Research

CUNY New York City COVID-19 Survey Week 3: New Yorkers Think Feds Not Doing Enough for the City and State

Anxiety rises over job and housing loss, and more New Yorkers fear getting sick as the virus hits people they know.

A majority (56%) of New York City residents did not think the assistance provided by the federal government for NYC and the state as a whole is sufficient to manage the current coronavirus crisis. Only 22% thought assistance was sufficient with the remaining 23% unsure. The findings are part of the third week of data from a city and statewide CUNY Graduate School of Public Health & Health Policy (CUNY SPH) tracking survey conducted March 27-29.

As social distancing extends under Governor Cuomo’s PAUSE order, the number of New Yorkers who reported feeling “not at all” socially connected in the past week rose to 43%, nearly doubling the percentage (22%) of those who felt similarly isolated the previous week.

Read More

Week 3 Transparency Initiative

CUNY New York City COVID-19 Survey Week 2 Job loss in NYC disproportionately impacts Hispanics and lower income city residents

Nearly three in ten New York City residents (29%) report that either they or someone in their household has lost their job as a result of coronavirus over the last two weeks. In addition, 80% of NYC residents said they experienced reduced ability to get the food they need, and two-thirds (66%) reported a loss of social connection in the past week, suggesting that compelled isolation is taking a toll on residents. The findings are part of the second week of data from a city and statewide CUNY Graduate School of Public Health & Health Policy (CUNY SPH) tracking survey conducted March 20-22.

 

Read More

Week 2 Transparency Initiative

CUNY COVID-19 Tracking Survey Week 1: New Yorkers and Coronavirus – Support for school closures, while most feel not at risk for contracting the illness

A new CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy (CUNY SPH) survey released today found that 60% of New York State residents believe their chances of contracting the novel Coronavirus are low or very low. The survey of 1000 New York households (and a corresponding survey of NYC-only households which yielded similar findings), conducted between March 13-15, 2020 and considered accurate within a range of 3%, also found that more than half (55%) of all respondents live in households with one or more members over age 60, the highest risk age group for Coronavirus infection. However, just more than one-fourth (27%) of them believed that they were living with someone who has a high chance of becoming sick. In general, a bare majority of New Yorkers (51%) said they have some knowledge of Coronavirus, while 34% believed they know a lot about it.

Read More

Week 1 Transparency Initiative

COVID-19 Tracking Survey: who do New Yorkers trust during the Coronavirus outbreak?

New York, NY | Researchers from the CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy (CUNY SPH) and Emerson College are rolling out a weekly survey to capture where New Yorkers get information on COVID-19, how they perceive their personal risk, and what actions they are taking to protect themselves.

The COVID-19 Tracking Survey is designed by CUNY SPH in collaboration with the Journal of Health Communication, a peer-reviewed publication edited by CUNY SPH Distinguished Lecturer Scott Ratzan, MD. Professor Spencer Kimball of Emerson Polling will provide technical consultation and conduct this survey with a representative sample of over 1000 New York adults via phone and online.

Survey questions will include:

  • What do you think are your chances of getting sick with Coronavirus?
  • Do you have a regular healthcare provider?
  • Have you ever shared information on Coronavirus on social media without knowing if it was accurate?
  • What is your most trusted source for information about Coronavirus?

CUNY SPH will report on the first round of the survey’s findings in the Journal of Health Communication and at sph.cuny.edu/news on Monday, March 16 at 12pm. A media advisory with the survey results will also be sent.

“In our role as the public school of public health in New York City, we continue to monitor the COVID-19 situation in our city and state,” says CUNY SPH Dean Ayman El-Mohandes. “This is an effort from our research scientists to communicate to all concerned parties, through a representative polling survey, perceptions, sources of information, and changes in behavior of NYC and NYS residents related to the epidemic.”

Read More

2019 US National Public Opinion Survey Of Global Strategic Partnerships and Education Diplomacy

Emerson College Polling, under the supervision of Assistant Professor Spencer Kimball
is pleased to present the Association of Marshall Scholars with the findings from a
survey of American attitudes toward strategic alliances, international partnerships and
overseas learning. All respondents interviewed in this study were part of a fully
representative sample using an area probabilistic sampling method of N= 1,600 (sample
size).

Report:

Results:

Allocating Undecided Voters in Pre-election Polling

Spencer Kimball, Esq, J.D., M.S., M.A.

Liudmila Yudina, M.A.

Research Assistant: Cole Mootz, Emerson College

Abstract: Is there a way to make pre-election polls more accurate? This paper seeks to test some of the most popular methods of allocating ‘undecided’ voters, based on the underlying theory that the allocation of undecided voters will improve the public’s expectations of election results and a pollster’s claims about accuracy. Polling literature states the most popular methods to incorporate undecided voters include asking a “leaner” question that follows a ballot test question or allocating the undecided proportionally to their vote preference. Both methods were used in this study, along with a third option in which an even-allocation, or essentially no allocation of undecided voters, took place. The study incorporates n=54 pre-election polls conducted in 20 different states, between October 26 and November 4, 2018, which were used to compare the three allocation methods. This includes an Absolute Error test (deviation between poll results and election results, Mosteller et al., 1949), a Statistical Accuracy test (absolute error compared with the poll’s margin of error, Kimball, 2017), and a Predictive Accuracy test (did the poll predict the actual election winner?). The study found no significant difference between the accuracy of the polls that included an allocation of undecided voters as compared to those that did not (χ2(2, N=161)=.200, p =.905), suggesting that allocating undecided voters does not detract from, nor add to the reliability and validity of a pre-election poll.

Read More

1 2 3