Survey Design  

Data for this survey were collected by telephone from a representative sample of South Carolina residents age 18 or older, with the sample selected by means of random-digit dialing. Interviews were conducted between July 24 and August 6, 2003 by the IPSPR’s interviewing staff. A total of 516 interviews were conducted. The response rate for this survey was 50.3%; with the potential for error due to sampling of + 4.3%. For the analyses presented in this article, the data have been weighted to reflect the characteristics of the South Carolina adult population on the basis of age, race, sex, and number of adults in the household.

As part of this survey, respondents were asked questions on the quality of life in South Carolina, trust in government and state government’s role, the effectiveness of state government in a number of areas such as reducing unemployment, providing for the health care needs of the elderly, improving the quality of the state’s forests, waters and wetlands, as well as what they would tell Governor Sanford about how to improve state government.

Current Conditions in South Carolina
The first questions in this survey asked respondents to assess current conditions in the state. Specifically, those interviewed were asked if they would rate the quality of life in the state as excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor and whether they thought things in South Carolina were generally headed in the right direction or off on the wrong track. In general, South Carolinians expressed positive views about the state. About one in six people rated the quality of life in the state as excellent, 55.0% rated it as good and 21.3% thought it was fair; only 5.2% rated the quality of life in South Carolina as poor and 2.1% felt it was very poor. Similarly, a majority (57.8%) of South Carolinians surveyed thought that all in all, things were generally headed in the right direction in the state; 30.2% thought things were off on the wrong track and 12.0% said they did not know.

While these sentiments are generally shared across demographic subgroups, the figures presented in Tables 1 and 2 (see pages 26 and 27) indicate that there are some significant differences among groups in their perceptions on these issues. The largest differences on these two questions are in the responses of black and white respondents. Black respondents were much less likely than whites (5.8% to 21.0%) to feel that the quality of life in the state was excellent and much more likely to rate it as fair (33.1% to 16.2%), and a higher percentage of blacks (14.4%) than whites (3.6%) rated the quality of life as either poor or very poor. Similarly, blacks were the only group examined in which less than a majority thought that things in the state were generally headed in the right direction. Among blacks, 43.1% expressed this view, while 40.1% felt that things were off on the wrong track, and 16.8% said they did not know.

In addition, the differences in responses to the question on the quality of life in South Carolina across income groups and by level of education were statistically significant, though they were not particularly large. These differences were largely the result of a higher percentage of “poor” or “very poor” responses among those with family incomes of $25,000 or less or with less than a high school education. Even among these groups, however, only about 15% of respondents rated the quality of life in the state as poor or very poor.

On the question of whether things in South Carolina are generally headed in the right direction or off on the wrong track, the differences in addition to those between blacks and whites that were statistically significant were among age groups and across regions of the state. Across age groups, a higher percentage of younger people said that things in the state were on the right track. A higher percentage of residents of the Lowcountry (67.5%) than those from either the Upstate (52.2%) or the Midlands (56.7%) believed that things in South Carolina were generally headed in the right direction.

Trust in State Government and State Government’s Role
The next questions in this survey asked respondents how much of the time they thought they could trust state government and whether they thought state government does too many things that should be left to individuals and private businesses or should do more to help solve the state’s problems. The results for the trust in government question along with breakdowns by demographic subgroups are presented in Table 3 on page 28, while those for the question on the role of state government are presented in Table 4 on page 29.

In terms of trust in state government, the view of the South Carolina public is decidedly mixed. Less than 5% of those responding felt that state government could be trusted “just about always” and a similar percentage (7.4%) thought state government could never be trusted. A majority of the public felt they could trust state government some of the time, and another 37.0% said state government could be trusted most of the time.

While, on balance, the South Carolina public is wary of state government, there are several groups for which this sentiment is more prominent. Black respondents were less likely than whites to trust state government, with 61.4% of blacks (compared to 47.6% of whites) saying they trusted government only some of the time, and 10.7% of blacks (compared to 5.4% of whites) indicating that state government can never be trusted. Similar differences were found across income groups, with those with family incomes under $25,000 more likely to feel that government can be trusted only some of the time and a larger percentage of those from higher income families saying that government can be trusted most of the time. A higher percentage of respondents from the Midlands (60.9%) than those from either the Upstate (51.1%) or the Lowcountry (40.0%) believed that state government can be trusted only some of the time.

On the question of whether government does too many things or should do more to help solve the state’s problems, a higher percentage (57.8%) thought that state government should do more than felt it was doing too many things that should be left to individuals and private businesses (42.2%). With the exception of those with family incomes of $75,000 or more—who split exactly 50/50 on this issue—a majority of each subgroup examined felt that state government should do more to help solve the state’s problems. A number of group differences were statistically significant, with the largest distinction again found between blacks and whites. While whites were fairly evenly divided on this issue (50.4% to 49.6%), a large majority of blacks (75.6%) felt that state government should do more to help solve the state’s problems. In addition, those with family incomes under $25,000 were more likely than those with incomes above this level to feel the state should do more. A higher percentage of women (63.3%) than men (51.9%) expressed the view that the state should do more, and those in the youngest (18 – 29) and oldest (65 and over) age groups were more likely than those in the middle age groups to feel the state should do more to help solve the state’s problems.

Ratings of State Services
The next set of questions in this survey asked respondents to rate nine state services as excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor. The results for these items for the complete sample are provided in Table 5 on page 30. The final column of this table presents a summary mean for these items. In calculating these means, “excellent” responses were given a value of five; “good” a value of four; “fair” a value of three; “poor” a value of two; and “very poor” a value of one, so that higher mean values represent a more positive evaluation of a service.

The results indicate that South Carolinians generally rate these state services as either good or fair, with relatively small percentages assessing these services as excellent or very poor. The service that was most positively evaluated was the quality of the state’s park and public recreation areas; 15.2% of respondents rated this as excellent, an additional 55.8% thought that parks and recreation areas were good, and less than 1% felt they were very poor. The quality of the state’s forests, waters, and wetlands was also rated relatively positively, with a majority rating this aspect of state service as good, 8.8% rating it as excellent, and 1.2% rating it as very poor.

Citizen assessments of the state’s efforts to protect and improve the overall health of South Carolina residents were viewed more positively than were the ways it goes about providing for the health care needs of the poor or of the elderly. While the percentage rating any of these three items as excellent was small, a higher percentage (43.2%) rated efforts to protect overall health as good than expressed this view about providing health to the poor (30.9%) or providing for the health care needs of the elderly (28.1%). More than 35% thought that the way the state goes about providing for the health care needs of the elderly was poor or very poor and 33.1% felt this way about efforts to provide health care for the poor, while a much smaller percentage (18.6%) believed that efforts to protect and improve the overall health of South Carolina residents were poor or very poor.

The aspect of state services that was rated least positively was the quality of South Carolina’s streets, roads, and highways. Slightly more than one-third of respondents rated streets, roads, and highways as fair, and roughly equal percentages rated them as good (27.2%) or poor (28.6%). In addition, efforts to reduce unemployment in the state received relatively low ratings (mean, 2.94). Efforts to reduce unemployment received the highest percentage of fair responses (36.1%) and 7.9% thought these efforts were very poor.

In examining group differences in evaluations of state services, the most noteworthy finding was the consistent difference evident in the views of black and white respondents. For seven of these nine items, these differences were statistically significant, and in each case the evaluations of whites were more positive than were those of blacks. In assessing state government’s efforts to reduce unemployment, for example, 38.5% of white respondents rated this aspect of service as excellent or good, compared to 17.3% of blacks, and a much higher percentage of blacks (48.2%) than whites (25.1%) rated efforts to reduce unemployment as poor or very poor. Similarly, whites were much more likely than blacks to rate the job the state is doing in helping business and industry expand opportunities for good jobs in South Carolina as excellent or good (50.4% to 26.3%), while a much higher percentage of blacks than whites (40.1% to 16.0%) rated these efforts as poor or very poor.

This same pattern—with whites more likely to give excellent or good ratings and blacks more likely to view them as poor or very poor—was found for the items on the way the state goes about providing health care to the poor, efforts to protect and improve the overall health of South Carolina residents, and efforts to provide assistance to those in need. For the items on efforts to improve the quality of the state’s forests, waters, and wetlands and the quality of the state’s parks and recreation areas, whites were also more likely to give excellent or good responses while a higher percentage of blacks rated these aspects of state services as fair.

Other group differences in these evaluations were neither as large nor as consistent as those found between blacks and whites. Significant differences across income groups were evident on the question of the job the state is doing in helping business and industry expand opportunities for good jobs in South Carolina. For this item, a much higher percentage of those with family incomes under $25,000 thought the state’s efforts were poor or very poor than did those with higher family incomes. Similarly, those in this lowest income group were less likely to rate the quality of the state’s parks and public recreation areas as excellent or good and more likely to rate it as poor or very poor. Income differences were also statistically significant for the question on efforts to reduce unemployment in the state. For this item, those with family incomes in the $50,000 to $75,000 range were most likely to rate these efforts as excellent or good, while the highest percentage of poor or very poor responses was found among those with incomes under $25,000.>

Significant differences across age groups were evident for the three items related to the state’s provision of health care services (to the poor, to the elderly, and protecting and improving the overall health of South Carolina residents). On the question of providing health care to the poor, a higher percentage of the youngest (18 – 29) and oldest (65 and over) age groups rated this service as excellent or good. For the items on providing for the health care needs of the elderly and protecting and improving overall health the views of those ages 18 to 29 were distinct from other groups. Younger people tended to rate these aspects of state services more positively, and were less likely to view them as either poor or very poor.

Only one significant difference was found across education levels. For the question on the state government’s efforts to reduce unemployment, those with less education were more likely to rate these efforts as poor or very poor. The percentage of poor or very poor responses decreased from 50.0% among those with less than a high school education to 34.9% of those with a high school diploma, 27.5% of those who had attended some college, and 25.9% among those with a college degree. There was also only one significant difference between men and women on these items, with a higher percentage of men than women (78.8% to 65.6%) rating the quality of the state’s park and public recreation areas as excellent or good, and women more likely than men to give parks and recreation areas a fair rating (26.8% to 17.8%). Across regions there was also one significant difference. On the question of the quality of South Carolina’s streets, roads, and highways, those from the Lowcountry (46.0%) were more likely to give a rating of poor or very poor than were those from the Midlands (37.4%) or the Upstate (29.2%).

What Citizens Would Tell Governor Sanford
For the final question in this survey respondents were asked, “If you could tell Governor Sanford one thing about how to improve state government, what would you tell him?” Respondents to this survey provided a wide variety of answers to this question, ranging from wanting the governor to address a personal situation, to compliments about the way he is handling his job (as well as some negative statements), and comments on a number of issues or problems facing the state. While these specific responses ranged across a wide spectrum, there were several broad general topic areas that emerged in these comments, and these are summarized in Table 6.

As these figures indicate, the topics that most people would like to discuss with the governor involved the major issues facing the state. The area that was most frequently mentioned was government budgeting and spending, followed by education, health care and social services, the economy, and crime. About 5% of the public made general comments or wanted to talk to the governor about some other topic. Approximately 17% of those interviewed said they had no comment to make to the governor, and 3.2% said they did not know what they would tell Governor Sanford.

Responses in the area of government budgeting and spending included a number of comments on the need to lower taxes, dissatisfaction with some aspect of state services, and questions about the spending of lottery funds. Responses in the area of education were somewhat more focused, in that individuals who would tell the governor to improve state government by dealing with the issue of education stressed the need to improve education as well as the need to allocate additional funding for schools. A number of people said they would tell the governor that “education needs to be improved,” while others would urge Governor Sanford to spend more money on education. In the area of health care and social services, respondents wanted to tell Governor Sanford that state government could be improved if, among other things, the cost of health insurance could be reduced, health care could be improved for the elderly, nursing homes improved, or the cost of prescription drugs reduced. Almost all of the 10% of respondents who would talk to the governor about economic issues would urge him to bring more jobs to South Carolina. Citizens who wanted to talk to the governor about crime were generally concerned about reducing crime in the state, reducing crime in specific areas, such as schools, and having more law enforcement personnel.

Overall, the comments that the public would like to make to Governor Sanford about how to improve state government reflect the breath and depth of concerns addressed by the MAP Commission. There is no single, overriding issue on the minds of the state’s citizens. Rather, they are concerned about a variety of issues facing the state. While they generally feel positive about the quality of life in state, there are certain aspects of the picture of South Carolina in the 21st century that they find unacceptable, and many of these concerns are reflected in the issues examined by the Commission.

Summary
In general, South Carolinians feel positive about the quality of life in the state, and a majority believes that things in South Carolina, all in all, are headed in the right direction. South Carolinians tend to be wary of state government, with 7.4% believing that it can never be trusted and another 51.2% feeling that state government can be trusted only some of the time. Despite this, a majority of the public believes that state government should do more to help solve the state’s problems.

South Carolinians generally rate state services as either good or fair, with relatively small percentages assessing these services as either excellent or very poor. The state’s parks and public recreation areas generally received high marks, as did it’s forests, waters, and wetlands, while the quality of the state’s streets, roads, and highways was the least positively rated of these services.

Throughout this analysis, one of the most striking findings is the consistent differences in the views of blacks and whites on issues related to state government. Blacks were much less likely than whites to believe that the quality of life in South Carolina was excellent or good, and less than a majority of black respondents thought that things in the state were headed in the right direction. Blacks were also less likely than whites to trust state government. Even though they are less trusting than other groups, blacks were more likely to feel that the state government should do more to help solve the state’s problems. In addition, whites’ evaluations of state services were more positive than those of black respondents, significantly so for seven of the nine service areas examined.

References
Governor’s Commission on Management, Accountability and Performance. (2003). Charting a course for South Carolina’s future. Columbia, SC: Governor’s Commission on Management, Accountability and Performance. Available at http://www.mapcommission.sc.gov/pdf/updated%20Final%20Map%20Report.pdf.

About the Author
Robert W. Oldendick, Ph.D. is the executive director of the University of South Carolina’s Institute for Public Service and Policy Research and a professor of Political Science. Dr. Oldendick has over 25 years experience in the field of survey research and public opinion. He is also the author of numerous publications on survey research methodology, including procedures for sample selection in telephone surveys, methods of respondent selection within households, and the effects of question wording and format on responses to survey questions. Together with Barbara Bardes, Ph.D. he is co-author of the text, Public Opinion: Measuring the American Mind, published by Wadsworth Publishing. Dr. Oldendick can be reached at roldendi@gwm.sc.edu.