University of Michigan Gateway Ford School

The Michigan Public Policy Survey (MPPS)
  • Fall 2016 Data Tables
  • « Back to Michigan Public Policy Survey Home

    Summary tables for questionnaire items from the Fall 2016 Wave of the MPPS broken down by jurisdiction type, population size, and region of the state:

    Table of Contents

      Relationship between State and Local Governments

      1. Agree or disagree that state government officials value input from local government officials
      2. Agree or disagree that the State is taking too much decision-making authority away from local governments
      3. Agree or disagree that the State holds local governments to a higher standard than it holds itself to
      4. Agree or disagree that the State’s decision-making is transparent to local officials
      5. Agree or disagree that the State unfairly treats some jurisdictions better than others
      1. Impact of communication between state and local officials on relationship
      2. Impact of term limits for state officials on relationship
      3. Impact of behavior of state officials on relationship
      4. Impact of behavior of local officials on relationship
      5. Impact of State’s system of funding local government on relationship
    1. Trust in Government

    2. Amount of time state officials trust local governments to do what is right
      1. Amount of time you can trust the federal government to do what is right
      2. Amount of time you can trust the state government to do what is right
      3. Amount of time you can trust other local governments to do what is right
    3. Communication between State and Local Officials

      1. Agree or disagree that local officials should try to influence state policy issues affecting local governments
      2. Agree or disagree that state officials should reach out to local officials to get feedback on pending policy changes
      1. How often do you or a representative of your jurisdiction contact state officials
      2. How often does a state official contact your jurisdiction
    4. Division of Authority between State and Local Government

      1. How should authority be divided for economic development
      2. How should authority be divided for local finance and tax policy
      3. How should authority be divided for environment and natural resources
      4. How should authority be divided for land use and planning
      5. How should authority be divided for business issues
      6. How should authority be divided for anti-discrimination policies
      7. How should authority be divided for social issues
      8. How should authority be divided for how local governments conduct business
    5. Overall Relationship between State and Local Government

      1. Overall relationship between the State government and your jurisdiction
      2. Overall relationship between the State government and other local jurisdictions
    6. Factors Contributing to Local Government Fiscal Distress in Michigan

      1. Population loss as a factor in local government fiscal distress
      2. Economic decline as a factor in local government fiscal distress
      3. Rising costs to provide services as a factor in local government fiscal distress
      4. Citizen opposition to revenue increases as a factor in local government fiscal distress
      5. State decisions affecting local government as a factor in local government fiscal distress
      6. Local government corruption/mismanagement as a factor in local government fiscal distress
      7. Retiree pensions/benefits as a factor in local government fiscal distress
    7. Evaluation of Emergency Manager Law (P.A 436 of 2012)

      1. Support or oppose allowing local units the choice between a consent agreement, Emergency Manager, mediation, or bankruptcy
      2. Support or oppose allowing an Emergency Manager to reject, modify, or terminate collective bargaining agreements
      3. Support or oppose allowing an Emergency Manager to set aside decision-making powers of local elected officials
      4. Support or oppose allowing an Emergency Manager to recommend the sale, transfer, or lease of the local jurisdiction's assets
      5. Support or oppose allowing a State-appointed advisory board to have ongoing oversight powers after the Emergency Manager leaves
    8. Effectiveness of Emergency Manager Law at restoring fiscal health in the short-term
    9. Effectiveness of Emergency Manager Law at establishing sustainable financial conditions for the long-term
      1. Agree or disagree that the Emergency Manager Law is undemocratic
      2. Agree or disagree that the Emergency Manager Law helps difficult decisions to be made because the EM is an “outsider”
      3. Agree or disagree that the Emergency Manager Law is racially discriminatory
      4. Agree or disagree that the Emergency Manager Law pays insufficient attention to underlying structural problems
      5. Agree or disagree that the Emergency Manager Law serves the interests of local residents by improving their jurisdiction’s fiscal sustainability
      6. Agree or disagree that the Emergency Manager Law leads to an overemphasis on cost-cutting
    10. Support or opposition to the Emergency Manager Law overall
    11. Reforms to the Emergency Manager Law

      1. Support or oppose requiring Emergency Managers to plan for improving factors beyond just finances
      2. Support or oppose including provisions for possible new local or state revenue options for jurisdictions with Emergency Managers
      3. Support or oppose requiring Emergency Managers to analyze impact on disadvantaged groups when making decisions
      4. Support or oppose requiring Emergency Managers to consider local elected official input before making decisions
      5. Support or oppose requiring Emergency Managers to consider citizen input before making decisions
      6. Support or oppose adding a state-level ombudsperson oversight for citizens and local officials to appeal any Emergency Manager decision
    12. Support or oppose more proactive State monitoring of finances for all local governments in Michigan
    13. Citizen Engagement

    14. How engaged are citizens in your jurisdiction?
    15. Extent of citizen engagement opportunities in your jurisdiction
      1. Agree or disagree that jurisdiction makes opportunities for engagement available, but citizens rarely take advantage of them
      2. Agree or disagree that some of the best engagement with citizens happens informally around the community
      3. Agree or disagree that most citizens the jurisdiction hears from are more interested in complaining than in finding solutions
      4. Agree or disagree that citizens want access to information about the government’s finances and operations
      5. Agree or disagree that most citizens aren’t willing to take the time to become well-informed on issues
      6. Agree or disagree that jurisdiction reaches out to groups that typically might not engage in policymaking processes
      7. Agree or disagree that citizens tend to only be engaged on issues that affect them directly
      8. Agree or disagree that jurisdiction’s decision-making is transparent to its citizens
      9. Agree or disagree that jurisdiction struggles to find enough citizens to serve on appointed boards/commissions or elected offices
    16. The Role of Citizen Engagement

    17. Official’s trust in citizens to be responsible participants
      1. Jurisdiction’s citizens believe the role of citizen engagement is to…
      2. Respondent believes the role of citizen engagement is to…
    18. Who should have the final say in controversial decisions: citizens or public officials?
    19. Overall Satisfaction Regarding Citizen Engagement

    20. Respondent satisfaction regarding citizen engagement in jurisdiction's policymaking

    « Back to Michigan Public Policy Survey Home

    MPPS Home




    MPPS Resources


    Find Questions & Topics


    Data Tables


    Download Datasets


    Reports


    Questionnaires


    Individual Survey Pages




    More on the MPPS


           closup@umich.edu  | 
    735 South State Street, Ann Arbor, MI. 48109-3091  | 
    ph: 734-647-4091  | 
    © 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan      
    University of Michigan Gateway Ford School Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy