JSU Fall 2015 Report

NATIONAL POLL REPORT 

THE POLLING CENTER 

THE INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT 

JACKSON STATE UNIVERSITY 

Fall Edition 

October 2015 

Institute of Government Polling Center

Statement of Confidentiality and Ownership 

All of the analyses, findings and recommendations contained within this report are the 

exclusive property of the Institute of Government at Jackson State University. 

As required by the Code of Ethics of the National Council on Public Polls and the United 

States Privacy Act of 1974, The Institute of Government Polling Center maintains the 

anonymity of respondents to surveys the Center conducts. No information will be released 

that might, in any way, reveal the identity of the respondent. 

Moreover, no information regarding these findings will be released without the written 

consent of an authorized representative of Institute of Government. 

Institute of Government Polling Center Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1 

SECTION 

Introduction .............................................................................................................................. Page 4 

2 

SECTION 

Methodology ............................................................................................................................. Page 5 

3 

SECTION 

Highlights ................................................................................................................................... Page 7 

4 

SECTION 

Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................... Page 13 

Election 2016 ........................................................ 13 

The Illusion of Privacy ........................................ 21 

Law Enforcement & Gun Control ................... 28 

Demographics ...................................................... 39 

5 

SECTION 

Appendix .................................................................................................................................. Page 41 

Survey Instrument 

Composite Aggregate Data 

Cross Tabulations of Data 


1 

INTRODUCTION 

The Polling Center at the Institute of Government is pleased to present the results of a 

national poll of Americans. 

The poll was designed to assess public views regarding the 2016 presidential election, data 

security, and trust and confidence in the law enforcement and our judicial system. 

The research study included survey responses from 1000 respondents nationally 

approximately proportional to state population contribution. The poll was conducted 

October 13-20, 2015. 

The national poll included the following areas for investigation: 

‣ First, second and third choices for Republican and Democratic nominees; 

‣ Desired characteristics or traits important to poll respondents; 

‣ The percentage of those who have been polled on politics and truthfulness of 

responses; 

‣ Perceptions of security of personal data on the internet; 

‣ Perceptions of privacy when browsing or conducting online searches; 

‣ Views on requiring public officials to use government vs. private servers; 

‣ Impacts of personal information on the internet; 

‣ Ratings of law enforcement; 

‣ Views on varied policing strategies; 

‣ Trust and confidence in police, police departments and judicial systems; 

‣ Willingness to pay more in taxes to recruit quality police officers; 

‣ Support/opposition to gun control; 

‣ Demographics. 

Section II of this report discusses the Methodology used in the study, while Section III 

includes Highlights derived from an analysis of the quantitative research. Section IV is a 

Summary of Findings from the online survey. 

Section V is an Appendix to the report containing the composite aggregate data, cross 

tabululations and the survey instrument employed. 


2 

METHODOLOGY 

Using a quantitative research design, the Center completed 1000 online surveys nationally. 

Survey design input was provided by the membership of the Polling Center’s Oversight 

Committee – a subcommittee of the Institute of Government at Jackson State University. 

Survey design is a careful, deliberative process to ensure fair, objective and balanced surveys. 

Staff members, with years of survey design experience, edit out any bias. Further, all scales 

used by the Center (either numeric, such as one through ten, or wording such as strongly 

agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly agree) are balanced evenly. 

Additionally, placement of questions is carefully accomplished so that order has minimal 

impact. 

This survey was conducted October 13-20, 2015. 

Respondents qualified for the survey if they were a resident of the United States and 18 years 

of age or older. Responses were approximately proportional to each state’s population. 

All facets of the study were completed by the Polling Center’s senior staff and researchers. 

These aspects include: survey design, pre-test, computer programming, fielding, coding, 

editing, verification, validation and logic checks, computer analysis, analysis, and report 

writing. 

Statistically, a sample of 1000 completed surveys has an associated margin for error of 

+/- 3.0% at a 95% confidence level. 

Results throughout this report are presented for composite results – all 1000 cases. Many 

tables and graphs will hold results among respondents from the South (Alabama, Arkansas, 

Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia). 

Additionally, on most political based questions, columns holding results among just “likely 

voters” are also included herein. 


Readers of this report should note that any survey is analogous to a snapshot in time and 

results are only reflective of the time period in which the survey was undertaken. Should 

concerted public relations or information campaigns be undertaken during or shortly after 

the fielding of the survey, the results contained herein may be expected to change and 

should be, therefore, carefully interpreted and extrapolated. 

Furthermore, it is important to note that all surveys contain some component of “sampling 

error”. Error that is attributable to systematic bias has been significantly reduced by utilizing 

strict random probability procedures. This sample was strictly random in that selection of 

each potential respondent was an independent event based on known probabilities. 

Each qualified online panel member within the United States had an equal chance for 

participating in the study. Statistical random error, however, can never be eliminated but 

may be significantly reduced by increasing sample size. 


3 

HIGHLIGHTS 

ON THE 2016 ELECTION… 

The latest national poll by Jackson State University’s Institute of Government Polling 

Center shows a close contest between businessman Donald Trump and Dr. Ben 

Carson among likely Republican voters. Trump led the group with 29.7% followed 

by Carson who polled at 22.0% in a “first choice” selection. 

These two leading candidates were followed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz (9.1%), 

former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (8.6%), Florida Senator Marco Rubio (5.3%), 

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul (3.8%), former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee 

(3.3%) and former HP CEO Carly Fiorina (2.9%). The poll was conducted prior to 

the third Republican debate on Wednesday, October 28, 2015 and before the fourth 

Republican debate on Tuesday, November 10, 2015. 

A “second choice” spread the percentages more evenly across all Republican 

candidates resulting in a new declining order: Trump, Cruz, Carson, Rubio, Bush – 

16.3%, 12.0%, 11.5%, respectively, and Rubio/Bush tied at 9.6%. Paul, Huckabee, 

and Christie were all tied at 5.7%. 

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton leads the Democrats by a wide margin. 

Fielding of the current poll was conducted October 12-20, 2015 and ended the day 

prior to Vice President Joe Biden deciding against a run for the White House. 

Among likely Democratic voters, Clinton leads with 52.9% in a “first choice” poll 

ballot. This is followed by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders at 18.8% and Vice 

President Joe Biden at 13.8%. Former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee and 

former Virginia Senator Jim Webb polled at zero percent. Each has subsequently 

withdrawn from the contest. 

A “second choice” among likely Democratic voters shows Biden leading with 32.9% 

followed by Clinton with 22.9% and Sanders with 12.5%. 


Presidential traits, characteristics, or positions most important to likely voters in the 

upcoming 2016 contest included support for cutting taxes (45.4%), improving U.S. 

worldwide status (44.9%), wanting more education spending (40.7%), a strong stance 

against illegal immigration (40.3%), plans to repeal Obama Care or the ACA (34.0%), 

standing up to the Russian leaders (33.1%), and has a business background (31.8%). 

Other important traits named with less frequency included: is pro-choice, is mostly 

conservative, favors gun controls, plans to spend on reducing global climate change, 

favors trained faculty to carry arms on college campuses, will defund Planned 

Parenthood and will build the Keystone XL pipeline. 

In an interesting take on the polling in a year leading into a presidential election, the 

survey found that 13.9% of all respondents (15.9% of likely voters) had been polled on 

political issues by a pollster. Of this group, nearly one-in-five, 18.4% (18.8% of likely 

voters) admitted they had lied to a pollster. 

ON THE ILLUSION OF PRIVACY… 

In a section dedicated to respondent perceptions and experiences with internet and 

online personal data security issues, findings suggest a trend toward mobile devices 

and away from more stationary devices such as desktop computers and televisions 

when accessing the internet. 

Similar questions on internet privacy were posed in both April and October 2015. 

The current findings suggest that as we move away from major events such as the 

hacking of Sony Pictures Entertainment on November 24, 2015, Americans settle 

back down into complacency. 

Since just April, 2015, more Americans (77.1%) see their online personal data as very 

and somewhat secure compared to 65.4% in April, 2015. 

Similarly, when asked how believable it is when they see “Sign in Using our Secure 

Network” at websites of their banks and favorite stores or vendors, 77.0% suggested 

“very and somewhat believable” compared to 70.9% in April, 2015. 

However, a sizable percentage (16.4%) when extrapolated on the total population, 

see such a message as “Sign in using our Secure Network” as “somewhat 

unbelievable or not at all believable”. 


In April, 2015, 41.4% saw their own browsing as “very or somewhat private”. Today, 

that percentage increased to 54.7%. Contrasting, those suggesting “somewhat or 

very public” dropped significantly from 53.8% to 38.4%. 

In a new question for October, 2015, 41.8% of all respondents see their own social 

media messaging as “very or somewhat private” while 50.6% indicated “somewhat or 

very public”. Some, 7.6% were unsure. 

The survey held additional new questions within the October, 2015 poll to determine 

support for instilling stronger responsibility for personal data among social media 

companies, businesses and even the government that holds credit/credit card data. 

Strong agreement was found for a number of legal remedies measured… 

Customers may sue a responsible entity when a beach occurs – 79.7% agree 

Regulators should force the responsible entities to pay customers a penalty 

fee for breaches of data held – 77.7% agree 

Customers/users are reimbursed for time and cost of damages resulting from 

a breach of their data by the responsible entity – 80.5% agree 

Regulators force entities to pay, indefinitely, for customer Identity Theft 

Protection services when a breach of data occurs – 68.0% 

The poll measured agreement with a number of privacy and privacy protectionrelated 

statements. Strongest agreement was found (76.2% - down from 82.4% in 

April, 2015)) for “I have installed virus protection software” and for “There is no such 

thing as ‘delete’ when it comes to the internet” (74.8% - down slightly from 77.9% in 

April, 2015). Agreement was found in a number of other areas… 

I have posted personal information on social media – 45.3% (up from 40.1% in 

April) 

I would support more government oversight if it meant more protection – 

44.7% (up from 40.2% in April) 

I know someone who missed a job opportunity due to posts on the internet – 

28.0% (similar to 28.3% in April) 

I have made mistakes by posting things such as vacation plans – 26.5% (up 

from 20.2%) 

I subscribe to an ID Theft service – 25.3% (slightly down from 26.2% in April) 

I’ve been surprised to find my own personal photos on the internet – 24.3% 

(up from 20.8% in April) 

I have been a victim of online theft of photos, data, information – 23.9% 

(down slightly from 24.6%) 


A large percentage of all Americans surveyed, 84.6% (86.6% in April 2015) strongly or 

somewhat agreed that government employees, for security and personnel 

accountability reasons, should be required to use government issued email addresses 

housed on government servers. 

ON LAW ENFORCEMENT AND GUN CONTROLS… 

Over the two years since the since the 2013 acquittal of George Zimmerman for the 

shooting death of Trayvon Martin on February 26, 2012 that gave rise to the Black 

Lives Matter activist movement against police brutality, positive ratings of local 

police officers and their respective local police departments have declined. 

While positive ratings of police officers and their departments remain nearly three 

times the percentages of negative ratings, the shootings of Michael Brown in 

Ferguson, MO and Eric Garner in NYC, NY have focused attention more critically 

over the past several years. 

Overall positive ratings for local police departments declined to 55.4% from 68.6% in 

September, 2014 while the overall positive ratings for local police officers moved to 

54.4% from 68.2% over the past year. 

Positive ratings of State Police officers moved somewhat lower to 53.5% from 60.9% 

over the past year, and positive ratings of TSA officers at airports dropped somewhat 

to 36.6% from 41.0% in 2014. 

Positive ratings of local police officers (54.4%) are nearly three times higher than 

negative ratings (19.7%). Similarly, local police department positive ratings (54.4%) 

are also nearly three times higher than negative ratings at 19.0%. 

While down somewhat from 61.8% in 2014, a majority of respondents, 54.7%, 

continue to strongly or somewhat support “Stop and Frisk” which allows officers to 

stop suspicious individuals to check for weapons without a warrant. 

Community policing, including substations housed in neighborhoods, has the 

support of nearly three-quarters (71.4%) of all respondents. This is down from 86.3% 

in 2014. 

A large majority, 81.8%, of respondents continue to strongly or somewhat support 

foot patrols by police officers. While still strong, this level of support is down from 

91.6% found in the 2014 JSU/Institute poll. 


Unchanged from 2014, 58.7% of all respondents continue their majority support for 

the transfer of used military weapons and hardware to local police departments from 

the U.S. Military. 

Similar to overall ratings, trust in local police officers, their departments and the 

judicial system all appear to have declined over the past year. 

Trust in police officers – 53.5% (down from 67.8%) 

Trust in police departments – 53.1% (down from 66.0%) 

Trust in the judicial system – 40.3% (down from 55.6%) 

Here too, positive opinions of trust are two times higher than those reporting little to 

no trust. 

Over the past year, those reporting experiencing verbal abuse, condescending 

remarks or intimidation by police officers moved to 29.6% from 17.1%. Among 

Hispanics, whites and African-Americans the percentages were 33.5%, 25.5% and 

38.4%, respectively. 

On being profiled or stopped based on appearance, 26.7% suggested they have had 

such an experience – up from 15.1% in 2014. The percentages among Hispanics, 

whites and African-Americans were 33.5%, 21.4% and 43.0%, respectively. 

On issues, 53.6% (down from 60.9% in 2014) are willing to pay more in taxes to 

attract quality police officers. Among Hispanics, whites and African-Americans, the 

percentages are 56.6%, 55.1% and 46.4%, respectively. 

Nearly one-half of all respondents, 46.3% (up from 34.3% in 2014) report that they 

“do all that they can to avoid police officers”. Among Hispanics, whites and African- 

Americans the percentages collected were 56.6%, 38.6% and 65.6%, respectively. 

Many, 21.5% (up from 11.4%), have “taught their own children to avoid police 

officers”. The percentages among Hispanics, whites, and African-Americans were 

28.3%, 15.0% and 38.4%, respectively. 


Two-fifths, 44.0% (down from 47.6% in 2014), suggest that African-Americans are 

justified when they report fearing the police. Among Hispanics, whites and African- 

Americans, the percentages are 49.7%, 35.1%, and 70.2%, respectively. 

On gun control, those who believe there should be no restrictions or controls on 

gun/firearm ownership move up to 12.6% from 7.2% in 2014. Those who can see 

“some restrictions” move to 68.1% in October, 2015 from 79.0% in September, 2014. 

Those urging “no private ownership of firearms” increased to 12.8% from 9.3% in 

2014. 

Hispanics (16.8%) and whites (13.0%) are significantly more likely to suggest “no 

restrictions” on gun/firearm ownership than African-Americans (6.0%). 

ON CROSS TABULATIONS… 

Cross tabulations of data provide a view of the issues covered within the survey (core 

questions) by the various demographics collected such as age, race, ethnicity, 

education, rural/suburban/urban, gender, political philosophy and income. Readers 

are encouraged to review the crosstab tables held within the appendix to this report. 


4 

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 

Readers are reminded that the narrative throughout this report refers to composite aggregate 

data – the 904 completed surveys. Tables throughout present national results while many 

graphs also present results among southern state respondents from Alabama, Arkansas, 

Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. 

ELECTION 2016 

Republican poll respondents were asked to think about and name their first, second and 

third choices for the presidential nomination in 2016. The following three tables present 

results on a composite basis (all Republicans), by Republican likely voters, and southern state 

Republican respondents. Results are in declining order by “first” choice. 

Republican Candidates: 

FIRST SECOND THIRD 

Composite (N=250) 

Businessman Donald Trump 29.2 16.8 8.8 

Dr. Ben Carson 19.6 10.0 9.6 

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush 9.6 10.8 8.0 

Texas Senator Ted Cruz 8.0 12.0 6.0 

Unsure / Don’t Know 6.8 10.8 16.8 

Florida Senator Marco Rubio 5.6 8.8 9.6 

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul 4.0 4.8 6.0 

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal 3.2 1.2 2.8 

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie 2.8 6.0 5.2 

Former Arkansas Governor Mike 2.8 5.2 3.6 

Huckabee 

Former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly 2.8 5.6 10.8 

Fiorina 

Ohio Governor John Kasich 1.2 1.2 2.0 

Someone else 1.2 0.8 2.0 

New York Congressman Peter King 0.8 0.0 0.4 

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick 0.8 2.8 3.6 

Santorum 

South Carolina Senator Lindsey 

0.8 0.0 2.0 

Graham 

Former Ambassador John Bolton 0.4 0.4 2.0 

Indiana Governor Mike Pence 0.4 1.2 0.0 

Former New York Governor George 0.0 0.0 0.8 

Pataki 

Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore 0.0 0.8 0.0 




Republican Likely Voters (N=209) 


Dr. Ben Carson 22.0 11.5 10.0 







Huckabee 


Fiorina 






Santorum 



1.0 0.0 0.5 

Graham 




Pataki 





Southern States (N=72) 


Dr. Ben Carson 15.3 11.1 8.3 







Huckabee 



2.8 0.0 2.8 

Graham 





Fiorina 



Santorum 



Pataki 




Democratic poll respondents were asked to think about and name their first, second and 

third choices for the presidential nomination in 2016. The following three tables present 

results on a composite basis (all Democratic respondents), by Democratic likely voters and 

southern state Democratic respondents. Results are in declining order by “first” choice. 

Democratic Candidates: 


Composite (N=300) 

Former Secretary of State Hillary 52.7 22.7 13.3 

Clinton 

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders 18.7 11.0 13.3 

Vice President Joe Biden 13.3 34.7 14.3 

Unsure / don’t know 7.3 12.0 29.0 

Virginia Senator Mark Warner 2.0 1.3 1.3 

Former Virginia Senator Jim Webb 1.7 1.0 2.7 


New York Governor Andrew 

1.3 3.7 4.7 

Cuomo 

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth 0.7 5.0 7.0 

Warren 

Former Massachusetts Governor 0.7 0.3 1.0 

Deval Patrick 

New Jersey Senator Corey Booker 0.7 1.0 1.3 

Former Maryland Governor Martin 0.3 2.7 4.3 

O’Malley 

Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar 0.3 0.7 1.3 

Colorado Governor John 

0.3 0.3 0.3 

Hickenlooper 

New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand 0.0 0.7 1.3 

Former Rhode Island Governor 

Lincoln Chafee 

0.0 0.7 1.3 




Democratic Likely Voters 

(N=240) 


Clinton 






1.7 4.2 5.4 

Cuomo 



Warren 



O’Malley 



0.4 0.4 0.4 

Hickenlooper 


Deval Patrick 





0.0 0.8 1.3 




Southern State Democrats 


Clinton 







Warren 



O’Malley 


1.7 3.4 1.7 

Cuomo 


1.7 0.0 15.3 

Hickenlooper 


Deval Patrick 






0.0 0.0 1.7 


All respondents were asked which presidential traits, characteristics or positions will be 

important to them in their own vote for President in 2016. Results are presented on a 

composite basis, among likely voters and southern state respondents. Multiple responses 

were accepted. Results are presented in declining order by “likely voters”. 

The most important traits or positions to respondents included cutting taxes, increasing 

worldwide status, spending on education, and a strong stance against illegal immigration. 

Important Presidential Traits, 

Characteristics or Positions 

Composite 

N=1000 

Likely 

Voters 

N=729 

South 

N=213 

Supports cutting taxes 44.5 45.4 39.9 

Plans to improve and increase 43.8 44.9 46.0 

U.S. status worldwide 

Wants more spending on 

42.0 40.7 41.3 

education 

Strong stance against illegal 35.6 40.3 38.0 

immigration 

Plans to repeal and end Obama 32.1 34.0 37.1 

Care or the Affordable Care Act 

Will stand up to Russian leaders 29.0 33.1 25.8 

Has a business background 28.6 31.8 31.0 

Is pro-choice 28.1 28.7 25.4 

Is mostly conservative 24.4 28.3 31.0 

Favors gun control(s) 26.7 28.3 25.8 

Plans to spend money to reduce 23.2 23.6 16.9 

global climate change 

Favors allowing trained faculty to 21.4 23.5 24.9 

carry arms on college campuses 

Will defund Planned Parenthood 18.9 22.1 22.5 

Will build the Keystone XL 16.6 20.3 15.5 

pipeline 

Is a parent 21.2 19.6 24.9 

Wants to increase military 

16.5 19.1 16.0 

spending 

Served in the military 15.6 15.4 16.4 

Is mostly liberal 15.0 14.7 10.3 

Has not held elective office 10.2 10.4 6.6 


The survey on political issues included a question asking each respondent if they have, prior 

to this poll, ever been surveyed by a pollster. Results are presented in the following graph. 

Ever Surveyed by a Pollster? 

13.9 

15.9 

12.3 

YES 

Composite Likely Voters South 

Respondents who have been polled were asked if they have ever lied to a pollster. Nearly 

one-fifth, suggested they have been less than honest with the pollsters. Results are presented 

in the following graph. 

Every Lied to a Pollster? 

18.4 18.8 

21.4 

YES 

Composite Likely Voters South 


THE ILLUSION OF PRIVACY 

The following section of the poll centered on perceptions of and experiences with internet 

or online personal data security issues. 

Respondents were asked to indicate the ways they access the internet. The following graph 

presents the results as collected in April and October, 2015. Multiple responses were 

accepted. 

WATCHES 

TV 

SMARTPHONE 

PADS OR TABLETS 

LAPTOP 

COMPUTER 

0.9 

2.6 

1 

1.4 

18 

20.1 

24 

24.8 

69 

62.1 

64.2 

62.8 

45.5 

42.4 

49 

49.1 

72.3 

67.1 

73.5 

73 

59.2 

62.3 

66.7 

68.8 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 

South October 2015 US October 2015 South April 2015 US April 2015 


Poll participants were asked how secure they believed their personal data and information is 

when they are using the internet. Nearly three-quarters, 77.1%, indicated very (29.2%) or 

somewhat secure (47.8%). Another 16.6% suggested not very (12.4%) or not at all secure 

(4.2%). Results are presented here. 

How Secure is Personal Data Online? 

65.4 

63.7 

77.1 

80.3 

30.9 

29.4 

16.6 

23 20.1 

13.6 12.4 11.3 

VERY & SOMEWHAT SECURE NOT VERY / NOT AT ALL SECURE UNSURE 

US April 2015 South April 2015 US October 2015 South October 2015 

Respondents were asked how believable it is when they see “Sign in Using Our Secure 

Network” at the websites of their banks and favorite stores or vendors. Nearly one-fifth, 

16.4%, suggested they find the security description either somewhat unbelievable (10.8%) or 

not at all believable (5.6%). Some, 6.6%, were unsure. Results are presented here. 

Believable? "Sign in Using Our Secure 

Network"? 

70.9 

68.6 

77 

79.8 

23.2 

24.5 

16.4 

12.7 

5.9 

6.9 

6.6 

7.5 

VERY & SOMEWHAT BELIEVABLE SOMEWHAT UNBELIEVABLE / 

NOT AT ALL 

CATEGORY 3 



Respondents were asked for their own perception of privacy when they use browsers such as 

Google, Bing, Safari, Internet Explorer or Firefox. Over one-third, 38.4%, suggested their 

browsing and browsing history were somewhat public (27.3%) or very public (11.1%). 

Another 54.7% indicated they believed their browsing was very private (14.7%) or somewhat 

private (40.0%). Results are depicted in the following graph. 

How Private/Public is Your Own Browsing? 

54.7 

59.2 

53.8 

52.4 

41.4 

42.7 

38.4 

33.8 

4.8 

4.9 

3 

VERY & SOMEWHAT PRIVATE SOMEWHAT AND VERY PUBLIC UNSURE 



All respondents, in October, 2015, were asked to indicate how private they believed their 

messages are when using social media such as Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter. The 

following graph displays the results as collected. 

A majority of respondents, 50.6%, perceived their own messaging as somewhat public 

(24.4%) or very public (26.4%). Some, 7.6%, were unsure. 

How Private/Public is Your 

Social Media Messaging? 

41.8 

43.7 

50.6 

49.8 

7.6 

6 

VERY OR SOMEWHAT PRIVATE SOMEWHAT OR VERY PUBLIC UNSURE 

US October 2015 South October 2015 


All October 2015 survey respondents were presented with the following: “Some may be 

interested in instilling stronger responsibility for your personal data among social media 

companies, businesses and even the government that hold your credit / credit card 

information. How strongly would you support or oppose the following actions when these 

organizations fail to keep your personal data/information secure on their servers?” 

All respondents were asked if they strongly agreed, somewhat agreed, somewhat disagreed or 

strongly disagreed with each action or remedy. The following table holds the cumulative 

totals for those strongly and somewhat agreeing as well as those strongly and somewhat 

disagreeing. 

Remedies Against Hacked or 

Unsecure Government or 

Business Servers 

Customers / users may sue a 

responsible entity when a 

breach of their data occurs that 

was held on their servers 

Regulators should force the 

responsible entities to pay 

customers/users a penalty fee 

for breaches of customer data 

held by them 

Customers / users are 

reimbursed for time and cost of 

damages resulting from a breach 

of their data by the responsible 

entity 

Regulators force the entities to 

pay, indefinitely, for a 

customer/user’s Identity Theft 

Service when a breach of data 

occurs 

US 

Agree 

US 

Disagree 

South 

Agree 

South 

Disagree 

79.7 10.8 44.4 7.1 

77.7 14.0 81.2 12.2 

80.5 11.5 81.7 9.3 

68.0 20.2 66.7 20.7 


The poll included a number of statements related to online privacy and privacy protection. 

Respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed with each statement. The following 

table presents “agreement” results nationally and in Southern states. Results are presented in 

declining order by those in agreement nationally in October, 2015. 

Online Security Statements 

I have installed virus protection 

software on the majority of the 

devices used when connecting to 

the internet 

There is no such thing as “delete” 

when it comes to the internet 

I have posted personal information 

such as contact details, 

employment details, birthdates on 

social media such as Facebook, 

LinkedIn, Twitter or others 

If it means more privacy 

protections, I would support 

greater government oversight, 

regulation and policing of the 

internet 

I have or I know someone who 

has missed a job opportunity / or 

promotion believed to be due to 

posts on the internet 

I have made mistakes by posting 

such things as vacation plans or my 

whereabouts, photos or contact 

information on the internet such as 

on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, 

or LinkedIn. 

I subscribe to an Identity Theft 

Protection service 

I have been surprised to find my 

own personal photos on the 

internet that I did not know were 

there 

I have been a victim of online theft 

of such things as photos, personal 

data and personal information 

USA 

April 

2015 

Agree 

USA 

October 


Agree 

South 

April 


Agree 

South 

October 


Agree 

82.4 76.2 84.3 78.9 

77.9 74.8 78.4 78.9 

40.1 45.3 43.6 46.9 

40.2 44.7 39.2 49.8 

28.3 28.0 27.9 32.4 

20.2 26.5 20.6 26.8 

26.2 25.3 27.5 26.8 

20.8 24.3 20.6 25.8 

24.6 23.9 20.1 27.7 


A large majority of poll respondents, 84.6%, either strongly (54.9%) or somewhat agreed 

(28.7%) that government employees, for security and personnel accountability reasons, 

should be required to use government-issued email addresses housed on government 

servers. Results are shown in the following graph. 

Requiring Government Employees to Use 

Government-Issued Emails Addresses on 

Government Servers 

86.6 

84.6 

85.8 

85 

7.5 

7.4 7.9 7.1 6 7.9 6.4 8 

STRONGLY & SOMEWHAT AGREE STRONGLY & SOMEWHAT DISAGREE UNSURE 

US April 2015 US October 2015 South April 2015 South October 2015 


LAW ENFORCEMENT AND GUN CONTROLS 

Ratings 

Law enforcement organizations were rated by respondents on quality and professionalism 

using a scale of one to ten where one was very good and ten is very poor. 

The following graph presents the cumulative total positive ratings of one through four on 

the ten-point scale. 

Positive Ratings of Law Enforcement 

58.7 59.8 58.7 57.7 

59.2 

55.4 54.3 54.4 

55.9 

54.3 

53.5 

50.9 

41.7 

38.4 

42.8 

36.6 37.6 

34.4 35.4 34.4 

LOCAL POLICE DEPARTMENT 

COMMUNITY POLICE 

OFFICERS 

STATE POLICE 

TSA OFFICERS AT AIRPORTS 

USA South Hispanic White African-Amer 


Overall positive ratings, between September 2014 and October 2015, declined somewhat on 

a composite basis nationally as well as within southern states. The table presented here 

depicts the results as collected. 

Rating Police and 

Police Departments: 

Positive Ratings of 

1-4 

My local police 

department overall 

The police officers in 

National: 

Positive 

Rating 

Sept/2014 

National: 

Positive 

Rating 

Oct/2015 

South: 

Positive 

Rating 

Sept/2014 

South: 

Positive 

Rating 

Oct/2015 

68.6 55.4 61.7 58.7 

68.2 54.4 60.9 55.9 

my community 

State police officers 60.9 53.5 56.4 57.7 

TSA officers at airports 41.0 36.6 31.6 37.6 

The following table presents more detail on a national basis for the 2015 positive ratings (1- 

4) as well as neutral ratings of 5-6 and negative ratings of 7-10. 

Rating Police and Police 

Departments: 

NATIONAL 

My local police department 

overall 

The police officers in my 

National 

Positive 1-4 

National 

Neutral 5-6 

National 

Negative 7-10 

55.4 20.6 19.0 

54.4 20.0 19.7 

community 

State police officers 53.5 19.0 19.6 

TSA officers at airports 36.6 23.5 21.7 

The following table presents the detail among southern state respondents for the 2015 

positive ratings (1-4), neutral ratings of 5-6 and negative ratings of 7-10. 

Rating Police and Police 

Departments: 

SOUTHERN STATES 

My local police department 

overall 

The police officers in my 

South 

Positive 1-4 

South 

Neutral 5-6 

South 

Negative 7-10 

58.7 16.9 19.7 

55.9 17.9 20.2 

community 

State police officers 57.7 17.3 16.9 

TSA officers at airports 37.6 22.5 19.7 


Strategies 

Respondents were presented with a number of policing strategies that have been used, to 

varied degrees, by police departments over time. Respondents were asked to indicate if they 

strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose each policing 

strategy. The following graph depicts the cumulative totals for those strongly and somewhat 

supporting these initiatives or strategies. 

Support for Policing Strategies 

61.8 

54.7 

58.6 

59.6 

86.3 

71.4 

82 

73.2 

91.6 

81.8 

88 

81.2 

58.6 

63.8 

58.7 

54.9 

"STOP & FRISK" 

COMMUITY POLICING WITH 

SUBSTATIONS 

FOOT PATROLS 

ACCEPTING USED MILITARY 

WEAPONS/EQUIPMENT 

USA Sept/2014 USA Oct/2015 South Sept/2014 South Oct/2015 


The following table presents the results on a national basis in both September, 2014 and 

October, 2015 as well as comparable data among Hispanics, whites and African-Americans 

in 2015. 

USA: Support/Opposition to 

Policing Strategies 

“Stop and Frisk” – allowing 

officers to stop suspicious 

individuals to check for 

weapons or drugs without a 

warrant 

Community policing including 

substations housed within 

communities 

Foot patrols by police officers 

in the communities they serve 

Accepting used military 

weapons and equipment 

provided to police departments 

for municipal use as needed 

National 

Support 

2014 

National 

Support 


National 

Hispanic 


National 

White 


National 

African- 

American 


61.8 54.7 49.1 58.2 44.4 

86.3 71.4 61.3 75.2 65.6 

91.6 81.8 74.0 87.2 70.9 

58.6 58.7 54.9 62.5 46.4 

Trust and Confidence 

Survey participants were asked to think for a moment about their own trust and confidence 

in police officers, police departments, and the judicial system. Each was asked to rate their 

trust that they would be treated in a fair, impartial and objective manner if involved 

with law enforcement. Each used a scale of one to ten where one meant they had strong 

trust and confidence and ten meant they held no trust or confidence. 

Two-thirds could report “trust and confidence” in their police officers or their departments 

– 53.5% and 53.1%, respectively. 

The following graph and tables present the cumulative totals for ratings of 1 – 4 (strong 

trust) and 7-10 (little to no trust). 


Trust and Confidence 

67.8 66 

59.4 60.2 

53.5 54 53.1 52.6 

55.6 

40.3 

55.6 

42.7 

TRUST IN POLICE OFFICERS TRUST IN POLICE DEPARTMENTS TRUST IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 

US Sept/2014 US Oct/2015 South Sept/2014 South Oct/2015 

Composite results are presented in the following table for both 2014 and 2015 along with 

results among Hispanic, white and African-American 2015 respondents. 

USA: Trust 

and 

Confidence 

in… 

Trust in police 

officers 


departments 

Trust in the 

judicial system 

including 

courts, 

prosecutors, 

and judges 

National 

September 

2014 

National 

October 


Hispanic 


White 


African- 

American 


67.8 53.5 47.4 60.2 33.8 

66.0 53.1 46.8 59.4 34.4 

55.6 40.3 35.3 43.6 36.5 


The following two tables present the results in greater detail. Each includes the overall 

positive ratings of 1-4, the neutral ratings of 5-6 and negative ratings of 7-10 nationally and 

within southern states for 2015. 

USA: Trust and 

Positive 1-4 Neutral 5-6 Negative 7-10 

Confidence in… 

Trust in police officers 53.5 20.2 23.5 


53.1 22.2 21.8 

departments 

Trust in the judicial 

system including courts, 

prosecutors, and judges 

40.3 29.2 27.8 

South: Trust and Positive 1-4 Neutral 5-6 Negative 7-10 

Confidence in… 

Trust in police officers 54.0 18.8 24.4 


52.6 22.5 22.1 

departments 

Trust in the judicial 

system including courts, 

prosecutors, and judges 

42.7 30.1 23.9 


Experiences 

Respondents were questioned about any verbal abuse or profiling they feel they have 

experienced. 

Nearly one-third of Americans surveyed, 29.6%, suggested they have experienced verbal 

abuse, condescending remarks or intimidation by officers. Another 26.7% suggested they 

believe they were profiled as suspicious in a stop. The following graph presents the results 

as collected. 

Experiences with Law Enforcement 

17.1 

29.6 

29.6 

26.7 

22.6 23.3 

15.1 

23.9 

VERBAL ABUSE, CONDESCENSION, 

INTIMIDATION 

PROFILED BECAUSE OF APPEARANCE 

National 2014 National 2015 South 2014 South 2015 

The following table depicts 2015 results on a national composite basis as well as among 

Hispanics, whites and African-Americans. 

Experiences with Police 

Officers 

Verbal abuse, 

condescending remarks or 

intimidation by the 

officer(s) 

Profiled or you believe you 

were stopped because you 

“appeared” suspicious to 

the officer(s) 

USA Hispanic White African- 

American 

29.6 33.5 25.5 38.4 

26.7 33.5 21.4 43.0 


Issue Statements 

The survey included some questions on issues surrounding police and policing. 

A number of statements about police and policing were created. For each, respondents were 

asked if they strongly agreed, somewhat agreed, somewhat disagreed or strongly disagreed. 

Nearly two-thirds of all Americans, 60.9%, suggested they would be willing to pay more in 

taxes in order to increase pay and attract quality police officers. Just under half, 47.6%, 

indicated African-Americans are justified when they report fearing the police. When “don’t 

know” respondents are removed from the data, this percentage moves to 52.6%. 

The follow graph presents the national results as collected for both 2014 and 2015. 

Strongly & Somewhat Agree 

60.9 

53.6 

46.3 

47.6 

44 

34.3 

11.4 

21.5 

WILLING TO PAY MORE 

TAXES TO ATTRACT QUALITY 

OFFICERS 

I DO ALL THAT I CAN TO 

AVOID POLICE OFFICERS 

I HAVE TAUGHT CHILDREN 

TO AVOID POLICE OFFICERS 

AFRICAN AMERICANS ARE 

JUSTIFIED FEARING POLICE 

USA 2014 USA 2015 


Southern State results are presented in the following graph for 2014 and 2015. 

Strongly & Somewhat Agree 

55.6 

58.7 

41.4 

47.9 

46.6 

43.7 

13.5 

24.9 

WILLING TO PAY MORE 

TAXES TO ATTRACT QUALITY 

OFFICERS 

I DO ALL THAT I CAN TO 

AVOID POLICE OFFICERS 

I HAVE TAUGHT CHILDREN 

TO AVOID POLICE OFFICERS 

AFRICAN AMERICANS ARE 

JUSTIFIED FEARING POLICE 

South 2014 South 2015 

The following table holds results nationally for both 2014 and 2015 as well as 2015 results 

among Hispanics, whites and African-Americans (A-A). 

Statements 

I would be willing to pay more in 

taxes to increase police pay to 

attract quality officers 

I do all that I can to avoid police 

officers 

I have taught children or my own 

children to avoid police officers 

Based on all I know or have 

heard, African-Americans are 

justified when they report fearing 

the police 

National 

Agree 

2014 

National 

Agree 


Hispanic 


White 


A-A 


60.9 53.6 56.6 55.1 46.4 

34.3 46.3 56.6 38.6 65.6 

11.4 21.5 28.3 15.0 38.4 

47.6 44.0 49.7 36.1 70.2 


GUN CONTROL 

Support / Oppose Gun Controls 

On gun control, respondents were asked to think for a moment about their own position 

and beliefs about gun control – a controversial topic in this country. Each was asked which 

one of three options best reflected their own personal position on gun control. A majority, 

79.0%, indicated they could see some limited licensing, permitting or restrictions on certain 

arms such as assault weapons. 

National Position on Gun Conrol 

79 

68.1 

7.2 

12.6 

9.3 

[VALUE] 

[VALUE] [VALUE] 

NO REGULATIONS SOME RESTRICTIONS NO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP UNSURE 

2014 2015 

Southern States on Gun Control 

85 

70.4 

8.3 

13.1 

[VALUE] 

2.3 [VALUE] [VALUE] 

NO REGULATIONS SOME RESTRICTIONS NO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP UNSURE 

2014 2015 


The following table holds national results for both September, 2014 and October, 2015 as 

well as results among 2015 Hispanic, white and African-American respondents. 

Statements on Gun Control 

National 

Agree 

2014 

National 

Agree 


Hispanic 


White 


A-A 


No regulations of any firearms 7.2 12.6 16.8 13.0 6.0 

Support some limited licensing, 79.0 68.1 60.7 72.3 61.6 

permitting, or restrictions 

No private ownership of firearms 9.3 12.8 13.9 10.6 20.6 


DEMOGRAPHICS 

Rural, Suburban or Urban? 

US 

Rural 28.4 

Suburban 43.0 

Urban 24.9 

Age 

US 

18 to 44 55.1 

45 - 64 29.8 

65+ 15.0 

Income 

US 

Under $10,000 8.4 

$10,000 to less than $40,000 42.0 

$40,000 to less than $75,000 29.3 

$75,000 to less than $100,000 7.8 

$100,000 to less than $150,000 4.8 

$150,000 to less than $200,000 1.3 

$200,000 or more 0.3 

Unsure 6.1 

Party Affiliation 

US 

Republican 29.2 

Democrat 31.9 

Independent 32.6 

Some other party 1.6 

Unsure 4.8 

Education 

US 

High School or less 11.9 

High School / GED 15.5 

Associates Degree 10.2 

Some college / technical school 28.7 

College / technical school graduate 24.6 

Postgraduate or professional degree 8.1 

Prefer not to disclose 0.0 


Hispanic, Latin American, Puerto Rican, 

US 

Cuban or Mexican 

Yes 17.3 

No 82.7 

Ethnicity (Among Non-Hispanics) 

US 

White 63.2 

Black, African-American 15.1 

Asian, Pacific Islander 3.3 

Aleutian, Eskimo or American Indian 1.2 

Other 0.7 

Native Hawaiian 0.2 

Two or more races --- 

Refused --- 

Don’t know/unsure --- 

Employment 

US 

Working full-time 42.7 

Working part-time 9.7 

Student unemployed 2.9 

Student – employed part or full-time 1.8 

Retired 21.9 

Unemployed – looking for work 4.8 

Unemployed – not looking for work 1.7 

Unemployed – unable to work / disability 4.3 

Homemaker 10.0 

Unsure - Other 0.3 

Gender 

US 

Male 49.9 

Female 50.1 


5 

APPENDIX 

INTERPRETATION OF AGGREGATE RESULTS 

The computer processed data for this survey are presented in the following frequency 

distributions. It is important to note that the wordings of the variable labels and value labels 

in the computer-processed data are largely abbreviated descriptions of the Questionnaire 

items and available response categories. 

The frequency distributions include the category or response for the question items. 

Responses deemed not appropriate for classification have been grouped together under the 

“Other” code. 

The “NA” category label refers to “No Answer” or “Not Applicable.” This code is also 

used to classify ambiguous responses. In addition, the “DK/RF” category includes those 

respondents who did not know their answer to a question or declined to answer it. In many 

of the tables, a group of responses may be tagged as “Missing” – occasionally, certain 

individual’s responses may not be required to specific questions and thus are excluded. 

Although when this category of response is used, the computations of percentages are 

presented in two (2) ways in the frequency distributions: 1) with their inclusion (as a 

proportion of the total sample), and 2) their exclusion (as a proportion of a sample subgroup). 

Each frequency distribution includes the absolute observed occurrence of each response (i.e. 

the total number of cases in each category). Immediately adjacent to the right of the column 

of absolute frequencies is the column of relative frequencies. These are the percentages of 

cases falling in each category response, including those cases designated as missing data. To 

the right of the relative frequency column is the adjusted frequency distribution column that 

contains the relative frequencies based on the legitimate (i.e. non-missing) cases. That is, the 

total base for the adjusted frequency distribution excludes the missing data. For many 

Questionnaire items, the relative frequencies and the adjusted frequencies will be nearly the 

same. However, some items that elicit a sizable number of missing data will produce quite 

substantial percentage differences between the two columns of frequencies. The careful 

analyst will cautiously consider both distributions. 

The last column of data within the frequency distribution is the cumulative frequency 

distribution (Cum Freq.). This column is simply an adjusted frequency distribution of the 

sum of all previous categories of response and the current category of response. Its primary 

usefulness is to gauge some ordered or ranked meaning.

JSU Fall 2015 Report

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?