As the coronavirus pandemic enters its third year, more Americans view strengthening the U.S. economy as a top policy priority than say the same about dealing with COVID-19.

This marks a shift from last year, when the economy and the coronavirus both topped the public’s policy agenda.

At a time when Americans rate several issues as lower priorities than they did a year ago, the decline in the share citing the pandemic has been particularly steep: 60% now view dealing with the coronavirus as a top policy priority, down from 78% last year.

Currently, 71% of U.S. adults rate strengthening the economy as a top policy priority, followed by reducing health care costs (61%), addressing the coronavirus (60%), improving education (58%) and securing Social Security (57%) – according to a Pew Research Center survey of 5,128 adults conducted Jan. 10-17, 2022, on the nationally representative American Trends Panel. Smaller shares view seven of the 18 items included in the survey as top policy priorities than did so last year (four items increased).

The public’s policy agenda reflects continued concerns over the economy. With inflation at a four-decade high, large majorities of Americans say prices for food and consumer goods (89%), gas prices (82%) and the cost of housing (79%) are worse than they were a year ago. Only 28% rate economic conditions as excellent or good.

Still, fewer Americans cite strengthening the economy as a top priority than did so in 2021 (71% now vs. 80% then), and there has been a sizable decline in concern about jobs. Only about half of Americans view improving the job situation as a top priority (52%), compared with 67% last year. Prior to the COVID-19 outbreak in 2020, there had been a long-term decline in the shares citing the economy and jobs as top policy priorities.

As in the past, Republicans and Democrats differ on the importance of most policy priorities, but the partisan gaps have widened significantly for 11 of the 18 items included in the survey – including double-digit increases in partisan differences on dealing with immigration, improving the political system, improving the job situation and addressing issues within the criminal justice system.

Among those items that rank near the bottom on the 18-item priorities list today are addressing issues around race (37% top priority), strengthening the military (also 37%), dealing with global trade (35%) and dealing with drug addiction (31%). Notably, majorities rate all of these policy goals either as a “top priority” for the president and Congress or as “an important but lower priority”; for each, relatively small shares say they are “not too important” or “should not be done.” (For a closer look at the top policy priorities of partisan and demographic groups, see the detailed tables accompanying this report).

Changing public priorities: Economy, coronavirus, jobs

While the economy continues to lead the public’s list of priorities, there has been a decline in the share of Americans, especially Democrats, who view it as a top policy priority. The share of Democrats and independents who lean toward the Democratic Party who say strengthening the economy should be a top priority has fallen from 75% a year ago to 63% today.

By contrast, there has been almost no change in views among Republicans and GOP leaners (85% top priority then, 82% today).

Democrats also are less likely to rate improving the job situation as a top priority than they did last January, before President Joe Biden took office. Last year, 71% of Democrats said jobs should be a top priority; today, only about half of Democrats say this (49%). The decline has been more modest among Republicans (from 63% to 55%).

Dealing with the coronavirus outbreak is viewed as a less important priority than last year. A year ago, 78% of the public said it was a top priority; today, that share has fallen to 60%. The decline is steeper among Republicans than Democrats – 60% said the pandemic was a top priority a year ago compared with 35% today – but fewer Democrats also still view it as a major priority (93% last year, 80% now).

Republicans are more likely to rate dealing with immigration and reducing the budget deficit as top priorities than did so last year, while there has been little change in views on the importance of these issues among Democrats.

A year ago, identical shares of Republicans and Democrats (39% each) said dealing with the issue of immigration should be a top priority. Today, two-thirds of Republicans (67%) view immigration as a top priority, compared with just 35% of Democrats.

The share of Republicans who prioritize reducing the budget deficit also increased from 54% to 63%, while holding stable among Democrats (29% then vs. 31% now).

Other issues have declined as policy priorities among members of both parties since last year. The share of Americans who say addressing issues around race should be a top priority for the president and Congress has fallen from 49% to 37%. Currently, 53% of Democrats say addressing issues around race should be a top priority, compared with 72% who said the same last year. Among Republicans, who were far less likely than Democrats to rate this as a priority, there has been a 10 percentage point decline in the share rating it as a top priority (24% to 14%).

Dealing with the problems of poor people has declined as a policy priority as well. Both Republicans (25% now vs. 35% in 2021) and Democrats (58% now vs. 68% then) are now less likely to see dealing with the problems low-income families face as a top priority – though Democrats continue to prioritize this policy area far more than Republicans.

There also has been a decline in the share of the public saying that improving the political system should be a top policy priority, largely driven by Republicans. Last year, there was essentially no difference between the shares in each party who viewed improving the political system as a top priority (64% of Democrats and 60% of Republicans). Now, just 40% in the GOP say this should be a top priority, compared with 61% of Democrats.

Widest partisan gaps on addressing climate change and the coronavirus

While there are wide partisan differences on most priorities, 82% of Republicans and a smaller majority of Democrats (63%) say strengthening the economy should be a top priority for the president and Congress. Among 18 items, the economy is by far the leading priority among Republicans and is among the leading priorities for Democrats.

Comparable shares in both parties also say taking steps to make the Social Security system financially sound (58% of Republicans, 56% of Democrats) and dealing with drug addiction (32% of Democrats, 27% of Republicans) should be top priorities.

On most other issues, however, there are substantial partisan differences – especially on dealing with global climate change and the coronavirus outbreak. Large majorities of Democrats say both should be top priorities (80% coronavirus, 65% climate change) compared with just 35% and 11% of Republicans, respectively.

Beyond the economy, Republicans say the president and Congress should prioritize dealing with immigration (67%), defending against terrorism (65%), reducing the budget deficit (63%) and reducing crime (60%).

Republicans are, on average, about 25 points more likely than Democrats to say each of these issues should be at the top of the national policy agenda.

In addition to strengthening the economy, Democrats’ leading priorities are dealing with the coronavirus (80%), reducing health care costs (69%), improving education (66%) and dealing with global climate change (65%). These issues are far less salient for Republicans: Democrats are on average about 33 points more likely than Republicans to rate each as a top priority.

Policy priorities of Black, Hispanic and White Americans

Across racial and ethnic lines, strengthening the economy ranks near the top of the policy agenda. About seven-in-ten White (72%), Black (69%) and Hispanic (70%) adults say this should be a top priority this year.

But there are significant differences in the importance of a number of other issues, especially addressing issues around race, dealing with the problems of poor people and addressing the criminal justice system.

Black adults (66%) are more likely than either White (27%) or Hispanic adults (47%) to say that addressing issues around race should be a top priority.

In addition, about two-thirds of Black adults say dealing with the problems associated with poverty (68%) and criminal justice reform (67%) should get top priority this year, compared with around four-in-ten White adults who say this for both issues. Hispanic Americans express views closer to Black adults on dealing with poverty (55% of Hispanic adults say it should be top priority), but their views are closer to those of White adults on criminal justice reform (48%).

Among Democrats and Democratic leaners, Black adults are more likely than White or Hispanic adults to rate a number of issues as top policy priorities.

For example, 70% of Black Democrats rate reducing crime as a top priority, compared with 56% of Hispanic Democrats and just 34% of White Democrats. Black Democrats (71%) also are almost twice as like as White Democrats (38%) to say that addressing the criminal justice system should be a top priority; 53% of Hispanic Democrats see this as a major priority.

Dealing with climate change is the only issue which White Democrats (68%) are more likely than Black Democrats (58%) to view as a top priority.

Age and policy priorities

There are wide age differences in views of policy priorities, with older adults more likely than younger people to rate several policy priorities as more important.

There are some exceptions to this pattern, however. For example, adults under 30 (54%) are more likely to say global climate change should be a top priority than older age groups.

The widest gaps between older and younger adults are on strengthening the military and defending against terrorism. About half of adults ages 50 and older (52%) say that strengthening the military should be a top priority. Just 10% of adults under age 30 say the same. Similarly, about three-quarters of adults ages 65 and older say that defending against terrorism should be a top priority, compared with about a third of those under 30. Within both parties, older Americans are more likely to prioritize defense issues (see detailed tables).

Older adults are also more likely than younger adults to prioritize dealing with immigration, securing Social Security and strengthening the economy.

While the share of the public who says that dealing with the coronavirus outbreak should be a top priority has fallen in the last year, this decline is larger among younger Americans.

A year ago, three-quarters of adults under 50 said dealing with the coronavirus should be a top priority; today, about half (54%) say the same. There has been a similar decline among adults ages 50 to 64 who view COVID-19 as a top priority (80% in 2021, 61% today).

Older Americans are only somewhat less likely to say that dealing with the pandemic should be a top priority (80% a year ago, 72% today).

While there is a large partisan gap in views of the coronavirus as a top priority, there are also age differences within each party. Older adults in each party are generally more likely to prioritize the coronavirus than younger ones.

Today, Republicans across all ages are at least 20 points less likely than they were a year ago to say that dealing with the coronavirus outbreak should be a top priority. However, Republicans ages 65 and older are somewhat more likely to rate dealing with the coronavirus as a top goal than Republicans under 65 (44% vs. 32%).

While overwhelming majorities of Democrats ages 65 and older are as likely to say that dealing with the coronavirus should be a top priority as they were a year ago, younger Democrats are less likely to say this over the same timespan. Democrats under 50 are 17 points less likely to rate dealing with COVID-19 as a top priority (90% then, 73% now) and Democrats ages 50 to 64 are 14 points less likely to say this (99% then, 85% now).

Gender and policy priorities

Women place a higher priority than men on several policy goals, especially around the coronavirus and dealing with the problems of poor people.

Nearly two-thirds of women (65%) say that dealing with the coronavirus outbreak should be a top priority for the president and Congress this year. A smaller share of men (54%) say the same.

About half of women also say that dealing with the issue of poverty should be a top priority, while men are 10 points less likely to say this.

Larger shares of women than men also say reducing health care costs, improving education, addressing issues around race and dealing with drug addiction should be top priorities in the year ahead.

There are three topics – dealing with global trade issues, reducing the budget deficit and dealing with immigration – that men view as higher priorities than do women.

Education and policy priorities

There are substantial differences in views of policy priorities by education. Adults who do not have a four-year college degree are more likely to view several goals as top policy priorities.

Roughly four-in-ten Americans without a college degree (42%) say that strengthening the military should be a top priority, compared with about a quarter (26%) of those with a college degree.

Similarly, nearly two-thirds of those without a college degree (63%) say securing Social Security should be a top priority for the president and Congress. Less than half of those with a college degree (44%) say that issue should be a top priority.

Adults with less formal education are also more likely to prioritize many of these issues as top priorities, such as defending against terrorism, reducing crime, dealing with drug addiction, improving the job situation and reducing the budget deficit.

There are two issues – dealing with the coronavirus outbreak and dealing with climate change – where those with more formal education are more likely to say this issue should be a top priority.

This report is a collaborative effort based on the input and analysis of the following individuals:

Research team

Carroll Doherty, Director, Political Research
Jocelyn Kiley, Associate Director, Political Research
Baxter Oliphant, Senior Researcher
Bradley Jones, Senior Researcher
Andrew Daniller, Research Associate
Hannah Hartig, Research Associate
Amina Dunn, Research Analyst
Ted Van Green, Research Analyst
Vianney Gómez, Research Assistant

Communications and editorial

Nida Asheer, Communications Manager
Calvin Jordan, Communications Associate
Talia Price, Communications Assistant
Rebecca Leppert, Editorial Assistant

Graphic design and web publishing

Alissa Scheller, Information Graphics Designer
Reem Nadeem, Associate Digital Producer

Methodology

Andrew Mercer, Senior Research Methodologist
Nick Bertoni, Senior Panel Manager
Dorene Asare-Marfo, Research Methodologist
Arnold Lau, Research Methodologist

The American Trends Panel survey methodology

Overview

The American Trends Panel (ATP), created by Pew Research Center, is a nationally representative panel of randomly selected U.S. adults. Panelists participate via self-administered web surveys. Panelists who do not have internet access at home are provided with a tablet and wireless internet connection. Interviews are conducted in both English and Spanish. The panel is being managed by Ipsos.

Data in this report is drawn from the panel wave conducted from Jan. 10 to Jan. 17, 2022, and includes oversamples of Asian, Black and Hispanic Americans in order to provide more precise estimates of the opinions and experiences of these smaller demographic subgroups. These oversampled groups are weighted back to reflect their correct proportions in the population. A total of 5,128 panelists responded out of 5,850 who were sampled, for a response rate of 88%. The cumulative response rate accounting for nonresponse to the recruitment surveys and attrition is 3%. The break-off rate among panelists who logged on to the survey and completed at least one item is less than 1%. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 5,128 respondents is plus or minus 2.0 percentage points.

Panel recruitment

The ATP was created in 2014, with the first cohort of panelists invited to join the panel at the end of a large, national, landline and cellphone random-digit-dial survey that was conducted in both English and Spanish. Two additional recruitments were conducted using the same method in 2015 and 2017, respectively. Across these three surveys, a total of 19,718 adults were invited to join the ATP, of whom 9,942 (50%) agreed to participate.

In August 2018, the ATP switched from telephone to address-based recruitment. Invitations were sent to a stratified, random sample of households selected from the U.S. Postal Service’s Delivery Sequence File. Sampled households receive mailings asking a randomly selected adult to complete a survey online. A question at the end of the survey asks if the respondent is willing to join the ATP. Starting in 2020, another stage was added to the recruitment. Households that do not respond to the online survey are sent a paper version of the questionnaire, $5 and a postage-paid return envelope. A subset of the adults returning the paper version of the survey are invited to join the ATP. This subset of adults receive a follow-up mailing with a $10 pre-incentive and invitation to join the ATP.

Across the four address-based recruitments, a total of 19,822 adults were invited to join the ATP, of whom 17,472 agreed to join the panel and completed an initial profile survey. In each household, the adult with the next birthday was asked to go online to complete a survey, at the end of which they were invited to join the panel. Of the 27,414 individuals who have ever joined the ATP, 11,697 remained active panelists and continued to receive survey invitations at the time this survey was conducted.

The U.S. Postal Service’s Delivery Sequence File has been estimated to cover as much as 98% of the population, although some studies suggest that the coverage could be in the low 90% range.¹ The ATP never uses breakout routers or chains that direct respondents to additional surveys.

Sample design

The overall target population for this survey was non-institutionalized persons ages 18 and older, living in the U.S., including Alaska and Hawaii.

This study featured a stratified random sample from the ATP. The sample was allocated according to the following strata, in order: Black, Asian or Hispanic Americans, tablet households, not registered to vote, high school education or less, ages 18 to 34, uses internet weekly or less, nonvolunteers and all other categories not already falling into any of the above.

Black, Asian and Hispanic panelists were sampled with certainty. The remaining strata were sampled at rates designed to ensure that the share of respondents in each stratum is proportional to its share of the U.S. adult population to the greatest extent possible. Respondent weights are adjusted to account for differential probabilities of selection as described in the Weighting section below.

Questionnaire development and testing

The questionnaire was developed by Pew Research Center in consultation with Ipsos. The web program was rigorously tested on both PC and mobile devices by the Ipsos project management team and the Center’s researchers. The Ipsos project management team also populated test data that was analyzed in SPSS to ensure the logic and randomizations were working as intended before launching the survey.

Incentives

All respondents were offered a post-paid incentive for their participation. Respondents could choose to receive the post-paid incentive in the form of a check or a gift code to Amazon.com, or could choose to decline the incentive. Incentive amounts ranged from $5 to $20 depending on whether the respondent belongs to a part of the population that is harder or easier to reach. Differential incentive amounts were designed to increase panel survey participation among groups that traditionally have low survey response propensities.

Data collection protocol

The data collection field period for this survey was Jan. 10 to Jan. 17, 2022. Postcard notifications were mailed to all ATP panelists with a known residential address on Jan. 10, 2022. 

Invitations were sent out in two separate launches: Soft Launch and Full Launch. Sixty panelists were included in the soft launch, which began with an initial invitation sent on Jan. 10, 2022. The ATP panelists chosen for the initial soft launch were known responders who had completed previous ATP surveys within one day of receiving their invitation. All remaining English- and Spanish-speaking panelists were included in the full launch and were sent an invitation on Jan. 11, 2022.

All panelists with an email address received an email invitation and up to two email reminders if they did not respond to the survey. All ATP panelists that consented to SMS messages received an SMS invitation and up to two SMS reminders.

Data quality checks

To ensure high-quality data, the Center’s researchers performed data quality checks to identify any respondents showing clear patterns of satisficing. This includes checking for very high rates of leaving questions blank, as well as always selecting the first or last answer presented. As a result of this checking, three ATP respondents were removed from the survey dataset prior to weighting and analysis.

Weighting

The ATP data is weighted in a multistep process that accounts for multiple stages of sampling and nonresponse that occur at different points in the survey process. First, each panelist begins with a base weight that reflects their probability of selection for their initial recruitment survey. The base weights for panelists recruited in different years are scaled to be proportionate to the effective sample size for all panelists in their cohort who were active at the time of the most recent profile survey. These weights are then calibrated to align with the population benchmarks in the accompanying table to correct for nonresponse to recruitment surveys and panel attrition up to that point. A second calibration adjustment was made to account for more recent attrition. If only a subsample of panelists was invited to participate in the wave, this weight is adjusted to account for any differential probabilities of selection.

Among the panelists who completed the survey, this weight is then calibrated again to align with the population benchmarks identified in the accompanying table and trimmed at the 1st and 99th percentiles to reduce the loss in precision stemming from variance in the weights. Sampling errors and tests of statistical significance take into account the effect of weighting.

Some of the population benchmarks used for weighting come from surveys conducted prior to the coronavirus outbreak that began in February 2020. However, the weighting variables for panelists recruited in 2021 were measured at the time they were recruited to the panel. Likewise, the profile variables for existing panelists were updated from panel surveys conducted in July or August 2021.

This does not pose a problem for most of the variables used in the weighting, which are quite stable at both the population and individual levels. However, volunteerism may have changed over the intervening period in ways that made their 2021 measurements incompatible with the available (pre-pandemic) benchmarks. To address this, volunteerism is weighted using the profile variables that were measured in 2020. For all other weighting dimensions, the more recent panelist measurements from 2021 are used.

For panelists recruited in 2021, plausible values were imputed using the 2020 volunteerism values from existing panelists with similar characteristics. This ensures that any patterns of change that were observed in the existing panelists were also reflected in the new recruits when the weighting was performed.

The following table shows the unweighted sample sizes and the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at the 95% level of confidence for different groups in the survey.

Sample sizes and sampling errors for other subgroups are available upon request. In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.

Dispositions and response rates