Kansas Speaks 2010 Statewide Public Opinion Survey

Kansas Speaks 2010

Statewide Public Opinion Survey

Prepared For The Citizens of Kansas

By

The Docking Institute of Public Affairs Fort Hays State University

Copyright © October 2010

All Rights Reserved

Fort Hays State University

600 Park Street Hays, Kansas 67601-4099 Telephone: (785) 628-4197 FAX: (785) 628-4188 www.fhsu.edu/docking

Gary Brinker, PhD Michael S. Walker, MS Director Assistant Director Jian Sun, PhD Leslie Paige, MS, EdS Research Scientist Grants Facilitator Joyce Wolfe, MS Lynette Pfeifer Research Scientist Administrative Specialist Survey Center Manager

Mission:

To Facilitate Effective Public Policy Decision-Making.

The staff of the Docking Institute of Public Affairs and its University Center for Survey Research are dedicated to

serving the people of Kansas and surrounding states.

Kansas Speaks 2010

Prepared By:

Jian Sun, Ph.D. Gary Brinker, Ph.D. Research Scientist Director

Docking Institute of Public Affairs

Prepared For:

The Citizens of Kansas In pursuit of

Fort Hays State University’s Public Affairs Mission

Copyright © October 2010 All Rights Reserved

Table of Contents

List of Figures .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ii

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1

Introduction and Methods ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Section 1: Overall Quality of life in Kansas ............................................................................................................................................................................. 7

Section 2: Economy ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 9

Section 3: Taxes .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13

Section 4: State Government................................................................................................................................................................................................ 18

Section 5: Energy Policy ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 23

Section 6: Public Policy Issues............................................................................................................................................................................................... 32

Section 7: Healthcare and Education .................................................................................................................................................................................... 37

Section 8: Phone Usage ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 45

Appendix A: Demographic Characteristics of the Sample .................................................................................................................................................... 50

Appendix B: Mail Survey Instrument .................................................................................................................................................................................... 53

The Docking Institute of Public Affairs: Kansas Speaks 2010 Page ii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Rating of Kansas as an Overall Place to Live: 2009 and 2010 ............................................................................................................................................ 8

Figure 2: Rating of Kansas as an Overall Place to Live by Race: 2010 ............................................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 3: Rating of Kansas Economy: 2009 and 2010 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 4: Satisfaction Levels with Governors’ and State Party leaders’ Ideas to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy: 2009 and 2010............................ 10

Figure 5: Satisfaction Levels with Democratic Party Leaders’ Ideas to Improve the Health of Kansas Economy by Party Affiliation: 2010 .................................. 11

Figure 6: Satisfaction Levels with Republican Party Leaders’ Ideas to Improve the Health of Kansas Economy by Party Affiliation: 2010 .................................. 12

Figure 7: Concerns with the Threat from the Economic Conditions in Kansas to Individuals’ or Families’ Welfare: 2009 and 2010 ............................................ 12

Figure 8: Opinions on Changes of Income Tax, Sales Tax, and Property Tax: 2010 ........................................................................................................................ 13

Figure 9: Opinions on Property Tax Change by Education Level: 2010 .......................................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 10: Preferred Tax Changes on Different Groups: 2009 and 2010 ........................................................................................................................................ 15

Figure 11: Preferred Tax Changes on Top Income Earners by Party Affiliation: 2010 .................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 12: Preferred Tax Changes on Large Corporations by Party Affiliation: 2010 ..................................................................................................................... 17

Figure 13: Rating of Kansas State Government: 2009 and 2010 .................................................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 14: Satisfaction with Performance of the Kansas Legislature, Governors, and State/U.S. Legislators: 2009 and 2010 ...................................................... 19

Figure 15: Satisfaction with Performance of State Senator in Respondent’s District by Party Affiliation: 2010 ............................................................................ 20

Figure 16: Satisfaction with Performance of U.S Senator in Respondent’s District by Party Affiliation: 2010 ............................................................................... 21

Figure 17: Opinion on Kansas Government Spending: 2009 and 2010 .......................................................................................................................................... 22

Figure 18: Opinion on Kansas Government Spending by Party Affiliation: 2010 ........................................................................................................................... 22

Figure 19: Opinion on Kansas Government Spending by Voter Registration Status: 2010 ............................................................................................................ 23

Figure 20: Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Coal, Oil, and Wind: 2009 and 2010 ..................................................................................... 24

Figure 21: Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Coal by Party Affiliation: 2010 .............................................................................................. 25

Figure 22: Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Oil by Party Affiliation: 2010 ................................................................................................. 26

The Docking Institute of Public Affairs: Kansas Speaks 2010 Page iii

Figure 23: Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Wind by Party Affiliation: 2010 ............................................................................................. 27

Figure 24: Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Coal by Voter Registration Status: 2010 ............................................................................... 28

Figure 25: Opinion on Economic Benefits vs. Environmental Impact of Coal and Oil Production: 2009 and 2010 ........................................................................ 29

Figure 26: Opinion on Economic Benefits vs. Environmental Impact of Coal Production by Party Affiliation: 2010 ..................................................................... 30

Figure 27: Opinion on Economic Benefits vs. Environmental Impact of Oil Production by Party Affiliation: 2010 ........................................................................ 31

Figure 28: Opinion on Providing Proof of Legal Residence to Law Enforcement Officer: 2010 ..................................................................................................... 32

Figure 29: Opinion on Providing Proof of Legal Residence to Law Enforcement Officer by Party Affiliation: 2010 ....................................................................... 33

Figure 30: Opinion on State Funding for Social Services: 2010 ...................................................................................................................................................... 34

Figure 31: Opinion on State Funding for Social Services by Party Affiliation: 2010 ........................................................................................................................ 35

Figure 32: Opinion on State Funding for Social Services by Household Income: 2010 .................................................................................................................. 36

Figure 33: Knowledge of Recent Federal Health Care Legislation: 2010 ........................................................................................................................................ 37

Figure 34: Opinion of Household Health Cost Change due to Recent Federal Health Care Legislation: 2010 ............................................................................... 38

Figure 35: Opinion of Household Health Cost Change due to Recent Federal Health Care Legislation by Party Affiliation: 2010 ................................................ 39

Figure 36: Opinion on Healthcare in Kansas: 2009 and 2010 ......................................................................................................................................................... 40

Figure 37: Opinion on Healthcare in Kansas by Party Affiliation: 2010 .......................................................................................................................................... 41

Figure 38: Opinion on State Education Funding: 2009 and 2010 ................................................................................................................................................... 42

Figure 39: Opinion on State Education Funding for K-12 by Party Affiliation: 2010 ....................................................................................................................... 43

Figure 40: Opinion on State Education Funding for Higher Education by Party Affiliation: 2010 ................................................................................................. 44

Figure 41: Landline Phone Ownership: 2010 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 45

Figure 42: Likelihood of Terminating Landline Phone: 2010 .......................................................................................................................................................... 46

Figure 43: Personal Cell Phone Ownership: 2010 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 47

Figure 44: Number of Adults Using a Cell Phone: 2010 .................................................................................................................................................................. 48

Figure 45: Number of Children Using a Cell Phone: 2010............................................................................................................................................................... 48

Figure 46: Features Used on Cell Phone: 2010 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 49

Docking Institute of Public Affairs: Kansas Speaks 2010 1

Executive Summary

The Docking Institute of Public Affairs at Fort Hays State University conducted the 2010 Kansas Speaks survey from June 21 to September

17, 2010. A random sample of adult residents of Kansas age 18 and older was surveyed to assess attitudes and opinions regarding various issues

of interest to Kansas citizens. The survey finds:

Over half of the respondents (58.5%) in 2010 said they felt Kansas was either an “excellent” or “very good” place to live. Only 3.3% said

Kansas was either a “poor” or “very poor” place to live. Perceptions of the quality of life in Kansas in 2010 were slightly more negative

than measured in 2009. There was considerable variation in opinions between respondents’ racial categories, with white respondents

being most likely to rate quality of life as at least “good” and African-American respondents being most likely to rate it as less than

“good.”

Only 6.6% of respondents in 2010 said they thought the Kansas economy was either “excellent” or “very good,” while 21.8% said the

economy was “poor” or “very poor.” These opinions were consistent across all demographic categories. In 2009, 10.7% rated the

economy as “very good” or “excellent,” while only 15.8% rated it as “poor” or “very poor.” The difference between 2009 and 2010 was

statistically significant. This suggests an impression among Kansans that the Kansas economy is not as healthy as it was one year ago.

Respondents tended to report slightly higher levels of satisfaction with Republican leaders’ ideas to improve the Kansas economy than

with Democratic leaders’ ideas in 2010. In 2009, satisfaction was slightly higher for Democratic leaders’ efforts to improve the Kansas

economy.

Respondents tended to be more satisfied with the efforts of leaders of the parties with which they self-identified, with those at least

leaning toward Democratic identity tending to approve more highly of Democratic leaders and those at least leaning toward Republican

identity tending to approve more highly of Republican leaders.


In 2010, 46.2% of respondents said they were either “moderately satisfied” or “very satisfied” with Governor Parkinson’s ideas to

improve the health of the Kansas economy, while 25.5% said they were “not satisfied.” In 2009, respondent’s opinions of Governor

Sebelius were significantly different from those of Governor Parkinson in 2010. Opinions in 2009 of Governor Sebelius’ efforts to foster

the health of the Kansas economy were more polarized, with respondents being more likely to be either “very satisfied” or “not

satisfied.”

Two thirds (68.3%) of respondents in 2010 said they were at least “moderately concerned” that economic conditions in Kansas

threatened their own or their family’s welfare, while two-fifths (40%) said they were “very concerned.” This represents a significant

increase in concern compared to respondents in 2009, when only 28.7% said they were “very concerned.”

When asked about preferences for changes in income, sales and property taxation policy, respondents were most likely to favor keeping

the current income (49.3%) and sales tax (45.6%) policies in place. Respondents were most likely to favor decreasing property taxes

(51%). Among those who favored raising taxes, most favored increasing sales tax (24.1%), followed by income tax (15.2%). Only 9%

favored increasing property taxes.

The higher the respondent’s level of education, the more likely they were to favor increasing property taxes.

When asked about preferences for changes on taxation policy for various earner categories, respondents were most likely to favor

increasing taxes on large corporations and top income earners and decreasing taxes on small businesses. Most favored keeping current

tax policies for the middle class. The most significant change compared to 2009 respondents was a higher percentage favoring increased

taxes for top income earners (46.8% in 2010 vs. 41.3% in 2009) and a lower percentage favoring decreasing taxes for top income earners

(13.1% in 2010 vs. 17.6% in 2009).

In 2010, the more strongly respondents self-identified as Republicans, the more likely they were to favor decreasing or keeping taxes on

top income earners and large corporations the same. The more strongly respondents self-identified as Democrats, the more likely they

were to favor increasing or keeping taxes the same on top income earners and large corporations.


When respondents in 2010 were asked to rate Kansas state government, only 8% rated state government as “very good” or “excellent,”

while 27.2% rated it as “poor” or “very poor.” Compared to ratings in 2009, more respondents in 2010 rated the state government as

“fair, poor or very poor.” This tended to be true across all demographic categories.

In 2010, respondents’ satisfaction with the Governor and with their own state and U.S. legislators varied widely. Satisfaction tended to

be lower compared with satisfaction in 2009. Respondents’ satisfaction with the Kansas legislature in general tended to be lower than

with their own legislators or the Governor in both years, also decreasing between 2009 and 2010.

Republicans, as well as Independents leaning Republican, tended to be more satisfied with their own state Senator than Independents

and those leaning Democratic. The more strongly respondents self-identified with the Republican Party, the more likely they were to be

satisfied with their own U.S. Senator.

In 2010, over half of respondents (52.7%) favored decreasing state spending, while only 15.2% favored increasing spending. Compared

to 2009, respondents were generally more likely to favor lower state spending in 2010. Generally, the more strongly respondents self-

identified as Republican, the more likely they were to favor reduced spending. Registered voters were also much more likely to favor

reduced spending compared to non-registered voters.

As in 2009, respondents in 2010 were most likely to say it is “extremely important” for Kansas to devote resources to the development

of wind energy, followed by oil and coal. There were only small differences in opinion on energy policy between 2009 and 2010. The

more strongly respondents self-identified as Republican, the more likely they were to feel it is important to devote resources to oil and

coal development. The more strongly respondents self-identified as Democratic, the more likely they were to feel it is important to

devote resources to wind development. Registered voters were also much more likely to feel it is important to develop coal energy than

non-registered voters.

Respondents were somewhat divided regarding their opinions of the degree to which the economic benefits of oil and coal production

outweigh concerns of the environmental impact, but most (63.3%) believe the economic benefits of oil production and well over half

(59.5%) believe the benefits of coal production outweigh environmental concerns. Support for oil and coal development is even

stronger in 2010 than in 2009.


The more strongly respondents self-identified as Republican, the more likely they were to agree that the economic benefits of oil and

coal production outweigh concerns of the environmental impact. The more strongly respondents self-identified as Democratic, the

more likely they were to disagree.

Respondents were highly supportive of having a state law that requires Kansas citizens to provide proof of legal residence to any law

enforcement officer who asks for the proof, with 69% saying they would at least “somewhat support” and 54% saying they would

“strongly support” such a law. Only 18.4% of respondents said they would oppose such a law. The more strongly respondents self-

identified as Republican, the more likely they were to support such a law.

When asked about support for state spending for social services, almost half (46.4%) favored increased spending, while only 7.5%

favored decreased spending. Independents and those leaning Democratic were more likely to favor increased spending, while those

leaning Republican were more likely to favor keeping spending for social services at the current level. Respondents with household

incomes of less than $60,000 were more likely to favor increased spending, while the percentage favoring decreased spending was

highest among those with household incomes of $60,000 and more.

Respondents were asked about possible misconceptions regarding the new federal healthcare legislation. One-fourth (24.9%) believed

incorrectly that all Americans would now be required to purchase their own healthcare insurance, while over one-fifth (22.3%) believed

incorrectly that the federal government will now provide health insurance to all those uninsured. However, over half (52.7%) correctly

indicated that neither of these misconceptions are true.

When asked about assumptions regarding changes in household healthcare costs resulting from recent federal healthcare legislation,

two-thirds (68%) of respondents said they believe healthcare costs would be higher, and one-third (33.9%) believed they would be

significantly higher. Only 4.8% believed household healthcare costs would be lower due to the legislation. Generally, the more strongly

respondents self-identified as Republican, the more likely they were to believe healthcare costs will be higher. The more strongly

respondents self-identified as Democratic, the more likely they were to believe healthcare costs will be lower.

When asked about the adequacy of the Kansas healthcare system, respondents to the 2010 survey were most likely to say Kansas’

healthcare system needs minor changes (40%). One third (33.8%) believe major changes are needed. Only one-fourth (26.2%) believe


the current system is adequate. The data suggest that Kansans are more satisfied with the state healthcare system now than they were

in 2009. The more strongly respondents self-identified as Republican, the more likely they were to feel the current state healthcare

system is adequate and less likely to believe it needs major changes.

When asked about funding for public education, respondents in 2010 were most likely to say they would keep funding for higher

education the same and increase funding for K-12. However, almost two-fifths (38.2%) favored increased funding for higher education.

Support for funding higher education declined slightly compared to 2009, whereas support for funding K-12 remained essentially the

same. The more strongly respondents self-identified as Democratic, the more likely they were to support increased funding for K-12 and

higher education.

More than eighty percent (86.8%) of respondents said they have landline phones in their households, and more than three quarters

(78.7%) of them said it was not likely at all that they would discontinue their landline service within the next year.

The vast majority (86.8%) of respondents said that members of their households use cell phone for personal use only, and 11.1% of cell

phone households indicated that more than two adult members in their households use a cell phone. Less than one fifth (18.3%) of

respondents from cell phone households said that children in their households use a cell phone.

In addition to making and receiving calls, the most common use of cell phones among respondents was for taking pictures or videos

(52.9%), followed by texting (49.5%) and the alarm function (39.4%). Less than twenty percent use them to listen to music (18.8%) and

for the GPS function (16.8%).


Introduction and Methods

The Docking Institute of Public Affairs at Fort Hays State University surveyed a random sample of adult residents of Kansas age 18 and

older to assess attitudes and opinions regarding various issues of interest to Kansas citizens. The survey was administered through both

telephone and mail, utilizing an addressed-based sampling technique to facilitate the most representative sample possible. Respondents for

which telephone numbers were available were surveyed by telephone. Those respondents who were not able to be reached by telephone, as

well as those for whom no phone number was available, were mailed the questionnaire and a self-addressed business reply envelope. The

telephone survey was conducted from June 21 to September 10, 2010, when 1,597 households were contacted via telephone. A total of 797

households completed the telephone survey, resulting in a 50% response rate (797/1,597). The survey questionnaires were mailed to 2,325

households on August 11. By September 17, the end of the data collection period, 35 mail invitations were returned as undeliverable, and 205

questionnaires were completed and mailed back to the Docking Institute. The valid population size for the mail survey is thus 2,290 (2,325 – 35),

and the response rate for the mail survey is 9% (205/2,290). With a total of 1,002 households completing the survey, the overall response rate is

25.8% (1,002/3,887). At a 95% confidence level, the margin of error for the full sample of 1,002 is 3.1%, assuming no response bias. A margin of

error of 3.1% means that there is a 95% probability that findings among the sample vary no more than +/- 3.1% from the value that would be

found if the entire population of interest (adult Kansas residents) were surveyed, assuming no response bias. Sample demographics were

compared to known Census-based distribution (see Appendix A). The sample matches closely with all Census-based distribution except Hispanic

origin and age. The survey had higher response rates among Kansas residents who are non-Hispanic and those over 50. Therefore, the overall

population estimates are biased toward the opinions of non-Hispanic and older Kansans.

This report contains eight sections. Each section presents not only descriptive analyses of respondents’ answers to each question, but

also statistically significant relationships with key demographic variables to see how citizens in various social categories differ in their opinions

on various issues. These eight sections are:

1) Overall Quality of life in Kansas. This section shows how Kansans generally feel about Kansas as a place to live.

2) Economy. This section shows results to questions addressing various economic concerns to citizens.


3) Taxes. This section shows results to opinion questions regarding fair and effective personal and business taxation policies.

4) State Government. This section presents the results of citizens’ ratings of the state government in general, as well as their various state

government elected officials.

5) Energy Policy. A key component of this study is to assess the level of citizen support for public resources being devoted to developing

various sources of energy production, including oil, coal and wind.

6) Public Policy Issues. This section looks at citizens’ opinions on several key policy issues, including illegal immigration and social services.

7) Healthcare and Education. This section presents the results of citizens’ opinions on the general state of healthcare in Kansas, as well as

knowledge and opinions on the recent federal health care legislation. Opinions about the appropriate amount of state funding for K-12

and higher education are also included in this section.

8) Phone Usage. This final section presents self-reports of landline and cell phone usage.

Section 1: Overall Quality of life in Kansas

Respondents were asked to rate Kansas generally as a place to live. Among those 997 respondents who provided valid answers to this

question, 22.7% said Kansas was an “excellent” place to live, 35.8% felt Kansas was a “very good” place to live, and 28.7% believed Kansas was a

“good” place to live. Respondents’ ratings in 2010 differ from those in 2009. The percentage of respondents who viewed Kansas as at least a

“good” place to live dropped from 91.6% in 2009 to 87.2% in 2010 (Figure 1). The difference between 2009 and 2010 is statistically significant,

indicating a 95% probability that such a difference would be found if the entire population of interest was surveyed, assuming no response bias

in the survey.

Opinions of the quality of life varied significantly by respondent’s race. In year 2010, 60% of white respondents said that Kansas was at

an “excellent” or “very good” place to live. Less than a third (28.5%) of African American respondents said so. A higher percentage of African

American respondents said that Kansas was a “poor” or “very poor” place to live than white respondents and respondents of other races

(Figure 2).


Figure 1: Rating of Kansas as an Overall Place to Live: 2009 and 2010

Figure 2: Rating of Kansas as an Overall Place to Live by Race: 2010

22.7%

22.7%

41.5%

35.8%

27.3%

28.7%

6.9%

9.5%

1.0%

2.3%0.5%

1.0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2009 (n=1218)

2010 (n=997)

Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor

21.4%

11.8%

23.6%

7.1%

37.3%

36.4%

25.0%

33.3%

28.5%

35.7%

9.8%

8.7%

7.1%

2.0%

2.1%

3.6%

5.9%

0.7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

African American

Others

White



Section 2: Economy

When asked to rate the Kansas economy, 40.3% of the 995 respondents who provided valid answers said it was at least “good”, while

21.8% said Kansas had a “poor” or “very poor” economy. Compared with the 2009 survey, the percentage of respondents who thought the

Kansas economy was at least “good” dropped by 12.2%, and the percentage who thought the Kansas economy was “poor” or “very poor”

increased by 6% (Figure 3). The difference between 2009 and 2010 is statistically significant.

Figure 3: Rating of Kansas Economy: 2009 and 2010

The survey continued by asking respondents’ satisfaction levels with Governor Parkinson’s and state party leaders’ ideas to improve the

health of the Kansas economy. Respondents’ satisfaction levels with governors’ and state Democratic Party leaders’ efforts dropped significantly

in 2010 compared with 2009. In 2010, 33.3% of respondents were moderately or very satisfied with Kansas Democratic Party leaders’ ideas,

dropping from 47% in 2009; and 46.2% were moderately or very satisfied with Governor Parkinson’s ideas, dropping from 51.4% with Governor

Sebelius in 2009 (Figure 4). Respondents’ satisfaction levels with state Republican Party leader’s efforts in 2010 dropped slightly from 2009. In

2010, 38.5% of respondents were moderately or very satisfied with Kansas Republican Party leaders’ ideas to improve the health of the Kansas

economy, a 4.8% decrease from 2009 (Figure 4).

0.8%

0.7%

9.9%

5.9%

41.8%

33.7%

31.7%

37.9%

12.5%

17.4%

3.3%

4.4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2009 (n=1197)

2010 (n=995)



Figure 4: Satisfaction Levels with Governors’ and State Party Leaders’ Ideas to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy: 2009 and 2010

Respondents’ party affiliations affected their satisfaction levels with state party leaders’ ideas to improve the health of the Kansas

economy in 2010. Democrats and independent voters leaning Democratic were more likely to feel very or moderately satisfied with Democratic

Party leaders’ ideas, whereas Republicans and independent voters leaning Republican were more likely to feel very or moderately satisfied with

Republican leaders’ ideas (Figures 5 and 6).

15.8%

11.6%

11.0%

7.2%

5.7%

5.7%

35.6%

34.6%

36.0%

26.1%

37.6%

32.8%

20.8%

28.2%

22.9%

25.4%

28.7%

29.1%

27.8%

25.5%

30.2%

41.3%

28.0%

32.3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2009 (n=1155)

2010 (n=885)

2009 (n=1104)

2010 (n=859)

2009 (n=1105)

2010 (n=872)G

ove

rno

r Se

be

lius(

20

09

)/

Go

vern

or

Par

kin

son

(20

10

)

KS

De

mo

crat

ic

Par

tyK

S R

ep

ub

lican

P

arty

Very Satisfied Moderately Satisfied Slightly Satisfied Not Satisfied


Figure 5: Satisfaction Levels with Democratic Party Leaders’ Ideas to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Party Affiliation: 2010

Respondents were also asked how concerned they were that the Kansas economy would seriously threaten their or their families’

welfare. A total of 68.3% of respondents were either “very concerned” or “moderately concerned” in 2010. The percentage of respondents who

were very or moderately concerned was only 61.9% in 2009. Forty percent (40%) of respondents were “very concerned” in 2010, an 11.3%

increase from 2009 (Figure 7). The difference between 2009 and 2010 is statistically significant.

1.0%

1.5%

0.8%

3.3%

18.3%

3.8%

25.2%

9.1%

20.6%

13.4%

25.2%

43.9%

37.7%

55.1%

22.6%

29.4%

31.1%

32.5%

25.6%

30.2%

13.4%

67.3%

48.5%

54.6%

39.1%

12.2%

28.3%

6.3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Strong Republican

Not Very Stong Republican

Independent Leaning Republican

Independent

Independent Leaning Democrat

Not Very Strong Democrat

Strong Democrat



Figure 6: Satisfaction Levels with Republican Party Leaders’ Ideas to Improve the Health of the Kansas Economy by Party Affiliation: 2010

Figure 7: Concerns with the Threat from the Economic Conditions in Kansas to Individuals’ or Families’ Welfare: 2009 and 2010

16.3%

1.3%

5.6%

2.7%

1.9%

1.6%

46.2%

46.1%

39.2%

22.7%

20.9%

25.0%

16.0%

26.9%

36.8%

32.8%

38.0%

20.9%

28.8%

20.8%

10.6%

15.8%

22.4%

36.7%

58.1%

44.2%

61.6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Strong Republican



Independent



Strong Democrat


28.7%

40.0%

33.2%

28.3%

23.1%

20.7%

15.1%

11.0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2009 (n=1214)

2010 (n=984)

Very Concerned Moderately Concerned Slightly Concerned Not Concerned


Section 3: Taxes

Kansas has three primary revenue sources: income tax, sales tax, and property tax. After being asked to think of the current economy,

15.2% of respondents thought that income tax should be significantly or somewhat increased. About a quarter (24.1%) of respondents thought

that sales tax should be significantly or somewhat increased. More than half (51%) of respondents thought that property tax should be

somewhat or significantly decreased (Figure 8). Respondents’ education levels are significantly related with their opinions on property tax

changes. Respondents with higher levels of education were more likely to support a property tax increase than those with lower levels of

education (Figure 9).

Figure 8: Opinions on Changes of Income Tax, Sales Tax, and Property Tax: 2010

1.0%

3.2%

2.2%

8.0%

20.9%

13.0%

40.0%

45.6%

49.3%

28.0%

19.7%

22.5%

23.0%

10.7%

13.0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Property Tax (n=973)

Sales Tax (n=983)

Income Tax (n=979)

Significantly Increased Somewhat Increased Remain the Same Somewhat Decreased Significantly Decreased


Figure 9: Opinion on Property Tax Change by Education Level: 2010

Tax increases and reductions can be targeted at different people or businesses. In 2010, 52.8% of respondents thought taxes on small

businesses should be decreased, and 54.2% of respondents believed that taxes on large corporations should be increased. More than one-third

(37.5%) of respondents thought that taxes on middle class should be decreased, while only 13.1% said taxes on top income earners should be

decreased. Respondents’ answers in 2009 were fairly similar to those in 2010. Across all target groups, slightly lower percentages of

respondents thought taxes should be decreased in 2010 compared to 2009 (Figure 10). Statistical tests show that only respondents’ opinions of

1.2%

0.4%

0.9%

0.5%

3.5%

2.9%

7.0%

4.6%

13.3%

13.0%

26.3%

32.4%

36.8%

36.8%

38.9%

42.7%

50.4%

47.4%

20.6%

30.6%

33.5%

25.9%

26.1%

19.1%

26.3%

47.1%

28.5%

22.3%

29.6%

17.5%

13.9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Less Than High School

High School Diploma

Some College

Associates or Technical

Bachelors

Masters or Law

Doctoral

Significantly Increased Somewhat Increased Remain the Same Somewhat Decreased Significantly Decreased


tax change on top earners differ significantly from 2009 to 2010. Respondents’ party affiliations are strongly associated with their opinions of tax

changes on those different groups. Democrats and independent voters leaning Democratic were more likely to feel that taxes should be

increased on the top income earners and large corporations, whereas Republicans and independent voters leaning Republican were less likely to

feel so (Figures 11 and 12).

Figure 10: Tax Changes on Different Groups: 2009 and 2010

41.3%

46.8%

4.4%

4.3%

51.9%

54.2%

2.9%

2.5%

41.1%

40.1%

54.5%

58.3%

33.3%

34.2%

41.9%

44.7%

17.6%

13.1%

41.1%

37.5%

14.8%

11.6%

55.2%

52.8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2009 (n=1169)

2010 (n=964)

2009 (n=1192)

2010 (n=987)

2009 (n=1130)

2010 (n=938)

2009 (n=1170)

2010 (n=973)

Top

Inco

me

Ea

rne

rsM

idd

le C

lass

Larg

e

Co

rpo

rtat

ion

sSm

all B

usi

ne

sse

s

Increased Remain the same Decreased


Figure 11: Tax Changes on Top Income Earners by Party Affiliation: 2010

21.1%

33.7%

36.9%

56.5%

68.1%

71.7%

71.7%

54.1%

57.0%

49.6%

34.1%

26.6%

25.0%

23.2%

24.8%

9.3%

13.5%

9.4%

5.3%

3.3%

5.1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Strong Republican



Independent



Strong Democrat

Increased Remain the Same Decreased


Figure 12: Tax Changes on Large Corporations by Party Affiliation: 2010

30.3%

44.6%

48.2%

59.5%

67.7%

76.3%

78.2%

46.9%

48.2%

41.0%

28.6%

29.0%

23.7%

15.0%

22.7%

7.2%

10.8%

11.9%

3.2%

6.8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Strong Republican



Independent



Strong Democrat



Section 4: State Government

In 2010, 37.1% of respondents felt that the Kansas state government’s performance was at least “good,” and 27.2% of respondents

thought that the state government’s performance was “poor” or “very poor.” Respondents’ ratings in 2009 were significantly different from that

in 2010. In 2009, 51.2% of respondents thought the state government’s performance was at least “good,” and 17.1% thought it was “poor” or

“very poor” (Figure 13). This represents a significant decline in approval of state government over the past year.

In general, respondents’ satisfaction levels were lower in 2010 than in 2009 with the overall performance of the Kansas legislature and

state and U.S. senators and representatives. The differences were all statistically significant. Except for the performance of the Governors, more

than 10% fewer respondents in 2010 felt very or moderately satisfied with the performance of the Kansas legislature and political leaders

compared to 2009. For instance, 48.5% of respondents felt very or moderately satisfied with their U.S. representatives in 2010, whereas 62.1%

of respondents felt so in 2009. In 2009, 70.0% of respondents were very or moderately satisfied with the performance of their state Senator. In

2010, 53.4% of respondents felt so about their state Senator’s performance in 2010 (Figure 14). Satisfaction with the Governor tended to move

more from the extreme ratings of Governor Sebelius to moderately or slightly satisfied ratings for Governor Parkinson.

Figure 13: Rating of Kansas State Government: 2009 and 2010

1.5%

0.8%

7.8%

7.2%

41.9%

29.1%

31.7%

35.6%

13.4%

20.1%

3.7%

7.1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2009 (n=1166)

2010 (n=969)



Figure 14: Satisfaction with Performance of the Kansas Legislature, Governors, and State/U.S. Legislators: 2009 and 2010

2.6%

2.9%

22.1%

14.3%

19.1%

11.9%

20.3%

12.2%

17.3%

13.1%

17.2%

13.1%

46.8%

34.4%

34.0%

39.1%

50.9%

41.5%

49.7%

44.0%

48.2%

37.7%

44.9%

35.4%

29.2%

33.4%

16.6%

25.7%

16.9%

26.9%

17.0%

24.9%

16.1%

23.7%

20.4%

26.4%

21.5%

29.3%

27.2%

20.9%

13.1%

19.7%

13.0%

18.9%

18.3%

25.4%

17.5%

25.1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2009 (n=1155)

2010 (n=937)

2009 (n=1184)

2010 (n=869)

2009 (n=2046)

2010 (n=839)

2009 (n=1032)

2010 (n=847)

2009 (n=1103)

2010 (n=893)

2009 (n=1081)

2010 (n=885)K

ansa

s Le

gisl

atu

re

Go

vern

or

Seb

eliu

s(2

00

9)/

Go

vern

or

Par

kin

son

(20

10

)St

ate

Se

nat

or

Stat

e

Re

pre

sen

tati

veU

.S. S

en

ato

r

U.S

. C

on

gre

ssp

ers

on



The party affiliation variable had significantly strong relationships with respondents’ satisfaction levels. In 2010, Republicans and

Independent voters leaning Republican were more likely to be very or moderately satisfied with the performance of their state and U.S. Senators

than Democrats and Independent voters leaning Democratic. More than half of the Republicans and Independent voters leaning Republican felt

very or moderately satisfied with their state and U.S. Senators, whereas less than half of the Democratic and Independent voters leaning

Democratic felt so (Figures 15 and 16).

Figure 15: Satisfaction with Performance of State Senator in Respondent’s District by Party Affiliation: 2010

17.2%

14.5%

12.9%

8.1%

12.3%

1.9%

12.1%

47.9%

50.0%

53.2%

35.1%

33.3%

46.2%

30.2%

22.4%

23.7%

24.2%

29.1%

30.9%

28.8%

28.4%

12.5%

11.8%

9.7%

27.7%

23.5%

23.1%

29.3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Strong Republican



Independent



Strong Democrat



Figure 16: Satisfaction with Performance of U.S. Senator in Respondent’s District by Party Affiliation: 2010

When asked about Kansas government spending, 15.2% of respondents thought it should be “increased,” 32.1% thought it should

“remain the same,” and 52.7% thought it should be “decreased” in 2010. In 2009, the percentage of respondents who thought Kansas

government spending should be “increased” or “remain the same” was 5.8% higher than in 2010 (Figure 17). The change in respondents’

opinions from 2009 to 2010 is statistically significant. Republicans and Independent voters leaning Republican were less likely to say that Kansas

government spending should be “increased” in 2010, compared with Democrats, neutral Independent voters and independent voters leaning

Democratic (Figure 18).

26.4%

13.3%

17.8%

5.4%

7.9%

5.5%

4.9%

45.7%

49.4%

39.3%

34.5%

29.2%

32.7%

30.3%

17.8%

22.9%

23.0%

31.1%

24.7%

30.9%

20.5%

10.1%

14.5%

20.0%

29.1%

38.2%

30.9%

44.3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Strong Republican



Independent



Strong Democrat



Figure 17: Opinion on Kansas Government Spending: 2009 and 2010

Figure 18: Opinion on Kansas Government Spending by Party Affiliation: 2010

18.4%

15.2%

34.7%

32.1%

46.8%

52.7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2009 (n=1117)

2010 (n=934)

Increased Remain the same Decreased

5.6%

8.0%

8.8%

19.3%

15.9%

18.3%

36.7%

26.8%

42.0%

28.7%

34.3%

47.7%

31.7%

28.1%

67.6%

50.0%

62.5%

46.4%

36.4%

50.0%

35.2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Strong Republican



Independent



Strong Democrat



Whether respondents were registered voters or not also affected their opinions on government spending. Respondents who were not

registered to vote were more likely to say that Kansas government spending should be “increased” or “remain the same,” whereas registered

voters were more likely to favor decreased state spending (Figure 19).

Figure 19: Opinion on Kansas Government Spending by Registration Status: 2010

Section 5: Energy Policy

More than 80% of respondents thought that it was “extremely important” or “important” for Kansas to devote resources to the

development of wind energy in both 2009 and 2010. Respondents’ opinions about the development of energy changed somewhat from 2009 to

2010, with a tendency to report less importance in 2010. Less than 60% of respondents (57.6%) thought it was “extremely important” or

“important” for Kansas to develop oil energy in 2010, while in 2009 the percentage was 63%. About 45% of respondents felt it was “extremely

important” or “important” for Kansas to develop coal energy in 2010, whereas in 2009 the percentage was 49.4%. The percentages of

respondents who felt it was “extremely important” or “important” for Kansas to develop all three energy sources, including wind, were lower in

2010 than in 2009 (Figure 20).

14.1%

30.6%

18.3%

33.9%

67.6%

35.5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Registered Voters

Non Registered Voters



Figure 20: Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Coal, Oil, and Wind: 2009 and 2010

Respondents self-identifying different party affiliations varied in their opinions on energy policies. In general, Republicans and

Independent voters leaning Republican were more likely to say it was “extremely important” or “important” for Kansas to devote resources to

the development of coal and oil energy in 2010. About two-thirds (66.9%) of strong Republicans felt it is “extremely important” or “important”

to develop coal energy, whereas 35.8% of strong Democrats felt so (Figure 21). More than half of Republicans and independent voters leaning

Republican said it was “extremely important” or “important” for Kansas to develop oil energy, whereas less than half of Democrats, neutral

Independent voters, and Independent voters leaning Democratic said so (Figure 22). Support for the development of wind energy was relatively

high across all party affiliations, but percentages of strong Democrats and Independent voters leaning Democratic who said it was “extremely

important” or “important” to develop wind energy were higher than for respondents of other party affiliations (Figure 23).

21.1%

19.7%

28.4%

25.4%

62.6%

59.7%

28.3%

25.4%

34.6%

32.2%

23.9%

22.8%

26.9%

36.2%

24.9%

30.1%

10.3%

13.8%

23.7%

18.7%

12.2%

12.4%

3.2%

3.8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2009 (n=1159)

2010 (n=937)

2009 (n=1192)

2010 (n=961)

2009 (n=1205)

2010 (n=980)

Co

alO

ilW

ind

Extremely Important Important Somewhat Important Not at all Important


Figure 21: Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Coal by Party Affiliation: 2010

32.5%

16.5%

19.4%

15.6%

13.3%

16.9%

11.9%

34.4%

18.8%

30.2%

22.8%

17.8%

11.9%

23.9%

25.8%

45.9%

35.3%

38.9%

36.7%

50.8%

35.8%

7.2%

18.8%

15.1%

22.8%

32.2%

20.3%

28.4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Strong Republican



Independent



Strong Democrat

Extremely Important Important Somewhat Important Not At All Important


Figure 22: Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Oil by Party Affiliation: 2010

42.0%

25.6%

21.0%

20.1%

12.1%

26.7%

14.3%

34.2%

30.0%

35.7%

28.4%

28.6%

21.7%

34.6%

18.7%

38.9%

32.9%

33.1%

36.3%

38.3%

32.3%

5.0%

5.6%

10.5%

18.3%

23.1%

13.3%

18.8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Strong Republican



Independent



Strong Democrat



Figure 23: Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Wind by Party Affiliation: 2010

47.3%

58.2%

57.2%

66.5%

71.0%

57.4%

71.1%

23.2%

24.2%

25.5%

20.8%

18.3%

21.3%

20.4%

20.0%

15.4%

15.2%

10.4%

8.6%

21.3%

7.7%

9.5%

2.2%

2.1%

2.3%

2.2%

0.7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Strong Republican



Independent



Strong Democrat



There was also a significant difference between registered voters’ opinions on development of coal compared to those not registered in

2010. Almost half (49.3%) of registered voters thought it was extremely important or important for Kansas to devote resources to the

development of coal energy, whereas 24.7% of those who were not registered felt so (Figure 24).

Figure 24: Opinion on Devoting Resources to the Development of Coal by Registration Status: 2010

Respondents were asked about their opinions on the economic benefits versus the environmental impact of coal and oil production. In

2010, almost two-thirds (63.3%) of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that the economic benefits of oil production outweigh concerns about

the impact on the environment, and 59.5% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that the economic benefits of coal production outweigh

concerns of the impact on the environment. Respondents’ opinions in 2009 were significantly different from those in 2010. In 2009, the

percentages of respondents who strongly agreed or agreed the economic benefits of coal and oil production outweigh concerns about the

impact on the environment were both lower than those in 2010, despite the fact that data collection occurred in the wake of the Deepwater

Horizon oil spill (Figure 25).

20.5%

6.2%

28.8%

18.5%

38.4%

47.7%

12.3%

27.7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Registered Voters

Non Registered Voters



Figure 25: Opinion on Coal and Oil Production: 2009 and 2010

In the 2010 survey, the party affiliation variable has significantly strong relationships with respondents’ opinions on the economic

benefits and environmental impact of coal and oil production. Republicans and Independent voters leaning Republican were more likely to

“strongly agree” or “agree” that the economic benefits of coal and oil production outweigh concerns about the impact on environment than

Democrats, Independent voters leaning Democratic and neutral Independent voters. More than 60% of Republicans and Independent voters

leaning Republican strongly agreed or agreed that the economic benefits of coal and oil production outweigh concerns about its impact on

environment. The percentages of Democrats, Independent voters leaning Democratic and neutral Independent voters who strongly agreed or

agreed so were generally less than 60% (Figures 26 and 27).

12.1%

13.7%

10.8%

15.5%

39.6%

45.8%

43.1%

47.8%

35.3%

29.3%

37.1%

26.4%

13.1%

11.2%

9.1%

10.3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2009 (n=1111)

2010 (n=900)

2009 (n=1133)

2010 (n=919)

The

eco

no

mic

b

en

efi

ts o

f co

al

pro

du

ctio

n

ou

twe

igh

co

nce

rns

som

e

pe

op

le m

ay

hav

e a

bo

ut

its

imp

act

on

th

e

en

viro

nm

en

t

The

eco

no

mic

b

en

efi

ts o

f o

il p

rod

uct

ion

ou

twe

igh

co

nce

rns

som

e

pe

op

le m

ay

hav

e a

bo

ut

its

imp

act

on

th

e

en

viro

nm

en

t

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree


Figure 26: Opinion on Economic Benefits and Environmental Impact of Coal Production by Party Affiliation: 2010

24.8%

13.6%

16.4%

8.7%

9.0%

7.0%

6.2%

54.0%

49.4%

50.7%

42.2%

34.8%

45.6%

36.9%

18.3%

33.3%

24.6%

32.3%

36.0%

29.8%

38.5%

3.0%

3.7%

8.2%

16.8%

20.2%

17.5%

18.5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Strong Republican

Not Very Strong Republican


Independent



Strong Democrat



Figure 27: Opinion on Economic Benefits and Environmental Impact of Oil Production by Party Affiliation: 2010

28.0%

16.5%

15.9%

8.0%

8.0%

8.6%

9.6%

48.8%

50.6%

54.3%

44.8%

39.8%

51.7%

43.0%

16.4%

28.2%

25.4%

32.5%

35.2%

20.7%

34.8%

6.8%

4.7%

4.3%

14.7%

17.0%

19.0%

12.6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Strong Republican



Independent



Strong Democrat



Section 6: Public Policy Issues

When asked if they support or oppose a state law that would require Kansas citizens to provide proof of legal residence to any law

enforcement officer who asks for the proof, 54% of 984 respondents who provided valid answers said that they would “strongly support” such a

law, and 15% said they would “somewhat support” it. About one-seventh (13.8%) said that they would “strongly oppose” it (Figure 28).

Figure 28: Opinion on Providing Proof of Legal Residence to Law Enforcement Officer: 2010 (n=984)

54.0%

15.0% 12.6%

4.6%

13.8%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Strongly Support Somewhat Support Neutral Somewhat Oppose Strongly Oppose


Respondents self-reporting different party affiliations had significantly different opinions on such a state law. Republicans and

Independent voters leaning Republican were more likely to strongly or somewhat support the law than Democrats and Independent voters

leaning Democratic. Almost ninety percent (88.8%) of strong Republicans said they would strongly or somewhat support such a law, whereas

46.1% of strong Democrats said they would support it (Figure 29).

Figure 29: Opinion on Providing Proof of Legal Residence to Law Enforcement Officer by Party Affiliation: 2010

77.5%

59.3%

55.2%

51.1%

36.8%

42.6%

32.6%

11.3%

11.0%

18.6%

16.1%

20.0%

21.3%

13.5%

6.3%

16.5%

13.1%

13.8%

9.5%

16.4%

17.0%

1.4%

4.4%

4.8%

2.9%

7.4%

6.6%

8.5%

3.6%

8.8%

8.3%

16.1%

26.3%

13.1%

28.4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Strong Republican



Independent



Strong Democrat

Strongly Support Somewhat Support Neutral Somewhat Oppose Strongly Oppose


Respondents were asked if the current level of state funding for social services, such as senior and disability services, should be

“increased,” “kept at the same level,” or “decreased.” Among those 965 respondents who provided valid answers, 46.4% said the level of state

funding for social services should be “increased,” 46.1% said it should be “kept at the same level,” and 7.5% said it should be “decreased” (Figure

30).

Figure 30: Opinion on State Funding for Social Services: 2010 (n=965)

Respondents’ self-identified party affiliations and household incomes were both significantly associated with opinions on state funding

for social services. Republicans and Independent voters leaning Republican were less likely to support increased state funding for social services

than Democrats, Independent voters leaning Democratic, and neutral independent voters (Figure 31). In general, respondents with higher

household income were less supportive of increased state funding for social services (Figure 32).

46.4%

46.1%

7.5%

Increased

Kept at Same Level

Decreased


Figure 31: Opinion on State Funding for Social Services by Party Affiliation: 2010

34.7%

36.7%

33.8%

54.0%

55.3%

51.7%

66.2%

57.1%

57.8%

56.3%

36.8%

41.5%

45.0%

28.7%

8.2%

5.6%

9.9%

9.2%

3.2%

3.3%

5.1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Strong Republican



Independent



Strong Democrat

Increased Kept at Same Level Decreased


Figure 32: Opinion on State Funding for Social Services by Household Income: 2010

61.3%

64.2%

50.5%

51.5%

44.0%

55.7%

34.7%

37.8%

32.3%

30.9%

44.2%

44.3%

49.5%

40.5%

52.8%

51.4%

6.5%

4.9%

5.3%

4.1%

6.4%

3.8%

12.5%

10.8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Less than $10,000

$10,000-19,999

$20,000-29,999

$30,000-39,999

$40,000-49,999

$50,000-59,999

$60,000-69,999

More than $70,000



Section 7: Healthcare and Education

The survey asked respondents about their knowledge of the recent federal health care legislation. Among the 846 respondents who

provided valid answers, 24.9% thought that the new legislation requires that “all Americans have to purchase their own health insurance,” and

22.3% thought that the new legislation requires “the federal government to provide health insurance to all those who are uninsured.” The fact is

that people are not currently required to purchase their own health insurance, and the federal government will not provide health insurance to

all those currently uninsured. Therefore, a little more than half (52.7%) of respondents who selected “neither is true”, had the correct

knowledge of the recent federal health care legislation (Figure 33).

Figure 33: Knowledge about Recent Federal Health Care Legislation: 2010 (n=846)

24.9%

22.3%

52.7%

All Americans now have to purchase their own health insurance

The federal government will now provide health insurance to all those who are uninsured

Neither is true


The survey continued to ask if respondents believed that their household health care costs would be higher, the same, or lower as a

result of the recent federal health care legislation. Among those 959 respondents who provided valid answers, 33.9% thought their household

health care costs would be “significantly higher” due to the recent federal health care legislation, 34.1% thought the costs would be “somewhat

higher,” 27.2% thought the costs would be “about the same,” and 4.8% thought they would be somewhat or significantly lower (Figure 34).

Figure 34: Household Health Care Cost Change due to Recent Federal Health Care Legislation: 2010 (n=959)

33.9%

34.1%

27.2%

3.9% 0.9%

Significantly Higher

Somewhat Higher

About the Same

Somewhat Lower

Significantly Lower


Respondents with different party affiliations tended to differ in their perceptions of changes in health care costs. In general, Republicans

and Independent voters leaning Republican were more likely to believe that their household health care costs would be higher due to the recent

federal health care legislation than Democrats and Independent voters leaning Democratic. More than 70% of Republicans and Independent

voters leaning Republican believed that their household health costs would be significantly or somewhat higher, whereas less than 70% of

Democrats and Independent voters leaning Democratic believed so (Figure 35).

Figure 35: Household Health Cost Change due to Recent Federal Health Care Legislation by Party Affiliation: 2010

53.4%

30.0%

33.3%

36.8%

12.0%

28.1%

17.6%

32.9%

46.7%

39.7%

33.9%

25.0%

35.1%

26.5%

12.3%

22.2%

24.1%

24.6%

53.3%

35.1%

44.1%

1.4%

1.1%

2.8%

3.5%

9.8%

1.8%

8.1%

1.2%

3.7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Strong Republican



Independent



Strong Democrat

Significantly Higher Somewhat Higher About the Same Somewhat Lower Significantly Lower


The survey also asked about respondents’ opinions on the adequacy of health care in Kansas. In 2010, 26.2% of respondents felt that the

“Kansas healthcare system is adequate,” 40% said it “needs minor changes,” and 33.8% said it “needs major changes.” Respondents’ opinions

were significantly different from that in 2010. In 2009, half of the respondents said that the “Kansas healthcare needs major changes” compared

to one third in 2010 (Figure 36). Respondents with different party affiliations differed in their opinions on healthcare in Kansas in 2010.

Compared with Democrats, Independent voters leaning Democratic, and neutral Independent voters, Republicans and Independent voters

leaning Republican were more likely to say that the “Kansas healthcare system is adequate” and less likely to say it “needs major changes”

(Figure 37).

Figure 36: Opinion on the Adequacy of Health Care in Kansas: 2009 and 2010

16.4%

26.2%

33.4%

40.0%

50.3%

33.8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2009 (n=1168)

2010 (n=955)

Kansas healthcare system is adequate Kansas healthcare needs minor changes Kansas healthcare needs major changes


Figure 37: Opinion on the Adequacy of Health Care in Kansas by Party Affiliation: 2010

37.6%

29.2%

30.8%

22.8%

21.1%

20.3%

14.6%

39.4%

43.8%

43.4%

35.1%

42.2%

42.4%

36.5%

23.0%

27.0%

25.9%

42.1%

36.7%

37.3%

48.9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Strong Republican



Independent



Strong Democrat

Kansas healthcare system is adequate Kansas healthcare needs minor changes Kansas healthcare needs major changes


The survey asked about respondents’ opinions on the levels of state funding for Kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) and higher

education in Kansas. Support for increasing state funding for K-12 in 2010 declined only slightly from that in 2009. About 53% of respondents

said that the level of state funding for K-12 should be “increased” in both years, though the percent favoring reduced spending increased

slightly. Support for state funding of higher education also declined in 2010. The percentage of respondents who said the state funding for

higher education should be “increased” was 38.2% in 2010, about 5% lower than that in 2009. As with K-12, a higher percentage (14.2%) of

respondents said that state funding for higher education should be “decreased,” which is about 5% higher than in 2009 (Figure 38). Statistical

analysis shows that respondents’ opinions about state funding for higher education changed significantly from 2009 to 2010.

Figure 38: Opinion on State Education Funding: 2009 and 2010

52.4%

52.8%

43.3%

38.2%

40.9%

38.8%

47.6%

47.7%

6.7%

8.4%

9.1%

14.2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2009 (n=1169)

2010 (n=981)

2009 (n=1153)

2010 (n=967)

Fun

din

g fo

r G

rad

es

Kin

de

rgar

ten

Thro

ugh

Hig

h

Sch

oo

l

Fun

din

g fo

r St

ate

C

olle

ges

and

U

niv

ers

itie

s



Respondents’ opinions on state funding of public education were significantly related to their party affiliations in 2010. Democrats,

Independent voters leaning Democratic and neutral Independent voters were more likely to support increased state funding for K-12 and higher

education than Republicans and Independent voters leaning Republican. More than 60% of Democrats and Independent voters leaning

Democratic said the state funding for K-12 should be “increased,” whereas less than 50% of Republicans and Independent voters leaning

Republican said so. More than 50% of Democrats and Independent voters said the state funding for higher education should be “increased,”

whereas less than one third of Republicans and Independent voters leaning Republican said so (Figures 39 and 40).

Figure 39: Opinion on State Education Funding for K-12 by Party Affiliation: 2010

39.5%

47.3%

41.8%

58.7%

63.2%

63.3%

71.4%

46.4%

46.2%

50.7%

31.3%

34.7%

36.7%

23.6%

14.1%

6.6%

7.5%

10.1%

2.1%

5.0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Strong Republican



Independent



Strong Democrat



Figure 40: Opinion on State Education Funding for Higher Education by Party Affiliation: 2010

27.8%

30.7%

26.5%

41.0%

50.5%

56.7%

52.9%

55.1%

58.0%

55.8%

44.5%

40.9%

40.0%

33.6%

17.1%

11.4%

17.7%

14.5%

8.6%

3.3%

13.6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Strong Republican



Independent



Strong Democrat



Section 8: Phone Usage

The survey asked if respondents had a landline phone in their household. Among 988 respondents who provided valid answers, 86.8%

said they had at least one landline phone in their household (Figure 41). The survey continued asking those who had landline phones in their

households how likely respondents would discontinue landline service within the next year and use a cell phone only. A majority (78.7%) of

them said it was not at all likely that they would discontinue their landline phone within the next year and use a cell phone only instead (Figure

42).

Figure 41: Landline Phone Ownership: 2010 (n=988)

86.8%

13.2%Yes, I have landline phone(s) in the

household

No, I do not have a landline phone in the

household


Figure 42: Likelihood of Terminating Landline Phone: 2010 (n=851)

3.8% 4.3%

13.2%

78.7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Extremely Likely Very Likely Somewhat Likely Not Likely At All


When asked if members of their households use cell phones for personal use only, 990 respondents answered the question, and among

them 88.5% said “Yes” (Figure 43). The survey continued asking the numbers of adults and children in the household who use cell phones. A

majority (88.9%) of respondents indicated that two or fewer adult members in their households use a cell phone (Figure 44). Less than twenty

percent (18.3%) of respondents said that children in their households use a cell phone (Figure 45).

Figure 43: Personal Cell Phone Ownership: 2010 (n=990)

88.5%

11.5%

Yes, members in my household use cell phones for personal

use only

No, members in my household do not use cellphone for personal

use only


Figure 44: Number of Adults Using a Cell Phone: 2010 (n=879)

Figure 45: Number of Children Using a Cell Phone: 2010 (n=854)

0.9%

32.1%

55.9%

8.2%2.5% 0.3% 0.1%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

81.7%

10.8%6.4%

0.9% 0.1%0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

0 1 2 3 4


Cell phones are used mostly for making and receiving calls among respondents surveyed. Almost all (98.2%) respondents indicated that

they use cell phones for making and receiving calls. More than half (52.9%) of respondents said they used cell phones for taking pictures or

videos. Less than twenty percent (16.8%) use the GPS function on their cell phones (Figure 46).

Figure 46: Features Used on Cell Phone: 2010

10.3%

16.8%

18.8%

33.4%

36.3%

39.4%

49.5%

52.9%

98.2%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0%

Others (n=729)

GPS (n=750)

Listening to music (n=761)

Internet (n=784)

Calendar (n=799)

Alarm clock (n=812)

Texting (n=831)

Taking pictures or videos (n=823)

Making or receiving calls (n=878)


Appendix A: Demographic Characteristics of the Sample

Social Indicators Survey Sample

Study Population

Gender

(N=998)

Male 44.2% 49.7% a

Female 55.8% 50.3% a

Hispanic Origin

(N=995)

2.9% 9.3% a

Race

(N=989)

White 92.0% 88.5% a

Black or African American 2.8% 6.2% a

Biracial 0.9% 1.9% a

Asian 0.6% 2.3% a

American Indian 1.1% 1.0% a

Other 2.5% 0.1% a

Household Income

(N=869)

Less than $10,000 3.7% 8.6% b

$10,000-$19,999 9.6% 13.0% b

$20,000-$29,000 11.6% 14.2% b

$30,000-$39,999 11.3% 13.4% b

$40,000-$49,999 12.9% 11.7% b

$50,000-$59,999 9.4% 9.6% b

$60,000 and more 41.5% 29.7% b


Appendix A (cont.): Demographic Characteristics of the Sample


Study Population

Education

(N=1000)

Less Than High School 3.5% 14.0% b

High School Diploma 24.8% 29.8% b

Some College 25.0% 24.6% b

Associates or Technical Degree 11.4% 7.7% b

Bachelors 21.6% 17.1% b

Masters or Law 11.8% 6.1% b

Doctoral 1.9% 0.9% b

Age (of those 18 and older)

(N=977)

18 to 19 years old 0.72% 28.0% c

20 to 24 years old 2.46% 7.9% a

25 to 29 years old 3.28% 7.1% a

30 to 34 years old 3.58% 6.0% a

35 to 39 years old 5.63% 6.2% a

40 to 44 years old 6.35% 6.2% a

45 to 49 years old 8.09% 7.2% a

50 to 54 years old 11.57% 7.1% a

55 to 59 years old 12.28% 6.2% a

60 to 64 years old 10.64% 5.0% a

65 to 69 years old 9.83% 3.7% a

70 to 74 years old 9.01% 2.9% a

75 to 79 years old 6.76% 2.4% a

80 to 84 years old 5.73% 2.0% a

85 years old and over 4.09% 2.1% a


Appendix A (cont.): Demographic Characteristics of the Sample


Study Population

Political Party Affiliation

(N=943) Strong Republican 23.8% n/a

Not Very Strong Republican 9.9% n/a

Independent Leaning Republican 15.6% n/a

Independent 19.0% n/a

Independent Leaning Democrat 10.1% n/a

Not Very Strong Democrat 6.5% n/a

Strong Democrat 15.3% n/a

Years living in Kansas

(N=979)

1 to 20 years 19.4% n/a

21 to 40 years 25.9% n/a

41 to 60 years 29.6% n/a

More than 60 years 25.0% n/a

Participation in 2008 election

(N=991)

Vote 85.1% n/a

Not Vote 14.9% n/a

Registered to vote

(N=147)

Registered 53.1% n/a

Not Register 46.9% n/a

n/a = not available

a Source: U.S. Census Bureau (http://factfinder.census.gov). The information comes from 2009 population estimation.

b Source: U.S. Census Bureau (http://factfinder.census.gov). The information comes from 2000 decennial census.

c Source: U.S. Census Bureau (http://factfinder.census.gov). The information comes from 2009 population estimation. This is the percentage of

people of 0 to 19 years old.

Appendix B: Mail Survey Instrument

53

Mail Survey

For the following questions, please circle the number corresponding to your answer. Skip any question for

which you have no opinion or response.

Q1. In general, how would you rate Kansas as a place to live, the Kansas economy, and the Kansas state

government?

Excellent

Very

Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor

As a place to live, Kansas is 1 2 3 4 5 6

The Kansas economy is 1 2 3 4 5 6

The Kansas state government is 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q2. How satisfied are you with the overall performance of the Kansas legislature, Governor Parkinson,

and your state and congressional senators and representatives?

Very

Satisfied

Moderately

Satisfied

Slightly

Satisfied

Not

Satisfied

Overall performance of the Kansas legislature 1 2 3 4

Overall performance of Governor Parkinson 1 2 3 4

Overall performance of state senator in your district 1 2 3 4

Overall performance of state representative in your district 1 2 3 4

Overall performance of your U.S. senator 1 2 3 4

Overall performance of your U.S. Congressperson 1 2 3 4

If you would rather complete this survey online, please log on to www.fhsu.edu/docking and click on the web

surveys link at the bottom of the page to access the Kansas Speaks survey. The password is: docking. Please DO

NOT share this link with others in order to maintain representativeness.

Password ____________________

KANSAS

SPEAKS When Kansas speaks, Kansas listens.

http://www.fhsu.edu/docking

54

Q3. How satisfied are you with Governor Parkinson’s and state party leaders’ ideas to improve the health

of the Kansas economy?

Very

Satisfied

Moderately

Satisfied

Slightly

Satisfied

Not

Satisfied

Governor Parkinson's efforts to improve the

health of the Kansas economy 1 2 3 4

Kansas Democratic Party leaders' ideas to

improve the health of the Kansas economy 1 2 3 4

Kansas Republican Party leaders' ideas to

improve the health of the Kansas economy 1 2 3 4

Q4. How concerned are you that the Kansas economy will seriously threaten you or your family’s

welfare?

Very Concerned Moderately Concerned Slightly Concerned Not Concerned

1 2 3 4

Q5. Do you believe that Kansas government spending should be increased, remain the same, or

decreased?


1 2 3

Q6. Kansas has three primary revenue sources: income tax, sales tax, and property tax. Thinking of the

current Kansas economy, do you believe that each of the following taxes should be significantly

increased, somewhat increased, remain the same, somewhat decreased, or significantly decreased?

Significantly

Increased

Somewhat

Increased

Remain the

Same

Somewhat

Decreased

Significantly

Decreased

Income tax 1 2 3 4 5

Sales tax 1 2 3 4 5

Property tax 1 2 3 4 5

Q7. Tax increases and reductions can be targeted at different people or businesses. Please tell us whether

you think taxes on the following groups should increase, remained the same, or decrease.

Increase Remain the Same Decrease

Taxes on the top income earners 1 2 3

Taxes on the middle class 1 2 3

Taxes on large corporations 1 2 3

Taxes on small businesses

(less than 500 employees) 1 2 3

55

Q8. How strongly would you support or oppose a state law that requires Kansas citizens to provide proof

of legal residence to any law enforcement officer who asks for the proof?

Strongly

Support

Somewhat

Support Neutral

Somewhat

Oppose

Strongly

Oppose

1 2 3 4 5

Q9. To the best of your knowledge, what does the recent federal health care legislation require?

All Americans now have to

purchase their own health

insurance

The federal government will

now provide health insurance

to all those who are uninsured

Neither is true

1 2 3

Q10. As a result of the recent federal health care legislation, do you believe that your household health

care costs will be significantly higher, somewhat higher, about the same, somewhat lower, or significantly

lower?

Significantly

Higher

Somewhat

Higher

About the

Same

Somewhat

Lower

Significantly

Lower

1 2 3 4 5

Q11. Which of the following best describes your opinion on healthcare in Kansas?

The Kansas healthcare system

is adequate It needs some minor changes It needs some major changes

1 2 3

Q12. How important is it for Kansas to devote resources to the development of the following energy

sources?

Extremely

Important Important

Somewhat

Important

Not At

All

Important

Coal 1 2 3 4

Oil 1 2 3 4

Wind 1 2 3 4

56

Q13. Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statements about

coal and oil production?

Strongly

Agree Agree Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

The economic benefits of coal production

outweigh concerns some people may have about

its impact on the environment.

1 2 3 4

The economic benefits of oil production outweigh

concerns some people may have about its impact

on the environment.

1 2 3 4

Q14. Thinking about the current level of state funding for the following items, would you say that the

amount of funding should be increased, kept at the same level, or decreased?

Increased Kept at the same level Decreased

Current level of state education funding for grades

kindergarten through high school 1 2 3

Current level of state education funding for state

colleges and universities 1 2 3

Current level of state funding for social services,

such as senior and disability services 1 2 3

Q15. Do you have landline phone(s) in your household?

Yes, go to question Q15a, Q15b, Q15c

No, go to Q16

Q15a. How many landlines phones are there in the household for personal use only?

_________

Q15b. Do you answer that landline phone when it rings?

All of the time Most of the time Some of the time Rarely or never

1 2 3 4

Q15c. How likely is it that you will get rid of the house phone within the next year and use a

cell phone only instead?

Extremely likely Very likely Somewhat likely Not at all likely

1 2 3 4

57

Q16. Do members of your household use cell phones for personal use only?

Yes, go to question Q16a, Q16b, Q16c, Q16d

No, go to Q17

Q17. How many years have you lived in Kansas? __________ years

Q18. Did you vote in the November 2008 election? (Check the box before your answer)

Yes, go to Q19

No, go to question Q18a

Q19. Do you consider yourself a …

Strong

Republican

Weak

Republican

Independent

Leaning

Republican

Independent

Independent

Leaning

Democrat

Weak

Democrat

Strong

Democrat Other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Q18a. Are you registered to vote?

Yes No

Q16a. What is the total number of cell phones that are used by members of your household for personal

use only? _____________

Q16b. How many adults in your household use a cell phone? ________

Q16c. How many children in your household use a cell phone? _________

Q16d. Which of the following common cell phone features do you use? (circle all that apply)

Texting

Making

and

receiving

calls

Internet Calendar Alarm

clock GPS

Listening

to music

Taking

picture

or video

Other,

please

specify:

_________

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

58

Q20. What is the highest level of education you have received?

Less than

High School

High School

Diploma or

Equivalency

Some

College

Associates

or Technical

Degree

Bachelors

Degree

Masters or

Law Degree

Doctoral

Degree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q21. Are you of Mexican or other Hispanic origin?

Yes No

Q22. Do you consider yourself:

White

Black or

African

American

Biracial Asian American

Indian Other

1 2 3 4 5 6

Q23. What year were you born? ________

Q24. What is your gender?

Male Female

Q25. What was your total family income for the last year?

Less than

$10,000

Between

$10,000

and

$19,999

Between

$20,000

and

$29,999

Between

$30,000

and

$39,999

Between

$40,000

and

$49,999

Between

$50,000

and

$59,999

Between

$60,000

and

$69,999

$70,000

and more

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey.

All information will be kept confidential.

Please place this questionnaire in the postage-paid envelope provided and drop it in a US Post

Office mailbox.

Date post:	03-Feb-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Kansas Speaks 2010 Statewide Public Opinion Survey

Documents