University of Michigan Gateway Ford School

The Michigan Public Policy Survey (MPPS)
  • Spring 2018 Data Tables
  • « Back to Michigan Public Policy Survey Home
  • Summary tables for questionnaire items from the Spring 2018 Wave of the MPPS broken down by jurisdiction type, population size, and region of the state:

    Table of Contents

      Fiscal Health

    1. Good or Bad Times in the coming year?
      1. Better or Less Able to meet jurisdiction's needs this fiscal year than last
      2. Better or Less Able to meet jurisdiction's needs next fiscal year than this
    2. Changes from the Last Fiscal Year to the Current Fiscal Year

      1. Change in jurisdiction’s revenue from property taxes
      2. Change in amount of state aid to jurisdiction
      3. Change in jurisdiction’s tax delinquencies
      4. Change in jurisdiction’s ability to repay its debt
      5. Change in jurisdiction’s public safety needs
      6. Change in jurisdiction’s infrastructure needs
      7. Change in jurisdiction’s human service needs
      8. Change in jurisdiction’s general government operations needs
      9. Change in jurisdiction’s number of employees
      10. Change in jurisdiction’s cost of government’s current employee health benefits
      11. Change in jurisdiction’s cost of government’s employee pensions
      12. Change in jurisdiction’s cost of government’s retired employee health benefits
    3. Expected Changes from the Current Fiscal Year to the Next Fiscal Year

      1. Projected change in property tax rates
      2. Projected change in reliance on general fund balance
      3. Projected change in amount of services provided
      4. Projected change in public safety spending
      5. Projected change in infrastructure spending
      6. Projected change in human services spending
      7. Projected change in general government operations spending
      8. Projected change in privatizing or contracting out services
      9. Projected change in number and/or scope of interlocal agreements or other service-sharing plans with other governments
      10. Projected change in jurisdiction’s number of employees
      11. Projected change in employee pay rates
      12. Projected change in employees’ share of premiums, deductibles, and/or co-pays on health insurance
      13. Projected change in employees’ share of contributions to retirement funds
      14. Projected change in retirees’ share of premiums, deductibles, and/or co-pays on health insurance
    4. General Fund Balances

    5. Assessment of level of jurisdiction’s unreserved general fund balance
    6. Jurisdiction’s cash flow as a fiscal health problem
      1. Jurisdiction's overall fiscal health today
      2. Jurisdiction's overall fiscal health five years from now
    7. Board/Council relationships

      1. Board/Council’s effectiveness in establishing long-term goals
      2. Board/Council’s effectiveness in overseeing administrative performance
      3. Board/Council’s effectiveness in overseeing the jurisdiction’s finances
      4. Board/Council’s effectiveness in addressing citizens’ expectations
      5. Board/Council’s effectiveness overall
    8. Extent of turnover among jurisdiction’s Board/Council
      1. Frequency of consensus regarding votes on development issues
      2. Frequency of consensus regarding votes on budgeting and fiscal policy
      3. Frequency of consensus regarding routine decisions facing the jurisdiction
      1. Effect on Board/Council relationships: behavior of individual elected officials
      2. Effect on Board/Council relationships: willingness of individual elected officials to support final decisions
      3. Effect on Board/Council relationships: turnover among members
      4. Effect on Board/Council relationships: blocs or factions on the Board/Council
      5. Effect on Board/Council relationships: clarity of roles and responsibilities
      6. Effect on Board/Council relationships: state and national partisan politics
    9. Civic Discourse

      1. General state of public discourse among elected officials within jurisdiction
      2. General state of public discourse between elected officials and residents within jurisdiction
      3. General state of public discourse among residents themselves within jurisdiction
      1. Change in tone of discussion and communication among elected officials within jurisdiction
      2. Change in tone of discussion and communication between elected officials and residents within jurisdiction
      3. Change in tone of discussion and communication among residents themselves within jurisdiction
    10. Intragovernmental Relationships

      1. Does jurisdiction have a formal set of rules concerning appropriate Board/Council behavior
      2. Does jurisdiction have a formal set of rules concerning Board/Council interactions with administration and/or employees
      1. Overall relationships among elected officials in jurisdiction
      2. Overall relationships among elected officials and the chief administrative officer in jurisdiction
      3. Overall relationships among elected officials and other employees in jurisdiction
    11. Poverty and Economic Hardship

      1. Need for affordable housing in jurisdiction
      2. Need for emergency housing in jurisdiction
      3. Need for emergency food in jurisdiction
      4. Need for public transportation in jurisdiction
      5. Need for subsidized healthcare in jurisdiction
      6. Need for subsidized childcare and pre-K programs in jurisdiction
      7. Need for job training/workforce development in jurisdiction
      8. Need for drug treatment programs in jurisdiction
    12. Inability to pay minor legal fees and costs as a cause of significant economic hardship for residents
    13. Percentage of people in community living under federal poverty level
    14. Percentage of people in community who struggle to make ends meet
    15. Policies to address poverty and economic hardship

      1. Jurisdiction’s government has discussed affordable housing
      2. Jurisdiction’s government has discussed emergency housing
      3. Jurisdiction’s government has discussed emergency food
      4. Jurisdiction’s government has discussed public transportation
      5. Jurisdiction’s government has discussed subsidized healthcare
      6. Jurisdiction’s government has discussed subsidized childcare and pre-K programs
      7. Jurisdiction’s government has discussed job training/workforce development
      8. Jurisdiction’s government has discussed drug treatment programs
    16. Does jurisdiction have programs or policies to address poverty or economic hardship
    17. Does jurisdiction partner with local groups to provide resources or services for low-income residents
      1. Board/Council’s assessment of jurisdiction’s efforts to address local poverty or economic hardship
      2. Residents’ assessment of jurisdiction’s efforts to address local poverty or economic hardship
      3. Respondent’s assessment of jurisdiction’s efforts to address local poverty or economic hardship
    18. Michigan Medical Marijuana Facilities Licensing Act

    19. Jurisdiction’s approach to allowing medical marijuana facilities in the jurisdiction
    20. Current status of zoning in jurisdiction related to medical marijuana facilities
      1. Jurisdiction has specifically limited the number of medical marijuana facilities
      2. Jurisdiction has limited the number of medical marijuana facilities by regulating the distance between them
      3. Jurisdiction has restricted medical marijuana facilities to particular zoning districts
      4. Jurisdiction requires a special land-use permit for medical marijuana facilities
      5. Jurisdiction enforces distance from schools, parks, or other community buildings for medical marijuana facilities
      6. Jurisdiction allows co-location of medical marijuana facilities
      7. Jurisdiction limits hours of operation of medical marijuana facilities
      8. Jurisdiction sets signs and advertising restrictions for medical marijuana facilities
    21. Board/Council’s understanding of the current MMFLA rules
    22. Medical Marijuana Facilities

      1. There have never been medical marijuana facilities in jurisdiction
      2. There are facilities proposed or planned but not operating
      3. There were previously facilities that are closed
      4. There are facilities currently operating
      1. Board/Council’s support for allowing medical marijuana facilities within jurisdiction
      2. Residents’ support for allowing medical marijuana facilities within jurisdiction
      3. Chief law enforcement officer’s support for allowing medical marijuana facilities within jurisdiction
      4. Respondent’s support for allowing medical marijuana facilities within jurisdiction
      1. Extent of problems regarding medical marijuana in community
      2. Extent of benefits regarding medical marijuana in community
    23. Support for legalizing, regulating, and taxing recreational marijuana in Michigan
    24. Evaluating current events and political issues

    25. United States going in right direction or on wrong track
    26. State of Michigan going in right direction or on wrong track
    27. Jurisdiction going in right direction or on wrong track
    28. Governor Snyder’s job performance
    29. Michigan Legislature’s job performance
    30. President Trump’s job performance
    31. U.S. Congress’s job performance
    32. Rural or Urban Jurisdiction

    33. Is jurisdiction rural, urban, or somewhere in between

  • « 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  | 
    © 2018 Regents of the University of Michigan      
    University of Michigan Gateway Ford School Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy