JSU Fall 2015 Report
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>Fall</strong> Edition<br />
October <strong>2015</strong><br />
Institute of Government Polling 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 National Council on Public Polls and the United<br />
States Privacy Act of 1974, The Institute of Government Polling Center maintains the<br />
anonymity of respondents to surveys the Center conducts. No information will be released<br />
that might, in any way, reveal the identity of the respondent.<br />
Moreover, no information regarding these findings will be released without the written<br />
consent of an authorized representative of Institute of Government.<br />
Institute of Government Polling 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 13<br />
Election 2016 ........................................................ 13<br />
The Illusion of Privacy ........................................ 21<br />
Law Enforcement & Gun Control ................... 28<br />
Demographics ...................................................... 39<br />
5<br />
SECTION<br />
Appendix .................................................................................................................................. Page 41<br />
Survey Instrument<br />
Composite Aggregate Data<br />
Cross Tabulations of Data<br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 3
1<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
The Polling 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 the 2016 presidential election, data<br />
security, and trust and confidence in the law enforcement and our judicial system.<br />
The research study included survey responses from 1000 respondents nationally<br />
approximately proportional to state population contribution. The poll was conducted<br />
October 13-20, <strong>2015</strong>.<br />
The national poll included the following areas for investigation:<br />
‣ First, second and third choices for Republican and Democratic nominees;<br />
‣ Desired characteristics or traits important to poll respondents;<br />
‣ The percentage of those who have been polled on politics and truthfulness of<br />
responses;<br />
‣ Perceptions of security of personal data on the internet;<br />
‣ Perceptions of privacy when browsing or conducting online searches;<br />
‣ Views on requiring public officials to use government vs. private servers;<br />
‣ Impacts of personal information on the internet;<br />
‣ Ratings of law enforcement;<br />
‣ Views on varied policing strategies;<br />
‣ Trust and confidence in police, police departments and judicial systems;<br />
‣ Willingness to pay more in taxes to recruit quality police officers;<br />
‣ Support/opposition to gun control;<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 />
tabululations and the survey instrument employed.<br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 4
2<br />
METHODOLOGY<br />
Using a quantitative research design, the Center completed 1000 online surveys nationally.<br />
Survey design input was provided by the membership of the Polling 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 October 13-20, <strong>2015</strong>.<br />
Respondents qualified for 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 Polling 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 1000 completed surveys has an associated margin for error of<br />
+/- 3.0% at a 95% confidence level.<br />
Results throughout this report are presented for composite results – all 1000 cases. Many<br />
tables and graphs will hold results among respondents from the South (Alabama, Arkansas,<br />
Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia).<br />
Additionally, on most political based questions, columns holding results among just “likely<br />
voters” are also included herein.<br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 5
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 information 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, therefore, carefully interpreted and extrapolated.<br />
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 for<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 Polling Center Page 6
3<br />
HIGHLIGHTS<br />
ON THE 2016 ELECTION…<br />
The latest national poll by Jackson State University’s Institute of Government Polling<br />
Center shows a close contest between businessman Donald Trump and Dr. Ben<br />
Carson among likely Republican voters. Trump led the group with 29.7% followed<br />
by Carson who polled at 22.0% in a “first choice” selection.<br />
These two leading candidates were followed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz (9.1%),<br />
former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (8.6%), Florida Senator Marco Rubio (5.3%),<br />
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul (3.8%), former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee<br />
(3.3%) and former HP CEO Carly Fiorina (2.9%). The poll was conducted prior to<br />
the third Republican debate on Wednesday, October 28, <strong>2015</strong> and before the fourth<br />
Republican debate on Tuesday, November 10, <strong>2015</strong>.<br />
A “second choice” spread the percentages more evenly across all Republican<br />
candidates resulting in a new declining order: Trump, Cruz, Carson, Rubio, Bush –<br />
16.3%, 12.0%, 11.5%, respectively, and Rubio/Bush tied at 9.6%. Paul, Huckabee,<br />
and Christie were all tied at 5.7%.<br />
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton leads the Democrats by a wide margin.<br />
Fielding of the current poll was conducted October 12-20, <strong>2015</strong> and ended the day<br />
prior to Vice President Joe Biden deciding against a run for the White House.<br />
Among likely Democratic voters, Clinton leads with 52.9% in a “first choice” poll<br />
ballot. This is followed by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders at 18.8% and Vice<br />
President Joe Biden at 13.8%. Former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee and<br />
former Virginia Senator Jim Webb polled at zero percent. Each has subsequently<br />
withdrawn from the contest.<br />
A “second choice” among likely Democratic voters shows Biden leading with 32.9%<br />
followed by Clinton with 22.9% and Sanders with 12.5%.<br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 7
Presidential traits, characteristics, or positions most important to likely voters in the<br />
upcoming 2016 contest included support for cutting taxes (45.4%), improving U.S.<br />
worldwide status (44.9%), wanting more education spending (40.7%), a strong stance<br />
against illegal immigration (40.3%), plans to repeal Obama Care or the ACA (34.0%),<br />
standing up to the Russian leaders (33.1%), and has a business background (31.8%).<br />
Other important traits named with less frequency included: is pro-choice, is mostly<br />
conservative, favors gun controls, plans to spend on reducing global climate change,<br />
favors trained faculty to carry arms on college campuses, will defund Planned<br />
Parenthood and will build the Keystone XL pipeline.<br />
In an interesting take on the polling in a year leading into a presidential election, the<br />
survey found that 13.9% of all respondents (15.9% of likely voters) had been polled on<br />
political issues by a pollster. Of this group, nearly one-in-five, 18.4% (18.8% of likely<br />
voters) admitted they had lied to a pollster.<br />
ON THE ILLUSION OF PRIVACY…<br />
In a section dedicated to respondent perceptions and experiences with internet and<br />
online personal data security issues, findings suggest a trend toward mobile devices<br />
and away from more stationary devices such as desktop computers and televisions<br />
when accessing the internet.<br />
Similar questions on internet privacy were posed in both April and October <strong>2015</strong>.<br />
The current findings suggest that as we move away from major events such as the<br />
hacking of Sony Pictures Entertainment on November 24, <strong>2015</strong>, Americans settle<br />
back down into complacency.<br />
Since just April, <strong>2015</strong>, more Americans (77.1%) see their online personal data as very<br />
and somewhat secure compared to 65.4% in April, <strong>2015</strong>.<br />
Similarly, when asked how believable it is when they see “Sign in Using our Secure<br />
Network” at websites of their banks and favorite stores or vendors, 77.0% suggested<br />
“very and somewhat believable” compared to 70.9% in April, <strong>2015</strong>.<br />
However, a sizable percentage (16.4%) when extrapolated on the total population,<br />
see such a message as “Sign in using our Secure Network” as “somewhat<br />
unbelievable or not at all believable”.<br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 8
In April, <strong>2015</strong>, 41.4% saw their own browsing as “very or somewhat private”. Today,<br />
that percentage increased to 54.7%. Contrasting, those suggesting “somewhat or<br />
very public” dropped significantly from 53.8% to 38.4%.<br />
In a new question for October, <strong>2015</strong>, 41.8% of all respondents see their own social<br />
media messaging as “very or somewhat private” while 50.6% indicated “somewhat or<br />
very public”. Some, 7.6% were unsure.<br />
The survey held additional new questions within the October, <strong>2015</strong> poll to determine<br />
support for instilling stronger responsibility for personal data among social media<br />
companies, businesses and even the government that holds credit/credit card data.<br />
Strong agreement was found for a number of legal remedies measured…<br />
Customers may sue a responsible entity when a beach occurs – 79.7% agree<br />
Regulators should force the responsible entities to pay customers a penalty<br />
fee for breaches of data held – 77.7% agree<br />
Customers/users are reimbursed for time and cost of damages resulting from<br />
a breach of their data by the responsible entity – 80.5% agree<br />
Regulators force entities to pay, indefinitely, for customer Identity Theft<br />
Protection services when a breach of data occurs – 68.0%<br />
The poll measured agreement with a number of privacy and privacy protectionrelated<br />
statements. Strongest agreement was found (76.2% - down from 82.4% in<br />
April, <strong>2015</strong>)) for “I have installed virus protection software” and for “There is no such<br />
thing as ‘delete’ when it comes to the internet” (74.8% - down slightly from 77.9% in<br />
April, <strong>2015</strong>). Agreement was found in a number of other areas…<br />
I have posted personal information on social media – 45.3% (up from 40.1% in<br />
April)<br />
I would support more government oversight if it meant more protection –<br />
44.7% (up from 40.2% in April)<br />
I know someone who missed a job opportunity due to posts on the internet –<br />
28.0% (similar to 28.3% in April)<br />
I have made mistakes by posting things such as vacation plans – 26.5% (up<br />
from 20.2%)<br />
I subscribe to an ID Theft service – 25.3% (slightly down from 26.2% in April)<br />
I’ve been surprised to find my own personal photos on the internet – 24.3%<br />
(up from 20.8% in April)<br />
I have been a victim of online theft of photos, data, information – 23.9%<br />
(down slightly from 24.6%)<br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 9
A large percentage of all Americans surveyed, 84.6% (86.6% in April <strong>2015</strong>) strongly or<br />
somewhat agreed that government employees, for security and personnel<br />
accountability reasons, should be required to use government issued email addresses<br />
housed on government servers.<br />
ON LAW ENFORCEMENT AND GUN CONTROLS…<br />
Over the two years since the since the 2013 acquittal of George Zimmerman for the<br />
shooting death of Trayvon Martin on February 26, 2012 that gave rise to the Black<br />
Lives Matter activist movement against police brutality, positive ratings of local<br />
police officers and their respective local police departments have declined.<br />
While positive ratings of police officers and their departments remain nearly three<br />
times the percentages of negative ratings, the shootings of Michael Brown in<br />
Ferguson, MO and Eric Garner in NYC, NY have focused attention more critically<br />
over the past several years.<br />
Overall positive ratings for local police departments declined to 55.4% from 68.6% in<br />
September, 2014 while the overall positive ratings for local police officers moved to<br />
54.4% from 68.2% over the past year.<br />
Positive ratings of State Police officers moved somewhat lower to 53.5% from 60.9%<br />
over the past year, and positive ratings of TSA officers at airports dropped somewhat<br />
to 36.6% from 41.0% in 2014.<br />
Positive ratings of local police officers (54.4%) are nearly three times higher than<br />
negative ratings (19.7%). Similarly, local police department positive ratings (54.4%)<br />
are also nearly three times higher than negative ratings at 19.0%.<br />
While down somewhat from 61.8% in 2014, a majority of respondents, 54.7%,<br />
continue to strongly or somewhat support “Stop and Frisk” which allows officers to<br />
stop suspicious individuals to check for weapons without a warrant.<br />
Community policing, including substations housed in neighborhoods, has the<br />
support of nearly three-quarters (71.4%) of all respondents. This is down from 86.3%<br />
in 2014.<br />
A large majority, 81.8%, of respondents continue to strongly or somewhat support<br />
foot patrols by police officers. While still strong, this level of support is down from<br />
91.6% found in the 2014 <strong>JSU</strong>/Institute poll.<br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 10
Unchanged from 2014, 58.7% of all respondents continue their majority support for<br />
the transfer of used military weapons and hardware to local police departments from<br />
the U.S. Military.<br />
Similar to overall ratings, trust in local police officers, their departments and the<br />
judicial system all appear to have declined over the past year.<br />
Trust in police officers – 53.5% (down from 67.8%)<br />
Trust in police departments – 53.1% (down from 66.0%)<br />
Trust in the judicial system – 40.3% (down from 55.6%)<br />
Here too, positive opinions of trust are two times higher than those reporting little to<br />
no trust.<br />
Over the past year, those reporting experiencing verbal abuse, condescending<br />
remarks or intimidation by police officers moved to 29.6% from 17.1%. Among<br />
Hispanics, whites and African-Americans the percentages were 33.5%, 25.5% and<br />
38.4%, respectively.<br />
On being profiled or stopped based on appearance, 26.7% suggested they have had<br />
such an experience – up from 15.1% in 2014. The percentages among Hispanics,<br />
whites and African-Americans were 33.5%, 21.4% and 43.0%, respectively.<br />
On issues, 53.6% (down from 60.9% in 2014) are willing to pay more in taxes to<br />
attract quality police officers. Among Hispanics, whites and African-Americans, the<br />
percentages are 56.6%, 55.1% and 46.4%, respectively.<br />
Nearly one-half of all respondents, 46.3% (up from 34.3% in 2014) report that they<br />
“do all that they can to avoid police officers”. Among Hispanics, whites and African-<br />
Americans the percentages collected were 56.6%, 38.6% and 65.6%, respectively.<br />
Many, 21.5% (up from 11.4%), have “taught their own children to avoid police<br />
officers”. The percentages among Hispanics, whites, and African-Americans were<br />
28.3%, 15.0% and 38.4%, respectively.<br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 11
Two-fifths, 44.0% (down from 47.6% in 2014), suggest that African-Americans are<br />
justified when they report fearing the police. Among Hispanics, whites and African-<br />
Americans, the percentages are 49.7%, 35.1%, and 70.2%, respectively.<br />
On gun control, those who believe there should be no restrictions or controls on<br />
gun/firearm ownership move up to 12.6% from 7.2% in 2014. Those who can see<br />
“some restrictions” move to 68.1% in October, <strong>2015</strong> from 79.0% in September, 2014.<br />
Those urging “no private ownership of firearms” increased to 12.8% from 9.3% in<br />
2014.<br />
Hispanics (16.8%) and whites (13.0%) are significantly more likely to suggest “no<br />
restrictions” on gun/firearm ownership than African-Americans (6.0%).<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, political philosophy and income. Readers<br />
are encouraged to review the crosstab tables held within the appendix to this report.<br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 12
4<br />
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS<br />
Readers are reminded that the narrative throughout this report refers to composite aggregate<br />
data – the 904 completed surveys. Tables throughout present national results while many<br />
graphs also present results among southern state respondents from Alabama, Arkansas,<br />
Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.<br />
ELECTION 2016<br />
Republican poll respondents were asked to think about and name their first, second and<br />
third choices for the presidential nomination in 2016. The following three tables present<br />
results on a composite basis (all Republicans), by Republican likely voters, and southern state<br />
Republican respondents. Results are in declining order by “first” choice.<br />
Republican Candidates:<br />
FIRST SECOND THIRD<br />
Composite (N=250)<br />
Businessman Donald Trump 29.2 16.8 8.8<br />
Dr. Ben Carson 19.6 10.0 9.6<br />
Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush 9.6 10.8 8.0<br />
Texas Senator Ted Cruz 8.0 12.0 6.0<br />
Unsure / Don’t Know 6.8 10.8 16.8<br />
Florida Senator Marco Rubio 5.6 8.8 9.6<br />
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul 4.0 4.8 6.0<br />
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal 3.2 1.2 2.8<br />
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie 2.8 6.0 5.2<br />
Former Arkansas Governor Mike 2.8 5.2 3.6<br />
Huckabee<br />
Former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly 2.8 5.6 10.8<br />
Fiorina<br />
Ohio Governor John Kasich 1.2 1.2 2.0<br />
Someone else 1.2 0.8 2.0<br />
New York Congressman Peter King 0.8 0.0 0.4<br />
Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick 0.8 2.8 3.6<br />
Santorum<br />
South Carolina Senator Lindsey<br />
0.8 0.0 2.0<br />
Graham<br />
Former Ambassador John Bolton 0.4 0.4 2.0<br />
Indiana Governor Mike Pence 0.4 1.2 0.0<br />
Former New York Governor George 0.0 0.0 0.8<br />
Pataki<br />
Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore 0.0 0.8 0.0<br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 13
Republican Candidates:<br />
FIRST SECOND THIRD<br />
Republican Likely Voters (N=209)<br />
Businessman Donald Trump 29.7 16.3 9.1<br />
Dr. Ben Carson 22.0 11.5 10.0<br />
Texas Senator Ted Cruz 9.1 12.0 5.7<br />
Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush 8.6 9.6 7.2<br />
Florida Senator Marco Rubio 5.3 9.6 11.0<br />
Unsure / Don’t Know 4.8 8.1 15.3<br />
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul 3.8 5.7 6.7<br />
Former Arkansas Governor Mike 3.3 5.7 4.3<br />
Huckabee<br />
Former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly 2.9 5.3 12.0<br />
Fiorina<br />
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie 2.4 5.7 4.8<br />
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal 1.9 1.0 2.9<br />
Someone else 1.4 1.0 1.9<br />
New York Congressman Peter King 1.0 0.0 0.5<br />
Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick 1.0 3.3 2.9<br />
Santorum<br />
Ohio Governor John Kasich 1.0 1.4 1.9<br />
South Carolina Senator Lindsey<br />
1.0 0.0 0.5<br />
Graham<br />
Former Ambassador John Bolton 0.5 0.5 1.9<br />
Indiana Governor Mike Pence 0.5 1.4 0.0<br />
Former New York Governor George 0.0 1.0 0.5<br />
Pataki<br />
Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore 0.0 1.0 0.0<br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 14
Republican Candidates:<br />
FIRST SECOND THIRD<br />
Southern States (N=72)<br />
Businessman Donald Trump 30.6 16.7 12.5<br />
Dr. Ben Carson 15.3 11.1 8.3<br />
Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush 12.5 12.5 9.7<br />
Texas Senator Ted Cruz 6.9 4.2 6.9<br />
Unsure / Don’t Know 6.9 11.1 20.8<br />
Florida Senator Marco Rubio 5.6 13.9 5.6<br />
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal 5.6 2.8 4.2<br />
Former Arkansas Governor Mike 5.6 4.2 2.8<br />
Huckabee<br />
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul 2.8 5.6 2.8<br />
South Carolina Senator Lindsey<br />
2.8 0.0 2.8<br />
Graham<br />
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie 1.4 5.6 6.9<br />
Former Ambassador John Bolton 1.4 0.0 0.0<br />
Ohio Governor John Kasich 1.4 0.0 1.4<br />
Former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly 1.4 2.8 6.9<br />
Fiorina<br />
New York Congressman Peter King 0.0 0.0 0.0<br />
Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick 0.0 5.6 5.6<br />
Santorum<br />
Indiana Governor Mike Pence 0.0 0.0 0.0<br />
Former New York Governor George 0.0 1.4 1.4<br />
Pataki<br />
Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore 0.0 1.4 0.0<br />
Someone else 0.0 1.4 1.4<br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 15
Democratic poll respondents were asked to think about and name their first, second and<br />
third choices for the presidential nomination in 2016. The following three tables present<br />
results on a composite basis (all Democratic respondents), by Democratic likely voters and<br />
southern state Democratic respondents. Results are in declining order by “first” choice.<br />
Democratic Candidates:<br />
FIRST SECOND THIRD<br />
Composite (N=300)<br />
Former Secretary of State Hillary 52.7 22.7 13.3<br />
Clinton<br />
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders 18.7 11.0 13.3<br />
Vice President Joe Biden 13.3 34.7 14.3<br />
Unsure / don’t know 7.3 12.0 29.0<br />
Virginia Senator Mark Warner 2.0 1.3 1.3<br />
Former Virginia Senator Jim Webb 1.7 1.0 2.7<br />
Someone else 1.7 2.3 3.3<br />
New York Governor Andrew<br />
1.3 3.7 4.7<br />
Cuomo<br />
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth 0.7 5.0 7.0<br />
Warren<br />
Former Massachusetts Governor 0.7 0.3 1.0<br />
Deval Patrick<br />
New Jersey Senator Corey Booker 0.7 1.0 1.3<br />
Former Maryland Governor Martin 0.3 2.7 4.3<br />
O’Malley<br />
Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar 0.3 0.7 1.3<br />
Colorado Governor John<br />
0.3 0.3 0.3<br />
Hickenlooper<br />
New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand 0.0 0.7 1.3<br />
Former Rhode Island Governor<br />
Lincoln Chafee<br />
0.0 0.7 1.3<br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 16
Democratic Candidates:<br />
FIRST SECOND THIRD<br />
Democratic Likely Voters<br />
(N=240)<br />
Former Secretary of State Hillary 52.9 22.9 12.1<br />
Clinton<br />
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders 18.8 12.5 15.0<br />
Vice President Joe Biden 13.8 32.9 16.3<br />
Unsure / don’t know 6.7 10.8 25.4<br />
Virginia Senator Mark Warner 2.1 0.8 1.3<br />
New York Governor Andrew<br />
1.7 4.2 5.4<br />
Cuomo<br />
Someone else 1.3 2.9 2.9<br />
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth 0.8 5.4 6.7<br />
Warren<br />
New Jersey Senator Corey Booker 0.8 1.3 1.3<br />
Former Maryland Governor Martin 0.4 2.5 5.0<br />
O’Malley<br />
Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar 0.4 0.4 1.7<br />
Colorado Governor John<br />
0.4 0.4 0.4<br />
Hickenlooper<br />
Former Massachusetts Governor 0.0 0.4 0.8<br />
Deval Patrick<br />
New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand 0.0 0.4 1.7<br />
Former Virginia Senator Jim Webb 0.0 1.3 2.9<br />
Former Rhode Island Governor<br />
Lincoln Chafee<br />
0.0 0.8 1.3<br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 17
Democratic Candidates:<br />
FIRST SECOND THIRD<br />
Southern State Democrats<br />
Former Secretary of State Hillary 50.8 20.3 11.9<br />
Clinton<br />
Vice President Joe Biden 13.8 28.8 8.5<br />
Unsure / don’t know 10.2 15.3 27.1<br />
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders 8.5 15.3 3.4<br />
Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar 6.8 3.4 1.7<br />
Virginia Senator Mark Warner 6.8 0.0 1.7<br />
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth 3.4 6.8 6.8<br />
Warren<br />
Someone else 3.4 1.7 1.7<br />
Former Maryland Governor Martin 1.7 1.7 10.2<br />
O’Malley<br />
New York Governor Andrew<br />
1.7 3.4 1.7<br />
Cuomo<br />
Colorado Governor John<br />
1.7 0.0 15.3<br />
Hickenlooper<br />
Former Massachusetts Governor 0.0 0.0 1.7<br />
Deval Patrick<br />
New Jersey Senator Corey Booker 0.0 0.0 3.4<br />
New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand 0.0 0.0 0.0<br />
Former Virginia Senator Jim Webb 0.0 3.4 3.4<br />
Former Rhode Island Governor<br />
Lincoln Chafee<br />
0.0 0.0 1.7<br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 18
All respondents were asked which presidential traits, characteristics or positions will be<br />
important to them in their own vote for President in 2016. Results are presented on a<br />
composite basis, among likely voters and southern state respondents. Multiple responses<br />
were accepted. Results are presented in declining order by “likely voters”.<br />
The most important traits or positions to respondents included cutting taxes, increasing<br />
worldwide status, spending on education, and a strong stance against illegal immigration.<br />
Important Presidential Traits,<br />
Characteristics or Positions<br />
Composite<br />
N=1000<br />
Likely<br />
Voters<br />
N=729<br />
South<br />
N=213<br />
Supports cutting taxes 44.5 45.4 39.9<br />
Plans to improve and increase 43.8 44.9 46.0<br />
U.S. status worldwide<br />
Wants more spending on<br />
42.0 40.7 41.3<br />
education<br />
Strong stance against illegal 35.6 40.3 38.0<br />
immigration<br />
Plans to repeal and end Obama 32.1 34.0 37.1<br />
Care or the Affordable Care Act<br />
Will stand up to Russian leaders 29.0 33.1 25.8<br />
Has a business background 28.6 31.8 31.0<br />
Is pro-choice 28.1 28.7 25.4<br />
Is mostly conservative 24.4 28.3 31.0<br />
Favors gun control(s) 26.7 28.3 25.8<br />
Plans to spend money to reduce 23.2 23.6 16.9<br />
global climate change<br />
Favors allowing trained faculty to 21.4 23.5 24.9<br />
carry arms on college campuses<br />
Will defund Planned Parenthood 18.9 22.1 22.5<br />
Will build the Keystone XL 16.6 20.3 15.5<br />
pipeline<br />
Is a parent 21.2 19.6 24.9<br />
Wants to increase military<br />
16.5 19.1 16.0<br />
spending<br />
Served in the military 15.6 15.4 16.4<br />
Is mostly liberal 15.0 14.7 10.3<br />
Has not held elective office 10.2 10.4 6.6<br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 19
The survey on political issues included a question asking each respondent if they have, prior<br />
to this poll, ever been surveyed by a pollster. Results are presented in the following graph.<br />
Ever Surveyed by a Pollster?<br />
13.9<br />
15.9<br />
12.3<br />
YES<br />
Composite Likely Voters South<br />
Respondents who have been polled were asked if they have ever lied to a pollster. Nearly<br />
one-fifth, suggested they have been less than honest with the pollsters. Results are presented<br />
in the following graph.<br />
Every Lied to a Pollster?<br />
18.4 18.8<br />
21.4<br />
YES<br />
Composite Likely Voters South<br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 20
THE ILLUSION OF PRIVACY<br />
The following section of the poll centered on perceptions of and experiences with internet<br />
or online personal data security issues.<br />
Respondents were asked to indicate the ways they access the internet. The following graph<br />
presents the results as collected in April and October, <strong>2015</strong>. Multiple responses were<br />
accepted.<br />
WATCHES<br />
TV<br />
SMARTPHONE<br />
PADS OR TABLETS<br />
LAPTOP<br />
COMPUTER<br />
0.9<br />
2.6<br />
1<br />
1.4<br />
18<br />
20.1<br />
24<br />
24.8<br />
69<br />
62.1<br />
64.2<br />
62.8<br />
45.5<br />
42.4<br />
49<br />
49.1<br />
72.3<br />
67.1<br />
73.5<br />
73<br />
59.2<br />
62.3<br />
66.7<br />
68.8<br />
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80<br />
South October <strong>2015</strong> US October <strong>2015</strong> South April <strong>2015</strong> US April <strong>2015</strong><br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 21
Poll participants were asked how secure they believed their personal data and information is<br />
when they are using the internet. Nearly three-quarters, 77.1%, indicated very (29.2%) or<br />
somewhat secure (47.8%). Another 16.6% suggested not very (12.4%) or not at all secure<br />
(4.2%). Results are presented here.<br />
How Secure is Personal Data Online?<br />
65.4<br />
63.7<br />
77.1<br />
80.3<br />
30.9<br />
29.4<br />
16.6<br />
23 20.1<br />
13.6 12.4 11.3<br />
VERY & SOMEWHAT SECURE NOT VERY / NOT AT ALL SECURE UNSURE<br />
US April <strong>2015</strong> South April <strong>2015</strong> US October <strong>2015</strong> South October <strong>2015</strong><br />
Respondents were asked how believable it is when they see “Sign in Using Our Secure<br />
Network” at the websites of their banks and favorite stores or vendors. Nearly one-fifth,<br />
16.4%, suggested they find the security description either somewhat unbelievable (10.8%) or<br />
not at all believable (5.6%). Some, 6.6%, were unsure. Results are presented here.<br />
Believable? "Sign in Using Our Secure<br />
Network"?<br />
70.9<br />
68.6<br />
77<br />
79.8<br />
23.2<br />
24.5<br />
16.4<br />
12.7<br />
5.9<br />
6.9<br />
6.6<br />
7.5<br />
VERY & SOMEWHAT BELIEVABLE SOMEWHAT UNBELIEVABLE /<br />
NOT AT ALL<br />
CATEGORY 3<br />
US April <strong>2015</strong> South April <strong>2015</strong> US October <strong>2015</strong> South October <strong>2015</strong><br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 22
Respondents were asked for their own perception of privacy when they use browsers such as<br />
Google, Bing, Safari, Internet Explorer or Firefox. Over one-third, 38.4%, suggested their<br />
browsing and browsing history were somewhat public (27.3%) or very public (11.1%).<br />
Another 54.7% indicated they believed their browsing was very private (14.7%) or somewhat<br />
private (40.0%). Results are depicted in the following graph.<br />
How Private/Public is Your Own Browsing?<br />
54.7<br />
59.2<br />
53.8<br />
52.4<br />
41.4<br />
42.7<br />
38.4<br />
33.8<br />
4.8<br />
4.9<br />
3<br />
VERY & SOMEWHAT PRIVATE SOMEWHAT AND VERY PUBLIC UNSURE<br />
US April <strong>2015</strong> South April <strong>2015</strong> US October <strong>2015</strong> South October <strong>2015</strong><br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 23
All respondents, in October, <strong>2015</strong>, were asked to indicate how private they believed their<br />
messages are when using social media such as Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter. The<br />
following graph displays the results as collected.<br />
A majority of respondents, 50.6%, perceived their own messaging as somewhat public<br />
(24.4%) or very public (26.4%). Some, 7.6%, were unsure.<br />
How Private/Public is Your<br />
Social Media Messaging?<br />
41.8<br />
43.7<br />
50.6<br />
49.8<br />
7.6<br />
6<br />
VERY OR SOMEWHAT PRIVATE SOMEWHAT OR VERY PUBLIC UNSURE<br />
US October <strong>2015</strong> South October <strong>2015</strong><br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 24
All October <strong>2015</strong> survey respondents were presented with the following: “Some may be<br />
interested in instilling stronger responsibility for your personal data among social media<br />
companies, businesses and even the government that hold your credit / credit card<br />
information. How strongly would you support or oppose the following actions when these<br />
organizations fail to keep your personal data/information secure on their servers?”<br />
All respondents were asked if they strongly agreed, somewhat agreed, somewhat disagreed or<br />
strongly disagreed with each action or remedy. The following table holds the cumulative<br />
totals for those strongly and somewhat agreeing as well as those strongly and somewhat<br />
disagreeing.<br />
Remedies Against Hacked or<br />
Unsecure Government or<br />
Business Servers<br />
Customers / users may sue a<br />
responsible entity when a<br />
breach of their data occurs that<br />
was held on their servers<br />
Regulators should force the<br />
responsible entities to pay<br />
customers/users a penalty fee<br />
for breaches of customer data<br />
held by them<br />
Customers / users are<br />
reimbursed for time and cost of<br />
damages resulting from a breach<br />
of their data by the responsible<br />
entity<br />
Regulators force the entities to<br />
pay, indefinitely, for a<br />
customer/user’s Identity Theft<br />
Service when a breach of data<br />
occurs<br />
US<br />
Agree<br />
US<br />
Disagree<br />
South<br />
Agree<br />
South<br />
Disagree<br />
79.7 10.8 44.4 7.1<br />
77.7 14.0 81.2 12.2<br />
80.5 11.5 81.7 9.3<br />
68.0 20.2 66.7 20.7<br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 25
The poll included a number of statements related to online privacy and privacy protection.<br />
Respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed with each statement. The following<br />
table presents “agreement” results nationally and in Southern states. Results are presented in<br />
declining order by those in agreement nationally in October, <strong>2015</strong>.<br />
Online Security Statements<br />
I have installed virus protection<br />
software on the majority of the<br />
devices used when connecting to<br />
the internet<br />
There is no such thing as “delete”<br />
when it comes to the internet<br />
I have posted personal information<br />
such as contact details,<br />
employment details, birthdates on<br />
social media such as Facebook,<br />
LinkedIn, Twitter or others<br />
If it means more privacy<br />
protections, I would support<br />
greater government oversight,<br />
regulation and policing of the<br />
internet<br />
I have or I know someone who<br />
has missed a job opportunity / or<br />
promotion believed to be due to<br />
posts on the internet<br />
I have made mistakes by posting<br />
such things as vacation plans or my<br />
whereabouts, photos or contact<br />
information on the internet such as<br />
on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram,<br />
or LinkedIn.<br />
I subscribe to an Identity Theft<br />
Protection service<br />
I have been surprised to find my<br />
own personal photos on the<br />
internet that I did not know were<br />
there<br />
I have been a victim of online theft<br />
of such things as photos, personal<br />
data and personal information<br />
USA<br />
April<br />
<strong>2015</strong><br />
Agree<br />
USA<br />
October<br />
<strong>2015</strong><br />
Agree<br />
South<br />
April<br />
<strong>2015</strong><br />
Agree<br />
South<br />
October<br />
<strong>2015</strong><br />
Agree<br />
82.4 76.2 84.3 78.9<br />
77.9 74.8 78.4 78.9<br />
40.1 45.3 43.6 46.9<br />
40.2 44.7 39.2 49.8<br />
28.3 28.0 27.9 32.4<br />
20.2 26.5 20.6 26.8<br />
26.2 25.3 27.5 26.8<br />
20.8 24.3 20.6 25.8<br />
24.6 23.9 20.1 27.7<br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 26
A large majority of poll respondents, 84.6%, either strongly (54.9%) or somewhat agreed<br />
(28.7%) that government employees, for security and personnel accountability reasons,<br />
should be required to use government-issued email addresses housed on government<br />
servers. Results are shown in the following graph.<br />
Requiring Government Employees to Use<br />
Government-Issued Emails Addresses on<br />
Government Servers<br />
86.6<br />
84.6<br />
85.8<br />
85<br />
7.5<br />
7.4 7.9 7.1 6 7.9 6.4 8<br />
STRONGLY & SOMEWHAT AGREE STRONGLY & SOMEWHAT DISAGREE UNSURE<br />
US April <strong>2015</strong> US October <strong>2015</strong> South April <strong>2015</strong> South October <strong>2015</strong><br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 27
LAW ENFORCEMENT AND GUN CONTROLS<br />
Ratings<br />
Law enforcement 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 />
The following graph presents the cumulative total positive ratings of one through four on<br />
the ten-point scale.<br />
Positive Ratings of Law Enforcement<br />
58.7 59.8 58.7 57.7<br />
59.2<br />
55.4 54.3 54.4<br />
55.9<br />
54.3<br />
53.5<br />
50.9<br />
41.7<br />
38.4<br />
42.8<br />
36.6 37.6<br />
34.4 35.4 34.4<br />
LOCAL POLICE DEPARTMENT<br />
COMMUNITY POLICE<br />
OFFICERS<br />
STATE POLICE<br />
TSA OFFICERS AT AIRPORTS<br />
USA South Hispanic White African-Amer<br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 28
Overall positive ratings, between September 2014 and October <strong>2015</strong>, declined somewhat on<br />
a composite basis nationally as well as within southern states. The table presented here<br />
depicts the results as collected.<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 />
National:<br />
Positive<br />
Rating<br />
Sept/2014<br />
National:<br />
Positive<br />
Rating<br />
Oct/<strong>2015</strong><br />
South:<br />
Positive<br />
Rating<br />
Sept/2014<br />
South:<br />
Positive<br />
Rating<br />
Oct/<strong>2015</strong><br />
68.6 55.4 61.7 58.7<br />
68.2 54.4 60.9 55.9<br />
my community<br />
State police officers 60.9 53.5 56.4 57.7<br />
TSA officers at airports 41.0 36.6 31.6 37.6<br />
The following table presents more detail on a national basis for the <strong>2015</strong> positive ratings (1-<br />
4) as well as neutral ratings of 5-6 and negative ratings of 7-10.<br />
Rating Police and Police<br />
Departments:<br />
NATIONAL<br />
My local police department<br />
overall<br />
The police officers in my<br />
National<br />
Positive 1-4<br />
National<br />
Neutral 5-6<br />
National<br />
Negative 7-10<br />
55.4 20.6 19.0<br />
54.4 20.0 19.7<br />
community<br />
State police officers 53.5 19.0 19.6<br />
TSA officers at airports 36.6 23.5 21.7<br />
The following table presents the detail among southern state respondents for the <strong>2015</strong><br />
positive ratings (1-4), neutral ratings of 5-6 and negative ratings of 7-10.<br />
Rating Police and Police<br />
Departments:<br />
SOUTHERN STATES<br />
My local police department<br />
overall<br />
The police officers in my<br />
South<br />
Positive 1-4<br />
South<br />
Neutral 5-6<br />
South<br />
Negative 7-10<br />
58.7 16.9 19.7<br />
55.9 17.9 20.2<br />
community<br />
State police officers 57.7 17.3 16.9<br />
TSA officers at airports 37.6 22.5 19.7<br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 29
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 they<br />
strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose each policing<br />
strategy. The following graph depicts the cumulative totals for those strongly and somewhat<br />
supporting these initiatives or strategies.<br />
Support for Policing Strategies<br />
61.8<br />
54.7<br />
58.6<br />
59.6<br />
86.3<br />
71.4<br />
82<br />
73.2<br />
91.6<br />
81.8<br />
88<br />
81.2<br />
58.6<br />
63.8<br />
58.7<br />
54.9<br />
"STOP & FRISK"<br />
COMMUITY POLICING WITH<br />
SUBSTATIONS<br />
FOOT PATROLS<br />
ACCEPTING USED MILITARY<br />
WEAPONS/EQUIPMENT<br />
USA Sept/2014 USA Oct/<strong>2015</strong> South Sept/2014 South Oct/<strong>2015</strong><br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 30
The following table presents the results on a national basis in both September, 2014 and<br />
October, <strong>2015</strong> as well as comparable data among Hispanics, whites and African-Americans<br />
in <strong>2015</strong>.<br />
USA: Support/Opposition to<br />
Policing Strategies<br />
“Stop and Frisk” – allowing<br />
officers to stop suspicious<br />
individuals to check for<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 />
for municipal use as needed<br />
National<br />
Support<br />
2014<br />
National<br />
Support<br />
<strong>2015</strong><br />
National<br />
Hispanic<br />
<strong>2015</strong><br />
National<br />
White<br />
<strong>2015</strong><br />
National<br />
African-<br />
American<br />
<strong>2015</strong><br />
61.8 54.7 49.1 58.2 44.4<br />
86.3 71.4 61.3 75.2 65.6<br />
91.6 81.8 74.0 87.2 70.9<br />
58.6 58.7 54.9 62.5 46.4<br />
Trust and Confidence<br />
Survey participants were asked to think for a moment about their own trust and confidence<br />
in police officers, police departments, and the judicial system. Each was asked to rate their<br />
trust that they would be treated in a fair, impartial and objective manner if involved<br />
with law enforcement. Each used a scale of one to ten where one meant they had strong<br />
trust and confidence and ten meant they held no trust or confidence.<br />
Two-thirds could report “trust and confidence” in their police officers or their departments<br />
– 53.5% and 53.1%, respectively.<br />
The following graph and tables present the cumulative totals for ratings of 1 – 4 (strong<br />
trust) and 7-10 (little to no trust).<br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 31
Trust and Confidence<br />
67.8 66<br />
59.4 60.2<br />
53.5 54 53.1 52.6<br />
55.6<br />
40.3<br />
55.6<br />
42.7<br />
TRUST IN POLICE OFFICERS TRUST IN POLICE DEPARTMENTS TRUST IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM<br />
US Sept/2014 US Oct/<strong>2015</strong> South Sept/2014 South Oct/<strong>2015</strong><br />
Composite results are presented in the following table for both 2014 and <strong>2015</strong> along with<br />
results among Hispanic, white and African-American <strong>2015</strong> respondents.<br />
USA: Trust<br />
and<br />
Confidence<br />
in…<br />
Trust in police<br />
officers<br />
Trust in police<br />
departments<br />
Trust in the<br />
judicial system<br />
including<br />
courts,<br />
prosecutors,<br />
and judges<br />
National<br />
September<br />
2014<br />
National<br />
October<br />
<strong>2015</strong><br />
Hispanic<br />
<strong>2015</strong><br />
White<br />
<strong>2015</strong><br />
African-<br />
American<br />
<strong>2015</strong><br />
67.8 53.5 47.4 60.2 33.8<br />
66.0 53.1 46.8 59.4 34.4<br />
55.6 40.3 35.3 43.6 36.5<br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 32
The following two tables present the results in greater detail. Each includes the overall<br />
positive ratings of 1-4, the neutral ratings of 5-6 and negative ratings of 7-10 nationally and<br />
within southern states for <strong>2015</strong>.<br />
USA: Trust and<br />
Positive 1-4 Neutral 5-6 Negative 7-10<br />
Confidence in…<br />
Trust in police officers 53.5 20.2 23.5<br />
Trust in police<br />
53.1 22.2 21.8<br />
departments<br />
Trust in the judicial<br />
system including courts,<br />
prosecutors, and judges<br />
40.3 29.2 27.8<br />
South: Trust and Positive 1-4 Neutral 5-6 Negative 7-10<br />
Confidence in…<br />
Trust in police officers 54.0 18.8 24.4<br />
Trust in police<br />
52.6 22.5 22.1<br />
departments<br />
Trust in the judicial<br />
system including courts,<br />
prosecutors, and judges<br />
42.7 30.1 23.9<br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 33
Experiences<br />
Respondents were questioned about any verbal abuse or profiling they feel they have<br />
experienced.<br />
Nearly one-third of Americans surveyed, 29.6%, suggested they have experienced verbal<br />
abuse, condescending remarks or intimidation by officers. Another 26.7% suggested they<br />
believe they were profiled as suspicious in a stop. The following graph presents the results<br />
as collected.<br />
Experiences with Law Enforcement<br />
17.1<br />
29.6<br />
29.6<br />
26.7<br />
22.6 23.3<br />
15.1<br />
23.9<br />
VERBAL ABUSE, CONDESCENSION,<br />
INTIMIDATION<br />
PROFILED BECAUSE OF APPEARANCE<br />
National 2014 National <strong>2015</strong> South 2014 South <strong>2015</strong><br />
The following table depicts <strong>2015</strong> results on a national composite basis as well as among<br />
Hispanics, whites and African-Americans.<br />
Experiences with Police<br />
Officers<br />
Verbal abuse,<br />
condescending remarks or<br />
intimidation by the<br />
officer(s)<br />
Profiled or you believe you<br />
were stopped because you<br />
“appeared” suspicious to<br />
the officer(s)<br />
USA Hispanic White African-<br />
American<br />
29.6 33.5 25.5 38.4<br />
26.7 33.5 21.4 43.0<br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 34
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 were<br />
asked if they strongly agreed, somewhat agreed, somewhat disagreed or strongly disagreed.<br />
Nearly two-thirds of all Americans, 60.9%, suggested they would be willing to pay more in<br />
taxes in order to increase pay and attract quality police officers. Just under half, 47.6%,<br />
indicated African-Americans are justified when they report fearing the police. When “don’t<br />
know” respondents are removed from the data, this percentage moves to 52.6%.<br />
The follow graph presents the national results as collected for both 2014 and <strong>2015</strong>.<br />
Strongly & Somewhat Agree<br />
60.9<br />
53.6<br />
46.3<br />
47.6<br />
44<br />
34.3<br />
11.4<br />
21.5<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 2014 USA <strong>2015</strong><br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 35
Southern State results are presented in the following graph for 2014 and <strong>2015</strong>.<br />
Strongly & Somewhat Agree<br />
55.6<br />
58.7<br />
41.4<br />
47.9<br />
46.6<br />
43.7<br />
13.5<br />
24.9<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 />
South 2014 South <strong>2015</strong><br />
The following table holds results nationally for both 2014 and <strong>2015</strong> as well as <strong>2015</strong> results<br />
among Hispanics, whites and African-Americans (A-A).<br />
Statements<br />
I would be willing to pay more in<br />
taxes to increase police pay to<br />
attract quality officers<br />
I do all that I can to avoid police<br />
officers<br />
I have taught children or my own<br />
children to avoid police officers<br />
Based on all I know or have<br />
heard, African-Americans are<br />
justified when they report fearing<br />
the police<br />
National<br />
Agree<br />
2014<br />
National<br />
Agree<br />
<strong>2015</strong><br />
Hispanic<br />
<strong>2015</strong><br />
White<br />
<strong>2015</strong><br />
A-A<br />
<strong>2015</strong><br />
60.9 53.6 56.6 55.1 46.4<br />
34.3 46.3 56.6 38.6 65.6<br />
11.4 21.5 28.3 15.0 38.4<br />
47.6 44.0 49.7 36.1 70.2<br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 36
GUN CONTROL<br />
Support / Oppose Gun Controls<br />
On gun control, respondents were asked to think for a moment about their own position<br />
and beliefs about gun control – a controversial topic in this country. Each was asked which<br />
one of three options best reflected their own personal position on gun control. A majority,<br />
79.0%, indicated they could see some limited licensing, permitting or restrictions on certain<br />
arms such as assault weapons.<br />
National Position on Gun Conrol<br />
79<br />
68.1<br />
7.2<br />
12.6<br />
9.3<br />
[VALUE]<br />
[VALUE] [VALUE]<br />
NO REGULATIONS SOME RESTRICTIONS NO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP UNSURE<br />
2014 <strong>2015</strong><br />
Southern States on Gun Control<br />
85<br />
70.4<br />
8.3<br />
13.1<br />
[VALUE]<br />
2.3 [VALUE] [VALUE]<br />
NO REGULATIONS SOME RESTRICTIONS NO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP UNSURE<br />
2014 <strong>2015</strong><br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 37
The following table holds national results for both September, 2014 and October, <strong>2015</strong> as<br />
well as results among <strong>2015</strong> Hispanic, white and African-American respondents.<br />
Statements on Gun Control<br />
National<br />
Agree<br />
2014<br />
National<br />
Agree<br />
<strong>2015</strong><br />
Hispanic<br />
<strong>2015</strong><br />
White<br />
<strong>2015</strong><br />
A-A<br />
<strong>2015</strong><br />
No regulations of any firearms 7.2 12.6 16.8 13.0 6.0<br />
Support some limited licensing, 79.0 68.1 60.7 72.3 61.6<br />
permitting, or restrictions<br />
No private ownership of firearms 9.3 12.8 13.9 10.6 20.6<br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 38
DEMOGRAPHICS<br />
Rural, Suburban or Urban?<br />
US<br />
Rural 28.4<br />
Suburban 43.0<br />
Urban 24.9<br />
Age<br />
US<br />
18 to 44 55.1<br />
45 - 64 29.8<br />
65+ 15.0<br />
Income<br />
US<br />
Under $10,000 8.4<br />
$10,000 to less than $40,000 42.0<br />
$40,000 to less than $75,000 29.3<br />
$75,000 to less than $100,000 7.8<br />
$100,000 to less than $150,000 4.8<br />
$150,000 to less than $200,000 1.3<br />
$200,000 or more 0.3<br />
Unsure 6.1<br />
Party Affiliation<br />
US<br />
Republican 29.2<br />
Democrat 31.9<br />
Independent 32.6<br />
Some other party 1.6<br />
Unsure 4.8<br />
Education<br />
US<br />
High School or less 11.9<br />
High School / GED 15.5<br />
Associates Degree 10.2<br />
Some college / technical school 28.7<br />
College / technical school graduate 24.6<br />
Postgraduate or professional degree 8.1<br />
Prefer not to disclose 0.0<br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 39
Hispanic, Latin American, Puerto Rican,<br />
US<br />
Cuban or Mexican<br />
Yes 17.3<br />
No 82.7<br />
Ethnicity (Among Non-Hispanics)<br />
US<br />
White 63.2<br />
Black, African-American 15.1<br />
Asian, Pacific Islander 3.3<br />
Aleutian, Eskimo or American Indian 1.2<br />
Other 0.7<br />
Native Hawaiian 0.2<br />
Two or more races ---<br />
Refused ---<br />
Don’t know/unsure ---<br />
Employment<br />
US<br />
Working full-time 42.7<br />
Working part-time 9.7<br />
Student unemployed 2.9<br />
Student – employed part or full-time 1.8<br />
Retired 21.9<br />
Unemployed – looking for work 4.8<br />
Unemployed – not looking for work 1.7<br />
Unemployed – unable to work / disability 4.3<br />
Homemaker 10.0<br />
Unsure - Other 0.3<br />
Gender<br />
US<br />
Male 49.9<br />
Female 50.1<br />
Institute of Government Polling Center Page 40
5<br />
APPENDIX<br />
INTERPRETATION OF AGGREGATE RESULTS<br />
The computer processed data for 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 for the question items.<br />
Responses deemed not appropriate for 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 for 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 Polling Center Page 41