Archive for the ‘blog’ Category

DHM Vice President joins Washington Transportation Fraternity

Posted on: June 8th, 2016 by dhm-research

DHM Research Vice President and National Director, Sarah Fulton, recently joined the “Road Gang,” one of Washington DC’s premier transportation fraternities.

“Given that transportation is a significant practice area at DHM, our participation in the Road Gang most certainly will prove to be both valuable and informative,” DHM Vice President Sarah Fulton noted.

In 1942 when the Road Gang was organized, there were only 25 participating members who met for regular meetings at the Willard Hotel. Soon after its inception, however, an increasing number of local highway transportation executives learned about the fraternity and began attending the luncheon meetings that the Road Gang hosts every other Thursday. The Road Gang has increased steadily in size, and its membership showcases a variety of transportation professionals. It continues to preserve its informal “off-the-record” atmosphere, and its programs have touched on practically every facet of highway transportation activity. The organization currently has a membership of approximately 300 individuals including business and government executives, highway engineers and consultants, press and public relations specialists, company representatives, members of Congress, and trade association officials from the highway transportation industry.

What really adds to the dynamism of the Road Gang is its mixture of camaraderie and formal tradition. One of the important facets of the Road Gang continues to be its lively bi-monthly luncheon addresses on current highway and transportation issues, particularly when legislative matters are pending.

Inquiries to: Sarah Fulton at 202.756.7435

Why It’s Getting Harder to Learn What the Public Thinks

Posted on: May 18th, 2016 by dhm-research
Public officials need to understand how opinion research is evolving to meet modern challenges.

BY | APRIL 25, 2016

Opinion research has helped government with planning and policymaking for decades. But the shifting technological landscape, along with changing demographics and lifestyles, are challenging conventional opinion-research techniques, making it more difficult to learn what the public thinks. Government officials need to become aware of these changes and their impacts on research methodologies, validity, statistical relatability, cost and project timelines.

Telephone polling has long provided public officials with valuable information. Phone surveys have asked voters about ballot measures for road-maintenance funding; state or city residents about affordable-housing options; neighborhood residents about higher-density development; and business leaders about the importance of promoting international trade. Focus groups and other forms of qualitative research have supported survey questionnaire development and helped to elaborate survey findings.

All of this is changing. The biggest change? Well, what do you do when your phone rings? More and more, people look at the number and if they don’t recognize it, they don’t answer. Or if they do answer, they get off the line as quickly as possible — often without waiting to find out what the survey is really about. A growing refusal to participate in surveys is the single biggest development the opinion-research industry is dealing with. The upshot is that many more phone numbers are needed to complete a valid, statistically reliable survey — so many more that completing a survey with a representative sample of residents is impossible in many communities. There just aren’t enough numbers to call.

And when people do answer the phone and agree to participate in a survey, it’s more difficult to keep them on the line as long as in the past. Our era of sound bites and 140-character tweets makes it hard to complete the lengthy questionnaires that government officials are used to fielding in their efforts to gather in-depth information.

The rise of the cellphone represents a third cultural shift. More than four in 10 Americans rely on cellphones alone with no residential landline, and the rate is even higher among young adults and some communities of color. This change has made survey research more expensive. Federal regulations require that cellphone numbers be dialed manually, as opposed to using the auto-dialers that reach landline numbers. Interviewers also must screen respondents to ensure they are in a safe place, and catch them when they are available to talk for possibly an extended period about potentially sensitive topics that require privacy.

Partly in response to these challenges, researchers have begun using professionally recruited and maintained panels for regular online surveys. The best of these consist of people of all different demographics and lifestyles, recruited through different means. Participants receive some form of compensation, similar to the honorariums offered to focus-group participants.

Long disdained by academics and telephone-survey purists, these panels nevertheless are becoming increasingly common. And done well — using demographic quotas and statistical weighting to assure representative samples — online panels should be accepted as a legitimate sample source for public-sector surveys. In fact, they offer certain advantages over telephone surveys, including the ability to display visuals, such as pictures and maps; to collect verbatim responses to open-ended questions, yielding more valid content analysis; and to use tradeoff techniques — pressing respondents to choose between key variables — that are not possible with telephone-surveys. They are also less expensive.

The evolution of new approaches and blending conventional and new methodologies to adapt to and take advantage of social and technological change is good news for government officials. Knowing what the public thinks about what government is doing — and is thinking about doing — is as important as ever.

 

This article originally appeared in Governing magazine. You can see the original article here.

Oregon Votes: DHM’s Latest Primary Polling

Posted on: May 12th, 2016 by dhm-research

As Oregonians fill out their ballots and lick their stamps in anticipation of primary day, we set out to see where our community stands on the upcoming national, state, and local elections. If you haven’t already, cast your vote by May 17th!

From May 6 – 9, 2016, we fielded a pair of telephone surveys in Oregon. The first, conducted in partnership with Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) and Fox12 (KPTV), asked 901 registered voters statewide how they expected to vote in the Democratic and Republican presidential primaries, a potential general election matchup, and other key races. The second poll, in partnership with OPB, measured 402 Portland voters’ support for candidates for Portland Mayor, City Commissioner (Position 4), and the fuel tax ballot measure.

Our results suggest that Oregon’s primary may be just as much of a rollercoaster as the rest of the 2016 election cycle. See below for summaries of our methodology and results for each survey. As always, we’re happy to answer questions on Twitter: @DHMResearch.

OPB_Fox12 Oregon Primary Election Survey Memo — May 2016

OPB Portland Primary Election Survey Memo — May 2016

 

April DHM Panel: The Trade-offs of Foreign Trade

Posted on: May 3rd, 2016 by dhm-research

For the April edition of our DHM Panel, we dug into a topic that has been a lightning rod for presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle this year: foreign trade. For those unfamiliar, our online panel provides Northwest residents with the opportunity to weigh in on issues that affect their state, community, and daily lives.

From April 6–10, we surveyed over 600 Oregonians about their opinions of foreign trade and its impacts at home and abroad. Considering recent debates about the impacts of trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the legacy of NAFTA, we decided to go right to the source to see what Oregonians think.

The story isn’t a simple one. Oregonians feel that foreign trade can be an opportunity for the U.S. economy—but they’re less sure that our trade policy over the past few decades has been good for Americans or for the world. Read on below to see if you agree, then weigh in on Twitter! We’re happy to chat: @DHMResearch.

The full questionnaire and results for this survey can be viewed at the following link:

DHM Panel Survey — April 2016

February DHM Panel: “And How Does That Make You Feel, Oregon?”

Posted on: March 15th, 2016 by dhm-research

For our most recent DHM Panel survey, we tried something a little different. For those unfamiliar, our panel provides Northwest residents with the opportunity to weigh in on issues that affect their state, community, and daily lives.

Those who took our February survey (almost 600 Oregonians) were asked a series of questions designed to measure their attitudes and feelings towards life: Overall, how happy are you? How fearful? How angry? How sad? The questions touched on personal and political topics.

Based on their answers to these questions, each panelist received four scores, corresponding to their general level of happiness, fearfulness, anger, and sadness. Recent psychology research suggests that these four “basic” emotions form the building blocks of all human moods and passions.

We’ve used these four scores to try to gain a better understanding of how Oregonians think about politics and their daily lives. How do our emotions play into our political opinions? What makes us angry? What makes us most afraid for our future? Find out below!

The full questionnaire and results for this survey can be viewed at the following link:

DHM Panel Survey — February 2016

Slim Majority of Oregonians Would Likely Vote for $15 Minimum Wage if Election Were Held Today

Posted on: November 12th, 2015 by dhm-research

According to our most recent DHM Panel survey, a slim majority (51%) of Oregonians would likely support a $15 minimum wage measure if an election were held today.

Our survey polled 624 Oregonians who indicated they were registered to vote. These voters were provided with the ballot title and “yes” and “no” result statements for a proposal to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour by January 1, 2019. The title and result statements have been certified by the Attorney General and may appear on the November 2016 ballot.

Voters were then asked a follow-up question about a $13.50 minimum wage measure. At this time, a $13.50 minimum wage measure has been filed with the Secretary of State, but the ballot language has not yet been certified.

It is important to note that the election is still a year away, and the petitioners of each minimum wage proposal will need to collect over 88,000 signatures from registered voters if the measures are to appear on the ballot. If that occurs, the campaigns for and against the measure are sure to have an effect on public opinion.

Chart 1, below, shows how voters said they would vote on the $15 minimum wage proposal if the election were held today.

 

1

 

Chart 2, below, illustrates the different levels of support for this measure based on demographics.

 

2

Oregon’s youngest voters, those ages 18-29, were most likely to support (either “certain to vote yes” or “leaning toward voting yes”) the measure, at 70%. Some 43% of voters ages 30-44 support the measure, along with 44% of voters ages 45-54 and 58% of voters 55 and older.

In Multnomah County, 69% of voters indicated support for the measure, compared to 57% of the Tri-County area, 53% of Willamette Valley voters, and 40% of voters in other parts of the state.

Nearly eight in 10 registered Democrats (79%) said they supported the measure as compared to 16% of registered Republicans.

Next, voters were asked how they would vote if an election were held today that included both a $15 per hour and $13.50 per hour minimum wage proposal on the same ballot. Chart 3, below, those results.

 

3

 

DHM previously asked Oregonians questions about the minimum wage in April 2015, in a survey done in partnership with OPB. When asked in an open-ended format what Oregon’s minimum wage should be, most Oregonians picked a number under $15 per hour.

t1

 

Oregon law doesn’t currently allow local governments to set a minimum wage higher than the state rate. In the same April survey as above, DHM also asked Oregonians whether local governments should be able to set a higher minimum wage. At that time, 44% of Oregonians said they would support giving local governments this option, while 47% said they opposed it.

 

4

 

You can read more about the results of our April survey on OPB here.

Adam Davis: Get Ready for Election Show Business

Posted on: August 24th, 2015 by dhm-research

Adam Davis—August 20th, 2015
Portland Tribune

Did the Oregon Legislature meet this year? Many Oregonians would say, “I think so, but I’m not sure.”

They’ve been taking place, those meetings conducted by political party operatives and big donors to assess how things went in Salem this year and to decide what to do to get more Democrats or Republicans elected in Oregon. Maybe the rooms aren’t as smoke-filled as they once were, but make no mistake about it, the meetings are taking place, the checks are being written, the candidate recruitment is underway, the voter data bases are being massaged, and the candidate talking points are being developed and refined.

Come the day after Labor Day, all hell breaks loose for 2016. It’s show business, the kind of show business Lou Rawls sang about, “Oh you have a hard way to go; you got a lot of dues to pay, baby.”

Let’s pull up a chair and join one of these meetings. What does recent opinion research by DHM Research tell us about Oregon voters that may be of interest to campaign strategists and donors preparing for show business?

Looking back first, our research reveals that a striking number of voters are oblivious to the fact that there even was a 2015 legislative session. While a majority of Oregon voters are sure there was a session, 42 percent are not so sure or don’t know. Young voters are the most likely to believe there was not a session.

And how do Oregon voters feel about the session, even if they don’t know there was one? Less than a third (28 percent) believe that the Legislature was able to come together to accomplish a great deal. A plurality (39 percent) say the Legislature was bogged down by partisan differences and did not accomplish very much. And another third (32 percent) aren’t sure.

Republicans are two times more likely than Democrats to feel that the Legislature did not accomplish much, 54 percent to 27 percent. Non-affiliated/others split the difference at 40 percent. Additionally, many Oregon voters believe the Legislature did not address the most important issue they wanted it to do something about. Overall, not a glowing review.

“2015, that’s old news; the train has left the station. What can you tell us to help with 2016?” asks the campaign strategist at the table. Not so fast on 2015. What about the most important issues that Oregon voters feel the Legislature did not do something about? Wouldn’t that be valuable to know going into 2016? We’d hope so.

For Oregon voters, at the top of the list is the economy (code for “secure family-wage jobs”) followed closely by education and reducing government spending. There is no one issue that a majority of Oregon voters say is most important. Rather it is these three, and if you combine tax reform and reducing government spending into a public finance category, you’d have a statistical dead heat: public finance (26 percent), jobs and the economy (24 percent), and education (23 percent).

It isn’t news that the Republicans are more likely to say reducing government spending and Democrats are more likely to say education, but what may be helpful to know is which issues are in second and third places for the two political parties and how non-affiliated/others, who will be determinative in the elections next year, feel about these important issues.

For Republicans, it really comes down to just two issues: reducing government spending at 41 percent and the economy at 27 percent. Education comes in at a distant 10 percent, just ahead of the environment and transportation. It’s also a two-issue show for Democrats with education at 32 percent and the economy at 24 percent. In third place is the environment at 12 percent.

The non-affiliated/others are more divided with education at 27 percent, followed the economy at 21 percent and government spending at 18 percent.

In addition to knowing the most important issues, a candidate would be wise to know what voters value about living in their communities. Consistently since 1992 when DHM Research conducted the first Oregon Values and Beliefs Study, we’ve heard five things: natural beauty, outdoor recreation opportunities, environmental quality, sense of community, and the climate. But what do they value the most?

For Republicans it is the sense of community at 43 percent, way ahead of natural beauty at 27 percent. Democrats are split between the same two qualities with both natural beauty and sense of community at 29 percent. Non-affiliated/others feel natural beauty is most important at 34 percent followed by sense of community at 27 percent.

And finally we’d tell them, you need to do focus groups to learn why people feel a particular issue is most important and how they feel about different public policy options related to that issue. The same suggestion goes for what they value about living in their community.

It’s all part of getting ready for show business.

Adam Davis, who has been conducting opinion research in Oregon for more than 35 years, is a founding principal in DHM Research, an independent, nonpartisan firm. Visit: dhmresearch.com

Adam Davis: Voters support fixing campaign finance potholes

Posted on: July 6th, 2015 by dhm-research

Adam Davis—July 2, 2015
Portland Tribune

You think they would want to start filling the potholes. “They” being the Oregon Legislature, and the “potholes” being the gaps in trust Oregonians have for their state government, not in our roads and highways. Sorry gas tax advocates, this isn’t about you. This is about campaign finance reform.

Not surprising, Oregonians are not giving high marks to their state officials these days, and voters are increasingly feeling that state government is in need of a major repaving job. A majority of Oregonians either have an unfavorable or neutral opinion about the state Legislature and the number feeling “very favorable” is in single digits.

In a recently conducted statewide survey, when asked about their satisfaction with the attention the Oregon Legislature is giving to the important issues we’re facing today, 17 percent of voters were very dissatisfied compared to 7 percent who were very satisfied.

The rest were divided in their assessment. And in focus groups, we hear voters say the Legislature is wasteful and inefficient and not to be trusted to make good decisions.

Underlying these attitudes about the Oregon Legislature are a number of things including a lack of knowledge about what is going on in Salem and the transference of feelings about Washington, D.C., to Salem. But the bottom line is that Oregonians have either negative or neutral feelings (more “I don’t really care”) about the Legislature.

So, wouldn’t you think the Legislature might want to do something about it, like making it constitutionally possible to limit political campaign contributions, which a strong majority of Oregonians support? In a recent statewide survey, 63 percent of Oregon voters said they would vote for, or lean toward voting for, a measure that would amend the Oregon constitution to allow limits on campaign contributions by individuals and organizations.

Oregon is one of six states in the nation that has no limit on political campaign contributions.

It’s not that Oregonians have not made their feelings known. In 1994 and again in 2006 with Measure 47, Oregon voters endorsed campaign limits.

However, Oregon courts have ruled that limiting contributions will require an Oregon constitutional amendment.

A bill to rein-in unlimited campaign contributions (SJR5) was sent to the Legislature by Secretary of State Kate Brown before she became governor. Intended as a very basic referral to the voters, SJR 5 simply authorizes constitutional permission to the Legislature or the electorate to set campaign contribution limits. It doesn’t set limits, just allows them to be set via statutory law.

Key legislators, fearful that the public might set limits too low or fearful that any actual limitation won’t pass constitutional muster or result in independent (dark money) becoming a more potent element of the equation, have bottled up SJR5.

SJR5 is not a heavy lift. Baby steps, please. Time is running out. Don’t miss this opportunity to do something Oregonians support. Clear the way for those contribution limits to be set and enforced.

Then the Legislature can engage Gov. Brown’s proposal for a 15-member task force to recommend what specific statutory changes should be made to Oregon’s campaign finance system. One thing the task force may want to consider is putting limits on ballot measure campaigns in light of voter sentiment.

Why is all this important? There are two more reasons Oregon voters feel negative about state government and don’t trust their legislators.

One is they feel their vote doesn’t count. They pass measures, like they did in 1994 and 2006 for campaign finance reform, and they’re aren’t enforced. And perhaps the biggest reason for their negativity is the belief that big business and the unions are controlling things in Salem with campaign contributions, and instead of the voters, big donors are shaping our state’s future.

Referring an amendment to voters to allow limits on campaign contributions would send a message to Oregonians that the Legislature is listening and, with their support, wants to do business differently. The action would be good pothole repair and help repave voter trust in state government, something very much needed in light of the economic, environmental and social challenges Oregonians see facing our state.

Adam Davis, who has been conducting opinion research in Oregon for more than 35 years, is a founding principal in DHM Research, an independent, nonpartisan firm.

Adam Davis: On values, beliefs, it’s still Venus vs. Mars

Posted on: May 25th, 2015 by dhm-research

Adam Davis—May 25, 2015
Portland Tribune

Remember “Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus,” the book written by American author and relationship counselor John Gray? Indeed, when it comes to their feelings about many public-policy issues, female Oregonians may indeed be from Venus and males from Mars.

The average temperature on Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit. That’s a lot hotter than on Mars, where the temperatures near the poles can get down to minus 195 degrees. This pretty well describes what we see in Oregon: Women and men register different temperatures on many issues. Considering the increasing number of women assuming leadership positions in society, it is important to understand these differences, for they may foreshadow a different kind of solar system for Oregon and the nation in the future.

Women and men fall differently on the political spectrum. Women are less likely than men to consider themselves conservatives and to instead be liberal or moderate on issues. In the 2013 Oregon Values and Beliefs Survey, 41 percent of men consider themselves conservative on most economic issues, compared to 27 percent of women. A related finding from the same survey shows women are less likely to think that government provides too many services.

Hot issues for women are different than those for men. Women are more likely to say they are worried about their family’s personal financial situation than men, and they’re almost twice as likely to feel very worried. They also are more supportive of increasing the state minimum wage. Women show concern for how the economy grows more so than men. They feel our country would be better off if we all consumed less and agree that protection of the environment should be given priority over economic growth.

Women respond warmly to environmental protection issues. They are more likely to feel that climate change requires us to change our way of life, to support government investment in alternative fuel production, and want to expand public transportation rather than build new roads.

On the other hand, women show cooler reception to the status quo on gun control and the penal system. Gun control was a topic in a recently completed statewide survey for Oregon Public Broadcasting and a majority of women (55 percent) favor a law that would ban the sale and possession of assault weapons, compared to 44 percent of men. Women also are more likely to think that criminals should be rehabilitated rather than locked up.

Two more important issues for women are health care and inequality. More women than men support publicly funded health insurance, government cost controls for essential health care services, and having a health care system that rewards healthy behaviors and wellness. They also are more likely than men to feel — and feel strongly — that discrimination against minorities is still a serious problem in our nation and that there’s a need to dramatically reduce the inequalities.

There you have it, women from Venus, men from Mars. Should we be surprised? Not really. Historically, women care about and prioritize issues differently than men. Women are increasingly in position to leverage their concerns to effect change, however. More women than men are graduating from college every year, where they outperform their male counterparts. In addition, women also are healthier, more civically engaged, and have higher job satisfaction. All these characteristics are important components of leadership.

I got a glimpse of this while attending the Portland Business Journal’s Women of Influence Awards banquet earlier this month. The few males in attendance could not help but be impressed with the smarts, personality and achievements of this year’s award recipients and the hundreds of other women in attendance. I’d add that many of the guys present at the event also had to feel hopeful. Before us was the future leadership of our community and the state in the private, public, and nonprofit sectors. May the force be with them.

Adam Davis, who has been conducting opinion research in Oregon for more than 35 years, is a founding principal at DHM Research.

Su Midghall–2015 Women of Influence Orchid Award Winner

Posted on: April 6th, 2015 by dhm-research

EO award