Political Donors View Cities as Critical to Economic and Innovation Future

Political Donors and Cities
A National Survey

May 14, 2008
Lake Research Partners

1 Lake Research Partners

• Methodology

• Strategic Summary

• Cities Today

• The Economy

• Investment in Cities

• Messages Around Why We Need Cities

• Cities as Leaders

• Partnerships


Methodology


Focus Group Methodology

Lake Research Partners conducted a total of three focus groups on March 19, 2008
in Chicago. The groups consisted of one group of young, mixed gender donors and
activists, one group of suburban political donors and one group of urban political
donors. Telephone numbers for recruiting for the focus groups were drawn from
FEC lists of those who have contributed to political candidates in the past four years.

Young donors were defined as individuals, ages 18-24, who said they had contributed
to a political candidate, political party, charities, or causes in the last five years.
Activists were defined as individuals who said they were very involved with
volunteering, church or community activities.

Political donors were defined as individuals who contributed to a political candidate
or political party in the last five years.


Survey Methodology

Lake Research Partners designed and administered this survey, which was conducted by
phone using professional interviewers. The survey reached 400 political donors
nationwide. The survey was conducted between April 16 and April 22, 2008.

Telephone numbers for the political donors were drawn from FEC lists of those who have
contributed to political candidates in the past four years. Data in the sample were also
weighted slightly by education, gender, age, and region to reflect the attributes of the
actual population. The margin of error for this survey is +/-4.9%.

In interpreting survey results, all sample surveys are subject to possible sampling error;
that is, the results of a survey may differ from those that would be obtained if the entire
population were interviewed. The size of the sampling error depends upon both the total
number of respondents in the survey and the percentage distribution of responses to a
particular question.


Strategic Summary


Strategic Summary

• Political donors think cities important to the future of the country.

• Location, people, growth, diversity, creativity and a strong economy comprise
dynamic cities.

• Declining cities have poor leadership, violence, poverty, unemployment and loss
of jobs, infrastructure decline, poor schools and drugs.

• Media coverage is negative. There are positive stories to tell.

• Partnerships among government, businesses and foundations can be important
to and effective in addressing problems in cities.


Strategic Summary

• Urban and non-urban donors say cities are key to America’s strength.

• We cannot allow our cities to deteriorate.

• Messages emphasizing cities are vital to enriching cultural life and diversity and the
economic strength of cities are resonant.

• Cities lead in solving problems and keeping America globally competitive.

• While donors net agree that cities hold the most promising approach to fighting
climate change, intensity is low.

• Donors prove more likely to punish a candidate who votes to cut funding for cities
than to support a candidate who favors increasing funding for cities.


Cities Today

Most donors see cities as critical to job growth and development.


Somewhat optimistic about future, though see
last five years as worse in major cities.

Would you say that major cities IN GENERAL across the country Thinking about the next FIVE years, do you expect major cities
have gotten better, gotten worse, or stayed about the same in IN GENERAL to get better, get worse or stay about the same? [IF
the last FIVE years? [IF BETTER/WORSE: Is that a lot or a little?] BETTER/WORSE: Is that a lot or a little?] (Split-sampled
(Split-sampled question) question)

Major Cities in the Last Five Years Major Cities in the Next Five Years

28% 31%
-42% -23% 9% -25% -9% 8%

-55% -35% -15% 5% 25% -30% -10% 10% 30%

A lot worse A little worse A lot better A little better


Addressing problems in cities is extremely
important to the country.

How important to the country is it that problems in cities be addressed –extremely important, very important,
somewhat important, a little important, or not important at all? (Split-sampled question)


Cities are extremely important to the future of
the country.

How important are cities to the future of the country – extremely important, very important,
somewhat important, a little important, or not important at all?

Importance of Cities to Future of the Country

-21% -2% 41% 79%

-1%

-25% -5% 15% 35% 55% 75%

Not important at all A little important Somewhat important Extremely important Very important


The Economy

Donors believe there is a strong connection between the U.S. economy and
the economies of cities.


On the importance of cities:

“Cities are just going to keep getting more and more important.”– Suburban female donor

“We should be making our economy more competitive to keep those jobs and to keep our cities
vibrant.” – Suburban male donor

“[The city is] the economic engine of the area.” – Urban male donor

“Cities are innovation centers.” – Suburban male donor

“Cities with high-value jobs and innovative activity propel economic growth and the growth of the
city, state and country.” – Urban female donor


Urban and suburban economies are closely
connected.

Generally speaking, thinking about the relationship between cities and suburbs – do you think the economy
between cities and suburbs is closely connected, somewhat connected, a little connected, or not connected at
all? (Split-sampled question)
Relationship Between Cities and Suburbs

-14% -7% 49% 85%

-20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Not connected at all A little connected Closely connected Somewhat connected


Urban economies are connected to the country
overall.

Generally speaking, thinking about the relationship between cities and the country overall – do you think the
economy between cities and the country overall is closely connected, somewhat connected, a little connected, or
not connected at all? (Split-sampled question)

Relationship Between Cities and the Country

-7% 59% 89%

-15% 5% 25% 45% 65% 85%

Not connected at all A little connected Closely connected Somewhat connected


Investment in Cities

Over half of political donors are extremely or very favorable toward
increased investments in cities.


Donors favor increased investment in cities.

Thinking about investments in cities, on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means you are not at all favorable toward
increased investments in cities and 10 means you are extremely favorable toward increased investments in U.S.
cities, how favorable are you toward increased investments in US cities?

Favorability: Investing in Cities
(Mean: 7.4)
54%

28% 26% 17% 9% 10%

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

10 8-9 6-7 5 0-4


Investing in cities is critical.

“[T]here [are] people in the cities, and you should always invest in people.” – Young female
donor/activist

“Cities should have more because they need more .” – Urban male donor

“There are things that are provided by cities and metropolitan areas that are used by those
surrounding suburbs, like water.” – Suburban female donor

“Cities are becoming innovative and investing time, resources, and money in alternative fuels
and advancing different types of industry and businesses, and they should have the
opportunity…to get federal funds.” – Suburban male donor

“Move the money [from the war to the cities].” – Urban female donor


Non-urban donors support increased
investments in cities.


Donors are more willing to punish a candidate
who cuts funding for cities.

If a candidate for elected office came out in support of more If a candidate for elected office voted to cut funding for
funding for American cities, would that make you more or less American cities, would that make you more or less likely to vote
likely to vote for that candidate or wouldn’t it make a difference? for that candidate or wouldn’t it make a difference? [If
[If more/less likely, Ask: Is that much/somewhat?] (Split- more/less likely, Ask: Is that much/somewhat?] (Split-sampled
sampled question) question)

Forty four percent say it Thirty three percent say it
would make no difference if would make no difference if
a candidate voted in support a candidate voted to cut
of more funding for funding for American cities..
American cities.


Messages Around Why We Need Cities

Both urban and non-urban donors say cities are key to America’s strength,
which includes our economic strength.


Message Intensity

We cannot allow America's cities to deteriorate 83% 94%

America cannot be strong if we do not have strong cities* 72% 87%

America cannot be competitive in a global economy if we do not have
61% 84%
dynamic cities*

Many people say that cities hold the most promising approach for fighting
climate change because urban residents have the smallest impact on the 28% 49%
environment due to mass transit and denser housing developments

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

Strongly agree Not so strongly agree


Overwhelming agreement that we cannot allow
America’s cities to deteriorate.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: We cannot allow America’s cities to deteriorate. [If
agree/disagree, Ask: Is that strongly/not so strongly agree/disagree?]

Cannot Allow Cities to Deteriorate

-5% 83% 94%

-10% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90%

Strongly disagree Not so strongly disagree Strongly agree Not so strongly agree


Strong America and strong cities
go hand in hand.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: America cannot be strong if we do not have strong cities.
[If agree/disagree, Ask: Is that strongly/not so strongly agree/disagree?] (Split-sampled question)

Need to Have Strong Cities for America to be Strong

Democrats prove more likely than Republicans to strongly agree
that America cannot be strong if we do not have strong cities but
intensity is still high across parties (Democrats: 81 percent
strongly agree; Republicans: 63 percent).

-13% -6% 72% 87%

-20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%



America cannot be globally competitive
without dynamic cities.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: America cannot be competitive in a global economy if we
do not have dynamic cities. [If agree/disagree, Ask: Is that strongly/not so strongly agree/disagree?] (Split-
sampled question)

Need to Have Dynamic Cities to be Competitive in a Global Economy
Sixty seven percent of
Democrats strongly agree
with this statement
compared to 47 percent
of Republicans.

-14% -7% 61% 84%

-20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%



Cities are positioned to fight climate change.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: Many people say that cities hold the most promising
approach for fighting climate change because urban residents have the smallest impact on the environment due
to mass transit and denser housing developments. [If agree/disagree, Ask: Is that strongly/not so strongly
agree/disagree?]

Cities Hold Most Promising Approach to Fighting Climate Change

-37% -23% 28% 49%

-50% -30% -10% 10% 30% 50%



Cities as Leaders

Many donors see cities as leaders on issues from jobs to education to
poverty.


Cities can be leaders in solving problems
around access to jobs and education.

Now I am going to read you a series of issues that some people have said cities today could be leaders in solving.
Please tell me if you agree or disagree that cities today can be a leader in solving this issue. If you do not know
if cities today can be leaders in solving a certain issue, please say so and we will move on. [If agree/disagree,
Ask: Is that strongly/not so strongly agree/disagree?]

Access to jobs 63% 89%

Access to education* 63% 85%

Access to higher education* 59% 79%

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

*Split-sampled question


Cities can also lead in issues around remaining
competitive and poverty.


Innovation to stay
52% 83%
competitive

Poverty 52% 78%

Keeping America globally
50% 78%
competitive

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



Cities can reduce gasoline consumption and
expand economic prosperity for all.


Reducing gasoline
49% 75%
consumption

Expanding economic
47% 77%
prosperity for all

Immigration 38% 60%

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



Urban and Suburban Views

% agree (% strongly agree)

Living in a City Living Outside a City

Access to jobs 89% (64%) 88% (61%)

Access to education* 82% (66%) 87% (61%)

Access to higher education* 82% (60%) 77% (59%)

Innovation to stay competitive 78% (55%) 86% (50%)

Poverty 76% (53%) 79% (52%)

Keeping American globally
75% (53%) 81% (48%)
competitive

Reducing gasoline consumption 71% (47%) 78% (50%)

Expanding economic prosperity for
76% (49%) 78% (45%)
all

Immigration 59% (37%) 62% (39%)

*Split-sampled question


Invest in cities or diversify spending?

Now let me read you two statements and I want you to tell
me which one comes closer to your own point of view.

50%
Some/other people say that we are already spending too
45%
much money on cities today. The most pressing issues 43%
45%
right now – from the economy to immigration to the crisis
in our public schools – affect all parts of the country, not
just cities. Federal spending needs to be diversified, 40%
spread across cities, suburbs and the heartland, all of
which are critical to keeping America strong. 35%

30%
Some/other people say that cities are critical to innovation
and to keeping our economy strong. American cities are 25%
key to maintaining the country’s competitive advantage in
today’s global economy and creating the bulk of our jobs. 20%
Cities are also the leaders in solving problems, from
immigration to education. We need to invest in cities
15%
across the country to help us tackle the most pressing
issues we face as a nation at this time.
10%
6%
(Split-sampled question) 4%
5%

0%
1st 2nd Both Neither
statement statement


Cities favored as leaders
in solving problems:
Now let me read you two statements and I want you to tell
me which one comes closer to your own point of view.

Some/other people say that we are already spending too 60%
much money on cities today. The most pressing issues
right now – from the economy to immigration to the crisis 52%
in our public schools – affect all parts of the country, not 50%
just cities. Federal spending needs to be diversified,
spread across cities, suburbs and the heartland, all of
which are critical to keeping America strong.
40%
35%
Some/other people say that cities are critical to innovation
and to keeping our economy strong. American cities are
key to maintaining the country’s competitive advantage in 30%
today’s global economy and creating the bulk of our jobs.
Cities are also the leaders in solving problems, from
immigration to education to climate change. We need to 20%
invest in cities across the country to help us tackle the
most pressing issues we face as a nation at this time.
10% 7%
(Split-sampled question)
2%
0%
1st 2nd Both Neither
statement statement


Partnerships

Donors think partnerships among governments, businesses and
foundations are important to solving problems in U.S. cities today.


Partnerships are important.

Thinking about partnerships among government, businesses and foundations, on a scale of 0-10, where 0 means
not at all important and 10 means very important, how important/effective do you think partnerships between
government, businesses and foundations are to solving the problems in US cities today? (Split-sampled
question)

%10: Very Important/Very Effective
Mean

Important 34% 7.6

Effective 17% 6.4

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

%10


Partnerships are very important to solving
problems.

not at all important and 10 means very important, how important do you think partnerships between
government, businesses and foundations are to solving the problems in US cities today? (Split-sampled
question)

58%


Effectiveness of partnerships is not as high.

not at all effective and 10 means very effective, how effective do you think partnerships between government,
businesses and foundations are to solving the problems in US cities today? (Split-sampled question)

Effectiveness of Partnerships
(Mean: 6.4)

37%

17% 20% 20% 15% 18%

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

10 8-9 6-7 5 0-4


Celinda Lake
clake@lakeresearch.com
202.776.9066


Political Donors View Cities as Critical to Economic and Innovation Future

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (8)

En vedette

En vedette (8)

Similaire à Political Donors View Cities as Critical to Economic and Innovation Future

Similaire à Political Donors View Cities as Critical to Economic and Innovation Future (20)

Plus de reded2

Plus de reded2 (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Political Donors View Cities as Critical to Economic and Innovation Future