Type: Report
Like this? Share it!
- Share on Facebook
- Share on Twitter
- Share on LinkedIn
- Share on Email Link Copied!
This report summarizes findings from a representative survey of 2,049 people aged 18 years and older in the United States who are covered by health insurance provided by their own or a family member’s current or former employer or union.
This Public Agenda project is supported by Arnold Ventures. Cite Public Agenda when referencing these findings.
The survey was designed by Public Agenda and fielded from March 22 to April 9, 2024 by NORC at the University of Chicago. Respondents were selected from the NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak panel, using sampling strata based on age, race/Hispanic ethnicity, education, and gender. Participants in this study were screened based on their insurance coverage. Respondents with insurance coverage from an employer or union qualified to complete this survey. Oversamples were collected to attain at least 200 Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI), Black Americans, and Latino Americans with ESI. In this nationally representative sample of people with ESI, 85 percent of respondents report having health insurance through a current or former employer of theirs or another family member; 14 percent report having health insurance through a current or former union of theirs or another family member; and 1 percent do not know whether their health insurance is through an employer or union.
The survey was offered in English and Spanish and was administered online via the Web (2,049 completes). If a panel household had more than one active adult panel member, only one adult panel member was selected at random. Panelists were offered the cash equivalent of $3 for completing this survey.
NORC applied cleaning rules to the survey data for quality control. In total, 151 cases were removed from the final set of completed interviews based on four cleaning rules:
The final weight is developed as a product of three weights. First, AmeriSpeak Panel weights are developed for all panel members to account for their probability of selection into the sample of panel recruits, panel recruitment nonresponse adjustments, and poststratification adjustments of the recruited panel to match population benchmarks. Second, Study Specific Base Weights are developed for a study sample selected from the panel to account for their selection probabilities under the sample design. Finally, Study Specific Final Weights are adjustments of the base weights to address survey non-response through a weighting class method. Raking adjustments are then applied to the non-response adjusted weights to align the survey sample to specific population benchmarks. The final weights may be trimmed to reduce the influence of extreme weights on survey estimates.
The weighted household panel recruitment response rate for the AmeriSpeak Panel is 22.3 percent, while the weighted household panel retention rate is 78.9 percent. As for the survey sample, the completion rate is 18.2 percent, and the cumulative response rate is 3.2 percent.
The oversamples of people with ESI who identify as Asian American, Black American, and Latino American were weighted down to their proportions in the overall population in the final main study weights. The survey has a margin of error of +/- 2.82 percentage points at the 95% confidence level for all people with ESI. The margin of error for subpopulations are as follows:
Sampling error is only one of many potential sources of error and there may be other unmeasured errors in this or any other survey.
To inform the development of this survey, Public Agenda conducted five online focus groups in January and February 2023 with 40 residents of Texas, Washington State, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. All participants were employed adults ages 18 years and older. All were covered by employer-based health insurance from their own employers. Findings from those focus groups were reported in a separate report, available by following this link.
For a topline with full question wording, please follow this link. For other inquiries about the research, please email [email protected].
Rebecca Silliman and Dickson Su
2024
The care provided by hospitals, physicians, and other clinicians accounts for about half of all health care spending in the United States. The increasing prices charged by hospitals and other health care providers are the greatest drivers of growth in health care spending, contributing to rising insurance premiums for employers who purchase health insurance and growing premiums and cost-sharing for beneficiaries. The strategies available to employers for addressing high prices often involve directing beneficiaries toward high-value providers and shifting more costs to beneficiaries. But employers increasingly believe in the need for policy approaches to address high provider prices.
To equip employers and policymakers with a better understanding of the perspectives of people with employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) about how to address the prices charged by hospitals, doctors, and other medical providers, Public Agenda, with support from Arnold Ventures, conducted a nationally representative survey of people with ESI.
In brief, the survey finds that a large majority of people with ESI are concerned about higher provider prices. Nearly half believe that higher provider prices are contributing to rising employee premiums, yet most are not aware that employers pay most of the costs for employees’ health insurance coverage. A majority think ESI needs improvement. To address increasing health care providers prices, over three quarters of people with ESI support price transparency and limiting health care providers’ prices and about two thirds support government regulation of providers’ prices in general. However, if the government were to regulate prices, most people with ESI are concerned about various aspects of implementation, including providers finding loopholes to avoid regulation or the government being too incompetent to enforce regulation. Furthermore, their concerns around implementation influence their support for government regulation. People also see a role for employers in addressing high costs. Just over half of people with ESI trust that their employers are trying to make health care more affordable for people like them and two-thirds support employers advocating for government price regulation. People who attribute increasing premiums to providers charging higher prices are especially supportive of employers advocating for regulation.
Findings are based on a nationally representative survey of 2,049 people covered by health insurance provided by their own or a family member’s current or former employer or union in the United States. The survey was designed by Public Agenda and fielded March 22, 2024 to April 9, 2024 by NORC at the University of Chicago. The survey has a margin of error of +/- 2.82 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence interval. Margins of error are greater for subgroups. For details about the methodology, topline with full question wording, and additional regression analyses, see the methodology.
This Public Agenda project is supported by Arnold Ventures.
Want to stay up-to-date on the latest Public Agenda research? Join our newsletter here.
Most people with ESI are very concerned about prices that providers charge for health care services. A plurality attribute rising prices to more expensive medication and supplies, more administrative costs, and hospitals making larger profits.
A plurality of people think that higher provider prices explain rising employee premiums. A majority are not aware employers pay the larger share of premiums and a majority believe ESI is in need of improvement.
To address increasing health care provider prices, over three quarters of people with ESI support requiring price transparency and limits on health care providers’ prices. Slightly fewer support government regulation of prices in general.
Most people with ESI are concerned that providers would find ways to avoid government price regulation. Slightly fewer are concerned that regulation would negatively affect patients or health care providers. Their concerns influence their support for government regulation.
A plurality of people with ESI believe that the government should be primarily responsible for addressing providers’ prices. Most want employers to advocate for price regulation, especially those who think that hospital prices contribute to rising premiums.
David Schleifer, PhD, also contributed to this research.
Founded in 2010 by Laura and John Arnold, Arnold Ventures is a philanthropy dedicated to improving the lives of all Americans through evidence-based policy solutions that maximize opportunity and minimize injustice. They believe philanthropy is uniquely positioned to take risks and make big bets in ways the public and private sectors are often unable or unwilling to do. Arnold Ventures approaches philanthropy as an engine for innovation that can help catalyze new solutions and advocate for public policies that maximize opportunity and minimize injustice for all.
About nine in ten people with ESI are concerned about the prices that providers charge. Far fewer are concerned about the amount that employers have to pay for their employees’ health insurance.
Eighty-five percent of people with ESI are concerned about the prices that hospitals, doctors, and other medical providers charge for health care services. This is followed by 75 percent of people with ESI concerned about the prices of prescription drugs, and 72 percent who are concerned about the amount that employees have to pay for health insurance. Although still a majority, only 52 percent are concerned about the amount employees have to pay; see Figure 1.
The survey explained that the prices that hospitals, doctors, and other medical providers charge have been increasing for many years and asked people with ESI why they think that has been happening. The most commonly cited reasons are medications and supplies becoming more expensive, more bureaucracy and administrative costs, hospitals making larger profits, and hospital executives getting paid more; see Figure 2.
Just under five in ten people with ESI think that premiums for employer-sponsored insurance are increasing due to providers charging higher prices.
When asked to identify the two biggest reasons why employees have been paying more for health insurance over the years, 47 percent of people with ESI indicated hospitals, doctors, and other medical providers charging higher prices for medical services. The next commonly cited reasons are insurance companies charging higher prices to administer claims (40 percent), pharmaceutical companies charging higher prices (31 percent) and inflation (29 percent); see Figure 3.
Only four in ten people with ESI know that employers pay most of the premiums for employees’ health insurance and half think health insurance companies keep most of the money that they receive in premiums for themselves.
Employers have consistently paid most of the costs of insurance premiums for covered workers. But only 39 percent of people with ESI are aware that employers pay most of the costs for employees’ health insurance coverage. Twenty-eight percent believe that employees themselves pay most of the costs, 17 percent say that employers and employees pay about the same amount, and 16 percent say they do not know.
By law, health insurance companies are required to spend at least 80 percent of the money they take in from premiums on health care costs and quality improvement. They can spend no more than 20 percent of premium dollars on administrative, overhead, and marketing costs. Yet nearly half of people with ESI (48 percent) believe that health insurance companies keep most of the money that employers and employees pay in premiums. Only 24 percent think most of that money goes to hospitals, doctors, and other medical providers for health care services, 11 percent believe it goes to pharmaceutical companies for prescription drugs, and 17 percent don’t know where most of the money goes.
Only one third of people with ESI think employer-based insurance works pretty well. Nearly everyone else believes it needs improvement.
Thirty-one percent of people with ESI believe that employer-sponsored insurance needs major improvements, while another 34 percent believe it needs minor improvements. Only 30 percent of people with ESI believe it works pretty well. Among people with ESI who think employer-sponsored insurance needs major improvements, 94 percent are concerned about the prices that hospitals, doctors, and other medical providers charge for health care services. In contrast, among those who think employer-sponsored insurance works pretty well, fewer (83 percent) are concerned about provider prices; see Figure 4.
Most people with ESI support requiring price transparency and most support limiting health care providers’ prices. Just over half support insurance plans being tailored to only cover high-value providers.
When asked how to address increasing prices charged by hospitals, doctors, and other medical providers, support is strongest (89 percent) for requiring providers to fully disclose their prices. However, a large majority (79 percent) support limiting how much hospitals, doctors, and other medical providers can charge for health care services, and 81 percent support limiting how much providers can increase their prices each year. Support is similarly strong (80 percent) for preventing hospitals from charging higher prices than independent doctors’ practices when they provide the same medical services; see Figure 5.
By contrast, a modest 55 percent majority supports insurance plans only covering high-quality, reasonably priced hospitals, doctors, and other medical providers. Framing this option in negative terms—that is, insurance plans no longer covering low-quality, over-priced providers—yields a similar level of support (57 percent); see Figure 5.
About half of people with ESI support measures to prevent hospital consolidation, but only about one quarter are opposed to those measures. The rest are unsure.
Just under half of people with ESI support preventing hospitals from buying independent doctors’ practices or preventing hospitals from buying or merging with other hospitals. But only about one-quarter of people with ESI oppose preventing these types of mergers and acquisitions, while about one-quarter of them say they do not know whether they support or oppose them; see Figure 6.
A smaller majority of people with ESI support government regulation of providers’ prices in general, including three-quarters of Democrats, almost half of Republicans, and just over half of Independents.
Compared to the eight in ten people with ESI who support limiting providers’ prices, a less robust majority supports government regulation of the prices charged by hospitals, doctors, and other medical providers, more generally. Support for government regulation of providers’ prices is stronger among Democrats than among Independents or Republicans with ESI; see Figure 7.
Among people with ESI, those who think employer-sponsored insurance needs to be improved are supportive of government price regulation.
Those who say ESI needs major or minor improvements are more likely to support government regulation of the prices charged by hospitals, doctors and other medical providers, than those who say it works pretty well. Specifically, 73 percent of those who say that ESI needs major improvement support government regulation, while only 51 percent of those who believe ESI works pretty well support government regulation of prices; see Figure 8.
Two-thirds of people with ESI are concerned that if price regulation were instituted, providers would find loopholes to avoid it or pressure the government to keep prices high. However, those who are more concerned about these issues are also more likely to support government regulation.
Two-thirds of people with ESI are concerned that if the government regulated the prices charged by hospitals, doctors, and other medical providers, providers would find loopholes to avoid it. About as many are concerned that providers would pressure the government to keep prices high. Six in ten people with ESI are concerned that government regulation would not go far enough in lowering providers’ prices; see Figure 9.
People with ESI who are more concerned that providers would find loopholes to avoid regulation, that providers would pressure the government to keep prices high, or that government regulation would not go far enough are more likely to support government price regulation than people who are less concerned about those issues.
However, about six in ten people with ESI are concerned that the government would be too incompetent to enforce regulation of providers’ prices; see Figure 9. People with ESI who are more concerned that the government would be too incompetent to enforce regulation are less likely to support it.
Six in ten people with ESI are concerned that price regulation would negatively impact quality of care and access to care. Half are concerned about impacts on hospitals, doctors, and other providers. Around most of these issues, greater concern corresponds with lower support for government regulation.
Six in ten people with ESI are concerned that patients would get lower-quality health care if prices are set too low, and just slightly fewer are concerned that providers would have to crowd more patients into their schedules if prices are set too low; see Figure 10. People with ESI who are more concerned about quality and access are less likely to support price regulation compared to people who do not express those concerns.
About half of people with ESI are concerned that doctors and nurses would quit their jobs if prices are set too low. And half are concerned that some providers would go out of business if prices are set too low; see Figure 10. People who are more concerned about these issues are less likely to support government price regulation.
About half of people with ESI are concerned that government price regulation would unintentionally harm rural communities, including modestly more residents of rural areas (56 percent) compared to urban (44 percent) or suburban (49 percent) areas. People with ESI who are more concerned about impacts on rural communities are less likely to support price regulation. Communities are classified as urban, suburban, or rural based on standard rural-urban commuting area codes.
About four in ten people with ESI are concerned that government price regulation would unintentionally harm communities of color; see Figure 10. This concern is stronger among Black Americans (59 percent) and Latino Americans (49 percent) with ESI than among their Asian American (42 percent) or white American (39 percent) peers. However, among people with ESI overall, concern about impacts on communities of color has no net bearing on support for price regulation.
People with ESI are least concerned that price regulation would violate America’s free market system.
Only 41 percent of people with ESI say they are very or somewhat concerned that government price regulation would violate America’s free market system. This includes a 58 percent majority of Republicans compared to 41 percent of Independents and 26 percent of Democrats. People with ESI who are more concerned that price regulation would violate free market principles are less likely to support it; see Figure 11.
Although more people with ESI trust that employers rather than government are trying to make health care affordable, more think government entities rather than employers should be primarily responsible for addressing providers’ prices.
Just over half of people with ESI (55 percent) trust that the employer or union that provides their insurance is trying to make health care more affordable for people like them. Fewer trust any of the other entities that this survey asked about to make health care more affordable. For example, only about one-third trust government agencies and only 19 percent trust elected officials to do so; see Figure 12.
Yet when asked who should be primarily responsible for addressing the increasing prices charged by hospitals, doctors, and other medical providers, 43 percent of people with ESI say a government entity, specifically 26 percent who indicate that government agencies that administer health programs should be responsible, and 17 percent say that elected officials should be primarily responsible. Very few think that employers who provide health insurance or parents and families should be primarily responsible for addressing providers’ increasing prices; see Figure 13.
Eight in ten people with ESI support employers pressuring providers to charge more reasonable prices. Two-thirds support employers advocating for price regulation.
About eight in ten people with ESI support employers working together to pressure providers to charge reasonable prices. A similar share supports employers speaking up publicly about the increasing prices charged by hospitals, doctors, and other medical providers; see Figure 14.
A 68 percent majority of people with ESI supports employers advocating for government regulation of providers’ prices; see Figure 14. This includes 78 percent of Democrats compared to 64 percent of Independents and 56 percent of Republicans.
People with ESI who attribute increasing premiums to providers charging higher prices are especially supportive of employers advocating for regulation.
As discussed in Finding 2, a plurality of people with ESI (47 percent) think that premiums for employer-sponsored insurance are increasing due to hospitals, doctors, and other medical providers charging higher prices. People who attribute increasing premiums to providers charging higher prices are more likely to support employers advocating for government price regulation; see Figure 15.
About half of people with ESI say they do not know what prevents employers from advocating for price regulation.
About half of people with ESI say they do not know what may prevent the purchaser of their health insurance from advocating for government price regulation. For example, about half say they do not know whether the purchaser of their coverage does not advocate for price regulation because they would be harmed by, are opposed to it, are unconcerned about it, or lack the time or skills to advocate; see Figure 16.
By Rebecca Silliman and David Schleifer
2024
Chicago Public Schools (CPS)—like many school districts—faces challenges. These include declining enrollment, budgetary pressures, pandemic-associated learning losses, and the need to staff schools with educators and administrators who can meet the diverse needs of students and families.
CPS is also grappling with a changing policy environment. In 2024, the city will begin shifting to a larger school board, whose members will be elected instead of appointed by the mayor. Federal COVID-19 relief funds are running out. And a moratorium on school closures in the city is set to expire in 2025. But the city and its public schools are rich in talent and other assets. Test scores indicate that CPS is making progress on addressing pandemic-associated learning losses and CPS’s accountability redesign process has included robust stakeholder engagement.
Amid these challenges and opportunities, Public Agenda, with support from the Joyce Foundation, set out to take stock of Chicago residents’ priorities for their public schools. The goal is to help city and district leaders and other stakeholders make decisions that are informed by Chicagoans’ concerns and aspirations. Findings are based on a representative survey of 2,127 adult residents of Chicago.
In brief, Public Agenda’s survey finds that Chicagoans think the biggest problem in the city’s public schools is that students are not learning enough academically. A plurality of city residents—particularly parents—think the system’s main goal should be to prepare students for college. But few Chicagoans believe that the city’s public schools provide high-quality education and most think white students have access to better public schools than students of color. The majority of Chicagoans think politicians and educational leaders are focused on petty political battles instead of what is best for students, and few are confident that the CPS budget is spent effectively. To improve schools, Chicagoans favor training teachers and principals, replacing underperforming teachers, and demanding that schools implement improvement plans. Parents want CPS to prioritize spending on tutors and classroom aides to support academically struggling students. As the city prepares to elect school board members for the first time, less than half believe that an elected school board will better serve students. This report highlights instances in which there are differences of opinion between parents and nonparents and differences of opinion by race/ethnicity or across neighborhoods in Chicago.
The survey was designed by Public Agenda and fielded December 28, 2023 to January 16, 2024 by NORC at the University of Chicago in English and Spanish. The survey has a margin of error of +/- 3.5 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level. Margins of error are greater for subgroups. To inform the development of the survey, Public Agenda conducted seven demographically diverse focus groups in English and Spanish with adult residents of Chicago. Selected questions in this survey are trended with a survey of adult residents of Chicago conducted in 2013 for the Joyce Foundation by NORC. Throughout the report, “parents” refers to Chicagoans who indicate they are parents or guardians of children currently enrolled in any K-12 school in Chicago, including CPS, charter schools, private schools, or homeschools. For more detail about the methodology and for a topline with full question wording, see the methodology.
This Public Agenda project is supported by the Joyce Foundation.
Chicagoans’ top concern about the city’s public schools is that students are not learning enough. However, while parents prioritize spending on academic support, nonparents prioritize career and technical training.
Chicagoans do not believe that the city’s public schools provide high-quality, equitable education. Poverty and other challenges impacting students is the most cited reason why schools might have a lot of students who are not succeeding academically.
Chicagoans are skeptical about how CPS spends money.
Few Chicagoans identify under-enrolled schools as a problem. When asked how to address them, support is strongest for investing in neighborhoods with declining populations.
Chicagoans, especially parents, are divided over school choice.
Few Chicagoans think politicians are focused on students. Less than half think an elected school board will positively impact students. Chicagoans do not feel well-informed about the city’s schools.
Cover Photo by Allison Shelley for EDUimages
Chicagoans’ top concern about the city’s public schools is that students are not learning enough. However, while parents prioritize spending on academic support, nonparents prioritize career and technical training.
Insufficient academic learning is the issue that the largest share of Chicagoans believe needs to be addressed in the public schools.
When asked to select the three most pressing issues in the city’s public schools, Chicagoans most commonly cite students not learning enough academically. This is the most cited issue for Asian, Black, and white Chicagoans; and across all of the city’s neighborhoods. It is also the most commonly cited issue for both nonparents and parents—which includes parents and guardians of children currently enrolled in any K-12 school in Chicago. Chicagoans’ other top concerns include bullying and violence in schools and insufficient career and technical training for students; see Figure 1.
Although CPS faces a budget deficit, this is only the seventh most pressing issue for Chicagoans. And although CPS, like districts in other cities, faces long-term enrollment declines, only 4 percent of Chicagoans see under-enrolled schools as a pressing issue. In fact, 18 percent of Chicagoans are concerned about overcrowded schools, including more parents (27 percent) than nonparents (16 percent). Learn more about how Chicagoans think the city should address under-enrolled schools in the under-enrolled schools section and how they think the city should address the deficit in the budget section.
Bullying and violence in schools is the second most commonly cited issue for Black and white Chicago residents, the top issue for Latino residents, but the sixth most pressing issue for Asian residents. The second most commonly cited issue for Asian residents is recruiting and retaining teachers for difficult-to-staff positions. More Black residents than white residents are concerned about a lack of mental health staff and resources for students and a lack of free after school programs or extracurriculars; see Figure 1.
Consistent with the degree of concern they express about student learning, a 41 percent plurality of Chicago residents say their primary expectation for public schools is to prepare students to go to college. Parents in Chicago are especially focused on college preparation: 55 percent of them say their primary expectation for public schools is to prepare students to go to college, compared to 38 percent of nonparents; see Figure 2. In addition, 69 percent of Chicago parents indicate that they would be disappointed if their child did not try to pursue a college degree.
However, 25 percent of Chicago residents say their primary expectation of schools is to prepare students for good jobs, an increase from the 16 percent who said so in a 2013 survey of adult residents of Chicago conducted for the Joyce Foundation by NORC. Furthermore, 48 percent of Chicagoans believe that too many high school graduates are pushed to attend college. Although 67 percent of Chicago residents see college enrollment as an important indicator of school quality, only 35 percent see it as a very important indicator, down from 44 percent who believed it was very important in 2013. Learn more about what Chicagoans think are important indicators of school quality in the school quality section.
When asked how CPS should spend its money, Chicagoans top three priorities are spending on career and technical training, hiring more tutors or classroom aides to support students who are struggling academically, and updating supplies and technology for classrooms. Lower priorities include providing more advanced academic classes, hiring college and career counselors, and providing more resources to support students whose first language is not English; see Figure 3.
However, parents and nonparents have slightly different spending priorities, which is consistent with the higher priority that parents place on college preparation, compared to nonparents. Parents’ top spending priority is hiring tutors or classroom aides to support students who are struggling academically. For nonparents, career and technical training is the top spending priority. Parents are also more likely than nonparents to support spending on more honors and advanced academic classes.
Nearly two-thirds of Chicago residents (64 percent) say that they would support raising their own taxes if they knew their money would go directly to investing in the priorities—including 20 percent who would strongly support raising their own taxes. But few Chicagoans are confident that CPS currently spends its money effectively. And only 23 percent of Chicagoans agree that Chicago should raise taxes on individuals to help balance the city’s budget. Learn more about what Chicagoans think about CPS’s spending and how they believe the city should address its deficit in the budget section.
Majorities of both white (52 percent) and Asian residents (54 percent), and about four in ten Latino residents (43 percent) prioritize CPS spending money on more career and technical training, compared to 37 percent of Black Chicagoans. More Black Chicago residents (45 percent) prioritize CPS spending on hiring tutors or classroom aides to support students who are struggling academically.
Providing more honors and advanced academic classes was among Chicagoans’ lower spending priorities; see Figure 3. Consistent with that view, when required to choose between more honors and advanced academics or more career and technical training, the majority of city residents favor the latter, including majorities of both parents and nonparents; see Figure 4.
About half of Chicago parents (46 percent) agree that Chicago public school students have already recovered from the academic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. But 47 percent of parents disagree and the rest say they do not know. Similarly, about half of Chicago parents (49 percent) agree that Chicago public school students have already recovered from the social and emotional trauma caused by the pandemic. But 45 percent of parents disagree and the rest say they do not know.
Chicagoans do not believe that the city’s public schools provide high-quality, equitable education. Poverty and other challenges impacting students is the most cited reason why schools might have a lot of students who are not succeeding academically.
Only 3 percent of Chicago residents would give a grade of A to the city’s public schools as a whole. Just over half would give the city’s public schools a grade of C. Overall, city residents graded the public schools slightly lower in this survey than in the 2013 Joyce Foundation survey of Chicagoans. Parents are slightly more forgiving with their grades; see Figure 5.
Furthermore, only 4 percent of city residents believe that all or most public schools in Chicago provide high-quality education, while just over half believe some public schools do so and one in three believe that a few or none do; see Figure 6. Across parents and nonparents and across Asian, Black, Latino, and white Chicagoans, 7 percent or fewer believe that all or most public schools in Chicago provide high-quality education.
About two-thirds of the city’s residents (68 percent) believe that white students have access to better public schools in Chicago than students of color. This includes 78 percent of Black residents, 71 percent of Latino residents, and 70 percent of Asian residents, compared to 57 percent of white residents; see Figure 7.
When asked why they think a school might have a lot of students who are not succeeding academically, just over half of residents believe poverty and other challenges impacting students is a main reason. About four in ten believe a main reason is that the school does not have enough resources. About as many believe it is because parents are not involved enough. Fewer Chicagoans blame ineffective teachers, students not trying hard enough, or principals’ leadership; see Figure 8.
Most Chicago residents (83 percent) agree that the central office of CPS should provide the public with detailed information about school performance, including 48 percent who strongly agree. But what do Chicagoans think school performance means? When asked about the importance of ten different indicators of school quality, the four that the highest percentages of Chicagoans say are important are teacher attendance, high school graduation rates, students’ mental health and well-being, and student attendance; see Figure 9.
In the Joyce Foundation’s 2013 survey, 74 percent of Chicagoans saw college enrollment rates as an important indicator of school quality, compared to 67 percent of residents in this 2024 survey. Slightly more parents (72 percent) than nonparents (66 percent) see college enrollment as an important indicator of school quality. More Asian, Black, and Latino Chicagoans believe college enrollment rates are important indicators of school quality compared to white residents; see Figure 9.
Two-thirds of Chicagoans (65 percent) say test scores are important indicators of school quality. This is similar to the results of the 2013 survey, in which 65 percent of Chicagoans said test scores were important. Slightly more parents (72 percent) than nonparents (64 percent) say test scores are important. And more Black residents, compared to Latino and white residents, say student test scores are important; see Figure 9.
When asked in a separate question whether standardized test scores are useful measures of school quality, 54 percent of Chicagoans agree that they are useful, while 40 percent disagree, and 5 percent are unsure.
As noted above, students not learning enough academically is the issue that the largest percentage of Chicagoans believe needs to be addressed in public schools; see the learning section. When asked how best to address a public school that has been failing academically, support is strongest for providing additional teacher training, replacing teachers who are consistently under-performing, providing additional training to principals and administrators, and demanding the school develop and carry out a plan for rapid improvement; see Figure 10.
About half of the city’s residents support providing the school with more funding and letting the principal decide how to spend it. While 45 percent would support closing an underperforming school and transferring students to a higher performing school; see Figure 10. Parents and nonparents in Chicago differ very little in their views on how to address struggling schools.
Hiring more support staff and counselors is particularly appealing to Black Chicagoans. In fact, it is the third most favored solution among Black residents, but the fifth most favored solution among white and Latino residents and the eighth among Asian residents. Fewer Black and white residents support closing schools that are academically failing; see Figure 10.
Chicagoans are skeptical about how CPS spends money.
Most Chicago residents (74 percent) say they are not too confident or not confident at all that the CPS budget is being spent effectively; see Figure 11. Seventy-one percent of parents and 74 percent of nonparents say they are not too confident or not confident at all.
When forced to choose, just over half of city residents believe that CPS needs more funding from the city, state, or federal government. About four in ten believe it needs to spend the money it has more wisely. Parents are evenly split on whether CPS needs more money or needs to do a better job at spending the money it has; see Figure 12.
When residents are asked how Chicago can balance the city’s budget, none of the options presented in this survey attracted majority support, with little difference between parents and nonparents. Support is strongest for raising taxes on business and laying off administrators in the central office of CPS. Support is weakest for laying off teachers, cutting programs like arts and music, or cutting after-school programs like sports; see Figure 13.
While 38 percent of residents indicate that under-enrolled schools should be closed to balance the city’s budget, this is down from 55 percent of residents who favored this course of action in 2013. Learn more about how Chicagoans think the city should address under-enrolled schools in the under-enrolled schools section.
To balance the city’s budget, Asian (43 percent), Black (48 percent), Latino (44 percent), and white (48 percent) Chicagoans all support raising taxes on business to the same degree. And to about the same degree, few support cutting after-school programs like sports (less than 15 percent across all groups). But fewer Black Chicagoans (27 percent) support laying off administrators in the CPS central office compared to Asian (49 percent), Latino (42 percent), and white (56 percent) residents. Also, fewer Black Chicagoans (31 percent) support closing under-enrolled schools compared to white (44 percent) or Asian Chicagoans (49 percent). Latino residents (36 percent) fall in the middle.
Black residents’ wariness of these cuts to balance the city’s budget is consistent with their view that CPS in particular needs more money. While Chicago residents overall—including Asian, Latino, and white residents—are split over whether CPS needs more money or needs to spend its money more wisely, two-thirds of Black Chicagoans (65 percent) believe CPS needs more funding, compared to one-third (32 percent) who believe it needs to spend more wisely.
A modest majority of the city’s residents (59 percent) agree that Chicago should provide migrant children with access to high-quality education. Agreement is strongest among Asian residents (74 percent) but majorities of Latino (60 percent), Black (56 percent) and white (57 percent) residents agree as well.
At the same time, 66 percent of Chicagoans believe that the city is already struggling to meet children’s needs and that helping migrant children will strain its resources. This concern is modestly stronger among white (69 percent) and Black (68 percent) residents than among Latino (59 percent) residents, with Asian residents falling in between (63 percent).
Few Chicagoans identify under-enrolled schools as a problem. When asked how to address them, support is strongest for investing in neighborhoods with declining populations.
Chicago, like other cities, faces long-term public school enrollment declines. But only 4 percent of Chicagoans see under-enrolled schools as one of the most pressing issues in the city’s schools. Instead, 18 percent of Chicago residents—including 27 percent of parents—believe that overcrowded schools are a pressing issue, making it parents’ third most pressing issue; see the learning section.
This survey explained to Chicagoans that one-third of public schools in the city serve less than half of the number of students that the school was built to serve, and that some people are concerned that money is being spent to keep these partially empty schools open. Chicagoans were asked to think about the district’s budget as they considered options to address public schools with low enrollment.
To address under-enrollment, support is strongest for attracting students from crowded schools to attend schools with low enrollment (60 percent) and investing in neighborhoods with declining populations so that more families with children move there (56 percent). Letting charter schools rent unused space in school buildings with low enrollment is the third most supported way of addressing under-enrolled schools. A moratorium on school closures in Chicago is currently set to expire in 2025. About one-third of Chicago residents support closures to address under-enrolled schools, while about one-third oppose closures and about one-third neither favor nor oppose. However, about one-third of Chicago residents neither favor nor oppose each of the solutions provided in this survey; see Figure 14.
There are only modest differences by race/ethnicity in support of the various approaches to addressing under-enrolled schools. Attracting students from crowded schools to attend schools with low enrollment is the most favored solution among Chicagoans overall and among Latino (59 percent) and white (61 percent) residents. Among Black residents, support is strongest for investing in neighborhoods with declining populations so that more families with children move there (62 percent). Among Asian residents, support is strongest for letting charter schools rent unused space in school buildings with low-enrollment (65 percent).
There are no differences in support for closing under-enrolled schools by race/ethnicity. However, support for closing under-enrolled schools is especially weak on the Far North Side (32 percent), South Side (29 percent), and West Side (28 percent) and is stronger on the Near North Side (53 percent), Northwest Side (45 percent), and in the Loop (51 percent). For more about how neighborhoods were defined, see the topline.
Chicagoans, especially parents, are divided over school choice.
Half of Chicago residents (51 percent) believe that students should be able to choose to attend any public school they want, even if it means some neighborhood schools lose students and funding. But 39 percent disagree and 10 percent say they do not know; see Figure 15. Somewhat more parents (58 percent) than nonparents (49 percent) say that students should be able to choose to attend any public schools they want even at the expense of neighborhood schools.
More Asian, Black, and Latino residents than white residents agree that students should be able to choose to attend any public school they want; see Figure 15. This view is more common among residents of the Northwest Side (53 percent), the Loop (61 percent), South Side (58 percent), Far South Side (56 percent) and West Side (54 percent), and is less common on the North Side (37 percent). For more about how neighborhoods were defined, see the topline.
When forced to choose, a 64 percent majority of Chicago residents believe that the CPS central office should prioritize improving neighborhood public schools so students can attend schools close to home. By contrast, 35 percent believe the central office should prioritize giving students options to enroll in any public school they want. Most nonparents (66 percent) believe the central office should prioritize improving neighborhood schools. But parents are split on this question; see Figure 16.
Belief that the central office of CPS should prioritize giving students options to enroll in any public school they want is lower among white residents (28 percent) than Black (43 percent) and Asian (43 percent) residents, with Latino residents falling in between (34 percent).
Few Chicagoans think politicians are focused on students. Less than half think an elected school board will positively impact students. Chicagoans do not feel well-informed about the city’s schools.
A strong majority of Chicago residents (84 percent) agree that politicians and educational leaders in Chicago are too focused on petty political battles instead of what is best for students, including 56 percent who strongly agree.
Regarding the balance of power between principals and the CPS central office, two-thirds of Chicago residents (66 percent) believe that principals should be the primary decision-makers when it comes to decisions that impact a school. Fewer, 32 percent, believe that the central office of CPS should be the primary decision-maker.
Perhaps not surprisingly, more Chicago residents also trust that teachers and principals are looking out for the best interests of Chicago public school students. Fewer trust the central office of CPS or mayor; see Figure 17.
In November 2024, part of Chicago’s school board will be elected. By 2027, the entire board will be elected. But 63 percent of residents admit they are not aware that the city will be transitioning from a school board appointed by the mayor to an elected board. There is no significant difference in the percentage of parents and nonparents who are aware the board will be elected.
More white residents (42 percent) than Asian residents (24 percent) are aware of the shift to an elected board, with Black (34 percent) and Latino (34 percent) residents’ awareness falling in between. Awareness that the board will be elected is highest on the Far North Side, where 49 percent of residents say they are aware. Fewer residents of the Far South Side (33 percent), Near North Side (32 percent), Northwest Side (31 percent), Southwest Side (32 percent), Loop (26 percent), and West Side (31 percent) are aware of the transition. For more about how neighborhoods were defined, see the topline.
Chicagoans seem unenthusiastic about the elected board’s potential impact. Fewer than half (41 percent) of city residents believe an elected board will serve students better. About one-third are not sure if an elected board will serve students better or worse. More think there will be no difference than think an elected board will serve students worse. More Asian, Latino, and white residents than Black residents think an elected board will serve students better; see Figure 18.
The belief that an elected board will serve students better than the appointed board is strongest on the Far North Side (45 percent), North Side (54 percent), Near North Side (55 percent), in the Loop (47 percent), on the Southwest side (42 percent), and on the West Side (43 percent). But this belief is weakest on the South Side (24 percent) and Far South Side (29 percent).
Sixty percent of Chicago residents believe that those elected to serve on the school board should be paid. Support for paying board members is stronger among Black (77 percent) than among Latino (61 percent), Asian (58 percent) or white (49 percent) Chicagoans.
The two main sources of news about K-12 education in the city for Chicago residents are television news and word of mouth from friends or family members. Perhaps unsurprisingly, for parents specifically, the most commonly cited source of news is teachers, principals, and other public school staff, including through social media or email (42 percent), followed by television news, online or broadcast (31 percent).
Television news and word of mouth from friends or family members are among Asian, Black, Latino, and white residents’ top three main sources of news about K-12 education. More Latino and Black residents than white residents rely on public school staff and the central district office, while more white residents than Black and Latino residents rely on newspapers and radio news; see Figure 19.
Most Chicagoans do not feel very informed about the topics related to the city’s public schools that this survey asked about. Although more parents than nonparents feel informed, even among parents, there is no topic about which more than half of parents feel very or somewhat well-informed. The topic that the fewest parents feel informed about is how CPS spends money. The topic that the fewest nonparents feel informed about is the new way of measuring student and school performance that the central district office of CPS is developing; see Figure 20.
This report summarizes findings from a representative survey of 2,127 adult residents of Chicago, aged 18 years and older. The survey was designed by Public Agenda and fielded from December 28, 2023 to January 16, 2024 by NORC at the University of Chicago. This Public Agenda project is supported by the Joyce Foundation.
When referencing these findings, cite Public Agenda.
Respondents were randomly sampled using NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak panel (339 completes), along with non-probability panels Dynata (868 completes), Lucid (549 completes), Prodege (365 completes), and Amplify AAPI (6 completes). Amplify AAPI is NORC’s custom panel of Asian Americans, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islanders.
The survey was offered in English and Spanish and was administered online via the Web (2,117 completes) or over the telephone by a live interviewer (10 completes), depending on the preference the respondent provided during the panel recruitment. Respondents were offered a small monetary incentive (either $2 or $5) for completing the survey.
The sample includes 312 parents or guardians of a child or children currently enrolled in Kindergarten through 12th grade in any school in Chicago, including traditional public schools, charter schools, private schools, and homeschooling. Oversamples were collected for Chicagoans who identify as Asian, Black, and Latino; as well as K-12 parents who identify as Asian, Black, Latino, and white. The study also sought to meet quotas for adult residents in Chicago’s ten regions: Far North Side, Far South Side, Near North Side, Near South Side, North Side, Northwest Side, South Side, Southwest Side, the Loop, and West Side.
All Chicago residents in the AmeriSpeak panel were invited to the survey. If a panel household had more than one active adult panel member, only one adult panel member was selected at random. For the non-probability sample, quota buckets for demographic strata were defined to reflect known population distributions and worked with the sample providers to slowly release sample over the field period to adequately fill each.
NORC applied cleaning rules to the survey data for quality control. In total, 86 cases were removed from the final set of completed interviews based on three cleaning rules:
An additional 12 cases were removed for suspicious use of their browser back button.
The final weights are developed through three stages. First, probability and non-probability sample weights are developed separately. Second, small area estimation is leveraged to model core response variables and generate raking benchmarks. Finally, the two samples are combined through TrueNorth calibration to create the final weights. These final two stages make up NORC’s TrueNorth® Calibration. To find more on the TrueNorth Calibration please visit: https://amerispeak.norc.org/us/en/amerispeak/our-capabilities/truenorth.html.
The final stage completion rate is 28.2 percent, the weighted household panel response rate is 21.4 percent, and the weighted household panel retention rate is 78.7 percent, for a cumulative response rate of 4.7 percent.
The oversamples of Chicagoans who identify as Asian, Black, and Latino; as well as K-12 parents who identify as Asian, Black, Latino, and white were weighted down to their proportions in the overall population in the final main study weights. The survey has a margin of error of +/- 3.5 percentage points at the 95% confidence level for all Chicagoans. The margin of error for subpopulations are as follows:
Sampling error is only one of many potential sources of error and there may be other unmeasured error in this or any other survey.
Selected questions in this survey are trended with a telephone survey conducted February 7 to 28, 2013 for the Joyce Foundation by NORC. The 2013 survey was based on a representative probability sample of the Chicago residents aged 18 years or older (N=1,010). The sampling frame was constructed from random-digit dial and cell phone residential telephone directories in Chicago. Oversampling of parents with children aged five to 17 years old was done to achieve a roughly 50 percent CPS adult proportion in the sample. Further information about the 2013 survey can be found here.
To inform the development of the current survey, Public Agenda conducted seven demographically diverse online focus groups with adult residents of Chicago. Five focus groups were conducted in English in July and August 2023 and two in Spanish in October 2023. Three of the English groups and both Spanish groups were conducted with parents of K-12 school children, including parents of children in traditional public schools, charter schools, private schools, and homeschooling. The remaining two English groups were conducted with nonparents.
For a topline with full question wording and neighborhood definitions please follow this link. For other inquiries about the research, please email [email protected].
9.7.23
Administrative professionals witness firsthand the challenges that people with marketplace insurance plans face when trying to access in-network health care providers. This brief report provides a perspective from administrative professionals on how narrow networks and complex benefits affect patients and shape their own work.
Based on in-depth interviews with twelve practice managers or office staff members from primary care, mental health care, and diabetes care practices, the scope and scale of this report are limited. All twelve interviewees reported that they were employed in offices that treat people covered by marketplace plans, including nine who reported that half or more of their patients were covered by marketplace plans. Interviewees were initially asked to reflect on their experiences with patients and plans in general, with selected follow-up questions focusing specifically on marketplace plans. These findings therefore do not pertain solely to marketplace plans. The methodology section provides details about this research.
Support for this research was provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Foundation.
9.19.23
In participatory budgeting (PB), members of the public vote on how public money should be spent. Equity goals have been central to PB processes in North America, but is money allocated through PB spent equitably? Published in Local Development and Society, this peer-reviewed research examines whether PB-associated increases in public school investments have benefited students with higher economic needs.
Co-authored by Carolin Hagelskamp, Berlin School of Economics and Law; Celina Su, Brooklyn College and CUNY Graduate Center; and David Schleifer, Public Agenda, the paper examines equity in project development, voting, and budget allocations in PB in New York City.
Using data on the proportion of students in schools whose families are eligible for public assistance, the research shows that PB-funded school projects in fiscal years 2016, 2017, and 2018 did not benefit either higher- or lower-needs students compared to school projects that city council members funded on their own discretion.
However, the research shows how two strategies with the potential to advance equity were used during PB project development. Equity descriptors—i.e. project descriptions on PB ballots that emphasize a school’s economic or other needs—were used in 7.2% of school-related ballot items. Bundling—i.e. combining projects across several schools into one PB ballot item—was used in 33.9% of school-related ballot items.
The use of both equity descriptors and bundling were both found to be associated with winning PB votes. Interviews with PB volunteers and city council staff provide insight into how and why PB stakeholders in New York City use equity descriptors and bundling.
Findings are published in Carolin Hagelskamp, Celina Su, and David Schleifer (2023) “When Participatory Budgeting (PB) funds schools, who benefits? An equity analysis of PB-associated investments in NYC public schools,” Local Development & Society.
This research was supported in part by a grant to Public Agenda from the Democracy Fund. The findings are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Democracy Fund.
9.7.23
How difficult is it for people with marketplace insurance to find in-network health care providers, and how do delays and challenges in accessing care affect people’s lives? This series of reports is based on in-depth qualitative research that followed people covered by insurance plans purchased on state and federal marketplaces as they tried to find in-network care providers for either mental health or diabetes care.
Support for this research was provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the foundation.
Use the navigation bar at the top to access reports for each respective topic.
By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: Public Agenda, 1 Dock 72 Way, #6101, Brooklyn, NY, 11205, US