A newer version of this project is available. See below for other available versions.

Michigan Public Policy Survey Public Use Datasets

Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s) Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy

Name	File Type	Size	Last Modified
Budget-and-Fiscal-Health-Data			05/01/2017 10:11:AM
Emergency-Manager-Law-Data			05/01/2017 10:12:AM
Employee-Wages-and-Benefits-Data			05/01/2017 10:19:AM
Federal-Stimulus-Package-Data			05/01/2017 10:13:AM
Performance-Measurement-and-Dashboards-Data			05/01/2017 10:13:AM
Retiree-Health-Care-Benefits-Data			05/01/2017 10:20:AM
Special-Taxing-Authorities-Data			05/01/2017 10:17:AM
State-Direction-and-Job-Performance-Evaluation-Data			05/01/2017 10:16:AM
Unions-Data			05/01/2017 10:17:AM

To view the citation for the overall project, see http://doi.org/10.3886/E100132V23.

Folder Description

Summary:

The Spring 2011 MPPS wave focused on fiscal, budgetary and operational policies. Additional questions focused on property tax charge-backs from the county government, special tax authorities such as DDAs, job approval assessments for the governor and state legislators, the state's emergency manager law, performance measurement activities, and the federal stimulus package (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act).

Scope of Folder

Subject Terms: government revenue; government performance; state government; emergency manager; federal stimulus; federal aid; labor unions; property tax

Geographic Coverage: Michigan

Collection Date(s): 4/18/2011 – 6/13/2011 (Spring 2011)

Universe: All 1,856 Michigan counties, cities, villages, and townships

Collection Notes:

In order to protect respondent confidentiality, we have divided the data collected in the Spring 2011 Michigan Public Policy Survey into separate datasets focused on different topics that were covered in the survey. Each dataset contains only variables relevant to that subject, and the datasets cannot be linked together.

While the main identifiers of jurisdictions in our reports and online data tables are jurisdiction type and population size, we have opted to create a single variable representing population density as a consolidated proxy for jurisdictions. Other variables that are too identifying have been removed from the datasets. Where possible, we have created summary variables to provide users of the dataset with as much information as possible. Respondent demographics variables have been removed, however a party identification variable is included in all three datasets. Because weights could be used to link the datasets together, they have been removed. However, because the response rate is so high (69% of jurisdictions participated in Spring 2011) this should not significantly affect analysis.

Methodology

Response Rate: 69% by jurisdiction

Sampling:

Top elected and appointed officials in each jurisdiction were surveyed. One response from each responding jurisdiction is included. If two responses are received from the same jurisdiction, the criteria for inclusion in the data set are based on [in order]: completeness of the survey, if the official is appointed (rather than elected), or if the respondent is the top elected official.

Collection Mode(s): mail questionnaire; web-based survey

Unit(s) of Observation: Local government jurisdiction

Related Publications

Download this folder

Published Versions

Export Metadata

Dublin Core

DDI 2.5

Report a Problem

Found a serious problem with the data, such as disclosure risk or copyrighted content? Let us know.

This material is distributed exactly as it arrived from the data depositor. ICPSR has not checked or processed this material. Users should consult the investigator(s) if further information is desired.