unknown
Sacred Heart University Institute
Sacred Heart University Institute for Public Policy Statewide Poll - October 2021 · Oct 14–27, 2021 · US: Connecticut
Methodology
- Pollster
- Sacred Heart University Institute academic
- Sponsor
- Sacred Heart University Institute for Public Policy
- Fielded
- Oct 14–27, 2021
- Population
- adults
- Sample size
- 1,000
- Sample frame
- unknown
- Mode
- digital survey administered by GreatBlue Research with supervisory personnel and computer-aided interviewing platforms used to ensure data integrity
- Margin of error
- +/- 3.02%
- Weighting
- not disclosed
- Geography
- US: Connecticut
- Base notes
- 52 total possible questions; not all respondents answered all questions because of skip patterns
Sources
Verification note. The live Sacred Heart digital-commons PDF returns HTTP 403 to automated fetches; the report was retrieved instead from a 2023-07-25 Wayback capture of the same URL. Question wording, Yes/No/Unsure distributions and the party, race, age and gender figures were read directly from the report's 'School Policies for Transgender Youth' slide (slide 29) and its bullet summary. GreatBlue does not publish a weighting statement or a full crosstab table for these items, so only the subgroup figures the report itself calls out are recorded, and no sample frame is stated.
Figures below are transcribed from these documents. Where they disagree with the source, the source governs.
Questions asked (2)
whether school districts should develop policies to accommodate transgender youth
Should school districts develop policies to accommodate the needs of transgender youth?
Yes
50.2%
No
31.3%
Unsure
18.5%
Wording notes: 'accommodate the needs of' is a sympathetic framing of the policy | does not specify what the policies would contain | explicit unsure option offered
unclear — The item is abstract - it asks whether districts should have a policy at all, without saying what the policy would do - so agreement is cheap and the 50.2% is hard to map onto any concrete measure. 'Accommodate the needs of' leans sympathetic, but no counter-framing is offered in either direction, so the net tilt is genuinely ambiguous rather than clearly one-sided.
Subgroup figures (8)
whether schools should permit transgender athletes to play on the team matching their gender identity
Do you think schools should permit transgender athletes to play on the team associated with the gender they identify with?
Wording notes: single-statement permit/not-permit rather than a two-sided choice | affirming policy occupies the 'yes' side | explicit unsure option offered | fielded while Soule v. CIAC litigation over Connecticut's transgender athlete policy was active
neutral — Plain permit/not-permit construction naming the policy directly, with an explicit unsure option and no argument attached to either side. Worth noting for comparison that placing the affirming policy on the 'yes' side is the mirror image of Siena's construction, where the restriction is what respondents endorse - the two designs bracket the same underlying question from opposite directions.
Subgroup figures (6)