FIELD RESEARCH CORPORATION

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "FIELD RESEARCH CORPORATION"

Ada Bishop
5 years ago
Views:

1 FIELD RESEARCH CORPORATION FOUNDED IN 1945 BY MERVIN FIELD 61 California Street San Francisco, California Tabulations from a Field Poll Survey of California Registered Voters About the State Economy, Voters Financial Well-Being and the Amount They Have to Pay in Federal and State Income Taxes - prepared for the - Sacramento Bee and Capitol Alert April 15, 216 1

2 Introduction This volume presents the statistical data developed from a Field Poll survey of registered voters in California conducted among 8 registered voters March 24-April 3, 216 about the about the state s economy, voters financial well-being and the amount they have to pay in federal and state income taxes. The survey was administered by telephone in English and Spanish by live interviewers. In order to cover a broad range of issues and still minimize respondent fatigue, the questions were asked of a random subsample of 4 registered voters statewide. Sampling Individual voters were sample at random from listings derived from the statewide voter registration rolls. Once a voter s name and telephone had been selected, interviews are attempted only with the specified voter. Interviews can be conducted on either the voter s landline or cell phone, depending on the source of the telephone listing from the voter file and the preference of the voter. Prior to the start of data collection, professionally-trained telephone interviewers were briefed with regard to the survey s proper calling and interviewing procedures by the Study Director. This session provided both interviewers and supervisors with an overview of the study and includes a question-by-question review of all items in the survey. Interviewers then completed survey interviews by telephone through the computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) system. CATI controls the telephone scripts read to individual respondents by displaying the appropriate questionnaire items and their valid response code alternatives in their proper sequence on computer screens at each interviewer's booth. The interviewer then reads each question aloud to the respondent from the screen and enters each respondent's pre-coded answer category through the keyboard directly to a computer disk. All answers are automatically stored in computer memory. In order to bring hard-to-reach respondents into the survey, up to four attempts were made to each telephone number selected for inclusion into the sample. Callbacks were made at different times and on different days to increase the probability of finding voters available for the interview. Where possible, appointments are made at specified dates and times to maximize convenience. 2

3 Data Processing The data file resulting from CATI interviewing is itself virtually error-free. Even so, a final series of data checks were performed by means of a specially designed cleaning program that scrutinizes each respondent record for internally inconsistent information. Once the data were determined to be clean and error-free, the overall sample was weighted to align it to its proper statewide proportions by demographic characteristics of the state s registered voter population. Guide to Reading the Tables The following is an explanation of the detailed statistical tabulations contained in this report: The question or questions upon which the data are based is shown at the top of each table. Tables are percentaged vertically with the raw percentage base appearing at the top of each column. The data have been weighted to known parameters of the statewide registered voter population. All percentages and frequencies reported in each table are therefore weighted tabulations. In instances where percentages are calculated on small bases (e.g., when the base is fewer than 1 respondents) the reader is urged to interpret the data with caution, since results are subject to larger levels of sampling error. Throughout the tables an asterisk is used to denote a value of less than 1/2 of 1%. A hyphen indicates zero value. On some tables the percentages may add to more than 1% due to multiple mentions. Bases of subgroups used in the tabulations may add to less than the total number of respondents due to some respondents not reporting that characteristic. 3

4 Subgroup Definitions The following are some of the definitions applicable to some of the voter subgroups reported in this volume: Southern California: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Imperial, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Kern, and San Luis Obispo counties Northern California: all other 48 California counties SF Bay/North/ Coast: San Francisco, Marin, Napa, Sonoma, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Del Norte, Humboldt, Trinity, Mendocino, Santa Cruz, and Monterey counties Valley/ Sierras: Coastal Counties: Inland counties: Los Angeles: San Diego/Orange: So Cal: SF Bay Area: Valley: North Butte, Colusa, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo, Yuba, Siskiyou, Modoc, Lassen, Plumas, Butte, Lake, Sierra, Nevada, El Dorado, Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Tuolumne, Mono, Mariposa, and Inyo counties San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, Santa Cruz, San Mateo, San Francisco, Contra Costa, Alameda, Marin, Napa, Solano, Sonoma, Santa Clara, Mendocino, Humboldt and Del Norte counties all other 38 California counties Los Angeles County San Diego County and Orange counties San Bernardino, Riverside, Imperial, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo San Francisco, Marin, Napa, Sonoma, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo Butte, Colusa, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo, and Yuba Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Del Norte, El Dorado, Humboldt, Inyo, Lake, Lassen, Mariposa, Mendocino, Monterey, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Plumas, San Benito, Santa Cruz, Sierra, Siskiyou, Trinity, and Tuolumne 4

5 Estimates of Sampling Error In any survey based on a sampling, there is some sampling error introduced into the data by the process of sampling itself. When the sample has been drawn using random processes, it is possible to apply probability principles to determine the potential range of such error. While survey samples of human populations rarely, if ever, meet all of the criteria theoretically required for the application of these principles, it is customary to use them as an approximation of error that is introduced as a result of sampling. The table below shows the range of error associated with samples of various sizes at the 95% confidence level, which is customary for most public opinion surveys. For example, if 5% of the overall sample of 8 registered voters answered yes to a specific question, this statistic would have a sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. Approximate percentage distribution of replies to question Sample size 1% 3% 5% 7% 9% 1 +/- 6. +/ /- 1. +/ / / / / / / /- 3. +/ /- 5. +/ / / / / / /- 2.1 There are many other possible sources of error other than sampling variability in this and any other public opinion survey. The overall design and execution of the survey minimized the potential for these other sources of error. 5

6 Questions Asked How would you generally describe economic conditions in California right now? Would you say that economically, California is in good times or bad times right now? Would you say that you and your family are financially better off or worse off today than you were a year ago? Do you consider the amount of federal and state income taxes that you and your family have to pay is too high, about right or too low? 6

7 Q28 (Banner 1Base: Registered Voters (Form A) Field Poll 216 Late March/Early April 216 Total Southern CA Northern CA SF Bay /North/ Coast Region Area Party Registration Valley /Sierras Coastal counties Inland counties L.A. County San Diego/ Orange So. CA Q28. How would you generally describe economic conditions in California right now? Would you say that economically, California is in good times or bad times right now? Unweighted Base Weighted Base % 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% GOOD TIMES % 35.4% 45.1% 51.7% 36.5% 43.1% 3.2% 39.4% 38.6% 23.6% 36.2% 53.9% 35.5% 43.% 23.2% 49.1% 37.6% 42.4% 32.6% 34.% 37.5% BAD TIMES % 47.6% 43.2% 38.6% 49.2% 42.2% 54.5% 42.1% 5.6% 53.2% 51.6% 36.1% 5.3% 39.4% 67.% 35.3% 42.5% 43.6% 47.7% 52.1% 52.6% IN-BETWEEN (VOLUNTEERED) 11.8% 12.9% 1.1% 9.7% 1.6% 11.5% 12.6% 14.7% 7.1% 17.6% 9.3% 1.% 1.6% 14.3% 6.7% 12.9% 12.1% 1.9% 14.4% 13.8% 9.8% NO OPINION % 4.1% 1.6% - 3.7% 3.2% 2.7% 3.8% 3.7% 5.6% 2.9% - 3.6% 3.4% 3.% 2.8% 7.9% 3.% 5.3% - - Valley SF Bay Area No. CA Democrat Republican No party preference/ others Voting History First time voter White non- Hispanic Ethnicity Latino Black Asian/ Field Research Corporation Table 21 7

8 Q28 (Banner 2Base: Registered Voters (Form A) Field Poll 216 Late March/Early April 216 Gender Age Nativity Political Ideology Total Male Female or older Born in US Born outside US Strongly conservative Moderately conservative Middle of the road Moderately liberal Strongly liberal GOP Tea Party Identification A lot /some Not at all/dk Born again Christian Q28. How would you generally describe economic conditions in California right now? Would you say that economically, California is in good times or bad times right now? Unweighted Base Weighted Base GOOD TIMES BAD TIMES IN-BETWEEN (VOLUNTEERED) NO OPINION % 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% % 47.6% 32.1% 35.1% 54.8% 31.8% 37.9% 38.4% 39.% 4.9% 17.2% 32.6% 39.4% 44.% 6.4% 14.9% 35.5% 28.6% 43.% % 41.3% 49.7% 5.4% 34.4% 49.6% 47.7% 45.7% 47.6% 35.3% 72.3% 47.% 44.7% 39.7% 3.5% 78.2% 5.5% 53.4% 43.2% % 9.% 14.2% 8.5% 1.8% 16.4% 11.3% 12.3% 11.1% 16.2% 9.% 1.4% 13.3% 11.6% 9.2% 5.7% 8.2% 13.6% 11.2% % 2.1% 4.% 6.% - 2.2% 3.1% 3.7% 2.3% 7.5% 1.5% 9.9% 2.7% 4.8% - 1.2% 5.8% 4.5% 2.6% born again No, not born again Field Research Corporation Table 22 8

9 Q28 (Banner 3Base: Registered Voters (Form A) Field Poll 216 Late March/Early April 216 Total H.S. graduat e or less Education Household Income Religion Marital Status Some college / trade school College graduat e Post graduat e work Under $2, $2, - $4, $4, - $6, $6, - $1, More than $1, Protestant / other Christian Catholi c religio n No preference Married / Not married living togethe r Widow/ separated/ divorce d Never marrie d Parent/ Guardian/ Grandparent of child under 18 Parent Neithe Grandparent r Q28. How would you generally describe economic conditions in California right now? Would you say that economically, California is in good times or bad times right now? Unweighted Base Weighted Base GOOD TIMES BAD TIMES IN-BETWEEN (VOLUNTEERED ) NO OPINION % 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% % 1.% 1.% % % % % % % % % 23.% 31.1% 49.8% 52.7% 14.4% 35.1% 32.8% 43.3% 52.4% 31.6% 33.% 45.4% 49.7% 43.4% 21.5% 38.9% 44.4% 35.8% 37.7% 37.3% % 55.1% 54.5% 34.5% 4.2% 73.2% 45.5% 48.3% 38.1% 38.2% 54.1% 4.2% 46.2% 4.9% 43.5% 59.2% 43.6% 4.8% 4.8% 49.7% 47.8% % 12.6% 12.5% 14.8% 7.1% 7.2% 1.9% 12.9% 17.% 9.% 11.6% 18.1% 7.8% 8.6% 11.6% 15.6% 1.3% 13.9% 17.1% 9.3% 1.9% % 9.2% 1.9%.8% - 5.2% 8.5% 5.9% 1.7%.5% 2.6% 8.7%.6%.9% 1.6% 3.7% 7.1%.8% 6.4% 3.4% 4.% Non- Parent Field Research Corporation Table 23 9

10 Q3 (Banner 1Base: Registered Voters (Form A) Field Poll 216 Late March/Early April 216 Unweighted Base Total Southern CA Northern CA SF Bay /North/ Coast Region Area Party Registration Valley /Sierras Coastal counties Inland counties L.A. County San Diego/ Orange So. CA Valley SF Bay Area No. CA Democrat Republican No party preference/ others Voting History First time voter White non- Hispanic Q3. Would you say that you and your family are financially better off or worse off today than you were a year ago? Ethnicity Latino Black Asian/ Weighted Base % 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% BETTER OFF % 5.2% 43.6% 45.9% 4.6% 49.5% 42.8% 55.6% 4.7% 48.1% 43.6% 46.2% 4.8% 48.9% 35.% 57.2% 63.2% 42.4% 56.1% 66.6% 44.2% WORSE OFF % 25.4% 24.6% 26.1% 22.7% 24.8% 25.9% 18.4% 37.1% 25.8% 24.5% 26.8% 15.5% 22.1% 39.5% 15.9% 13.4% 27.4% 21.9% 22.7% 26.% NO CHANGE (VOLUNTEERED) 26.5% 23.3% 31.2% 28.1% 35.3% 24.8% 3.5% 25.2% 2.8% 24.3% 3.5% 27.% 43.7% 26.9% 25.5% 26.9% 23.4% 29.4% 21.% 6.9% 29.9% NO OPINION % 1.1%.6% - 1.3% 1.%.8%.7% 1.4% 1.8% 1.4% % % 1.% 3.8% - Field Research Corporation Table 29 1

11 Q3 (Banner 2Base: Registered Voters (Form A) Field Poll 216 Late March/Early April 216 Unweighted Base Gender Age Nativity Political Ideology Total Male Female or older Born in US Born outside US Strongly conservative Moderately conservative Middle of the road Moderately liberal Strongly liberal GOP Tea Party Identification A lot /some Not at all/dk Born again Christian Q3. Would you say that you and your family are financially better off or worse off today than you were a year ago? born again No, not born again Weighted Base BETTER OFF WORSE OFF NO CHANGE (VOLUNTEERED) NO OPINION % 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% % 51.8% 43.7% 67.2% 79.3% 42.8% 37.% 27.8% 47.7% 45.4% 27.6% 39.5% 47.8% 62.2% 57.4% 3.7% 41.3% 43.1% 49.% % 21.3% 28.4% 8.1% 15.3% 25.8% 33.5% 33.2% 25.4% 23.6% 48.% 38.5% 2.5% 18.% 14.2% 49.1% 25.4% 25.6% 24.9% % 25.9% 27.% 24.8% 5.4% 31.4% 27.7% 37.2% 26.4% 27.8% 24.3% 22.% 3.1% 19.8% 27.1% 2.2% 33.3% 3.3% 25.2% % 1.%.8% % 1.8%.5% 3.2% % - 1.3% - -.9%.9% Field Research Corporation Table 21 11

12 Q3 (Banner 3Base: Registered Voters (Form A) Field Poll 216 Late March/Early April 216 Unweighted Base Total H.S. graduat e or less Education Household Income Religion Marital Status Some college / trade school College graduat e Post graduat e work Under $2, $2, - $4, $4, - $6, $6, - $1, More than $1, Protestant / other Christian Catholi c religio n No preference Married / Not married living togethe r Widow/ separated/ divorce d Never marrie d Parent/ Guardian/ Grandparent of child under 18 Parent Neithe Grandparent r Q3. Would you say that you and your family are financially better off or worse off today than you were a year ago? Non- Parent Weighted Base BETTER OFF WORSE OFF NO CHANGE (VOLUNTEERED ) NO OPINION % 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% % 1.% 1.% % % % % % % % % 31.1% 47.2% 56.9% 51.1% 41.9% 4.% 41.5% 42.1% 61.2% 38.5% 43.6% 54.9% 56.3% 48.4% 32.1% 53.4% 52.9% 35.4% 48.% 45.3% % 38.2% 21.7% 22.3% 19.9% 36.8% 31.3% 29.4% 29.1% 1.8% 29.3% 24.4% 23.6% 2.7% 23.8% 44.8% 17.1% 23.2% 31.5% 24.3% 25.9% % 27.5% 31.2% 2.7% 28.% 19.1% 26.7% 27.3% 28.8% 28.% 32.1% 29.9% 19.8% 22.9% 27.4% 2.% 28.4% 23.1% 3.2% 27.2% 27.9% % 3.2% % 2.2% 1.9% 1.8% % 1.7% -.4% 3.1% 1.1%.8% 2.9%.4%.9% Field Research Corporation Table

13 Q31 (Banner 1Base: Registered Voters (Form A) Field Poll 216 Late March/Early April 216 Unweighted Base Total Southern CA Northern CA SF Bay /North/ Coast Region Area Party Registration Valley /Sierras Coastal counties Inland counties L.A. County San Diego/ Orange So. CA Valley SF Bay Area No. CA Democrat Republican No party preference/ others Voting History First time voter White non- Hispanic Q31. Do you consider the amount of federal and state income taxes that you and your family have to pay is too high, about right or too low? Weighted Base 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% TOO HIGH % 52.4% 57.4% 56.8% 58.3% 51.6% 61.3% 51.4% 48.6% 57.5% 55.5% 56.1% 72.9% 41.5% 8.3% 49.% 47.7% 54.3% 53.6% 35.9% 66.6% ABOUT RIGHT 39.8% 4.6% 38.5% 38.9% 38.% 42.4% 33.4% 43.4% 42.1% 34.% 4.6% 39.1% 27.1% 52.3% 17.9% 41.9% 46.4% 39.8% 41.4% 48.1% 28.6% TOO LOW % 2.3% 2.% 2.8%.9% 2.4% 1.6% 2.2% 2.7% 2.2% 1.% 3.2% - 1.2% - 5.7% 3.4% 2.3% 2.2% - 1.8% NO OPINION 3.6% 4.7% 2.% 1.4% 2.8% 3.6% 3.8% 3.% 6.6% 6.2% 3.% 1.6% - 4.9% 1.8% 3.4% 2.5% 3.5% 2.9% 16.% 2.9% Ethnicity Latino Black Asian/ Field Research Corporation Table

14 Q31 (Banner 2Base: Registered Voters (Form A) Field Poll 216 Late March/Early April 216 Unweighted Base Weighted Base TOO HIGH ABOUT RIGHT TOO LOW NO OPINION Gender Age Nativity Political Ideology Total Male Female or older Born in US Born outside US Strongly conservative Moderately conservative Middle of the road Moderately liberal Strongly liberal GOP Tea Party Identification A lot /some Not at all/dk Born again Christian Q31. Do you consider the amount of federal and state income taxes that you and your family have to pay is too high, about right or too low? % 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% % 54.3% 54.5% 31.5% 51.% 62.9% 58.5% 62.2% 56.7% 4.3% 92.4% 53.9% 54.3% 44.5% 38.2% 84.3% 74.5% 61.6% 52.% % 41.2% 38.5% 56.3% 42.8% 32.4% 36.1% 35.5% 39.6% 41.6% 7.6% 42.3% 4.8% 46.4% 55.2% 15.7% 21.% 33.1% 42.1% % 2.3% 2.% 6.3% 6.2%.8% % 7.7% % - 6.6% % % 2.2% 4.9% 5.9% - 3.9% 5.4% 2.2% 2.4% 1.4% - 3.8% 2.7% 9.1% % 5.4% 3.% born again No, not born again Field Research Corporation Table

15 Q31 (Banner 3Base: Registered Voters (Form A) Field Poll 216 Late March/Early April 216 Unweighted Base Total H.S. graduate or less Education Household Income Religion Marital Status Some college/ trade school College graduate Post graduate work $2, Under - $2, $4, $4, $6, - - $1, $6, More than $1, Protestant/ other Christian Catholic religion No preference Married/ Not married living together Widow/ separated/ divorced Never married Parent/ Guardian/ Grandparent of child under 18 Parent Grandparent Neither Q31. Do you consider the amount of federal and state income taxes that you and your family have to pay is too high, about right or too low? Weighted Base 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% TOO HIGH 54.4% 56.5% 53.4% 56.3% 51.5% 4.3% 4.4% 46.% 64.4% 56.8% 59.9% 58.6% 44.2% 54.6% 58.6% 57.5% 39.5% 57.2% 58.1% 52.1% 53.3% ABOUT RIGHT 39.8% 31.4% 38.7% 39.6% 48.5% 43.4% 49.8% 47.8% 35.% 39.% 35.8% 38.1% 47.3% 37.3% 37.3% 38.6% 48.6% 38.% 38.4% 41.% 4.5% TOO LOW % 1.5% 3.8% 3.% - 2.7% 3.3% 4.4%.6% 2.2% 1.8% - 1.8% 5.9% 2.1% - 3.7% 1.8%.9% 2.7% 2.3% NO OPINION 3.6% 1.6% 4.% 1.% % 6.5% 1.8% - 2.% 2.5% 3.3% 6.7% 2.2% 2.% 3.9% 8.2% 3.% 2.6% 4.2% 3.9% Non- Parent Field Research Corporation Table

Enrollment Statistics Northern Counties Region 1

Enrollment Statistics Northern Counties Region 1 Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Del Norte, Glenn, Humboldt, Lake, Lassen, Mendocino, Modoc, Nevada, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Sutter,