Report date: December 2003
Data collected: September 6-14, 2003
Survey population: 600 likely voters nationwide; three focus groups

Key Findings

• A majority of voters report they have not seen, read or heard anything recently about foreign assistance.
  
• A plurality of voters feel the U.S. government should provide both long-term and short-term assistance.
  
• “In looking at the overall issues environment, focus group respondents seem apprehensive about the current state of affairs. They cite uncertainty about the economy and mention fears and concern over terrorism and the war in Iraq.”
  
• At 36%, the economy and jobs dominate voters’ concerns three times more than “second tier” issues including retirement and social security, terrorism, education, the Iraqi war, health care, and moral values.
  
• Since 9-11, voters increasingly see a combination of short-term and long-term assistance as the most effective approach – 49% (a 13% increase from 2001) support both over one type alone.

Key Advice

• Focus groups have mixed reactions when discussing humanitarian and development assistance. They feel that foreign assistance is the right thing to do but are concerned about the costs involved.
  
• With this in mind, messaging which voters find convincing revolves around the concepts of investment and effectiveness. Specifically, voters choose self-sufficiency (the adage “teach a man to fish…” is mentioned in focus groups), investing in women and girls, a moral message of Americans being a caring and giving people (and that by helping we can build a safer world) as the most convincing rationales for increased development assistance.
  
• The key is to convey effectiveness and tangible results without resorting to a numbers game that focuses on the technical aspects of funding. Voters need to hear positive stories about foreign assistance set within a context that emphasizes the goals and effectiveness of assistance programs.
  
• Increased public accountability for humanitarian and development assistance organizations through independent audits of their finances and concrete measures of their results would give voters confidence that foreign assistance is meeting this key “effectiveness” criterion.
  
• “In examining goals for foreign assistance, voters choose providing basic education, teaching work and farming skills and promoting women and girls as some of the most important goals.” Education, in particular, is seen as the area in which the U.S. is most likely to have success.
  
• The general American public is skeptical about messages that link preventing terrorism with foreign assistance. Focus group respondents repeatedly note that the 9-11 hijackers were well-educated, middle and upper class men who became terrorists. Elites are more likely to accept arguments that link foreign assistance to terrorism prevention.
  
• Focus group participants name many causes for terrorism. Since voters see multiple reasons for terrorism, they view preventing it as a difficult goal to achieve.

Methodology
Each main split or division consisted of a national sample of adults drawn proportionate to population. Demographic characteristics (age, education, political party identification) were weighted when necessary to be consistent across splits. Most percentages in this document refer to a base sample size of at least 750 interviews, which results in a sampling error of no more than +/-3.6%. (Error decreases as opinion on a question becomes more polarized.) Unless otherwise noted, only statistically significant differences are included in this report.

Return to Index of Surveys.