October

2014

8th Annual Lewis County

Survey of the Community

Table of Contents
Section 1 Introduction.................................................................4
Section 1.1 Methodologyth How This Data Was Collected................................. 4
Table 1 Response Rates for the 8 Annual Lewis County Survey..................................................................................... 5

Section 1.2 Demographics of the Sample Who was Interviewed?...................5

Table 2 Demographics of the October 2014 Lewis County Sample.................................................................................... 6
th
Table 3 Geographic Distribution of Participants in the 8 Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community.................... 7
Table 4 Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes ............................................................................................................8

Section 2 Summary of Findings............................................... 10

Section 2.1 Highlights Five Study Findings of Particular Interest................ 10
Section 2.2 Longevity of Living in Lewis County............................................... 12
Section 2.3 Quality of Life in Lewis County.......................................................12
Table 5 Summary of 18 Key Quality of Life Indicators (2014 Results)...........................................................................12

Section 2.4 Internet Access and Use................................................................ 15

Table 6 Summary of Internet Access among Lewis County Residents............................................................................. 16

Section 2.5 Transportation................................................................................ 16

Section 2.6 Healthcare......................................................................................16
Section 2.7 The Local Economy....................................................................... 17
Section 2.8 Education Issues.... 18
Section 2.9 County and State Government, and Political Issues......................19
Section 2.10 Familiarity with the Center for Community Studies at JCC... 19

Section 3 Detailed Statistical Results .....................................20

Table 7 Sample Sizes for each of Eight Years of the Lewis County Annual Survey......................................................... 20
Table 8 Sample Size and Margin of Error for Common Demographic Subgroups to be Compared in 2014.................... 21

Framing a Statistic Providing Perspective to Better Understand, Interpret, and Use this Survey Data......21

Section 3.1 Longevity of Living in Lewis County............................................... 22

Table 9 How long have you lived in Lewis County?....................................................................................................... 22
Table 10 Do you expect that you will still be living in Lewis County in five years?............................................................ 23

Section 3.2 Quality of Life Issues Summary of Trends (2007-2014)...24

Table 11 Trends in Issues in Lewis County Years 2007-2014 % Indicating Excellent or Good.............................24
Table 12 Trends in Issues in Lewis County Years 2007-2014 % Indicating Poor................................................... 24

Section 3.3 Quality of Life Issues Summary of 2014 Results...25

Table 13 SUMMARY Quality of Life Issues in Lewis County Year 2014..................................................................... 25
Graphs of Most Positively and Negatively Perceived Quality of Life Issues in Lewis County ..............................................26

Section 3.4 Satisfaction with Overall Quality of Life in Lewis County Key
Driver Analysis Factor(s) that have the most influence.... 27
Table 14 Correlation Analysis Among Quality of Life Issues in Lewis County (Year 2014)........................................... 28
Table 15 Factor Analysis Quality of Life Issues in Lewis County Five Key Lewis County Community-Satisfaction
Factors (Year 2014)... 29
Table 16 Regression Modeling and Relative Importance Which community-satisfaction factors contribute most
to residents attitudes about the Overall Quality of Life in Lewis County? (Year 2014)...................................... 30

Section 3.5 Detailed Analysis of Individual Quality of Life Indicators..... 31

Table 17 Opportunities for Youth....................................................................................................................................... 31
Table 18 Cultural/Entertainment Opportunities ................................................................................................................ 32
Table 19 Cost of Energy.................................................................................................................................................... 33
Table 20 Healthcare Access.............................................................................................................................................. 34
Table 21 Healthcare Quality ............................................................................................................................................. 35
Table 22 Public Outdoor Recreational Opportunities.........................................................................................................36
Page 1

Table 23 Quality of the Environment................................................................................................................................. 37

Table 24 County Government........................................................................................................................................... 38
Table 25 Town and Village Government........................................................................................................................... 39
Table 26 Real Estate Taxes ............................................................................................................................................. 40
Table 27 Policing and Crime Control................................................................................................................................. 41
Table 28 Availability of Good Jobs.................................................................................................................................... 42
Table 29 Shopping Opportunities ..................................................................................................................................... 43
Table 30 Quality of K-12 Education .................................................................................................................................. 44
Table 31 Overall State of the Local Economy................................................................................................................... 45
Table 32 Overall Quality of Life in the Area ...................................................................................................................... 46
Table 33 Availability of Care for the Elderly ...................................................................................................................... 47
Table 34 Access to Higher Education................................................................................................................................48
Table 35 Most important issue facing the residents of Lewis County at the present time?............................................... 49
Table 36 The presence of Fort Drum in the local area improves the overall quality of life for local residents?................. 52

Section 3.6 Internet Access and Use ............................................................... 53

Table 37 In the past 30 days have you used the Internet at all?................................................................................... 53
Table 38 Do you have access to the Internet at home? (among Internet users)............................................................... 54
Table 39 Do you access the Internet elsewhere, like at work, family and friends' homes, or public locations?................ 55
Table 40 SUMMARY Internet connection types at home? Multiple options available? Satisfaction with service?....... 56
Table 41 Do you access the Internet at home from a wired service (typically cable or DSL)?.......................................... 57
Table 42 Were you able to choose from more than one provider of wired service at your home?................................... 58
Table 43 How would you rate the quality of your wired service at home?......................................................................... 59
Table 44 Do you access the Internet using mobile service through a cellular provider (smartphone or tablet)?.............. 60
Table 45 Were you able to choose from more than one provider for mobile (cellular) access?........................................ 61
Table 46 How would you rate the quality of your mobile/cellular for Internet service at home?........................................ 62
Table 47 Do you access the Internet using a satellite dish at home?................................................................................63
Table 48 How would you rate the quality of your satellite service for Internet access at home?.......................................64
Table 49 Which of the following reasons for not using the Internet at home describe you?..............................................65

Section 3.7 Transportation................................................................................ 66

Table 50 Has a lack of transportation kept you from securing employment or meeting your daily needs?....................... 66
Table 51 What would you say is the primary transportation issue that you've had?..........................................................67
Table 52 Would you use the Countys public transportation system for a daily commute to Utica?..................................68

Section 3.8 Healthcare......................................................................................69

Table 53 Currently have health insurance?....................................................................................................................... 69
Table 54 Ignored healthcare in past 12 months because of cost?.................................................................................... 70
Table 55 Which of the following most closely describes your opinion about the Affordable Care Act?.............................71
Table 56 How has the Affordable Care Act affected the healthcare of you and your family?............................................72
Table 57 Prefer that Lewis County General Hospital remain county-owned, or prefer that it become a nonprofit, notcounty-owned hospital?...................................................................................................................................... 73
Table 58 If Lewis County General Hospital needed additional funding to conduct operations, we are interested in what
amount you would be willing to pay to support the hospital that would be added to your annual county tax bill.
Please tell me which of the following five statements is closest to your opinion.................................................74

Section 3.9 The Local Economy....................................................................... 75

Table 59 Employment Status Current Occupation......................................................................................................... 75
Table 60 When considering your familys personal financial situation- has it gotten better, stayed about the same,
or gotten worse in the past 12 months?..............................................................................................................77
Table 61 Have the federal spending cuts this past year caused by "sequestration" and the government shutdown
negatively affected the financial situation for you or your family?.......................................................................78
Table 62 Estimate how many hours per month that you volunteer for community service activities.... 79
Table 63 "Tourism has a beneficial impact on our local economy."...................................................................................81
Table 64 How much county funding do you think that Lewis County should be investing in annual tourism promotion
and marketing?................................................................................................................................................... 82

Section 3.10 Education Issues..........................................................................83

Table 65 Lewis County schools are adequately preparing our youth for the technology/economy of the future............ 83
Table 66 Which of the following most closely describes your opinion about the Common Core Learning Standards?.... 84

Section 3.11 County and State Government, and Political Issues....................85

Table 67 How would you classify your political beliefs?................................................................................................ 85
Table 68 "I feel that I am adequately informed about issues facing the County."........ 86
Table 69 "I feel that my local elected county officials represent my concerns effectively.".... 87
Table 70 Do you support or oppose the increase in the minimum wage that has been approved by New York State
from its current level of $8/hour to a rate of $9/hour that will start on January 1, 2016?........88
Table 71 Which of the following is closest to your opinion about legalization of marijuana?.........89
Page 2

Section 3.12 Familiarity with the Center for Community Studies at JCC.......... 90
Table 72 Have you ever heard of the Center for Community Studies at JCC before this survey?.................................... 90

Section 4 Final Comments .......................................................91

Appendix Technical Comments Assistance in
Interpretation of the Statistical Results................. 92
Table 73 Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes ........................................................................................................93
Table 74 More Detailed Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes and Varying Sample Proportions.............................94

The Survey Instrument ................................................................98

Acknowledgements
Student Associates:
Sung
Jennifer
Mallory
Alana
Josh
Kristyn
Patrick
Chrystal
Deleha

Ahn
Allen
Babcock
Bell
Biggs
Chiappone
Crane
Cronk
Decker

Wartika
Clarissa
Justin
Elizabeth
Thomas
Laura
Ashley
Amanda
Ben

Edwards
Flaherty
Frechette
Gantt
Gitlin
Grohn
Hall
Hirschey
Luptak

Debra
Kylee
Mason
Karl
Andrea
Zach
Jillian
Jennifer
Julian

Lynch
Lynch
Maitland
Marshall
McGrath
Miller
Primicias
Reifke
Rodriguez-Ortiz

Taylor
Alanna
Angela
Desiree
Anthony
Skylah
Gates
Madison
Kayleigh

Russell
Savage
Scherer
Smith
Thompson
Thompson
Thruston
Tierney
Willis

Faculty Supervisors:
Mr. Joel LaLone .....................................................................................Professor of Mathematics and
Research Coordinator for the Center for Community Studies
Mr. Michael K. White ..................................................................................... Professor of Mathematics
Mr. Larry Danforth .......................................................................... Assistant Professor of Mathematics
Dr. Ray Petersen .............................................................................. Professor of Political Science and
Director of the Center for Community Studies
The Advisory Board of the Center for Community Studies:
Dennis Affinati
Donald Alexander
Bruce Armstrong
Mary Corriveau
John W. Deans
Frank Doldo
Tom Finch
Fred Garry
Joel LaLone

Tracy Leonard
Michael MacKinnon
Carole McCoy
Carl McLaughlin
Ray Petersen
Lisa Porter
Lynn Sprott
Daniel Villa
Eric Virkler

For more information, please contact

The Center for Community Studies at (315)-786-2488
for additional information.
The report is available free online at
www.sunyjefferson.edu/community-business/center-community-studies
The Center for Community Studies
at Jefferson Community College
1220 Coffeen Street
Watertown, New York 13601
E-mail: rpetersen@sunyjefferson.edu
Website: www.sunyjefferson.edu/community-business/center-community-studies
Page 3

The Eighth Annual Lewis County Survey of

the Community
Based on 328 telephone interviews conducted October 27 October 29, 2014

Section 1 - Introduction
The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College was established in October 1999, to engage
in a variety of community-building and community-based research activities and to promote the productive discussion of
ideas and issues of significance to our region. In collaboration with community partners, the Center conducts research
that will benefit the local population, and engages in activities that reflect its commitment to enhancing the quality of life of
the area.
The annual Lewis County Survey of the Community is one specific activity conducted each year by the Center to
gauge the attitudes and opinions of a representative sample of Lewis County adult citizens. This activity results in a
yearly updated inventory of the attitudes and opinions of adult citizens of Lewis County. This survey in Lewis County has
been completed each of the eight years, 2007 through 2014.
This document is a summary of the results of the Eighth Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community, including
comparisons with the results of the survey from its first seven years. Further, the key community demographic
characteristics of Gender, Age, Education Level, and Household Income Level are investigated as potential explanatory
variables that may be correlated with quality-of-life indicators for the region, using the 2014 survey results. It is standard
methodology with professional surveys to provide this more detailed information to the reader information that may
assist in explaining the overall findings by reporting the results for all subgroups within these key demographic variables.
The results provide important information about contemporary thinking of citizens; and, over time, will continue to provide
important baseline and comparative information as well.

Section 1.1 Methodology How This Data Was Collected

The original survey instrument used in this annual survey was constructed in the fall of 2007 through the
combined efforts of the professional staff of the Center for Community Studies and members of the Lewis County Annual
Survey Planning Committee. The instrument is modified each year by the Center for Community Studies, with input from
its staff and Advisory Board, the Lewis County Annual Survey Planning Committee, and student assistants employed at
the Center throughout the current academic year. These survey modifications are completed to include new questions of
relevance to local organizations and agencies. The total survey length each year is approximately 60 questions, with a
core set of approximately 30 questions that are intended to be asked each year that the survey is completed. Several
survey questions are asked on an every-other-year basis. Newly developed questions regarding current county topics are
typically introduced into the survey instrument each year.
The primary goal of the Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community is to collect data regarding quality-of-life
issues of importance to the local citizens. A secondary goal is to provide a very real, research-based learning experience
for undergraduate students enrolled at Jefferson Community College. In accomplishing this second goal, students are
involved in all aspects of the research, from question formation to data collection (interviewing), to data entry and
cleansing, to data analysis. The students analyze the data collected in this study annually as assignments and projects in
statistics classes. However, all final responsibility for question-phrasing, question-inclusion versus omission, final data
analysis, and final reporting of findings (this document) lies exclusively with the professional staff of the Center. The
discussions that lead to the inclusion of questions at times arise from classroom discussions involving students and
Center staff. The decision to include any question as a legitimate and meaningful part of an annual survey, however, is
made exclusively by the Center. Similarly, data analysis of the information collected through the annual survey will
transpire with faculty and students in the classrooms at Jefferson Community College; however, any statistical analysis
reported in this document has been completed by the professional staff of the Center. Copies of the introductory script
and survey instrument used in this study are attached as an appendix.
This study in 2014 included completing interviews of 328 randomly-selected Lewis County adult residents. All
interviews were completed via telephone. The goal before commencing the data collection was to complete at least 20%
of the interviews while the participant (Lewis County adult resident) was contacted on their cellular phone and the
Page 4

remaining at-most 80% of the interviews while the participant was contacted on their landline, with a total goal of
approximately 350 completed interviews. To be eligible to complete the survey, the resident was required to be at least
18 years old. To complete the landline portion of the sampling, two thousand two hundred personal residence telephone
numbers were randomly selected from the population of approximately 10,000 personal residence telephone numbers in
Lewis County. These numbers were obtained from Accudata America, a subsidiary of Primis, Inc. Accudata America is a
firm that specializes in providing contact information for residents of the United States. The telephone numbers were
obtained from an un-scrubbed list, ensuring that individuals whose households are included in the telemarketing do-notcall list would be represented in this study. After receiving the 2,200 randomly selected landline telephone numbers, the
list was randomly sorted a second time and a group of 1,600 residential landline numbers were attempted for interviews,
resulting with 256 completed interviews; it was not necessary to attempt all 2,200 numbers to reach 256 completed
interviews. To complete the cell phone portion of the sampling, a random-digit generation process with manual dialing
was utilized where common 3-digit prefixes for cell phones in use in the Lewis County region were identified (i.e. 955, 778,
771, 767, 486, 408, etc.) and random sets of 4-digit phone number endings after these common prefixes were generated
to be attempted. Attempts were made to 1,486 of these randomly generated cell phone numbers to successfully complete
72 interviews (72 out of 328 completes equates to 22% via cell phone, a result that is larger than the target of 20% of the
overall goal of 350 interviews).
All telephone calls were made between 4:00 and 9:00 p.m. from a call center in Watertown, New York, on
th
th
evenings between October 27 and October 29 2014. Calls are made in late October each year to control for seasonal
variation when sampling. The Jefferson Community College students who completed the interviews had completed
training in both human subject research methodology and effective interviewing techniques. Professional staff from the
Center supervised the telephone interviewing at all times.
When each of the telephone numbers was attempted, one of four results occurred: Completion of an interview; a
Decline to be interviewed; No Answer/Busy; or an Invalid Number (including both disconnected numbers, as well as
numbers for individuals who do not currently reside in Lewis County). Voluntary informed consent was obtained from
each resident before the interview was completed. This sampling protocol included informing each resident that it was his
or her right to decline to answer any and all individual questions within the interview. To be categorized as a completed
interview, at least one-half of the questions on the survey had to be completed. The residents refusal to answer more
than one-half of the questions was considered a decline to be interviewed. The typical length of a completed survey was
approximately 10 minutes. Declines to be interviewed (refusals) were not called back in an attempt to convince the
resident to reconsider the interview. If no contact was made at a telephone number (No Answer/Busy), call-backs were
made to the number. Telephone numbers that were not successfully contacted and, as a result, were ultimately
categorized as No Answer/Busy were attempted a minimum of four times. No messages were left on answering
machines at homes where no person answered the telephone. The response rate results for the study are summarized in
Table 1.

Table 1 Response Rates for the 8th Annual Lewis County Survey of the
Community
Response rates for LANDLINES &
CELL PHONES COMBINED attempted
in this study: (22% via cell phones)
Frequency
% of Numbers Attempted
% of Valid Numbers
% of Contacted Residents

Complete
Interview

Decline to be
Interviewed

328

635
21%
28%
66%

11%
14%
34%

Not Valid
Telephone
Number
788
26%

No Answer/
Busy
1,335
43%
58%

TOTALS
3,086
100%
100%
100%

Within the fields of social science and educational research, when using a hybrid design including both cell phone
and landline telephone interview methodology, a response rate of approximately 14% of all valid phone numbers
attempted, and approximately 34% of all successful contacts where a person is actually talking on the phone, are both
considered quite successful. The methodology employed in this annual survey continues to meet industry standards.

Section 1.2 Demographics of the Sample Who was Interviewed?

This section of the report includes a description of the results for the demographic variables included in the survey
sample. The demographic characteristics of the sampled adult residents can be used to attain three separate objectives.
1. Initially, this information adds to the knowledge and awareness about the true characteristics of the population of
adult residents in the sampled county (e.g. What is the typical household size, educational profile, and income
level in Lewis County?).
Page 5

2. Secondly, this demographic information facilitates the ability for the data to be sorted or partitioned to investigate
for significant relationships relationships between demographic characteristics of residents and their attitudes
and behaviors regarding the quality of life in Lewis County. Identification of significant relationships allows local
citizens to use the data more effectively, to better understand the factors that are correlated with various aspects
of life in the county.
3. Finally, the demographic information also serves an important purpose when compared to established facts about
Lewis County to analyze the representativeness of the sample that was randomly selected in this study, and to
determine the post-stratification weighting schematic to be applied to the data.
The results for the demographic questions in the survey are summarized in Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 2 Demographics of the October 2014 Lewis County Sample

(weighted by Gender, Age, Education Level, Geography, and Phone Ownership)

Demographic Characteristics:

Count

165
163

50%
50%

61
49
62
67
43
46

19%
15%
19%
20%
13%
14%

14
187
51
28
19
28

4%
57%
16%
9%
6%
9%

49
107
79
53

17%
37%
28%
19%

60
113
44
34
26
26
9
2
2.93 persons

19%
36%
14%
11%
8%
8%
3%
1%

105
208

34%
66%

Gender: (2013 US Census updates for Lewis County: 50% male)

Male
Female

Age: (2013 US Census updates for Lewis County: among those 18+,
27% are age 60+)

18-29 years of age

30-39 years of age
40-49 years of age
50-59 years of age
60-69 years of age
70 years of age or older

Education Level: (2013 US Census for Lewis County:

among those age 25+, 14% have Bach. Deg. or higher)

Less than high school graduate

High school graduate (including GED)
Some college, no degree
Associates degree
Bachelors degree
Graduate degree

Annual Household Income: (2013 US Census

for Lewis County: 25% earn less than $25,000, 21% earn $75,000+)

Less than $25,000

$25,001-$50,000
$50,001-$75,000
More than $75,000

Household Size: (2013 US Census for Lewis County:

average # persons per household = 2.51, 25% of households are singleperson)

1 person
2 people
3 people
4 people
5 people
6 people
7 people
8+ people
Mean per household:

Children in the Home Attending K-12

School in the County:
(no comparative statistics for the entire county)

1+ children attending K-12 in County.

No children attending K-12 in County.

(NOTE: in Table 2 above, and all other tables included in this study, a column of percentages may not, in fact, sum to exactly
100% simply due to rounding each statistic in the table individually to the nearest percent, or at times, tenth of a percent)

Page 6

Table 2 (cont.) Demographics of the October 2014 Lewis County Sample

(weighted by Gender, Age, Education Level, Geography, and Phone Ownership)

Demographic Characteristics:

Count

93
190
36

29%
60%
11%

2
2
317

1%
1%
99%

13
304

4%
96%

Marital Status: (2013 US Census for Lewis County: among

those age 15+, 61% are currently married)

Single
Married
Other

Active Military in the Household:

(no comparative statistics for the entire county)

Yes (you)
Yes (another family member)
No

Household Resident has Civilian or

Military Employment at Fort Drum:
(no comparative statistics for the entire county)

Yes
No

(NOTE: in Table 2 above, and all other tables included in this study, a column of percentages may not, in fact, sum to exactly
100% simply due to rounding each statistic in the table individually to the nearest percent, or at times, tenth of a percent)

The following distribution of towns or villages of residence (self-reported) of the participating respondents resulted
in the Eighth Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community, and after application of post-stratification weights for
Gender, Age, Education, Geography, and Phone Ownership, closely parallel that which is true for the distribution of all
Lewis County adults the entire county was proportionally represented very accurately in this study.

Table 3 Geographic Distribution of Participants in the 8th Annual Lewis County

Survey of the Community
th

8 Annual Survey Sample

(October 2014)
(weighted by Gender, Age, Education, Geography, Phone Ownership)

U.S. Census Estimates

(updated in 2013)

Count

Count

6
0
8
59
3
14
0
13
9
9
8
15
42
13
9
8
10
0
31
0
0
9
6
4
38
13
328

2%
0%
3%
18%
1%
4%
0%
4%
3%
3%
2%
5%
13%
4%
3%
2%
3%
0%
10%
0%
0%
3%
2%
1%
12%
4%
100%

221
281
708
2,420
628
1,659
1,036
1,290
379
600
724
1,138
3,429
898
748
1,226
1,373
94
2,580
235
232
775
545
177
2,008
801
26,205

1%
1%
3%
9%
2%
6%
4%
5%
1%
2%
3%
4%
13%
3%
3%
5%
5%
0%
10%
1%
1%
3%
2%
1%
8%
3%
100%

Town of Residence:
Castorland (village)
Constableville (village)
Copenhagen (village)
Croghan (town)
Croghan (village)
Denmark (town)
Diana (town)
Greig (town)
Harrisburg (town)
Harrisville (village)
Lewis (town)
Leyden (town)
Lowville (village)
Lowville (town)
Lyons Falls (village)
Lyonsdale (town)
Martinsburg (town)
Montague (town)
New Bremen (town)
Osceola (town)
Pinckney (town)
Port Leyden (village)
Turin (town)
Turin (village)
Watson (town)
West Turin (town)

TOTAL

Page 7

In general, Tables 2-3 demonstrate that after weighting the data collected in this study for Gender, Age,
Education, Geography, and Phone Ownership, the responses to the demographic questions for the Lewis County
residents who are included in the survey (those who actually answered the telephone and completed the survey) appear
to closely parallel that which is true for the entire adult population of the county. The targets for demographic
characteristics were drawn from the U.S. Census 2013 updates for Lewis County. Gender, Age, Education, and
Geography were selected as the factors by which to weight the survey data, since the data collected in this Eighth Annual
Lewis County Survey of the Community is susceptible to the typical types of sampling error that are inherent in telephone
methodology: women were more likely than men to answer the telephone and/or agree to a survey; older residents are
more likely to participate in the survey than younger adult residents; those individuals with higher formal education levels
are more likely to agree to the interviews; and residents of more urban regions (in Lewis County, this would be villages)
are more likely to participate than residents of rural regions. Standard survey research methodology has shown that
regardless of the subject of the survey, these are four expected sources of sampling error. In addition to these standard
four weight variables it has become increasingly the case that adults in our society are not accessible via landline they
are cell-phone-only individuals. Therefore, the current Lewis County data has additionally been weighted by Phone
Ownership, with targets that have been generated from repeated surveying in Lewis County by the Center for Community
Studies (targets in 2014 are: 70% have both a landline and a cell phone; 15% are landline-only; and 15% are cell-only).
To compensate for this overrepresentation of females, older residents, village residents, the highly educated, and those
interviewed on landlines in the sample collected in this study, post-stratification weights for Gender, Age, Education Level,
Geography, and Phone Ownership have been applied in any further analysis of the data analyzed in this report. In
summary, all subsequent statistics that will be reported in this document are weighted by Gender, Age, Education Level,
and Geography toward the 2013 U.S. Census reports that describe the Gender, Age, Educational Attainment, and
Town/Village of Residence distributions of the actual entire adult population that resides in Lewis County, and toward the
Phone Ownership targets described above.
Given the diligence placed on scientific sampling design and the high response rates, after application of poststratification weights for gender, age, education level, geography, and phone ownership, it is felt that this random sample
of Lewis County adults does accurately represent the entire population of Lewis County adults. When using the sample
statistics presented in this report to estimate that which would be expected for the entire Lewis County adult population,
the exact margin of error for this survey is question-specific. The margin of error depends upon the sample size for each
specific question and the resulting sample percentage for each question. Sample sizes tend to vary for each question on
the survey, since some questions are only appropriate for certain subgroups (e.g. only persons who indicated that they
have wired Internet access at home were then further asked to evaluate the quality of that wired access), and/or as a
result of persons refusing to answer questions. In general, the results of this survey for any questions that were answered
by the entire sample of 328 residents may be generalized to the population of all adults at least 18 years of age residing in
Lewis County with a 95% confidence level to within a margin of error of approximately 4.3 percentage points. For
questions that were posed only to certain specific subgroups, such as the evaluate the quality of your wired Internet
access question described above, the resulting smaller sample sizes allow generalization to the specific subpopulation of
all adults at least 18 years of age residing in the county (e.g. generalization of some specific characteristics of sampled
persons who have wired Internet access to all persons in Lewis County who have wired Internet access) with a 95%
confidence level to within a margin of error of larger than 4.3 percentage points. Table 4 is provided below as a guide for
the appropriate margin of error to use when analyzing subgroups of the entire group of 328 interviewed adults. Note that
the approximate margins of error provided in Table 4 are average margins of error, averaging across all possible sample
proportions that might result between 0% and 100%. For more specific detail regarding the margin of error for this survey,
please refer to the appendices of this report and/or contact the professional staff at the Center for Community Studies.

Table 4 Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes

Sample Size (n=)
30
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
250
300
328

Approximate Margin
of Error
14.3%
11.1%
9.0%
7.8%
7.0%
6.4%
5.9%
5.5%
5.0%
4.5%
4.3%

Page 8

In order to maximize comparability among the eight annual surveys that have been completed in Lewis County
between 2007 and 2014, the procedures used to collect information and the core questions asked have remained virtually
identical. All surveys were conducted in the month of October each year to control for seasonal variability, and the total
number of interviews completed ranged from 328 to 421, depending upon the year. All interviewers have been similarly
and extensively trained preceding data collection each year. The survey methodology used to complete the Eighth
Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community was comparable to that used in the previous seven years. Furthermore,
post-stratification weights for gender, age, and education level were applied to all results from the first three years of
surveying, while geography was additionally incorporated as a slight weighting factor since the fourth year of the survey
(since 2010), and phone-ownership was added as a slight weighting factor since the sixth year of the survey (since 2012),
allowing for valid comparisons for trends over the eight-year period that will be illustrated later in this report.
Throughout this report, key community demographic characteristics of Gender, Age, Education Level, and
Household Income Level are investigated as potential explanatory variables that may be correlated with quality-of-life
indicators and other community attitude and opinion variables for the county. It is standard methodology with professional
surveys to provide this further rich information to the reader information that may assist in explaining the overall findings
by reporting the cross-tabulated results for all subgroups within key demographic variables. The results provide
important information about contemporary thinking of citizens and over time will continue to provide important baseline
and comparative information as well. Again, for more specific detail regarding tests of statistical significance completed
within this study, please refer to the appendices of this report and/or contact the professional staff at the Center for
Community Studies.
All data compilation and statistical analyses within this study have been completed using Minitab, Release 17 and
SPSS, Release 22.

Page 9

Section 2 - Summary of Findings

Section 2.1 Highlights Five Study Findings of Particular Interest
Observations and comments from the Director, Dr. Ray Petersen

Finding #1:

The Local Economy and Personal Finance

Lewis County residents perceptions of the overall state of the economy, availability of good jobs and the trend in
personal finance situation continues to show improvement in 2014. The percentage of respondents who rated the Local
Economy as either excellent or good went up from 19% in 2013 to 24% in 2014, while those who rated the Local
Economy as fair or poor declined from 80% in 2013 to 74% in 2014. Although one out of every four residents (26.3%)
described the state of the Local Economy as poor, this is the second lowest rate in the eight years of study and the
lowest rate since the 2008 recession.
With the respect to availability of good jobs, residents again expressed significant dissatisfaction and are roughly
five times more likely to rate the availability of good jobs as fair or poor (83%) than as excellent or good (16.3%).
However this represents over a three year period a significant rebounding from the 10.1% rating of residents as
excellent or good availability of good jobs in 2011.
In 2014, roughly one out of every five (22%) residents of Lewis County indicated that their familys personal
financial situation has gotten worse over the past twelve months and 13% responded that it has gotten better. Over the
eight years of the study of this question in Lewis County this is the lowest level for worse and this ratio of getting worse
to getting better has been as high as nearly 4 to 1 in 2008 and roughly 3 to 1 in 2009-2011, but now stands as 1.5 to 1 in
2013-2014. The rate of responding worse at 21.6% is approximately one half of what was found in 2008, which was
40.1%.

Finding #2:

Healthcare Quality and Access

Satisfaction with both Health Care Quality and Access continued to decline in 2014. The peak year for
satisfaction in both Health Care Quality and Access was in 2012 when 72% of respondents said Health Care Access
was either excellent or good and 79% said Health Care Quality was either excellent or good. Satisfaction with
Health Care Access dropped to 58% for excellent or good in 2013 and to 56% in 2014. The 10.6% rating health care
access as excellent was the lowest rate ever found, approximately half of 20.1% peak for excellent in 2010. The 12.3%
who indicated poor for this indicator was also the highest rate ever, although not statistically significantly different than
measured since 2011.
Satisfaction with health care quality among Lewis County residents also peaked at 79% in 2012 for those
indicating that this was good or excellent , then dropped to 70% in 2013, with it now being 71%. Likewise the 13.3% in
2014 who indicated that Health Care Quality was excellent was the lowest rate ever in eight years of study (peak in 2007
at 23.7%).

Finding #3:

Health-insuredness and The Affordable Care Act

Roughly one out of every eight adults (13%) in Lewis County report that they do not have any type of health
insurance, down from the 9% in 2012 who reported not having insurance, but up from 19% who reported not having it in
2013. Those respondents in households with income under $25,000 reported double the rate of not having health
insurance (25%). In those same households where respondents were the ages of 40-59 the uninsuredness rate nearly
doubled again to 45%.
Another measure of the impact of Health-Insuredness is whether Lewis County adults have chosen not to seek
medical care because of cost in the past twelve months. In both 2013 and 2014, approximately one of every seven
residents (14%) indicated that they had not sought medical care due to cost. This percentage increases among younger
adults aged 18-29 (37%) and among those from households with incomes less than $25,000 (26%). For those who have
health insurance only 10% have not chosen to seek medical care because of cost, but for those who are uninsured this
rate is 42%, the same as in 2013.
Three questions were asked of Lewis County residents on the Affordable Care Act; familiarity, level of support,
and the effect on them and their families. In 2013 roughly one out of every four residents (27%) indicated that they were
not familiar with the Affordable Care Act. In 2014 the rate decreases to one out of every six residents (17%).

Page 10

There may be a disconnect between opinions of what should happen with the act and how it is affecting the
healthcare with residents and their families because there are less negative experiences of the healthcare act but
continued calls to repeal it. For instance, while in 2013, 45% expected that they would have been affected more
negatively, in 2014, only 22% indicated that they had, in fact, been affected more negatively. Likewise, only 11% expected
to have neither a positive nor negative effect, but in 2014, nearly two-thirds (63%) indicated that this was, in fact, their
experience.
For those who do not currently have health insurance, 71% said the Affordable Care Act should be repealed, not
funded, while only 30% of those currently insured provided the same response.
Beginning in 2012, Lewis County residents have been asked for their views regarding the financial challenges
faced by Lewis County General Hospital. When asked whether the hospital should remain county-owned or become a
non-profit, non-county-owned institution, 51% agreed it should remain county-owned, and 15% said it should become a
non-profit, non-county-owned hospital, with one out of four (27%) indicating that they were not sure. This represents a
significant decline from the 58% who agreed it should remain county-owned in 2013, and a significant increase in the notsure respondents from 18% in 2013.
Residents were asked what amount they would be willing to have added to their annual tax bills if Lewis County General
Hospital needed additional operating funds. Roughly one in three (35%) indicated up to $100 annually, and an additional
6% responded that they were willing to have more than $100 added annually; but 51% said they would not be willing to
have any additional taxes added to their annual bills to assist with funding of hospital operations.

Finding #4:

Education

Four questions asked of Lewis County residents shed light upon their views on K-12 education. While residents
of Lewis County remain satisfied (73%) with the "quality of K-12 education" system in the county, that satisfaction level
has declined significantly since its peak in 2012, when 87% rated it as "excellent" or "good." This 2014 satisfaction rate is
the lowest combined rate in the eight years of study for "excellent "or "good, " is also the highest rate for "fair" during that
same eight years (21.2%), and the next-highest rate for "fair" was 12.7% in 2013.
Again, while Lewis County residents agree with the statement that "Lewis County schools are adequately
preparing our young people for the technology and economy of the future" (68%), the rate of residents indicating "strongly
agree" has declined threefold, from 35% in 2010 to 10% in 2014. At the same time, the rate of disagreement with this
statement, combining "strongly disagree" with "disagree," has gone up from 5% in 2010 to 20% in 2014.
In addition to these two recurring questions above, two new questions were added regarding the Common Core
learning standards in math and English. Residents were asked for their opinions about the Common Core learning
standards, including their degree of familiarity with them. One of every four (25%) indicated that they were not familiar
with the Common Core, and nearly half (45%) responded that "the Common Core is a bad idea and should be
eliminated." Only 4% were in favor of keeping the Common Core as it is; however, nearly another one-quarter of
residents (23%) answered "the concept is a good idea, but it needs changes."
Although there were no survey questions specifically addressing K-12 school funding in 2014, a significant portion
of the real-estate tax burden is comprised of property taxes to support schools. The 2014 survey reveals both the highest
levels of dissatisfaction (78% rating of "fair" or "poor") with real-estate taxes and the lowest rating of satisfaction with realestate taxes (16% rating of "excellent" or "good") throughout the eight years of study.

Finding #5:

Government and Political Issues

Regarding county government, Lewis County residents by a wide margin agree that they are "adequately
informed about issues facing the county" (57%), compared with the 39% who disagreed with this statement, a positive
trend from the 51% agreement and 45% disagreement found in 2013.
By a smaller margin, residents agree that "local elected county officials represent my concerns effectively" (50%
agree; 40% disagree), which was an improvement over the 2013 ratings of 44% agreeing and 47% disagreeing with this
statement.
Residents were asked for their views on the increase in New York State's minimum-wage rate to $9 per hour that
will be implemented in January, 2016. Over three-fourths of participants (78%) responded positively to the increase,
compared to only 17% who were opposed.
Lewis County residents were asked for their opinions about the legalization of medical marijuana or possibly
complete legalization and regulation of it. One-third of Lewis County adults (33%) responded that marijuana should
remain completely illegal, a significantly higher percentage than the figure reported in the Sienna Research Institute's
March 2014 statewide poll, which indicated that only one in five upstate New York residents (21%) felt that it should
remain completely illegal. However, this was the minority opinion in Lewis County, where 60% support complete
legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes, and nearly half of that 60% (26% of the 60%) support complete
legalization.
Page 11

Section 2.2 Longevity of Living in Lewis County (Tables 9-10)

1. Among Lewis County adults in 2014, over 96% reported having lived in the county for more than seven years, a
rate that has increased significantly throughout the eight years of this community survey (2014 rate is the highest ever
measured, the lowest measured was 81%, in 2007). When asked whether one plans to remain living in Lewis
County for the next five years the vast majority continue to indicate that they do plan to remain in the county (88%
in 2014, not significantly different from any previous year with an exception of 2011, when the rate was only 78%).
(Tables 9-10)

Section 2.3 Quality of Life in Lewis County (Tables 11-36)

Summary of 2014 Quality-of-Life Indicators Results:
2. In an attempt to gauge the current satisfaction with the quality of life in Lewis County, participants were provided a list
of 18 key community characteristics, or indicators. For each of these characteristics, the participants reported
whether they feel that the characteristic in the county is Excellent, Good, Fair, or Poor. Table 5 shown below
summarizes the results with the percentage that indicated that each indicator is Excellent or Good reported, as well
as the percentage who report that it is Excellent, and finally, the percentage that indicated that each indicator is
Poor. The list of indicators is sorted from highest to lowest according to the percentage who replied Excellent or
Good. (Tables 11-13)

Table 5 Summary of Quality of Life Indicators (2014 Results sorted by Excellent + Good)
Quality of Life Indicator:

%
Excellent +
% Good

%
Excellent

%
Poor

1.

Quality of the environment

85.2%

37.3%

4.2%

2.

Public outdoor recreational opportunities

75.2%

35.5%

12.4%

3.

The overall quality of life in the area

74.8%

21.5%

7.7%

4.

Quality of k-12 education

73.4%

25.8%

3.2%

5.

Policing and crime control

72.6%

13.7%

5.9%

6.

Health care quality

70.5%

13.3%

9.6%

7.

Availability of care for the elderly.

64.7%

14.1%

6.3%

8.

Health care access

55.2%

10.6%

12.3%

9.

Town and village government

42.9%

2.1%

10.4%

10. County government

40.2%

1.7%

19.2%

11. Access to higher education

36.7%

7.7%

31.9%

12. Shopping opportunities

35.8%

4.8%

27.4%

13. Cultural/entertainment opportunities

30.3%

3.3%

29.6%

14. Opportunities for youth

27.5%

5.5%

33.4%

15. Cost of energy

25.8%

0.6%

29.3%

16. The overall state of the local economy

23.5%

1.5%

26.3%

17. Availability of good jobs

16.3%

0.2%

52.7%

18. Real estate taxes

16.2%

0.6%

39.8%

3. Most Lewis County adult residents continue to view the overall quality of life in the region as positive, 75% of the
surveyed residents in 2014 report that the overall quality of life in the area is Excellent or Good (was 71% in 2013),
while only 8% currently believe the overall quality of life in the area is Poor. A shift from Good to Excellent was
seen between 2012 and 2013; with the 2013 rate of 22% reporting the overall quality of life in the county as
Excellent the highest rate found in the first seven years of surveying (was 14% in 2012). Further, in 2014 the rate of
Excellent has remained at 22% while another positive trend has emerged from Fair to Good between 20132014 (the Fair rate decreased from 25% to 17% in the past year, while the Good rate increased from 49% to 53%).
(Tables 11, 12, 13, and 32)

Page 12

Satisfaction with Overall Quality of Life in Lewis County Key Driver Analysis Factor(s) that
have the most influence:
4. Among the 17 quality-of-life characteristics that were studied (the quality of life indicators, excluding Overall Quality of
Life in the Area) a multivariate correlation analysis was completed and each of the 17 characteristics is positively
correlated with ones perception of the overall quality of life. After a Factor Analysis was completed, the seventeen
characteristics reduced to the following five key factors factors that have the most influence upon residents
perceptions of the overall quality of life in Lewis County: (Tables 14-15)
Factor 1:
Healthcare and Education
Factor 2:
Opportunities, not employment-related
Factor 3:
Government
Factor 4:
Cost of Living, Jobs, Personal Finance
Factor 5:
The Environment
5. To determine which of these five identified quality-of-life factors is the most important in contributing to, or impacting,
ones impression of the Overall Quality of Life in the Area another mathematical technique, called model-building, was
completed. Once the model was constructed to best predict perception of Overall Quality of Life in the Area a relative
importance analysis was completed for the model to finally identify the factor(s) that have the greatest impact upon
ones Overall Quality of Life in the Area (happiness with the quality of life in Lewis County). The interpretation of this
relative importance analysis is a measurement of the size of the contribution to Overall Quality of Life that is
generated (the relative importance). Cost of Living/Jobs/Finance and The Environment are identified as the
two factors that contribute the most to predicting ones perception of the Overall Quality of Life in Lewis
County, it is found that these two factors account for 57% of an individuals rating for Overall Quality of Life.
Note that the meaning of a relative importance of 31% for Cost of Living/Jobs/Finance versus a relative importance
of 11% for Healthcare/Education is that ones perception of Cost of Living/Jobs/Finance is about three times more
important in contributing to ones Overall Quality of Life rating than is ones perception of Healthcare/Education
(31%11%=2.8). In other words, ones perception of Healthcare/Education is that it is quite minimal in its
contribution toward ones Overall Quality of Life rating, while ones perception of Cost of Living/Jobs/Finance is that
it is quite large in its contribution toward ones Overall Quality of Life rating. (Table 16) Below are the contributions
that each of the five studied factors have toward ones Overall Quality of Life rating:
Factor:
Relative Importance:
Cost of Living, Jobs, Personal Finance
31%
The Environment
26%
Opportunities, not employment-related
17%
Government
15%
Healthcare and Education
11%

Economic-related Quality-of-Life Indicators:

6. Availability of Good Jobs
Availability of Good Jobs continues to clearly be the most negatively-perceived community characteristic among
adult residents of Lewis County with only 16.1% responding as Good and 0.2% rating as Excellent. However, the
perception of local job availability has shown significant positive progress since 2011, when the most negative
perceptions were indicated (Excellent or Good in 2011 was 10.1%). In the past year, however, there has been no
significant change 2013 and 2014 results parallel one another very closely. (Table 28)
7. Overall State of the Local Economy
Level of dissatisfaction with Overall State of the Local Economy reported by Lewis County residents has continued
to reduce in 2014. In 2007, 19% rated the Overall State of the Local Economy as Poor; this rate increased
significantly to 34% in 2008, and increased significantly again to 44% in 2009. However, in 2010 the rating of the
Overall State of the Local Economy as Poor did not increase significantly to continue this preceding three-year
negative trend in 2010, 41% rated the Overall State of the Local Economy as Poor. In 2012, this rate of
responding Poor significantly decreased back to only 30%, and in 2013 this rate continued to decrease to a level of
29.6% (decreased to 26.3% in 2014). In 2014, the most common rating continued to be Fair (48%), while in all three
years between 2009-2011, the most common response was Poor. Significant improvement has been found
between 2013-2014, with the Poor rate now being the second lowest ever found in 8 years of study (lowest since
2007), and a significant shift from Poor or Fair to Good occurred in the past year, with Poor or Fair decreasing by
8% in the past year, and at the same time Good increased by 7%. (Table 31)

Page 13

8. Shopping Opportunities
A positive trend in satisfaction with Shopping Opportunities in the county has been found between 2013-2014. In
2011, 28% responded with Excellent or Good, a rate that increased to 38% in 2012, but a rate that then decreased
in 2013 back to 31%, and one that has rebounded to 36% in 2014. At the same time over the past year there has
been a shift from Fair to Good in assessment of Shopping Opportunities (2013: Fair=46% and Good=22%;
while in 2014: Fair=37% and Good=31%). (Table 29)
9. Cost of Energy
Residents of Lewis County continue to be less than happy with the Cost of Energy, however, the level of discontent
is one of the lowest levels found in eight years of surveying in the county. Although only 26% of participants in 2014
rate the Cost of Energy as Good or Excellent, the rate of responding Poor is the second lowest ever found. In
2014 only 29% rate the Cost of Energy as Poor while that rate was as high as 48% in 2008. There was no
significant change in perceptions of the Cost of Energy between 2013-2014, Poor remains lower than in 20072012. (Table 19)
10. Real Estate Taxes
In 2014 residents of Lewis County continue to report a rather high level of dissatisfaction with the current status of
Real Estate Taxes, with only 16% responding with Excellent or Good (an all-time low) and 40% responding with
Poor. Less than 1% of the participants currently rate this community characteristic as Excellent. (Table 26)

Not-so-Economic-related Quality-of-Life Indicators:

11. Healthcare Access and Healthcare Quality
Residents of Lewis County continue to report relatively high satisfaction levels with both the Quality of Healthcare
and Access to Healthcare in the county, however, the satisfaction levels have decreased significantly in the past two
years. More than two-thirds of participants (71%) currently rate Healthcare Quality as either Excellent or Good,
while Healthcare Access is rated as either Excellent or Good by 55% of participants. However, both of these
rates found in 2014 are significantly less positive than were found in the county in 2012, when Healthcare Quality
was at 79% and Healthcare Access was at 72%. In fact, for Healthcare Access the rating as Poor in 2014 is at
an all-time high of 12%. (Tables 20-21)
12. Quality of the Environment
The environment in Lewis County continues to be perceived very positively by residents. More than eight-out-of-ten
residents (86%) rated Quality of the Environment as Excellent or Good (with 37% rating as Excellent). This
Excellent or Good rate has varied between 83% to 91% in all eight studied years, while approximately 4% of
participants currently rate the quality of the environment as Poor (highest rate ever found). This very positive
perception is quite uniformly shared across all demographic subgroups studied. (Table 23)
13. Public Outdoor Recreational Opportunities
Public Outdoor Recreational Opportunities continues to be among the most positively rated of the 18 studied
community characteristics in Lewis County with over 75% of participants rating as Excellent or Good (significantly
lower rate, however, than the all-time high of 83% found in 2012. (Table 22)
14. Quality of K-12 Education
Residents of Lewis County remain satisfied with the Quality of the K-12 Education system available in the county,
however, satisfaction is decreasing. This community characteristic was rated second highest among the 18
investigated characteristics in 2013, and dropped to fourth in 2014. Further, with 73% of the respondents rating the K12 education provided in Lewis County as either Excellent or Good in 2014 this is clearly positive, yet it is the
lowest rate ever found (87% found in 2012). In 2014 the trend has gravitated toward Fair as an assessment more
than ever before. (Table 30)
15. Availability of Care for the Elderly
Attitudes among residents of Lewis County regarding the Availability of Care for the Elderly in the county in 2014
returned to typical values with much more positive than negative assessment (65% rate as Excellent or Good,
while only 6% rate as Poor). In 2012, the most positive rating ever for availability of care for the elderly was found,
with over 70% rating this as either Excellent or Good, 2014 results are similar to 2012 results. (Table 33)
16. Cultural/Entertainment Opportunities
Residents of Lewis County continue to report low satisfaction with Cultural/Entertainment Opportunities in the
county. Approximately three-in-ten residents (30%) rate this quality-of-life indicator as Excellent or Good, while
Page 14

there has been a significant shift from Fair to Poor between 2013-2014, with Poor currently at an all-time high of
30%. In 2014 only 3% rated Cultural/Entertainment Opportunities as Excellent. (Table 18)
17. Opportunities for Youth
A negative trend in perception of Opportunities for Youth was found between 2012 and 2013 in Lewis County, and
this negative trend has continued Poor is at an all-time high of 33% (was 25% in 2013). Residents most
commonly indicate in 2014 that they feel that Opportunities for Youth are Fair 35% respond with this rating, while
in 2012 the most common rating was Good. For the first time in eight years of study, the younger participants show
a very low level of optimism about opportunities for youth 17% of those under the age of 30 responded with
Excellent in 2013, while 0% of these younger folks did so in 2014. (Table 17)
18. Access to Higher Education
Access to Higher Education as a community indicator has been measured since 2009 in Lewis County, and the
results have been quite consistent throughout the six years of study. As has been the case in earlier years, residents
are more negative than positive about these opportunities; in 2014 it was found that 37% rate this indicator as
Excellent or Good, and 60% rate it as Fair or Poor (highest rate ever found). This 60% is a significant increase
from 52% found in 2012. Very interestingly, the demographic subgroup most likely to be pursuing higher education
those age 18-29 are the participants with a more positive perception of access to higher education (17% of these
younger adults rate this as Excellent). (Table 34)
19. Policing and Crime Control
Residents of Lewis County continue to be satisfied with Policing and Crime Control in the Area, with 73% rating it as
either Excellent or Good, and only 6% rating it as Poor (rates were 68% and 4%, respectively, in 2013).
Satisfaction with Policing and Crime Control in the county is one of the most consistent community indicators studied
each year, there has been very little change between 2007-2014 with Good always the most common rating
reported. (Table 27)
20. County Government
Residents of Lewis County continue to be neither tremendously satisfied nor dissatisfied with the quality of local
government in the county, with remarkably little change in results between 2011 and 2014. The majority of
participants in 2014 (74%) rate County Government as either Fair or Good (similar to 76% found in 2011, 75%
found in 2012, and 65% in 2013). Note, however, that Good is the most common response in 2014, for the first time
since last occurring in 2008. (Table 24)
21. Town and Village Government
When evaluating Town and Village Government, Lewis County residents most commonly respond neither
tremendously satisfied nor dissatisfied. In 2014, 83% respond with Fair or Good (41% Good, 42% Fair). In
2012 this rate of Fair or Good was 79%. This middle-of-the-road sentiment in assessment of town and village
governments throughout the county has shifted more negatively since 2012. In 2013 there was a significant decrease
in Excellent or Good to the 7-year low rate of 42.3% at that time, and the 2014 result has remained stable at 42.9%
Excellent or Good (was 52% in 2012). (Table 25)
22. Most Important Issue Facing Residents of Lewis County
Participants were asked to identify the most important issue facing the residents of Lewis County. This question was
open-ended, giving the residents the opportunity to specify the primary issue, while they may earlier have identified
several issues as Poor via responses to the preceding 18 community indicators. The most commonly cited most
important issue continues to be employment issues, loss of jobs (currently 47%; was 32% in 2007; 33% in 2008;
34% in 2009; 40% in 2010; 37% in 2011; 40% in 2012; and 49% in 2013). The 2013 rate of 49% citing employment
issues, loss of jobs was a statistically significant increase from past years and was at the highest rate ever measured,
the 2014 finding has not changed significantly from the 2013 rate. Jobs as the most important issue is particularly
problematic among those who have at least a 4-year college degree, cited by 61% among this subgroup. Between
2009-2012 the second most common issue had been economic decline, loss of industry, however, in both 2013 and
2014 the second most commonly cited issue is Taxes (cited by 15% in 2013, 19% in 2014, the highest rate ever
found). At the same time, economic decline, loss of industry is now cited by an all-time low percentage of
participants (6% in 2014, was as high as 24% in 2010). (Table 35)
23. Impact of Fort Drum on Quality of Life in Lewis County
When Lewis County residents are asked Do you agree or disagree that the presence of Fort Drum in the local area
improves the overall quality of life for local residents?, the vast majority (80%) agree while only 12% disagree. A
significant increase in Agree can be identified when 2014 results are compared to earlier results found when this
question was posed in 2007-2009 (in 2007 only 67% agreed, while 29% disagreed). (Table 36)
Page 15

Section 2.4 Internet Access and Use (Tables 37-49)

24. Internet access and use were studied among Lewis County residents in 2014 in ways that have not previously been
studied. Approximately three-fourths of adult residents have used the Internet in the past 30 days (73% among all
participants, 36% among those age 70 or older). Among those who have used the Internet in the past 30 days 95%
indicate that they have access to the Internet at home, and among the 5% of Internet-users who do not have Internet
access at home 82% of this group indicates that they have Internet access elsewhere at work, a friends home, or
public locations. The overall estimate is that 69% of adult residents in Lewis County currently have Internet access at
home (assuming that all of those with Internet access at home actually use the Internet, which may not be universally
true). (Tables 37-39)
25. Internet connection type, number of options available, and satisfaction with service were studied for each of
three possible Internet services available in the county wired, mobile/cellular, and satellite. By far the most common
Internet service used is wired access at home (used by 85% of those who have used the Internet in the past 30 days).
Mobile/cellular access is used by 60% of those who have used the Internet in the past 30 days. It is far more common
that those who access the Internet via smartphones have multiple options/providers from which to choose than those
who use wired access at home (83% vs. 59%, respectively, indicate that they chose from more than one provider).
Satisfaction with service is very similar when comparing wired access to mobile/cellular access, with both perceived
much more positively than satellite access (48% of those using satellite access evaluate the service as Poor, a rate
that is only 14% among those using wired access, and 9% among those using mobile/cellular access). Use, options
available, and satisfaction for varying Internet access services among those who have used the Internet in the past 30
days are summarized below in Table 6. (Tables 40-48)

Table 6 Internet Access in Lewis County

26. In an attempt to gauge the current reasons for not using the Internet at home among Lewis County adults,
participants were provided a list of eight different possible reasons. In total, by far the most commonly cited reason is
just dont have any interest in using the Internet. However, there is a strong relationship between age and reasons
for not using the Internet among the younger adult participants the most commonly cited reason (by 84% of those
age 18-29) is cannot afford the service at home. (Table 49)

Section 2.5 Transportation (Tables 50-52)

27. Approximately 8% of the surveyed Lewis County residents report that lack of transportation has kept them from
securing employment or meeting daily living needs in the past year (not changed significantly from rates found in
the county in earlier studies:, 6% found in 2007, 9% found in 2008, 7% found in 2009, 5% found in 2010, 6% in 2012,
and 8% in 2013). Not surprisingly, approximately 17% of those under the age of 30 (16% in 2012, and 25% in 2013),
Page 16

and over 15% of those residents whose annual household income is under $25,000 (13% in 2012, and 25% in 2013),
report that lack of transportation has kept them from securing employment or meeting daily living needs in the past
year. The most commonly cited transportation issues by those who indicated being kept from securing employment
or meeting daily living needs in the past year continues to be Dont have a vehicle (currently 55%, was 51% in 2013)
and Cost of gas (currently 30%, was 32% in 2013). (Tables 50-51)
28. About one-in-four Lewis County residents (18% Yes, and another 5% Maybe) indicate that they would potentially
use a public transportation system for a daily commute to Utica if it were available, while 76% indicate that they
would not use this service. Not surprisingly, those under the age of 30 (41% interested) most commonly report
interest in a daily bus commute to Utica and back. (Table 52)

Section 2.6 Healthcare (Tables 53-58)

29. Almost 13% of adults in Lewis County report that they do not currently have any type of health insurance
(87% report that they currently have health insurance, was 91% in 2012, 81% in 2013). Among those who are from
households with annual income of under $25,000 the rate of insuredness decreases to only 75%. (Table 53)
30. Approximately one-in-seven Lewis County adults (14%) have chosen not to seek medical care because of cost in
the past 12 months, a rate that has not changed significantly from 11% found in the county in 2011, 10% found in
2012, and 14% found in 2013. Younger adults are very likely to have ignored needed medical care because of cost in
the past year 37% of those ages 18-29 report having done so, as are those from low-income households 26% of
those from households with annual incomes of under $25,000 have ignored needed medical care due to cost. A very
strong relationship between having health insurance and ignoring needed medical care continues to be evident
among those who do have health insurance only 10% have chosen not to seek medical care because of cost in the
past 12 months (was 7% in each of 2012 and 2013), while among those who are uninsured in 2014 this rate is 42%
(was 48% among the uninsured in 2012, 42% in 2013). (Table 54)
31. The Affordable Care Act provision providing health insurance exchanges was implemented in the United States on
October 1, 2013. In 2013 this annual survey was completed three weeks later, and at that point in time about 27% of
Lewis County residents indicated that they were Not Familiar with the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. One
year later, in October 2014, the rate of unfamiliarity has decreased to only 17%. In October 2013, adults in Lewis
County tended to be more supportive of the Affordable Care Act than opposed. Approximately one-third of the
participants (35%) thought that the Affordable Care Act was a good idea (13% preferred to keep the Affordable Care
Act as it is, another 22% thought it was a good idea but needed some changes), while 29% of participants indicated
that they believe that the Affordable Care Act should not be funded and should be repealed. After one year of
experiencing the Affordable Care Act residents continue to be slightly more in favor than opposed to the law
current rates are that 39% favor while only 36% want it repealed. Essentially the group who has become familiar
with the law between 2013 and 2014 has followed a similar distribution of favor vs. opposition as those who were
familiar in 2013. (Table 55)
32. In October 2013, only three weeks after the Affordable Care Act was enacted, adults in Lewis County tended to think
that the effect that the Affordable Care Act will have on them and their family would be more negative than positive. In
2013, only 24% of participants expected to be affected more positively, while 45% indicated that they expect to be
affected more negatively, with 11% responding neither, and 19% responding that they are not sure. After one year
in place, the actual or realized effect of the healthcare law is essentially that very little has changed. In 2014,
only 8% of participants have been affected more positively (24% expected this to occur), while 22% indicated that
they have been affected more negatively (45% expected this to occur), with 63% responding neither (only 11%
expected this to occur), and 4% responding that they are not sure (19% were unsure in 2013). (Table 56)
33. Two local healthcare questions were posed to Lewis County residents in each of the three years 2012-2014
specifically relating to the current financial challenge that Lewis County General Hospital is facing. When asked
whether one prefers that the hospital remain county-owned versus become a nonprofit hospital (non-countyowned), support for remaining county-owned continues to be found, but is diminishing significantly in 2014, 51%
prefer remaining county-owned (was 58% in 2012, and 63% in 2013), while 15% prefer becoming a non-countyowned nonprofit hospital (was 17% in 2012, and 15% in 2013), and 27% indicate that they are not sure (was 22% in
2012, and 18% in 2013). (Table 57, including exact wording of the specific survey question)
34. Residents of the county who own property (pay property taxes) were further asked what amount they would be
willing to pay in additional property taxes to support the hospital, an amount that would be added to their
annual county tax bill. Approximately one-half of property-owners (51%) indicate that they would not be willing to
Page 17

pay any additional property taxes to help fund Lewis County General Hospital. Approximately one-third (35%) of
property-owners indicate that they would be willing to pay up to $100 more annually, while only 6% of propertyowners indicate that they would be willing to pay more than $100 more annually. (Table 58, including exact wording
of the specific survey question)

Section 2.7 The Local Economy (Tables 59-64)

35. The employment status of Lewis County residents has been studied in each of 2008 through 2014 with results
remaining remarkably consistent. The percentage of participants who report to be retired has always been between
21%-24% (23% in 2014), blue-collar is currently the occupation classification most commonly reported (25% in
2014, was 20% in 2013, has been between 11%-25% in each year of study), and 7% of participants currently indicate
that they are self-employed. (Table 59)
36. Residents of Lewis County continue to be more likely to indicate that their families personal financial situation has
gotten worse over the past 12 months than they are to indicate that it has gotten better. About one-in-five residents
(22%) of the surveyed households in Lewis County indicate that their situation has gotten worse (however, this was
40% in 2008, 34% in 2009, 30% in 2010, 30% again in 2011, 25% in 2012, and 28% in 2013). In fact, the current rate
of gotten worse is the lowest ever measured in seven years of posing this survey question. Currently only 13%
indicate that it has gotten better in 2014 (was 18% in 2013). However, in the spectrum of the seven years of study
in Lewis County, the 2013 and 2014 personal-financial-situation results are the most positive yet found in
2008 the ratio of Worse-to-Better was almost four-to-one (40% to 12%), in 2009 this ratio was approximately three-toone (34% to 11%), in 2010 this ratio was less than three-to-one (30% to 12%), in 2011 this ratio continued at less than
three-to-one (30% to 12%), whereas that ratio in 2012 reduced significantly to less than two-to-one (25.3%-to-13.6%
is a ratio of 1.86). In 2013 and 2014 this ratio continued at less than two-to-one (in 2013: 28% to 18% resulted in a
ratio of 1.6:1; in 2014: 22% to 13% now results in a ratio of 1.7:1). The results are the most positive ever in 2014
the difference between better and worse is the least found yet. In 2008 the difference between better and worse was
28% (40% worse 12% better = 28% difference), and in 2012 this difference was 11% (25% worse 14% better =
11% difference), while in 2013 this difference was only 10% (28% worse 18% better = 10% difference). Currently
this difference is only 8.4% (21.6% worse 13.2% better). Again, the 22% who indicate that their personal financial
situation has gotten worse in the past 12 months is the lowest rate ever found in seven years of asking this question in
Lewis County. (Table 60)
37. Approximately one-in-seven Lewis County residents (15%) respond Yes when asked Have the recent federal
spending cuts this past year caused by "sequestration" and the government shutdown negatively affected
the financial situation for you or your family? (rate was 25% in 2013) Negative effects of the sequestration
spending cuts are very common among the lower-income residents 30% of those from households with annual
income of $25,000 or less indicate that there has been a negative effect on their financial situation (was 46% in 2013).
(Table 61)
38. The spirit of volunteerism remains high among Lewis County residents, with 60% of participants indicating that they
volunteer at least one hour per month for community service activities such as church, school and youth
activities, charitable organizations, local government boards, and so forth. The percentages who indicated that
they do volunteer in recent years have been 60% in 2007, 59% in 2008, 57% in 2009, 63% in 2012, and 58% in 2013
(not measured in 2010-2011). The average number of hours per month volunteered among all participants in 2014 is
10.8 hours. Extrapolation of this 10.8 hours/month results with 130 hours/year per adult. Given that there are
approximately 20,000 adults in the county, one could then estimate that approximately 2.6 million hours per year are
devoted to volunteering among Lewis County adults. Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics 2013 hourly wage average
estimate of $26.24/hour in New York State, this would generate an annual economic impact of approximately
$68,000,000. (Table 62)
39. There continues to be very strong agreement among Lewis County residents that tourism has a beneficial impact
on the local economy 90% agree with statement (was 89% in 2012, 92% in 2013), while only 6% disagree (was
7% in 2012, 4% in 2013). (Table 63)
40. Residents were further asked how much funding that they believe Lewis County should be investing in annual
tourism promotion and marketing. A small portion of residents (11%, not changed significantly from 8% found in
2012, or 7% found in 2013) indicate that they believe that taxpayer dollars should not be used for tourism promotion
and marketing, while the most common responses are $50,000-$100,000 by 37% of participants (was 37% in 2012,
and 40% in 2013), and Up to $50,000 by 25% of participants (was 29% in 2012, and 23% in 2013). (Table 64)

Page 18

Section 2.8 Education Issues (Tables 65-66)

41. In general, Lewis County adults are satisfied with the local schools, approximately two-thirds (68%) of Lewis County
residents agree with the notion that Lewis County schools are adequately preparing our young people for the
technology and economy of the future, while only 23% disagree. However, over the past five years there has
been a very dramatic negative trend in the perception of the local schools preparing young people for the technology
and economy of the future between 2010 and 2014 the rate of indicating Strongly Agree has decreased from 35%
to the current rate of 10%, while over this same time frame the rate of indicating Disagree (strongly disagree
combined with disagree) has increased from 5% in 2010 to the current rate of 23%. (Table 65)
42. Approximately three-fourths (72%) of Lewis County residents indicated that they are familiar with the Common Core
Learning Standards in math and English. Among those who are familiar with the Common Core, by approximately a
two-to-one ratio residents are more likely to believe that the Common Core should be eliminated than they are
to believe that these standards should not be eliminated. Almost one-half of participants (45%) think that the
Common Core should be eliminated, while only 27% do not support elimination (only 4% prefer to keep the Common
Core as it is, another 23% think they are a good idea but need some changes). (Table 66)

Section 2.9 County and State Government, and Political Issues (Tables 6771)
43. Political ideology is researched and recorded each year of the Lewis County Annual Survey. In 2014, similar to all
other previous years, participants are much more likely to self-identify as conservative as to self-identify as
liberal (35% vs. 9%, respectively), however, the most common response to political beliefs is to self-identify as
middle-of-the-road (36%). (Table 67)
44. By a larger margin in 2014 than was found in 2013, Lewis County residents tend to agree that they are adequately
informed about issues facing the County 57% agree (was only 51% in 2013) with statement that they are
adequately informed, while 39% disagree (was 45% in 2013). (Table 68)
45. Lewis County residents tend to agree that their local elected county officials represent their concerns
effectively 50% agree with statement that their concerns are effectively represented, while 40% disagree (a
significant improvement and reverse of the 44% agree and 47% disagree found in 2013). (Table 69)
46. Overwhelming support for the increase in the minimum wage that has been approved by New York State from
its current level of $8.00/hour (rate in October 2014, when survey completed) to the rate of $9.00/hour that will
be implemented on January 1, 2016 is evident among Lewis County adults. More than three-fourths of
participants (78%) support this increase in the minimum wage, while only 17% voice opposition. (Table 70)
47. When asked opinions regarding legalizing marijuana for medicinal use, or even possibly complete legalization and
regulation of the substance, a minority of Lewis County adults (33%) indicate that they believe that marijuana
should remain completely illegal. Approximately three-in-five local adults (60%) support legalization of marijuana
for medicinal purposes, with almost one-half of these participants supporting complete legalization (of the 60% who
support legalization for medicinal purposes it can be partitioned further into 26% support complete legalization, with
the other 34% supporting legalization for exclusively medicinal purposes). According to Siena Research Institute in a
March 2014 statewide poll, the percentage of New Yorkers who favored keeping marijuana completely illegal was
20%. When only the upstate New York residents who participated in the Siena poll at that time were investigated, the
result increased to 21%. (Table 71)

Section 2.10 Familiarity with the Center for Community Studies at JCC
(Table 72)
48. Familiarity with the Center for Community Studies among Lewis County residents is at an all-time high in 2014, as
42% of participants indicate that they had heard of the community-based research center at SUNY Jefferson (was
only 30% in 2008). (Table 72)

Page 19

Section 3 - Detailed Statistical Results

This section of the study provides a detailed presentation of the results for each of the questions in the survey.
The results for each of these survey questions are presented in this section of the report with the following organizational
structure:
(1)

The results for all sampled residents are combined and summarized in a frequency
distribution that shows the sampled frequency and sample proportion for each possible
survey response for the survey question (recall, the results are weighted for Gender, Age,
Education Level, Geography, and Phone Ownership).

(2)

A trend analysis is completed and shown in a table for each survey question that was
measured in more than one of the eight years 2007-2014. Statistically significant trends
between 2007 and 2014 are highlighted throughout reported at the top of each Trend
Analysis table.

(3)

The 2014 results for each survey question have been cross-tabulated by each of the
demographic factors of Gender, Age, Education Level, and Household Income Level (there is
a total of over 200 cross-tabulation tables included in this report). Statistically significant
relationships and differences may be identified by using the descriptions and examples
shown in the appendix of this report.

For further explanation of the statistical concepts of Margin of Error and Statistical Significance, to assist the
reader in best interpreting and utilizing the presented information, please refer to the appendix of this report Technical
Comments Assistance in Interpretation of the Statistical Results.
For ease of use, survey questions have been organized into the following sections:
Section 3.1 Longevity of Living in Lewis County (Tables 9-10)
Section 3.2 Quality of Life Issues Summary of Trends (2007-2014) (Tables 11-12)
Section 3.3 Quality of Life Issues Summary of 2014 Results (Table 13)
Section 3.4 Satisfaction with Overall Quality of Life in Lewis County Key Driver Analysis (Tables 14-16)
Section 3.5 Detailed Analysis of Individual Quality of Life Indicators (Tables 17-36)
Section 3.6 Internet Access and Use (Tables 37-49)
Section 3.7 Transportation (Tables 50-52)
Section 3.8 Healthcare (Tables 53-58)
Section 3.9 The Local Economy (Tables 59-64)
Section 3.10 Education Issues (Tables 65-66)
Section 3.11 County and State Government, and Political Issues (Tables 67-71)
Section 3.12 Familiarity with the Center for Community Studies at JCC (Table 72)
When comparing results across time, the sample sizes collected each year should be considered. The sample
sizes for each of the eight years of the Lewis County Annual Survey of the Community are summarized in the following
table.

Table 7 Sample Sizes for each of Eight Years of the Lewis County Annual Survey
Year of Study:

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Total Sample Size

409

393

404

400

409

421

381

328

(# interviews completed)

The statistics reported in the correlative tables (cross-tabulations by gender, age, education, and income) are
percentages within the sampled subgroups. To determine the sample size for each subgroup to avoid overinterpretation the reader should refer to the bottom row in each cross-tabulation table. Again, findings should be
considered with sample sizes in mind. Statistical tests of significance take into consideration these varying sample sizes.
The typical sample size within each demographic subgroup is shown, along with the appropriate approximate margin of
error for each of these subgroup sample sizes, in the following table.

Page 20

Table 8 Sample Size and Margin of Error for Common Demographic Subgroups to
be Compared in 2014
Demographic Characteristic:

Approximate
Margin of Error

Number of
Participants
Sampled (weighted)

(when analyzing only this

subgroup)

n=165
n=163

6.1%
6.1%

n=61
n=49
n=62
n=67
n=43
n=46

10.0%
11.2%
9.9%
9.6%
11.9%
11.5%

n=202
n=79
n=47

5.5%
8.8%
11.4%

n=49
n=107
n=79
n=53

11.2%
7.6%
8.8%
10.8%

Gender:
Male
Female

Age:
18-29 years of age
30-39 years of age
40-49 years of age
50-59 years of age
60-69 years of age
70 years of age or older

Education Level:
High school graduate (or less)
Some college (less than 4-year degree)
College graduate (4+ year degree)

Annual Household Income:

Less than $25,000
$25,001-$50,000
$50,001-$75,000
More than $75,000

Again, the reader can identify the statistically significant trends by noting the comment directly above each trend
table, and may identify statistically significant differences between subgroups shown in correlational tables by referring to
the appendix of this report for instruction in cross-tabulation interpretation.

Framing a Statistic Providing Perspective to Better Understand, Interpret, and

Use this Survey Data
The rationale behind providing so many analyses (statistics) for every survey question included in this study is
that one never fully understands the information contained in a reported statistic without framing that statistic. Framing
involves adding a more rich perspective to the value of some reported statistic. For example, when Lewis County
residents were asked the survey question: When considering you or your family's personal financial situation has
it gotten better, stayed about the same, or gotten worse in the past 12 months?, the result in the current 2014
community study is that 21.6% of the participants responded with gotten worse (reported later in Table 60). So . what
does this 21.6% really mean? Often-times community-based researchers will describe the process of framing a statistic
as completing as many as possible of the five following comparisons (frames) to better understand a reported statistic
from a sample:
Within Response Distribution
(Is it a majority? 4:1 ratio? Three times more likely to respond with better . than worse?)

Trend Across Time

(Has it increased? Decreased?)

Compare to Target/Benchmark
(Compare to some regional average? Compare to an agency or communitys goal or target?)

Ranking Among Similar Variables

(Among many different similar locations, characteristics, options, or attributes, that all use the same response scale, is this specific
item ranked first? last?)

Cross-tabulations by Potential Explanatory Variables

(Different political ideological people differ in opinion or behavior? Age-dependent? Gender-dependent? Education-dependent?
Income-dependent? Geography-dependent?)

The design of this final study report of findings includes all of the various types of tables that are necessary to
allow community leaders to best frame the statistics included in this report, best understand the statistics included, and
make best decisions in the future regarding how to use the statistics. As has been mentioned several times previously, if
one has further questions about framing a statistic please contact the professional staff at the Center for Community
Studies.
Page 21

Section 3.1 Longevity of Living in Lewis County

Table 9 How long have you lived in Lewis County?
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: Significant increase in 7+ years between 2011-2014, with the current 2014 rate at an all-time high.
Less than 1 year
1-3 years
4-7 years
More than 7 years

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

1.0%
9.3%
9.0%
80.7%

2.1%
2.8%
7.2%
87.9%

0.5%
2.6%
9.2%
87.7%

2.7%
4.8%
8.0%
84.5%

1.9%
3.3%
10.5%
84.2%

1.4%
3.8%
4.2%
90.6%

0.2%
1.9%
2.7%
95.2%

0.1%
0.9%
2.4%
96.6%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 22

Table 10 Do you expect you will still be living in Lewis County in five years?
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: Significant increase in Plan to Stay between 2011-2012, rate has not changed significantly between 2012-2014.
Yes
No
Not sure

2007
85.8%
7.4%
6.8%

2008
90.1%
5.4%
4.5%

2009
92.4%
4.0%
3.5%

2010
89.3%
5.6%
5.1%

2011
77.6%
17.7%
4.8%

2012
88.3%
10.9%
0.9%

2013
88.4%
8.4%
3.2%

2014
88.3%
8.5%
3.2%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 23

Section 3.2 Quality of Life Issues Summary of Trends (2007-2014)

The larger font, bolded, and dark-cell-shaded number in each row of Table 11 is the largest percentage
responding Excellent or Good found throughout the studied eight years for each survey question. Similarly, the larger
font, bolded, and dark-cell-shaded number in each row of Table 12 is the largest percentage responding Poor found
throughout the eight years of study. For quick reference, considering the sample sizes collected each year in the Annual
Survey of the Community, a difference of 6% or larger between any two years (between any two numbers located in the
same row) may be considered a statistically significant trend, or change over time. (For more detail regarding statistical
significance, please refer to the appendix of this report: Technical Comments Assistance in Interpretation of the Statistical Results.)

Table 11 Trends in Issues in Lewis County Years 2007-2014 % Indicating Good or

Excellent
Quality of Life Indicator:

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

38
34
22
64
75
80
89

31

30

17

13

13.

Shopping opportunities
Quality of K-12 education

35
82

40

14.
15.

The overall state of the local economy

35

16.

The overall quality of life in the area

17.

Availability of care for the elderly.

18.

Access to higher education

74
55
--

61
64
74
86
41
51
20
74
10
28
80
19
73
61
36

72
79
83
91

Availability of good jobs

33
29
22
66
70
70
90
32
44
19
78
13
33
84
23
78
65
42

38
35

12.

30
26
26
63
71
78
90
33
45
18
69
11
35
85
21
73
62
38

33
31

Policing and crime control

28
27
22
63
74
78
83
43
48
25
70

29
29
30
58
68
73
84
35
42
22
68
16
31
75
19
71
54
41

28
30
26
55
71
75
86
40
43
16
73
16
36
73
24
75
65
37

1.

Opportunities for youth

2.

Cultural/entertainment opportunities

3.

Cost of energy

4.

Healthcare access

5.

Healthcare quality

6.

Public outdoor recreational opportunities

7.

Quality of the environment

8.

County government

9.

Town and village government

10.

Real estate taxes

11.

46
53
22

77

84
21

82
64
--

39
52

27
75
13
38

87
30
77

70
46

(Dark Gray shaded cell in each row of Tables 11 & 12 indicates the year when the largest % responding Excellent or Good, or Poor, respectively, was found)

Table 12 Trends in Issues in Lewis County Years 2007-2014 % Indicating Poor

Quality of Life Indicator:

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

25
24

32
28
38
11
8
8
1

31

25
23
25
11
8
9
2
20
14
38
4
53
22

14. Quality of K-12 education

3
19
5
8
--

28
22
36
10
6
7
1
17
15
34
7
44
24
1
30
3
7
25

33
30

13. Shopping opportunities

32
25
40
7
7
7
2
18
13
41
4
55
32
1
41
3
8
27

31
23
36

12. Availability of good jobs

29
26
44
9
4
5
2
13
14
33
6
41

1.

Opportunities for youth

2.

Cultural/entertainment opportunities

3.

Cost of energy

4.

Healthcare access

5.

Healthcare quality

6.

Public outdoor recreational opportunities

7.

Quality of the environment

8.

County government

9.

Town and village government

10. Real estate taxes

11. Policing and crime control

15. The overall state of the local economy

16. The overall quality of life in the area
17. Availability of care for the elderly.
18. Access to higher education

Page 24

48
11
7
6
3
15
11
36
7
45
26
1
34
4

12
--

24
19
42
10
56
26
2

44
6
9
31

12
11
7
2
15
13
37
7

57
29
4
43
7
6

37

5
30
4
10
28

29
12
10

12
4
19
10
40
6
53
27
3
26

8
6
32

Section 3.3 Quality of Life Issues Summary of 2014 Results

Table 13 shows the detailed results for all 18 quality-of-life indicators recorded in 2014. The larger font, darkgray-shaded, and bolded number in each row is the largest result found for each survey question, providing an easy
method to determine whether a quality-of-life indicator is most commonly perceived currently as excellent, good, fair, or
poor.

Table 13 SUMMARY Quality of Life Issues in Lewis County Year 2014

(Dark Gray shaded cell in each row of Table 13 indicates the most common response)

Quality of Life Indicator:

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Dont
Know

1.

Opportunities for youth

5.5%

22.0%

35.3%

33.4%

3.7%

2.

Cultural/entertainment opportunities

3.3%

27.0%

37.8%

29.6%

2.3%

3.

Cost of energy

0.6%

25.1%

44.0%

29.3%

0.8%

4.

Healthcare access

10.6%

44.6%

32.1%

12.3%

0.4%

5.

Healthcare quality

13.3%

57.2%

19.8%

9.6%

0.1%

6.

Public outdoor recreational opportunities

35.5%

39.7%

11.1%

12.4%

1.3%

7.

Quality of the environment

37.3%

48.4%

9.2%

4.2%

0.9%

8.

County government

1.7%

38.5%

35.1%

19.2%

5.5%

9.

Town and village government

2.1%

40.8%

41.7%

10.4%

5.1%

10.

Real estate taxes

0.6%

15.6%

37.8%

39.8%

6.3%

11.

Policing and crime control

13.7%

58.9%

21.3%

5.9%

0.2%

12.

Availability of good jobs

0.2%

16.1%

30.2%

52.7%

0.8%

13.

Shopping opportunities

4.8%

31.0%

36.6%

27.4%

0.2%

14.

Quality of K-12 education

25.8%

47.6%

21.2%

3.2%

2.3%

15.

The overall state of the local economy

1.5%

22.0%

47.8%

26.3%

2.5%

16.

The overall quality of life in the area

21.5%

53.3%

17.2%

7.7%

0.3%

17.

Availability of care for the elderly.

14.1%

50.6%

22.3%

6.3%

6.6%

18.

Access to higher education

7.7%

29.0%

28.1%

31.9%

3.4%

The following two graphs highlight the most positively and most negatively perceived of the 18 studied quality-oflife indicators in 2014, with 2011-2013 results also shown for a recent trend comparison.

Page 25

Page 26

Section 3.4 Satisfaction with Overall Quality of Life in Lewis County Key
Driver Analysis Factor(s) that have the most influence
In past years the organization of the presentation of results of this annual survey (and, this year, as well) has
focused on providing readers and users of this study by facilitating:
1. investigation for change over time for questions that are measured in multiple years (e.g. has perception of
Opportunities for Youth in the county changed over time?),
2. comparison of the relative magnitude of the results for a variable among a group of similarly measured
variables (i.e. which community indicator is perceived most positively? negatively?), and
3. identification of key demographic variables that may be potential explanatory variables that could help one
model/predict results.
In 2014 a further analysis of the 18 key community indicators will be completed that has a different goal, a goal of
identifying which of the other 17 key community indicator variables (independent variables) has the most impact upon
residents perceptions of the Overall Quality of Life in Lewis County (the one key outcome, or dependent, variable that we
are interested in better understanding).
The first exercise in attaining this new research goal is to complete a factor analysis to identify whether the 17
independent variables include excessive amounts of redundancy. Are several of these community indicators strongly
correlated to one another in a way such that one could be used to predict others? Can the 17 independent variables be
reduced to a smaller set of key underlying factors? This situation where many of the independent variables are strongly
correlated to one another is called multicollinearity, and if present it creates mathematical issues in future model-building
endeavors.
The first step to answer these questions of independent-variable redundancy is to complete a correlation analysis
between every one of the 136 possible unique pairs of independent variables that can be analyzed. Each pair of variables
has had a correlation coefficient calculated and the results are recorded in the following Table 14. A correlation
coefficient, r, is a scaled statistical measurement of the strength of a relationship between two variables, scaled between 1 and +1, with r=0 indicating no relationship present (in which case the two variables are independent of one another).
The larger the absolute value of r then the stronger the relationship (i.e. more evidence of redundancy, in this instance).
In other words, the closer that r gets to +1 then the more evidence there is that the two variables are strongly positively
related, and one variable could be used to predict the other. Similarly, the closer that r gets to -1 then the more evidence
there is that the two variables are strongly negatively related, and one variable could be used to predict the other. An r>0
indicates that as one variable increases so does the other, and conversely an r<0 indicates that as one variable increases
then the other decreases. An r=1 exactly, indicates that one variable can be used to entirely explain and perfectly
predict the other variable (never happens with real data!). The values of r that are recorded in Table 14 have all been
identified as strongly statistically significant (**), statistically significant (*), or not statistically significant (no *, and cell in
table shaded darker gray).
One can quickly identify that within the 2014 Lewis County data there is a large degree of correlation
(multicollinearity) among the 17 possible community perceptions that may assist us in better understanding (predicting)
ones satisfaction with the overall quality of life in the region. For example, with r=.549 (**), there is strong evidence that
persons who rate Opportunities for Youth highly also tend to rate Cultural/Entertainment Opportunities highly, there is
evidence of redundancy. Do we need to measure both variables if our goal is to predict/model Satisfaction with Overall
Quality of Life? Probably not.

Page 27

14. Quality of
K-12
Education
15. Overall
State of Local
Economy
16.
Availability of
Care for
Elderly
17. Access to
Higher
Education

13. Shopping
Opportunities

11. Policing
and Crime
Control
12.
Availability of
Good Jobs

10. Real
Estate Taxes

9. Town and
Village
Government

8. County
Government

6. Public
Outdoor Rec.
Opps.
7. Quality of
the
Environment

5. Healthcare
Quality

4. Healthcare
Access

3. Cost of
Energy

Community Quality-ofLife Indicators:

1.
Opportunities
for Youth
2.
Cultural/Ent.
Opps.

Table 14 Correlation Analysis Among Quality of Life Issues in Lewis County

1.

Opportunities for Youth

1.000

2.

Cultural/Ent. Opps.

.549**

1.000

3.

Cost of Energy

.191**

.300**

1.000

4.

Healthcare Access

.238**

.291**

.374**

1.000

5.

Healthcare Quality

.380**

.388**

.386**

.675**

1.000

6.

Public Outdoor Rec. Opps.

.185**

.281**

.302**

.292**

.373**

1.000

7.

Quality of the Environment

.065

.108

.223**

.287**

.341**

.447**

1.000

8.

County Government

.379**

.256**

.309**

.242**

.371**

.250**

.301**

1.000

9.

Town and Village Government

.341**

.211**

.164**

.094

.200**

.160**

.079

.719**

1.000

10. Real Estate Taxes

.227**

.211**

.486**

.210**

.334**

.254**

.301**

.413**

.281**

11. Policing and Crime Control

.250**

.256**

.213**

.391**

.392**

.203**

.329**

.354**

.304**

0.092

1.000

12. Availability of Good Jobs

.424**

.370**

.385**

.255**

.372**

.271**

.240**

.405**

.234**

.457**

.148**

1.000

13. Shopping Opportunities

.368**

.467**

.259**

.234**

.358**

.302**

.197**

.272**

.199**

.185**

.283**

.482**

1.000

14. Quality of K-12 Education

.274**

.140*

.296**

.369**

.451**

.344**

.319**

.305**

.296**

.370**

.396**

.246**

.196**

1.000

15. Overall State of Local Economy

.392**

.327**

.464**

.261**

.400**

.207**

.279**

.501**

.335**

.370**

.277**

.476**

.290**

.325**

1.000

16. Availability of Care for Elderly

.244**

.206**

.267**

.181**

.284**

.280**

.302**

.215**

.120*

.139*

.250**

.261**

.345**

.190**

.310**

1.000

17. Access to Higher Education

.217**

.211**

.199**

.321**

.431**

.284**

.112*

.149**

.036

.197**

.114*

.262**

.262**

.236**

.166**

.197**

** Correlation is significant at the =0.01 level (p<0.01)

1.000

1.000

* Correlation is significant at the =0.05 level (p<0.05)

It would be a daunting task to analyze all 136 correlation coefficients in Table 14 and group the 17 independent
variables into a smaller set of subgroups of variables. However, factor analysis is a mathematical technique that
accomplishes precisely this goal. The outcome of a factor analysis answers two essential questions for a set of variables:
1. How many underlying factors may the set of k variables (in this case k=17) be reduced to?
2. Which variables group together (termed as load together, or load on the same factor)? Essentially this
step identifies the group of variables that are redundant, measuring the same underlying phenomenon or
factor.
After the factor analysis is completed, the list of variables is sorted to make interpretation easier. These sorted
factor loadings are shown in Table 15, with the dark gray shaded cells indicating which variables load most strongly on
each of Factor 1 Factor 5. Analysis of the individual variables within each of the five groups suggested the naming of
the factors that one can observe in the colored fonts at the top of each factor column. In other words, Healthcare Access,
Healthcare Quality, Access to Higher Education, and Quality of K-12 Education all seem to be varying together as a
participant responds to the survey. These four variables collectively have been titled the Healthcare/Education factor.
The most important take-away from Table 15 is that the 2014 data in Lewis County suggests that there are five
key factors that contribute to ones perception of the Overall Quality of Life in the county (not necessarily in prioritized
order):
Factor 1: Healthcare and Education
Factor 2: Opportunities, not employment-related
Factor 3: Government
Factor 4: Cost of Living, Jobs, Personal Finance
Factor 5: The Environment

Page 28

Table 15 Factor Analysis Quality of Life Issues in Lewis County Five Key Lewis
County Community-Satisfaction Factors (Year 2014)
Factor 1
Healthcare &
Education

Factor 2
Opportunities
(not empoyment)

Factor 3
Government

Factor 4
Cost of Living/
Jobs/Finance

Factor 5
Environment

Health care access (r=.341)

.820

.126

.072

.102

.126

Health care quality (r=.387)

.751

.281

.151

.218

.190

Access to higher education (r=.133)

.541

.290

-.197

.216

.030

Quality of k-12 education (r=.388)

.539

-.065

.374

.224

.241

Cultural/entertainment opportunities (r=.347)

.226

.750

.107

.101

.038

Shopping opportunities (.418)

.099

.698

.053

.096

.343

Opportunities for youth (r=.327)

.193

.698

.341

.109

-.066

Town and village government (r=.227)

-.010

.162

.856

.151

-.025

County government (r=.419)

.091

.191

.769

.339

.142

Policing and crime control (r=.383)

.451

.135

.514

-.248

.361

Real estate taxes (r=.347)

.154

.006

.212

.806

.096

Cost of energy (r=.397)

.283

.139

.063

.651

.190

Availability of good jobs (r=.427)

.070

.511

.115

.582

.167

The overall state of the local economy (.500)

.121

.311

.388

.486

.196

Quality of the environment (r=.410)

.203

-.123

.149

.193

.765

Availability of care for the elderly. (.383)

-.007

.364

.041

.057

.663

Public outdoor recreational opportunities (r=.339)

.283

.137

.011

.222

.594

Community Quality-of-Life Indicators:

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
(NOTE: the colored values of r in the left-most column of Table 15 will be described in the following pages)

To determine which of these five identified quality-of-life factors is the most important in contributing to, or
impacting, ones impression of the Overall Quality of Life in the Area another mathematical technique called modelbuilding, will be completed. Once the model is constructed to best predict Overall Quality of Life in the Area a relative
importance analysis will be completed for the model to finally identify the factor(s) that have the greatest impact upon
ones Overall Quality of Life in the Area (happiness with the quality of life in Lewis County).
Unfortunately, the most rigorous (best) methods to build a multiple regression model and complete a relative
importance analysis currently are unmanageable in necessary computer time if one has 17 independent variables to
include in the model (17 is too large). Hence, one reason that the preceding factor analysis was completed is to reduce
from 17 inputs in the model to five. A standard technique is to construct five new latent variables (factors) by simply
averaging the responses to all variables contained within a factor to generate a new scaled (latent) variable that measures
each factor. These five new scaled variables were constructed and used as the five independent variables in a multiple
regression model that generates the following output in Table 16. Note that the colored values of r included in the leftmost column of Table 14 for each of the 17 independent variables is the correlation coefficient that measures how strongly
each variable correlates to the scaled latent variable that it is a part of constructing, illustrating that each independent
variable is strongly positively correlated with the scaled variable that it was a component of constructing.

Page 29

Table 16 Regression Modeling and Relative Importance Which communitysatisfaction factors contribute most to residents attitudes about the
Overall Quality of Life in Lewis County? (Year 2014)
Independent Variables in the Regression
Model (overall model p=0.000)

Beta Coefficients
in the Model

p-value

Constant

0.207

1.032

0.303

Healthcare/Education Index

0.021

0.300

0.764

Opportunities (not jobs) Index

0.183

2.952

0.003 (**)

Government Index

0.194

2.721

0.007 (**)

Cost of Living/Jobs/Finance Index

0.412

5.149

0.000 (**)

Environment Index

0.336

5.082

0.000 (**)

Independent Variables in the Relative

Importance Analysis

% of Variation in
Overall Quality of
Life Explained

Healthcare/Education Index

11%

Opportunities (not jobs) Index

17%

Government Index

15%

Cost of Living/Jobs/Finance Index

31%

Environment Index

26%

The interpretation of this regression model in Table 16 is that all five studied factors contribute in a positive way to
ones perception of the Overall Quality of Life (a higher rating on that factor suggests a higher rating on Overall Quality of
Life), with Cost of Living/Jobs/Finance and The Environment the two factors that contribute the most to predicting ones
perception of the Overall Quality of Life in Lewis County (smallest p-values). Further, if one were to attempt to predict an
individuals rating for Overall Quality of Life the beta coefficients in Table 16 result with the following multivariate equation
(model):

= 0.207 + 0.021

+ 0.183

+ 0.194 #

+ 0.412 %

& + 0.336

The interpretation of this relative importance analysis is similar, but now a more useful measurement of the size of
the contribution to Overall Quality of Life is generated (the relative importance). Cost of Living/Jobs/Finance and The
Environment again are identified as the two factors that contribute the most to predicting ones perception of the Overall
Quality of Life in Lewis County, but now one may observe that these two factors account for 57% of an individuals rating
for Overall Quality of Life. Note that the meaning of a relative importance of 31% for Cost of Living/Jobs/Finance versus
a relative importance of 11% for Healthcare/Education is that ones perception of Cost of Living/Jobs/Finance is about
three times more important in contributing to ones Overall Quality of Life rating than is ones perception of
Healthcare/Education (31%11%=2.8). In other words, ones perception of Healthcare/Education is quite minimal in its
contribution toward ones Overall Quality of Life rating.

Page 30

Section 3.5 Detailed Analysis of Individual Quality of Life Indicators

Tables 17-34, shown on the following pages, provide the greatest level of detail in results for the 18 investigated
quality-of-life indicators. In these 18 tables, the result for each of the quality-of-life indicators is shown, including all
possible responses to each survey question. A trend analysis is completed for each of the quality-of-life indicators, with
statistically significant changes between 2007 and 2014 identified above each trend-analysis table. Finally, crosstabulations by four key demographic factors (Gender, Age, Education, and Income) have been completed. By inspecting
the results after cross-tabbing by any of these four demographic factors, the reader can better understand factors that
may be significantly correlated with perceptions of quality-of-life characteristics of the county.

Table 17 Opportunities for Youth

2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: Significant decrease in Excellent or Good between 2012-2013, negative trend continued in 2014 where Poor is
currently at an all-time high of 33.4%.
2007
2008
Excellent
5.1%
4.6%
Good
23.4%
33.2%
Fair
39.4%
36.5%
Poor
28.9%
24.6%
Dont know
3.1%
1.2%

2009
2.4%
28.2%
35.4%
31.9%
2.1%

2010
10.2%
22.8%
31.3%
31.5%
4.2%

2011
6.2%
26.8%
30.8%
31.1%
5.0%

2012
4.3%
33.9%
32.6%
27.8%
1.7%

2013
6.7%
22.1%
44.3%
25.2%
1.7%

2014
5.5%
22.0%
35.3%
33.4%
3.7%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 31

Table 18 Cultural/Entertainment Opportunities

2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: Significant shift from Fair to Poor between 2013-2014, with Poor currently at an all-time high of 29.6%.
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Dont know

2007
4.7%
21.6%
45.8%
26.0%
1.9%

2008
5.5%
27.8%
39.7%
24.4%
2.6%

2009
4.4%
22.1%
43.4%
27.6%
2.6%

2010
2.6%
26.3%
42.8%
25.3%
3.1%

2011
3.6%
27.7%
40.6%
22.9%
5.2%

2012
3.7%
31.6%
41.9%
22.3%
0.4%

2013
2.3%
26.5%
45.8%
23.3%
2.1%

2014
3.3%
27.0%
37.8%
29.6%
2.3%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 32

Table 19 Cost of Energy

2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: No significant change between 2013-2014, Poor remains lower than in 2007-2012.
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Dont know

2007
1.7%
20.2%
31.0%
43.8%
3.3%

2008
3.0%
19.4%
29.8%
47.7%
0.2%

2009
1.9%
24.1%
32.3%
38.4%
3.3%

2010
3.1%
19.0%
32.5%
39.9%
5.5%

2011
3.5%
27.5%
29.3%
36.0%
3.6%

2012
2.7%
27.0%
31.5%
35.6%
3.2%

2013
3.1%
26.5%
42.8%
25.0%
2.6%

2014
0.6%
25.1%
44.0%
29.3%
0.8%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 33

Table 20 Healthcare Access

2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: Significant and dramatic increase in Excellent or Good between 2011-2012, however, opinions reversed between 20122013 where Excellent or Good was at lowest rate found during first 7-years of study, and in 2014 this negative trend has
continued (2014 has highest rate ever of Poor, lowest rate ever of Excellent).
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Excellent
14.7%
16.1%
12.2%
20.1%
15.6%
17.5%
14.2%
10.6%
Good
47.8%
47.8%
51.4%
45.9%
45.7%
54.8%
43.8%
44.6%
Fair
27.1%
23.6%
23.7%
25.8%
24.7%
17.4%
27.7%
32.1%
Poor
9.1%
10.7%
11.0%
7.1%
11.6%
9.9%
11.4%
12.3%
Dont know
1.4%
1.7%
1.6%
1.2%
2.3%
0.3%
3.0%
0.4%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 34

Table 21 Healthcare Quality

2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: Significant and dramatic increase in Excellent or Good between 2011-2012, however, opinions reversed between 2012-

2013, and continued to trend negatively between 2013-2014, with 2014 results of 2nd highest rate ever of Poor, and lowest
rate ever of Excellent.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Excellent
23.7%
22.5%
18.8%
19.7%
18.9%
17.2%
20.2%
13.3%
Good
50.4%
52.3%
52.3%
50.5%
45.2%
61.9%
47.7%
57.2%
Fair
19.9%
14.6%
19.0%
22.0%
22.5%
14.9%
22.4%
19.8%
Poor
4.4%
6.8%
7.6%
6.6%
10.5%
5.8%
7.7%
9.6%
Dont know
1.5%
3.8%
2.3%
1.2%
2.8%
0.1%
1.9%
0.1%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 35

Table 22 Public Outdoor Recreational Opportunities

2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: Significant decrease in Excellent or Good between 2012-2013, returning to typical long-term average rate in 2013, and
continuing at a similar rate in 2014.
2007
2008
Excellent
45.9%
41.6%
Good
31.6%
38.2%
Fair
17.4%
11.7%
Poor
4.7%
6.0%
Dont know
0.4%
2.5%

2009
40.9%
36.5%
13.6%
8.2%
0.8%

2010
34.2%
35.7%
21.6%
6.7%
1.9%

2011
27.7%
46.6%
16.2%
7.4%
2.0%

2012
30.1%
53.0%
8.9%
6.8%
1.1%

2013
35.9%
37.5%
16.4%
8.6%
1.6%

2014
35.5%
39.7%
11.1%
12.4%
1.3%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 36

Table 23 Quality of the Environment

2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: No significant change throughout 2007-2014.

Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Dont know

2007
36.7%
45.8%
14.6%
2.5%
0.4%

2008
38.8%
50.4%
7.4%
2.7%
0.8%

2009
34.8%
54.9%
9.0%
1.3%
0.0%

2010
34.3%
55.4%
7.7%
1.7%
0.9%

2011
29.7%
55.9%
11.8%
1.8%
0.8%

2012
36.5%
54.8%
8.0%
0.5%
0.3%

2013
35.4%
48.6%
13.6%
1.8%
0.6%

2014
37.3%
48.4%
9.2%
4.2%
0.9%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 37

Table 24 County Government

2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: Significant increase in Excellent or Good between 2010-2011 remained not significantly changed between 2011-2014.
Current satisfaction levels remain more negative than those found in 2007-2008.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Excellent
3.2%
2.5%
3.3%
2.2%
4.1%
3.1%
Good
40.3%
43.2%
30.2%
29.8%
36.4%
35.9%
Fair
38.3%
34.4%
38.1%
38.6%
39.9%
38.7%
Poor
13.3%
15.2%
24.4%
17.9%
15.4%
17.3%
Dont know
5.0%
4.7%
4.1%
11.5%
4.2%
5.1%

2013
6.6%
28.7%
36.0%
20.0%
8.7%

2014
1.7%
38.5%
35.1%
19.2%
5.5%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 38

Table 25 Town and Village Government

2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: Significant increase in Excellent or Good between 2010-2011 remained not significantly changed between 2011-2012,
however in 2013 there was a significant decrease, to the 7-year low rate of 42.3%, and the 2014 result has remained stable
at 42.9%.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Excellent
3.6%
7.4%
4.9%
4.5%
4.0%
2.7%
7.9%
2.1%
Good
44.1%
46.0%
39.9%
39.1%
46.6%
48.8%
34.4%
40.8%
Fair
34.2%
30.6%
32.4%
36.3%
32.2%
29.9%
35.4%
41.7%
Poor
14.0%
11.3%
19.1%
13.3%
13.3%
14.6%
13.7%
10.4%
Dont know
4.2%
4.6%
3.7%
6.9%
3.9%
4.0%
8.7%
5.1%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 39

Table 26 Real Estate Taxes

2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: Excellent or Good in 2014 is at an all-time low of 16.2%.

Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Dont know

2007
1.5%
22.8%
37.1%
33.4%
5.2%

2008
2.6%
18.9%
35.8%
36.5%
6.2%

2009
1.0%
16.8%
35.6%
41.7%
4.9%

2010
1.7%
16.9%
33.1%
40.7%
7.6%

2011
1.4%
18.2%
36.6%
36.5%
7.3%

2012
0.4%
26.4%
31.7%
34.3%
7.3%

2013
1.5%
21.0%
31.8%
38.2%
7.6%

2014
0.6%
15.6%
37.8%
39.8%
6.3%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 40

Table 27 Policing and Crime Control

2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: No significant trend between 2007-2014.

Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Dont know

2007
19.3%
50.6%
23.0%
6.2%
0.9%

2008
22.8%
54.1%
15.5%
6.8%
0.9%

2009
16.3%
53.2%
20.5%
9.7%
0.4%

2010
18.3%
59.6%
16.0%
4.2%
1.9%

2011
13.6%
60.4%
18.4%
6.9%
0.7%

2012
19.6%
55.0%
17.4%
7.4%
0.6%

2013
15.0%
53.1%
25.6%
3.7%
2.6%

2014
13.7%
58.9%
21.3%
5.9%
0.2%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 41

Table 28 Availability of Good Jobs

2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: There was a significant shift from Fair to Poor between 2012-2013, returning to rates that are similar to 2009-2011, and
the rate has not changed significantly between 2013-2014.
2007
2008
2009
2010
Excellent
2.0%
0.5%
2.4%
2.6%
Good
14.9%
12.1%
9.2%
10.5%
Fair
40.6%
40.0%
31.2%
27.8%
Poor
41.0%
44.8%
55.6%
55.0%
Dont know
1.5%
2.5%
1.6%
4.2%

2011
0.0%
10.1%
29.0%
57.2%
3.7%

2012
0.0%
12.5%
42.6%
44.2%
0.7%

2013
3.1%
12.4%
29.4%
53.0%
2.0%

2014
0.2%
16.1%
30.2%
52.7%
0.8%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 42

Table 29 Shopping Opportunities

2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: Significant shift from Fair to Good between 2013-2014.

Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Dont know

2007
6.5%
29.1%
32.8%
31.1%
0.6%

2008
11.8%
27.9%
34.3%
25.6%
0.5%

2009
6.1%
28.6%
37.7%
26.4%
1.3%

2010
3.2%
29.4%
35.4%
31.7%
0.3%

2011
2.7%
25.3%
42.2%
29.3%
0.4%

2012
4.7%
33.0%
37.7%
23.5%
1.0%

2013
8.5%
22.4%
46.4%
22.3%
0.3%

2014
4.8%
31.0%
36.6%
27.4%
0.2%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 43

Table 30 Quality of K-12 Education

2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: A significant decrease in Excellent or Good occurred between 2012-2013, at which time it was lowest rate found in 7-year
study (75.1%), this rate has set an all-time low again in 2014 of 73.4%, there has been a shift toward Fair in 2014.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Excellent
37.2%
33.0%
39.1%
35.5%
27.4%
24.0%
29.1%
25.8%
Good
44.7%
50.8%
46.1%
48.7%
52.5%
62.9%
46.0%
47.6%
Fair
12.0%
11.2%
5.9%
7.8%
10.2%
9.5%
12.7%
21.2%
Poor
2.9%
1.3%
2.2%
1.2%
3.9%
1.4%
5.2%
3.2%
Dont know
3.2%
3.7%
6.7%
6.8%
6.2%
2.2%
6.9%
2.3%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 44

Table 31 Overall State of the Local Economy

2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: Significant improvement has been found between 2013-2014, with the Poor rate now being the second lowest ever found
in 8 years of study (lowest since 2007), and a significant shift from Poor or Fair to Good occurred in the past year.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Excellent
2.4%
0.2%
0.5%
1.3%
1.3%
0.5%
3.9%
1.5%
Good
32.8%
21.4%
20.1%
21.6%
18.0%
29.9%
15.3%
22.0%
Fair
44.4%
42.0%
35.2%
34.5%
36.7%
38.3%
50.7%
47.8%
Poor
18.5%
33.7%
43.6%
40.7%
43.2%
30.3%
29.6%
26.3%
Dont know
1.9%
2.6%
0.7%
1.7%
0.7%
1.0%
0.5%
2.5%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 45

Table 32 Overall Quality of Life in the Area

2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: No significant trend between 2007-2014.

Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Dont know

2007
21.9%
52.2%
21.0%
4.9%
0.0%

2008
21.4%
61.4%
12.9%
4.1%
0.2%

2009
18.2%
55.2%
20.2%
6.3%
0.1%

2010
17.5%
60.5%
18.8%
3.2%
0.0%

2011
18.1%
54.5%
19.5%
7.2%
0.7%

2012
13.5%
63.8%
20.1%
2.5%
0.0%

2013
22.0%
49.1%
25.3%
3.7%
0.0%

2014
21.5%
53.3%
17.2%
7.7%
0.3%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 46

Table 33 Availability of Care for the Elderly

2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: Significant shift from Fair or Poor to Good between 2013-2014.
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Dont know

2007
11.5%
43.4%
26.2%
8.4%
10.4%

2008
18.1%
45.9%
17.4%
12.0%
6.6%

2009
12.3%
49.6%
22.3%
9.3%
6.5%

2010
16.2%
48.5%
20.6%
7.6%
7.1%

2011
8.9%
52.0%
19.9%
5.6%
13.5%

2012
18.2%
51.9%
17.7%
6.9%
5.3%

2013
15.0%
39.0%
28.1%
9.6%
8.4%

2014
14.1%
50.6%
22.3%
6.3%
6.6%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 47

Table 34 Access to Higher Education

2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: Significant increase in Poor or Fair between 2012-2014.

Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Dont know

2007
------

2008
------

2009
7.6%
29.8%
26.9%
31.1%
4.5%

2010
8.9%
33.4%
27.7%
26.7%
3.3%

2011
5.7%
30.7%
21.3%
37.1%
5.3%

2012
12.9%
32.7%
27.5%
24.7%
2.2%

2013
7.9%
33.0%
28.2%
27.6%
3.3%

2014
7.7%
29.0%
28.1%
31.9%
3.4%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 48

Table 35 What do you think is the most important issue facing the residents of
Lewis County at the present time?
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis:

Employment issues/Loss of jobs increased significantly between 2012-2013, to an all-time high of 49.3% and has remained high
in 2014 at 47.0%; Taxes are at an all-time high of 18.7% in 2014, while Economic decline is an all-time low.

Crime
Drug, alcohol problems
Economic decline (loss of industry)
Education, problems with schools
Environmental issues
Healthcare issues
Inefficient, ineffective government
Intolerance
"Isolation," lack of cult/recreation/shop opps.
Lack of "community vision"
Employment issues, loss of jobs, etc.
Military/civilian relations
Overall depressed economy
Taxes
Youth related issues
Energy issues (cost, availability)
Housing
Availability of care for the elderly
Access to higher education
Agriculture, the price of milk
Cost of living
Transportation
Windmill concerns
Budget, Spending, Mandates
Gun Control, the NYS SAFE Act
Ebola Crisis
ISIS Terrorism
All of the above
Other issues

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

1.0%
2.7%
11.8%
1.2%
1.4%
4.8%
1.7%
0.4%
2.7%
1.3%
32.4%
1.1%
2.1%
18.2%
2.4%
5.2%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
8.8%

1.1%
0.5%
16.4%
0.7%
0.1%
4.0%
1.1%
0.0%
1.8%
0.8%
32.6%
0.6%
5.3%
12.2%
2.2%
20.2%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.4%
1.3%
19.3%
1.0%
0.9%
5.0%
2.5%
0.6%
1.6%
0.5%
33.8%
0.0%
4.3%
18.5%
2.5%
1.7%
0.3%
0.8%
1.2%
1.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.8%
1.0%

0.0%
1.2%
24.0%
1.3%
1.4%
1.8%
2.7%
0.0%
0.4%
2.1%
39.8%
0.0%
3.1%
13.8%
2.5%
1.2%
2.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
1.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.4%
0.5%
23.4%
1.6%
1.1%
3.1%
1.5%
0.0%
5.0%
0.1%
36.8%
0.8%
1.7%
12.6%
3.4%
3.9%
0.8%
0.1%
0.3%
0.7%
0.5%
0.2%
0.0%
1.4%
1.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

3.9%
0.6%
17.5%
0.4%
0.4%
6.4%
3.7%
0.0%
2.1%
0.2%
40.2%
0.0%
1.3%
11.9%
2.6%
1.7%
0.5%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
4.5%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.4%
0.0%

0.0%
3.8%
10.9%
0.8%
0.7%
3.8%
3.6%
0.0%
0.1%
2.0%
49.3%
0.0%
0.8%
15.1%
1.1%
0.0%
1.1%
0.3%
0.0%
0.1%
1.4%
1.0%
0.0%
1.2%
2.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
0.0%

0.0%
0.3%
5.9%
1.6%
1.4%
1.5%
6.1%
0.0%
2.5%
0.7%
47.0%
0.0%
0.0%
18.7%
2.3%
1.8%
0.6%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
3.9%
0.3%
0.0%
2.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Page 49

Table 35 (cont.) What do you think is the most important issue facing the residents of
Lewis County at the present time?

Page 50

Table 35 (cont.) What do you think is the most important issue facing the residents of
Lewis County at the present time?
Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 51

Table 36 Do you agree or disagree that the presence of Fort Drum in the local area
improves the overall quality of life for local residents?
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: Significant increase in Agree, when 2014 results are compared to earlier results found in 2007-2009.
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral/No Opinion
Disagree
Strongly disagree

2007
17.0%
49.9%
9.4%
19.6%
4.1%

2008
15.6%
43.9%
13.6%
21.3%
5.5%

2009
25.3%
45.6%
8.9%
17.6%
2.5%

2010
-

2011
-

2012
-

2013
-

2014
24.4%
55.4%
8.6%
9.9%
1.7%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 52

Section 3.6 Internet Access and Use

Table 37 In the past 30 days have you used the Internet at all?
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County.

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 53

Table 38 Do you have access to the Internet at home? (among Internet users)
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County.

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

94.8% of 73.2% = 69.4% have Internet access at home.

(NOTE: assumes that all who have access home, use it.)

Page 54

Table 39 Do you access the Internet elsewhere, like at work, family and friends'
homes, or public locations? (among Internet users who have no home access)
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County.

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 55

Table 40 SUMMARY What Internet connection type do you access at home? Do

you have multiple options? Satisfaction level with service? (among Internet
users who have access at home)
2014 Results Type of Internet Access:

2014 Results Multiple Options for Each Type of Internet Access:

2014 Results Satisfaction With Service for Each Type of Internet Access:

Page 56

Table 41 Do you access the Internet at home from a wired service (typically cable
or DSL)? (among Internet users who have access at home)
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County.

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 57

Table 42 Were you able to choose from more than one provider of wired service at
your home? (among Internet users who have wired access at home)
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County.

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 58

Table 43 How would you rate the quality of your wired service at home? (among
Internet users who have wired access at home)
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County.

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 59

Table 44 Do you access the Internet using mobile service through a cellular
provider (smartphone or tablet)? (among Internet users who have access at
home)
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County.

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 60

Table 45 Were you able to choose from more than one provider for mobile (cellular)
access? (among Internet users who have mobile/cellular access)
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County.

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 61

Table 46 How would you rate the quality of your mobile/cellular for Internet service
at home? (among Internet users who have mobile/cellular access at home)
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County.

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 62

Table 47 Do you access the Internet using a satellite dish at home? (among Internet
users who have access at home)
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County.

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 63

Table 48 How would you rate the quality of your satellite service for Internet access
at home? (among Internet users who have satellite Internet access at home)
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County.

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 64

Table 49 Which of the following reasons for not using the Internet at home describe
you (choose all that apply)? (among those who do not use the Internet or use the
Internet but do not have access at home or both)
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County.

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 65

Section 3.7 Transportation

Table 50 Has a lack of transportation kept you from securing employment or
meeting your daily needs at any time in the last year?
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: No significant change in Yes between 2007-2014.

Yes
No
Not sure

2007
5.9%
94.1%
0.0%

2008
8.9%
91.1%
0.0%

2009
6.6%
92.4%
1.1%

2010
5.2%
94.5%
0.3%

2011
----

2012
6.0%
93.1%
0.9%

2013
8.3%
91.3%
0.4%

2014
8.0%
91.2%
0.8%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 66

Table 51 What would you say is the primary transportation issue that you've had?
(among those who did have an issue)
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: No significant change between 2013-2014.

Dont have a vehicle.
Vehicle is unreliable.
Cost of gas.
Cost of insurance.
Not sure.
Other issues.

2007
-------

2008
-------

2009
-------

2010
-------

2011
-------

2012
-------

2013
50.7%
17.4%
31.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

2014
54.5%
15.2%
30.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 67

Table 52 Would you use the Countys public transportation system for a daily
commute to Utica if it was available?
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County.

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 68

Section 3.8 Healthcare

Table 53 Do you currently have health insurance? (includes employer-provided, privately
purchased, Medicare, Medicaid, Military TriCare, etc.)
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: No significant trend between 2011-2014.

Yes
No
Not sure

2007
----

2008
----

2009
----

2010
----

2011
89.7%
10.3%
0.0%

2012
90.7%
9.3%
0.0%

2013
81.2%
18.8%
0.0%

2014
87.1%
12.7%
0.2%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 69

Table 54 In the past 12 months have you not obtained needed medical treatment
because of cost?
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: No significant change in ignored needed medical care between 2011-2014.
Yes
No
Not sure

2007
----

2008
----

2009
----

2010
----

2011
11.1%
88.8%
0.1%

2012
10.4%
89.1%
0.5%

2013
13.5%
84.7%
1.8%

2014
13.9%
85.8%
0.2%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Last year (2013):

Page 70

Table 55 Which of the following most closely describes your opinion about the
Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)?
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: Significant increase in familiarity with ACA between 2013-2014, interestingly with increased support both in belief that it
is good, but needs changing and for repealing the ACA.
2007
2008
2009
In favor as is.
---Its good but needs changing.
---Repeal the ACA.
---Not familiar with ACA.
---Not sure
----

2010
------

2011
------

2012
------

2013
12.7%
22.3%
28.9%
26.7%
9.4%

2014
9.7%
29.2%
35.6%
17.4%
8.1%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 71

Table 56 How has the Affordable Care Act affected the healthcare of you and your
family?
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: In 2013 this survey question measured expected ACA impact, while in 2014 it measured realized ACA impact. Clearly the
reality is lesser impact upon persons healthcare than expected.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
More positively
-----More negatively
-----Neither
-----Both
-----Not sure
------

2012
------

2013
24.4%
45.0%
10.6%
1.3%
18.6%

2014
7.7%
22.0%
62.7%
3.4%
4.2%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 72

Table 57 Based on what you know about Lewis County General Hospital, would
you prefer that the hospital remain county-owned, or prefer that it become
a nonprofit, not-county-owned hospital?
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: In 2014 there is significantly less support for remaining county-owned than found in either of 2012 or 2013, more residents
appear to be unsure.
Remain county-owned.
Become a non-profit, not county-owned.
Neither
Not sure/Dont know

2007
-----

2008
-----

2009
-----

2010
-----

2011
-----

2012
58.3%
17.1%
2.2%
22.4%

2013
63.0%
15.1%
3.8%
18.1%

2014
50.9%
14.7%
7.2%
27.2%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 73

Table 58 If Lewis County General Hospital needed additional funding to conduct

operations, we are interested in what amount you would be willing to pay
to support the hospital that would be added to your annual county tax bill.
Please tell me which of the following five statements is closest to your
opinion. (among only those who currently own a home or other property in Lewis County)
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County (this survey question is not exactly the same as in previous years).
Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 74

Section 3.9 The Local Economy

Table 59 What is your current occupation?
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis:

There has been a significant increase in blue collar for past four years.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012

Retired
Not employed
Homemaker
Student
Military
Managerial
Medical
Professional/Technical
Sales
Clerical
Service
Blue Collar
Teacher/Education
Self-employed
Not sure
Disabled

-----------------

21.3%
6.6%
7.9%
1.2%
1.2%
4.0%
5.4%
6.0%
3.6%
2.8%
5.7%
14.2%
6.7%
11.6%
1.7%
0.0%

21.3%
5.3%
6.1%
2.0%
0.9%
4.6%
6.9%
8.5%
2.9%
3.3%
6.1%
12.9%
5.2%
13.6%
0.5%
0.0%

Page 75

22.0%
5.7%
6.0%
1.2%
2.4%
5.4%
7.2%
6.5%
5.7%
5.5%
3.3%
10.6%
5.1%
10.6%
0.6%
2.3%

20.5%
6.6%
4.4%
0.8%
4.6%
6.0%
8.8%
5.5%
2.9%
6.0%
3.9%
20.9%
5.2%
2.4%
0.6%
0.9%

22.7%
2.7%
8.3%
1.8%
0.6%
3.1%
4.0%
8.4%
2.2%
6.4%
5.6%
17.0%
3.5%
10.7%
0.1%
3.0%

2013

2014

23.6%
7.9%
6.5%
1.8%
0.3%
4.1%
5.4%
3.5%
1.8%
3.3%
3.7%
19.8%
4.3%
8.9%
2.9%
2.3%

23.1%
6.3%
2.8%
3.3%
0.0%
1.3%
6.2%
4.1%
4.4%
2.3%
2.1%
24.5%
8.0%
7.1%
1.3%
3.3%

Table 59 (cont.) What is your current occupation?

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 76

Table 60 When considering you or your family's personal financial situation has it
gotten BETTER, stayed about the SAME, or gotten WORSE in the past
12 months?
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis:

Between 2013-2014 a shift from each of Better and Worse toward Same has occurred. The rate of responding
Worse is now at an all-time low of 21.6%, approximately one-half of what was found in 2008 (40.1%).
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Better
-11.9%
11.2%
12.4%
11.7%
13.6%
17.9%
13.2%
Same
-48.0%
55.1%
55.0%
57.0%
60.8%
52.8%
65.1%
Worse
-40.1%
33.6%
30.1%
30.1%
25.3%
28.4%
21.6%
Dont Know
-0.0%
0.1%
2.6%
1.2%
0.3%
0.8%
0.1%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 77

Table 61 Have the federal spending cuts this past year caused by "sequestration"
and the government shutdown negatively affected the financial situation
for you or your family?
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis:

Significant decrease in Yes between 2013-2014 from 24.9% to 15.0%.

2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Yes
------No
------Not sure
-------

2013

2014

24.9%
71.7%
3.4%

15.0%
80.6%
4.4%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 78

Table 62 Please estimate how many hours per month that you volunteer for
community service activities such as church, school and youth activities,
charitable organizations, local government boards, and so forth.
2014 Results:

Page 79

Table 62 (cont.) Please estimate how many hours per month that you volunteer for
community service activities such as church, school and youth
activities, charitable organizations, local government boards, and so
forth.
Trend Analysis:

No significant change in at least some between 2007-2014, but an increase in the # hours among those who do
volunteer only 18.4% of all participants responded with 11+ hours per month in 2007, the rate currently is 30.5%.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
None
40.1%
40.6%
43.1%
--37.1%
41.7%
39.6%
1-5 hours
27.6%
25.0%
21.4%
--12.0%
19.1%
14.8%
6-10 hours
13.9%
11.2%
13.8%
--22.9%
13.4%
15.1%
11-20 hours
8.8%
14.0%
10.0%
--11.2%
12.6%
18.0%
21+ hours
9.6%
9.2%
11.7%
--16.9%
13.2%
12.5%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 80

Table 63 Do you agree or disagree that "tourism has a beneficial impact on our
local economy"?
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis:

No significant change in agreement between 2012-2014, however, the intensity has significantly decreased in
the past two years 45.9% of all participants responded with strongly agree in 2012, the rate currently is only
29.6%
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Strongly Agree
-----45.9%
34.9%
29.6%
Agree
-----43.4%
57.4%
60.0%
Neutral/No Opinion
-----3.6%
3.7%
4.0%
Disagree
-----5.4%
3.5%
5.4%
Strongly Disagree
-----1.8%
0.6%
0.9%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 81

Table 64 How much county funding do you think that Lewis County should be
investing in annual tourism promotion and marketing?
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis:

No significant change between 2012-2014.

2007
2008
2009
$0
---Up to $50,000
---$50,000 - $100,000
---$100,000 - $200,000
---More than $200,000
---Not Sure
----

2010
-------

2011
-------

2012
8.0%
28.8%
37.1%
8.9%
4.1%
13.0%

2013
7.3%
22.7%
39.7%
10.6%
5.1%
14.7%

2014
10.8%
24.5%
37.3%
12.7%
3.9%
10.8%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 82

Section 3.10 Education Issues

Table 65 Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Lewis County
schools are adequately preparing our young people for the technology
and economy of the future."?
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis:

Tremendous and significant decrease in Strongly Agree between 2010-2014 from 34.6% to 10.1%, while
disagreement has significantly increased from 5.4% in 2010 to 22.9% in 2014 (Disagree + Strongly Disagree combined).
The results in 2014 are the least positive ever measured.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Strongly Agree
---34.6%
26.5%
18.6%
13.2%
10.1%
Agree
---43.8%
46.7%
60.5%
60.1%
58.3%
Neutral/No opinion
---16.2%
8.7%
9.6%
8.3%
8.7%
Disagree
---4.4%
9.8%
8.5%
11.2%
19.7%
Strongly Disagree
---1.0%
8.4%
2.8%
7.2%
3.2%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 83

Table 66 Which of the following most closely describes your opinion about the
Common Core Learning Standards in Math and English?
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County.

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 84

Section 3.11 County and State Government, and Political Issues

Table 67 How would you classify your political beliefs?
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis:

No significant change between 2008-2014 when comparing the rates of Conservative vs. Liberal vs. Neither
(Middle of the Road, or Dont Know).
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Very Conservative
-7.6%
6.4%
8.5%
6.9%
7.3%
5.9%
6.8%
Conservative
-29.3%
30.3%
27.4%
28.2%
26.4%
26.5%
28.1%
Middle of the Road
-42.3%
39.4%
40.5%
45.3%
52.7%
44.0%
36.0%
Liberal
-11.0%
10.3%
8.9%
9.7%
6.1%
11.1%
7.9%
Very Liberal
-0.4%
2.5%
3.2%
2.1%
2.3%
0.8%
0.8%
Dont Know
-9.4%
11.1%
11.5%
8.0%
5.2%
11.8%
20.3%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 85

Table 68 Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? "I feel that I am
adequately informed about issues facing the County."
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis:

Significant increase in Strongly Agree or Agree between 2013-2014 (from 51% to 57%).
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Strongly agree
------7.4%
7.0%
Agree
------43.7%
50.3%
Disagree
------33.5%
32.8%
Strongly disagree
------11.5%
6.5%
Not sure
------3.9%
3.5%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 86

Table 69 Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? "I feel that my
local elected county officials represent my concerns effectively."
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis:

Significant decrease in Strongly Disagree or Disagree between 2013-2014 (from 47% to 40%).
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Strongly agree
------3.2%
3.2%
Agree
------41.2%
47.1%
Disagree
------27.2%
33.8%
Strongly disagree
------19.5%
5.8%
Not sure
------8.9%
10.2%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 87

Table 70 Do you support or oppose the increase in the minimum wage that has
been approved by New York State from its current level of $8/hour to a
rate of $9/hour that will start on January 1, 2016?
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County.

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 88

Table 71 In July 2014, Governor Cuomo signed a limited medical marijuana bill into
law in New York State. Which of the following is closest to your opinion
about legalization of marijuana?
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis: Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County.

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 89

Section 3.12 Familiarity with the Center for Community Studies at JCC
Table 72 Have you ever heard of the Center for Community Studies at JCC before
this survey?
2014 Results:

Trend Analysis:

Significant increase in familiarity between 2008-2014, current level is highest ever found 42.1% (was only 30.1% in
2008).
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Yes
-30.1%
41.8%
-37.2%
--42.1%
No
-68.8%
57.9%
-61.0%
--57.2%
Not sure
-1.1%
0.3%
-1.8%
--0.7%

Cross-tabulations (using 2014 results): (To identify which observed differences in the tables below are statistically significant
differences, refer to the instructions and illustrations in the Appendix of this report)

Page 90

Section 4 - Final Comments

This report is a presentation of the information collected from 328 telephone interviews of adult residents of Lewis
County, New York conducted during the evenings of October 27-29, 2014 with comparisons to similar annual surveys
completed in each of 2007- 2013. The Center for Community Studies exists to engage in a variety of community-based
research activities, and to promote the productive discussion of ideas and issues of significance to our community. As
such, the results of this survey are available for use by any citizen or organization in the community. If you use
information from this survey, we simply ask that you acknowledge the source.
These interviews produced a large volume of data, which can be analyzed and assessed in a number of different
ways. Please contact the Center for Community Studies for specific analyses. Additionally, we are available to
make presentations of these survey findings to community groups and organizations upon request. Please contact:
The Center for Community Studies
1220 Coffeen Street
Watertown, NY 13601
Telephone: (315) 786-2488
Raymond Petersen, Director
rpetersen@sunyjefferson.edu
Joel LaLone, Research Coordinator
jlalone@sunyjefferson.edu
www.sunyjefferson.edu/community-business/center-community-studies
The Ninth Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community is tentatively scheduled for October 2015.

Page 91

Appendix - Technical Comments Assistance in

Interpretation of the Statistical Results in this
Report
The results of this study will be disseminated to, and utilized in decision-making by, a very wide array of readers
who, no doubt, have a very wide array of statistical backgrounds. The following comments are provided to give guidance
for interpretation of the presented findings so that readers with less-than-current statistical training might maximize the
th
use of the information contained in the 8 Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community.

Margin of Error Constructing Confidence Intervals to Estimate for an Entire Population

When data is collected, of course, it is only possible for the researcher to analyze the results of the sample data,
the data from the group of individuals actually sampled, or in this case, actually interviewed. However, it is typically the
goal of the researcher to use this sample data to draw a conclusion, or estimate that which they believe is true, for the
entire population from which the sample was selected. To complete this estimation the standard statistical technique is to
construct a confidence interval an interval of values between which one can be 95% certain, or confident, that the true
population value will fall. For example, if a researcher interviews n=500 randomly selected participants from some
population of size N=100,000 individuals, and the researcher finds that x=200 of the 500 sampled participants indicate
that they agree with some posed statement (200 out of 500 would be 40%), then the researcher can never be 100%
certain that if all 100,000 population members were, in fact, interviewed then the result for this entire population
investigation would be that 40% (that would be 40,000 out of the 100,000) would agree. In general, one can never
guarantee with 100% certainty that a statistic for some random sample will perfectly, exactly, result the same as the
population value that describes the entire population (this value is called a parameter). Fortunately, considering the
types of variables and resulting data that typically are generated in survey research, use of the statistical tools of
probability distributions and sampling distributions allows the determination of a very important distance the distance
that one would expect 95% of the samples of size n to fall either above or below the true population value. This distance
is commonly referred to as the margin of error. Once this distance (margin of error) is measured, there is a 95%
probability that the sample result (the result of the n=500 sampled participants in the illustration above) will fall within that
distance of the true population value. Therefore, to construct the very useful and easily-interpreted statistical estimation
tool known as a confidence interval, all one must do is calculate the margin of error and add-and-subtract it to-and-from
the sample result (statistic) and the outcome is that there is a 95% chance that the resulting interval does, in fact, include
the true population value within the interval.
To illustrate the above-described concepts of margin of error and confidence intervals, recall that the margin of
error for this survey has been earlier stated in Table 4 in the Methodology section in this report as approximately 4.3
percentage points. Therefore, when a percentage is observed in one of the included tables of statistics in this report, the
appropriate interpretation is that we are 95% confident that if all Lewis County adult residents were surveyed (rather than
just the 328 that were actually surveyed), the percentage that would result for all residents would be within 4.3
percentage points of the sample percentage that we surveyed, calculated, and reported in this study. For example, in
Table 17, it can be observed that 27.5% of the sample of 328 adults reported that they believe that opportunities for youth
in Lewis County are At Least Good (Excellent or Good). With this sample result, one could infer with 95% confidence
that if all Lewis County adults were asked somewhere between 23.2% and 31.8% of the population of approximately
20,000 adults in Lewis County believe that opportunities for youth in the county are At Least Good (started with the
27.5% that was found in the sample and added-and-subtracted a margin of error of 4.3%). This resulting interval
(23.2%31.8%) is known as a 95% Confidence Interval. The consumer of this report should use this pattern when
attempting to generalize any of these survey findings for survey questions that were answered by all 328 participants in
this study to the entire adult population of Lewis County. When attempting to generalize results for survey questions
which had smaller sample sizes (the result of either screening questions, or participants refusing to answer certain
questions, or investigating smaller demographic subgroups, such as only those over the age of 60), the resulting margin
of error will be larger than 4.3 percentage points. Table 4 presented earlier in this report, (and, copied again as the
following Table 73) provides approximate margin of error values that should be used with sample sizes of less than
n=328.

Page 92

Table 73 Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes

Sample Size
(n=)

Approximate Margin
of Error

30
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
250
300
328

14.3%
11.1%
9.0%
7.8%
7.0%
6.4%
5.9%
5.5%
5.0%
4.5%
4.3%

Margin of Error More Detail for Those Interested in Maximizing Precision and Accuracy of Estimates
The preceding introductory example, on the preceding page, used a margin of error of 4.3%, as a result of an
illustration that used all 328 participants in this study. However, again, the margin of error when using the sample results
in this study to construct a confidence interval to estimate a population percentage will not always be 4.3%. There is not
one universal value of a margin of error that can be precisely calculated and used for the results for every question
included in this survey, or for that matter, any multiple-question survey. Calculation methods used in this study for
generating the margin of error depend upon the following three factors, which include two factors in addition to the
sample-size factor that has just been addressed:
1.

The sample size is the number of adults who validly answered the survey question. The
sample size will not always be n=328 since individuals have a right to omit any question.
Additionally, some survey questions were only posed after screening questions. In general, the
smaller the sample size then the larger the margin of error, and conversely, the larger the
sample size then the smaller the margin of error.

2.

The sample proportion or percentage is the calculated percentage of the sample who
responded with the answer or category of interest (i.e. responded Agree). This percentage
can vary from 0%-100%, and, of course, will change from question to question throughout the
survey. In general, the further that a sample percentage varies from 50%, in either direction
(approaching either 0% or 100%), the smaller the margin of error, and conversely, the closer
that the actual sample percentage is to 50% then the larger the resulting margin of error. As an
example, if 160 out of 400 sampled residents Agree with some posed statement, then the
sample proportion would be (160400=0.4=40%)

3.

The confidence level used in generalizing the results of the sample to the population that the
sample represented. In this study, the standard confidence level used in survey research, 95%
confidence level, will be used for all survey questions.
In mathematical notation, the margin of error for each sample result for this study would be represented as:

ME = 1.96

p (100 p )
n

Where n=sample size = # valid responses to the survey question

p=sample percentage for the survey question (between 0%-100%)
1.96 = the standard normal score associated with the 95% confidence level
Since the sample size varies (in fact, could conceivably be different for every question included in the survey) and
the sample percentage varies (also, could conceivably be different for every question included in the survey) the following
Page 93

table (Table 74) has been provided for the reader to determine the correct margin of error to use whenever constructing a
confidence interval using the sample data presented in this study. This table was generated using the ME formula shown
on the preceding page.

Table 74 More Detailed Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes and Varying
Sample Proportions
Varying Sample Sizes (n=):
125
150
175
200

Varying Sample %'s:

30

50

75

100

250

300

328

2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
22%
24%
26%
28%
30%
32%
34%
36%
38%
40%
42%
44%
46%
48%
50%
52%
54%
56%
58%
60%
62%
64%
66%
68%
70%
72%
74%
76%
78%
80%
82%
84%
86%
88%
90%
92%
94%
96%
98%

5.0%
7.0%
8.5%
9.7%
10.7%
11.6%
12.4%
13.1%
13.7%
14.3%
14.8%
15.3%
15.7%
16.1%
16.4%
16.7%
17.0%
17.2%
17.4%
17.5%
17.7%
17.8%
17.8%
17.9%
17.9%
17.9%
17.8%
17.8%
17.7%
17.5%
17.4%
17.2%
17.0%
16.7%
16.4%
16.1%
15.7%
15.3%
14.8%
14.3%
13.7%
13.1%
12.4%
11.6%
10.7%
9.7%
8.5%
7.0%
5.0%

3.9%
5.4%
6.6%
7.5%
8.3%
9.0%
9.6%
10.2%
10.6%
11.1%
11.5%
11.8%
12.2%
12.4%
12.7%
12.9%
13.1%
13.3%
13.5%
13.6%
13.7%
13.8%
13.8%
13.8%
13.9%
13.8%
13.8%
13.8%
13.7%
13.6%
13.5%
13.3%
13.1%
12.9%
12.7%
12.4%
12.2%
11.8%
11.5%
11.1%
10.6%
10.2%
9.6%
9.0%
8.3%
7.5%
6.6%
5.4%
3.9%

3.2%
4.4%
5.4%
6.1%
6.8%
7.4%
7.9%
8.3%
8.7%
9.1%
9.4%
9.7%
9.9%
10.2%
10.4%
10.6%
10.7%
10.9%
11.0%
11.1%
11.2%
11.2%
11.3%
11.3%
11.3%
11.3%
11.3%
11.2%
11.2%
11.1%
11.0%
10.9%
10.7%
10.6%
10.4%
10.2%
9.9%
9.7%
9.4%
9.1%
8.7%
8.3%
7.9%
7.4%
6.8%
6.1%
5.4%
4.4%
3.2%

2.7%
3.8%
4.7%
5.3%
5.9%
6.4%
6.8%
7.2%
7.5%
7.8%
8.1%
8.4%
8.6%
8.8%
9.0%
9.1%
9.3%
9.4%
9.5%
9.6%
9.7%
9.7%
9.8%
9.8%
9.8%
9.8%
9.8%
9.7%
9.7%
9.6%
9.5%
9.4%
9.3%
9.1%
9.0%
8.8%
8.6%
8.4%
8.1%
7.8%
7.5%
7.2%
6.8%
6.4%
5.9%
5.3%
4.7%
3.8%
2.7%

2.5%
3.4%
4.2%
4.8%
5.3%
5.7%
6.1%
6.4%
6.7%
7.0%
7.3%
7.5%
7.7%
7.9%
8.0%
8.2%
8.3%
8.4%
8.5%
8.6%
8.7%
8.7%
8.7%
8.8%
8.8%
8.8%
8.7%
8.7%
8.7%
8.6%
8.5%
8.4%
8.3%
8.2%
8.0%
7.9%
7.7%
7.5%
7.3%
7.0%
6.7%
6.4%
6.1%
5.7%
5.3%
4.8%
4.2%
3.4%
2.5%

2.2%
3.1%
3.8%
4.3%
4.8%
5.2%
5.6%
5.9%
6.1%
6.4%
6.6%
6.8%
7.0%
7.2%
7.3%
7.5%
7.6%
7.7%
7.8%
7.8%
7.9%
7.9%
8.0%
8.0%
8.0%
8.0%
8.0%
7.9%
7.9%
7.8%
7.8%
7.7%
7.6%
7.5%
7.3%
7.2%
7.0%
6.8%
6.6%
6.4%
6.1%
5.9%
5.6%
5.2%
4.8%
4.3%
3.8%
3.1%
2.2%

2.1%
2.9%
3.5%
4.0%
4.4%
4.8%
5.1%
5.4%
5.7%
5.9%
6.1%
6.3%
6.5%
6.7%
6.8%
6.9%
7.0%
7.1%
7.2%
7.3%
7.3%
7.4%
7.4%
7.4%
7.4%
7.4%
7.4%
7.4%
7.3%
7.3%
7.2%
7.1%
7.0%
6.9%
6.8%
6.7%
6.5%
6.3%
6.1%
5.9%
5.7%
5.4%
5.1%
4.8%
4.4%
4.0%
3.5%
2.9%
2.1%

1.9%
2.7%
3.3%
3.8%
4.2%
4.5%
4.8%
5.1%
5.3%
5.5%
5.7%
5.9%
6.1%
6.2%
6.4%
6.5%
6.6%
6.7%
6.7%
6.8%
6.8%
6.9%
6.9%
6.9%
6.9%
6.9%
6.9%
6.9%
6.8%
6.8%
6.7%
6.7%
6.6%
6.5%
6.4%
6.2%
6.1%
5.9%
5.7%
5.5%
5.3%
5.1%
4.8%
4.5%
4.2%
3.8%
3.3%
2.7%
1.9%

1.7%
2.4%
2.9%
3.4%
3.7%
4.0%
4.3%
4.5%
4.8%
5.0%
5.1%
5.3%
5.4%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
6.0%
6.1%
6.1%
6.2%
6.2%
6.2%
6.2%
6.2%
6.2%
6.2%
6.1%
6.1%
6.0%
6.0%
5.9%
5.8%
5.7%
5.6%
5.4%
5.3%
5.1%
5.0%
4.8%
4.5%
4.3%
4.0%
3.7%
3.4%
2.9%
2.4%
1.7%

1.6%
2.2%
2.7%
3.1%
3.4%
3.7%
3.9%
4.1%
4.3%
4.5%
4.7%
4.8%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.4%
5.5%
5.5%
5.6%
5.6%
5.6%
5.7%
5.7%
5.7%
5.6%
5.6%
5.6%
5.5%
5.5%
5.4%
5.4%
5.3%
5.2%
5.1%
5.0%
4.8%
4.7%
4.5%
4.3%
4.1%
3.9%
3.7%
3.4%
3.1%
2.7%
2.2%
1.6%

1.5%
2.1%
2.6%
2.9%
3.2%
3.5%
3.8%
4.0%
4.2%
4.3%
4.5%
4.6%
4.7%
4.9%
5.0%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.3%
5.3%
5.4%
5.4%
5.4%
5.4%
5.4%
5.4%
5.4%
5.3%
5.3%
5.3%
5.2%
5.1%
5.0%
5.0%
4.9%
4.7%
4.6%
4.5%
4.3%
4.2%
4.0%
3.8%
3.5%
3.2%
2.9%
2.6%
2.1%
1.5%

Average

14.3%

11.1%

9.0%

7.8%

7.0%

6.4%

5.9%

5.5%

5.0%

4.5%

4.3%

Page 94

Illustration of how to use Table 74 to determine the correct margin of error when investigating subgroups:
To estimate the percentage in the entire population of Lewis County adult males who believe that the overall state
of the local economy is at least good (Excellent or Good) one must simply refer to Table 31 to determine the sample size
and percentage of this sample of males who respond with at least good. From Table 31 it is found that 16.0% of the
sampled males replied with at least good, and the sample size of males in this study was n=164 males. Reference to
Table 74 on the preceding page indicates that the appropriate margin of error would be 5.4%. Therefore, we can be
95% confident that if all Lewis County adult males were to evaluate the state of the local economy the resulting
percentage who would indicate at least good among this population would be within 5.4% of the 16.0% found in our
sample. The interpretation of this would be that we are 95% confident that among all Lewis County adult males the
percentage who believe that the state of the local economy is at least good would be somewhere between 10.6% and
21.4%. Note that this margin of error of 5.4 percentage points is larger than the earlier-cited study margin of error of
approximately 4.3 percentage points as a result of there being only 164 males in this sample.
It should be noted that the margin error is a measurement of random error, error due to simply the random chance
of sampling. For example, if one were to flip a fair coin n=300 times, the population percentage for the percentage of the
time that the coin would result with a head is, of course, 50%. Use of Table 74 indicates that with a margin of error of
5.7%, one would determine that there is a 95% chance that a sample of n=300 flips would fall with 5.7% of this real
population value of 50%. In other words, there is a 95% chance that the sample result will be between 50%5.7%,
between 44.3% and 55.7%. Only 5% of the time would a sample of n=300 flips result with either less than 44.3% heads,
or greater than 55.7% heads.
However, in survey research, it is not coins that are being flipped; it is humans who are being interviewed. When
surveying humans there are other potential sources of error, sources of error in addition to random error (which is the only
error encompassed by the margin of error). Response error, nonresponse error, process error, bias in sample selection,
bias in question-phrasing, lack of clarity in question-phrasing, and undercoverage are common sources of other-thanrandom error. Methods that should be, and have been in this Lewis County study, employed to minimize these other
sources of error are: maximum effort to select the sample randomly, piloting and testing of utilized survey questions,
extensive training of all data collectors (interviewers), and application of post-stratification algorithms. Hence, when using
this study data to make estimates to the entire Lewis County adult populations, as is the case in standard survey research
practices, the margin of error will be the only error measurement cited and interpreted.

Significance Testing Testing for Statistically Significant Trends and Relationships

The technical discussion of statistical techniques above has focused on the statistical inference referred to as
estimation construction of confidence intervals using the margins of error described in the tables shown on preceding
pages. To take full advantage of the data collected in this study, other statistical techniques are of value. Tests for
significant trends over time, and tests for significantly correlated factors with measured variables are presented as well.
A comment or two regarding statistical significance could help readers of varying quantitative backgrounds most
th
appropriately interpret the results of what has been statistically analyzed. Again, because the data for the 8 Annual
Lewis County Survey of the Community is based on a sample of 328 adult residents, as opposed to obtaining information
from every single adult resident in Lewis County, there must be a method of determining whether an observed relationship
or difference in the sample survey data is likely to continue to hold true if every adult resident of the county were, in fact,
interviewed. To make this determination, tests of statistical significance are standard practice in evaluating sample
survey data.
For example, if the sample data shows that male residents are less likely to report that opportunities for youth are
at least good (Excellent or Good) in Lewis County than female residents (22.1% vs. 33.0%, respectively, Table 17), the
researcher would want to know if this lower satisfaction with opportunities for youth among male residents would still be
present if they interviewed every Lewis County adult rather than just the sample of 328 adults who were actually
interviewed. To answer this question, the researcher uses a test of statistical significance. The outcome of a test of
statistical significance will be that the result is either not statistically significant or the result is statistically significant.
The meaning of not statistically significant is that if the sample were repeated many more times (in this case that
would mean many more different groups of n=328 randomly selected adults from the approximately 20,000 adults in
Lewis County), then the results of these samples would not consistently show that male residents are less likely to report
that opportunities for youth are at least good in Lewis County than female residents; some samples would have males
higher and some would have females higher. In this case, the researcher could not report with high levels of confidence
that the male satisfaction rate is statistically significantly different from the female rate. Rather, the difference found
Page 95

between males and females in the one actually selected sample of size n=328 Lewis County residents would be
interpreted as small enough that it could be due simply to the random chance of sampling not statistically significant.
Again, the determination of how far apart is far enough apart to be statistically significant? is calculated by using
sampling distributions and the margins of error described earlier. These tools allow the measurement of how far apart
sample subgroups must be to be interpreted as a very unlikely difference to occur simply by random chance (if one
assumes that the population values for the subgroups are, in fact, equal).
Conversely, the meaning of statistically significant is that if the sample were repeated many more times, then the
results of these samples would consistently show that male Lewis County adults are less likely to report that opportunities
for youth are at least good than females; and further, if every adult were interviewed, we are confident that the population
perceived as at least good rate among males would be lower than the rate among females. One can never be 100%
certain (or confident) that the result of a sample will indicate appropriately whether the population percentages are, in fact,
statistically significantly different from one another or not. The interpretation of a statistically significant difference is that
it is so large that there is a probability of less than 5% that this difference occurred simply due to the random chance of
sampling (if one assumes that the population values for the subgroups are, in fact, equal) instead, it is considered a
real difference. In statistical vocabulary and notation, this would be represented as a p-value of less than 5% (p<0.05).
Often times with survey data, a Chi Square Test is utilized to determine whether an observed difference is or is
not large enough to be a statistically significant difference. An alternative to the use of a traditional Chi Square Test to
answer the question posed above (the question: Is perception of opportunities for youth in the county as at least good
significantly related to gender i.e. males and females differ significantly in their perceptions regarding opportunities for
youth?) will be used throughout this study. Each correlational investigation in this report is presented in its own crosstabulation table (e.g. an investigation for a relationship between Age and perception about real estate taxes is
presented in its own table). As a result of approximately 50 outcome variables in this study each cross-tabulated by all
four of the potential explanatory variables of Gender, Age, Education, and Income, and cross-tabulated by years-studied,
if possible there are more than 200 cross-tabulation correlational investigation tables included in the Detailed Statistical
Results section of this report. This large number of cross-tabulation tables (combined with the variety of ways that the
response distribution for many survey questions could be collapsed) suggests that an alternative, more versatile,
approach to testing for significance in the cross-tabulation tables is utilized. Therefore, rather than calculating and
reporting the results for every cross-tabulation table, the following method is recommended.
When the reader wishes to determine whether or not an observed difference in a cross-tabulation table is
statistically significant (e.g. Does the 22.1% of the 165 sampled males in Lewis County believing that opportunities for
youth are at least good differ significantly from the 33.0% of the 163 sampled females who expressed this perception?),
the method that has been recommended by the New York State Department of Health in its presentation of the 2009
Expanded Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) results will be also recommended for this 2014 Lewis
th
County 8 Annual Survey of the Community. The NYSDOH 2009 Expanded BRFSS (on page 12 of 151 in that report)
cites the following:
When the confidence intervals of two estimates of the same indicator from
different areas (or, subgroups) do not overlap, they may be said to be statistically
significantly different, i.e., these differences are unlikely related to chance and
are considered true differences. If there is any value that is included in both
intervals, the two estimates are not statistically significantly different.
In other words, the reader may identify the specific response choice of interest is one interested in only
investigating Excellent, or more interested in collapsing the two possible response choices Excellent and Good
together or, does one want only to investigate Strongly Agree, or does one prefer to collapse Strongly Agree and
Somewhat Agree together? Then, after observing the sample sizes at the bottom of the cross-tabulation tables, one
may again refer to Table 74 in this study to identify the correct margins of error if estimating proportions (or, percentages
or rates) for subgroups. With these two margins of error, two separate confidence intervals may be constructed, and this
overlap-vs.-non-overlap rule recommended by the NYSDOH may be applied to determine whether or not the observed
sample difference between demographic subgroups should be considered statistically significant.
To illustrate with the gender and perception regarding opportunities for youth potential relationship described
earlier:
For Males:

n=165, and p=22.1% respond at least good; therefore from Table 74 the approximate
margin of error is 6.1%. The resulting confidence interval is: 22.1%6.1%, or (16.0%,28.2%)

For Females:

n=163, and p=33.0% respond at least good; therefore from Table 74 the approximate
margin of error is 7.0%. The resulting confidence interval is: 33.0%7.0%, or (26.0%,40.0%)

Page 96

Since these two confidence intervals do overlap, the difference between males and females is not considered
statistically significant. In other words, attitude about opportunities for youth in Lewis County is not significantly related to
gender, the 10.9% difference in rates found among males and females (22.1% among males, and 33.0% among females)
is small enough to be reasonably likely that it could be due simply to the chance of random sampling with samples of size
165 and 163, respectively, if the entire populations of males and females are truly not different in their perceptions of
opportunities for youth.
Again, keep in mind the difference between the analyses that include all 328 sampled residents versus those that
involved questions that were only asked of certain subgroups (e.g. only those who are currently employed asked some
further question). When interpreting the cross-tabulations completed in this study, partitioning the overall sample of
n=328 by levels of some demographic factors such as Education Level, sample sizes within specific factor/level
combinations can become quite small. With these small sample sizes, extremely large sample differences must be found
to be considered statistically significant (p<0.05).
When possible, comparisons are made between the current results and the results in the seven earlier Lewis
County Annual Surveys (2007-2013). The research question that is being investigated in these comparisons is, Has there
been a statistically significant change among the Lewis County residents between 2007 and 2014? When interpreting
the comparisons that have been provided, the reader should consider the following factors. The earlier studies used
telephone-interviewing methodology that was virtually identical to that which was utilized in the present 2014 Lewis
County study, as well as similar post-stratification weighting procedures. However, the earlier survey instruments that
were used are not exactly the same instrument that has been used in 2014. Therefore, only the questions/items that were
also measured in some earlier year, along with measurement in 2014, of course, are available for trend analysis to
compare with the current 2014 results. With the similar methodologies and weighting procedures that have been applied,
it is valid to make comparisons between the studies observe changes or trends.
The same concept of statistical significance that was described in the preceding paragraphs about Correlational
Analyses is also applied when a researcher attempts to investigate for whether or not results in Lewis County have
changed significantly over the past eight years; however, the focus now becomes the comparison of the 2014 Lewis
County result to the earlier Lewis County results, and the same overlap-vs.-non-overlap rule recommended by the
NYSDOH may be applied to determine whether or not the observed sample difference between years should be
considered statistically significant.
To illustrate a trend analysis, consider the Overall State of the Local Economy variable. Reference to Table 31
shows that:
In 2013: n=378 participants, and p=19.2% respond at least good; therefore from Table 68 in the 2013 report, the
approximate margin of error is 4.0%.
The resulting confidence interval is:
19.2%4.0%, or
(15.2%,23.2%)
In 2014: n=328 participants, and p=23.5% respond at least good; therefore from Table 74 in the 2014 report, the
approximate margin of error is 4.6%.
The resulting confidence interval is:
23.5%4.6%, or
(18.9%,28.1%)

Since these two confidence intervals do overlap, the difference between 2013 and 2014 (the 2-year trend) is not
considered statistically significant. In other words, attitude about the overall state of the local economy in Lewis County
has not significantly changed between 2013 and 2014.
Finally, the preceding comments regarding statistically significant differences between subgroups, and statistically
significant changes between study years, are comments addressing statistical significance which, of course, is not
one-and-the-same as practical significance. The reader should be reminded that statistical significance addresses the
concept of probability, as follows is this difference likely to occur in a sample of size n=328 if there is no difference in
the entire sampled populations could the result simply be due to chance? However, practical significance is an
interpretation that is left to the subject area expert, since practical significance addresses the concept of usefulness, as
follows is this result useful in the real world? A difference identified in a sample may be statistically significant without
being practically significant, however, a difference identified in a sample may not be practically significant without being
statistically significant.
Please direct any questions regarding margin of error, confidence intervals, other sources of sampling error, tests
of statistical significance, and practical significance to the professional staff at the Center for Community Studies.

Page 97

The Survey Instrument

Page 98

8th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community - 2014

Introduction

Goodevening.Mynameis(firstname),IamastudentatJeffersonCommunityCollege,howareyoudoingthisevening
(afternoon)?Thiscallisnottoaskformoneyordonations,IamcallingfortheCenterforCommunityStudiesatJCC.We
areconductingtheeighthannualLewisCountysurveyofthecommunitywedothissurveyeveryyearinOctoberweare
interestedinyouropinionsaboutthequalityoflifeandfuturedirectionofLewisCounty.Doyouhaveafewminutestodo
asurveyforus(or,helpusout)?

IfNO...Mighttherebeanotheradultinthehomewhomightwishtoparticipateoristhereamoreconvenienttimeto
call?

IfYES...(Firstverifythatthepersonis18yearsold.)Great,well,let'sbegin.

IMPORTANTESPECIALLYWITHCELLPHONESVerifythattheydoliveinLewisCounty,iftheydonotthenjust
thankthemfortheirtimeandwishthemagoodday/evening.

Our first two questions are about the choice to live in Lewis County.
Q1: How long have you lived in Lewis County?
j Lessthan1year
k
l
m
n
j 13years
k
l
m
n

j 47years
k
l
m
n

j Morethan7years
k
l
m
n

Q2: Do you expect you will still be living in Lewis County in 5 years?

j Yes
k
l
m
n

Quality of Life Indicators

j No
k
l
m
n

j Notsure
k
l
m
n

Page 1

8th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community - 2014

Next, Im going to read you a list of characteristics of life in Lewis County. Please tell us
how you view each aspect of the county on a scale of EXCELLENTGOODFAIRPOOR.
Don't
Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Know/Not
Sure

Q3.Opportunitiesforyouth

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Q4.Cultural/entertainmentopportunities

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Q5.Costofenergy

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Q6.Healthcareaccess

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Q7.Healthcarequality

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Q8.Publicoutdoorrecreationalopportunities

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Q9.Qualityoftheenvironment

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Q10.Countygovernment

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Q11.Townandvillagegovernment

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Q12.Realestatetaxes

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Q13.Policingandcrimecontrol

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Q14.Availabilityofgoodjobs

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Q15.Shoppingopportunities

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Q16.Qualityofk12education

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Q17.Theoverallstateofthelocaleconomy

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Q18.Theoverallqualityoflifeinthearea

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Q19.Availabilityofcarefortheelderly.

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Q20.Accesstohighereducation

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

j
k
l
m
n

Q21: What do you think is the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE facing the residents of LEWIS
COUNTY at the present time? (Do Not Read Choices)
6
Other(pleasespecify)

Q22. Do you agree or disagree that the presence of Fort Drum in the local area improves
the overall quality of life for local residents? (Probe for "strongly")
j StronglyAgree
k
l
m
n

j Agree
k
l
m
n

Internet Access and Use

j Neutral/NoOpinion
k
l
m
n

j Disagree
k
l
m
n

j StronglyDisagree
k
l
m
n

Page 2

8th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community - 2014

Our next few questions have to do with technology and communication in Lewis County,
the Internet and cell phone service.
Q23. In the past 30 days have you used the Internet at all?

j Yes
k
l
m
n

j No
k
l
m
n

j Don'tknow/Notsure
k
l
m
n

Among Internet users access at home?

Q24. Do you have access to the Internet at home?

j Yes
k
l
m
n

j No
k
l
m
n

j Don'tknow/Notsure
k
l
m
n

Among Internet Users WITH NO HOME ACCESS

Q25. Do you access the Internet elsewhere, like at work, family and friends' homes, or
public locations?

j Yes
k
l
m
n

j No
k
l
m
n

j Don'tknow/Notsure
k
l
m
n

Among Internet Users: (wired at home?)

Q26. Do you access the Internet at home from a wired service (typically cable or DSL)?

j Yes
k
l
m
n

j No
k
l
m
n

If Wiredathome:

j Don'tknow/Notsure
k
l
m
n

Q27. Were you able to choose from more than one provider of wired service at your home?

j Yes
k
l
m
n

j No
k
l
m
n

j Don'tknow/Notsure
k
l
m
n

Q28. How would you rate the quality of your wired service at home? (Read first four
choices)
j Excellent
k
l
m
n

j Good
k
l
m
n

j Fair
k
l
m
n

Among Internet Users: (cellular?)

j Poor
k
l
m
n

j Don'tknow/Notsure
k
l
m
n

Q29. Do you access the Internet using mobile service through a cellular provider
(smartphone or tablet)?

j Yes
k
l
m
n

j No
k
l
m
n

j Don'tknow/Notsure
k
l
m
n

Page 3

8th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community - 2014

If use Mobile Access to Internet:

Q30. Were you able to choose from more than one provider for mobile (cellular) access?

j Yes
k
l
m
n

j No
k
l
m
n

j Don'tknow/Notsure
k
l
m
n

Q31. How would you rate the quality of your cellular service for Internet access at home?
(Read first four choices)
j Excellent
k
l
m
n

j Good
k
l
m
n

j Fair
k
l
m
n

Among Internet Users: (satellite?)

j Poor
k
l
m
n

j Don'tknow/Notsure
k
l
m
n

Q32. Do you access the Internet using a satellite dish at home?

j Yes
k
l
m
n

j No
k
l
m
n

j Don'tknow/Notsure
k
l
m
n

If use Satellite Access to Internet:

Q33. How would you rate the quality of your satellite service for Internet access at home?
(Read first four choices)
j Excellent
k
l
m
n

j Good
k
l
m
n

Among Internet NonUsers:

j Fair
k
l
m
n

j Poor
k
l
m
n

j Don'tknow/Notsure
k
l
m
n

Q34: Which of the following three reasons for not using the Internet at home describe
you? (Read all three choices, choose all that apply)
c IwouldliketoaccesstheInternetathomebutIcan'taffordtheservice.
d
e
f
g

c IfeelIcanaffordInternetservice,butthereisnoavailability,orspeedsaretooslowinmyareaforittoworkwell.
d
e
f
g
c Ijustdon'thaveanyinterestinusingtheInternet
d
e
f
g
c Other(pleasespecify)
d
e
f
g

Transportation

Page 4

8th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community - 2014

Our next few questions deal with transportation locally.
Q35. Has a lack of transportation kept you from securing employment or meeting your
daily needs at any time in the last year?

j Yes
k
l
m
n

j No
k
l
m
n

If vehicle issues:

j Notsure
k
l
m
n

Q36. What would you say is the PRIMARY transportation issue that you've had? (READ the
first four choices)
j Don'thaveavehicle.
k
l
m
n

j Vehicleisunreliable.
k
l
m
n
j Costofgas.
k
l
m
n

j CostofInsurance.
k
l
m
n
j Notsure.
k
l
m
n

j Otherissue(pleasespecify)
k
l
m
n

Further Transportation

Q37. Would you use the Countys public transportation system for a daily commute to
Utica if it was available?

j Yes
k
l
m
n

Healthcare

j Maybe
k
l
m
n

j No
k
l
m
n

j Notsure
k
l
m
n

Our next few items relate to healthcare.

Q38. Do you currently have health insurance? (includes employerprovided, privately
purchased, Medicare, Medicaid, Military TriCare, etc.)

j Yes
k
l
m
n

j No
k
l
m
n

j Notsure
k
l
m
n

Q39. In the past 12 months have you not obtained needed medical treatment because of
cost?

j Yes
k
l
m
n

j No
k
l
m
n

j Notsure
k
l
m
n

Page 5

8th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community - 2014

Q40. Which of the following most closely describes your opinion about the Affordable
Care Act (Obamacare)? (READ the first four choices aloud)
j "InfavoroftheAffordableCareActasitis,letscontinuetoseehowitworks."
k
l
m
n

j "TheconceptoftheAffordableCareActisagoodidea,butpartsneedtobechanged."
k
l
m
n
j "TheAffordableCareActshouldberepealed,notfunded."
k
l
m
n
j NOTFAMILIAR
k
l
m
n
j Notsure
k
l
m
n

Other(pleasespecify)

5
6

If familiar with the Affordable Care Act:

Q41. How has the Affordable Care Act affected the healthcare of you and your family?
(ONLY READ the first four choices aloud)
j Morepositively
k
l
m
n

j Morenegatively
k
l
m
n

j Neither(nochangeformyfamily)
k
l
m
n
j Both(some+,some)
k
l
m
n
j Notsure
k
l
m
n

Further Healthcare Questions:

Q42. Based on what you know about Lewis County General Hospital, would you prefer
that the hospital remain countyowned, or prefer that it become a nonprofit, notcounty
owned hospital? (do not read choices)
j Remaincountyowned.
k
l
m
n

j Becomeanonprofitnotcountyownedhospital.
k
l
m
n
j Neither
k
l
m
n

j Notsure/Don'tKnow
k
l
m
n

Comments:

5
6

Page 6

8th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community - 2014

Q43. Do you currently own a home or other property in Lewis County?

j Yes
k
l
m
n

j No
k
l
m
n

If a property owner (taxpayer):

j Notsure
k
l
m
n

Q44. If Lewis County General Hospital needed additional funding to conduct operations,
we are interested in what amount you would be willing to pay to support the hospital that
would be added to your annual county tax bill.
Please tell me which of the following five statements is closest to your opinion. (Read first
five)
j No,youwouldnotsupportadditionaltaxesusedtosupportthehospital.
k
l
m
n
j Yes,yousupporta$50$100taxincreaseannually
k
l
m
n

j Yes,yousupporta$100$200taxincreaseannually
k
l
m
n
j Yes,yousupporta$200$500taxincreaseannually
k
l
m
n

j Yes,yousupportataxincreaseofmorethan$500annually
k
l
m
n
j Don'tKnow/NotSure
k
l
m
n

The Local Economy

The next set of questions relates to the local economy.

Q45. When considering you or your family's personal financial situation has it gotten
BETTER, stayed about the SAME, or gotten WORSE in the past 12 months?
j Better
k
l
m
n

j Same
k
l
m
n

j Worse
k
l
m
n

j Don'tKnow
k
l
m
n

Q46. Have the federal spending cuts this past year caused by
"sequestration" (SeeQuestRayShun) and the government shutdown negatively affected
the financial situation for you or your family?

j Yes
k
l
m
n

j No
k
l
m
n

j Notsure
k
l
m
n

Q47. Please estimate how many HOURS PER MONTH that you volunteer for community
service activities such as church, school and youth activities, charitable organizations,
local government boards, and so forth. (Enter a NUMBER, if "NONE", then type in the zero)

Page 7

8th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community - 2014

Q48. Do you agree or disagree that "tourism has a beneficial impact on our local
economy"? (Probe for "strongly")
j Stronglyagree
k
l
m
n

j Agree
k
l
m
n

j Neutral/NoOpinion/
k
l
m
n

j Disagree
k
l
m
n

j StronglyDisagree
k
l
m
n

NotSure

Q49. How much county funding do you think that Lewis County should be investing in
annual tourism promotion and marketing? (Read Choices) (IF ASKED: current annual
funding from the county is approximately $75,000)
j None
k
l
m
n

j Lessthan$50,000
k
l
m
n

j $50,000$100,000
k
l
m
n

j $100,000$200,000
k
l
m
n

j Morethan$200,000
k
l
m
n
j Notsure
k
l
m
n

Education

Our next few questions are about education issues.

Q50. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Lewis County schools are
adequately preparing our young people for the technology and economy of the
future." (Probe for "strongly")
j Stronglyagree
k
l
m
n

j Agree
k
l
m
n

j Neutral/NoOpinion/
k
l
m
n

j Disagree
k
l
m
n

j StronglyDisagree
k
l
m
n

NotSure

Q51. Which of the following most closely describes your opinion about the Common Core
Learning Standards in Math and English? (READ the first four choices aloud)
j "InfavoroftheCommonCoreasitis,letscontinuetoseehowitworks."
k
l
m
n

j "TheconceptoftheCommonCoreisagoodidea,butpartsneedtobechanged."
k
l
m
n
j "TheCommonCoreStandardsareabadideaandshouldbeeliminated."
k
l
m
n
j NOTFAMILIARwiththeCommonCore
k
l
m
n
j Notsure
k
l
m
n

Other(pleasespecify)

5
6

Page 8

8th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community - 2014

Government
OurnextsetofquestionsrelatestolocalgovernmentinLewisCounty.

Q52. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?

"I feel that I am adequately informed about issues facing the County."
j Stronglyagree
k
l
m
n

j Agree
k
l
m
n

j Disagree
k
l
m
n

j Stronglydisagree
k
l
m
n

j Notsure
k
l
m
n

Q53. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?

"I feel that my local elected county officials represent my concerns effectively."
j Stronglyagree
k
l
m
n

j Agree
k
l
m
n

State Government Issues

j Disagree
k
l
m
n

j Stronglydisagree
k
l
m
n

j Notsure
k
l
m
n

OurfinalsetofquestionsbeforedemographicsrelatestoStateGovernmentissues.

Q54. Do you support or oppose the increase in the minimum wage that has been approved
by New York State from its current level of $8/hour to a rate of $9/hour that will start on
January 1, 2016?
j Support
k
l
m
n

j Oppose
k
l
m
n

j Notsure
k
l
m
n

Q55. In July 2014, Governor Cuomo signed a limited medical marijuana bill into law in New
York State. Which of the following is closest to your opinion about legalization of
marijuana? (Read the first three choices aloud)
j NewYorkStateshouldlegalizetheuseofmarijuanaformedicinalpurposesonly.
k
l
m
n

j NewYorkStateshouldlegalize,regulate,andtaxmarijuanacompletely,forbothmedicinalandrecreationaluse.
k
l
m
n
j MarijuanauseshouldremainillegalinNewYorkState.
k
l
m
n
j Notsure.
k
l
m
n

Demographics

Wearealmostfinished.Theselastfewquestionshelpustogetabettersenseofwhethertherandomlyselectedpeople
wearecallingaccuratelyreflectsthecharacteristicsofthegeneralpopulationofLewisCounty.

Page 9

8th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community - 2014

*Q56. Age: I am going to read some categories of age classification. Please stop me

when I get to the category in which your age falls.

j Teens
k
l
m
n

j Fifties
k
l
m
n

j Twenties
k
l
m
n

j Sixties
k
l
m
n

j Thirties
k
l
m
n
j Forties
k
l
m
n

j Seventies
k
l
m
n

j Eightyorolder
k
l
m
n

*Q57. Education: I am going to read some categories relating to education. Please stop

me when I get to the category in which your highest level of formal education falls.
j Lessthanahighschoolgraduate
k
l
m
n

j Highschoolgraduate(includeGED)
k
l
m
n

j Somecollege,nodegree(includetechnicalschool)
k
l
m
n
j AssociateDegree
k
l
m
n

j Bachelor'sDegree
k
l
m
n
j GraduateDegree
k
l
m
n

Q58. What is your current occupation? (do not read all of the choices)
j Retired
k
l
m
n

j Sales(includesretail,marketing,customerservice,...)
k
l
m
n

j Notcurrentlyemployed(butnotretired)
k
l
m
n
j Homemaker
k
l
m
n
j Student
k
l
m
n
j Military
k
l
m
n

j Clerical(officesupport,administrativesupport,typist,...)
k
l
m
n

j Service(Restaurant,bartender,catering,...)
k
l
m
n

j Bluecollar(Production,Carpentry,Plumbing,Mechanic)
k
l
m
n

j Teacher/Education
k
l
m
n

j Managerial(Supervisorormanageratabusiness)
k
l
m
n

j Medical(Physician,dentist,chiropractor,nurse,healthaide,...)
k
l
m
n
j Professional/Technical(Nonsupervisor,engineer,law,
k
l
m
n

j Selfemployed,ownabusiness
k
l
m
n

j NotSure
k
l
m
n
j Disabled
k
l
m
n

accountant,socialservices...)
Other(pleasespecify)

Q59. Is anyone living in your household active military?

j Yes(you!)
k
l
m
n

j Yes(someoneelseinthehousehold)
k
l
m
n

j No
k
l
m
n

Q60. Are either you, or any member of your household, a civilian or military employee at
Fort Drum?

j Yes
k
l
m
n

j No
k
l
m
n

Page 10

8th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community - 2014

Q61. How would you classify your political beliefs? (read the list of choices)
j Veryconservative
k
l
m
n
j Conservative
k
l
m
n

j MiddleoftheRoad
k
l
m
n
j Liberal
k
l
m
n

j VeryLiberal
k
l
m
n
j Don'tKnow
k
l
m
n

Q62. What is your marital status?

j Single
k
l
m
n

j Married
k
l
m
n

j Other
k
l
m
n

Q63. How many persons live in your household, including you?

j 1
k
l
m
n
j 2
k
l
m
n
j 3
k
l
m
n
j 4
k
l
m
n

j 5
k
l
m
n

j 6
k
l
m
n

j 7
k
l
m
n

j 8
k
l
m
n

j 9
k
l
m
n

j 10+
k
l
m
n

Q64. Are there any children who live in your household who currently attend public K12
school in Lewis County?

j Yes
k
l
m
n

j No
k
l
m
n

j Notsure
k
l
m
n

*Q65. In what Lewis County village or township do you reside?

6
Other(pleasespecify)

Q66. Household income range: I am going to read some categories relating to income.
Please stop me when I get to the category in which your yearly household income falls:
j Refused
k
l
m
n

j Upto$10,000
k
l
m
n

j $50,001$75,000
k
l
m
n

j $10,001$25,000
k
l
m
n
j $25,001$50,000
k
l
m
n

j $75,001$100,000
k
l
m
n

j $100,001$125,000
k
l
m
n
j Over$125,000
k
l
m
n

*Q67. If you don't mind me asking ... what is your gender?

j Male
k
l
m
n

j Female
k
l
m
n

Page 11

8th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community - 2014

*Q68. Is the phone you are now speaking on a landline or a cell phone?
j Landline
k
l
m
n

j Cellphone
k
l
m
n

j Refused
k
l
m
n

*Q69. Which of the following describes your phone ownership? You have....
j BothaCellPhoneandaLandline
k
l
m
n
j Landlineonly
k
l
m
n

j Cellphoneonly
k
l
m
n
j Refused
k
l
m
n

Q70. Have you ever heard of The Center for Community Studies at JCC before this
survey?

j Yes
k
l
m
n

j No
k
l
m
n

j Notsure
k
l
m
n

Q71. Are you, or an immediate family member or relative, a current or retired employee of
Lewis County General Hospital?
j Yes(currentorretiredLCGHemployee)
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n

j Refused
k
l
m
n

Final Comments

Thankyouverymuchforhelpingusoutthisevening.TheresultsareplannedtobereleasedinFebruary.Ifyouhaveany
questions,pleasecontactDr.RayPetersen,attheCenterforCommunityStudies,7862223.Haveagreatevening.

BOOKKEEPING After you hang up...

*Phone number of participant:

*Name of Interviewer:
6

Page 12