Mason-Dixon Polling & Research -DRAFT

Escambia County Voter Survey

Quality of Life

2009

Mason-Dixon Polling & Research -DRAFT

Background & Research Objectives

This second annual survey of Escambia County voters was commissioned by

The Better Pensacola Forum.

The Forum’s mission is to improve the quality of life for all EscambiaCounty residents by promoting sustainable economic development and help strengthenessential public and private institutions that impact the quality of life.The Forum seeks to accomplish this mission through dialogue, outreach and informationsharing with the public, business, and public policy makers.

Last years “lay of the land” statement: Current economic and social indices and trends point to a manifold set of structural andhistorical challenges to economic growth and a robust quality of life in Escambia County. These issues include economicdevelopment & job creation, public school performance, affordable housing, out-migration, governmental performance & structure,and cultural & entertainment opportunities.

Essential to the the Forum’s mission, and the objective of this survey, is an understanding ofthe voting public’s awareness of and attitudes toward these issues and challenges. Thissecond survey provided an opportunity to compare and track changes in voter opinion overthe past year.That is the context in which the survey of Escambia voters was conducted. These objectivesare accomplished by the survey and are detailed in this report.

Mason-Dixon Polling & Research -DRAFT

Methodology

•

This poll was conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, Inc. ofWashington, D.C. from July 22 – 27, 2009. A total of 800 registered EscambiaCounty voters were interviewed by telephone.

•

Those interviewed were selected randomly from a commercially availableFlorida State voter registration file. The resulting sample fairly reflects thedemographic profile of voters in Escambia County.

•

The margin for error, according to standards customarily used by statisticians, isno more than plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. This means that there is a 95percent probability that the "true" figure would fall within that range if the entirepopulation were sampled. The margin for error is higher for any subgroup, suchas a gender, income or race.