C: PRE QUESTIONNAIRE SCREEN

I. History and Mission of the Survey

The SCSU Survey is an ongoing survey research extension of the Social Science Research Institute in the College of Social Sciences at St. Cloud State University. The SCSU Survey performs its research in the form of telephone interviews. Telephone surveys are but one of the many types of research employed by researchers to collect data randomly. The telephone survey is now the instrument of choice for a growing number of researchers.

Dr. Steve Frank began the SCSU Survey in 1980 conducting several omnibus surveys a year of central Minnesota adults in conjunction with his Political Science classes. The SCSU Survey conducts its statewide omnibus survey once a year. In addition to questions focusing on the research of the faculty directors, clients can buy into the survey or contract for specialized surveys.

Presently, the omnibus surveys have continued, but have shifted to a primary statewide focus. These statewide surveys are conducted once a year in the fall and focus on statewide issues such as election races, current events, and other important issues that are present in the state of Minnesota. Besides the annual fall survey, the SCSU Survey conducts an annual spring survey of SCSU students on various issues such as campus safety, alcohol and drug use, race, etc. Lastly, the SCSU Survey conducts contract surveys for various public and private sector clients. The Survey provides a useful service for the people and institutions of the State of Minnesota by furnishing valid data of the opinions, behaviors, and characteristics of adult Minnesotans.

The primary mission of the SCSU Survey is to serve the academic community and various clients through its commitment to high quality survey research and to provide education and experiential opportunities to researchers and students. The directors of the SCSU Survey strive to assure that all SCSU students and faculty directors contribute to the research process, as all are essential in making a research project successful. This success is measured by our ability to obtain high quality survey data that is timely, accurate, and reliable while maintaining an environment that promotes the professional and personal growth of each staff member. The survey procedures used by the SCSU Survey adhere to the highest quality academic standards. The SCSU Survey maintains the highest ethical standards in its procedures and methods. Both faculty and student directors demonstrate integrity and respect for dignity in all interactions with colleagues, clients, researchers, and survey participants.

II. Survey Staff

The Survey’s faculty directors are Dr. Steve Frank (SCSU Professor of Political Science), Dr. Steven Wagner (SCSU Professor of Public and Non-Profit Administration) and Dr. Michelle Kukoleca Hammes (SCSU Assistant Professor of Political Science). The faculty directors are members of the Midwest Association of Public Opinion Research (M.A.P.O.R.) and the American Association of Public Opinion Research (A.A.P.O.R.). The directors subscribe to the code of ethics of A.A.P.O.R.

a Stephen I. Frank

Dr. Frank holds a Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science from Washington State University. Dr. Frank teaches courses in American Politics, Public Opinion and Research Methods at St. Cloud State University. Dr. Frank started the SCSU Survey in 1980, and since has played a major role in the development, administration and analysis of over 150 telephone surveys for local and state governments, school districts and a variety of nonprofit agencies. Dr. Frank has completed extensive postgraduate work in survey research at the University of Michigan. Dr. Frank coauthored with Dr. Wagner and published by Harcourt College, “We Shocked the World!” A Case Study of Jesse Ventura’s Election as Governor of Minnesota. Revised Edition. He also recently published two academic book chapters: one appears in the current edition of Perspectives on Minnesota Government and Politics and the other, co-authored with Dr. Wagner, is contained in Campaigns and Elections, edited by Robert Watson and Colton Campbell. Dr. Frank is past chairperson of the SCSU Department of Political Science and currently serves as President of the Minnesota Political Science Association.

b. Steven C. Wagner

Dr. Wagner holds a Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science and a Master of Public Administration from Northern Illinois University. Dr. Wagner earned his Bachelor of Science in Political Science from Illinois State University. Dr. Wagner teaches courses in American Politics and Public and Nonprofit Management at St. Cloud State University. Dr. Wagner joined the SCSU Survey in 1997. Before coming to SCSU, Dr. Wagner taught in Kansas where he engaged in community-based survey research and before that was staff researcher for the U.S. General Accounting Office. Dr. Wagner has written many papers on taxation and state politics and budgeting, and has published articles and book chapters on voting behavior, federal funding of local services and organizational decision making. Dr. Wagner, with Dr. Frank, published two texts on Jesse Ventura’s election and service as Minnesota’s Governor. With Dr. Frank, Dr. Wagner recently published a chapter on Ventura’s election in Watson and Campbell’s Campaigns and Elections.

C. Michelle Kukoleca Hammes

Dr. Kukoleca Hammes holds a Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science and a Masters in Political Science from the State University of New York at Binghamton. Dr. Kukoleca Hammes earned her Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Niagara University. Kr. Kukoleca Hammes’ is a comparativist with an area focus on North America and Western Europe. Her substantive focus is representative governmental institutions. She teaches courses in American Government, Introduction to Ideas and Institutions, Western European Politics, and a Capstone in Political Science at St. Cloud State University. Dr. Kukoleca Hammes, since joining the survey team, is using her extensive graduate school training in political methodology to aid in questionnaire construction and results analysis. She recently published a book chapter on Minnesota public participation in the Fifth Edition of Perspectives on Minnesota Government and Politics.

SCSU students, Ms. Angela Jabs and Mr. Jason Lunser serve as senior student lab supervisors. Mr. Jason Amunrud, also a SCSU student, provided technical support to ensure the interviewing software and all related hardware functioned.

After five or more hours of training and screening, approximately 40 SCSU students completed the calling. These students were enrolled in two of Professor Steve Franks courses: one his undergraduate political science research course and his course on democracy and citizenship. Under the director of Drs. Frank, Wagner and Kukoleca Hammes, Ms. Jabs and Mr. Lunser, , Ms. Stacey Springer, Ms. Nicole Kahler, Ms. Melissa Ackerman, Mr. Paul Ben-Yehuda, Ms. Ginger Becker, Ms. Kasey Lussier, Ms. Adriana Dobrzycka, Mr. Chris Brixius, and Mr. Jason Moe trained all callers and supervised all calling. These students serve the SCSU Survey as student directors and, in addition to supervising the lab for the SCSU Survey spring survey of SCSU students, perform similar functions for the fall omnibus survey and client-centered surveys.

SCSU Survey Lab Student

DIRECTORS/Consultants

Senior Student Lab DIRECTORS/Supervisors

Ms. Angela Jabs, Junior, Elementary Education Major

Jordan, Minnesota

Mr. Jason Lunser, Junior, Political Science Major

Cold Spring, Minnesota

Student Lab DIRECTORS/Supervisors

Ms. Stacey Springer, Junior, Political Science and Psychology Majors

Lincoln, Nebraska

Ms. Nicole Kahler, Junior, Social Work Major

Roseville, Minnesota

Ms. Melissa Ackerman, Senior, Secondary Education-Political Science Major

Cottage Grove, Minnesota

Mr. Paul Ben-Yehuda, Senior, Political Science and Communication Majors

St. Could, Minnesota

Ms. Ginger Becker, Senior, Political Science Major

Deer Creek, Minnesota

Ms. Kasey Lussier, Senior, Political Science Major

South Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Ms. Adriana Dobrzycka, Senior, Political Science and Anthropology Majors

Florence, Italy

Mr. Chris Brixius, Junior, Sociology Major

St. Cloud, Minnesota

Mr. Jason Moe, Junior, Political Science Major

student Technical Consultant

Mr. Jason Amunrud, Sophomore, Computer Science Major

Shoreview, Minnesota

III. Methodology

The SCSU Survey operates the CATI Lab in Stewart Hall 324. The CATI Lab, which stands for Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing Lab, is equipped with 13 interviewer stations that each includes a computer, a phone, and a headset. In addition to the interviewer stations, there is the Supervisor Station, which is used to monitor the survey while it is in progress. The SCSU Survey has its own server designated solely for the use of the SCSU Survey.

The SCSU Survey is licensed to use Sawtooth Software’s Ci3 Questionnaire Authoring Version 4.1, a state-of-the-art windows-based computer-assisted interviewing package. This program allow us to develop virtually any type of questionnaire while at the same time programming edit and consistency checks and other quality control measures to insure the most valid data. Interviewing with Ci3 offers many advantages:

1. Complete control of what the interviewer sees;

2. Automatic skip or branch patterns based on previous answers, combinations of answers, or even mathematical computations performed on answers;

3. Randomization of response categories or question order;

4. Customized questionnaires using respondents’ previous responses, and,

5. Incorporation of data from the sample directly into the sample database.

In addition, all interview stations are networked for complete, ongoing sample management. Sawtooth Software’s Ci3 allows immediate data updating, ensuring maximum data integrity and allowing clients to get progress reports anytime. The Survey directors are able the review data for quality and consistency. Question answers are entered directly into the computer, thus keypunching is eliminated, which decreases human error and facilitates immediate data analysis. The calling system is programmed to store call record keeping automatically, allowing interviewers and supervisors to focus on the interviewing task. Callbacks are programmed through the computer network and made on a schedule. Each number is called ten times. Interrupted surveys are easily completed. Persons who are willing to be interviewed can do so when it is convenient to them, improving the quality of their responses.

Calls were made at various times during the week (Monday through Thursday, 4:30 to 9:30) and on Sunday afternoon and evening to maximize contacts and ensure equal opportunities to respond among various demographic groups. The calling system maintains full and detailed records, including the number of attempts made to each number and the disposition of each attempt. Initial refusals were contacted and many were converted to completions.

The survey was administered on Monday, March 29 through Wednesday, March 31 and April 1 from 4:30 to 9:30. Conversion of callbacks and refusals occurred from 1:00 to 9:30 on Sunday, April 4 and from 4:30 to 9:30, Monday, April 5

Several steps were taken to ensure that the telephone sample of SCSU students was representative of the larger student population. The sample was drawn proportional to the currently enrolled student population by the Minnesota State College and University (MnSCU) Regional Center. The sample was comprised of 1,500 currently enrolled students who had a telephone anywhere in the state of Minnesota. Our interest was to interview currently active full and part time students. The sample was screened to remove duplicate names and invalid telephone numbers from the sample. The reduced the working sample from 1,500 to 1,457. Although the same sample generation procedures this year mirrored past years, we found many student telephone numbers very dated. Once the student directors and interviewers found current not-working numbers, they looked up the respondent names in the current campus telephone book to locate current telephone numbers. These current telephone numbers were then used to contact the respondents. In order to reach hard-to-get respondents each number was called up to ten times over different days and times and appointments made as necessary to interview the designated respondent at her/his convenience.

The sample consists of 505 respondents. In samples of 505 interviews, the sample error due to sampling and other random effects is approximately plus/minus four percent at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that if one were to have drawn 20 samples of the student population and administered the same instrument it would be expected that the overall findings would be greater/lesser than four percent only one time in twenty. In all surveys there are other possible sources of error for which precise estimates are not calculated. These include interviewer and coder error, respondent misinterpretation, and analysis errors. When analysis is made of sub-samples such as respondents who are live in university residence halls, or when the sample is broken down by variables such as gender, the sample error may be larger.

The demographics of the sample match know characteristics of the student population very well and weighting was only applied to place of residence. The ratio of dorm resident obtained during interviewing was higher than exists, so the sample was weighted to reflect a sample of 20 percent of residing in campus residency halls. In terms of other demographic factors, interviewing resulted in a sample within the margin of error of the population and they were therefore not weighted.

The cooperation rate of the survey was 82 percent. A cooperation rate of 82 percent is 30 percentage points above the average for professional marketing firms. Cooperation rate means that once we reached an eligible respondent, more than eight of ten respondents agreed to participate in the survey. The cooperation rate is determined by adding the number of completed interviews (505) to the total number of refusals (110) and dividing the number of completed interview (505) by the sum of the completions and refusals (615).

The total survey consisted of 57 variables. Respondent gender, place of residence, year of birth, ethnic status, citizenship and class standing were imported from the database. Of the 57 questions, most are reported herein and the reminder are asked for various departments and operating units of SCSU and are reported to those units. The complete questionnaire is viewable by going to the SCSU Survey web site and following the links to the spring SCSU student 2004 survey.

Table 1: Calling Record
Disposition Record	Frequency
Completed Calls (weighted shown)	505
Not Working Numbers	125
Not Eligible – Respondent not available during the period of the study, language problems, hearing problems, illness, out of state.	41
Callbacks – Appointments made but contact could not be made with designated respondent.	150
Refusals – Attempt to re-contact and convert refusals to a completion was made for all refusals.	110
Answering Machine – Live contact could not be made even after 10 calls.	173
Business Phones	1
No Answers – Probable non-working numbers.	24
Fax/Modem	7
Busy	20
Call Blocking	6
No longer at student	10
No longer resident at phone number, new number not available, wrong number	268
.Other-partially completed but not finished, miscellaneous	17
Total Calls Placed	1457
Total starting sample, including duplicate names and invalid phone numbers	1500

IV. Substantive Questions: Direction and Challenges Facing SCSU

Table 2: Right Direction or Wrong Track-2004
“I would like to start by asking you whether you think SCSU is on the right track or whether you think SCSU is going in the wrong direction?”
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Right Track	417	83
Wrong Direction	36	7
Don’t Know	48	10
Total	501	100

Table 3 Right Direction or Wrong Track 2002-2004 Comparison
Freq./Percent	2002	2003	2004
Right Track	411 – 78%	382 – 75%	417 – 83%
Wrong Direction	62 – 12%	69 – 13%	36 – 7%
Don’t Know	54 – 10%	64 – 12%	48 – 10%
Total	527 – 100%	515 – 100%	501 - 100%

Table 4: Greatest Challenge Facing SCSU
*“What do you believe is the greatest challenge facing the St. Cloud State University community?”*
RESPONSE	2001-PERCENT	2002-PERCENT	2003-PERCENT	2004- FREQUENCY	2004- PERCENT
Administration	0	0	1	4	1
Advising	0	1	1	5	1
Apathy	0	0	1	2	0
Building Better Facilities	1	0	0	3	1
Cheating	0	0	0	0	0
Civility/Friendliness	1	2	0	4	1
Courses/Major Options	3	2	1	18	4
Diversity/Race Relations	17	31	17	43	9
Enrollment Growth	0	1	1	8	2
Fees	0	0	0	1	0
Food Service	0	0	0	0	0
Ghetto/Housing	0	2	1	3	1
Handicap Accessibility	0	0	0	2	0
Image	0	3	2	9	2
International Politics	0	0	0	0	0
International Faculty Language	0	1	0	1	0
Jobs for Graduates	1	1	1	4	1
Keeping Students Informed	0	0	1	5	1
Keeping up with Technology	1	0	0	4	1
Library Hours	0	0	1	0	0
Liberalism	0	1	0	2	0
Maintain Academic Rigor	2	2	1	9	2
Maintain Academic Options	1	0	0	0	0
Maintaining Good Reputation	2	0	0	1	0
Maintain Overall Reputation	5	1	0	0	0
Maintain Rep/Quality Professors	2	2	3	15	4
Maintain Rep/Quality Students	1	2	1	9	2
Maintain Sports Reputation	0	0	0	3	1
Money for Departments	3	0	0	0	0
Nearly Open Enrollment	0	0	0	0	0
Not Enough Scholarships	1	0	0	0	0
Parking	29	20	12	137	28
Security	0	0	0	1	0
Social Influences	0	0	0	1	0
State Financial Support	4	3	13	15	4
Staying Affordable/Cost/Tuition	6	3	15	45	9
Student Drinking/Drug Use	2	4	3	17	4
Student Participation	0	0	0	0	0
Student-Teacher Ratio/Class size	4	0	0	0	0
Too Many Adjuncts	0	0	0	0	0
Too Much Homework	0	0	0	2	0
St. Cloud Community	2	2	1	5	1
Weather/River/Food	1	0	0	0	0
Other(friends, on-line classes, suits, study too much, student involvement, no tunnels)	0	0	10	33	7
Don’t Know	11	16	17	97	20
Total	100	100	100	497	100

V. Substantive Questions: How Students Spend Time

This series of questions began with the introduction: Our next series of questions tries to determine how many hours a week SCSU students engage in various activities.

Table 5: Hours Work for Pay per Week.
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Zero	137	27
1-5	19	4
6-10	42	8
11-15	51	10
16-20	92	18
21-25	57	11
26-30	26	5
31-40	61	12
41-60	19	4
Total	503	100
Of the all respondents, mode is 0 hours per week work and the median is 20.00. The weekly mean is 17.77 and the standard deviation is 15.74.

Table 6: Hours Study for Classes per Week.
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
0	3	1
1	11	2
2	22	4
3	18	4
4	22	4
5	54	11
6	17	4
7	20	4
8	22	4
9	1	0
10	105	21
11	1	0
12	14	3
13	3	1
14	5	1
15	61	12
16	2	0
17	0	0
18	0	0
19	0	0
20	62	12
21	3	1
22	1	0
23	0	0
24	2	0
25	21	4
26	0	0
27	0	0
28	1	0
29	0	0
30	11	2
31 or more	18	4
Total	501	100
Of the all respondents, mode is 10 hours per week study and the median is 10.00 hours per week. The weekly mean is 12.48 and the standard deviation is 9.40.

Table 7: Hours per week go out for social activities such as hanging out with friends, sports, dates, and similar activities.
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Zero	29	6
1	9	2
2	30	6
3	24	5
4	17	3
5	50	10
6	15	3
7	12	3
8	23	5
9	0	0
10	105	21
11	2	0
12	19	4
13	0	0
14	3	1
15	51	10
16-20	69	14
21-25	21	4
26-40	17	3
Total	496	100
Of the all respondents, mode is 10 hours per week they “go out” and the median is 10.00. The weekly mean is 10.98 and the standard deviation is 8.33.

Table 8: Hours per Week Watch TV.
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Zero	39	8
1	34	7
2	68	13
3	32	6
4	32	6
5	79	16
6	19	4
7	23	5
8	19	4
9	0	0
10	78	16
11	0	0
12	8	2
13	3	1
14	9	2
15	21	4
16-20	18	4
21-50	17	4
Total	499	100
Of the all respondents, mode is 5 hours per week they “watch TV” and the median is 5.00. The weekly mean is 6.87 and the standard deviation is 6.57.

Table 9: Hours per Week do extracurricular activities such as volunteering, clubs, and organizations.
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Zero	202	40
1	42	8
2	67	13
3	44	9
4	19	4
5	36	7
6	14	3
7	12	2
8	9	2
9	1	0
10	15	3
11-15	18	4
16 or More	21	4
Total	501	100
Of the all respondents, mode is 0 hours per week they “volunteer” and the median is 2.00. The weekly mean is 3.48 and the standard deviation is 6.12. .

Table 10: How many hours a night do you sleep?
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
4	14	3
5	48	10
6	141	29
7	141	29
8	118	24
9	21	4
10	7	1
11	0	0
12	3	1
Total	492	100
Of the all respondents, mode is 7 hours per night they “sleep” and the median is 7.00. The nightly mean is 6.83 and the standard deviation is 1.25.

Descriptive Statistics On Various Activity Hours

	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Males	females	Gpa 2 or below	Gpa 3+
Hours a week working	504	16.82	14.522	16	17.5	11.4	17.4
studying	501	12.48	9.399	12.1	12.7	8.7	13.5
Going out	497	10.98	8.334	12	10.2	14.1	10.3
Watch tv	499	6.87	6.568	8.1	5.9	5.6	6.5
Volunteering	501	3.48	6.118	3.4	3.5	2.4	4.0
Hours of sleep-night	504	6.67	1.620	6.7	6.7	6.6	6.7

VI. Substantive Questions: Parking and Buses

This section of the survey began with the following introduction: Now we have some questions relating to parking and buses.

Table 11: Drive to Campus
Response	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Yes	206	41
No	295	59
Don’t Know	2	0
Total	503	100

Table 12: Drive to Campus-Yes
*“How many days a week do you drive a car to campus?”*
Response	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
1	53	11
2	50	10
3	42	8
4	31	6
5	108	21
6	2	0
7	9	2
Total	295	100
Of the respondents who drive to campus, mode is 5 days per week and the median is 4.00. The weekly mean is 3.45 and the standard deviation is 1.68.

Table 13: Rate on-campus parking for students
*“How would you rate on-campus housing for SCSU students?”*
Response	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Excellent	7	1
Pretty good	63	13
Only fair	109	22
Poor	304	60
Can’t Judge	5	1
Don’t Know	15	3
Total	504	100

Table 14: Comparison of on-campus parking for students
“In comparison to other colleges and universities you’ve attended or visited, how would you rate availability of student parking on the SCSU campus? Is SCSU parking for students better, about the same, or worse?”
Response	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Better	31	6
About the same	155	31
Worse	244	49
Don’t Know/Can’t Compare	73	14
Total	503	100

Table 15: Bus Usage
*“During the school year, how many days a week on average, do you use the St. Cloud buses such as the Husky Shuttle or city buses?”*
Response	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Zero	306	61
One	28	6
Two	46	9
Three	34	7
Four	22	4
Five	46	9
Six	6	1
Seven	11	2
Don’t Know	5	1
Total	505	100
The modal frequency of all responses is zero and the median is zero. The mean is 1.39 and the standard deviation is 2.08.

Table 16: Main Reason for Using Buses
*“What is the main reason for using the bus system?”* *(Asked of buses users only)*
Response	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Only means of transportation	16	9
Because its free	21	11
Cheaper than buying a parking pass	9	5
Cheaper than paying parking tickets	3	2
Easier than finding parking	26	13
Convenient routes	24	13
Convenient times	9	5
Environmentally friendly	5	3
Use Husky Shuttle to go to K and Q lots	58	30
Go to school	9	5
Go to work	2	1
Other	10	5
Don’t Know	1	1
Total	194	100

Table 17 Main Reason Don’t Use Buses
*“Why don’t you use the bus system?”* *(Asked of non users only)*
Response	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Live on campus or walking distance	78	25
More time efficient to drive/walk/etc.	61	20
Bus routes not convenient	40	13
Commute/do not live in St. Cloud area	50	16
Do not feel safe riding the bus	3	1
Prefer to drive	46	15
Other	23	7
Don’t Know	8	3
Total	310	100

Table 18: Free Ride Program
“During the 2003-2004 school year, St. Cloud State and the city bus system teamed up to offer the Free Ride program allowing all St. Cloud students to ride the buses by using their student Ids. This is currently paid for by student fees. The fee has been increased by 25 cents per credit starting Fall 2004. Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with this fee increase?”
Response	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Strongly agree	86	17
Agree	262	52
Disagree	105	21
Strongly disagree	23	5
Don’t Know	28	6
Total	504	100

VII. Substantive Questions: Live After Graduation

This section of the survey began with the following introduction: I am now going to ask some questions about life after graduation.

Table 19: Potential Residential Arrangement
*“In terms of living arrangements after graduation, will you?”*
Response	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Live with your parents	46	9
Live with your spouse or children	171	34
Live alone	107	21
Live with roommates	168	33
Other	6	1
Don’t Know	6	1
Total	505	100

Table 20:

Place of Potential Residence

“Upon graduation, do you plan to stay in Minnesota or move to another state or country?”

Dr. Michelle Kukoleca Hammes

Senior Student Lab DIRECTORS/Supervisors

Table 3

RESPONSE

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Zero

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response