JSU Fall 2014-4 Report

NATIONAL POLL REPORT 

THE POLLING CENTER 

THE INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT 

JACKSON STATE UNIVERSITY 

Fall Edition 

December 2014 

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 12 

Education Quality ................................................ 12 

Education Programs and Testing ...................... 16 

Education Funding .............................................. 20 

Infrastructure ........................................................ 24 

Demographics ...................................................... 30 

5 

SECTION 

Appendix ................................................................................................................................. Page 32 

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 quality of education today as well 

as education programs, testing and funding. In addition, respondents were surveyed about 

infrastructure in the U.S. such as roads, bridges and public facilities. 

The research study included survey responses from 908 respondents nationally 

approximately proportional to state population contribution. Additionally, the Polling Center 

completed 283 surveys among Mississippi residents. 

The national poll included the following areas for investigation: 

‣ Views on the quality of education; 

‣ Opinions on responsibility for failing schools; 

‣ Any perceived education disadvantage for children in lower income communities; 

‣ Awareness and support for “Third Grade Gate”; 

‣ Program support such as Head Start; 

‣ Importance of Pre-K education on academic success; 

‣ Perceptions of sufficiency of education funding; 

‣ Willingness to pay more in taxes to better fund public education; 

‣ Views on equitably funding public schools across jurisdictions; 

‣ Impressions of the relationship between public school performance and the 

economy; 

‣ Quality and safety of public school buildings; 

‣ Awareness and impressions of the public infrastructure nation-wide and locally; 

‣ Willingness to pay more in taxes to improve the safety and quality of public 

infrastructure; and 

‣ 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 908 online surveys nationally and 

an additional sample of 283 Mississippi residents. 

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 November 24 – December 5, 2014. 

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 908 completed surveys has an associated margin for error of 

+/- 3.5% at a 95% confidence level. The sample of Mississippi residents has an associated 

margin for error of +/-6.0%. 

Results throughout this report are presented for composite results – all 908 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). 

Further, data depicting the Mississippi sample is also presented throughout in many tables 

and graphs. 


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 EDUCATION QUALITY… 

‣ Americans surveyed provided only a passing grade for the quality of public 

education in the United States today. While 59.4% indicated the quality of 

public education was very good (9.5%) or good (49.9%), two-fifths, 38.1% 

suggested the quality was poor (30.8%) or very poor (7.3%). 

‣ Describing the quality of education in their own communities, Americans 

provided only a somewhat higher grade than they did for public schools 

nationally. Two-thirds, 67.9% indicated the quality of education in their own 

community was very good (14.8%) or good (53.1%). Nearly one-third, 29.5%, 

indicated poor (23.9%) or very poor (5.6%). 

‣ When schools are considered or declared “failing”, most Americans hold the 

local school districts and school administrators responsible – 61.2% and 52.6% 

respectively. Fewer hold the teachers and the State responsible – 42.7% and 

40.3% respectively. Some hold the students and funding or funders 

responsible – 29.4% and 25.0% respectively. 

‣ Nearly two-thirds of Americans polled, 64.0%, indicated they would 

recommend graduation rates be used to measure school success. A similar 

percentage, 60.7%, suggested student test scores be used as a metric. Fewer 

suggested teacher qualification and accomplishments or scholarships 

awarded – 39.7% and 22.6% respectively. 

‣ Large majorities of respondents nationally agreed… 

They would make a move, with young children, based largely on local 

school district quality – 82.4%; 

They see a connection between crime and public school dropout rates – 

81.6%; 

That, based on education funding levels, children in lower income 

communities are at an education disadvantage – 77.9%; and 

That, in a move, they would avoid a school district that didn’t fund Pre-K 

education – 62.7%. 


ON EDUCATION PROGRAMS AND TESTING… 

‣ Awareness of “Third Grade Gate”, the concept of testing third graders in 

public schools to ensure they meet specific standards before moving to fourth 

grade, is currently 37.7% nationally. 

‣ Support for “Third Grade Gate” was recorded at 59.5% -- 18.7% strongly and 

40.8% somewhat among Americans polled. 

‣ Respondents were presented with the following question about preparation 

for testing: “Because of affordability and availability, some children have 

more years of public school preparation prior to Third Grade Gate or similar 

testing. How strongly would you agree or disagree that, for the testing to be 

fair and effective, all tested children should receive the same preparation. 

Nearly three-quarters, 73.9%, suggested they strongly (37.0%) or somewhat 

agree (36.8%) with equitable preparation. 

‣ There exists very strong support for five public school programs nationally… 

Pre-K Education – 85.7% 

Head Start – 84.1% 

Testing at specific intervals – 80.1% 

Dropout / Student retention programs – 77.6% 

Common Core Testing – 66.0% 

‣ Strong agreement was found for current or potential public school 

initiatives… 

Students receiving Pre-K education tend to be more successful in 

school – 81.3% 

There is a role for public schools in supporting homeless children – 

71.9% 

Testing concepts should be funded by the sponsoring State or 

authority – 74.2% 


ON EDUCATION FUNDING… 

‣ Strong majorities of Americans surveyed, 67.1%, believe that public schools 

are significantly (30.3%) or somewhat (36.8%) underfunded. This percentage 

is higher among those with children (70.1%). 

‣ Two-thirds of Americans surveyed, 64.5%, indicated they were very or 

somewhat aware of local public school funding. 

‣ Respondents reported wanting to see the responsibility for funding local 

public schools shift somewhat from the local government and even state 

government to the federal government. Today, 16.1% of respondents 

suggested that most public school funding comes from the federal 

government. However, 29.6% suggested that most funding should come from 

the federal government. 

‣ While 20.7% indicated that most public school funding comes from local 

government today, just 13.2% suggest public school funding should come 

from the local government. 

‣ Importantly, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just 51.3% of Americans agreed their own state adequately funds public 

schools; 

Many are willing to pay somewhat more in taxes to better fund public 

schools – 59.3%; 

Only 33.0% agreed that public schools are equitably or evenly across 

jurisdictions; 

A majority, 70.0%, agreed that good preforming schools are generally 

better funded; 

A large majority, 78.3%, agreed that the better public schools do, the 

better the economy does; 

Nearly three-quarters, 71.2%, agreed that poor performing school are most 

likely to be situated in poorer communities; 

Three-quarters, 71.7%, would prefer to see public school funds increased 

by moving tax funds from other less important programs before increasing 

taxes; 

Many, 66.2%, support consolidation of school districts to save money; and 

A majority, 60.5%, agreed that they seek out and support candidates who 

advocate for increased public school funding. 


‣ Respondents were presented with information on unfunded mandates: 

“Sometimes the Federal or State government makes new requirements for 

programs, services or testing on local public school systems without 

providing the funds for implementation. Some refer to these as “unfunded 

mandates” leaving the municipalities to find funds to meet these new 

requirements.” When asked who is MOST responsible for funding of 

unfunded mandates, 25.8% suggested the “mandating authority” while 25.5% 

suggested the federal government and 16.1% indicated the state government. 

Few, 4.7%, suggested the local government or school districts. Another 16.6% 

noted funding should come from a combination of sources. 

‣ When extrapolated on the total population, a large percentage, 23.8%, see the 

condition of public schools as either dangerously neglected (5.6%) or 

neglected (18.2%). 

ON PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE… 

‣ Americans mostly think of roads, streets, bridges, water delivery systems, 

public school facilities and waste / drainage systems when they think of 

“infrastructure”. 

‣ Just over one-half, 58.1%, suggested they follow infrastructure issues very 

(11.9%) or somewhat closely (46.2%). 

‣ A large and growing percentage of Americans see their local infrastructure in 

dangerous disrepair – 28.9% today and 25.4% five years ago. 

‣ Similarly, a growing percentage of Americans see their national infrastructure 

in dangerous disrepair – 38.2% today and 23.8% five years ago. 


‣ Importantly, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A large majority, 80.2%, agreed that we need increased, long-term 

investment in the national infrastructure in order for the national economy 

to grow and add new jobs; 

Many (80.1%) agreed that if it’s not an emergency, too many needed 

infrastructure improvements are “kicked down the road”; 

Three-quarters, 78.6%, agreed that businesses don’t move to towns/cities 

with infrastructure in disrepair; 

Inaction or failure to improve the infrastructure will make international 

competition in economic terms difficult according to 78.6%; 

While 60.3% are willing to pay more in taxes to improve the safety and 

quality of their respective community infrastructure, 71.3% would prefer to 

see funds moved from other programs or services; 

Parents don’t move to towns/cities with school buildings in disrepair 

according to 69.6% of those surveyed; and 

Impressively, 65.5% agreed that they and friends/neighbors can have an 

impact on improving public infrastructure. 

‣ Americans see significant new funding required to get the infrastructure to where 

it could be considered “good”. Three-quarters, 75.7%, noted the investment 

required will be significant (39.0%) or somewhat more (36.7%). 

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, with/without children, marital status, 

income and political party inclination. 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 908 completed surveys. Tables throughout present national results while many 

graphs also present results southern states – Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. Further, the results 

from the Mississippi sample are also displayed throughout this report in most graphs and 

tables. 

EDUCATION QUALITY 

Readers should note that many tables and graphs displayed depicting the education poll 

results also hold data for respondents with children as well. 

All respondents were asked if they considered the quality of education in the United States 

today as very good, good, poor or very poor. Over one-half, 59.4%, indicated they 

considered education quality to be very good (9.5%) or good (49.9%). Over one-third, 

38.1%, suggested quality of education was poor (30.8%) or very poor (7.3%). 

Results are presented in the following graph. 

Quality of Education in the U.S. Today? 

59.4 

68 

56.7 

61.5 

38.1 

32.1 

39.7 

36.1 

VERY GOOD & GOOD 

POOR & VERY POOR 

USA South MS W/Children 


A similar question was posed regarding the quality of education “in your own community”. 

Results were somewhat higher and only slightly higher among Mississippi residents. 

Just over three-fifths, 67.9%, indicated that the quality of education in the respondents’ 

respective community was very good (14.8%) or good (53.1%). Nearly one-third, 29.5%, 

suggested the quality of education locally was poor (23.9%) or very poor 5.6%). 

Results are presented here. 

Quality of Education Locally Today? 

67.9 

67.2 

70.9 

58.9 

29.5 

30.5 

37.6 

27.8 

VERY GOOD & GOOD 

POOR & VERY POOR 



The following graph compares the findings for “very good and good” side by side – 

nationally and locally. 

Quality of Education Nationally & Locally? 

59.4 

68 67.9 67.2 

61.5 

56.7 

58.9 

70.9 

VERY GOOD/GOOD NATIONALLY 

VERY GOOD/GOOD LOCALLY 


All respondents were asked who is responsible when a school is considered or declared a 

“failing school”? The largest group of respondents suggest they would hold local school 

systems and boards responsible followed by teachers and school administrators. 

Results are presented in the following table in declining order by national results. Multiple 

responses were accepted. 

Who is Responsible for Failing Schools? USA South MS w/Children 

Local School System / District Boards 61.2 58.6 66.2 60.9 

School Administrators 52.6 46.9 55.2 52.7 

Teachers 42.7 43.8 48.0 44.6 

The State 40.3 39.1 34.5 38.6 

The Students 29.4 25.0 36.7 28.8 

Funding and Funders 25.0 25.0 23.1 22.9 


Respondents were asked how a school board or system should measure its own success. 

Most respondents suggested graduation rates (64.0%) and student test scores (60.7%). 

Results are presented in the following table in declining order. 

How Do You Measure School Success? USA South MS w/Children 

Graduation rates 64.0 55.5 60.1 63.2 

Student test scores 60.7 63.3 69.8 61.7 

Teacher qualification / accomplishments 39.7 28.9 41.6 38.5 

Scholarships awarded 22.6 23.4 20.6 22.7 

Unsure 10.3 10.9 9.6 9.4 

Respondents were presented with a number of statements about the quality of local school 

systems. A large majority, 82.4%, agreed (strongly or somewhat) that if moving with 

children, the move would be based largely on local public school quality. 

Each was asked to indicate if they strongly agreed, somewhat agreed, somewhat disagreed or 

strongly disagreed with the following statements. The following table presents the 

cumulative totals for those indicating they strongly or somewhat agreed with each statement. 

Characteristic USA South MS w/Children 

If I was moving and had 82.4 82.0 90.4 85.6 

young children, I would 

make the move based 

largely on local public 

school quality 

I see a connection between 81.6 75.8 89.4 83.6 

crime and public school 

drop-out rates 

Many times, based on 77.9 78.9 73.8 79.6 

education funding levels, 

children in lower income 

communities are at an 

education disadvantage 

If I was moving and had pre- 

K children, I would avoid a 

school district that didn’t 

fund public Pre-K education 

62.7 64.8 62.1 65.1 


EDUCATION PROGRAMS AND TESTING 

All respondents were presented with the following question: “How aware would you say 

you were of either “Third Grade Gate” or the concept of testing third graders in public 

schools to ensure they meet specific standards before moving to fourth grade? 

Awareness for “Third Grade Gate” was strongest among Mississippi State and southern 

state respondents as well as those with children as depicted in the following graph. The 

cumulative totals for those very and somewhat aware are presented herein. 

Awareness of "Third Grade Gate"? 

37.7 

45.3 

48.1 

43.6 

VERY & SOMEWHAT AWARE 



Respondents were informed that “Third Grade Gate” is newly enacted legislation in 

Arizona, California and Mississippi. Each was asked if they supported or opposed the 

legislation. Nearly one-quarter, 22.5%, were unsure while 59.5% indicated they strongly 

(18.7%) or somewhat supported (40.8%) the legislation. Results are presented here. 

Support/Opposition to "Third Grade Gate"? 

59.5 

56.3 

67.1 

61.7 

18.1 

18.8 

14.5 

18.6 

STRONGLY AND SOMEWHAT SUPPORT 

STRONGLY AND SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 

USA South MS w/Children 


Respondents were presented with the following question about preparation for testing: 

“Because of affordability and availability, some children have more years of public school 

preparation prior to Third Grade Gate or similar testing. How strongly would you agree or 

disagree that, for the testing to be fair and effective, all tested children should receive the 

same preparation. Nearly three-quarters, 73.9%, suggested they strongly (37.0%) or 

somewhat agree (36.8%) with equitable preparation. Results are presented here. 

Agree with Equitable Test Preparation? 

73.9 

71.1 

76.7 

75.8 

15.4 

18 

15.9 

16.3 

STRONGLY AND SOMEWHAT AGREE 

STRONGLY AND SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 


All respondents were asked if they supported or opposed five different public school 

programs. Each was asked if they strongly supported, somewhat supported, somewhat 

opposed or strongly opposed each of the five programs. 

Large majorities strongly or somewhat supported both Pre-K Education and the Head Start 

Program -- 85.7% and 84.1% respectively. 


The following table presents the cumulative totals for those strongly and somewhat 

supporting each of the five programs measured. Results are presented in declining order by 

national composite results. 

Public School Program USA South MS w/Children 

Pre-K Education 85.7 82.8 87.6 89.5 

Head Start 84.1 84.4 80.2 90.3 

Testing at specific intervals 80.1 76.6 83.7 83.3 

Drop Out / Student Retention 77.6 68.8 80.6 81.4 

Programs 

Common Core Testing 

(Common Core State Standards 

define expectations, state-bystate, 

for what students should 

know and be able to do by the 

end of each grade. Common 

Core is not tied to the federal 

No Child Left Behind Program) 

66.0 58.6 53.7 70.1 

Respondents were presented with a number of statements about public schools. Each was 

asked to indicate, for each, if they strongly agreed, somewhat agreed, somewhat disagreed or 

strongly disagreed. Large majorities of respondents, 81.3%, agreed that students who receive 

Pre-K education tend to be more successful in school. There exists even stronger agreement 

among respondents with children – 85.6% 

Results are presented in declining order by national composite results. 


Students receiving Pre-K 81.3 78.9 82.3 85.6 

education tend to be more 

successful in school 

There is role a for public 71.9 65.6 72.4 74.2 

schools in more 

comprehensively supporting 

homeless children 

Testing concepts, such as 

“Third Grade Gate”, should 

be funded by the sponsoring 

State or authority 

74.2 70.3 78.1 77.3 


EDUCATION FUNDING 

Majorities of respondents, nationally, believe that public schools are significantly or 

somewhat underfunded. All respondents were asked if they felt public schools were 

significantly underfunded, somewhat underfunded, receive reasonable and balanced funding, 

are over-funded, or are significantly over-funded. 

Those suggesting public schools are significantly or somewhat underfunded are shown in the 

following graph. Urban, suburban and rural respondent results are included in this graph. 

Public Schools Underfunded? 

67.1 

69.5 67.3 

70.1 68.3 66.5 

69.2 

SIGNIFICANTLY OR SOMEWHAT UNDERFUNDED 

USA South MS w/Children Rural Suburban Urban 

Results are presented here in greater detail. 

Perceptions of Public School USA South MS w/Children 

Funding 

Significantly underfunded 30.3 34.4 32.7 32.1 

Somewhat underfunded 36.8 35.2 34.5 38.0 

Receive reasonable and balanced 18.7 17.2 20.3 18.7 

funding 

Over-funded 6.3 2.3 7.5 6.5 

Significantly over-funded 2.0 1.6 0.4 1.3 

Unsure 5.9 9.4 4.6 3.3 

Total: Significantly & Somewhat 

Underfunded 

67.1 69.5 67.3 70.1 


Nearly two-thirds, 64.5%, of all respondents reported being very (18.5%) or somewhat 

(46.1%) aware of the funding and funding levels for their own municipal public schools. 

The following graph presents the cumulative totals for those reporting very and somewhat 

aware of local funding as well as the cumulative totals for those reporting somewhat unaware 

and not at all aware. 

Awareness of Local Public School Funding 

64.5 

56.3 

63.3 

69.1 

27.2 

32.8 

28.8 

25.9 

VERY & SOMEWHAT AWARE 

SOMEWHAT UNAWARE AND NOT AT ALL AWARE 


Respondents were first asked where most public school funding comes from today. 

This was followed by asking all respondents where most public school funding should 

come from for public schools. Results show interest in stronger Federal funding of local 

education. 

Where DOES most public school Federal State Local Unsure 

funding come from today? Government Government Government 

USA 16.1 49.2 20.7 14.0 

South 22.7 45.3 18.0 14.1 

MS 21.0 50.0 14.2 14.6 

Where SHOULD most public Federal State Local Unsure 

school funding come from? Government Government Government 

USA 29.6 43.7 13.2 13.5 

South 32.8 39.1 13.3 14.8 

MS 30.2 44.5 12.1 13.2 


The poll included a number of statements about public school funding. Each respondent 

was asked to indicate, for each, if they strongly agreed, somewhat agreed, somewhat 

disagreed or strongly disagreed. Results are presented for the cumulative totals of those 

strongly and somewhat agreeing. Results are presented in declining order by national data. 


My own state adequately 51.3 47.7 45.9 55.0 

funds local public school 

education 

I am willing to pay somewhat 59.3 64.8 63.7 61.7 

more in taxes to better fund 

public schools in my 

community 

Public schools are funded 33.0 36.7 27.4 33.3 

equitably or evenly across 

jurisdictions or from 

municipality to municipality 

Good performing public 70.5 68.0 69.8 70.4 

schools are generally better 

funded schools 

The better our public schools 78.3 72.7 86.1 80.1 

do, the better our economy 

does 

Poor performing public 71.2 71.9 72.2 72.2 

schools are most likely to be 

situated in poorer 

communities 

Instead of tax increases, we 71.7 71.9 70.8 74.9 

should move tax funds from 

other less important 

programs or services to 

increase public school 

funding 

We should consolidate 66.2 63.3 68.3 67.7 

school districts to allocate 

more to education programs, 

teachers and students 

When I vote, I specifically 

support candidates who 

advocate for increased public 

school funding 

60.5 64.8 63.3 64.2 


The poll included the following question: “Sometimes the Federal or State government 

makes new requirements for programs, services or testing on local public school systems 

without providing the funds for implementation. Some refer to these as “unfunded 

mandates” leaving the municipalities to find funds to meet these new requirements. In your 

view, who should be most responsible for funding these “unfunded mandates”? 

Results are presented here. 

Who is MOST Responsible for USA South MS w/Children 

Funding Unfunded Mandates 

The mandating authority 25.8 22.7 28.1 28.4 

The Federal Government 25.5 19.5 24.9 25.6 

The State Government 16.1 19.5 12.1 16.7 

The Local Government/School 4.7 5.5 4.6 4.7 

Districts 

A combination 16.6 21.1 21.4 16.6 

Unsure 11.3 11.7 8.9 8.0 

Respondents were asked to report on the condition of the public school system buildings in 

their respective communities. Nearly one-quarter, 23.8%, see their school facilities/buildings 

as dangerously neglected or neglected. This percentage is significantly higher among urban 

respondents at 36.9% and somewhat lower among rural and suburban residents at 20.7% 

and 20.0% respectively. 

Results are presented in the following table. 

Condition of Public School USA South MS w/Children 

Buildings in your Community 

Dangerously neglected 5.6 7.8 5.3 5.7 

Neglected 18.2 19.5 15.7 19.7 

In fair to good shape 50.2 43.0 50.2 51.5 

In excellent shape 17.7 19.5 21.7 18.2 

Unsure 8.3 10.2 7.1 4.8 

Total: Dangerously neglected or 

neglected 

23.8 27.3 21.0 25.4 


INFRASTRUCTURE 

Americans mostly think of roads, streets, bridges, water delivery systems, public school 

facilities and waste / drainage systems when they think of “infrastructure”. 

Respondents were asked to report what comes to mind or what they think most about when 

they hear “infrastructure”. The following table presents the results as collected in declining 

order of mention by national data. 

What Comes to Mind 

When You Hear 

“Infrastructure” 

Percent of 

Americans 

Percent of 

Southerners 

Percent of 

Mississippians 

Roads and streets 77.5 75.0 85.1 

Bridges 68.3 68.8 74.4 

Public school facilities 54.4 46.1 53.7 

Water delivery systems 53.2 51.6 58.4 

Waste systems 47.2 48.4 52.0 

Utility systems – gas, water, 44.8 42.2 49.1 

electric, phone, internet 

Rail systems 43.8 44.5 44.8 

Public buildings 39.8 35.2 41.6 

Public facilities 36.7 32.8 39.5 

Public works equipment 30.4 26.6 33.1 

Aviation (air travel facilities 

and equipment) 

Maritime 

(ports/docks/transportation) 

24.0 23.4 25.6 

22.4 18.0 26.7 

Following this question, the following was presented to respondents to help guide them with 

the scope for this series of questions: “For our purposes today, we’ll define “infrastructure” 

as the public roads, rail transport, bridges, water delivery systems and drainage, public 

buildings, waste systems, schools, public works equipment and gas systems that we all use.” 


All respondents were asked how closely they follow the issue of infrastructure quality such as 

aging and repair issues. Just over one-half of all respondents, 58.1%, suggested they follow 

the issue very (11.9%), or somewhat closely (46.2%). Another 37.3% indicated “not very 

closely” (31.2%) or “not at all” (6.1%). The results are presented in the following graph. 

How Closely Do You Follow Infrastructure 

Issues? 

58.1 

59.4 

53.4 

37.3 

35.9 

41.9 

VERY AND SOMEWHAT CLOSELY 

NOT VERY OR NOT AT ALL CLOSELY 

USA South MS 


All respondents were asked to rate their respective local infrastructure using a scale of one to 

ten where one meant the infrastructure was in dangerous disrepair and ten meant the 

infrastructure was in excellent condition. The following tables present cumulative totals for 

those one through four – “dangerous disrepair”. 

Rating LOCAL Infrastructure 

Today 

Dangerous 

Disrepair 

USA 28.9 

South 25.8 

MS 33.8 

Rating LOCAL Infrastructure 

Five Years Ago 

Dangerous 

Disrepair 

USA 25.4 

South 32.8 

MS 29.5 

In the following tables, respondents, using the same scale of one to ten, rated the 

infrastructure nationally today and five years ago. 

Rating NATIONAL 

Infrastructure Today 

Dangerous 

Disrepair 

USA 38.2 

South 37.5 

MS 34.9 

Rating NATIONAL 

Infrastructure Five Years Ago 

Dangerous 

Disrepair 

USA 23.8 

South 35.2 

MS 29.2 


Respondents were provided a number of statements about the infrastructure in many cities 

and towns. Each was asked to indicate if they strongly agreed, somewhat agreed, somewhat 

disagreed or strongly disagreed. The following table presents the cumulative totals for those 

strongly or somewhat agreeing with each of the infrastructure statements. Results are 

presented in declining order of agreement according to national data. 

A strong majority, 80.2%, see a direct correlation between a growing economy and longterm 

investment in the national infrastructure. Further, a majority (60.3%) would be willing 

to pay more in taxes to improve the safety and quality of their own community’s 

infrastructure. 

Statements USA South MS 

For our national economy to grow and 80.2 78.1 82.2 

add new jobs, we need increased longterm 

investment in our national 

infrastructure 

If it is not an emergency, too many needed 80.1 78.9 82.9 

infrastructure improvements nationally are 

delayed, postponed or “kicked down the 

road” 

In general, businesses don’t move to 78.6 76.6 86.5 

towns or cities with infrastructure in 

disrepair 

Inaction or our failure to improve our 78.6 74.2 71.8 

infrastructure will make it more 

difficult to compete internationally in 

economic terms 

Politicians avoid critical long-term 75.0 74.2 77.9 

infrastructure needs because spending 

is unpopular with voters 

I would prefer to see funds moved from 71.3 68.0 74.0 

other programs and services to fund 

infrastructure improvements rather than 

raise taxes 

In general, parents don’t move to towns or 69.6 71.1 77.2 

cities with school buildings in disrepair 

I, along with friends/neighbors can have 65.5 66.4 70.1 

an impact on improving public 

infrastructure 

I’m willing to pay reasonably more in taxes 

to improve the safety and quality of my 

own community’s infrastructure 

60.3 62.5 58.7 


Respondents were asked how much more funding would be required to get the 

infrastructure, nationally, to where it could be considered good. 

Strong majorities suggest significantly or somewhat more funding will be required as shown 

in the following graph. 

Degree New Funding Required for 

Infrastructure? 

75.7 

74 

70.8 

14.5 

13.4 

15.3 

SIGNIFICANTLY OR SOMEWHAT MORE FUNDING 

CURRENT LEVEL/NO ADDITIONAL FUNDING NEEDED 

USA South MS 


All respondents were asked where they go or where they would go for information about the 

status of the infrastructure in their respective communities. Primary sources for information 

include town halls, the internet, TV news, newspapers and government agencies. 

Results are presented in declining order. Multiple responses were allowed. 

Characteristic 

USA 

Town / City Hall 45.7 

Internet / websites / emails 35.3 

TV news 34.4 

Newspaper stories 34.3 

Government agencies 30.9 

Chambers of Commerce 24.6 

Community organizations 22.7 

Environmental & Conservation groups 20.6 

Utilities / Power Companies 17.9 

Utility websites 17.0 

Radio news 15.5 

TV ads 15.2 

Regional Development Corps 14.3 

Newspaper ads 13.6 

Friends / family 12.8 

Businesses or schools 11.9 

Radio ads 9.8 

Small Business Administration 8.6 

Financial institutions 7.9 

Brochures 7.8 

Senior organizations 5.9 

Bill inserts 5.8 


DEMOGRAPHICS 

Rural, Suburban or Urban? 

US 

Rural 25.3 

Suburban 47.9 

Urban 23.8 

Age 

US 

18 to 44 42.2 

45 - 64 38.3 

65+ 19.4 

Income 

US 

Under $10,000 4.0 

$10,000 to less than $40,000 26.4 

$40,000 to less than $75,000 25.5 

$75,000 to less than $100,000 16.6 

$100,000 to less than $150,000 14.1 

$150,000 to less than $200,000 5.3 

$200,000 or more 2.9 

Unsure 5.3 

Party Affiliation 

US 

Republican 24.9 

Democrat 32.4 

Independent 33.4 

Some other party 1.9 

Unsure 7.3 


Education 

US 

High School or less 9.7 

High School / GED 13.1 

Associates Degree 6.9 

Some college / technical school 22.6 

College / technical school graduate 28.6 

Postgraduate or professional degree 18.9 

Prefer not to disclose 0.4 

Hispanic, Latin American, Puerto Rican, 

US 

Cuban or Mexican 

Yes 16.6 

No 82.5 

Ethnicity (Among Non-Hispanics) 

US 

White 79.0 

Black, African-American 15.0 

Asian, Pacific Islander 3.1 

Aleutian, Eskimo or American Indian 0.9 

Other 1.6 

Native Hawaiian 0.4 

Two or more races --- 

Refused --- 

Don’t know/unsure --- 

Children under 18 living at home 

US 

None 33.3 

One 18.9 

Two 26.2 

Three 12.8 

Four 5.0 

Five or more 3.8 

Don’t know --- 

Refused --- 

Gender 

US 

Male 46.6 

Female 53.4 


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 2014-4 Report

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?