />
Disagree<br />
Strongly<br />
Disagree<br />
Unsure<br />
or N/A<br />
15.6 45.3 19.0 13.6 6.6<br />
12.3 220 26.6 34.8 4.3<br />
4.9 6.6 17.9 54.4 16.2<br />
16.6 31.0 24.1 18.7 9.7<br />
GUN CONTROL / OWNERSHIP<br />
History of Ownership<br />
In the next survey section, researchers collected current views of Americans on issues related<br />
to gun / firearm controls and ownership.<br />
Just over one-quarter of Americans surveyed, 26.8%, indicated they own a hand gun(s),<br />
rifle(s), assault weapon(s), or shot gun(s). Another 70.2% (59.4% among Southern state<br />
respondents) suggested they do not. Results are presented here. Multiple responses were<br />
accepted.<br />
Type of Firearms Owned<br />
70.2<br />
59.4<br />
30.8<br />
21.1<br />
21.1<br />
15.2 [VALUE] [VALUE]<br />
13.7<br />
16.5<br />
HAND GUN(S) RIFLES(S) ASSAULT WEAPON(S) SHOT GUN(S) OWN NONE<br />
USA South<br />
Institute of Government <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center Page 22
Over three-quarters of Americans who own firearms, 78.1% (77.6% in the South), suggested<br />
they have participated in training in the use of or safe use of firearms owned. Results are<br />
presented here.<br />
Participate in Training Among Owners?<br />
61.6<br />
63.3<br />
21.9<br />
22.4<br />
9.5 10.2 [VALUE]<br />
7<br />
YES, IN THE USE OF YES, IN THE SAFE USE OF YES, IN BOTH USE AND<br />
SAFE USE<br />
NO<br />
USA<br />
South<br />
Status of Firearms<br />
Survey respondents, who owned firearms, were asked how they are stored when not<br />
being used. Two-thirds, 65.3%, suggested they were unloaded when stored. However,<br />
just 48.3% indicated the arms are locked. The following depicts the results collected.<br />
How firearms are stored USA: Yes South: Yes<br />
In a safe 37.6 36.7<br />
The firearms are locked 48.3 44.9<br />
Firearms are kept unloaded 65.3 57.1<br />
Institute of Government <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center Page 23
Reasons <strong>for</strong> Ownership<br />
All respondents were asked <strong>for</strong> reasons they own or might own a firearm someday. The<br />
largest percent, 52.9%, indicated they own or would own <strong>for</strong> personal or family<br />
protection in the home. Among southern state respondents, this percent was 67.7%. The<br />
following table presents the results collected. Results are presented in declining order by<br />
USA data.<br />
Reasons <strong>for</strong> Ownership USA South<br />
Personal and family protection in the home 52.9 67.7<br />
Personal and family protection when away from home 22.7 36.8<br />
Hunting 18.2 18.0<br />
Police response in my area may be slow 12.2 21.8<br />
It’s a sport 10.4 6.8<br />
Wild animals in my area 10.4 12.8<br />
I collect firearms 5.2 9.0<br />
Jealous <strong>for</strong>mer boyfriends/girlfriends/spouses 0.8 0.8<br />
Would not own a firearm 37.8 24.8<br />
Support / Oppose Gun Controls<br />
On gun control, respondents were asked to think <strong>for</strong> a moment about their own position<br />
and beliefs about gun control – a controversial topic in this country. Each was asked<br />
which one of three options best reflected their own personal position on gun control. A<br />
large majority, 79.0%, indicated they could see some limited licensing, permitting or<br />
restrictions on certain arms such as assault weapons.<br />
Position on Gun Controls<br />
UNSURE<br />
FIREARMS SHOULD NOT BE PRIVATELY OWNED<br />
[VALUE]<br />
[VALUE]<br />
[VALUE]<br />
9.3<br />
PERHAPS SOME<br />
LICENSING/PERMITTING/RESTRICTIONS<br />
79<br />
85<br />
NO REGULATIONS, NO CONTROLS<br />
8.3<br />
7.2<br />
South<br />
USA<br />
Institute of Government <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center Page 24
Firearm Statements / Issues<br />
A number of statements related to arms and arms control were presented. Each was<br />
asked if they strongly agreed, somewhat agreed, somewhat disagreed or strongly<br />
disagreed with each statement. The final two columns hold cumulative results <strong>for</strong><br />
strongly and somewhat agree nationally and in the South.<br />
Statements<br />
I have a right to use a<br />
firearm in my own home<br />
against an intruder<br />
Our active duty military<br />
members should be<br />
allowed to carry arms on<br />
their own bases<br />
I have a right to use a<br />
firearm in public if I fear<br />
<strong>for</strong> my own life<br />
The government is<br />
slowly encroaching on<br />
2 nd Amendment rights to<br />
own and carry arms<br />
I would feel safer when<br />
I’m with others I know<br />
who are carrying<br />
firearms in public<br />
Teachers and<br />
administrators in public<br />
schools should be<br />
allowed to carry arms<br />
Tensions in places such<br />
as Ferguson, Missouri<br />
would be lessened by<br />
more gun controls<br />
I would (or do) feel<br />
safer if I carry a firearm<br />
in public<br />
Sellers and<br />
manufacturers of<br />
firearms should be held<br />
responsible <strong>for</strong> any<br />
deaths caused<br />
Strongly<br />
Agree<br />
Somewhat<br />
Agree<br />
Somewhat<br />
Disagree<br />
Strongly<br />
Disagree<br />
USA:<br />
Agree<br />
South:<br />
Agree<br />
62.7 26.0 5.1 2.9 88.7 94.7<br />
31.8 38.2 14.2 4.9 70.0 72.9<br />
27.6 34.3 20.9 9.7 61.9 77.4<br />
24.0 25.3 20.6 19.3 49.3 58.6<br />
13.0 21.6 22.3 32.7 34.6 43.6<br />
10.4 22.7 27.6 32.7 33.1 42.1<br />
12.1 16.6 21.0 33.8 28.7 24.8<br />
11.6 17.9 23.0 35.0 27.4 42.1<br />
7.8 15.3 27.3 41.4 23.1 17.3<br />
Institute of Government <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center Page 25
IDENTIFICATION<br />
Survey respondents were presented with the final section of the survey with the following<br />
introduction: “We all face identification requests ranging from infrequently to frequently.<br />
The following are instances when identification is typically required.” Each was then asked<br />
to indicate which of 30 different instances in which an identification requirement is a<br />
reasonable request. Requirements considered most reasonable included obtaining a<br />
passport, applying <strong>for</strong> a loan and opening a bank account. A large majority, 81.4%, indicated<br />
an identification requirement <strong>for</strong> voting was reasonable. Results on a national basis are<br />
presented here in declining order.<br />
Identification Requirement is Reasonable <strong>for</strong>: Percent<br />
Reasonable<br />
Obtaining a passport 95.7<br />
Applying <strong>for</strong> a loan 91.1<br />
Opening a bank account 90.3<br />
Buying a gun 89.8<br />
Applying <strong>for</strong> food stamps 87.0<br />
Applying <strong>for</strong> welfare 86.3<br />
Air travel 85.7<br />
Receiving a marriage license 83.3<br />
Applying <strong>for</strong> a job 83.1<br />
Getting married 82.4<br />
Renting a car 82.4<br />
Writing a check 82.3<br />
Buying alcohol 82.3<br />
Voting 81.4<br />
Getting medical care or securing medical records 80.8<br />
Buying / renting a home 80.1<br />
Make a credit card purchase 76.9<br />
Alcohol at a bar 74.3<br />
Buying cigarettes 72.6<br />
Getting a fishing or hunting license 70.9<br />
Bank transactions 68.2<br />
Picking up a prescription 62.6<br />
Opening a post office box 57.1<br />
Blood donations 56.8<br />
Getting a hotel room 56.2<br />
Starting gas, cable, electric or internet service 53.4<br />
Buying an M-rated video game 40.3<br />
Worn while at work 38.8<br />
Adopting a pet 32.3<br />
Holding a protest or rally 21.8<br />
Institute of Government <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center Page 26
Identification History<br />
Nearly all respondents, 99.2% (99.2% in the South), reported having a driver’s license<br />
(69.0%), a government-issued identification (4.4%) or both (25.4%).<br />
Voter Identification / Voter Fraud<br />
A strong majority, 80.3%, indicated they strongly (58.9%) or somewhat supported (21.3%) a<br />
voter identification requirement. The results are presented here.<br />
Support / Oppose Voter Identification<br />
Requirements<br />
58.9<br />
59.4<br />
21.3<br />
18.8<br />
6.8 9 6.7 7.5<br />
STRONGLY SUPPORT SOMEWHAT SUPPORT SOMEWHAT OPPOSE STRONGLY OPPOSE<br />
USA<br />
South<br />
If we do require identification <strong>for</strong> voting in this country, respondents were asked if we<br />
should pay transportation and childcare while residents go to secure government-issued<br />
identification. Those agreeing are presented in the following table nationally and in the<br />
South.<br />
ID Requirement USA: Yes South: Yes<br />
Use tax dollars to pay <strong>for</strong> transportation to 23.0 29.3<br />
secure a government-issued identification<br />
<strong>for</strong> voting purposes<br />
Use tax dollars to pay <strong>for</strong> child care while<br />
residents go to secure a government-issued<br />
identification <strong>for</strong> voting purposes<br />
17.7 19.5<br />
Institute of Government <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center Page 27
Just over one-half of all respondents (51.8%) suggested voter fraud is very (18.6%) or<br />
somewhat serious (33.2%) in the United States. Another 36.5% suggested voter fraud<br />
was either not very serious (24.6%) or not at all serious (11.9%).<br />
Results are presented here.<br />
70<br />
Seriousness of Voter Fraud in the U.S.<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
51.8<br />
57.9<br />
0<br />
VERY AND SOMEWHAT SERIOUS<br />
USA<br />
South<br />
Just under one-half of all Americans surveyed, 47.2%, reported that they hold strong trust<br />
in the reliability of today’s identification measures, in general, given the level of<br />
counterfeiting. Results are presented here.<br />
Trust?<br />
USA:<br />
Strong<br />
Trust<br />
South: Strong<br />
Trust<br />
In Identification Today 47.2 47.4<br />
Institute of Government <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center Page 28
DEMOGRAPHICS<br />
Rural, Suburban or Urban?<br />
US<br />
Rural 19.5<br />
Suburban 53.5<br />
Urban 25.3<br />
Age<br />
US<br />
18 to 29 15.9<br />
30-39 18.5<br />
40-49 20.4<br />
50-64 28.2<br />
65 and older 16.9<br />
Income<br />
US<br />
Under $9,999 1.7<br />
$10,000 to less than $40,000 17.9<br />
$40,000 to less than $70,000 26.5<br />
$70,000 to less than $100,000 19.8<br />
$100,000 to less than $130,000 12.5<br />
$130,000 to less than $160,000 6.4<br />
$160,000 or more 8.0<br />
Unsure 7.4<br />
Party Affiliation<br />
US<br />
Republican 25.3<br />
Democrat 30.9<br />
Independent 37.9<br />
Some other party 1.1<br />
Unsure 4.8<br />
Marital Status<br />
US<br />
Single, never married 17.2<br />
Married or domestic partner 66.1<br />
Widowed 4.5<br />
Divorced 10.7<br />
Separated 1.2<br />
Other 0.2<br />
Institute of Government <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center Page 29
Education<br />
US<br />
8 th grade or less ---<br />
Some high school 0.6<br />
High school graduate or GED 9.2<br />
Some technical school 0.9<br />
Technical school graduate 4.4<br />
Some college 24.4<br />
College graduate 33.9<br />
Post graduate or professional degree 26.1<br />
Refused 0.4<br />
Hispanic, Latin American, Puerto Rican,<br />
US<br />
Cuban or Mexican<br />
Yes 15.6<br />
No 84.4<br />
Ethnicity (Among Non-Hispanics)<br />
US<br />
White 78.5<br />
Black, African-American 15.0<br />
Asian, Pacific Islander 4.1<br />
Aleutian, Eskimo or American Indian 0.3<br />
Other 2.0<br />
Native Hawaiian 0.1<br />
Two or more races ---<br />
Refused ---<br />
Don’t know/unsure ---<br />
Children under 18 living at home<br />
US<br />
None 33.4<br />
One 13.6<br />
Two 29.7<br />
Three 15.1<br />
Four 5.3<br />
Five or more 2.8<br />
Don’t know ---<br />
Refused ---<br />
Gender<br />
US<br />
Male 48.0<br />
Female 52.0<br />
Institute of Government <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center Page 30
APPENDIX<br />
5<br />
INTERPRETATION OF AGGREGATE RESULTS<br />
The computer processed data <strong>for</strong> this survey are presented in the following frequency<br />
distributions. It is important to note that the wordings of the variable labels and value labels<br />
in the computer-processed data are largely abbreviated descriptions of the Questionnaire<br />
items and available response categories.<br />
The frequency distributions include the category or response <strong>for</strong> the question items.<br />
Responses deemed not appropriate <strong>for</strong> classification have been grouped together under the<br />
“Other” code.<br />
The “NA” category label refers to “No Answer” or “Not Applicable.” This code is also<br />
used to classify ambiguous responses. In addition, the “DK/RF” category includes those<br />
respondents who did not know their answer to a question or declined to answer it. In many<br />
of the tables, a group of responses may be tagged as “Missing” – occasionally, certain<br />
individual’s responses may not be required to specific questions and thus are excluded.<br />
Although when this category of response is used, the computations of percentages are<br />
presented in two (2) ways in the frequency distributions: 1) with their inclusion (as a<br />
proportion of the total sample), and 2) their exclusion (as a proportion of a sample subgroup).<br />
Each frequency distribution includes the absolute observed occurrence of each response (i.e.<br />
the total number of cases in each category). Immediately adjacent to the right of the column<br />
of absolute frequencies is the column of relative frequencies. These are the percentages of<br />
cases falling in each category response, including those cases designated as missing data. To<br />
the right of the relative frequency column is the adjusted frequency distribution column that<br />
contains the relative frequencies based on the legitimate (i.e. non-missing) cases. That is, the<br />
total base <strong>for</strong> the adjusted frequency distribution excludes the missing data. For many<br />
Questionnaire items, the relative frequencies and the adjusted frequencies will be nearly the<br />
same. However, some items that elicit a sizable number of missing data will produce quite<br />
substantial percentage differences between the two columns of frequencies. The careful<br />
analyst will cautiously consider both distributions.<br />
The last column of data within the frequency distribution is the cumulative frequency<br />
distribution (Cum Freq.). This column is simply an adjusted frequency distribution of the<br />
sum of all previous categories of response and the current category of response. Its primary<br />
usefulness is to gauge some ordered or ranked meaning.<br />
Institute of Government <strong>Poll</strong>ing Center Page 31