Donate
Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

S 304MBS

Authors

S 304MBS

Tagged with:

Publication PDFs

Database

This is the content currently stored in the post and postmeta tables.

View live version

object(Timber\Post)#3711 (44) { ["ImageClass"]=> string(12) "Timber\Image" ["PostClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Post" ["TermClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Term" ["object_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["custom"]=> array(5) { ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(12) "S_304MBS.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(7) "1296210" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(91840) "PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY MARCH 2004 Public Policy Institute of California Special Survey of Los Angeles in collaboration with the University of Southern California ○○○○○ Mark Baldassare Research Director & Survey Director The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is a private operating foundation established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute is dedicated to improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. PPIC’s research agenda focuses on three program areas: population, economy, and governance and public finance. Studies within these programs are examining the underlying forces shaping California’s future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns, including education, health care, immigration, income distribution, welfare, urban growth, and state and local finance. PPIC was created because three concerned citizens – William R. Hewlett, Roger W. Heyns, and Arjay Miller – recognized the need for linking objective research to the realities of California public policy. Their goal was to help the state’s leaders better understand the intricacies and implications of contemporary issues and make informed public policy decisions when confronted with challenges in the future. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. David W. Lyon is founding President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Raymond L. Watson is Chairman of the Board of Directors. 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 • San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-4400 • Fax: (415) 291-4401 info@ppic.org • www.ppic.org Preface The Los Angeles County Survey—a collaborative effort of the Public Policy Institute of California and the School of Planning, Policy, and Development at the University of Southern California—is a special edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey. The survey is supported by a grant from the California Community Foundation. This is the second in an annual series of PPIC surveys of Los Angeles County. This series of large-scale, comprehensive public opinion surveys on social, economic, and political attitudes and policy preferences is designed to provide timely, relevant, and objective information on the county’s overall adult population, geographic areas, and diverse racial/ethnic, economic, and social groups. Los Angeles County is the most populous county in the nation with approximately 10 million residents. The county has grown by about 1 million residents in the past 10 years, including more new immigrants than any other region of the country except the New York City area. Today, the county’s population is 47 percent Latino, 30 percent non-Latino white, 12 percent Asian, and 9 percent black—similar to the racial/ethnic profile that state demographers predict for California by 2040. Reflecting the size and diversity of the county, local government is large and complex, as are the problems of delivering local public services to its residents. In this survey, we are especially interested in understanding the changing local conditions in the past decade and the challenges and opportunities created by the state government’s current fiscal situation. Thus, we contrast residents perceptions today with public opinion data collected in 1994—a year in which the state and county faced unprecedented economic, fiscal, social, and political challenges. We also analyze residents’ attitudes toward the state’ current budget deficit, including its perceived impact on local services, and spending and tax preferences. Public opinion data are critical to informing discussions on key issues and stimulating public debate. The overall intent of this PPIC special survey series on Los Angeles County is to help guide the decisions of local, state, and federal policymakers and the actions of public, nonprofit, and public-private partnerships. This current survey of 2,002 adult residents includes questions from earlier PPIC Statewide Surveys and a Los Angeles Times poll in June 1994 for comparisons. We also consider racial/ethnic, income, and political differences. The following issues are explored in this survey: • Changing Local Conditions—How do residents rate the county today, and are they optimistic about the future? How do they rate the quality of life in their local communities, and what are the most important problems facing local communities? How satisfied are residents with their local services, and what are their transportation priorities? How do residents perceive the local economic outlook? • State’s Fiscal Conditions—How serious a problem is the current multibillion dollar gap between state spending and state revenues? Do residents prefer to deal with the state budget deficit through spending cuts or tax increases, and what do they think of the governor’s budget plans? How concerned are they about the impacts of the state’s deficit on the delivery of local services? Are residents willing to increase their state and local taxes to maintain funding for local public services? • Local and State Governance Issues—How do residents rate the performance of state officials and local government? Do they view immigrants as having a positive effect, and do they support access of illegal immigrants to public health care? How much are they concerned about health care costs, and do they support efforts to extend health care coverage? What about proposed ballot measures that seek to raise taxes to pay for mental health services, increase property taxes for school funding, reform the workers’ compensation system, and protect state funding for local governments? Copies of this report may be ordered by e-mail (order@ppic.org) or phone (415-291-4400). Copies of this and earlier reports are posted on the publications page of the PPIC web site (www.ppic.org). For questions about the survey, please contact survey@ppic.org. -i- - ii - Contents Preface Press Release Changing Local Conditions State’s Fiscal Conditions Local and State Governance Issues Survey Methodology Survey Questions and Results Survey Advisory Committee i v 1 7 13 19 21 27 - iii - Press Release Para ver este comunicado de prensa en español, por favor visite nuestra página de internet: http://www.ppic.org/main/pressreleaseindex.asp SPECIAL SURVEY OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY LOS ANGELES COUNTY: A HOUSE DIVIDED RACIAL, POLITICAL GROUPS HAVE DIFFERENT TAKE ON PRESENT, FUTURE Residents Also Conflicted Over Immigration, Fiscal and Economic Policy Issues SAN FRANCISCO, California, March 17, 2004 — The mood of Los Angeles County residents may be more upbeat than it was a decade ago, but how they feel about quality of life, the future course of the county, and government services and policies depends a lot on who they are and where they stand politically, according to a new survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). Today, the number of residents who believe LA County is headed in the right direction is nearly double (45%) what it was 10 years ago (24%). But that upswing masks deep differences in attitudes between racial and ethnic groups and among political parties. “We find such contradictory views about quality of life and preferences on public policies and government priorities that it’s almost as though some residents of this one region are living in parallel universes,” says PPIC Statewide Survey Director Mark Baldassare. Differences along racial and ethnic lines, particularly for blacks, are striking. With the exception of blacks, attitudes toward day-to-day life seem to be generally positive: 86 percent of whites, 85 percent of Asians, and 80 percent of Latinos say they are satisfied with the community they live in, but one-third of blacks (33%) are dissatisfied. Looking ahead, a majority of Asians (52%) and Latinos (50%) think the county is headed in the right direction, but whites (43%) and blacks (36%) are less optimistic. Blacks also have a different take on the most important problems facing the county. Over the past decade, concern with crime as the biggest problem dropped from 34 to 14 percent, top concern with gangs dropped from 31 to 13 percent, and top concern with drugs dropped from 12 to 5 percent. Despite this general decline, 24 percent of blacks now say gangs are the county’s most important problem, 21 percent name crime, and 13 percent name drugs. Further, and probably related to these perceptions, blacks (52%) are much less likely than whites (72%), Asians (66%), or Latinos (65%) to give police protection high marks. “Quality-of-life issues like neighborhood satisfaction and personal safety are the stuff of daily experience; they are vital in shaping attitudes toward the community,” says Baldassare. “Civic leaders need to consider what is so different about the experience of African Americans that it makes their outlook distinctively more negative.” And Then There’s Politics … Partisan Divisions Rival Racial/Ethnic Differences The perceptions and opinions of LA County’s Republicans, Democrats, and independents are more divergent than the racial and ethnic differences. Baldassare observes that “In LA County, we’re seeing the same kind of growing political polarization that is making the state even more difficult to govern.” There are stark partisan differences in approval ratings for Governor Schwarzenegger and in dealing with state debt. Republicans (80%) give the governor much higher approval ratings than Democrats (45%) or independents (53%). Although Democrats (78%), Republicans (76%), and independents (73%) strongly agree that the state budget deficit is a big problem, they part company when asked how best to deal with it. Pluralities of Democrats (42%) and independents (44%) support a mixture of spending cuts and tax increases, compared to just one-third (33%) of Republicans, who prefer using mostly spending cuts (44%). Republicans also approve of the governor’s plan to take local property tax money and use it to lower the state deficit, nearly two to one over Democrats (64% to 33%). -v- Press Release Conflicting views about how to reduce the deficit mirror differences about cutting public services. Far more Democrats than Republicans or independents say they are very concerned about cuts to K-12 education (Democrats 76%, independents 57%, Republicans 43%), health and human services (Democrats 74%, independents 53%, Republicans 36%), and government services such as parks, police, and transportation (Democrats 63%, independents 48%, Republicans 29%). Tension over Taxes Despite these partisan differences on cutting services, most of LA County’s likely voters are willing to raise state taxes to maintain current funding levels for K-12 education (56%), health and human services (48%), and local government services (50%). Once again, however, a partisan divide prevails: Majorities of Democrats support tax increases for the three areas (K-12 education 66%, health and human services 56%, local government services 54%), while majorities of Republicans oppose them (K-12 education 52%, health and human services 62%, local government services 56%). “Although taxes generally top the list of contentious issues between Republicans and Democrats, the divide on K-12 education, where there is usually more voter consensus, is surprising,” says Baldassare. For example, there is acute disagreement over a proposal that would reform Proposition 13 tax limits and increase taxes on commercial and residential properties that produce income in order to fund K-12 education and to establish universal preschool programs: Republicans are strongly opposed (57%) and Democrats are strongly in favor (64%) of this proposal. There is similar disagreement on the local level, where majorities of Democrats (70%) and independents (69%), but less than half of Republicans (49%), would vote yes if a local school district bond appeared on the November ballot. Despite all the partisan contention over taxes, there are points of agreement. Majorities of Democrats (79%), independents (74%), and Republicans (55%) support raising the state income tax paid by the wealthiest Californians. Even greater majorities support raising so-called “sin” taxes on alcohol and cigarettes in order to fund county health services (Democrats 81%, independents 72%, Republicans 67%). Moreover, there is majority opposition to increasing the vehicle license fee among all parties (Republicans 79%, independents 68%, Democrats 66%). Attitudes Toward Immigrants Split; Political, Racial/Ethnic Differences Emerge Again Other issues also create division. While a majority of residents (55%) believe immigrants are good for the region because of their hard work and job skills, illegal immigration continues to trouble LA County. A 1994 Los Angeles Times poll found that 52 percent of residents thought the amount of illegal immigration into LA County was a major problem; today, 47 percent say the same. Baldassare notes that negative views toward illegal immigration and positive ones toward immigrants are not contradictory. “Many residents distinguish between immigrants, as people, and illegal immigration. They see immigrants as contributing to the community, while illegal immigration is associated with a variety of costs and problems.” Again, the general consensus masks a polarization of Republicans and Democrats: In perfect contrast, 58 percent of Democrats say immigrants are a benefit and 58 percent of Republicans say they are a burden. A split also occurs along racial and ethnic lines, with Latinos (70%) and Asians (68%) being far more likely than blacks (38%) or whites (44%) to see immigrants as a benefit. Despite these varied opinions, a strong majority (61%) of all county residents believe undocumented immigrants and their children should have access to public health care, including majorities of every racial and ethnic group (whites 51%, blacks 52%, Asians 55%, Latinos 74%). It’s All in the Packaging: Support for Workers’ Comp Reform Depends on Question On another divisive issue – workers’ compensation reform – voters’ response may hinge on how the debate is framed. Two in three LA County voters (67%) favor reducing employer costs for workers’ compensation – however, that support drops to 42 percent if it means reducing benefits to employees injured at work. Here again, voters diverge along party lines: Most Republicans (74%) favor lowering employer costs even if it means fewer - vi - Press Release benefits for injured employees (59%), while Democrats support for lowering employer costs (59%) diminishes to 33 percent if it means fewer benefits. “If this issue appears on next November’s ballot, the victors may be the ones who control the spin,” says Baldassare. More Key Findings • Repeal of SB2 Health Coverage Law Unpopular (page 16) Majorities of Democrats (70%), independents (65%), and Republicans (54%) are opposed to current efforts to repeal state law SB2, which requires large and medium-sized employers to buy health insurance coverage for their employees. • Support for Mental Health (page 17) A strong majority (68%) of likely voters say they approve a 1 percent tax increase on income over $1 million to fund mental health services. • State vs. Local (page 18) Sixty-six percent of likely voters support requiring a two-thirds vote of the legislature and voter approval before any reduction in local government revenue occurs – however, this support drops to 53 percent when it means less revenue for state services. About the Survey This survey of Los Angeles County — a collaborative effort of PPIC and the School of Policy, Planning, and Development at the University of Southern California — is a special edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey, supported in part through a grant from the California Community Foundation. This is the second in an annual series of PPIC surveys of Los Angeles County. Findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,002 Los Angeles County adult residents interviewed between February 27 and March 9, 2004. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish. The sampling error for the total sample is +/- 2%. For more information on survey methodology, see page 19. Mark Baldassare is research director at PPIC, where he holds the Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Chair in Public Policy. He is founder of the PPIC Statewide Survey, which he has directed since 1998. His most recent book, A California State of Mind: The Conflicted Voter in a Changing World, is available at www.ppic.org. PPIC is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to improving public policy through objective, nonpartisan research on the economic, social, and political issues that affect Californians. The institute was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. This report will appear on PPIC’s website (www.ppic.org) on March 17. ### - vii - Do you think things in L.A. County are going in the right direction or are they on the wrong track? (Percent "right direction") 60 50 45 52 50 43 40 36 30 20 10 0 All adults Asian Black Latino White Percent all adults Most important problem facing L.A. County communities today 15 14 13 13 10 10 5 7 7 0 Percent Crime Gangs Schools Economy Traffic Housing Immigrants today: Benefit or burden to L.A. County? 9 36 55 Benefit, because of hard work and job skills Burden, because they use public services Don't know Percent all adults Percent who rate their local public schools as excellent or good 60 50 43 40 55 53 30 27 38 20 10 0 All adults Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Percent Percent who say that illegal immigrants and their children should have access to public health 80 72 68 61 60 55 40 20 0 aprAovlleadults U.dSis.-abpoprrnov eForeign-bdoronn,'t Fkonroewign-born, citizen U.S. cPiteizrecnent Alnl oAnd-uUlt.sS. citizen Do you approve or disapprove of the governor's plan to use local government tax money to reduce the deficit? 11 44 45 Approve Dis approve Don't know Percent all adults Percent Changing Local Conditions County Perceptions Los Angeles residents, generally, are more optimistic about life in their county than they were 10 years ago, but that optimism is not spread evenly across all groups. Overall, the percentage who say things are going in the right direction (45%) has nearly doubled since 1994, when 24 percent were positive about the direction, but 62 percent said things were seriously off on the wrong track. However, perceptions vary by race/ethnicity, citizenship, and age. About half of Latinos and Asians think the county is headed in the right direction. In contrast, more than half of blacks think things are on the wrong track, and whites are about evenly divided on this question. Residents who are not U.S. citizens are more likely (52%) than U.S.-born adults (43%) to see the county headed in the right direction. Optimism is also higher among people under 35 (54% “right direction”) than among older adults (40% “right direction”). “Do you think that things in Los Angeles County are generally going in the right direction or are they seriously off on the wrong track?” 1994* 2004 Right direction 24% 45% Wrong track 62 38 Don't know 14 17 *Results are from a June 1994 Los Angeles Times poll. 2004 Survey Right direction Wrong track Don't know All Adults 45% 38 17 Asian 52% 27 21 Race / Ethnicity Black Latino 36% 50% 53 34 11 16 White 43% 40 17 Looking to the future, Los Angeles County residents are divided: Thirty-four percent expect the county to be a better place and 32 percent believe it will be a worse place to live. Latinos are the most optimistic and blacks are the least optimistic about the county’s future quality of life. Whites are the most likely to believe the county will become a worse place to live. “In the future, do you think Los Angeles County will be a better place to live than it is now, a worse place to live than it is now, or there will be no change?” 2004 Survey Better place Worse place No change Don't know All Adults 34% 32 27 7 Asian 35% 30 31 4 Race / Ethnicity Black Latino 29% 37% 33 26 28 31 10 6 White 33% 38 23 6 -1- Changing Local Conditions Local Community Ratings Los Angeles County residents are more positive about their communities than they were a decade ago but, again, there are strong racial/ethnic differences. In 1994, 69 percent said they were satisfied with their community, compared to 80 percent today. Satisfaction is about equally high among Asians (85%), Latinos (80%), and whites (86%) but is markedly lower among blacks (62%). In fact, 33 percent of black residents are dissatisfied with their community. “Would you say you are satisfied or dissatisfied these days with the community in which you live?” 1994* 2004 Satisfied 69% 80% Dissatisfied 29 17 Don't know 23 *Results are from a June 1994 Los Angeles Times poll. 2004 Survey Satisfied Dissatisfied Don't know All Adults 80% 17 3 Asian 85% 11 4 Race/ Ethnicity Black Latino 62% 80% 33 18 52 White 86% 12 2 The percentage of residents who believe their community’s quality of life has improved has doubled in the past decade; conversely, only half as many now think it is getting worse. As in 1994, however, a majority think their community’s quality of life is staying about the same. Once again, there are racial/ethnic differences. Latinos (28% to 16%) and whites (25% to 18%) are more likely to see things getting better rather than worse. Blacks are more likely to see them getting worse (27%) rather than better (18%). “Would you say the quality of life in your community is getting better, getting worse, or staying about the same?” 1994* 2004 Getting better 12% 25% Getting worse 36 19 Staying about the same 50 53 Don't know 23 *Results are from a June 1994 Los Angeles Times poll. 2004 Survey Getting better Getting worse Staying about the same Don't know All Adults 25% 19 53 3 Asian 19% 15 62 4 Race/ Ethnicity Black Latino 18% 28% 27 16 53 52 24 White 25% 18 54 3 -2- Changing Local Conditions Local Community Problems In the last decade, residents’ perceptions of the most important problem facing their community have changed dramatically. In 1994, crime and gangs were cited considerably more than they are today and schools considerably less. Today, crime, gangs, schools, and the economy and jobs are rated about equally as top community problems. Perceptions differ significantly across racial/ethnic groups and areas of the county. Blacks are more likely than others to see crime as the top community problem. Blacks and Latinos are much more concerned than Asians and whites about gangs. Traffic seems like a more important problem to Asians and whites than to blacks and Latinos. Across county regions, residents in the Central/Southeast are more likely (20%) than residents elsewhere to be concerned about gangs. Non-citizens (22%) also mention gangs more often than U.S.-born residents (11%). The percentage of respondents who mention traffic and growth as important local issues increases with education and household income. “What's the most important problem facing your community today?” (Accepted up to two replies)* 1994** 2004 Crime Gangs Education, schools Economy, jobs, unemployment Traffic Housing, homelessness Growth and development 34% 31 7 16 2 5 3 14% 13 13 10 7 7 6 Drugs 12 5 Graffiti 53 *Results do not add to 100 percent because first and second mentions are listed. **Results are from a June 1994 Los Angeles Times poll. 2004 Survey Crime Gangs Education, schools Economy, jobs, unemployment Traffic Housing, homelessness Growth and development Drugs Graffiti All Adults 14% 13 13 10 7 7 6 5 3 Asian 16% 6 15 5 13 10 5 2 1 Race/ Ethnicity Black Latino 21% 12% 24 20 19 11 11 9 25 96 43 13 6 35 White 13% 5 15 11 10 8 10 3 2 - 3 - March 2004 Changing Local Conditions Local Public Service Ratings Los Angeles County residents are generally positive about their local public services: Sixty-seven percent rate police protection excellent or good; 63 percent give high marks to the area’s public parks, beaches, and recreation; and 51 percent rate their local streets and roads excellent or good. Public schools, however, did not make the grade with a majority of residents: Only 43 percent rated them as excellent or good. Los Angeles residents gave similar ratings to these services in a 1998 PPIC Statewide Survey. (The Los Angeles Times poll in 1994 asked about local public services in a different fashion, so direct comparisons with residents’ evaluations of a decade ago are not available.) Percent rating local service as excellent or good 1998* 2004 Police protection 68% 67% Parks, beaches, and recreation 69 63 Streets and roads 49 51 Public schools 40 43 * Results are from the April 1998 PPIC Statewide Survey. Ratings differ noticeably across the county’s geographic areas. Roads and schools are rated most highly by residents in the North Valleys, while recreation and police get their highest ratings from residents in the West. Residents of the San Fernando Valley give mixed ratings: Most rate their local parks and police as excellent or good, but fewer than half are positive about streets and public schools. Residents in Central/Southeast Los Angeles are more negative about all of their local services. 2004 Survey Percent rating local service as excellent or good All Adults Police protection Parks, beaches, and recreation Streets and roads Public schools 67% 63 51 43 North Valleys 70% 69 60 51 County Area San Fernando West 67% 74% 64 71 48 54 41 46 Central / Southeast 60% 54 46 39 Racial/ethnic groups also have very different opinions about local services. Black residents give significantly lower ratings to all services: Fewer than half give positive ratings to their area’s streets and roads, parks, and schools, and a bare majority are satisfied with their local police. Among whites, satisfaction is markedly lower for schools than it is for other services. However, majorities of Asians and Latinos rate all their local services highly. Local public service ratings also differ significantly across other demographic groups. Public schools get much higher ratings from those who have children at home (51% good or excellent) than those without children at home (37%). Excellent and good ratings of recreation, roads, and police protection all increase with age, education, homeownership, and household income. -4- Changing Local Conditions 2004 survey Percent rating local service as excellent or good All Adults Police protection Parks, beaches, and recreation Streets and roads Public schools 67% 63 51 43 Asian 66% 58 57 55 Race/ Ethnicity Black Latino 52% 65% 44 61 40 56 27 53 White 72% 71 51 38 Local Transportation Priorities What do county residents see as the top priority for spending public funds on transportation? Although freeways and highways are mentioned most, and 75 percent of residents continue driving to work alone, nearly half (49%) mention public transportation projects, including public buses, light rail and the subway system, as top priority projects. Priorities differ across geographic regions and demographic groups. Public buses are favored most strongly by Central/Southeast area residents, while those in the West and North Valleys are most likely to support light rail. Buses are the top priority for blacks (23%) and Latinos (25%), while light rail is favored more by men (19%), whites (23%), and college graduates (24%). Even though most residents commute alone in their automobiles, the Metro Rail is a big hit in Los Angeles County. Seventy-three percent of adults say the metro rail system has been a good thing for the county’s transportation system. Support for the system is high across geographic areas, racial/ethnic groups, and political and demographic categories. There is solid support among all adults (60% to 32%) for the proposed $9.95 billion state bond measure, which has qualified for the November ballot, to build the high-speed train linking Los Angeles to San Francisco. There is also majority support for the high-speed train among the county’s likely voters (52% to 40%). Both Democrats (56%) and Republicans (51%), as well as majorities in all demographic groups, say they would vote yes on the multibillion dollar bond measure to build the train system. “What type of transportation project do you think should have the top priority for public funds in Los Angeles County?” Freeways and highways Public bus system Light rail Local streets and roads Subway system Carpool lanes Something else Don't know All Adults 23% 19 17 14 13 7 4 3 North Valleys 27% 17 21 9 10 8 4 4 County Area San Fernando West 26% 21% 16 18 15 20 12 14 13 14 85 54 54 Central / Southeast 19% 23 12 17 13 7 2 7 - 5 - March 2004 Changing Local Conditions Economic Outlook The economic outlook seems brighter to Los Angeles County residents than it did a decade ago. In 1994, 67 percent of residents believed their local economy was in a recession; today, that number has dropped to 45 percent. The steepest decline is in the percentage of residents who think their community is in a serious recession. As for geographic differences, 52 percent of residents in the Central/Southeast area think their community is in a recession, compared to 44 percent in the West, 43 percent in the San Fernando Valley, and 38 percent in the North Valleys. Among racial/ethnic groups, 58 percent of blacks and 50 percent of Latinos believe their local area is in a recession, compared to 44 percent of Asians and 38 percent of whites. “Do you think your community is in an economic recession or not?” (if yes: “Do you think it is in a serious, a moderate, or a mild recession?”) 1994* 2004 Yes, serious recession Yes, moderate recession 23% 28 12% 22 Yes, mild recession 16 11 No 26 47 Don't know 78 *Results are from a June 1994 Los Angeles Times poll. Although the perception of economic recession is lower than it was 10 years ago, the county’s economy receives relatively low ratings. Today, only 25 percent rate the county’s economy as excellent or good, virtually unchanged from 24 percent in the March 2003 PPIC Special Survey of Los Angeles County. In the current survey, 45 percent rate the county economy as fair and 28 percent as poor. As in ratings of the local community’s economy, there are differences by geographic area and race/ethnicity. Residents in Central/Southeast Los Angeles are most likely to rate the county’s economy as poor, and those in the North Valleys are least likely to do so. Blacks (38%) and Latinos (30%) are more inclined than Asians (24%) and whites (22%) to believe the economy is in poor shape. “In general, how would you rate the economy in Los Angeles County today?” Excellent / Good Fair Poor Don't know All Adults 25% 45 28 2 North Valleys 29% 45 23 3 County Area San Fernando West 25% 25% 48 43 25 30 22 Central / Southeast 23% 43 32 2 -6- State’s Fiscal Conditions The State Budget Deficit The passage of Propositions 57 and 58 on March 2nd did not change perceptions among Los Angeles County residents that the state’s budget deficit is a big problem. Seven in 10 county residents believe that the state’s multibillion dollar gap between state revenue and state spending is a big problem; seventy-one percent felt this way before the primary and 69 percent after the vote. An even higher percentage of likely voters rate the state’s budget deficit as a big problem (81%). Large majorities of Democrats (78%), Republicans (76%), and independents (73%) think the state’s deficit is a big problem. In January 2004, a similar 70 percent of Californians rated the state budget deficit as a big problem. “As you may know, the state government has an annual budget of around $100 billon and currently faces a multibillion dollar gap between state spending and state revenue. Do you think that this deficit is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem?” Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don't know All Adults 70% 22 4 4 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 78% 76% 73% 17 21 21 324 212 Likely Voters 81% 16 2 1 While most county residents (66%) and likely voters (71%) think that spending cuts should be included in dealing with the state’s deficit, voters are divided along partisan lines about whether tax increases should also be part of the state’s fiscal plans. Thirty percent of county residents think that the state should deal with its deficit mostly through spending cuts, and 36 percent think that the state should use a mixture of spending cuts and tax increases. A plurality of Republicans (44%) would prefer to deal with the state’s deficit primarily through spending cuts, while pluralities of independents (44%) and Democrats (42%) would prefer a mixture of spending cuts and tax increases. Forty-one percent of likely voters favor a mix of spending cuts and tax increases, and 30 percent support a plan that includes mostly spending cuts. The percentage of county residents who prefer a mixture of spending cuts and tax increases did not change significantly following the March 2nd primary and the passage of Propositions 57 and 58. “How would you prefer to deal with the state's deficit?” Mixture of spending cuts and tax increases Mostly through spending cuts Okay for the state to borrow money and run a budget deficit Mostly through tax increases Other answer Don't know All Adults 36% 30 11 10 4 9 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 42% 33% 44% 21 44 32 10 9 9 14 3 8 553 864 Likely Voters 41% 30 7 11 5 6 -7- State’s Fiscal Conditions Governor’s Proposed Budget Plan Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s first state budget includes shifting $1.3 billion in property tax money previously allocated to local governments to the state to reduce its budget deficit. Opinion among Los Angeles County residents is divided on this part of the governor’s deficit plan: Forty-four percent approve of the use of these property tax monies, and 45 percent disapprove. Among the county’s likely voters, 40 percent approve and 50 percent disapprove. However, there are strong partisan differences: Sixty-four percent of Republicans approve of the use of these property taxes in the governor’s budget, while 57 percent of Democrats disapprove of this plan; independents are evenly divided (47% approve; 46% disapprove). “Governor Schwarzenegger’s budget plan for the next fiscal year includes no new taxes, while it reduces the deficit through spending cuts in state programs and the use of $1.3 billion in local government property tax money. In general, do you approve or disapprove of the governor’s plan to use local government tax money to reduce the deficit?” Approve Disapprove Don't know All Adults 44% 45 11 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 33% 57 10 64% 25 11 47% 46 7 Likely Voters 40% 50 10 The governor’s budget plan to reduce the state’s deficit also includes no new taxes—45 percent of Los Angeles County residents and likely voters say this component of the plan is very important to them. Three in four say it is at least somewhat important. Only 20 percent of county residents say that it is not too important or not at all important that no new taxes are included in the plan, and 24 percent of likely voters in the county feel this way. Fifty-five percent of Republicans say that it is very important to them that no new taxes are included in the governor’s plan, and only 11 percent of Republicans think that it is not too important or not at all important. By contrast, 42 percent of Democrats and 36 percent of independents think that the no new taxes platform is very important, while 26 percent in each group thinks that it is not too important or doesn’t matter at all. Fifty-three percent of conservatives, 42 percent of moderates, and 37 percent of liberals say it is very important to them that the upcoming budget includes no new taxes. The percentage of respondents who consider no new taxes an important issue increases with age and decreases with education. “How important is it to you that the governor's budget plan for next year includes no new taxes?” Very important Somewhat important Not too important Not at all important Don't know All Adults 45% 32 11 9 3 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 42% 55% 36% 31 32 36 13 6 14 13 5 12 122 Likely Voters 45% 30 12 12 1 -8- State’s Fiscal Conditions State Fiscal Impacts on Local Services While spending cuts may be part of the preferred solution in dealing with the state’s budget deficit, Los Angeles County residents also recognize that this may have negative consequences on local services. Sixty-five percent of residents are very concerned that the state’s budget deficit will cause severe cuts in K-12 public education in the county, and 21 percent are somewhat concerned. Sixty percent of county residents are also very concerned—and 26 percent somewhat concerned—about severe cuts in funding for health and human services. Fifty percent of residents are very concerned about severe cuts in local government services such as parks and recreation, police and public safety, and roads and transportation, and another 37 percent are somewhat concerned about severe cuts in these areas. Overall, likely voters hold similar views to all adults regarding the effects of the state budget deficit. However, consistently higher percentages of Democrats than Republicans are “very concerned” that there may be severe cuts in public services because of the state’s budget deficit. Seventy-six percent of Democrats, compared to 43 percent of Republicans, are very concerned about the possibility of cuts in K12 public education. Three in four Democrats (74%) are very concerned about the prospects of severe cuts in funding in health and human services, compared to fewer than four in 10 Republicans (36%). Sixty-three percent of Democrats, but only 29 percent of Republicans, are very concerned that the state’s deficit will cause severe cuts in various local government services. Use of specific local services heightens concerns about the impacts of the state budget deficit. For example, 74 percent of residents with a child in the public school system are very concerned that the state’s deficit will cause severe cuts in K-12 public education. Similarly, 69 percent of adults who have used, or have had an immediate family member use, the public health care system are very concerned that the state’s budget deficit will cause severe cuts in health and human services. “How concerned are you that the state's budget deficit will cause severe cuts in ________ in Los Angeles County?” Very concerned Somewhat concerned K-12 public education Not very concerned Not at all concerned Don't know Very concerned Funding for health and human services Somewhat concerned Not very concerned Not at all concerned Don't know Funding for local government services such as parks and recreation, police and public safety, and roads and transportation Very concerned Somewhat concerned Not very concerned Not at all concerned Don't know All Adults 65% 21 7 6 1 60% 26 8 5 1 50% 37 7 5 1 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 76% 14 43% 30 57% 27 5 13 4 13 9 5 112 74% 19 4 2 1 36% 37 15 11 1 53% 31 12 3 1 63% 29 4 3 1 29% 48 12 8 3 48% 38 9 5 0 Likely Voters 62% 20 8 8 2 58% 27 9 6 0 51% 36 7 5 1 - 9 - March 2004 State’s Fiscal Conditions Willingness to Increase State Taxes Many Los Angeles County residents appear to be willing to back up their concerns about cuts in local services by paying higher state taxes to maintain current funding. The public’s support for raising their state taxes varies by the service they are seeking to maintain, differs sharply across party lines, and is considerably skewed by the current use and perceived utility of particular local public services. Six in 10 residents (61%), and 56 percent of likely voters, say they would be willing to pay higher taxes for K-12 public education if the state said it needed more money just to maintain current funding in this area. A majority of Democrats (66%) say they would be willing to pay more money for public education, whereas a majority of Republicans (52%) say they would not. Seventy-one percent of county residents between ages 18 and 34 would pay higher taxes to maintain education funding, compared to half of those age 55 or older. Residents with children in their household are more likely to be willing to pay higher taxes for public schools than those without children (68% to 54%). If the state said it needed more money to maintain current funding for health and human services, 50 percent of county residents say they would be willing to pay higher taxes and 44 percent say they would not. Likely voters are evenly divided (48% to 47%) on support for tax increases for these particular services. A majority of Democrats (56%) would support a tax increase for health and human services, while a majority of Republicans (62%) would not. Across racial/ethnic groups, Latinos (57%) are the most likely to say they would pay higher taxes to fund health and human services, while whites are the least likely to favor it (46%). Fifty-seven percent of county residents who say they have used the public health care system or might use it would be willing to pay higher taxes to maintain these services, while a majority of those who have never used and do not think they will ever use county health care would not (53%). County residents (49% to 46%) and likely voters (50% to 45%) are somewhat divided on the question of paying higher taxes to maintain funding for local government services such as parks, police, and transportation. On this issue, the partisan divide is again evident: Most Democrats (54%) are willing, while most Republicans (56%) are unwilling, to pay higher taxes to maintain local government services. “What if the state said it needed more money just to maintain current funding for _______? Would you be willing to pay higher state taxes for this purpose?” K-12 public education Health and human services provided by county government Local government services such as parks and recreation, police and public safety, and roads and transportation Yes No Don't know Yes No Don't know Yes No Don't know All Adults 61% 35 4 50% 44 6 49% 46 5 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 66% 44% 62% 31 52 33 345 56% 34% 52% 38 62 44 644 54% 39% 52% 41 56 43 555 Likely Voters 56% 40 4 48% 47 5 50% 45 5 - 10 - State’s Fiscal Conditions State Tax and Fee Increases State tax and fee increases could help reduce the state’s multibillion dollar gap between spending and revenue. Among some of the proposals in circulation today, Los Angeles County residents overwhelmingly support raising the income tax of the wealthiest Californians; a slight majority favor raising the state portion of the sales tax; and there is strong opposition to increasing the vehicle license fee. Seven in 10 county residents favor raising the top rate of the state income tax. A large majority of Democrats (79%) and a slimmer majority of Republicans (55%) support the proposal to increase taxes for the state’s wealthiest residents. In all areas of the county, across racial/ethnic, age, and education groups around seven in 10 residents support the idea of raising tax rates for the most affluent Californians. While county residents with household incomes of $80,000 or higher are somewhat less likely to favor the proposal than those with lower incomes, even in this group, a majority (67%) would support raising the top rate of the state income tax. County residents are less enthusiastic about raising the state portion of the sales tax by one-half cent, but the proposal still garners majority support. Fifty-three percent of all adults, and 56 percent of likely voters, favor this proposal. A solid majority of Democrats (59%) favor raising the state portion of the sales tax, while Republicans are more evenly split (50% favor, 47% oppose). Majorities of residents in all age, income, education, and racial/ethnic groups support raising the state portion of the sales tax. On the other hand, seven in 10 county residents (72%) oppose increasing the vehicle license fee to reduce the state’s large gap between spending and revenue. Sixty-six percent of likely voters oppose, and 31 percent support, increasing the vehicle license fee. County residents across all political parties oppose raising the license fee; however, Republicans (79%) are more likely than Democrats (66%) to oppose an increase in this fee. Latinos (76%) and blacks (76%) are more likely than whites (67%) to say they oppose an increase in the vehicle license fee. Although higher-income residents are more likely than lower-income residents to say they favor increasing the fee, solid majorities in all demographic groups are opposed to this idea. Do you favor or oppose this proposal? Raising the top rate of the state income tax paid by the wealthiest Californians Favor Oppose Don't know Raising the state portion of the sales tax by one-half cent Favor Oppose Don't know Increasing the vehicle license fee or so-called “car tax” to pay for local government services Favor Oppose Don't know All Adults 71% 24 5 53% 44 3 24% 72 4 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 79% 16 55% 41 74% 23 543 59% 38 3 50% 47 3 53% 44 3 30% 66 4 18% 79 3 29% 68 3 Likely Voters 71% 25 4 56% 42 2 31% 66 3 - 11 - March 2004 State’s Fiscal Conditions Local Tax Increases If there were a measure on the county ballot to increase the sales tax by one-half cent to fund police protection and public safety, it would receive close to the two-thirds majority support needed to pass a local sales tax measure (65% of all adults, 63% of likely voters). A solid majority of Democrats (69%), and a substantial percentage of Republicans (56%) would vote to increase the local sales tax for this purpose. Across the county, such a ballot measure would receive the highest support in the Central/Southeast area (70%) and somewhat lower support in the West (64%), the North Valleys (62%), and the San Fernando Valley (60%). Latinos (72%) are more likely than blacks (63%), whites (61%), or Asians (60%) to say they would vote yes on the sales tax measure for funding police and public safety. If there were a measure on the county ballot to increase the sales tax for local transportation projects by one-half cent, it would fall shy of the two-thirds majority needed to pass a local tax hike (55% of all adults; 55% of likely voters). A majority of Democrats (61%) and independents (60%) say they would vote yes, while Republicans are split on increasing taxes for this purpose (49% yes, 47% no). Support for increasing the sales tax for local transportation projects does not vary significantly across geographic areas or racial/ethnic, age, education, or income groups. “What if there were a measure on the county ballot to increase the local sales tax for _______ by one-half cent? Would you vote yes or no?” Police protection and public safety Local transportation projects Yes No Don't know Yes No Don't know All Adults 65% 32 3 55% 40 5 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 69% 29 56% 41 62% 34 234 61% 49% 60% 35 47 37 443 Likely Voters 63% 34 3 55% 40 5 Seven in 10 county residents (69%), and 60 percent of likely voters, would vote yes if their local school district had a bond measure on the November ballot to pay for school construction projects. Local school bonds for construction projects require a 55 percent majority to pass. Seven in 10 Democrats (70%) and independents (69%) say they would vote yes, while Republicans (49% yes, 47% no) are evenly divided. Residents in the Central/Southeast area express the highest support for a local school bond measure (75%), although majorities in all areas of the county would vote yes. Residents with children at home are more likely than those with no children to say they would vote yes (79% to 60%). “Suppose your local school district had a bond measure on the November 2004 ballot to pay for school construction projects. Would you vote yes or no?” Yes No Don't know All Adults 69% 27 4 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 70% 49% 69% 25 47 26 545 Likely Voters 60% 36 4 - 12 - Local and State Governance Issues Government Ratings When asked to rate the job performance of their state elected officials, the majority of Los Angeles County residents say they approve of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s overall performance in office. Across political party lines, Republicans are overwhelmingly positive in their evaluations of the GOP governor, and a majority of independents and a plurality of Democrats also think he’s doing a good job. Among the county adults who are most likely to vote, positive ratings outnumber negative ratings by a two-to-one margin. Whites (64%) and Asians (59%) are more positive than blacks (43%) and Latinos (39%) about Governor Schwarzenegger. His approval ratings increase with age, education, and income. By contrast, the California legislature receives more mixed reviews, with about as many approving as disapproving of the lawmakers’ overall job performance. Likely voters are even more negative than all adults in their evaluations of the state legislature. Democrats and Republicans are similarly disapproving of the performance of the Democratic-controlled legislature. In contrast to the governor’s approval scores, the legislature’s disapproval ratings increase with age, education, income, and homeownership. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California? Do you approve or disapprove of the job the California legislature is doing at this time? Approve Disapprove Don't know Approve Disapprove Don't know All Adults 51% 33 16 40% 42 18 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 45% 80% 53% 36 10 32 19 10 15 36% 39% 45% 49 49 40 15 12 15 Likely Voters 56% 28 16 35% 52 13 Los Angeles County residents express more approval for their city governments than the county government when it comes to solving problems. However, excellent or good ratings fall short of a majority across all regions and groups for both levels of local government. A decade ago, the 1994 Los Angeles Times poll showed that 51 percent of Los Angeles County residents rated their local governments as doing an excellent or good job in their communities. How would you rate the performance of … City government in solving problems in your city? County government in solving problems in Los Angeles County? Excellent / Good Fair Poor Don't know / N.A. Excellent / Good Fair Poor Don't know All Adults 39% 36 16 9 25% 46 21 8 L.A. City Los Angeles Not Los Angeles 32% 44% 41 33 19 14 89 22% 48 26% 44 19 21 11 9 - 13 - North Valleys 41% 36 13 10 27% 45 21 7 County Area San Fernando West 37% 44% 40 35 16 14 77 25% 49 22% 45 20 22 6 11 Central / Southeast 37% 35 20 8 26% 44 20 10 Local and State Governance Issues Perceptions of Immigrants How do Los Angeles County residents perceive the role of immigrants in their county today, particularly in light of a slowdown in economic growth and fiscal problems in state government? When asked which of two opinions is closest to their own view, a majority say that immigrants today are a benefit because of their economic contributions, and about one in three say they are a burden because they use public services. There are sharp distinctions by citizenship status, while likely voters are more evenly divided in their assessment of the role of immigrants. The perceived impact of immigrants continues to be a polarizing issue. Latinos (70%) and Asians (68%) are more likely than blacks (38%) and whites (44%) to think that immigrants today are a benefit to the county. Democrats (58%) are more likely to say that immigrants are a benefit, and Republicans (58%) are more likely to say that immigrants are a burden. The same overall perceptions of immigrants, and the sharp differences of opinions across racial/ethnic and political groups, were also evident in our February 2004 PPIC Statewide Survey. Which of these two views is closest to your own … Immigrants today are a benefit to L.A. County because of their hard work and job skills Immigrants today are a burden to L.A. County because they use public services Don't know All U.S.-born Adults citizens 55% 47% Citizenship Foreignborn, U.S. citizens Foreign-born, non-U.S. citizens Likely Voters 62% 75% 48% 36 43 9 10 29 9 22 43 39 A decade ago, the 1994 Los Angeles Times poll asked about the effects of illegal immigration in the county. This was in the context of statewide economic and fiscal problems and Proposition 187, the citizens’ initiative that sought to deny public services to illegal immigrants. Proposition 187 passed in November 1994 but was later invalidated by the courts. In 1994, about half of Los Angeles County residents said that illegal immigration into the county was a big problem, and seven in 10 residents thought that it was at least a moderate-sized problem. Today, a similar proportion of Los Angeles County residents describe illegal immigration as a big problem or at least a moderate-sized problem. The public’s perceptions of illegal immigration into Los Angeles County are also largely shaped by citizenship status, race/ethnicity, and partisanship. U.S.-born residents (52%) are more likely than foreign-born citizens (42%) and non-citizens (36%) to say that illegal immigration is a big problem. Likewise, blacks (60%) and whites (54%) are more likely than Asians (40%) and Latinos (36%) to call illegal immigration a big problem. Republicans (66%) are more likely than Democrats (44%) to hold this point of view. “How big of a problem is the amount of illegal immigration into Los Angeles County?” 1994* 2004 Major problem 52% 47% Moderate-sized problem 19 26 Minor problem 14 12 Not a problem at all 11 13 Don’t know 32 *Results are from a June 1994 Los Angeles Times poll. - 14 - Local and State Governance Issues Public Health Care System While a plurality of Los Angeles County residents continue to believe that illegal immigration is a big problem, most are now opposed to denying access to public health care based on an immigrant’s status. Six in 10 county residents say that illegal immigrants and their children should have access to public health care. A majority of likely voters also support this policy. While there are variations by citizenship status, a solid majority of U.S.-born citizens support providing public health care to illegal immigrants and their children, and majorities in every racial/ethnic group also support this policy (whites 51%, blacks 52%, Asians 55%, and Latinos 74%). Fifty-three percent of Republicans think illegal immigrants and their children should be denied access to public health care, while a large majority of Democrats (69%) say that public health care should be provided to these immigrants and their children. Which of these two views is closest to your own … All Adults Illegal immigrants and their children should have access to public health care Illegal immigrants and their children should be denied access to public health care Don't know 61% 33 6 U.S.-born citizens 55% 37 8 Citizenship Foreignborn, U.S. citizens Foreignborn, nonU.S. citizens Likely Voters 68% 72% 55% 26 26 37 6 28 A substantial percentage of adult residents (45%) say that they or an immediate family member has at one time used the public health care system in Los Angeles County. The use of public health care varies dramatically by citizenship status (U.S.-born 40%, foreign-born citizen 45%, non-citizen 60%) and race/ethnicity (whites 32%, Asians 34%, blacks 57%, Latinos 58%) and declines sharply with age, education, and income. All together, about six in 10 residents say that they or a family member either has used the public health care system or expects to do so in the future. The importance of the public health care system in Los Angeles County translates into a willingness to raise local taxes to fund health services. Three in four adult residents would support a measure on the county ballot for new taxes on alcoholic beverages and cigarettes to fund such services. There is overwhelming support for raising new taxes for this purpose among likely voters (76%), Democrats (81%), and Republicans (67%) and across racial/ethnic and income groups as well as age, education, and income categories. “What if there were a measure on the county ballot for new taxes on alcoholic beverages and cigarettes in order to fund county public health services? Would you vote yes or no?” Yes No Don't know All Adults 76% 22 2 Party Registration Dem Rep 81% 17 67% 31 22 Ind 72% 27 1 Likely Voters 76% 22 2 - 15 - March 2004 Local and State Governance Issues Extending Health Care Coverage One in five Los Angeles County adults say they are not covered by any form of private health insurance or by a government health plan. While nearly nine in 10 Asians, whites, and blacks say they have some form of health care coverage, about one in three Latino adults say they do not have any form of health coverage. Moreover, while more than eight in 10 adult citizens are covered by health insurance or a health plan, about four in 10 noncitizens say they currently have no health care coverage. The public’s worries about health care today go beyond the issue of insurance coverage. Nearly two in three county adults say they are very concerned about being able to afford the necessary health care when a family member gets sick, and eight in 10 are at least somewhat concerned. Among likely voters, more than half say they are very concerned about the affordability of necessary health care. While concern varies by citizenship status and across racial/ethnic groups, majorities in all categories express at least some concern about this issue. “How concerned are you about being able to afford necessary health care when a family member gets sick— very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not at all concerned?” All Adults Very concerned Somewhat concerned Not too concerned Not at all concerned Don't know 63% 19 8 8 2 U.S.-born citizens 58% 21 11 10 0 Citizenship Foreignborn, U.S. citizens Foreign-born, non-U.S. citizens 69% 79% 17 15 63 83 00 Likely Voters 56% 21 11 11 1 Last year, state law SB2 was passed by the legislature and signed by then-Governor Gray Davis. This state law requires large and medium-sized employers to buy health insurance coverage for their employees by specified dates (2006 and 2007, respectively). More recently, signatures have been gathered to place a referendum on the state ballot to repeal this law. Los Angeles County residents, as well as the county’s likely voters, strongly oppose efforts to repeal SB2—by a two-to-one margin. Democrats strongly oppose repealing SB2, while Republicans have more mixed views on this state referendum. Strong support for keeping SB2 is found in all age, education, income, citizenship status, and racial/ethnic groups. “How about a referendum to repeal or remove state law SB2 that was passed last year requiring large employers to buy health insurance for their workers and families by 2006, and medium-size employers to buy health insurance for their workers and families by 2007? Would you vote yes to repeal or remove SB2 or no to keep SB2?” All Adults Yes, repeal / remove No, keep Don't know 30% 64 6 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 24% 40% 29% 70 54 65 666 Likely Voters 30% 63 7 - 16 - Local and State Governance Issues State Tax Increases for Mental Health Services We noted earlier that there appears to be significant agreement on one issue involving state taxes: that the wealthiest Californians should pay higher taxes to fund state programs. How do voters respond to one of the citizens’ initiatives currently being proposed by a member of the state legislature which would impose a 1 percent additional tax on income over $1 million and earmarking these new revenues specifically for mental health services? Currently this fiscal proposal enjoys solid public support: More than two in three adults and likely voters support the idea of raising taxes in this fashion, and a majority of both Democrats (76%) and Republicans (56%) support the proposal. Public support runs 60 percent or more in all racial/ethnic groups and across all age, education, and income categories. “How about imposing an additional 1 percent tax on taxable income over $1 million to provide dedicated funding for mental health services? Would you vote yes or no?” Yes No Don't know All Adults 71% 25 4 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 76% 20 4 56% 40 4 70% 24 6 Likely Voters 68% 28 4 Property Tax Increases for Schools There is also an effort under way to qualify a measure for the state ballot that would change some of the property tax limits that have been in place since California voters passed Proposition 13 in 1978. This citizens’ initiative calls for providing additional funding for kindergarten through 12th grade public education and establishing a voluntary universal preschool program with funds provided through additional taxes on commercial and residential property that produces income. Existing property tax limits would remain in effect for residential properties that do not produce income. While six in 10 adult residents approve of this measure, it leads by a narrower margin among likely voters (52% to 44%). There is a deep partisan divide on this issue, with Republicans strongly opposed (57%) and Democrats strongly in favor (64%) of this effort to reform the Proposition 13 tax limits. Public support declines with increasing age, income, and education. County residents with children at home (73%) are much more supportive of property tax increases that would go to the schools than are those with no children at home (55%). Support is lower among whites (52%) than among Latinos (77%), blacks (60%), and Asians (64%). “How about providing additional funding for K-12 public education and establishing a voluntary universal preschool program with funds provided through additional taxes on commercial and residential property that produces income? Would you vote yes or no?” Yes No Don't know All Adults 63% 33 4 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 64% 31 5 40% 57 3 63% 32 5 Likely Voters 52% 44 4 - 17 - March 2004 Local and State Governance Issues Workers’ Compensation Reform Another important policy issue that might appear on the November ballot in the form of a citizens’ initiative is the reform of the state’s workers’ compensation system. While business interests have been calling for systemic reforms because of rising employer costs and their impacts on job creation, other groups have raised concerns about the impacts of these reforms on injured workers. The voters’ response to workers’ compensation reform may depend on how this policy debate is framed. Two in three likely voters say they favor policies that reduce employer costs for workers’ compensation. However, there is substantial opposition to reducing employer costs if it means reducing the benefits for employees who are injured at work. While most Republicans continue to favor reducing employer costs, even if employee benefits are reduced, support from Democratic voters falls off sharply under this contingency. Would you vote yes or no? How about reducing employer costs for workers’ compensation by requiring employees to prove an injury took place at work, removing employer liability for previous jobrelated injuries, and establishing medical treatment guidelines? How about reducing employer costs for workers’ compensation even if it meant fewer benefits for employees who are injured at work? Yes No Don't know Yes No Don't know All Adults 64% 28 8 37% 56 7 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 59% 74% 69% 33 20 23 8 33% 61 6 6 59% 36 5 8 35% 58 7 Likely Voters 67% 25 8 42% 49 9 State and Local Fiscal Reform Local officials throughout California face revenue cuts as the state government seeks ways to reduce the gap between spending and revenues. Some have proposed a citizens’ initiative that would require voter approval for the state government to reduce local government revenues. Two in three likely voters support this proposal in concept. However, there is a sharp decline in support if local government funding guarantees come at the expense of funding for state programs. State and local tax reforms that call for local governments to keep more property tax funds in exchange for sending more sales tax and vehicle license fees to the state government also had a mixed response from Los Angeles County voters. Would you vote yes or no? All Adults How about requiring a two-thirds vote of the legislature and voter approval for any reduction of local government revenues? Yes No Don't know 60% 30 10 How about requiring a two-thirds vote of the legislature and voter approval for any reduction of local government revenues even if it meant less funding for state government services? Yes No Don't know 48% 41 11 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 62% 63% 61% 29 30 28 9 7 11 48% 54% 54% 43 34 38 9 12 8 Likely Voters 66% 26 8 53% 36 11 - 18 - Survey Methodology The Los Angeles County Survey is a special edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey, which is directed by Mark Baldassare, research director at the Public Policy Institute of California, with assistance in research and writing from Jon Cohen, survey research manager, and Eliana Kaimowitz and Renatta DeFever, survey research associates. The survey was conducted in collaboration with the School of Policy, Planning, and Development at the University of Southern California, with partial funding from the California Community Foundation. The survey methods, questions, and content of the report were solely determined by Mark Baldassare. However, the survey benefited from consultation with staff at the University of Southern California, the California Community Foundation, and other Los Angeles County institutions. The findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,002 Los Angeles County adult residents interviewed between February 27 and March 9, 2004. Interviewing took place on weekday nights and weekend days, using a computer-generated random sample of telephone numbers that ensured that both listed and unlisted telephone numbers were called. All telephone exchanges in Los Angeles County were eligible for calling. Telephone numbers in the survey sample were called up to six times to increase the likelihood of reaching eligible households. Once a household was reached, an adult respondent (age 18 or older) was randomly chosen for interviewing by using the “last birthday method” to avoid biases in age and gender. Each interview took an average of 20 minutes to complete. Interviewing was conducted in English or Spanish. We did not include Asian language interviews because the 2000 U.S. Census indicates that fewer than 1 percent of Los Angeles County adults speak any given Asian language and describe themselves as not speaking English at least “well.” Casa Hispana translated the survey into Spanish; and Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas, Inc. conducted the telephone interviewing. We used recent U.S. Census and state figures to compare the demographic characteristics of the survey sample with characteristics of Los Angeles County’s adult population and, accordingly, statistically weighted the survey sample. The sampling error for the total sample of 2,002 adults is +/- 2 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that 95 times out of 100, the results will be within 2 percentage points of what they would be if all adults in Los Angeles County were interviewed. The sampling error for subgroups is larger. Where noted, we asked questions of half samples (approximately 1,000 respondents); for these questions, the sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points. Sampling error is only one type of error to which surveys are subject. Results may also be affected by factors such as question wording, question order, and survey timing. We present the results for non-Hispanic whites (referred to in the tables and text as “whites” for the sake of brevity), blacks/African Americans (“blacks”), Latinos, and Asians. We also contrast the opinions of registered Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The “independents” category includes only those who are registered to vote as “decline to state.” In some cases, we compare the PPIC Survey of Los Angeles County responses to responses recorded in a 1994 Los Angeles County survey conducted by the Los Angeles Times. We also used earlier PPIC Statewide Surveys to analyze trends over time in Los Angeles County and to compare public opinion in Los Angeles County to opinions in the other major regions of California and statewide. - 19 - Survey Methodology In this report, we present results by county area, dividing Los Angeles County into four geographic areas. The four areas highlighted in the report and presented in the Los Angeles County map on page ii represent a consolidation of the county’s eight Service Planning Areas (SPAs). In November 1993, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved eight regional SPAs for the purposes of planning, service coordination, and information- and data-sharing by major county departments serving children and families. At that time, the county’s departments of Children and Family Services, Mental Health, Health Services, Public Social Services, and Probation were instructed to begin implementing these common boundaries for planning activities; and noncounty entities were asked to adopt the same planning areas. Since then, the California Community Foundation, the United Way, and the California Wellness Foundation have also adopted the SPA boundaries to help organize and coordinate their planning. These areas, and how they relate to our county areas, are described below, including a partial list of the cities and communities included. • North Valleys—includes Acton, Alhambra, Altadena, Arcadia, Azusa, Baldwin Park, Claremont, Covina, Diamond Bar, Duarte, El Monte, Glendora, Gorman, Hacienda-Rowland Heights, La Puente, La Verne, Lake Hughes, Lake Los Angeles, Lancaster, Littlerock, Llano, Monrovia, Monterey Park, Mt. Wilson, Palmdale, Pasadena, Pearblossom, Pomona, Rosemead, San Dimas, San Gabriel, San Marino, Santa Clarita, Sierra Madre, South Pasadena, Temple City, Valyermo, Walnut, and West Covina, as well as other cities and communities. • San Fernando—includes Burbank, Calabasas, Canoga Park, Encino, Chatsworth, Glendale, La Canada, La Crescenta, Mid-San Fernando Valley, North Hills, North Hollywood, Northridge, Northwest San Fernando Valley, Pacoima, Reseda, San Fernando, Sherman Oaks, Studio City, Sunland, Sylmar, Tarzana, Thousand Oaks, Tujunga, Van Nuys, Westlake Village, Winnetka, and Woodland Hills, as well as other cities and communities. • West—includes beach cities, Bel Air, Beverly Hills, Brentwood, Carson, Culver City, El Segundo, Gardena, Harbor City, Hawthorne, Inglewood, Lawndale, Lomita, Long Beach, Malibu, Pacific Palisades, Palos Verdes, Playa del Rey, San Pedro, Santa Monica, Topanga Canyon, Torrance, Venice/Mar Vista, West Los Angeles, Westchester, and Wilmington, as well as other cities and communities. • Central/Southeast—includes Artesia, Bell/Bell Garden/Cudahy, Bellflower, Boyle Heights, Central Los Angeles, Cerritos, Commerce, Compton, Crenshaw, Downey, East Los Angeles, Hawaiian Gardens, Hollywood, Huntington Park, La Habra, La Mirada, Lakewood, Lynwood, Maywood, Montebello, Northeast, Norwalk, Paramount, Pico Rivera, Santa Fe Springs, South Central, South Gate, University, West Compton, West Hollywood, West Wilshire, Whittier, and Wilshire, as well as other cities and communities. In this survey report , North Valleys includes SPA 1 and SPA 3; San Fernando includes SPA 2; West includes SPA 5 and SPA 8; and Central/ Southeast includes SPA 4, SPA 6, and SPA 7. For additional information on the Los Angeles County SPAs, see the following page on the web site of United Way of Greater Los Angeles: http://www.unitedwayla.org/pages/rpts_resource/state_spas.html. - 20 - PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY: SPECIAL SURVEY OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY FEBRUARY 27—MARCH 9, 2004 2,002 CALIFORNIA ADULT RESIDENTS; ENGLISH AND SPANISH MARGIN OF ERROR +/- 2% AT 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL FOR TOTAL SAMPLE 1. First, I would like to ask you some questions about where you live. Is the place you currently live a singlefamily detached home; an attached home such as a condo, duplex, or town home; an apartment; or another type of dwelling? 55% single-family detached home 13 attached home 28 apartment 4 other 2. All things considered, would you say you are satisfied or dissatisfied these days with the community in which you live? 80% satisfied 17 dissatisfied 3 don’t know 3. Overall, would you say the quality of life in your community is getting better, getting worse, or staying about the same? 25% getting better 19 getting worse 53 staying about the same 3 don’t know I’d like to ask how you would rate some of the public services in your local area. [rotate questions 4 to 7] 4. How about local streets and roads? Would you say they are excellent, good, fair, or poor? 8% excellent 43 good 32 fair 16 poor 1 don’t know 5. How about local parks, beaches, and other public recreational facilities? 15% excellent 48 good 25 fair 7 poor 5 don’t know 6. How about local police protection? 20% excellent 47 good 21 fair 8 poor 4 don’t know 7. How about local public schools? 11% excellent 32 good 21 fair 16 poor 20 don’t know 8. Overall, how would you rate the performance of city government in solving problems in your city— excellent, good, fair, or poor? 6% excellent 33 good 36 fair 16 poor 1 don’t live in a city (volunteered) 8 don’t know 9. What’s the most important problem facing your community today? Is there another problem that is almost as important? [Open-ended question, accepted two replies; both replies listed] 14% crime 13 gangs 13 education, schools 10 economy, jobs, unemployment 7 traffic 7 housing, homelessness 6 growth and development 5 drugs 3 graffiti 8 there are no problems 11 don’t know 10. Do you think that things in Los Angeles County are generally going in the right direction or are they seriously off on the wrong track? 45% right direction 38 wrong track 17 don’t know - 21 - 11. In general, how would you rate the economy in Los Angeles County today? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, or poor? 2% excellent 23 good 45 fair 28 poor 2 don’t know 12. Do you think your community is in an economic recession or not? (if yes: Do you think it is in a serious, a moderate, or a mild recession?) 12% yes, serious recession 22 yes, moderate recession 11 yes, mild recession 47 no 8 don’t know 13. In the future, do you think that Los Angeles County will be a better place to live than it is now, a worse place to live than it is now, or there will be no change? 34% better place 32 worse place 27 no change 7 don’t know 14. On another topic, how would you rate the performance of county government in solving problems in Los Angeles County—excellent, good, fair, or poor? 3% excellent 22 good 46 fair 21 poor 8 don’t know 15. What type of transportation project do you think should have the top priority for public funds in Los Angeles County? [read rotated list, then ask “or something else?”] 23% freeways and highways 19 the public bus system 17 light rail 14 local streets and roads 13 the subway system 7 carpool lanes 4 something else (specify) 3 don’t know 16. Overall, do you think that the Metro Rail System has been a good thing or a bad thing for the Los Angeles transportation system, or has it made no difference? 73% good thing 4 bad thing 16 no difference 7 don’t know 17. The November 2004 state ballot may include a 9.95 billion dollar bond measure that would fund the planning and construction of a high-speed train in California, linking Los Angeles to San Francisco via the Central Valley. If the election were today, would you vote yes or no? 60% yes 32 no 8 don’t know [rotate questions 18 and 19] 18. What if there was a measure on the county ballot to increase the local sales tax for local transportation projects by one-half cent? Would you vote yes or no? 55% yes 40 no 5 don’t know 19. What if there was a measure on the county ballot to increase the local sales tax for police protection and public safety by one-half cent? Would you vote yes or no? 65% yes 32 no 3 don’t know 20. Changing topics, overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California? 51% approve 33 disapprove 16 don’t know 21. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the job the California legislature is doing at this time? 40% approve 42 disapprove 18 don’t know 22. On another topic, as you may know, the state government has an annual budget of around 100 billion dollars and currently faces a multibillion dollar gap between state spending and state revenue. Do you think that this deficit is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem for the people of California today? 70% big problem 22 somewhat of a problem 4 not a problem 4 don’t know - 22 - 23. How would you prefer to deal with the state’s deficit— mostly through spending cuts; mostly through tax increases; through a mix of spending cuts and tax increases; or do you think that it is okay for the state to borrow money and run a budget deficit? 28. How concerned are you that the state’s budget deficit will cause severe cuts in funding for health and human services in Los Angeles County—very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not at all concerned? 36% mixture of spending cuts and tax increases 60% very concerned 30 mostly through spending cuts 26 somewhat concerned 11 okay for the state to borrow money and run a 8 not very concerned budget deficit 5 not at all concerned 10 mostly through tax increases 1 don’t know 4 other answer (specify) 9 don’t know [rotate questions 29 to 31] 24. Governor Schwarzenegger’s budget plan for the next fiscal year includes no new taxes, while it reduces the deficit through spending cuts in state programs and the use of 1.3 billion dollars in local government property tax money. In 29. What if the state said it needed more money just to maintain current funding for K-12 public education? Would you be willing to pay higher state taxes for this purpose? general, do you approve or disapprove of the governor’s plan 61% yes to use local government tax money to reduce the deficit? 35 no 44% approve 4 don’t know 45 disapprove 30. What if the state said it needed more money just to 11 don’t know maintain current funding for local government services 25. How important is it to you that the governor’s budget plan for next year includes no new taxes—very important, somewhat important, not too important, or not such as parks and recreation, police and public safety, and roads and transportation? Would you be willing to pay higher state taxes for this purpose? at all important? 49% yes 45% very important 32 somewhat important 46 no 5 don’t know 11 not too important 31. What if the state said it needed more money just to 9 not at all important maintain current funding for health and human services 3 don’t know provided by county government? Would you be [rotate questions 26 to 28] willing to pay higher state taxes for this purpose? 26. How concerned are you that the state’s budget deficit will cause severe cuts in K-12 public education in Los Angeles County—very concerned, somewhat concerned, 50% yes 44 no 6 don’t know not very concerned, or not at all concerned? Tax and fee increases could be used to help reduce the 65% very concerned 21 somewhat concerned 7 not very concerned state’s large gap between spending and revenue. For each of the following, please say if you favor or oppose the proposal. 6 not at all concerned [rotate questions 32 to 34] 1 don’t know 32. How about raising the top rate of the state income tax 27. How concerned are you that the state’s budget deficit will cause severe cuts in funding for local government paid by the wealthiest Californians? (Do you favor or oppose this proposal?) services such as parks and recreation, police and public safety, and roads and transportation in Los Angeles County—very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not at all concerned? 50% very concerned 37 somewhat concerned 7 not very concerned 5 not at all concerned 1 don’t know 71% favor 24 oppose 5 don’t know 33. How about raising the state portion of the sales tax by one-half cent? (Do you favor or oppose this proposal?) 53% favor 44 oppose 3 don’t know - 23 - March 2004 34. How about increasing the vehicle license fee or so-called “car tax” to pay for local government services? (Do you favor or oppose this proposal?) 24% favor 72 oppose 4 don’t know Several fiscal, tax, and economic policy proposals may appear on the November 2004 ballot. For each of the following, please say whether you would vote yes or no if the election were today. [rotate questions 35 to 40] 35. How about providing additional funding for K-12 public education and establishing a voluntary universal preschool program with funds provided through additional taxes on commercial and residential property that produces income? Would you vote yes or no? 63% yes 33 no 4 don’t know 36. How about imposing an additional 1 percent tax on taxable income over 1 million dollars to provide dedicated funding for mental health services? Would you vote yes or no? 71% yes 25 no 4 don’t know 37a. [half sample] How about requiring a two-thirds vote of the legislature and voter approval for any reduction of local government revenues? Would you vote yes or no? 60% yes 30 no 10 don’t know 37b. [half sample] How about requiring a two-thirds vote of the legislature and voter approval for any reduction of local government revenues even if it meant less funding for state government services? Would you vote yes or no? 48% yes 41 no 11 don’t know 38. [half sample] How about allowing local governments to keep more property tax money in exchange for sending more sales tax and vehicle license fee revenue to the state government? Would you vote yes or no? 36% yes 52 no 12 don’t know 39. [half sample] How about a referendum to repeal or remove state law SB2 that was passed last year requiring large employers to buy health insurance for their workers and families by 2006, and medium-size employers to buy health insurance for their workers and families by 2007? Would you vote yes to repeal or remove SB2 or no to keep SB2? 30% yes, to repeal / remove 64 no, to keep 6 don’t know 40a. [half sample] How about reducing employer costs for workers’ compensation by requiring employees to prove an injury took place at work, removing employer liability for previous job-related injuries, and establishing medical treatment guidelines? Would you vote yes or no? 64% yes 28 no 8 don’t know 40b. [half sample] How about reducing employer costs for workers’ compensation even if it meant fewer benefits for employees who are injured at work? Would you vote yes or no? 37% yes 56 no 7 don’t know 41. Suppose your local school district had a bond measure on the November 2004 ballot to pay for school construction projects. Would you vote yes or no? 69% yes 27 no 4 don’t know 42. What if there were a measure on the county ballot for new taxes on alcoholic beverages and cigarettes in order to fund county public health services? Would you vote yes or no? 76% yes 22 no 2 don’t know 43. Which of these two views is closest to your own— [rotate] Immigrants today are a benefit to Los Angeles County because of their hard work and job skills; or immigrants today are a burden to Los Angeles County because they use public services. 55% benefit 36 burden 9 don’t know - 24 - 44. And how big a problem is the amount of illegal immigration into Los Angeles County—is it a major problem, a moderate-sized problem, minor problem, or not a problem at all? 47% major problem 26 moderate-sized problem 12 minor problem 13 not a problem at all 2 don’t know 45. And which of these two views is closest to your own— [rotate] Illegal immigrants and their children should have access to public health care; or illegal immigrants and their children should be denied access to public health care? 61% illegal immigrants should have access to public health care 33 illegal immigrants should be denied access to public health care 6 don’t know 46. On another topic, are you, yourself, now covered by any form of health insurance or health plan? [read if necessary: A health plan includes any private insurance plan through your employer or a plan that you purchased yourself, as well as a government program like Medicare, Medicaid, or Medi-Cal.] 80% yes 20 no 47. Have you or anyone in your immediate family ever used a Los Angeles County public hospital or the public health care system in Los Angeles County? [if no: Do you think you will ever use the public health care system in Los Angeles County?] 45% yes 14 no, will use 28 no, will never use 11 no, don’t know 2 don’t know 48. And how concerned are you about being able to afford necessary health care when a family member gets sick— very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not at all concerned? 63% very concerned 19 somewhat concerned 8 not too concerned 8 not at all concerned 2 don’t know 49. On another topic, generally speaking, how much interest would you say you have in politics—a great deal, a fair amount, only a little, or none? 29% great deal 38 fair amount 23 only a little 8 none 2 don’t know 50. Some people are registered to vote and others are not. Are you absolutely certain that you are registered to vote? 73% yes [ask q.51] 27 no [skip to q.53] 51. Are you registered as a Democrat, a Republican, another party, or as an independent? 53% Democrat [ask q.52b] 27 Republican [ask q.52c] 3 another party (specify) [skip to q.53] 17 independent [ask q.52a] 52a.Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party or Democratic Party? 26% Republican party [skip to q.53] 42 Democratic party [skip to q.53] 27 neither (volunteered) [skip to q.53] 5 don’t know [skip to q.53] 52b.Would you call yourself a strong Democrat or not a very strong Democrat? 54% strong [skip to q.53] 44 not very strong [skip to q.53] 1 don’t know [skip to q.53] 52c.Would you call yourself a strong Republican or not a very strong Republican? 50% strong [ask q.53] 48 not very strong [ask q.53] 2 don’t know [ask q.53] 53. On another topic, would you consider yourself to be politically very liberal, somewhat liberal, middle-ofthe-road, somewhat conservative, or very conservative? 11% very liberal 23 somewhat liberal 28 middle-of-the-road 23 somewhat conservative 12 very conservative 3 don’t know - 25 - March 2004 54. How often would you say you vote—always, nearly always, part of the time, seldom, or never? 42% always 23 nearly always 10 part of the time 4 seldom 21 never [55-58: demographic questions] 59. (if employed) How do you usually commute to work— drive alone, carpool, public bus or transit, or some other means? 75% drive alone 12 carpool 7 public bus or transit 3 some other means (specify) 3 work at home (volunteered) 60. (if employed) Overall, how satisfied are you with your commute to work? Are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied? 41% very satisfied 31 somewhat satisfied 14 somewhat dissatisfied 12 very dissatisfied 2 don’t know [61-66: demographic questions] - 26 - PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY Advisory Committee Mitchel Benson Director of Communications California Treasurer Phil Angelides Angela Blackwell President Policy Link Paul Brest President The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Mollyann Brodie Vice President Kaiser Family Foundation Bruce E. Cain Director Institute of Governmental Studies University of California, Berkeley James E. Canales President The James Irvine Foundation Matt Fong Chairman Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Advisory Committee William Hauck President California Business Roundtable Dennis A. Hunt Vice President Communications and Public Affairs The California Endowment Sherry Bebitch Jeffe Senior Scholar School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Carol S. Larson President and CEO The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Monica Lozano Publisher and CEO La Opinión Donna Lucas Deputy Chief of Staff Office of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Max Neiman Professor Political Science Department University of California, Riverside Dan Rosenheim News Director KPIX-TV Carol Stogsdill President Stogsdill Consulting Cathy Taylor Vice President and Editorial Commentary Director Orange County Register Raymond L. Watson Vice Chairman of the Board Emeritus The Irvine Company Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center - 27- PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA Board of Directors Raymond L. Watson, Chairman Vice Chairman of the Board Emeritus The Irvine Company Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Gary K. Hart Founder Institute for Education Reform California State University, Sacramento Walter B. Hewlett Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities David W. Lyon President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California Vilma S. Martinez Partner Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP Cheryl White Mason Chief, Civil Liability Management Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office Arjay Miller Dean Emeritus Graduate School of Business Stanford University Ki Suh Park Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates Constance L. Rice Co-Director The Advancement Project Thomas C. Sutton Chairman & CEO Pacific Life Insurance Company Cynthia A. Telles Department of Psychiatry UCLA School of Medicine Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center Advisory Council Mary C. Daly Research Advisor Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Clifford W. Graves General Manager Department of Community Development City of Los Angeles Elizabeth G. Hill Legislative Analyst State of California Hilary W. Hoynes Associate Professor Department of Economics University of California, Davis Andrés E. Jiménez Director California Policy Research Center University of California Office of the President Norman R. King Executive Director San Bernardino Associated Governments Daniel A. Mazmanian C. Erwin and Ione Piper Dean and Professor School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Dean Misczynski Director California Research Bureau Rudolf Nothenberg Chief Administrative Officer (Retired) City and County of San Francisco Manuel Pastor Professor, Latin American & Latino Studies University of California, Santa Cruz Peter Schrag Contributing Editor The Sacramento Bee James P. Smith Senior Economist RAND Corporation PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94111 Phone: (415) 291-4400 Fax: (415) 291-4401 www.ppic.org info@ppic.org" } ["___content":protected]=> string(102) "

S 304MBS

" ["_permalink":protected]=> string(105) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/ppic-statewide-survey-special-survey-of-los-angeles-march-2004/s_304mbs/" ["_next":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_prev":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_css_class":protected]=> NULL ["id"]=> int(8396) ["ID"]=> int(8396) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:37:18" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(3591) ["post_status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["post_title"]=> string(8) "S 304MBS" ["post_type"]=> string(10) "attachment" ["slug"]=> string(8) "s_304mbs" ["__type":protected]=> NULL ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(12) "S_304MBS.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(7) "1296210" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(91840) "PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY MARCH 2004 Public Policy Institute of California Special Survey of Los Angeles in collaboration with the University of Southern California ○○○○○ Mark Baldassare Research Director & Survey Director The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is a private operating foundation established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute is dedicated to improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. PPIC’s research agenda focuses on three program areas: population, economy, and governance and public finance. Studies within these programs are examining the underlying forces shaping California’s future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns, including education, health care, immigration, income distribution, welfare, urban growth, and state and local finance. PPIC was created because three concerned citizens – William R. Hewlett, Roger W. Heyns, and Arjay Miller – recognized the need for linking objective research to the realities of California public policy. Their goal was to help the state’s leaders better understand the intricacies and implications of contemporary issues and make informed public policy decisions when confronted with challenges in the future. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. David W. Lyon is founding President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Raymond L. Watson is Chairman of the Board of Directors. 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 • San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-4400 • Fax: (415) 291-4401 info@ppic.org • www.ppic.org Preface The Los Angeles County Survey—a collaborative effort of the Public Policy Institute of California and the School of Planning, Policy, and Development at the University of Southern California—is a special edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey. The survey is supported by a grant from the California Community Foundation. This is the second in an annual series of PPIC surveys of Los Angeles County. This series of large-scale, comprehensive public opinion surveys on social, economic, and political attitudes and policy preferences is designed to provide timely, relevant, and objective information on the county’s overall adult population, geographic areas, and diverse racial/ethnic, economic, and social groups. Los Angeles County is the most populous county in the nation with approximately 10 million residents. The county has grown by about 1 million residents in the past 10 years, including more new immigrants than any other region of the country except the New York City area. Today, the county’s population is 47 percent Latino, 30 percent non-Latino white, 12 percent Asian, and 9 percent black—similar to the racial/ethnic profile that state demographers predict for California by 2040. Reflecting the size and diversity of the county, local government is large and complex, as are the problems of delivering local public services to its residents. In this survey, we are especially interested in understanding the changing local conditions in the past decade and the challenges and opportunities created by the state government’s current fiscal situation. Thus, we contrast residents perceptions today with public opinion data collected in 1994—a year in which the state and county faced unprecedented economic, fiscal, social, and political challenges. We also analyze residents’ attitudes toward the state’ current budget deficit, including its perceived impact on local services, and spending and tax preferences. Public opinion data are critical to informing discussions on key issues and stimulating public debate. The overall intent of this PPIC special survey series on Los Angeles County is to help guide the decisions of local, state, and federal policymakers and the actions of public, nonprofit, and public-private partnerships. This current survey of 2,002 adult residents includes questions from earlier PPIC Statewide Surveys and a Los Angeles Times poll in June 1994 for comparisons. We also consider racial/ethnic, income, and political differences. The following issues are explored in this survey: • Changing Local Conditions—How do residents rate the county today, and are they optimistic about the future? How do they rate the quality of life in their local communities, and what are the most important problems facing local communities? How satisfied are residents with their local services, and what are their transportation priorities? How do residents perceive the local economic outlook? • State’s Fiscal Conditions—How serious a problem is the current multibillion dollar gap between state spending and state revenues? Do residents prefer to deal with the state budget deficit through spending cuts or tax increases, and what do they think of the governor’s budget plans? How concerned are they about the impacts of the state’s deficit on the delivery of local services? Are residents willing to increase their state and local taxes to maintain funding for local public services? • Local and State Governance Issues—How do residents rate the performance of state officials and local government? Do they view immigrants as having a positive effect, and do they support access of illegal immigrants to public health care? How much are they concerned about health care costs, and do they support efforts to extend health care coverage? What about proposed ballot measures that seek to raise taxes to pay for mental health services, increase property taxes for school funding, reform the workers’ compensation system, and protect state funding for local governments? Copies of this report may be ordered by e-mail (order@ppic.org) or phone (415-291-4400). Copies of this and earlier reports are posted on the publications page of the PPIC web site (www.ppic.org). For questions about the survey, please contact survey@ppic.org. -i- - ii - Contents Preface Press Release Changing Local Conditions State’s Fiscal Conditions Local and State Governance Issues Survey Methodology Survey Questions and Results Survey Advisory Committee i v 1 7 13 19 21 27 - iii - Press Release Para ver este comunicado de prensa en español, por favor visite nuestra página de internet: http://www.ppic.org/main/pressreleaseindex.asp SPECIAL SURVEY OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY LOS ANGELES COUNTY: A HOUSE DIVIDED RACIAL, POLITICAL GROUPS HAVE DIFFERENT TAKE ON PRESENT, FUTURE Residents Also Conflicted Over Immigration, Fiscal and Economic Policy Issues SAN FRANCISCO, California, March 17, 2004 — The mood of Los Angeles County residents may be more upbeat than it was a decade ago, but how they feel about quality of life, the future course of the county, and government services and policies depends a lot on who they are and where they stand politically, according to a new survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). Today, the number of residents who believe LA County is headed in the right direction is nearly double (45%) what it was 10 years ago (24%). But that upswing masks deep differences in attitudes between racial and ethnic groups and among political parties. “We find such contradictory views about quality of life and preferences on public policies and government priorities that it’s almost as though some residents of this one region are living in parallel universes,” says PPIC Statewide Survey Director Mark Baldassare. Differences along racial and ethnic lines, particularly for blacks, are striking. With the exception of blacks, attitudes toward day-to-day life seem to be generally positive: 86 percent of whites, 85 percent of Asians, and 80 percent of Latinos say they are satisfied with the community they live in, but one-third of blacks (33%) are dissatisfied. Looking ahead, a majority of Asians (52%) and Latinos (50%) think the county is headed in the right direction, but whites (43%) and blacks (36%) are less optimistic. Blacks also have a different take on the most important problems facing the county. Over the past decade, concern with crime as the biggest problem dropped from 34 to 14 percent, top concern with gangs dropped from 31 to 13 percent, and top concern with drugs dropped from 12 to 5 percent. Despite this general decline, 24 percent of blacks now say gangs are the county’s most important problem, 21 percent name crime, and 13 percent name drugs. Further, and probably related to these perceptions, blacks (52%) are much less likely than whites (72%), Asians (66%), or Latinos (65%) to give police protection high marks. “Quality-of-life issues like neighborhood satisfaction and personal safety are the stuff of daily experience; they are vital in shaping attitudes toward the community,” says Baldassare. “Civic leaders need to consider what is so different about the experience of African Americans that it makes their outlook distinctively more negative.” And Then There’s Politics … Partisan Divisions Rival Racial/Ethnic Differences The perceptions and opinions of LA County’s Republicans, Democrats, and independents are more divergent than the racial and ethnic differences. Baldassare observes that “In LA County, we’re seeing the same kind of growing political polarization that is making the state even more difficult to govern.” There are stark partisan differences in approval ratings for Governor Schwarzenegger and in dealing with state debt. Republicans (80%) give the governor much higher approval ratings than Democrats (45%) or independents (53%). Although Democrats (78%), Republicans (76%), and independents (73%) strongly agree that the state budget deficit is a big problem, they part company when asked how best to deal with it. Pluralities of Democrats (42%) and independents (44%) support a mixture of spending cuts and tax increases, compared to just one-third (33%) of Republicans, who prefer using mostly spending cuts (44%). Republicans also approve of the governor’s plan to take local property tax money and use it to lower the state deficit, nearly two to one over Democrats (64% to 33%). -v- Press Release Conflicting views about how to reduce the deficit mirror differences about cutting public services. Far more Democrats than Republicans or independents say they are very concerned about cuts to K-12 education (Democrats 76%, independents 57%, Republicans 43%), health and human services (Democrats 74%, independents 53%, Republicans 36%), and government services such as parks, police, and transportation (Democrats 63%, independents 48%, Republicans 29%). Tension over Taxes Despite these partisan differences on cutting services, most of LA County’s likely voters are willing to raise state taxes to maintain current funding levels for K-12 education (56%), health and human services (48%), and local government services (50%). Once again, however, a partisan divide prevails: Majorities of Democrats support tax increases for the three areas (K-12 education 66%, health and human services 56%, local government services 54%), while majorities of Republicans oppose them (K-12 education 52%, health and human services 62%, local government services 56%). “Although taxes generally top the list of contentious issues between Republicans and Democrats, the divide on K-12 education, where there is usually more voter consensus, is surprising,” says Baldassare. For example, there is acute disagreement over a proposal that would reform Proposition 13 tax limits and increase taxes on commercial and residential properties that produce income in order to fund K-12 education and to establish universal preschool programs: Republicans are strongly opposed (57%) and Democrats are strongly in favor (64%) of this proposal. There is similar disagreement on the local level, where majorities of Democrats (70%) and independents (69%), but less than half of Republicans (49%), would vote yes if a local school district bond appeared on the November ballot. Despite all the partisan contention over taxes, there are points of agreement. Majorities of Democrats (79%), independents (74%), and Republicans (55%) support raising the state income tax paid by the wealthiest Californians. Even greater majorities support raising so-called “sin” taxes on alcohol and cigarettes in order to fund county health services (Democrats 81%, independents 72%, Republicans 67%). Moreover, there is majority opposition to increasing the vehicle license fee among all parties (Republicans 79%, independents 68%, Democrats 66%). Attitudes Toward Immigrants Split; Political, Racial/Ethnic Differences Emerge Again Other issues also create division. While a majority of residents (55%) believe immigrants are good for the region because of their hard work and job skills, illegal immigration continues to trouble LA County. A 1994 Los Angeles Times poll found that 52 percent of residents thought the amount of illegal immigration into LA County was a major problem; today, 47 percent say the same. Baldassare notes that negative views toward illegal immigration and positive ones toward immigrants are not contradictory. “Many residents distinguish between immigrants, as people, and illegal immigration. They see immigrants as contributing to the community, while illegal immigration is associated with a variety of costs and problems.” Again, the general consensus masks a polarization of Republicans and Democrats: In perfect contrast, 58 percent of Democrats say immigrants are a benefit and 58 percent of Republicans say they are a burden. A split also occurs along racial and ethnic lines, with Latinos (70%) and Asians (68%) being far more likely than blacks (38%) or whites (44%) to see immigrants as a benefit. Despite these varied opinions, a strong majority (61%) of all county residents believe undocumented immigrants and their children should have access to public health care, including majorities of every racial and ethnic group (whites 51%, blacks 52%, Asians 55%, Latinos 74%). It’s All in the Packaging: Support for Workers’ Comp Reform Depends on Question On another divisive issue – workers’ compensation reform – voters’ response may hinge on how the debate is framed. Two in three LA County voters (67%) favor reducing employer costs for workers’ compensation – however, that support drops to 42 percent if it means reducing benefits to employees injured at work. Here again, voters diverge along party lines: Most Republicans (74%) favor lowering employer costs even if it means fewer - vi - Press Release benefits for injured employees (59%), while Democrats support for lowering employer costs (59%) diminishes to 33 percent if it means fewer benefits. “If this issue appears on next November’s ballot, the victors may be the ones who control the spin,” says Baldassare. More Key Findings • Repeal of SB2 Health Coverage Law Unpopular (page 16) Majorities of Democrats (70%), independents (65%), and Republicans (54%) are opposed to current efforts to repeal state law SB2, which requires large and medium-sized employers to buy health insurance coverage for their employees. • Support for Mental Health (page 17) A strong majority (68%) of likely voters say they approve a 1 percent tax increase on income over $1 million to fund mental health services. • State vs. Local (page 18) Sixty-six percent of likely voters support requiring a two-thirds vote of the legislature and voter approval before any reduction in local government revenue occurs – however, this support drops to 53 percent when it means less revenue for state services. About the Survey This survey of Los Angeles County — a collaborative effort of PPIC and the School of Policy, Planning, and Development at the University of Southern California — is a special edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey, supported in part through a grant from the California Community Foundation. This is the second in an annual series of PPIC surveys of Los Angeles County. Findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,002 Los Angeles County adult residents interviewed between February 27 and March 9, 2004. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish. The sampling error for the total sample is +/- 2%. For more information on survey methodology, see page 19. Mark Baldassare is research director at PPIC, where he holds the Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Chair in Public Policy. He is founder of the PPIC Statewide Survey, which he has directed since 1998. His most recent book, A California State of Mind: The Conflicted Voter in a Changing World, is available at www.ppic.org. PPIC is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to improving public policy through objective, nonpartisan research on the economic, social, and political issues that affect Californians. The institute was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. This report will appear on PPIC’s website (www.ppic.org) on March 17. ### - vii - Do you think things in L.A. County are going in the right direction or are they on the wrong track? (Percent "right direction") 60 50 45 52 50 43 40 36 30 20 10 0 All adults Asian Black Latino White Percent all adults Most important problem facing L.A. County communities today 15 14 13 13 10 10 5 7 7 0 Percent Crime Gangs Schools Economy Traffic Housing Immigrants today: Benefit or burden to L.A. County? 9 36 55 Benefit, because of hard work and job skills Burden, because they use public services Don't know Percent all adults Percent who rate their local public schools as excellent or good 60 50 43 40 55 53 30 27 38 20 10 0 All adults Asians Blacks Latinos Whites Percent Percent who say that illegal immigrants and their children should have access to public health 80 72 68 61 60 55 40 20 0 aprAovlleadults U.dSis.-abpoprrnov eForeign-bdoronn,'t Fkonroewign-born, citizen U.S. cPiteizrecnent Alnl oAnd-uUlt.sS. citizen Do you approve or disapprove of the governor's plan to use local government tax money to reduce the deficit? 11 44 45 Approve Dis approve Don't know Percent all adults Percent Changing Local Conditions County Perceptions Los Angeles residents, generally, are more optimistic about life in their county than they were 10 years ago, but that optimism is not spread evenly across all groups. Overall, the percentage who say things are going in the right direction (45%) has nearly doubled since 1994, when 24 percent were positive about the direction, but 62 percent said things were seriously off on the wrong track. However, perceptions vary by race/ethnicity, citizenship, and age. About half of Latinos and Asians think the county is headed in the right direction. In contrast, more than half of blacks think things are on the wrong track, and whites are about evenly divided on this question. Residents who are not U.S. citizens are more likely (52%) than U.S.-born adults (43%) to see the county headed in the right direction. Optimism is also higher among people under 35 (54% “right direction”) than among older adults (40% “right direction”). “Do you think that things in Los Angeles County are generally going in the right direction or are they seriously off on the wrong track?” 1994* 2004 Right direction 24% 45% Wrong track 62 38 Don't know 14 17 *Results are from a June 1994 Los Angeles Times poll. 2004 Survey Right direction Wrong track Don't know All Adults 45% 38 17 Asian 52% 27 21 Race / Ethnicity Black Latino 36% 50% 53 34 11 16 White 43% 40 17 Looking to the future, Los Angeles County residents are divided: Thirty-four percent expect the county to be a better place and 32 percent believe it will be a worse place to live. Latinos are the most optimistic and blacks are the least optimistic about the county’s future quality of life. Whites are the most likely to believe the county will become a worse place to live. “In the future, do you think Los Angeles County will be a better place to live than it is now, a worse place to live than it is now, or there will be no change?” 2004 Survey Better place Worse place No change Don't know All Adults 34% 32 27 7 Asian 35% 30 31 4 Race / Ethnicity Black Latino 29% 37% 33 26 28 31 10 6 White 33% 38 23 6 -1- Changing Local Conditions Local Community Ratings Los Angeles County residents are more positive about their communities than they were a decade ago but, again, there are strong racial/ethnic differences. In 1994, 69 percent said they were satisfied with their community, compared to 80 percent today. Satisfaction is about equally high among Asians (85%), Latinos (80%), and whites (86%) but is markedly lower among blacks (62%). In fact, 33 percent of black residents are dissatisfied with their community. “Would you say you are satisfied or dissatisfied these days with the community in which you live?” 1994* 2004 Satisfied 69% 80% Dissatisfied 29 17 Don't know 23 *Results are from a June 1994 Los Angeles Times poll. 2004 Survey Satisfied Dissatisfied Don't know All Adults 80% 17 3 Asian 85% 11 4 Race/ Ethnicity Black Latino 62% 80% 33 18 52 White 86% 12 2 The percentage of residents who believe their community’s quality of life has improved has doubled in the past decade; conversely, only half as many now think it is getting worse. As in 1994, however, a majority think their community’s quality of life is staying about the same. Once again, there are racial/ethnic differences. Latinos (28% to 16%) and whites (25% to 18%) are more likely to see things getting better rather than worse. Blacks are more likely to see them getting worse (27%) rather than better (18%). “Would you say the quality of life in your community is getting better, getting worse, or staying about the same?” 1994* 2004 Getting better 12% 25% Getting worse 36 19 Staying about the same 50 53 Don't know 23 *Results are from a June 1994 Los Angeles Times poll. 2004 Survey Getting better Getting worse Staying about the same Don't know All Adults 25% 19 53 3 Asian 19% 15 62 4 Race/ Ethnicity Black Latino 18% 28% 27 16 53 52 24 White 25% 18 54 3 -2- Changing Local Conditions Local Community Problems In the last decade, residents’ perceptions of the most important problem facing their community have changed dramatically. In 1994, crime and gangs were cited considerably more than they are today and schools considerably less. Today, crime, gangs, schools, and the economy and jobs are rated about equally as top community problems. Perceptions differ significantly across racial/ethnic groups and areas of the county. Blacks are more likely than others to see crime as the top community problem. Blacks and Latinos are much more concerned than Asians and whites about gangs. Traffic seems like a more important problem to Asians and whites than to blacks and Latinos. Across county regions, residents in the Central/Southeast are more likely (20%) than residents elsewhere to be concerned about gangs. Non-citizens (22%) also mention gangs more often than U.S.-born residents (11%). The percentage of respondents who mention traffic and growth as important local issues increases with education and household income. “What's the most important problem facing your community today?” (Accepted up to two replies)* 1994** 2004 Crime Gangs Education, schools Economy, jobs, unemployment Traffic Housing, homelessness Growth and development 34% 31 7 16 2 5 3 14% 13 13 10 7 7 6 Drugs 12 5 Graffiti 53 *Results do not add to 100 percent because first and second mentions are listed. **Results are from a June 1994 Los Angeles Times poll. 2004 Survey Crime Gangs Education, schools Economy, jobs, unemployment Traffic Housing, homelessness Growth and development Drugs Graffiti All Adults 14% 13 13 10 7 7 6 5 3 Asian 16% 6 15 5 13 10 5 2 1 Race/ Ethnicity Black Latino 21% 12% 24 20 19 11 11 9 25 96 43 13 6 35 White 13% 5 15 11 10 8 10 3 2 - 3 - March 2004 Changing Local Conditions Local Public Service Ratings Los Angeles County residents are generally positive about their local public services: Sixty-seven percent rate police protection excellent or good; 63 percent give high marks to the area’s public parks, beaches, and recreation; and 51 percent rate their local streets and roads excellent or good. Public schools, however, did not make the grade with a majority of residents: Only 43 percent rated them as excellent or good. Los Angeles residents gave similar ratings to these services in a 1998 PPIC Statewide Survey. (The Los Angeles Times poll in 1994 asked about local public services in a different fashion, so direct comparisons with residents’ evaluations of a decade ago are not available.) Percent rating local service as excellent or good 1998* 2004 Police protection 68% 67% Parks, beaches, and recreation 69 63 Streets and roads 49 51 Public schools 40 43 * Results are from the April 1998 PPIC Statewide Survey. Ratings differ noticeably across the county’s geographic areas. Roads and schools are rated most highly by residents in the North Valleys, while recreation and police get their highest ratings from residents in the West. Residents of the San Fernando Valley give mixed ratings: Most rate their local parks and police as excellent or good, but fewer than half are positive about streets and public schools. Residents in Central/Southeast Los Angeles are more negative about all of their local services. 2004 Survey Percent rating local service as excellent or good All Adults Police protection Parks, beaches, and recreation Streets and roads Public schools 67% 63 51 43 North Valleys 70% 69 60 51 County Area San Fernando West 67% 74% 64 71 48 54 41 46 Central / Southeast 60% 54 46 39 Racial/ethnic groups also have very different opinions about local services. Black residents give significantly lower ratings to all services: Fewer than half give positive ratings to their area’s streets and roads, parks, and schools, and a bare majority are satisfied with their local police. Among whites, satisfaction is markedly lower for schools than it is for other services. However, majorities of Asians and Latinos rate all their local services highly. Local public service ratings also differ significantly across other demographic groups. Public schools get much higher ratings from those who have children at home (51% good or excellent) than those without children at home (37%). Excellent and good ratings of recreation, roads, and police protection all increase with age, education, homeownership, and household income. -4- Changing Local Conditions 2004 survey Percent rating local service as excellent or good All Adults Police protection Parks, beaches, and recreation Streets and roads Public schools 67% 63 51 43 Asian 66% 58 57 55 Race/ Ethnicity Black Latino 52% 65% 44 61 40 56 27 53 White 72% 71 51 38 Local Transportation Priorities What do county residents see as the top priority for spending public funds on transportation? Although freeways and highways are mentioned most, and 75 percent of residents continue driving to work alone, nearly half (49%) mention public transportation projects, including public buses, light rail and the subway system, as top priority projects. Priorities differ across geographic regions and demographic groups. Public buses are favored most strongly by Central/Southeast area residents, while those in the West and North Valleys are most likely to support light rail. Buses are the top priority for blacks (23%) and Latinos (25%), while light rail is favored more by men (19%), whites (23%), and college graduates (24%). Even though most residents commute alone in their automobiles, the Metro Rail is a big hit in Los Angeles County. Seventy-three percent of adults say the metro rail system has been a good thing for the county’s transportation system. Support for the system is high across geographic areas, racial/ethnic groups, and political and demographic categories. There is solid support among all adults (60% to 32%) for the proposed $9.95 billion state bond measure, which has qualified for the November ballot, to build the high-speed train linking Los Angeles to San Francisco. There is also majority support for the high-speed train among the county’s likely voters (52% to 40%). Both Democrats (56%) and Republicans (51%), as well as majorities in all demographic groups, say they would vote yes on the multibillion dollar bond measure to build the train system. “What type of transportation project do you think should have the top priority for public funds in Los Angeles County?” Freeways and highways Public bus system Light rail Local streets and roads Subway system Carpool lanes Something else Don't know All Adults 23% 19 17 14 13 7 4 3 North Valleys 27% 17 21 9 10 8 4 4 County Area San Fernando West 26% 21% 16 18 15 20 12 14 13 14 85 54 54 Central / Southeast 19% 23 12 17 13 7 2 7 - 5 - March 2004 Changing Local Conditions Economic Outlook The economic outlook seems brighter to Los Angeles County residents than it did a decade ago. In 1994, 67 percent of residents believed their local economy was in a recession; today, that number has dropped to 45 percent. The steepest decline is in the percentage of residents who think their community is in a serious recession. As for geographic differences, 52 percent of residents in the Central/Southeast area think their community is in a recession, compared to 44 percent in the West, 43 percent in the San Fernando Valley, and 38 percent in the North Valleys. Among racial/ethnic groups, 58 percent of blacks and 50 percent of Latinos believe their local area is in a recession, compared to 44 percent of Asians and 38 percent of whites. “Do you think your community is in an economic recession or not?” (if yes: “Do you think it is in a serious, a moderate, or a mild recession?”) 1994* 2004 Yes, serious recession Yes, moderate recession 23% 28 12% 22 Yes, mild recession 16 11 No 26 47 Don't know 78 *Results are from a June 1994 Los Angeles Times poll. Although the perception of economic recession is lower than it was 10 years ago, the county’s economy receives relatively low ratings. Today, only 25 percent rate the county’s economy as excellent or good, virtually unchanged from 24 percent in the March 2003 PPIC Special Survey of Los Angeles County. In the current survey, 45 percent rate the county economy as fair and 28 percent as poor. As in ratings of the local community’s economy, there are differences by geographic area and race/ethnicity. Residents in Central/Southeast Los Angeles are most likely to rate the county’s economy as poor, and those in the North Valleys are least likely to do so. Blacks (38%) and Latinos (30%) are more inclined than Asians (24%) and whites (22%) to believe the economy is in poor shape. “In general, how would you rate the economy in Los Angeles County today?” Excellent / Good Fair Poor Don't know All Adults 25% 45 28 2 North Valleys 29% 45 23 3 County Area San Fernando West 25% 25% 48 43 25 30 22 Central / Southeast 23% 43 32 2 -6- State’s Fiscal Conditions The State Budget Deficit The passage of Propositions 57 and 58 on March 2nd did not change perceptions among Los Angeles County residents that the state’s budget deficit is a big problem. Seven in 10 county residents believe that the state’s multibillion dollar gap between state revenue and state spending is a big problem; seventy-one percent felt this way before the primary and 69 percent after the vote. An even higher percentage of likely voters rate the state’s budget deficit as a big problem (81%). Large majorities of Democrats (78%), Republicans (76%), and independents (73%) think the state’s deficit is a big problem. In January 2004, a similar 70 percent of Californians rated the state budget deficit as a big problem. “As you may know, the state government has an annual budget of around $100 billon and currently faces a multibillion dollar gap between state spending and state revenue. Do you think that this deficit is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem?” Big problem Somewhat of a problem Not a problem Don't know All Adults 70% 22 4 4 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 78% 76% 73% 17 21 21 324 212 Likely Voters 81% 16 2 1 While most county residents (66%) and likely voters (71%) think that spending cuts should be included in dealing with the state’s deficit, voters are divided along partisan lines about whether tax increases should also be part of the state’s fiscal plans. Thirty percent of county residents think that the state should deal with its deficit mostly through spending cuts, and 36 percent think that the state should use a mixture of spending cuts and tax increases. A plurality of Republicans (44%) would prefer to deal with the state’s deficit primarily through spending cuts, while pluralities of independents (44%) and Democrats (42%) would prefer a mixture of spending cuts and tax increases. Forty-one percent of likely voters favor a mix of spending cuts and tax increases, and 30 percent support a plan that includes mostly spending cuts. The percentage of county residents who prefer a mixture of spending cuts and tax increases did not change significantly following the March 2nd primary and the passage of Propositions 57 and 58. “How would you prefer to deal with the state's deficit?” Mixture of spending cuts and tax increases Mostly through spending cuts Okay for the state to borrow money and run a budget deficit Mostly through tax increases Other answer Don't know All Adults 36% 30 11 10 4 9 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 42% 33% 44% 21 44 32 10 9 9 14 3 8 553 864 Likely Voters 41% 30 7 11 5 6 -7- State’s Fiscal Conditions Governor’s Proposed Budget Plan Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s first state budget includes shifting $1.3 billion in property tax money previously allocated to local governments to the state to reduce its budget deficit. Opinion among Los Angeles County residents is divided on this part of the governor’s deficit plan: Forty-four percent approve of the use of these property tax monies, and 45 percent disapprove. Among the county’s likely voters, 40 percent approve and 50 percent disapprove. However, there are strong partisan differences: Sixty-four percent of Republicans approve of the use of these property taxes in the governor’s budget, while 57 percent of Democrats disapprove of this plan; independents are evenly divided (47% approve; 46% disapprove). “Governor Schwarzenegger’s budget plan for the next fiscal year includes no new taxes, while it reduces the deficit through spending cuts in state programs and the use of $1.3 billion in local government property tax money. In general, do you approve or disapprove of the governor’s plan to use local government tax money to reduce the deficit?” Approve Disapprove Don't know All Adults 44% 45 11 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 33% 57 10 64% 25 11 47% 46 7 Likely Voters 40% 50 10 The governor’s budget plan to reduce the state’s deficit also includes no new taxes—45 percent of Los Angeles County residents and likely voters say this component of the plan is very important to them. Three in four say it is at least somewhat important. Only 20 percent of county residents say that it is not too important or not at all important that no new taxes are included in the plan, and 24 percent of likely voters in the county feel this way. Fifty-five percent of Republicans say that it is very important to them that no new taxes are included in the governor’s plan, and only 11 percent of Republicans think that it is not too important or not at all important. By contrast, 42 percent of Democrats and 36 percent of independents think that the no new taxes platform is very important, while 26 percent in each group thinks that it is not too important or doesn’t matter at all. Fifty-three percent of conservatives, 42 percent of moderates, and 37 percent of liberals say it is very important to them that the upcoming budget includes no new taxes. The percentage of respondents who consider no new taxes an important issue increases with age and decreases with education. “How important is it to you that the governor's budget plan for next year includes no new taxes?” Very important Somewhat important Not too important Not at all important Don't know All Adults 45% 32 11 9 3 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 42% 55% 36% 31 32 36 13 6 14 13 5 12 122 Likely Voters 45% 30 12 12 1 -8- State’s Fiscal Conditions State Fiscal Impacts on Local Services While spending cuts may be part of the preferred solution in dealing with the state’s budget deficit, Los Angeles County residents also recognize that this may have negative consequences on local services. Sixty-five percent of residents are very concerned that the state’s budget deficit will cause severe cuts in K-12 public education in the county, and 21 percent are somewhat concerned. Sixty percent of county residents are also very concerned—and 26 percent somewhat concerned—about severe cuts in funding for health and human services. Fifty percent of residents are very concerned about severe cuts in local government services such as parks and recreation, police and public safety, and roads and transportation, and another 37 percent are somewhat concerned about severe cuts in these areas. Overall, likely voters hold similar views to all adults regarding the effects of the state budget deficit. However, consistently higher percentages of Democrats than Republicans are “very concerned” that there may be severe cuts in public services because of the state’s budget deficit. Seventy-six percent of Democrats, compared to 43 percent of Republicans, are very concerned about the possibility of cuts in K12 public education. Three in four Democrats (74%) are very concerned about the prospects of severe cuts in funding in health and human services, compared to fewer than four in 10 Republicans (36%). Sixty-three percent of Democrats, but only 29 percent of Republicans, are very concerned that the state’s deficit will cause severe cuts in various local government services. Use of specific local services heightens concerns about the impacts of the state budget deficit. For example, 74 percent of residents with a child in the public school system are very concerned that the state’s deficit will cause severe cuts in K-12 public education. Similarly, 69 percent of adults who have used, or have had an immediate family member use, the public health care system are very concerned that the state’s budget deficit will cause severe cuts in health and human services. “How concerned are you that the state's budget deficit will cause severe cuts in ________ in Los Angeles County?” Very concerned Somewhat concerned K-12 public education Not very concerned Not at all concerned Don't know Very concerned Funding for health and human services Somewhat concerned Not very concerned Not at all concerned Don't know Funding for local government services such as parks and recreation, police and public safety, and roads and transportation Very concerned Somewhat concerned Not very concerned Not at all concerned Don't know All Adults 65% 21 7 6 1 60% 26 8 5 1 50% 37 7 5 1 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 76% 14 43% 30 57% 27 5 13 4 13 9 5 112 74% 19 4 2 1 36% 37 15 11 1 53% 31 12 3 1 63% 29 4 3 1 29% 48 12 8 3 48% 38 9 5 0 Likely Voters 62% 20 8 8 2 58% 27 9 6 0 51% 36 7 5 1 - 9 - March 2004 State’s Fiscal Conditions Willingness to Increase State Taxes Many Los Angeles County residents appear to be willing to back up their concerns about cuts in local services by paying higher state taxes to maintain current funding. The public’s support for raising their state taxes varies by the service they are seeking to maintain, differs sharply across party lines, and is considerably skewed by the current use and perceived utility of particular local public services. Six in 10 residents (61%), and 56 percent of likely voters, say they would be willing to pay higher taxes for K-12 public education if the state said it needed more money just to maintain current funding in this area. A majority of Democrats (66%) say they would be willing to pay more money for public education, whereas a majority of Republicans (52%) say they would not. Seventy-one percent of county residents between ages 18 and 34 would pay higher taxes to maintain education funding, compared to half of those age 55 or older. Residents with children in their household are more likely to be willing to pay higher taxes for public schools than those without children (68% to 54%). If the state said it needed more money to maintain current funding for health and human services, 50 percent of county residents say they would be willing to pay higher taxes and 44 percent say they would not. Likely voters are evenly divided (48% to 47%) on support for tax increases for these particular services. A majority of Democrats (56%) would support a tax increase for health and human services, while a majority of Republicans (62%) would not. Across racial/ethnic groups, Latinos (57%) are the most likely to say they would pay higher taxes to fund health and human services, while whites are the least likely to favor it (46%). Fifty-seven percent of county residents who say they have used the public health care system or might use it would be willing to pay higher taxes to maintain these services, while a majority of those who have never used and do not think they will ever use county health care would not (53%). County residents (49% to 46%) and likely voters (50% to 45%) are somewhat divided on the question of paying higher taxes to maintain funding for local government services such as parks, police, and transportation. On this issue, the partisan divide is again evident: Most Democrats (54%) are willing, while most Republicans (56%) are unwilling, to pay higher taxes to maintain local government services. “What if the state said it needed more money just to maintain current funding for _______? Would you be willing to pay higher state taxes for this purpose?” K-12 public education Health and human services provided by county government Local government services such as parks and recreation, police and public safety, and roads and transportation Yes No Don't know Yes No Don't know Yes No Don't know All Adults 61% 35 4 50% 44 6 49% 46 5 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 66% 44% 62% 31 52 33 345 56% 34% 52% 38 62 44 644 54% 39% 52% 41 56 43 555 Likely Voters 56% 40 4 48% 47 5 50% 45 5 - 10 - State’s Fiscal Conditions State Tax and Fee Increases State tax and fee increases could help reduce the state’s multibillion dollar gap between spending and revenue. Among some of the proposals in circulation today, Los Angeles County residents overwhelmingly support raising the income tax of the wealthiest Californians; a slight majority favor raising the state portion of the sales tax; and there is strong opposition to increasing the vehicle license fee. Seven in 10 county residents favor raising the top rate of the state income tax. A large majority of Democrats (79%) and a slimmer majority of Republicans (55%) support the proposal to increase taxes for the state’s wealthiest residents. In all areas of the county, across racial/ethnic, age, and education groups around seven in 10 residents support the idea of raising tax rates for the most affluent Californians. While county residents with household incomes of $80,000 or higher are somewhat less likely to favor the proposal than those with lower incomes, even in this group, a majority (67%) would support raising the top rate of the state income tax. County residents are less enthusiastic about raising the state portion of the sales tax by one-half cent, but the proposal still garners majority support. Fifty-three percent of all adults, and 56 percent of likely voters, favor this proposal. A solid majority of Democrats (59%) favor raising the state portion of the sales tax, while Republicans are more evenly split (50% favor, 47% oppose). Majorities of residents in all age, income, education, and racial/ethnic groups support raising the state portion of the sales tax. On the other hand, seven in 10 county residents (72%) oppose increasing the vehicle license fee to reduce the state’s large gap between spending and revenue. Sixty-six percent of likely voters oppose, and 31 percent support, increasing the vehicle license fee. County residents across all political parties oppose raising the license fee; however, Republicans (79%) are more likely than Democrats (66%) to oppose an increase in this fee. Latinos (76%) and blacks (76%) are more likely than whites (67%) to say they oppose an increase in the vehicle license fee. Although higher-income residents are more likely than lower-income residents to say they favor increasing the fee, solid majorities in all demographic groups are opposed to this idea. Do you favor or oppose this proposal? Raising the top rate of the state income tax paid by the wealthiest Californians Favor Oppose Don't know Raising the state portion of the sales tax by one-half cent Favor Oppose Don't know Increasing the vehicle license fee or so-called “car tax” to pay for local government services Favor Oppose Don't know All Adults 71% 24 5 53% 44 3 24% 72 4 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 79% 16 55% 41 74% 23 543 59% 38 3 50% 47 3 53% 44 3 30% 66 4 18% 79 3 29% 68 3 Likely Voters 71% 25 4 56% 42 2 31% 66 3 - 11 - March 2004 State’s Fiscal Conditions Local Tax Increases If there were a measure on the county ballot to increase the sales tax by one-half cent to fund police protection and public safety, it would receive close to the two-thirds majority support needed to pass a local sales tax measure (65% of all adults, 63% of likely voters). A solid majority of Democrats (69%), and a substantial percentage of Republicans (56%) would vote to increase the local sales tax for this purpose. Across the county, such a ballot measure would receive the highest support in the Central/Southeast area (70%) and somewhat lower support in the West (64%), the North Valleys (62%), and the San Fernando Valley (60%). Latinos (72%) are more likely than blacks (63%), whites (61%), or Asians (60%) to say they would vote yes on the sales tax measure for funding police and public safety. If there were a measure on the county ballot to increase the sales tax for local transportation projects by one-half cent, it would fall shy of the two-thirds majority needed to pass a local tax hike (55% of all adults; 55% of likely voters). A majority of Democrats (61%) and independents (60%) say they would vote yes, while Republicans are split on increasing taxes for this purpose (49% yes, 47% no). Support for increasing the sales tax for local transportation projects does not vary significantly across geographic areas or racial/ethnic, age, education, or income groups. “What if there were a measure on the county ballot to increase the local sales tax for _______ by one-half cent? Would you vote yes or no?” Police protection and public safety Local transportation projects Yes No Don't know Yes No Don't know All Adults 65% 32 3 55% 40 5 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 69% 29 56% 41 62% 34 234 61% 49% 60% 35 47 37 443 Likely Voters 63% 34 3 55% 40 5 Seven in 10 county residents (69%), and 60 percent of likely voters, would vote yes if their local school district had a bond measure on the November ballot to pay for school construction projects. Local school bonds for construction projects require a 55 percent majority to pass. Seven in 10 Democrats (70%) and independents (69%) say they would vote yes, while Republicans (49% yes, 47% no) are evenly divided. Residents in the Central/Southeast area express the highest support for a local school bond measure (75%), although majorities in all areas of the county would vote yes. Residents with children at home are more likely than those with no children to say they would vote yes (79% to 60%). “Suppose your local school district had a bond measure on the November 2004 ballot to pay for school construction projects. Would you vote yes or no?” Yes No Don't know All Adults 69% 27 4 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 70% 49% 69% 25 47 26 545 Likely Voters 60% 36 4 - 12 - Local and State Governance Issues Government Ratings When asked to rate the job performance of their state elected officials, the majority of Los Angeles County residents say they approve of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s overall performance in office. Across political party lines, Republicans are overwhelmingly positive in their evaluations of the GOP governor, and a majority of independents and a plurality of Democrats also think he’s doing a good job. Among the county adults who are most likely to vote, positive ratings outnumber negative ratings by a two-to-one margin. Whites (64%) and Asians (59%) are more positive than blacks (43%) and Latinos (39%) about Governor Schwarzenegger. His approval ratings increase with age, education, and income. By contrast, the California legislature receives more mixed reviews, with about as many approving as disapproving of the lawmakers’ overall job performance. Likely voters are even more negative than all adults in their evaluations of the state legislature. Democrats and Republicans are similarly disapproving of the performance of the Democratic-controlled legislature. In contrast to the governor’s approval scores, the legislature’s disapproval ratings increase with age, education, income, and homeownership. Do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California? Do you approve or disapprove of the job the California legislature is doing at this time? Approve Disapprove Don't know Approve Disapprove Don't know All Adults 51% 33 16 40% 42 18 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 45% 80% 53% 36 10 32 19 10 15 36% 39% 45% 49 49 40 15 12 15 Likely Voters 56% 28 16 35% 52 13 Los Angeles County residents express more approval for their city governments than the county government when it comes to solving problems. However, excellent or good ratings fall short of a majority across all regions and groups for both levels of local government. A decade ago, the 1994 Los Angeles Times poll showed that 51 percent of Los Angeles County residents rated their local governments as doing an excellent or good job in their communities. How would you rate the performance of … City government in solving problems in your city? County government in solving problems in Los Angeles County? Excellent / Good Fair Poor Don't know / N.A. Excellent / Good Fair Poor Don't know All Adults 39% 36 16 9 25% 46 21 8 L.A. City Los Angeles Not Los Angeles 32% 44% 41 33 19 14 89 22% 48 26% 44 19 21 11 9 - 13 - North Valleys 41% 36 13 10 27% 45 21 7 County Area San Fernando West 37% 44% 40 35 16 14 77 25% 49 22% 45 20 22 6 11 Central / Southeast 37% 35 20 8 26% 44 20 10 Local and State Governance Issues Perceptions of Immigrants How do Los Angeles County residents perceive the role of immigrants in their county today, particularly in light of a slowdown in economic growth and fiscal problems in state government? When asked which of two opinions is closest to their own view, a majority say that immigrants today are a benefit because of their economic contributions, and about one in three say they are a burden because they use public services. There are sharp distinctions by citizenship status, while likely voters are more evenly divided in their assessment of the role of immigrants. The perceived impact of immigrants continues to be a polarizing issue. Latinos (70%) and Asians (68%) are more likely than blacks (38%) and whites (44%) to think that immigrants today are a benefit to the county. Democrats (58%) are more likely to say that immigrants are a benefit, and Republicans (58%) are more likely to say that immigrants are a burden. The same overall perceptions of immigrants, and the sharp differences of opinions across racial/ethnic and political groups, were also evident in our February 2004 PPIC Statewide Survey. Which of these two views is closest to your own … Immigrants today are a benefit to L.A. County because of their hard work and job skills Immigrants today are a burden to L.A. County because they use public services Don't know All U.S.-born Adults citizens 55% 47% Citizenship Foreignborn, U.S. citizens Foreign-born, non-U.S. citizens Likely Voters 62% 75% 48% 36 43 9 10 29 9 22 43 39 A decade ago, the 1994 Los Angeles Times poll asked about the effects of illegal immigration in the county. This was in the context of statewide economic and fiscal problems and Proposition 187, the citizens’ initiative that sought to deny public services to illegal immigrants. Proposition 187 passed in November 1994 but was later invalidated by the courts. In 1994, about half of Los Angeles County residents said that illegal immigration into the county was a big problem, and seven in 10 residents thought that it was at least a moderate-sized problem. Today, a similar proportion of Los Angeles County residents describe illegal immigration as a big problem or at least a moderate-sized problem. The public’s perceptions of illegal immigration into Los Angeles County are also largely shaped by citizenship status, race/ethnicity, and partisanship. U.S.-born residents (52%) are more likely than foreign-born citizens (42%) and non-citizens (36%) to say that illegal immigration is a big problem. Likewise, blacks (60%) and whites (54%) are more likely than Asians (40%) and Latinos (36%) to call illegal immigration a big problem. Republicans (66%) are more likely than Democrats (44%) to hold this point of view. “How big of a problem is the amount of illegal immigration into Los Angeles County?” 1994* 2004 Major problem 52% 47% Moderate-sized problem 19 26 Minor problem 14 12 Not a problem at all 11 13 Don’t know 32 *Results are from a June 1994 Los Angeles Times poll. - 14 - Local and State Governance Issues Public Health Care System While a plurality of Los Angeles County residents continue to believe that illegal immigration is a big problem, most are now opposed to denying access to public health care based on an immigrant’s status. Six in 10 county residents say that illegal immigrants and their children should have access to public health care. A majority of likely voters also support this policy. While there are variations by citizenship status, a solid majority of U.S.-born citizens support providing public health care to illegal immigrants and their children, and majorities in every racial/ethnic group also support this policy (whites 51%, blacks 52%, Asians 55%, and Latinos 74%). Fifty-three percent of Republicans think illegal immigrants and their children should be denied access to public health care, while a large majority of Democrats (69%) say that public health care should be provided to these immigrants and their children. Which of these two views is closest to your own … All Adults Illegal immigrants and their children should have access to public health care Illegal immigrants and their children should be denied access to public health care Don't know 61% 33 6 U.S.-born citizens 55% 37 8 Citizenship Foreignborn, U.S. citizens Foreignborn, nonU.S. citizens Likely Voters 68% 72% 55% 26 26 37 6 28 A substantial percentage of adult residents (45%) say that they or an immediate family member has at one time used the public health care system in Los Angeles County. The use of public health care varies dramatically by citizenship status (U.S.-born 40%, foreign-born citizen 45%, non-citizen 60%) and race/ethnicity (whites 32%, Asians 34%, blacks 57%, Latinos 58%) and declines sharply with age, education, and income. All together, about six in 10 residents say that they or a family member either has used the public health care system or expects to do so in the future. The importance of the public health care system in Los Angeles County translates into a willingness to raise local taxes to fund health services. Three in four adult residents would support a measure on the county ballot for new taxes on alcoholic beverages and cigarettes to fund such services. There is overwhelming support for raising new taxes for this purpose among likely voters (76%), Democrats (81%), and Republicans (67%) and across racial/ethnic and income groups as well as age, education, and income categories. “What if there were a measure on the county ballot for new taxes on alcoholic beverages and cigarettes in order to fund county public health services? Would you vote yes or no?” Yes No Don't know All Adults 76% 22 2 Party Registration Dem Rep 81% 17 67% 31 22 Ind 72% 27 1 Likely Voters 76% 22 2 - 15 - March 2004 Local and State Governance Issues Extending Health Care Coverage One in five Los Angeles County adults say they are not covered by any form of private health insurance or by a government health plan. While nearly nine in 10 Asians, whites, and blacks say they have some form of health care coverage, about one in three Latino adults say they do not have any form of health coverage. Moreover, while more than eight in 10 adult citizens are covered by health insurance or a health plan, about four in 10 noncitizens say they currently have no health care coverage. The public’s worries about health care today go beyond the issue of insurance coverage. Nearly two in three county adults say they are very concerned about being able to afford the necessary health care when a family member gets sick, and eight in 10 are at least somewhat concerned. Among likely voters, more than half say they are very concerned about the affordability of necessary health care. While concern varies by citizenship status and across racial/ethnic groups, majorities in all categories express at least some concern about this issue. “How concerned are you about being able to afford necessary health care when a family member gets sick— very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not at all concerned?” All Adults Very concerned Somewhat concerned Not too concerned Not at all concerned Don't know 63% 19 8 8 2 U.S.-born citizens 58% 21 11 10 0 Citizenship Foreignborn, U.S. citizens Foreign-born, non-U.S. citizens 69% 79% 17 15 63 83 00 Likely Voters 56% 21 11 11 1 Last year, state law SB2 was passed by the legislature and signed by then-Governor Gray Davis. This state law requires large and medium-sized employers to buy health insurance coverage for their employees by specified dates (2006 and 2007, respectively). More recently, signatures have been gathered to place a referendum on the state ballot to repeal this law. Los Angeles County residents, as well as the county’s likely voters, strongly oppose efforts to repeal SB2—by a two-to-one margin. Democrats strongly oppose repealing SB2, while Republicans have more mixed views on this state referendum. Strong support for keeping SB2 is found in all age, education, income, citizenship status, and racial/ethnic groups. “How about a referendum to repeal or remove state law SB2 that was passed last year requiring large employers to buy health insurance for their workers and families by 2006, and medium-size employers to buy health insurance for their workers and families by 2007? Would you vote yes to repeal or remove SB2 or no to keep SB2?” All Adults Yes, repeal / remove No, keep Don't know 30% 64 6 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 24% 40% 29% 70 54 65 666 Likely Voters 30% 63 7 - 16 - Local and State Governance Issues State Tax Increases for Mental Health Services We noted earlier that there appears to be significant agreement on one issue involving state taxes: that the wealthiest Californians should pay higher taxes to fund state programs. How do voters respond to one of the citizens’ initiatives currently being proposed by a member of the state legislature which would impose a 1 percent additional tax on income over $1 million and earmarking these new revenues specifically for mental health services? Currently this fiscal proposal enjoys solid public support: More than two in three adults and likely voters support the idea of raising taxes in this fashion, and a majority of both Democrats (76%) and Republicans (56%) support the proposal. Public support runs 60 percent or more in all racial/ethnic groups and across all age, education, and income categories. “How about imposing an additional 1 percent tax on taxable income over $1 million to provide dedicated funding for mental health services? Would you vote yes or no?” Yes No Don't know All Adults 71% 25 4 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 76% 20 4 56% 40 4 70% 24 6 Likely Voters 68% 28 4 Property Tax Increases for Schools There is also an effort under way to qualify a measure for the state ballot that would change some of the property tax limits that have been in place since California voters passed Proposition 13 in 1978. This citizens’ initiative calls for providing additional funding for kindergarten through 12th grade public education and establishing a voluntary universal preschool program with funds provided through additional taxes on commercial and residential property that produces income. Existing property tax limits would remain in effect for residential properties that do not produce income. While six in 10 adult residents approve of this measure, it leads by a narrower margin among likely voters (52% to 44%). There is a deep partisan divide on this issue, with Republicans strongly opposed (57%) and Democrats strongly in favor (64%) of this effort to reform the Proposition 13 tax limits. Public support declines with increasing age, income, and education. County residents with children at home (73%) are much more supportive of property tax increases that would go to the schools than are those with no children at home (55%). Support is lower among whites (52%) than among Latinos (77%), blacks (60%), and Asians (64%). “How about providing additional funding for K-12 public education and establishing a voluntary universal preschool program with funds provided through additional taxes on commercial and residential property that produces income? Would you vote yes or no?” Yes No Don't know All Adults 63% 33 4 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 64% 31 5 40% 57 3 63% 32 5 Likely Voters 52% 44 4 - 17 - March 2004 Local and State Governance Issues Workers’ Compensation Reform Another important policy issue that might appear on the November ballot in the form of a citizens’ initiative is the reform of the state’s workers’ compensation system. While business interests have been calling for systemic reforms because of rising employer costs and their impacts on job creation, other groups have raised concerns about the impacts of these reforms on injured workers. The voters’ response to workers’ compensation reform may depend on how this policy debate is framed. Two in three likely voters say they favor policies that reduce employer costs for workers’ compensation. However, there is substantial opposition to reducing employer costs if it means reducing the benefits for employees who are injured at work. While most Republicans continue to favor reducing employer costs, even if employee benefits are reduced, support from Democratic voters falls off sharply under this contingency. Would you vote yes or no? How about reducing employer costs for workers’ compensation by requiring employees to prove an injury took place at work, removing employer liability for previous jobrelated injuries, and establishing medical treatment guidelines? How about reducing employer costs for workers’ compensation even if it meant fewer benefits for employees who are injured at work? Yes No Don't know Yes No Don't know All Adults 64% 28 8 37% 56 7 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 59% 74% 69% 33 20 23 8 33% 61 6 6 59% 36 5 8 35% 58 7 Likely Voters 67% 25 8 42% 49 9 State and Local Fiscal Reform Local officials throughout California face revenue cuts as the state government seeks ways to reduce the gap between spending and revenues. Some have proposed a citizens’ initiative that would require voter approval for the state government to reduce local government revenues. Two in three likely voters support this proposal in concept. However, there is a sharp decline in support if local government funding guarantees come at the expense of funding for state programs. State and local tax reforms that call for local governments to keep more property tax funds in exchange for sending more sales tax and vehicle license fees to the state government also had a mixed response from Los Angeles County voters. Would you vote yes or no? All Adults How about requiring a two-thirds vote of the legislature and voter approval for any reduction of local government revenues? Yes No Don't know 60% 30 10 How about requiring a two-thirds vote of the legislature and voter approval for any reduction of local government revenues even if it meant less funding for state government services? Yes No Don't know 48% 41 11 Party Registration Dem Rep Ind 62% 63% 61% 29 30 28 9 7 11 48% 54% 54% 43 34 38 9 12 8 Likely Voters 66% 26 8 53% 36 11 - 18 - Survey Methodology The Los Angeles County Survey is a special edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey, which is directed by Mark Baldassare, research director at the Public Policy Institute of California, with assistance in research and writing from Jon Cohen, survey research manager, and Eliana Kaimowitz and Renatta DeFever, survey research associates. The survey was conducted in collaboration with the School of Policy, Planning, and Development at the University of Southern California, with partial funding from the California Community Foundation. The survey methods, questions, and content of the report were solely determined by Mark Baldassare. However, the survey benefited from consultation with staff at the University of Southern California, the California Community Foundation, and other Los Angeles County institutions. The findings of this survey are based on a telephone survey of 2,002 Los Angeles County adult residents interviewed between February 27 and March 9, 2004. Interviewing took place on weekday nights and weekend days, using a computer-generated random sample of telephone numbers that ensured that both listed and unlisted telephone numbers were called. All telephone exchanges in Los Angeles County were eligible for calling. Telephone numbers in the survey sample were called up to six times to increase the likelihood of reaching eligible households. Once a household was reached, an adult respondent (age 18 or older) was randomly chosen for interviewing by using the “last birthday method” to avoid biases in age and gender. Each interview took an average of 20 minutes to complete. Interviewing was conducted in English or Spanish. We did not include Asian language interviews because the 2000 U.S. Census indicates that fewer than 1 percent of Los Angeles County adults speak any given Asian language and describe themselves as not speaking English at least “well.” Casa Hispana translated the survey into Spanish; and Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas, Inc. conducted the telephone interviewing. We used recent U.S. Census and state figures to compare the demographic characteristics of the survey sample with characteristics of Los Angeles County’s adult population and, accordingly, statistically weighted the survey sample. The sampling error for the total sample of 2,002 adults is +/- 2 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that 95 times out of 100, the results will be within 2 percentage points of what they would be if all adults in Los Angeles County were interviewed. The sampling error for subgroups is larger. Where noted, we asked questions of half samples (approximately 1,000 respondents); for these questions, the sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points. Sampling error is only one type of error to which surveys are subject. Results may also be affected by factors such as question wording, question order, and survey timing. We present the results for non-Hispanic whites (referred to in the tables and text as “whites” for the sake of brevity), blacks/African Americans (“blacks”), Latinos, and Asians. We also contrast the opinions of registered Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The “independents” category includes only those who are registered to vote as “decline to state.” In some cases, we compare the PPIC Survey of Los Angeles County responses to responses recorded in a 1994 Los Angeles County survey conducted by the Los Angeles Times. We also used earlier PPIC Statewide Surveys to analyze trends over time in Los Angeles County and to compare public opinion in Los Angeles County to opinions in the other major regions of California and statewide. - 19 - Survey Methodology In this report, we present results by county area, dividing Los Angeles County into four geographic areas. The four areas highlighted in the report and presented in the Los Angeles County map on page ii represent a consolidation of the county’s eight Service Planning Areas (SPAs). In November 1993, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved eight regional SPAs for the purposes of planning, service coordination, and information- and data-sharing by major county departments serving children and families. At that time, the county’s departments of Children and Family Services, Mental Health, Health Services, Public Social Services, and Probation were instructed to begin implementing these common boundaries for planning activities; and noncounty entities were asked to adopt the same planning areas. Since then, the California Community Foundation, the United Way, and the California Wellness Foundation have also adopted the SPA boundaries to help organize and coordinate their planning. These areas, and how they relate to our county areas, are described below, including a partial list of the cities and communities included. • North Valleys—includes Acton, Alhambra, Altadena, Arcadia, Azusa, Baldwin Park, Claremont, Covina, Diamond Bar, Duarte, El Monte, Glendora, Gorman, Hacienda-Rowland Heights, La Puente, La Verne, Lake Hughes, Lake Los Angeles, Lancaster, Littlerock, Llano, Monrovia, Monterey Park, Mt. Wilson, Palmdale, Pasadena, Pearblossom, Pomona, Rosemead, San Dimas, San Gabriel, San Marino, Santa Clarita, Sierra Madre, South Pasadena, Temple City, Valyermo, Walnut, and West Covina, as well as other cities and communities. • San Fernando—includes Burbank, Calabasas, Canoga Park, Encino, Chatsworth, Glendale, La Canada, La Crescenta, Mid-San Fernando Valley, North Hills, North Hollywood, Northridge, Northwest San Fernando Valley, Pacoima, Reseda, San Fernando, Sherman Oaks, Studio City, Sunland, Sylmar, Tarzana, Thousand Oaks, Tujunga, Van Nuys, Westlake Village, Winnetka, and Woodland Hills, as well as other cities and communities. • West—includes beach cities, Bel Air, Beverly Hills, Brentwood, Carson, Culver City, El Segundo, Gardena, Harbor City, Hawthorne, Inglewood, Lawndale, Lomita, Long Beach, Malibu, Pacific Palisades, Palos Verdes, Playa del Rey, San Pedro, Santa Monica, Topanga Canyon, Torrance, Venice/Mar Vista, West Los Angeles, Westchester, and Wilmington, as well as other cities and communities. • Central/Southeast—includes Artesia, Bell/Bell Garden/Cudahy, Bellflower, Boyle Heights, Central Los Angeles, Cerritos, Commerce, Compton, Crenshaw, Downey, East Los Angeles, Hawaiian Gardens, Hollywood, Huntington Park, La Habra, La Mirada, Lakewood, Lynwood, Maywood, Montebello, Northeast, Norwalk, Paramount, Pico Rivera, Santa Fe Springs, South Central, South Gate, University, West Compton, West Hollywood, West Wilshire, Whittier, and Wilshire, as well as other cities and communities. In this survey report , North Valleys includes SPA 1 and SPA 3; San Fernando includes SPA 2; West includes SPA 5 and SPA 8; and Central/ Southeast includes SPA 4, SPA 6, and SPA 7. For additional information on the Los Angeles County SPAs, see the following page on the web site of United Way of Greater Los Angeles: http://www.unitedwayla.org/pages/rpts_resource/state_spas.html. - 20 - PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY: SPECIAL SURVEY OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY FEBRUARY 27—MARCH 9, 2004 2,002 CALIFORNIA ADULT RESIDENTS; ENGLISH AND SPANISH MARGIN OF ERROR +/- 2% AT 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL FOR TOTAL SAMPLE 1. First, I would like to ask you some questions about where you live. Is the place you currently live a singlefamily detached home; an attached home such as a condo, duplex, or town home; an apartment; or another type of dwelling? 55% single-family detached home 13 attached home 28 apartment 4 other 2. All things considered, would you say you are satisfied or dissatisfied these days with the community in which you live? 80% satisfied 17 dissatisfied 3 don’t know 3. Overall, would you say the quality of life in your community is getting better, getting worse, or staying about the same? 25% getting better 19 getting worse 53 staying about the same 3 don’t know I’d like to ask how you would rate some of the public services in your local area. [rotate questions 4 to 7] 4. How about local streets and roads? Would you say they are excellent, good, fair, or poor? 8% excellent 43 good 32 fair 16 poor 1 don’t know 5. How about local parks, beaches, and other public recreational facilities? 15% excellent 48 good 25 fair 7 poor 5 don’t know 6. How about local police protection? 20% excellent 47 good 21 fair 8 poor 4 don’t know 7. How about local public schools? 11% excellent 32 good 21 fair 16 poor 20 don’t know 8. Overall, how would you rate the performance of city government in solving problems in your city— excellent, good, fair, or poor? 6% excellent 33 good 36 fair 16 poor 1 don’t live in a city (volunteered) 8 don’t know 9. What’s the most important problem facing your community today? Is there another problem that is almost as important? [Open-ended question, accepted two replies; both replies listed] 14% crime 13 gangs 13 education, schools 10 economy, jobs, unemployment 7 traffic 7 housing, homelessness 6 growth and development 5 drugs 3 graffiti 8 there are no problems 11 don’t know 10. Do you think that things in Los Angeles County are generally going in the right direction or are they seriously off on the wrong track? 45% right direction 38 wrong track 17 don’t know - 21 - 11. In general, how would you rate the economy in Los Angeles County today? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, or poor? 2% excellent 23 good 45 fair 28 poor 2 don’t know 12. Do you think your community is in an economic recession or not? (if yes: Do you think it is in a serious, a moderate, or a mild recession?) 12% yes, serious recession 22 yes, moderate recession 11 yes, mild recession 47 no 8 don’t know 13. In the future, do you think that Los Angeles County will be a better place to live than it is now, a worse place to live than it is now, or there will be no change? 34% better place 32 worse place 27 no change 7 don’t know 14. On another topic, how would you rate the performance of county government in solving problems in Los Angeles County—excellent, good, fair, or poor? 3% excellent 22 good 46 fair 21 poor 8 don’t know 15. What type of transportation project do you think should have the top priority for public funds in Los Angeles County? [read rotated list, then ask “or something else?”] 23% freeways and highways 19 the public bus system 17 light rail 14 local streets and roads 13 the subway system 7 carpool lanes 4 something else (specify) 3 don’t know 16. Overall, do you think that the Metro Rail System has been a good thing or a bad thing for the Los Angeles transportation system, or has it made no difference? 73% good thing 4 bad thing 16 no difference 7 don’t know 17. The November 2004 state ballot may include a 9.95 billion dollar bond measure that would fund the planning and construction of a high-speed train in California, linking Los Angeles to San Francisco via the Central Valley. If the election were today, would you vote yes or no? 60% yes 32 no 8 don’t know [rotate questions 18 and 19] 18. What if there was a measure on the county ballot to increase the local sales tax for local transportation projects by one-half cent? Would you vote yes or no? 55% yes 40 no 5 don’t know 19. What if there was a measure on the county ballot to increase the local sales tax for police protection and public safety by one-half cent? Would you vote yes or no? 65% yes 32 no 3 don’t know 20. Changing topics, overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor of California? 51% approve 33 disapprove 16 don’t know 21. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the job the California legislature is doing at this time? 40% approve 42 disapprove 18 don’t know 22. On another topic, as you may know, the state government has an annual budget of around 100 billion dollars and currently faces a multibillion dollar gap between state spending and state revenue. Do you think that this deficit is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem for the people of California today? 70% big problem 22 somewhat of a problem 4 not a problem 4 don’t know - 22 - 23. How would you prefer to deal with the state’s deficit— mostly through spending cuts; mostly through tax increases; through a mix of spending cuts and tax increases; or do you think that it is okay for the state to borrow money and run a budget deficit? 28. How concerned are you that the state’s budget deficit will cause severe cuts in funding for health and human services in Los Angeles County—very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not at all concerned? 36% mixture of spending cuts and tax increases 60% very concerned 30 mostly through spending cuts 26 somewhat concerned 11 okay for the state to borrow money and run a 8 not very concerned budget deficit 5 not at all concerned 10 mostly through tax increases 1 don’t know 4 other answer (specify) 9 don’t know [rotate questions 29 to 31] 24. Governor Schwarzenegger’s budget plan for the next fiscal year includes no new taxes, while it reduces the deficit through spending cuts in state programs and the use of 1.3 billion dollars in local government property tax money. In 29. What if the state said it needed more money just to maintain current funding for K-12 public education? Would you be willing to pay higher state taxes for this purpose? general, do you approve or disapprove of the governor’s plan 61% yes to use local government tax money to reduce the deficit? 35 no 44% approve 4 don’t know 45 disapprove 30. What if the state said it needed more money just to 11 don’t know maintain current funding for local government services 25. How important is it to you that the governor’s budget plan for next year includes no new taxes—very important, somewhat important, not too important, or not such as parks and recreation, police and public safety, and roads and transportation? Would you be willing to pay higher state taxes for this purpose? at all important? 49% yes 45% very important 32 somewhat important 46 no 5 don’t know 11 not too important 31. What if the state said it needed more money just to 9 not at all important maintain current funding for health and human services 3 don’t know provided by county government? Would you be [rotate questions 26 to 28] willing to pay higher state taxes for this purpose? 26. How concerned are you that the state’s budget deficit will cause severe cuts in K-12 public education in Los Angeles County—very concerned, somewhat concerned, 50% yes 44 no 6 don’t know not very concerned, or not at all concerned? Tax and fee increases could be used to help reduce the 65% very concerned 21 somewhat concerned 7 not very concerned state’s large gap between spending and revenue. For each of the following, please say if you favor or oppose the proposal. 6 not at all concerned [rotate questions 32 to 34] 1 don’t know 32. How about raising the top rate of the state income tax 27. How concerned are you that the state’s budget deficit will cause severe cuts in funding for local government paid by the wealthiest Californians? (Do you favor or oppose this proposal?) services such as parks and recreation, police and public safety, and roads and transportation in Los Angeles County—very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not at all concerned? 50% very concerned 37 somewhat concerned 7 not very concerned 5 not at all concerned 1 don’t know 71% favor 24 oppose 5 don’t know 33. How about raising the state portion of the sales tax by one-half cent? (Do you favor or oppose this proposal?) 53% favor 44 oppose 3 don’t know - 23 - March 2004 34. How about increasing the vehicle license fee or so-called “car tax” to pay for local government services? (Do you favor or oppose this proposal?) 24% favor 72 oppose 4 don’t know Several fiscal, tax, and economic policy proposals may appear on the November 2004 ballot. For each of the following, please say whether you would vote yes or no if the election were today. [rotate questions 35 to 40] 35. How about providing additional funding for K-12 public education and establishing a voluntary universal preschool program with funds provided through additional taxes on commercial and residential property that produces income? Would you vote yes or no? 63% yes 33 no 4 don’t know 36. How about imposing an additional 1 percent tax on taxable income over 1 million dollars to provide dedicated funding for mental health services? Would you vote yes or no? 71% yes 25 no 4 don’t know 37a. [half sample] How about requiring a two-thirds vote of the legislature and voter approval for any reduction of local government revenues? Would you vote yes or no? 60% yes 30 no 10 don’t know 37b. [half sample] How about requiring a two-thirds vote of the legislature and voter approval for any reduction of local government revenues even if it meant less funding for state government services? Would you vote yes or no? 48% yes 41 no 11 don’t know 38. [half sample] How about allowing local governments to keep more property tax money in exchange for sending more sales tax and vehicle license fee revenue to the state government? Would you vote yes or no? 36% yes 52 no 12 don’t know 39. [half sample] How about a referendum to repeal or remove state law SB2 that was passed last year requiring large employers to buy health insurance for their workers and families by 2006, and medium-size employers to buy health insurance for their workers and families by 2007? Would you vote yes to repeal or remove SB2 or no to keep SB2? 30% yes, to repeal / remove 64 no, to keep 6 don’t know 40a. [half sample] How about reducing employer costs for workers’ compensation by requiring employees to prove an injury took place at work, removing employer liability for previous job-related injuries, and establishing medical treatment guidelines? Would you vote yes or no? 64% yes 28 no 8 don’t know 40b. [half sample] How about reducing employer costs for workers’ compensation even if it meant fewer benefits for employees who are injured at work? Would you vote yes or no? 37% yes 56 no 7 don’t know 41. Suppose your local school district had a bond measure on the November 2004 ballot to pay for school construction projects. Would you vote yes or no? 69% yes 27 no 4 don’t know 42. What if there were a measure on the county ballot for new taxes on alcoholic beverages and cigarettes in order to fund county public health services? Would you vote yes or no? 76% yes 22 no 2 don’t know 43. Which of these two views is closest to your own— [rotate] Immigrants today are a benefit to Los Angeles County because of their hard work and job skills; or immigrants today are a burden to Los Angeles County because they use public services. 55% benefit 36 burden 9 don’t know - 24 - 44. And how big a problem is the amount of illegal immigration into Los Angeles County—is it a major problem, a moderate-sized problem, minor problem, or not a problem at all? 47% major problem 26 moderate-sized problem 12 minor problem 13 not a problem at all 2 don’t know 45. And which of these two views is closest to your own— [rotate] Illegal immigrants and their children should have access to public health care; or illegal immigrants and their children should be denied access to public health care? 61% illegal immigrants should have access to public health care 33 illegal immigrants should be denied access to public health care 6 don’t know 46. On another topic, are you, yourself, now covered by any form of health insurance or health plan? [read if necessary: A health plan includes any private insurance plan through your employer or a plan that you purchased yourself, as well as a government program like Medicare, Medicaid, or Medi-Cal.] 80% yes 20 no 47. Have you or anyone in your immediate family ever used a Los Angeles County public hospital or the public health care system in Los Angeles County? [if no: Do you think you will ever use the public health care system in Los Angeles County?] 45% yes 14 no, will use 28 no, will never use 11 no, don’t know 2 don’t know 48. And how concerned are you about being able to afford necessary health care when a family member gets sick— very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not at all concerned? 63% very concerned 19 somewhat concerned 8 not too concerned 8 not at all concerned 2 don’t know 49. On another topic, generally speaking, how much interest would you say you have in politics—a great deal, a fair amount, only a little, or none? 29% great deal 38 fair amount 23 only a little 8 none 2 don’t know 50. Some people are registered to vote and others are not. Are you absolutely certain that you are registered to vote? 73% yes [ask q.51] 27 no [skip to q.53] 51. Are you registered as a Democrat, a Republican, another party, or as an independent? 53% Democrat [ask q.52b] 27 Republican [ask q.52c] 3 another party (specify) [skip to q.53] 17 independent [ask q.52a] 52a.Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party or Democratic Party? 26% Republican party [skip to q.53] 42 Democratic party [skip to q.53] 27 neither (volunteered) [skip to q.53] 5 don’t know [skip to q.53] 52b.Would you call yourself a strong Democrat or not a very strong Democrat? 54% strong [skip to q.53] 44 not very strong [skip to q.53] 1 don’t know [skip to q.53] 52c.Would you call yourself a strong Republican or not a very strong Republican? 50% strong [ask q.53] 48 not very strong [ask q.53] 2 don’t know [ask q.53] 53. On another topic, would you consider yourself to be politically very liberal, somewhat liberal, middle-ofthe-road, somewhat conservative, or very conservative? 11% very liberal 23 somewhat liberal 28 middle-of-the-road 23 somewhat conservative 12 very conservative 3 don’t know - 25 - March 2004 54. How often would you say you vote—always, nearly always, part of the time, seldom, or never? 42% always 23 nearly always 10 part of the time 4 seldom 21 never [55-58: demographic questions] 59. (if employed) How do you usually commute to work— drive alone, carpool, public bus or transit, or some other means? 75% drive alone 12 carpool 7 public bus or transit 3 some other means (specify) 3 work at home (volunteered) 60. (if employed) Overall, how satisfied are you with your commute to work? Are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied? 41% very satisfied 31 somewhat satisfied 14 somewhat dissatisfied 12 very dissatisfied 2 don’t know [61-66: demographic questions] - 26 - PPIC STATEWIDE SURVEY Advisory Committee Mitchel Benson Director of Communications California Treasurer Phil Angelides Angela Blackwell President Policy Link Paul Brest President The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Mollyann Brodie Vice President Kaiser Family Foundation Bruce E. Cain Director Institute of Governmental Studies University of California, Berkeley James E. Canales President The James Irvine Foundation Matt Fong Chairman Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Advisory Committee William Hauck President California Business Roundtable Dennis A. Hunt Vice President Communications and Public Affairs The California Endowment Sherry Bebitch Jeffe Senior Scholar School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Carol S. Larson President and CEO The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Monica Lozano Publisher and CEO La Opinión Donna Lucas Deputy Chief of Staff Office of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Max Neiman Professor Political Science Department University of California, Riverside Dan Rosenheim News Director KPIX-TV Carol Stogsdill President Stogsdill Consulting Cathy Taylor Vice President and Editorial Commentary Director Orange County Register Raymond L. Watson Vice Chairman of the Board Emeritus The Irvine Company Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center - 27- PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA Board of Directors Raymond L. Watson, Chairman Vice Chairman of the Board Emeritus The Irvine Company Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Gary K. Hart Founder Institute for Education Reform California State University, Sacramento Walter B. Hewlett Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities David W. Lyon President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California Vilma S. Martinez Partner Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP Cheryl White Mason Chief, Civil Liability Management Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office Arjay Miller Dean Emeritus Graduate School of Business Stanford University Ki Suh Park Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates Constance L. Rice Co-Director The Advancement Project Thomas C. Sutton Chairman & CEO Pacific Life Insurance Company Cynthia A. Telles Department of Psychiatry UCLA School of Medicine Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center Advisory Council Mary C. Daly Research Advisor Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Clifford W. Graves General Manager Department of Community Development City of Los Angeles Elizabeth G. Hill Legislative Analyst State of California Hilary W. Hoynes Associate Professor Department of Economics University of California, Davis Andrés E. Jiménez Director California Policy Research Center University of California Office of the President Norman R. King Executive Director San Bernardino Associated Governments Daniel A. Mazmanian C. Erwin and Ione Piper Dean and Professor School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Dean Misczynski Director California Research Bureau Rudolf Nothenberg Chief Administrative Officer (Retired) City and County of San Francisco Manuel Pastor Professor, Latin American & Latino Studies University of California, Santa Cruz Peter Schrag Contributing Editor The Sacramento Bee James P. Smith Senior Economist RAND Corporation PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94111 Phone: (415) 291-4400 Fax: (415) 291-4401 www.ppic.org info@ppic.org" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:37:18" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(8) "s_304mbs" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:37:18" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:37:18" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["guid"]=> string(50) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/S_304MBS.pdf" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_mime_type"]=> string(15) "application/pdf" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" ["status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["attachment_authors"]=> bool(false) }