THE FIELD POLL. UCB Contact

Transcription

1 Field Research Corporation 601 California St., Ste 900, San Francisco, CA (415) FAX: (415) field.com/fieldpollonline THE FIELD POLL UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY BERKELEY DAVIS IRVINE LOS ANGELES RIVERSIDE SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO UCB Contact Dr. Jack Citrin: (office) (cell) SANTA BARBARA SANTA CRUZ Release #2370 Release Date: Friday, March 18, 2011 VOTER VIEWS OF CALIFORNIA AS A PLACE TO LIVE NEAR HISTORIC LOWS. ABOUT HALF SEE RECENT IMMIGRANTS AS NOT AFFECTING STATE S QUALITY OF LIFE, BUT 39% SEE A DIMINISHMENT. By Mark DiCamillo and Mervin Field IMPORTANT: Contract for this service is subject to revocation if publication or broadcast takes place before release date or if contents are divulged to persons outside of subscriber staff prior to release time. (ISSN ) Fewer than four in ten California voters (39%) now consider the state one of the best places to live. This is slightly less than the 41% who said this two years ago, the last time The Field Poll measured public opinion on this issue, and is the second lowest assessment in the past forty-four years. In four successive Field Poll measures between 2008 and 2010, majorities of California voters (between 52% and 63%) had reported declines in their own personal finances from the previous year. The current survey finds the proportion reporting this has receded somewhat to 38%. Yet, it is still three times the proportion who see their financial situation improving. The largest segment (49%) report no real change in their financial finances compared to the previous year. When asked about the impact that immigration is having on the state s overall quality of life, about half (47%) see it as having no real impact. However, among those who see a change, there is a greater tendency to view immigration in negative than positive terms. About four in ten voters (39%) believe immigration has reduced the quality of life in California, compared to 10% who say it has made life better. Voters whose personal financial fortunes have declined in the past year are more apt to view recent immigration as having a negative impact on the state s quality of life. These are the findings from the latest collaborative survey between the University of California, Berkeley and The Field Poll. The survey was conducted by telephone February 28-March 14 among 898 registered voters statewide. Assessments of California as a place to live near historic lows The Field Poll has been charting Californians assessments of the state as a place to live since Over this period there have been many changes. Between 1967 and 1985 large majorities of between 70% and 78% of residents consistently regarded the state one of the best places to live. This diminished somewhat to a 58% majority in the late 1980 s. Field Research Corporation is an Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer

2 Friday, March 18, 2011 Page 2 Times of economic hardship and dislocation have often coincided with negative assessments of California as a place to live. For example, the lowest proportion saying California was one of the best places to live (33%) occurred in 1992, when California was in the midst of a prolonged recession. After climbing back to 54% in 2000, it fell to 40% in 2001 as an unprecedented electricity crisis was sweeping the state. Appraisals of the state as a place to live rebounded some in subsequent years and touched 50% in However, the proportion of voters describing the state as one of the best places to live has declined again during the current economic downturn. Two years ago, after the current recession was underway, the proportion of voters rating the state in very positive terms dropped to 41%. The current survey shows the proportion reporting this has fallen further to 39%. Another 28% describe the state as a nice but not outstanding place to live, while 20% consider it about average, and 10% think California is a poor place to live. Table 1 How California is rated as a place to live One of the best places Nice, but not outstanding About average Poor place % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Note: Surveys prior to 1992 conducted among all adults, not just registered voters. Differences between the sum of each year s percentages and 100% equal proportion with no opinion. Personal finances remain more negative than positive In four successive Field Polls between 2008 and 2010, majorities of California voters (between 52% and 63%) reported declines in their own personal financial well-being from the previous year. The current survey finds the proportion reporting this to be less (38%). Yet, it is still three times greater than those who say there has been an improvement in their financial situation (12%). The largest proportion (50%) see no real change in their financial finances compared to the previous year.

3 Friday, March 18, 2011 Page 3 Voters with household incomes of less than $40,000 are nearly twice as likely to report declining economic fortunes over the past year than those earning $100,000 or more. Table 2 Californians' personal financial well-being compared to one year ago Worse off No change Better off 2011 (March) 38% (September) 52% (January) 59% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Household income Less than $40,000 46% $40,000-$99,999 36% $100,000 or more 26% 54 20

4 Friday, March 18, 2011 Page 4 Plurality says immigration not affecting the state s quality of life As part of The Field Poll s collaboration with the University of California, Berkeley, voters were asked to assess the impact that immigration is having on the quality of life both in California overall and in their own community. The largest proportion of voters (47%) sees immigration as having no real impact on the state s overall quality of life. However, among those who see a change 39% think immigrants have lowered the quality of life in California, while 10% say they have made things better. Voters who report a decline in their personal financial fortunes over the past year are more apt to view the impact of recent immigration in a negative light. Among this segment, 51% describe immigration as worsening the state s overall quality of life, greater than the combined proportions who see immigration as having no effect (40%) or see it improving (6%) the state s quality of life. Voters age 40 or older and white non-hispanics are also more likely than younger voters or ethnic voters to believe recent immigrants are negatively affecting the state's quality of life. Table 3 Perceived impact that recent immigration is having on the quality of life in California overall Made quality of life in California Worse No change Improved No opinion Total registered voters 39% Personal finances compared to last year Worse off 51% No change 33% Better off 27% Age % % % % or older 48% Race/ethnicity White non-hispanic 43% Latino 32% African American* 35% Asian/Other 34% * Small sample base.

5 Friday, March 18, 2011 Page 5 Fewer see immigration as having a negative impact on their own community s quality of life Voters see immigration as having less of an impact on the quality of life in their communities as on the state overall. Greater than six in ten (62%) see no real change in their community s quality of life because of recent immigration. This compares to about one in four (26%) who see it having a negative effect and 9% who say recent immigrants have made life better in their community. Voters whose personal financial situation worsened in the past year are more inclined than other voters to say recent immigrants are negatively affecting their own community's quality of life. Voters age 40 and older are also somewhat more likely than younger voters to feel this way. Table 4 Perceived impact that recent immigration is having on the quality of life in your own community Made quality of life in your community Worse No change Improved No opinion Total registered voters 26% Personal finances compared to last year Worse off 36% No change 20% Better off 18% Age % % % % or older 31% Race/ethnicity White non-hispanic 28% Latino 20% African American* 21% Asian/Other 26% * Small sample base

6 Friday, March 18, 2011 Page 6 Methodological Details Information About The Survey The findings in this report are based on a survey conducted collaboratively by UC Berkeley and The Field Poll. The survey was completed February 28 March 14, 2011 among a random sample of 898 registered voters in California. In order to cover a broad range of issues and minimize respondent fatigue, some of the questions were asked of random sub-samples of either 454 or 444 voters each. Interviewing was conducted by telephone in English and Spanish using live interviewers working from Field Research Corporation s central location telephone interviewing facilities. Up to six attempts were made to reach, screen and interview each randomly selected voter on different days and times of day during the interviewing period. Interviewing was completed on either a voter s landline phone or a cell phone depending on the source of the telephone listing from the voter file. After the completion of interviewing, the overall registered voter sample was weighted to Field Poll estimates of the characteristics of the registered voter population in California by region, age, gender, race/ethnicity and party registration. Sampling error estimates applicable to the results of any probability-based survey depend on sample size as well as the percentage distribution being examined. The maximum sampling error estimates for results based on the overall registered voters sample is +/- 3.4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level, while findings based on the random sub-sample of voters have a sampling error of +/- 4.8 percentage points. The maximum sampling error is based on results in the middle of the sampling distribution (i.e., percentages at or near 50%). Percentages at either end of the distribution (those closer to 10% or 90%) have a smaller margin of error. Findings from subgroups of the overall sample have somewhat larger sampling error levels. There are other potential sources of error in surveys besides sampling error. However, the overall design and execution of the survey sought to minimize these other possible sources of error. The Field Poll was established in 1947 as The California Poll by Mervin Field, who is still an active advisor. The Poll has operated continuously since then as an independent, non-partisan survey of California public opinion. The poll receives annual funding from media subscribers of The Field Poll, from several California foundations, and from the University of California and California State University systems, who receive the raw data files from each Field Poll survey shortly after its completion for teaching and secondary research purposes. Questions Asked How would you rate California as a place to live? Would you say it is one of the best places to live, a nice but not outstanding place to live, about an average place to live, or a poor place to live? Would you say that you and your family are financially better off or worse off today than you were a year ago, or is your financial situation about the same as a year ago? Overall do you believe that immigration to California in recent years has improved life in the state, made life worse, or made no real change? What about your own local community Do you believe that immigration has improved life in your own community in recent years, made life worse or made no real change?