ALR Research StratRep

8/9/2019 ALR Research StratRep

1/9

Amber Richards Rhode Island Ballot Strategic Report

Introduction:

The following report contains advice and guidance in crafting a communication

strategy to pass the Rhode Island ballot initiative aimed at securing a $25 million bond

for expanding affordable housing in the state. The memo includes an analysis of overall

levels of support for and opposition to the ballot initiative, the identification of target

audiences for the coalition to focus on in building a successful campaign, and

recommendations about specific messages that will most effectively communicate the

benefits and potential impact of expanded affordable housing in Rhode Island.

Recommendations were made based on the results of a survey of 500 registered voters in

Rhode Island. The survey was conducted from June 25-28, 2012.

Analysis of the Overall Support and Opposition:

In order to create salient and targeted messages, an analysis of the overall support

for and opposition to the proposed ballot initiative was conducted. The survey was able to

determine the publics initial stance on the issue, identify reasons the public would

support or not support the ballot measure, and evaluate several potential message

strategies.

First, the research aimed to determine where the publics stance on the ballot

measure stood compared to other issues on the ballot. It was found that, initially, 57

percent of respondents would vote yes or lean yes on the proposed $25 million for

affordable housing. When voters were broken down by party affiliation, it was found that

77 percent of Democrats, 52 percent of Independents and 31 percent of Republicans

1


2/9


supported the measure. Interestingly, whether or not affordable housing had impacted the

respondents life did not make a significant statistical difference on whether the voter

supported the measure. Young people aged 18-34 were significantly more likely to vote

yes than older people, even among age groups who are more likely to benefit from the

initiative. Regarding income, those who made 50-75k per year were equally likely as

those who made less than 30k to support the initiative. Additionally, those who made

over 75k were the least likely to vote yes. Addressing gender, women were 14 percent

more likely to vote yes.

Next the survey set out to determine what respondents thought were the best

reasons to vote yes on the ballot measure. The open-ended question produced many

different answers, but the most resonating reason to vote yes was that, Housing is too

expensive, prices too high, need affordable housing. This reason was twice as likely to

be cited over the next leading message, Too many homeless people, we need to help

them get off the street.

The survey also sought to discover what messages the initiative will be up against

and will be trying to debunk. The survey found that the respondents thought the best

reasons to vote no were Cant afford it, state is broke, followed closely by Need to

make sure money is used properly/concern about misuse of funds.

To determine whether respondents would be receptive of messaging that might

highlight the beneficiaries of the ballot measure, the survey asked how important it was

for state government to assist certain types of people in finding a home they can afford in

Rhode Island. Respondents could say yes or no to support the following groups: lower to

2


3/9


middle income working families, veterans, individuals or families who are homeless,

senior citizens, individuals or citizens who are unemployed, workers making an hourly

wage and young people who are new to the workforce.

All types of people received more than half the votes saying they were important

to help. Veterans, the homeless and senior citizens were considered the most important to

help. Young people new to the workforce received the least support. Individually, there

were some notable discrepancies about who considered each group important:

Lower income working families were thought to have importance by 70 percent

of voters, with most if its support coming from those who make less than 75k and

Democrats.

Veterans were rated as important by 84 percent of voters and garnered more

support among women and equal support across all age groups and incomes, making

them the most popular group to receive the benefits of affordable housing.

The homeless were rated as important by 80 percent of voters. Their importance

resonated equally among those who make 50-70k as it did with those who made less than

30k. Democrats were most likely to find this group important (93 percent).

Senior citizens were perceived as important by 79 percent of voters. Among age

demographics, the least favorability for this group came from the oldest age group (65+)

and the youngest (18-32). A reason for this might be that the parents of the 35-64 year

olds are entering a stage in their lives where they might need affordable housing, and this

group cares that their parents have housing they can afford.

The unemployed group was perceived to be important by 68 percent of voters.

3


4/9


Republicans were the least likely to support this group compared to the other parties.

They were more likely to be supported by the youngest and oldest age groups, who are

more likely to be unemployed. Among income levels, the most support came from those

who made 50-75k and those who made under 30k.

Workers earning an hourly wage were perceived as important by 59 percent of

voters and garnered the most support from the youngest demographic compared to other

age groups and was equally important to all those making under 75k. This may be

because the youngest demographic was more likely to either be or have recently been a

worker making an hourly wage.

Young people who are new to the workforce received 55 percent of the yes vote.

Republicans were especially unlikely to support this group. Among income levels,

support for this group is mostly equal across all incomes, with poorer incomes marginally

supporting the group more.

Expanding further into message testing, the survey asked respondents how much

they agreed or disagreed with specific statements regarding affordable housing. The most

resonating statements had to do with strengthening Rhode Islands economy, building

stronger communities and helping those in need. Those surveyed did not feel that the

states other priorities were more important that the above statements, nor did they

believe that affordable housing was no longer a problem for the state. The following are

the specific messages and the interesting findings associated with each.

Affordable homes are an important part of ensuring that RI has a strong

economy. 53 percent agreed with this statement. Those who make 50-75k were

4


5/9


especially likely to find this to be true (71 percent).

Investing in and rehabilitating foreclosed properties as affordable homes will

help build stronger communities. 49 percent agreed with this statement. Only 40

percent of Republicans thought this to be true.

The economic downturn and high unemployment have made housing

unaffordable even to middle-class working families. 49 percent agreed. Predictably,

this message was strongly agreed with by those making 50-75k, those who were more

likely to be in the housing market.

Many Rhode Islanders cannot afford a home or apartment and more must be

done to help those in need. 45 percent agreed with this statement. Republicans were

especially likely to find this not to be true (only 27 percent agreed). The lowest income

bracket was most likely to agree with this statement (64 percent).

There are too many other important priorities facing the state to fund affordable

housing at this time. 25 percent agreed with this statement. Republicans were most

likely to agree with this statement, followed closely by the oldest demographic.

Agreement with the statement was equal across incomes.

Now that the price of buying a home is coming down, there is no longer an

affordable housing problem in Rhode Island. Only 7 percent agreed with this

statement. Twice the proportion of Republicans agreed with this statement (15 percent).

Interestingly, only 14 percent of those who believed affordable housing was not a

problem agreed and 11 percent of those making less than 30k agreed.

Because there was a previous referendum authorizing 50 million dollars of state

5


6/9


funds to be used over a four-year period and this ballot measure is similar, the survey

sought to find out if Rhode Islanders thought that the initial referendum had made a

difference. Only 6 percent of respondents said it did. Democrats were more likely than

the other parties to be unsure whether it made a difference. Respondents across all

demographics were equally as likely to say no or not be sure whether it had made a

difference.

Target Audiences:

Based on the above data, the research was able to identify target audiences for the

coalition to focus on in building a successful campaign. The campaign can create specific

messages based on the following audience segments:

Party affiliations: Democrats are a particularly receptive audience to the idea of

affordable housing. In nearly every potential message strategy, Democrats far exceeded

Republicans and Independents in their support for the proposed ballot measure. In this

segment, Independents are the persuadables. Independent voters who lean Democrat are

especially receptive to the idea of affordable housing. Republicans are more receptive to

messages about how the measure can improve the economy than the groups of people the

measure would help or messages about the community.

Gender: Women are more receptive than men to affordable housing messages.

Because women tend to lean Democrat, this finding is not surprising, but allows for

narrower targeting.

Affected by affordable housing: Whether or not a person had a personal

6


7/9


experience with affordable housing, or knew someone who had, did not make much of a

difference in how receptive they were to the proposed ballot measure or messages about

it. These people should not be part of the target audience, nor should this be part of the

message strategy.

Income levels: Income groups that are generally more Democratic support the

ballot measure no matter what the message about it is. Those in the lowest income group

and those in the second highest consistently rank together and high in support of the

different messages about affordable housing. Affordable housing will likely affect the

lowest bracket the most, so the higher income, who most likely will not be directly

affected, being on par with the lowest is an interesting find. The support of the second

highest income bracket may also be due to this group entering the housing market. Our

most receptive voters in this segment will therefore be the second highest income group

and the lowest income group.

Age: For those aged 36-64, a message that highlights their parents as the

beneficiaries of affordable housing will be strongest. Those under 35 can be targeted as

people who will be entering the housing market, making themselves beneficiaries. To

target those over 65, the campaign should use messages that identify their peers as

beneficiaries of the ballot measure.

Messaging Recommendations:

Based on the audiences the campaign will target, the following messaging

recommendations should most effectively communicate the benefits and potential impact

7


8/9


of expanded affordable housing in Rhode Island:

One of the most important things the campaign needs to do is establish as its goal

is the necessity to change the perception that the previous ballot measure that was similar

to the current one did not have an impact. Most of those surveyed believed that either the

money never went anywhere, had no effect or that the money was mismanaged. Across

all of the demographic groups, this perception remained. The campaign needs to provide

information that can support the idea that the money from the previous referendum made

important and positive, if sometimes invisible, effects on the states affordable housing

issues and economy. The new referendum must be seen by voters as an investment rather

than more debt for the state.

Educating the public about the issue and the good it can do for the economy and

for the community will be very important for this campaign. Whether Democrats

received positive or negative messages about it, their increased support was about the

same. For Independents and Republicans however, defining affordable housing positively

and framing it as an investment rather than more debt could make the difference between

a successful or unsuccessful ballot measure.

The theme of the campaign, due to those it needs to bring into its camp, should be

one that emphasizes the economic implications of the ballot initiative and how it can

positively affect the most deserving people, particularly the elderly and veterans. These

messages were well received by all groups, but were especially resonant with those in the

Republican Party and may sway Independents easier without ostracizing sensitive

Republican voters. The campaign can highlight the beneficiaries of the last referendum,

8


9/9


especially the elderly and veterans, in order to help establish the last referendum as one

that had a positive effect on the state and position the new one as a continuation of the

first. By using these stories, the campaign can show rather than tell the benefits of the

ballot measure.

9

Documents

ALR Research StratRep