new jersey public policy research institute

Tax and Budget

New Jersey works best when we invest in our communities. That requires a fairer tax code and a budget that prioritizes people over special interests.

Economic Justice

New Jersey will only meet its full potential if everyone has the time and resources to support themselves, their families, and their communities.

Every New Jerseyan, regardless of their income, race, or zip code, has the right to lead a healthy life. That starts with quality health coverage.

Immigrants' Rights

Immigrants are a cornerstone of New Jersey’s diverse communities and dynamic local economies. Public policy must reflect this reality.

The Latest from NJPP

New Immigrants Drive Economic Growth in New Jersey

No matter what you call them, private school vouchers are bad for new jersey, friday facts and figures: october 13, 2023, in the news, nj’s electoral maps will be redrawn this fall: what [...], calls grow for n.j. to use federal aid to [...], nj grows, and it grows more diverse.

When you give to NJPP, you power the research, communications, and partnership building necessary to make policy work for people, so every New Jerseyan can achieve their goal for a healthy and vibrant life.

Kean University

• Learning Commons
• Student Experience
• Faculty Experience
• Advisor Experience
• Cougar Link
• Academic Calendar
• Support Services
• Navigate360
• Rapid Initiative

John S. Watson Institute for Urban Policy and Research

The John S. Watson Institute for Urban Policy and Research celebrates the legacy of pioneering New Jersey Assemblyman John S. Watson . The institute comprises integrated policy centers and initiatives that support informed public policy. We serve as a vital, non-partisan resource for New Jersey decision-makers, supporting the development and implementation of real-world solutions. Learn more about our history and how we act as a catalyst for positive social change.

Meet Our Team

Urban Impact Podcast

News and Events

Publications

Sign Up for Updates!

New Jersey Urban Mayors Policy Center

The John S. Watson Institute for Public Policy and Research supports the New Jersey Urban Mayors’ Association through critical insights and analysis of policies, issues and opportunities facing New Jersey’s cities.

Center for the Positive Development of Urban Children

The Center for the Positive Development of Urban Children amplifies the voices of teachers, practitioners, families, and advocates, through strategic policy initiatives.

Center for the Urban Environment

The Center for the Urban Environment is dedicated to addressing the disproportionate amount of pollution found in low-income communities and communities of color.

Center for Health Policy Development

The Institute collectively works with health organizations and elected officials across the state to advance health policies.

Center for Economic and Workforce Development, Social Entrepreneurship, and Innovation

The Center for Economic and Workforce Development, Social Entrepreneurship, and Innovation promotes the development of resilient businesses and living-wage jobs.

Center for Urban Policy Research

The Center for Urban Policy Research (CUPR) positions equity as a lens through which to evaluate issues facing urban centers and analyze legislative, executive judicial, and regulatory actions impacting urban spaces.

Follow Us on Social

SPIA in New Jersey Launch Emphasizes That Research Makes for Sound Public Policy

The Princeton School of Public and International Affairs formally launched its SPIA in New Jersey initiative Friday, April 28, convening policy experts, legislators, state agency executives, University faculty and other researchers who stressed the importance of having valid data and analysis to drive public policy decisions.

“This morning you will hear from a distinguished group of New Jerseyans from across the political spectrum who have made meaningful contributions to residents and communities in our state,” SPIA Dean Amaney Jamal said in welcoming remarks at Robertson Hall. “Their presence here today reflects our commitment to take a research-driven, nonpartisan approach to promote policies that foster racial, economic and social justice statewide.

“I am very proud to renew the historic commitment of (SPIA) in this new era with fresh challenges, and to launch a research-based program that seeks to advance the wellbeing of my fellow Garden State residents — especially those who have been historically marginalized, exploited or underserved,” said Jamal, who counts herself among the many immigrants who are self-selected “New Jerseyans by choice.”

“Each of you is a bright star in New Jersey’s public policy constellation,” Anastasia Mann, the founding director of SPIA in New Jersey, told the audience of more than 100 people. She encouraged the crowd to mingle and share ideas, during the half-day event and afterward. “Connection is our m.o.,” she said, “in building a New Jersey in which prosperity is shared.”

In the first keynote address, Stuart Jeff Rabner, chief justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court and a member of the Princeton class of 1982, noted that data analysis has been a significant factor in how the state judicial system has improved civil and criminal proceedings.  

A researcher’s data showed that poor people were disproportionately languishing in jails because they couldn’t afford the minimum bail payment. That led the state to reform its bail system, largely removing cash requirements in all but the most serious felony cases. The jail population — particularly for the poor —has dropped significantly, Rabner said. He also described a pilot project in four counties that screens those arrested for underlying mental health problems, making referrals to health and diversionary programs.

Those initiatives and other judicial reforms stem from discussions that “benefitted from insights and the experience of subject matter experts, of practitioners, of scholars, of agencies that are engaged directly with the policy.”

“Throughout the nation, the leadership role this university plays is so widely known,” Rabner said. “And that applies to the School of Public and International Affairs as well, its professors, its graduate fellows and its students. What better place to turn to for assistance, to use your words, for research-based public policy.”

In the second keynote speech, John Farmer, director of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University and a former attorney general of New Jersey, described how New Jersey has tried to deal with school funding inequities over the years. In a “fact-challenged era,” he said, Princeton, Rutgers and other research institutions in the state have opportunities to identify facts that can’t be controverted and are needed to reach consensus on public policy issues.

“The need for the kind of research that the dean is committed to doing here at SPIA is absolutely essential, and I look forward to working with SPIA and the other universities in the state in developing the kind of hard facts and data that will drive the changes that are so urgently needed here,” Farmer said.

Also speaking was Richard Roper, chair of the Fund for New Jersey and a former SPIA official who was executive director of its former Council on New Jersey Affairs, which he said afforded a frank exchange of ideas in policy discussions informed by research and analysis. Reflecting on SPIA’s service to its students and its home state, Roper said he was excited for what lies ahead with the SPIA in New Jersey initiative.

The day featured panel discussions, the first on “Mount Laurel at 40: The Past and Future of Affordable Housing.” The discussion centered on the on-again, off-again efforts to require New Jersey communities to provide affordable housing.

Moderated by SPIA Ph.D. candidate Matt Mleczko, the panel featured Adam Gordon, associate director of the Fair Share Housing Center; Michéle Delisfort, a council member and former mayor of Union Township; Jayné, director of the state’s Office of Equity; and David Kinsey, a visiting lecturer at SPIA and a planning consultant in Princeton. Panelists discussed an array of affordable housing topics, including efforts to help renters become first-generation homeowners in their families.

Heather Howard, co-director of SPIA’s Global Health and Health Policy program, moderated the second panel, “Addressing the Maternal Health Crisis in New Jersey.”  Panelists were Elizabeth Armstrong, associate professor of sociology and public affairs at SPIA; Lisa Asare, deputy human services commissioner for the State of New Jersey; Assemblywoman Sadaf Jaffer; and SPIA alum Clarke Wheeler, who will soon be a senior policy analyst on the Reproductive Rights and Health staff at the National Women’s Law Center.

The panelists discussed the disproportionately high rates among Black New Jerseyans for maternal and infant mortality, efforts to provide more services by midwives and doulas, and the state’s recently enacted Universal Home Visit program that offers in-home health assessments for families, including those with newborns and newly adopted children.

Howard said she hoped that New Jersey’s public policy efforts will be models that other states look to for solutions.

“This is the beginning and not the end of the conversation,” she said. “We hope to lift up the exciting work that is done here in New Jersey and connect it to research on campus.”

The day’s program ended with brief remarks by SPIA graduate students Liz Brown, Dillon McNamara and Kat Phan.

William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy

Hughes Center Online Panel to Explore Impact of Mental Illness on Legal System

Poll: new jerseyans of all ages believe artificial intelligence needs oversight, john scarpa, judge salas among recipients of hughes center honors awards on nov. 9, hughes center poll finds bipartisan support for age, term limits for elected officials, stockton poll: 57% of new jerseyans smell marijuana in public, but most are ok with it.

Click on the screen to view “Responses to the Mental Health Crisis in the Justice System”.

The hughes center's vision and mission.

The William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University serves as a catalyst for research on public policy and economic issues facing southern New Jersey. The Center provides a forum for public discussion of policy issues to engage citizens and policy makers, frame policy issues in a manner that encourages broader civic engagement, and strengthen the voice of Southern New Jersey in public debate.The Center enjoys broad regional support embodied in an Advisory Board of prominent citizens throughout the region.  

The Center also sponsors research projects designed to educate New Jersey residents and policy makers about our environmental resources, community development and citizen engagement. These projects incorporate the expertise of faculty leaders at Stockton University in collaboration with members of the Hughes Center to inspire broader citizen engagement and more effective participation in public policy matters. The Hughes Center welcomes opportunities to collaborate with organizations and individuals who lead similar initiatives or wish to engage in a partnership.  Learn more

Polling Institute

Legislator-in-Residence

Hughes Center Honors

South Jersey Economic Review

Retired Judge Julio Mendez

The Ambassador William J. Hughes Collection

Washington Internship Program

• Office of the President
• Read Stockton Now
• Media Resources
• Do Business With Stockton
• University Alerts
• Health & Safety
• Statements & Policies

Stockton University 101 Vera King Farris Drive Galloway, NJ 08205-9441 (609) 652-1776 Maps, Directions & Parking Accessibility Statement

Additional Locations

• Atlantic City

Stockton University is an Equal Opportunity Institution © 2024 Stockton University

• Executive Order
• Committee Members
• Consent Decree
• Racial Profiling Policy
• Skills Assessment
• State Police Document Archives

Mr. Harris formerly served as Executive Director of the Urban and Public Policy Institute at Rowan University of New Jersey.  He is a former Assistant Secretary of State and Assistant State Treasurer for New Jersey.  He has also served as the Essex County Administrator, City Administrator for the City of Plainfield and Vice President for Government Affairs for the Metro Newark Chamber of Commerce.

What are you looking for?

Leonard D. Schaeffer is the namesake of the new USC Schaeffer Institute for Public Policy & Government Service.(Photo/Rex Gelert)

USC announces new Leonard D. Schaeffer Institute for Public Policy & Government Service

Leonard and Pamela Schaeffer’s $59 million gift establishes a new institute that will address multiple public policy issues with evidence-based research and educate new generations of scholars to help solve our nation’s policy challenges.

Leonard D. Schaeffer and his wife, Pamela, have donated $59 million to establish the USC Leonard D. Schaeffer Institute for Public Policy & Government Service, which will be anchored at USC and in the university’s new Capital Campus in Washington, D.C., university President Carol Folt announced today. The mission of the new institute is to produce research that informs evidence-based policymaking to address our nation’s most pressing issues and to educate students to be responsible and involved citizens of a true, functioning democracy.

By expanding two outstanding programs — the USC Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics and the Leonard D. Schaeffer Fellows in Government Service — USC’s new institute will be able to significantly increase its scope, size, and national and international impact.

“The newly formed Schaeffer Institute accelerates USC’s capacity to develop effective academic leaders and to forge critical high-impact partnerships with influential policymakers and organizations,” Folt said.

“There are times in the life of a university when a vision and an opportunity align to become a powerful force to serve the public good.” Folt continued, “And our students and our nation need this now more than ever.”

Folt expressed gratitude to Leonard D. Schaeffer, a longtime member of the USC Board of Trustees. “This bold and lasting commitment by the Schaeffers advances their life’s passion to impact policy that improves people’s lives and educate students to be responsible and involved citizens,” she said.

The Leonard D. Schaeffer Institute for Public Policy & Government Service is the first major research and education facility to be headquartered at the USC Capital Campus in Washington, D.C., which Folt opened in Dupont Circle last spring.

Schaeffer said the new institute has the potential to have a long-lasting impact at a time when the United States needs it most.

“Our country is experiencing a series of challenges that are unique in our history,” he said. “We are facing many difficult issues around the world — climate change, pandemics, violent conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, and world trade and economic problems, to name a few. Here at home, we are experiencing the loss of faith in science and government. The institute will have the faculty, students and postdocs to provide the analysis and facts necessary to counter erosion in public discourse and promote more effective policy solutions.”

Folt said the institute will establish a permanent presence for the university and serve as a launching pad for interdisciplinary researchers and policy experts to address national and global challenges in close collaboration with leading government and academic institutions. USC will accomplish this by bringing together the knowledge and expertise of all 23 USC schools in a coordinated and strategic way.

Folt also thanked Schaeffer for his trusted advice, support and counsel. She said Schaeffer has proven repeatedly that “he always answers the call and gives his all with spirit, full attention, knowledge, a formidable library of experience, and commitment to success and impact in everything.”

The gift for the institute is the Schaeffers’ single largest to the university. Previously, the couple founded several chaired professorships. In 2009, a significant gift established the namesake USC Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics, where scholars produce innovative research. In 2015, the Schaeffers funded the Schaeffer Fellows in Government Service program.

The Schaeffer Center ranks among the nation’s premier centers focused on health policy. For more than a decade, policymakers and stakeholders in Congress, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Government Accountability Office, the White House, the National Institutes of Health and other government entities have relied on Schaeffer Center research to inform their decision making.

“The Schaeffer Center has helped shape health policy through a rigorous, independent research model that can be applied to other academic disciplines. Meanwhile, the Schaeffer Fellows in Government Service [program] has prepared some of our nation’s brightest students to become more informed and engaged citizens,” Schaeffer said. “Housing the center and fellows program within a single institute extends their benefits to a wider group of scholars and students and will enhance USC’s ability to promote fact-based decisions that are essential to democracy.”

Schaeffer Center researchers have influenced public discourse about both health care system challenges and proposals to solve them. Policymakers have taken notice, seeking testimony from center experts and citing their findings in their policy discussions. They have testified before Congress about gaps in patients’ access and ability to afford health care. For instance, center investigators developed a portfolio of research illuminating the role of intermediaries in the pharmaceutical supply chain and increasing costs. Additional research on inefficiencies in the nation’s health care system have shaped the debate on potential reforms to reduce costs and improve patient care.

“The Schaeffer Center is focused on developing evidence-based solutions that will enable the health care system to deliver quality care — at the right time and in the right setting — at a cost that is affordable for families and our nation,” Schaeffer said in the center’s 2022 annual report. “The center is committed to informing policymakers, health care stakeholders and the public about its research and recommendations in order to move our nation toward value in health for all.”

The institute in Washington, D.C.

The gift will fund the build-out of the seventh floor of the Capital Campus, which will be dedicated to the Schaeffer Institute. The institute will also have offices on the USC University Park Campus in Los Angeles.

Through the Schaeffer Institute, USC will create additional policy research programs built on the model developed by the Schaeffer Center. The physical location of the institute in Washington, D.C., will enable scholars to more easily and frequently share fact-based policy solutions with public- and private-sector leaders.

“The Schaeffer Institute will be an invaluable resource for education and scholarship, not just for Schaeffer scholars and its affiliated experts but for faculty members and students from multiple disciplines across USC,” said Dana Goldman, dean of USC Price and co-director of the USC Schaeffer Center. “Their ability to use our Capital Campus office to more easily engage with policymakers will give them far more impact.”

Public policy training

The Schaeffers’ gift also will provide an endowment for the Leonard D. Schaeffer Fellows in Government Service . This program supports paid fellowships for undergraduate students to work in local, state and federal government offices and to network with public service leaders.

“An undergraduate fellowship in government changed the course of my career and life, and I want others to have an even more enhanced opportunity,” Schaeffer said. “It is critical to educate students to be citizens who understand how government works.”

The fellowships, which are administered by USC, are open to students across USC as well as those at four other participating universities: Harvard University; Princeton University; University of California, Berkeley; and the University of Virginia. The gift will allow at least 50 students from across the five universities to participate in the fellowship every year.

The Schaeffer Institute will include the existing USC Schaeffer Center and the Leonard D. Schaeffer Fellows in Government Service. Like the center, the institute will operate in collaboration with USC Price and the USC Alfred E. Mann School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences.

“The Schaeffer Center is a pioneer in interdisciplinary collaboration to foster effective health policies, including addressing such crucial issues as pharmaceutical innovation and access to mental health therapies,” said Vassilios Papadopoulos, dean of USC Mann and John Stauffer Dean’s Chair in Pharmaceutical Sciences. “This new institute will widen the scope of such vital, value-focused scholarship and further build on Leonard Schaeffer’s legacy of health-policy leadership.”

Goldman will become the director of the Schaeffer Institute and will remain the co-director of the Schaeffer Center with Erin Trish, associate professor in the Department of Pharmaceutical and Health Economics at USC Mann. Goldman will step down as dean of USC Price on July 1, when the institute is scheduled to open.

Erica Lovano McCann, who currently serves as USC’s assistant vice provost for undergraduate education, will become the full-time executive director of the expanded Schaeffer Fellows in Government Service program.

The new institute will position USC for optimal recruitment of students and researchers whose work is aimed at influencing policy. Under Folt’s leadership, USC has been on a trajectory to advance research and expand educational opportunities within the scope of several “ moonshots .”

The first, focused on health affairs, supports research that will improve health care and disease treatments. Sustainability includes both climate change-focused research and initiatives that will reduce the university’s carbon footprint. USC Competes leverages the university’s strengths in research, academics and athletics to provide access and opportunity for students and to recruit and retain top faculty and staff. Reimagining Athletics is designed to build the best athletic department in the nation that includes support for our student-athletes on and off the field and best-in-class facilities.

USC Frontiers of Computing is a $1 billion-plus initiative that aims to enhance advancements in computing and artificial intelligence research and educate generations of Trojans on the ethical development of AI, quantum computing and blockchain. This moonshot includes the opening of the new USC School of Advanced Computing within the USC Viterbi School of Engineering.

About Leonard D. Schaeffer

Leonard D. Schaeffer is one of the most accomplished leaders in American health care, with a career that spans the private, public and philanthropic sectors. He was the founding chairman and CEO of WellPoint, then the nation’s largest health benefits company by membership, and earlier he was the administrator of the federal Health Care Financing Administration (now the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) with responsibility for the U.S. Medicare and Medicaid programs. He is an elected member of the National Academy of Medicine, serves as the chair of the USC Health System Board and is vice chair of the Board of Trustees at the Brookings Institution. He also served on the boards of numerous business, philanthropic and professional organizations. Schaeffer was awarded an honorary degree from USC and received the inaugural USC Sol Price Award for his lifetime achievements as a business leader, policy expert and philanthropist. He is a USC trustee and chair of the Schaeffer Center’s Board of Advisors. He also is a member of USC Price’s Board of Councilors.

Related Articles

Few hospitals are promoting potentially predatory medical payment products, elevating the social justice impact of climate change, supreme court to consider ‘good neighbor’ rules that limit cross-state air pollution.

"This isn't a new weapon, it is a new world"—Margrethe Vestager delivers the 2024 Public Policy Lecture at IAS

On Tuesday, April 9, 2024, Margrethe Vestager, the Executive Vice President of the European Commission for A Europe Fit for the Digital Age and a leading global voice on technology policy and equitable innovation, delivered the 2024 IAS Public Policy Lecture in Wolfensohn Hall. This annual lecture series is organized by the School of Social Science to address topics in contemporary politics, economics, science, and society.

Vestager's lecture, entitled "This isn't a new weapon, it is a new world"—three things Oppenheimer tells us about tech , focused on lessons that can be drawn from the life and legacy of past IAS Director J. Robert Oppenheimer (1947–66) in the age of large digital platforms and artificial intelligence .

The Executive Vice President began her lecture by highlighting that, in addition to being a scientist, Oppenheimer was a humanist : “one of the first science men to have asserted that technology and humanity can only go together.” She described Oppenheimer’s thinking in this regard as being “very modern […] at a not-so-modern time.”

She went on to state that “before many others, Oppenheimer understood that some technologies do not simply add something to the world. They change it completely. I guess this is what my countryman Niels Bohr means when, in [Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer ] movie, he tells Oppenheimer: ‘this is not a new weapon, it is a new world.’”

The first lesson that Vestager drew from Oppenheimer concerned platform regulation. She described how online platforms often use sophisticated algorithms to push out content to millions of users “not because it is true or relevant, but because it is emotionally viral.” She argued against the cliché that regulation stifles innovation, instead stating that “laws exist to mitigate the risks, and open up markets that have been closed down.” She provided a run-down of recent European platform regulation initiatives, including the 2018 General Data Protection Regulation, which enacted the right to privacy, and the 2022 Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles, which set out to ensure that the rights that individuals have had for decades in the physical world have equivalents in the digital world.

The second lesson inspired by Oppenheimer was related to artificial intelligence. Vestager asked: “how do we ensure this technology reflects the societies that we want to have, instead of amplifying the flaws, and injustices, of the ones we already have?” She went on to describe how the outline of what would become the first ever worldwide law on artificial intelligence was drawn in Brussels in 2021. She made a comparison between this work and that conducted in the United States by Alondra Nelson , Harold F. Linder Professor in the Institute for Advanced Study’s School of Social Science . Nelson’s efforts saw the White House adopt its blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights in 2022. Vestager concluded this portion of her lecture by highlighting the need for a shared democratic model of AI development and calling for investment in universal AI governance.

The third lesson focused on economic security. Vestager argued that the race to develop and supply the clean technologies that the world needs most, such as wind and solar power, is changing the global economy and jeopardizing economic security. She proposed that “a list of trustworthiness criteria” for clean technology suppliers should be developed, which could include “environmental footprint, labor rights, cybersecurity and data security.”

Vestager concluded by shining a light on Oppenheimer’s characteristic cross-disciplinary approach, exemplified at the Institute for Advanced Study when he hosted artists such as T.S. Eliot and invited historians such as George F. Kennan to join as Members. “Crossing disciplines improves chances of success,” she said. “The excellence and the success of this place proves it a million times. […] Oppenheimer knew that we cannot dissociate technology from the world it was born in. The scientific discovery, from the impact it may have on humanity. How technology is made, from how it should be used.” 

The lecture was followed by a Q&A led by Alondra Nelson . After the lecture, Vestager stopped by Rubenstein Commons to sketch out the achievements of ten years of EU tech regulation on one of the ubiquitous IAS blackboards. Visit the IAS Instagram page to watch the video. 

The 2024 Public Policy Lecture was funded by an anonymous gift and curated by the School of Social Science.

Oppenheimer’s Second Act

IAS Scholars on Artificial Intelligence

The Right Way to Regulate AI

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Mental health and the pandemic: What U.S. surveys have found

The coronavirus pandemic has been associated with worsening mental health among people in the United States and around the world . In the U.S, the COVID-19 outbreak in early 2020 caused widespread lockdowns and disruptions in daily life while triggering a short but severe economic recession that resulted in widespread unemployment. Three years later, Americans have largely returned to normal activities, but challenges with mental health remain.

Here’s a look at what surveys by Pew Research Center and other organizations have found about Americans’ mental health during the pandemic. These findings reflect a snapshot in time, and it’s possible that attitudes and experiences may have changed since these surveys were fielded. It’s also important to note that concerns about mental health were common in the U.S. long before the arrival of COVID-19 .

Three years into the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States , Pew Research Center published this collection of survey findings about Americans’ challenges with mental health during the pandemic. All findings are previously published. Methodological information about each survey cited here, including the sample sizes and field dates, can be found by following the links in the text.

The research behind the first item in this analysis, examining Americans’ experiences with psychological distress, benefited from the advice and counsel of the COVID-19 and mental health measurement group at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

At least four-in-ten U.S. adults (41%) have experienced high levels of psychological distress at some point during the pandemic, according to four Pew Research Center surveys conducted between March 2020 and September 2022.

Young adults are especially likely to have faced high levels of psychological distress since the COVID-19 outbreak began: 58% of Americans ages 18 to 29 fall into this category, based on their answers in at least one of these four surveys.

Women are much more likely than men to have experienced high psychological distress (48% vs. 32%), as are people in lower-income households (53%) when compared with those in middle-income (38%) or upper-income (30%) households.

In addition, roughly two-thirds (66%) of adults who have a disability or health condition that prevents them from participating fully in work, school, housework or other activities have experienced a high level of distress during the pandemic.

The Center measured Americans’ psychological distress by asking them a series of five questions on subjects including loneliness, anxiety and trouble sleeping in the past week. The questions are not a clinical measure, nor a diagnostic tool. Instead, they describe people’s emotional experiences during the week before being surveyed.

While these questions did not ask specifically about the pandemic, a sixth question did, inquiring whether respondents had “had physical reactions, such as sweating, trouble breathing, nausea, or a pounding heart” when thinking about their experience with the coronavirus outbreak. In September 2022, the most recent time this question was asked, 14% of Americans said they’d experienced this at least some or a little of the time in the past seven days.

More than a third of high school students have reported mental health challenges during the pandemic. In a survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from January to June 2021, 37% of students at public and private high schools said their mental health was not good most or all of the time during the pandemic. That included roughly half of girls (49%) and about a quarter of boys (24%).

In the same survey, an even larger share of high school students (44%) said that at some point during the previous 12 months, they had felt sad or hopeless almost every day for two or more weeks in a row – to the point where they had stopped doing some usual activities. Roughly six-in-ten high school girls (57%) said this, as did 31% of boys.

On both questions, high school students who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, other or questioning were far more likely than heterosexual students to report negative experiences related to their mental health.

Mental health tops the list of worries that U.S. parents express about their kids’ well-being, according to a fall 2022 Pew Research Center survey of parents with children younger than 18. In that survey, four-in-ten U.S. parents said they’re extremely or very worried about their children struggling with anxiety or depression. That was greater than the share of parents who expressed high levels of concern over seven other dangers asked about.

While the fall 2022 survey was fielded amid the coronavirus outbreak, it did not ask about parental worries in the specific context of the pandemic. It’s also important to note that parental concerns about their kids struggling with anxiety and depression were common long before the pandemic, too . (Due to changes in question wording, the results from the fall 2022 survey of parents are not directly comparable with those from an earlier Center survey of parents, conducted in 2015.)

Among parents of teenagers, roughly three-in-ten (28%) are extremely or very worried that their teen’s use of social media could lead to problems with anxiety or depression, according to a spring 2022 survey of parents with children ages 13 to 17 . Parents of teen girls were more likely than parents of teen boys to be extremely or very worried on this front (32% vs. 24%). And Hispanic parents (37%) were more likely than those who are Black or White (26% each) to express a great deal of concern about this. (There were not enough Asian American parents in the sample to analyze separately. This survey also did not ask about parental concerns specifically in the context of the pandemic.)

Looking back, many K-12 parents say the first year of the coronavirus pandemic had a negative effect on their children’s emotional health. In a fall 2022 survey of parents with K-12 children , 48% said the first year of the pandemic had a very or somewhat negative impact on their children’s emotional well-being, while 39% said it had neither a positive nor negative effect. A small share of parents (7%) said the first year of the pandemic had a very or somewhat positive effect in this regard.

White parents and those from upper-income households were especially likely to say the first year of the pandemic had a negative emotional impact on their K-12 children.

While around half of K-12 parents said the first year of the pandemic had a negative emotional impact on their kids, a larger share (61%) said it had a negative effect on their children’s education.

• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Happiness & Life Satisfaction
• Medicine & Health
• Teens & Youth

How Americans View the Coronavirus, COVID-19 Vaccines Amid Declining Levels of Concern

Online religious services appeal to many americans, but going in person remains more popular, about a third of u.s. workers who can work from home now do so all the time, how the pandemic has affected attendance at u.s. religious services, economy remains the public’s top policy priority; covid-19 concerns decline again, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

Poll: Election interest hits new low in tight Biden-Trump race

The share of voters who say they have high interest in the 2024 election has hit a nearly 20-year low at this point in a presidential race, according to the latest national NBC News poll , with majorities holding negative views of both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump.

The poll also shows Biden trimming Trump’s previous lead to just 2 points in a head-to-head contest, an improvement within the margin of error compared to the previous survey, as Biden bests Trump on the issues of abortion and uniting the country, while Trump is ahead on competency and dealing with inflation.

And it finds inflation and immigration topping the list of most important issues facing the country, as just one-third of voters give Biden credit for an improving economy.

But what also stands out in the survey is how the low voter interest and the independent candidacy of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. could scramble what has been a stable presidential contest with more than six months until Election Day. While Trump holds a 2-point edge over Biden head to head, Biden leads Trump by 2 points in a five-way ballot test including Kennedy and other third-party candidates.

“I don’t think Biden has done much as a president. And if Trump gets elected, I just feel like it’s going to be the same thing as it was before Biden got elected,” said poll respondent Devin Fletcher, 37, of Wayne, Michigan, a Democrat who said he’s still voting for Biden.

“I just don’t feel like I have a candidate that I’m excited to vote for,” Fletcher added.

Another poll respondent from New Jersey, who declined to provide her name and voted for Biden in 2020, said she wouldn’t be voting in November.

“Our candidates are horrible. I have no interest in voting for Biden. He did nothing. And I absolutely will not vote for Trump,” she said.

Democratic pollster Jeff Horwitt of Hart Research Associates, who conducted the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff of Public Opinion Strategies, said, “Americans don’t agree on much these days, but nothing unites the country more than voters’ desire to tune this election out.”

The poll was conducted April 12-16, during yet another turbulent time in American politics, including the  beginning of Trump’s criminal trial  in New York and new attacks and heightened tensions  in the Middle East.

According to the poll, 64% of registered voters say they have high levels of interest in November’s election — registering either a “9” or a 10” on a 10-point scale of interest.

That’s lower than what the NBC News poll showed at this time in the 2008 (74%), 2012 (67%), 2016 (69%) and 2020 (77%) presidential contests.

The question dates to the 2008 election cycle. The lowest level of high election interest in the poll during a presidential cycle was in March 2012 — at 59%. But it quickly ticked up in the next survey.

This election cycle, high interest has been both low and relatively flat for months, according to the poll.

McInturff, the Republican pollster, says the high level of interest in the poll has “always been a signal for the level of turnout” for a presidential contest.

“It makes it very hard for us to predict turnout this far in advance of November, but every signal is turnout will be a lower percentage of eligible voters than in 2020,” he said.

By party, the current poll shows 70% of self-identified Republicans saying they have high interest in the coming election, compared with 65% of Democrats who say so.

Independents are at 48%, while only 36% of voters ages 18 to 34 rate themselves as highly interested in the election.

“They just aren’t low interest,” McInturff said of young voters. “They are off-the-charts low.”

NBC News poll: Frequently asked questions

Professional pollsters at a Democratic polling firm (Hart Research Associates) and a Republican firm (Public Opinion Strategies) have worked together to conduct and operate this poll since 1989. (Coldwater Corporation served as the Republican firm from 1989-2004.)

The polling firms employ a call center, where live interviewers speak by cell phone and telephone with a cross section of (usually) 1,000 respondents. The respondents are randomly selected from national lists of households and cell numbers. Respondents are asked for by name, starting with the youngest male adult or female adult in the household.

One of the common questions that critics ask of polls is, "I wasn't interviewed, so why should this poll matter?” By interviewing 1,000 respondents and applying minimal weights based on race, ethnicity, age, gender, education and the 2020 presidential vote, the poll achieves a representative sample of the nation at large – with a margin of error at a 95% confidence level.

NBC News editors and reporters — along with the pollsters at Hart Research and Public Opinion Strategies — all work to formulate the questions to try to capture the news and current events NBC is trying to gauge. Both Hart Research and Public Opinion Strategies work to ensure the language and placement of the questions are as neutral as possible.

Biden trims Trump’s lead

The poll also finds Trump narrowly ahead of Biden by 2 points among registered voters in a head-to-head matchup, 46% to 44% — down from Trump’s 5-point advantage in January, 47% to 42%.

The movement, which is within the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, is consistent with what other national polls have found in the Trump-Biden race.

Trump’s biggest advantages are among men (53% to 37%), white voters (54% to 37%) and white voters without college degrees (65% to 25%).

Biden’s top advantages are among Black voters (71% to 13%), women (50% to 39%) and Latinos (49% to 39%).

The poll shows the two candidates are essentially tied among independents (Biden 36%, Trump 34%) and voters ages 18-34 (Biden 44%, Trump 43%). One of the big polling mysteries this cycle is whether young voters have defected from Biden (as the NBC News poll has found over multiple surveys) or whether Democrats have maintained their advantage among that demographic.

When the ballot is expanded to five named candidates, Biden takes a 2-point lead over Trump: Biden 39%, Trump 37%, Kennedy 13%, Jill Stein 3% and Cornel West 2%.

Again, the result between Biden and Trump is within the poll’s margin of error.

Notably, the poll finds a greater share of Trump voters from the head-to-head matchup supporting Kennedy in the expanded ballot compared with Biden voters, different from the results of some other surveys.

(Read more here about how Kennedy's candidacy affe cts the 2024 race, according to the poll.)

The president’s approval rating ticks up to 42%

In addition, the poll found 42% of registered voters approving of Biden’s overall job performance — up 5 points since January’s NBC News poll, which found Biden at the lowest point of his presidency.

Fifty-six percent of voters say they disapprove of the job he has done, which is down 4 points from January.

Biden’s gains over the past few months have come from key parts of his 2020   base, especially among Democrats and Black voters. But he continues to hold low ratings among Latinos (40% approval), young voters (37%) and independents (36%).

“The data across this poll show that Joe Biden has begun to gain some ground in rebuilding his coalition from 2020,” said Horwitt, the Democratic pollster. “The question is whether he can build upon this momentum and make inroads with the groups of voters that still are holding back support.”

But McInturff, the GOP pollster, points out that the only recent presidents   who lost re-election had approval ratings higher than Biden’s at this point in the election cycle: George H.W. Bush (43%) and Trump (46%).

“President Biden has a precarious hold on the presidency and is in a difficult position as it relates to his re-election,” McInturff said.

On the issues, 39% of voters say they approve of Biden’s handling of the economy (up from 36% in January), 28% approve of his handling of border security and immigration, and just 27% approve of his handling of the Israel-Hamas war (down from 29% in January).

Voters gave Biden his highest issue rating on   addressing student loan debt, with 44% approving of his handling of the issue, compared with 51% who say they disapprove.

Biden leads on abortion and unity; Trump leads on inflation and competency

The NBC News poll asked voters to determine which candidate they thought is better on several different issues and attributes.

Biden holds a 15-point advantage over Trump on dealing with the issue of abortion, and he is ahead by 9 points on having the ability to bring the country together — though that is down from his 24-point advantage on that issue in the September 2020 NBC News poll.

Trump, meanwhile, leads in having the ability to handle a crisis (by 4 points), in having a strong record of accomplishments (by 7 points), in being competent and effective (by 11 points), in having the necessary mental and physical health to be president (by 19 points) and in dealing with inflation and the cost of living (by 22 points).

Inflation, immigration are the top 2024 issues

Inflation and the cost of living top the list of issues in the poll, with 23% of voters saying they’re the most important issue facing the country.

The other top voters is   immigration and the situation at the border (22%) — followed by   threats to democracy (16%), jobs and the economy (11%), abortion (6%) and health care (6%).

In addition, 63% of voters say their families’ incomes are falling behind the cost of living — essentially unchanged from what the poll found in 2022 and 2023.

And 53% of voters say the country’s economy hasn’t improved, compared with 33% who say that it has improved and that Biden deserves some credit for it and another 8% who agree the economy has improved but don’t give him credit for it.

“If I look back to when I had all three of my children in the house — we only have one child left in the house now, and we’re spending more now than what we did when we had a family of five,” said poll respondent Art Fales, 45, of Florida, who says he’s most likely voting for Trump.

But on a separate question — is there an issue so important that you’ll vote for or against a candidate solely on that basis? — the top responses are protecting democracy and constitutional rights (28%), immigration and border security (20%) and abortion (19%).

Indeed, 30% of Democrats, 29% of young voters and 27% of women say they are single-issue voters on abortion.

“I have a right to what I do with my body,” said poll respondent Amanda Willis, 28, of Louisiana, who said she’s voting for Biden. “And I don’t believe that other people should have the ability to determine that.”

Other poll findings

• With Trump’s first criminal trial underway, 50% of voters say he is being held to the same standard as anyone else when it comes to his multiple legal challenges. That compares with 43% who believe he’s being unfairly targeted in the trials. 
• 52% of voters have unfavorable views of Biden, while 53% share the same views of Trump.
• And Democrats and Republicans are essentially tied in congressional preference, with 47% of voters preferring Republicans to control Congress and 46% wanting Democrats in charge. Republicans held a 4-point lead on this question in January.

The NBC News poll of 1,000 registered voters nationwide — 891 contacted via cellphone — was conducted April 12-16, and it has an overall margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

Mark Murray is a senior political editor at NBC News.

Sarah Dean is a 2024 NBC News campaign embed.

We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!

Internet Archive Audio

• This Just In
• Grateful Dead
• Old Time Radio
• 78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
• Audio Books & Poetry
• Computers, Technology and Science
• Music, Arts & Culture
• News & Public Affairs
• Spirituality & Religion
• Radio News Archive

• Flickr Commons
• Occupy Wall Street Flickr
• NASA Images
• Solar System Collection
• Ames Research Center

• All Software
• Old School Emulation
• MS-DOS Games
• Historical Software
• Classic PC Games
• Software Library
• Kodi Archive and Support File
• Vintage Software
• CD-ROM Software
• CD-ROM Software Library
• Software Sites
• Tucows Software Library
• Shareware CD-ROMs
• Software Capsules Compilation
• CD-ROM Images
• ZX Spectrum
• DOOM Level CD

• Smithsonian Libraries
• FEDLINK (US)
• Lincoln Collection
• American Libraries
• Canadian Libraries
• Universal Library
• Project Gutenberg
• Children's Library
• Biodiversity Heritage Library
• Books by Language
• Additional Collections

• Prelinger Archives
• Democracy Now!
• Occupy Wall Street
• TV NSA Clip Library
• Animation & Cartoons
• Arts & Music
• Computers & Technology
• Cultural & Academic Films
• Ephemeral Films
• Sports Videos
• Videogame Videos
• Youth Media

Search the history of over 866 billion web pages on the Internet.

Mobile Apps

• Wayback Machine (iOS)
• Wayback Machine (Android)

Browser Extensions

Archive-it subscription.

• Explore the Collections
• Build Collections

Save Page Now

Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future.

Please enter a valid web address

• Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape

Blacks In New Jersey

Bookreader item preview, share or embed this item, flag this item for.

• Graphic Violence
• Explicit Sexual Content
• Hate Speech
• Misinformation/Disinformation
• Marketing/Phishing/Advertising
• Misleading/Inaccurate/Missing Metadata

plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews

Download options, in collections.

Uploaded by NewarkLibrary on September 16, 2022

SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)