2015 Jefferson County Quality of Life Survey

The Center for Community Studies
at Jefferson Community College
Presentation of Results:
Sixteenth Annual
JEFFERSON
COUNTY
Survey of the Community
April 2015
Dr. Raymond Petersen, Director

Mr. Joel LaLone, Research Coordinator
The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College
Table of Contents
Section 1 Introduction.................................................................5
Section 1.1 Methodology How These Data Were Collected............................ 5
Table 1 Response Rates for the 16th Annual Jefferson County Survey.............................................................................. 6
Section 1.2 Demographics of the sample Who was Interviewed?................... 6

Table 2 Demographics of the April 2015 Jefferson County Sample.................................................................................... 7
Table 3 Geographic Distribution of Participants in the 16th Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community............ 8
Table 4 Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes ..........................................................................................................10
Section 2 Summary of Findings............................................... 11

Section 2.1 Highlights Five Study Findings of Particular Interest................ 11
Section 2.2 Quality of Life in Jefferson County................................................. 14
Table 5 Summary of Nineteen Key Quality-of-Life Community Indicators (2015 and Recent Results)............................14
Section 2.3 The Local Economy Personal Financial Situations..................... 17

Section 2.4 K-12 Education...............................................................................17
Section 2.5 Healthcare and the Affordable Care Act...................17
Section 2.6 Fort Drum Presence and Impact in Jefferson County.............18
Section 2.7 Watertown International Airport................................ 18
Section 2.8 Local Charitable Organization Issues................19
Section 2.9 Government and Political Issues............ 19
Section 2.10 Familiarity with the Center for Community Studies....... 19
Section 3 Detailed Statistical Results .....................................20

Table 6 Sample Sizes for Each of Sixteen Years of the Jefferson County Annual Survey................................................20
Table 7 Sample Size and Margin of Error for Common Demographic Subgroups to be compared in 2015..................... 21
Framing a Statistic Providing Perspective to Better Understand, Interpret, and Use this Survey Data......21
Section 3.1 Quality of Life in Jefferson County 16-Year Trends in

Responses...23
Table 8 Trends in Issues in Jefferson County Years 2000-2015 % Indicating Excellent or Good......................... 23
Table 9 Trends in Issues in Jefferson County Years 2000-2015 % Indicating Poor............................................... 23
Section 3.2 Quality of Life in Jefferson County Detailed Investigation

of 2015 Results...24
Table 10 SUMMARY Quality of Life Issues in Jefferson County Year 2015............................................................... 24
Figure 1 Most Positively Perceived Quality-of-Life Indicators % Excellent or Good (current, and recent trend).................... 25
Figure 2 Most Negatively Perceived Quality-of-Life Indicators % Poor (current, and recent trend)......................................... 25
Table 11 Opportunities for Youth...................................................................................................................................... 26
Table 12 Cultural/Entertainment Opportunities................................................................................................................. 27
Table 13 Cost of Energy.................................................................................................................................................... 28
Table 14 Healthcare Access.............................................................................................................................................. 29
Table 15 Healthcare Quality ............................................................................................................................................. 30
Table 16 Access to Higher Education............................................................................................................................... 31
Presentation of Results Sixteenth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community April 2015
Page 1
Table 17 Recreational Opportunities................................................................................................................................. 32

Table 18 Quality of the Environment................................................................................................................................. 33
Table 19 Local Government.............................................................................................................................................. 34
Table 20 Real Estate Taxes ............................................................................................................................................. 35
Table 21 The Downtown of Watertown............................................................................................................................. 36
Table 22 Policing and Crime Control................................................................................................................................. 37
Table 23 Availability of Good Jobs.................................................................................................................................... 38
Table 24 Shopping Opportunities ..................................................................................................................................... 39
Table 25 Quality of K-12 Education .................................................................................................................................. 40
Table 26 Overall State of the Local Economy................................................................................................................... 41
Table 27 Overall Quality of Life in the Area ...................................................................................................................... 42
Table 28 Availability of Care for the Elderly ...................................................................................................................... 43
Table 29 Availability of Housing...................................................................................44
Table 30 The largest issue facing our nation right now............................................... 45
Section 3.3 The Local Economy Personal Financial Situations..................... 48

Table 31 Employment Status, or Occupation.................................................................................................................... 48
Table 32 When considering your familys personal financial situation- has it gotten better, stayed about the same,
or gotten worse in the past 12 months?..............................................................................................................50
Section 3.4 K-12 Education.............................................................................. 51

Table 33 Jefferson County schools are adequately preparing our youth for the technology/economy of the future...... 51
Table 34 Who do you trust more to improve K-12 education in New York State, Governor Cuomo or the teachers'
unions?........ 52
Section 3.5 Healthcare and the Affordable Care Act........................................ 53

Table 35 Which of the following most closely describes your opinion about the Affordable Care Act?............................ 53
Table 36 How has the Affordable Care Act affected the healthcare of you and your family, more positively or
negatively?..........................................................................................................................................................54
Table 37 Do you currently have health insurance?........................................................................................................... 55
Table 38 In the past 12 months have you not obtained needed medical treatment because of cost?............................ 56
Section 3.6 Fort Drum Presence and Impact in Jefferson County.. 57

Table 39 Presence of Fort Drum have a positive effect on your familys employment or financial situation?................... 57
Table 40 Presence of Fort Drum improves the overall quality of life for local residents?.................................................. 58
Table 41 If Fort Drum were to drastically reduce in size, would you continue to live in Jefferson County?...................... 59
Section 3.7 Watertown International Airport................................ 60

Table 42 Are you aware that there is an airport that passengers can fly in and out of in Watertown called the
Watertown International Airport?........................................................................................................................ 60
Table 43 Are you aware that there are daily flights for passengers from Watertown to the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
airport for connecting flights to other locations?................................................................................................. 61
Table 44 How often have you flown out of the Watertown airport?................................................................................... 62
Table 45 How important do you think that having air transportation in Watertown is to the quality of life in the county?..63
Section 3.8 Local Charitable Organization Issues................64

Table 46 Estimate how many hours per month that you volunteer for community service activities.... 64
Table 47 Do you have a will?.............................................................................................................................................66
Table 48 Have you included a local charitable organization as a beneficiary in your will?................................................67
Table 49 Have you or anyone in your immediate family ever used the services of Hospice of Jefferson County?.......... 68
Section 3.9 Government and Political Issues....................................................69

Table 50 How would you classify your political beliefs?................................................................................................ 69
Table 51 How would you rate the job that Andrew Cuomo is doing as Governor of New York State?............................. 71
Section 3.10 Familiarity with the Center for Community Studies...................... 72

Table 52 Have you ever heard of the Center for Community Studies?............................................................................. 72
Section 4 Final Comments .......................................................73

Appendix Technical Comments Assistance in
Interpretation of the Statistical Results................. 74
Page 2
Table 53 Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes ....................................................................................................... 75

Table 54 More Detailed Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes and Varying Sample Proportions............................ 76
The Survey Instrument ............................................................... 80

Acknowledgements
Sponsors of the 16th Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community:
Student Associates who worked on this study:

Morou
Ashley
Jennifer
Heidi
E. Adelle
Michelle
Robert
Brianna
Megan
Aliza
Joyoti
Charmaine
Patrick
Victoria
Justin
Clarissa
Jose
Rachel
Thomas
Jessica
Amidou
Bastien
Bell
Beuttenmuller
Blake
Bourgal
Breckenridge
Brizuela
Bush
Canell
Choudhury
Conklin
Crane
Cummins
Davis
Flaherty
Garcia
Gardner
Gitlin
Goutremout
Jillian
Cricket
Kierstin
Jonathan
Jessica
Kyle
Victoria
William
Taylor
Brooke
Trevor
Mason
Michaela
Kristin
Merritt
Brooke
Bailey
Honey
Kirsten
Grady
Gray
Hall
Hamilton
Hawk
Hedger
Holmes
Johnson
Jones
LaLone
Lehman
Maitland
McCargar
McGraw
Meeks
Minnick
Muntz
Nohle
Osburn
Mark
Tammy
Lindsay
Jared
Nola
Jason
Cayla
Alanna
Emily
Ryan
Margery
Lexi
Grant
Kristen
Rachael
James
Grace
Stephanie
Antonette
Patrick
Patterson
Paulin
Pignone
Pominville
Reape
Ross
Savage
Schenck
Shippee
Skilinski
Smith
Spence
Stone
Waite
Wakeman
Wallace
Weston
Young
Faculty Supervisors:
Mr. Joel LaLone .....................................................................................Professor of Mathematics and
Research Coordinator for the Center for Community Studies
Mr. Lawrence Danforth .................................................................. Assistant Professor of Mathematics
Mr. Michael K. White ..................................................................................... Professor of Mathematics
Dr. Raymond Petersen ..................................................................... Professor of Political Science and
Director of the Center for Community Studies
Page 3
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)-786-2264
for additional information.
The report is available free online at
www.sunyjefferson.edu/community-business/center-community-studies
at Jefferson Community College
1220 Coffeen Street
Watertown, New York 13601
E-mail: jlalone@sunyjefferson.edu
Website: www.sunyjefferson.edu/community-business/center-community-studies
Page 4
The Sixteenth Annual

Jefferson County Survey of the Community
Based on 400 telephone interviews conducted April 6 April 16, 2015
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 Jefferson 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 Jefferson County adult citizens. This activity results in a
yearly updated inventory of the attitudes and opinions of adult citizens of Jefferson County. This survey in Jefferson
County has been completed each of the sixteen years, 2000 through 2015.
This document is a summary of the results of the Sixteenth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community,
including comparisons with the results of the survey from its first fifteen years. Further, the key community demographic
characteristics of Gender, Age, Education Level, Military Affiliation, and Household Income Level are investigated as
potential explanatory variables that may be correlated with quality-of-life indicators for the region, using the 2015 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 annually about contemporary thinking of citizens; and,
over time, will continue to provide important baseline and comparative information as well.
Section 1.1 Methodology How These Data Were Collected

The original survey instrument used in the annual survey of the community was constructed in Spring 2000 by a
team of Jefferson Community College faculty. The instrument is modified each year by the Center for Community
Studies, with input from its staff and Advisory Board, community leaders, and students employed at the Center throughout
the current academic year, to include new questions of relevance to local organizations, agencies, and residents. There
is a core set of approximately 30 questions that have been asked every year since 2000.
The primary goal of the Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community is to collect data regarding quality-oflife 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. 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 in statistics classes. However, all
final responsibility for question-phrasing, question-inclusion versus omission, final data analysis, and reporting of findings
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,
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 are attached as an appendix.
This study in 2015 included completing interviews of 400 Jefferson County adult residents. All interviews were
completed via telephone. The goal before commencing the data collection was to complete at least 30% of the interviews
on cellular phones, and the remaining at most 70% of the interviews completed on landlines, with a total goal of
approximately 400 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 personal residence telephone numbers
were randomly selected from the population of approximately 30,000 personal residence telephone numbers in Jefferson
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
Page 5
from an unscrubbed list, ensuring that individuals whose households are included in the telemarketing do-not-call list
would be represented in this study. After receiving the 2,000 randomly selected telephone numbers, the list was randomly
sorted a second time and a group of residential landline numbers were attempted for interviews. To complete the cellular
phone portion of the sampling, a random-digit generation process with manual dialing was utilized where common 3-digit
prefixes for cellular phones in use in the Jefferson County region were identified (i.e. 778, 771, 767, 486, 408, etc.) and
random sets of 4-digit phone number endings after these common prefixes were generated to be attempted. Interviews
completed on the landline telephone of the participants accounted for approximately 45% of this study survey data (178 of
the 400 completed interviews), while interviews completed on the cellular phone of the participants accounted for
approximately 55% of this study survey data (222 of the 400 completed interviews, far surpassing the initial study goal of
at least 30% completed via cellular phone). Among those who were contacted on their cellular phones, more than ninetenths indicated that they are cell-only with no landline telephone in their home. These cell-only participants account
for approximately 50% of the entire sample of 400 participants.
All telephone calls were made between 3:00 and 9:00 p.m. from a call center in Watertown, New York, on the
evenings of April 6th through April 16th, 2015. 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. 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 10-15 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 on the average 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 16th Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community
Response rates for LANDLINES & CELL
PHONES COMBINED attempted in this study:
(55% of study data is represented by interviews completed on cell
phones of participants, with 50% of study data represented by
participants who indicate that they are cell-only)
Frequency
% of Numbers Attempted
% of Valid Numbers
% of Contacted Residents
Complete
Interview
Decline to
be
Interviewed
Not Valid
Telephone
Number
400
17%
20%
42%
588
24%
28%
58%
322
13%
No Answer/
Busy
1,104
45%
52%
TOTALS
2,436
100%
100%
100%
Within the fields of social science and educational research, when using a hybrid sampling design including both
landline telephone interview and cell phone interview methodology, a response rate of approximately 42% of all
successful contacts where a person is actually talking on the phone is considered very successful.
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 are the educational profile, and typical
annual household income level in Jefferson County?).
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 Jefferson County. Identification of
Page 6
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 Jefferson 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.
Table 2 Demographics of the April 2015 Jefferson County Sample

(weighted by Gender, Age, Education Level, Military Affiliation, and Phone Ownership)
Count in Collected
Sample
% in Collected
Sample
206
194
51%
49%
100
79
68
63
44
46
25%
20%
17%
16%
11%
11%
19
168
85
48
52
28
5%
42%
21%
12%
13%
7%
57
109
66
102
17%
33%
20%
31%
100
25%
Gender: (2013 US Census for Jefferson County: 51% male)

Male
Female
Age: (2013 US Census for Jefferson County: among those age 18+
25% are under age 30, and 22% 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 Jefferson

County: among those age 25+, 20%
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
Household Income: (2013 US Census for Jefferson

County: 24% earn less than
$25,000, 27% earn $75,000+)
Less than $25,000

$25,001-$50,000
$50,001-$75,000
More than $75,000
Military Affiliation: (According to the Fort Drum

Region Liaison Organization the
current number of soldiers and
dependents accounts for 25%-30%
of the population in Jefferson Co.)
Active Military in the Household (67 AM, 33 partners)

Employment is Related to Fort Drum (but no
Active Military in the household)
No Connection to Fort Drum
80
20%
220
55%
27
322
8
1
1
1
8%
90%
2%
0%
0%
0%
Race/Ethnicity: (2013 US Census for Jefferson County:

89% of residents report a race of White, )
Black/African American
White
Hispanic
Asian/Pacific Islander
Native American
Multiracial
(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 Sixteenth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community, and after application of post-stratification weights for
Page 7
Gender, Age, Education, Military Affiliation, and Phone Ownership, closely parallel that which is true for the distribution of
all Jefferson County adults the entire county was proportionally represented accurately in this study.
Table 3 Geographic Distribution of Participants in the 16th Annual Jefferson County

Survey of the Community (weighted by Gender, Age, Education Level, Military Affiliation, and Phone Ownership)
16th Annual Survey Sample
(April 2015)
(weighted by Gender, Age, Education, Military Affiliation, Phone
Ownership)
Town of Residence:
Adams
Alexandria
Antwerp
Brownville
Cape Vincent
Champion
Clayton
Ellisburg
Henderson
Hounsfield
Leray
Lorraine
Lyme
Orleans
Pamelia
Philadelphia
Rodman
Rutland
Theresa
Watertown (town)
Watertown (city)
Wilna
Worth
Not sure/Refused
TOTAL
Count
% (among the 385 who
24
8
11
27
4
18
13
12
2
10
83
5
5
5
5
13
1
13
5
21
86
12
0
15
400
6%
2%
3%
7%
1%
5%
3%
3%
1%
3%
21%
1%
1%
1%
1%
3%
0%
3%
1%
5%
22%
3%
0%
-100%
responded)
US Census
Estimates
%
4%
3%
1%
5%
3%
4%
4%
3%
2%
3%
19%
1%
2%
2%
3%
2%
1%
3%
2%
4%
23%
6%
0%
-100%
In general, Tables 2 and 3 demonstrate that after weighting the data collected in this study for Gender, Age,
Education, Military Affiliation, and Phone Ownership, the responses to the demographic questions for the Jefferson
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 most recent U.S. Census updates for Jefferson County as well as from estimates
provided by the Fort Drum Regional Liaison Organization. Gender, Age, and Education were selected as the factors by
which to weight the survey data, since the data collected in this Sixteenth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the
Community is susceptible to the typical types of sampling error that are inherent in telephone methodology: women are
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; and those individuals with higher formal education levels are more likely to agree to
the interviews. Standard survey research methodology has shown that regardless of the subject of the survey, these are
three expected sources of sampling error when participants are contacted via telephone. In addition to these standard
three 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 Jefferson County data has additionally been weighted by Phone
Ownership, with targets that have been generated from repeated surveying in Jefferson County by the Center for
Community Studies, along with cell-only estimates for geographic regions in the United States that are published by the
National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Finally, as a result
of past studies that under-represented the military persons stationed at Fort Drum, weights have also been applied for a
Page 8
first time in 2015 to the Jefferson County Annual Survey data to more accurately reflect their proportion of the entire
Jefferson County adult population. The target for this final weighting step was provided by the Fort Drum Regional Liaison
Organization. In summary, to compensate for this overrepresentation of females, older residents, the highly educated, the
non-military affiliated, and those interviewed on landlines in the sample collected in this study, post-stratification weights
for Gender, Age, Education Level, Military Affiliation, 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, and Education Level toward the 2013-2014 U.S. Census reports that describe the Gender, Age, and
Educational Attainment distributions of the actual entire adult population that resides in Jefferson County, and toward the
Military Affiliation and 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, military affiliation, and phone ownership, it is felt that this random
sample of Jefferson County adults does accurately represent the entire population of Jefferson County adults. When
using the sample statistics presented in this report to estimate that which would be expected for the entire Jefferson
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 are currently employed would then be asked some further question about their current occupation), 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 400 residents may be generalized to the population of all adults at least 18 years of age residing in
Jefferson County with a 95% confidence level to within a margin of error of approximately 4 percentage points (there is
an average margin of error of 3.9% with a sample size of n=400). For questions that were posed only to certain specific
subgroups, or for results that are presented for subgroups (such results only females), the resulting smaller sample sizes
in these instances 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 females to all Jefferson County adult females) with
a 95% confidence level to within a margin of error of larger than approximately 4 percentage points. In other words, one
can be 95% confident that any sample statistic presented in the remainder of this report would/could only deviate from the
true value that would be found if all 90,000 (approximately) adults in the county were, in fact interviewed by at most four
percentage points. Note that the preceding statement regarding 95% confidence that the statistics in this study are at the
most only four percentage points away from the true population values if all 90,000 adults in the county were interviewed
are based upon the fundamental proven mathematical, probability, and sampling theory facts and theorems that are
proven in any first-semester college statistics course. Often times to the non-statistician these statements could appear
counter-intuitive, and one might assume that the accuracy of a survey would somehow be related to the small portion of
the entire population that is actually sampled. In other words, those who have not studied statistics coursework at times
may pose some accusatory statement such as, why would I ever believe the results from only surveying 400 participants,
when that means that 89,600 of the 90,000 Jefferson County residents have not been interviewed and, you did not call
me? While this observation of such a small proportional sample size is true, the suggestion that it is too small, or that the
89,600 not sampled is even relevant, is categorically false, no less false than it would be to state that 2+2=5. In summary,
the size of the margin of error when sampling (surveying) is entirely independent of the size of the population from which
one is sampling. The size of the margin of error is directly a function of sample size (the 400), not population size (the
90,000). If the Center for Community Studies were to survey the adult residents of Jefferson County (N90,000 in the
population) a sample size of n400 would be recommended/implemented. Likewise, if the Center for Community Studies
were to survey the adult residents of the entirety of New York State (N15,000,000 in the population) a sample size of
n400 would also be recommended/implemented. And, these two studies, one of smaller Jefferson County and one of
larger New York State, using the same sample sizes of n400, would have the exact same resulting margins of error of
approximately 4 percentage points. For more specific detail regarding the margin of error for this survey, please refer to
the appendix of this report and/or contact the professional staff at the Center for Community Studies. Table 4 on the
following page is provided as a guide for the appropriate margin of error to use when analyzing subgroups of the entire
group of 400 interviewed adults.
Page 9
Table 4 Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes
Sample Size
(n=)
30
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
250
300
350
400
Approximate Margin of
Error
14.3%
11.1%
9.0%
7.8%
7.0%
6.4%
5.9%
5.5%
5.0%
4.5%
4.2%
3.9%
In order to maximize comparability among the sixteen annual surveys that have been completed in Jefferson
County between 2000 and 2015, the procedures used to collect information and the approximately thirty core questions
asked have remained virtually identical. All surveys were conducted within the first two weeks of April each year to control
for seasonal variability, and the total number of interviews completed ranged from 340 to 422, depending upon the year.
All interviewers have been similarly and extensively trained preceding data collection each year. The survey methodology
used to complete the Sixteenth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community is comparable to that used in the
previous fifteen years. Furthermore, post-stratification weights for gender, age, and education level have also been
applied to all results from the first fifteen years of surveying, with phone ownership (landline only vs. cell only vs. both)
added as an additional weighting factor in 2013 and military affiliation added as an additional weighting factor in 2015 as
parts of the continuous improvement methods applied at the Center in an attempt to maximize the representativeness of
the collected sample of adults. This maintenance of consistent methodology from year to year allows for valid
comparisons for trends over the sixteen-year period that will be illustrated later in this report.
Throughout this report, key community demographic characteristics of Gender, Age, Education Level, Military
Affiliation, and Household Income Level are investigated as potential explanatory variables that may be correlated with
quality-of-life indicators 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 appendix
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 SPSS, Release 22.
Page 10
Section 2 - Summary of Findings

Section 2.1 Highlights Five Study Findings of Particular Interest
Finding #1: Jobs and Local Economy

Jefferson County residents indicated in 2015 that they feel better or more positive about the local economy than
they have felt since the Great Recession of 2008. With respect to the Availability of Good Jobs, the rating of Poor
declined from 55% in 2014 to 43% in 2015. This is the lowest rating for Poor since 2007, when it was 39%, and the 18%
who rated Availability of Good Jobs as Excellent or Good (increased from 13% in 2014) was the highest since the
spring of 2008, when it was 20% (Table 23). Another useful indicator of perceptions of the economy can be found with
the responses to the question, What do you think is the largest issue facing our nation right now? In 2009, 81% of
respondents said the Economy and Jobs was the largest issue facing our nation, and in 2010-2014 it ranged between
38% and 49% (roughly between four out of ten and five out of ten residents), indicating that Economy and Jobs was the
number-one issue. In 2015, only 24% rated this as the number-one issue, or about one out of every four residents. By
contrast, Healthcare was the second-largest issue in 2010, at 24%, and in 2015 was down to 7%; Debt/Spending/Budget
was considered the largest issue by 15% of the respondents in 2011, and only by 3% in 2015 (Table 30).
Three other indicators provide support for this positive trend. The lowest percentage ever of residents rated the
Cost of Energy as Poor (39%), a decline from 65% in 2014, while 21% rated the Cost of Energy as Excellent or Good
in 2015, triple the 7% in 2014, and nearly double the highest previous percentage, which was 12% in 2013 (Table 13). An
all-time low (21%) of respondents rated the Overall State of the Local Economy as Poor in 2015, and nearly one in three
residents (32%) rated it as Excellent or Good, an all-time high (Table 26). Finally, 30% (the second-highest
percentage ever found) of residents indicated that their Families Personal Financial Situation had gotten better in the past
12 months, the highest percentage since the onset of the Great Recession, when it was 33% in 2008. Most respondents
(49%) indicated it had stayed about the same, while 21% (the second-lowest ever found) indicated it had gotten worse, a
statistically insignificant change from the 20% in 2014 (Table 32).
Finding #2: Fort Drum Impact

Nearly two out of every three residents (64%) indicated that the Presence of Fort Drum in the Local Area Has a
Positive Effect Upon Your or Your Familys Employment or Financial Situation. This is significantly higher than the 51%
found in 2014 and the responses ranging from 40% to 48% found between 2006 and 2008 (Table 39). When asked, If
Fort Drum were to drastically reduce in size or to close entirely, would you continue to live in Jefferson County? one-third
(34%) of residents responded No, nearly double the 18% who said No in 2014 (Table 41). Jefferson County residents
overwhelmingly agree that The Presence of Fort Drum in the Area Improves the Overall Quality of Life for Local
Residents, with 83% Agreeing or Strongly Agreeing with this statement, and 9% Disagreeing or Strongly
Disagreeing (over a nine-to-one margin) (Table 40).
Page 11
Finding #3: Military-Personnel Perceptions of Jefferson County

For the first time, in the 16th Annual Survey, there is a separate demographic category for Military Connection,
broken down into Active Military in the Household, Job Due to Fort Drum but No Active Military in the Household, and No
Fort Drum Connection. For a number of quality-of-life indicators, those households with active military personnel rate
these aspects of county life more positively than residents without military connection. For instance, while Recreational
Opportunities received its highest rating ever of Excellent or Good (69%) in 2015 and its lowest-ever rating of Poor
(9%), nearly three-quarters of residents with active military in the household (74%) rated this as Excellent or Good,
while two-thirds (67%) of those with no Fort Drum connection rated this as Excellent or Good. For those with no Fort
Drum connection, 12% indicated Recreational Opportunities are Poor, while only 1% of households with active military
personnel rated this as Poor (Table 17). Similarly, with Opportunities for Youth, respondents from households with
active military personnel were nearly twice as positive (72% rating these as Excellent or Good), compared to 37% of
those with no Fort Drum connection indicating Opportunities for Youth were Excellent or Good (the overall rating was
45% for Excellent or Good, the most positive result ever found). With respect to Shopping Opportunities, nearly threequarters of households with active military personnel (73%) rated these as Excellent or Good, compared with 70% of
those with no Fort Drum connection. For the group in which there was a job due to Fort Drum, but no active-duty military
person in the household, only 52% rated Shopping Opportunities as Excellent or Good (Table 24). By contrast,
residents with no Fort Drum connection who responded to the question of Quality of the Environment in 2015 rated this as
Excellent or Good at a rate of 60%, while only 38% of those households with active military personnel rated it as
Excellent or Good (Table 18).
Finding #4: Education

The trend of negative perceptions regarding K-12 education continued in 2015, with an all-time high of 11% rating
this as Poor, and an all-time low of 49% rating the Quality of K-12 Education as Excellent or Good. With respect to
the military connection, only one out of every three (31%) households with active military personnel rated this as
Excellent or Good, compared to the 54% with no Fort Drum connection who rated it as Excellent or Good (Table
25). Similarly, there has been a significant decrease between 2013 and 2015, from 57% to 47%, in those agreeing with
the statement Jefferson County schools are adequately preparing our young people for the technology and economy of
the future (Table 33).
The 16th Annual Survey asked a new question regarding education: Whom do you trust more to improve K-12
education in New York StateGovernor Cuomo or the teachers unions? By a five-to-one margin, Jefferson County
residents indicated they had more trust in the teachers unions than in Governor Andrew Cuomo (71% to 14%) (Table 34).
Page 12
Finding #5: State and Federal Government Issues

Governor Cuomos job rating has continued to worsen since its peak in 2012, when 50% of residents indicated
that his job performance was Excellent or Good. In 2015, that Excellent or Good job rating was cut in half, to 25%,
while those indicating his job performance was Poor in 2012 (10%) increased nearly four times, to 39% in 2015. A
Siena Research Institute statewide poll conducted in May, 2015, the month after the Jefferson County annual survey,
reported for upstaters that 30% rated him as Excellent or Good, while 34% rated him as Poor in his job as governor
(Table 51).
Over the last two years, the survey has included questions on healthcare and the Affordable Care Act. In both
years, we asked what the respondents opinions were concerning the Affordable Care Act, and there have been
significant shifts in opinion over the past year. In 2014, 28% indicated they were not familiar with the Affordable Care Act,
and 38% said the act should be repealed and not funded. Results in 2015 show a drop in those not familiar with the
Affordable Care Act to 17% (from one out of every four to one out of every six), and a significant increase (from 21% to
36%) in those saying the concept of the Affordable Care Act is a good idea, but parts of it need to be changed (Table 35).
In 2014, residents were asked how they expected the Affordable Care Act would affect the healthcare of their families
more positively, or negatively. Nearly two of every three residents (64%) expected the Affordable Care Act to affect their
families healthcare More Negatively, while 19% indicated More Positively. Survey results in 2015 demonstrate the
realized impact of the Affordable Care Act on family healthcare. Three out of five respondents (61%) indicated there
was neither a positive nor a negative impact, and only 19% reported a more negative effect, while 13% reported a More
Positive effect of the Affordable Care Act, and 6% had both (Table 36).
Jefferson County residents reported a significant decrease in Not Obtaining Needed Medical Treatment Because
of Cost in 2015, compared to the 2009 response rate (from 18% in 2009 to 9% in 2015) (Table 38).
Page 13
Section 2.2 Quality of Life in Jefferson County (Tables 8-30)

1. In an attempt to gauge the current satisfaction with the quality of life in Jefferson County, participants were provided a
list of 19 key community characteristics, or indicators. For each of these characteristics, the participants reported
whether they rate the characteristic as Excellent, Good, Fair, or Poor. Table 5 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 Poor. For a short-term trend analysis, the rates are also shown in parentheses and smaller font for these
results in 2014. The list of indicators is sorted from highest to lowest according to the percentage who replied
Excellent or Good in 2015. The indicators whose results are in pink shaded cells show significant improvement
between 2014 and 2015 (either an increase in Excellent or Good or a decrease in Poor). The indicators whose
results are in gray shaded cells show a trend toward more negative perceptions between 2014 and 2015 (either a
decrease in Excellent or Good or an increase in Poor). All pink or gray shaded changes are of size at least 5%.
The indicators whose results are in white shaded cells show no significant trend toward either more negative and
positive perceptions between 2014 and 2015. (Tables 8-10)
Table 5 Summary of Quality of Life Indicators (Sorted by Excellent or Good 2015 Results)
Quality of Life Indicator:
2015 %
Excellent or Good
2015 %
Poor
(2014 result in parentheses)
(2014 result in parentheses)
9.4% (11.5%)
1.
Recreational opportunities
68.6% (64.2%)
2.
Shopping opportunities
67.4% (62.1%)
9.9% (10.5%)
3.
Availability of housing
63.0% (64.4%)
12.6% (14.1%)
4.
The overall quality of life in the area
62.4% (54.5%)
8.8% (11.8%)
5.
Policing and crime control
61.3% (62.3%)
8.6% (8.9%)
6.
Access to higher education
57.7% (65.1%)
8.8% (9.2%)
7.
Quality of the environment
51.9% (50.8%)
9.3% (14.5%)
8.
Healthcare access
49.3% (44.4%)
14.9% (22.1%)
9.
Quality of K-12 education
48.9% (54.9%)
10.5% (9.4%)
10. Cultural / entertainment opportunities
46.9% (41.2%)
20.5% (24.8%)
11. Healthcare quality
47.1% (46.3%)
19.2% (19.1%)
12. The Downtown of Watertown
47.0% (38.8%)
18.3% (22.5%)
13. Opportunities for youth
45.1% (33.8%)
23.8% (27.9%)
14. Availability of care for the elderly
42.3% (44.6%)
14.6% (16.6%)
15. The overall state of the local economy
32.4% (22.2%)
21.4% (37.0%)
16. Local government
23.8% (23.0%)
32.2% (32.3%)
17. Cost of energy

18. Availability of good jobs
19. Real Estate Taxes
21.1% (7.5%)
38.9% (65.0%)
17.8% (12.9%)
43.0% (54.9%)
11.1% (8.5%)
43.1% (50.2%)
2. Most Jefferson County adult residents continue to view the quality of life in the region as positive, with a current
rate of 62% of the surveyed residents reporting that the overall quality of life in the area is Excellent or Good, while
currently only 9% believe the overall quality of life in the area is Poor. (Tables 8, 9, 10, and 27)
Economic-related Quality-of-Life Indicators:

3. Availability of Good Jobs (Table 23)
By far, in 2015 the most positive results since 2009 regarding availability of good jobs have been found. The rate of
Poor decreased from 55% in 2014 to 43% in 2015 (in 2007 Poor was only 39%, but that is the only year that a
lower rate was found than in 2015), and the rate of Excellent or Good increased from 13% in 2014 to 18% in 2015
(in both 2006 and 2008 Excellent or Good was 20%, and in 2007 Excellent or Good was 25%, but these are the
only years that higher rates were found than in 2015).
Page 14
4. Overall State of the Local Economy (Table 26)

In 2015 a steady 6-year trend of more positive perceptions of the overall state of the local economy has continued,
changing from 48% responding Poor in 2009 to the all-time high low of 21% responding Poor found in 2015.
Similarly, in 2009 the rate of responding Excellent or Good was only 15%, while that rate in 2015 has now
significantly increased, and more than doubled, to an all-time high of 32%. In 2009-2011 residents had a quite
negative outlook about the local economy (in each of these three years over 40% responded with Poor); the
evidence in 2015 is that perception of the overall state of the local economy has improved greatly since that threeyear post-recession period.
5. Shopping Opportunities (Table 24)
Steady and significant increases in Excellent or Good as ratings of shopping opportunities have been seen between
2009 and 2015 (from 57% to 67%), almost returning to the all-time high rates that were found in 2006-2008. In 2008
the Excellent or Good rate was 71%.
6. Availability of Housing (Table 29)
This quality-of-life indicator has been recorded for eleven years, from 2005 to the present. Arguably the recent
improvement in satisfaction with this housing-availability indicator is the most dramatic and significant among the
collection of all quality-of-life variables measured in this annual study. A very significant increase in Excellent or
Good (and decrease in Poor) has been found between 2012 and 2014, and these rates have remained stable
between 2014 and 2015. The 2015 rate of 13% responding Poor is the lowest ever measured, and less than onethird of the rates found in 2005-2006 (in both years the Poor rate was over 40%).
7. Cost of Energy (Table 13)
Throughout the first fifteen years of completing this annual survey, the cost of energy has consistently been viewed by
a majority of participants as Poor, but in 2015 the results have improved greatly an all-time low rate of only 39%
rating the cost of energy as Poor was found, while an all-time high of 21% rated this community indicator as
Excellent or Good (no doubt impacted by the recent decreases in the price of gasoline and utilities).
8. Real Estate Taxes (Table 20)
Dissatisfaction with real estate taxes has been very consistently expressed between 2000 and 2015. Current 2015
results are essentially the same as the long term averages 11% indicating Excellent or Good and 43% indicating
Poor.
Not-so-Economic-related Quality-of-Life Indicators:

9. Opportunities for Youth (Table 11)
A significant increase in Excellent or Good as a rating of opportunities for youth was found in 2015, with the most
positive results ever found occurring in 2015 45% rating this indicator as Excellent or Good and only 24% rating as
Poor (rates similar to the 2006-2007 findings which heretofore have been the most positive regarding opportunities
for youth).
10. Healthcare Access (Table 14)
A very significant negative shift occurred among Jefferson County residents between 2008 and 2009 regarding
perceptions of healthcare access in the county. In 2008, the highest rate ever reported of healthcare access as
Excellent or Good (49%) was found, however, this rate decreased to 41% in 2009. There has been a steady
positive rebound in perceptions of healthcare access between 2009 and 2015, with the 2015 Excellent or Good rate
recovering to the high level found in 2008 in 2015 the Excellent or Good rate is back to 49%. Similarly, the current
2015 rate of rating healthcare access as Poor is at an all-time low of 15%.
11. Healthcare Quality (Table 15)
In 2015, perceptions of healthcare quality in the county have remained very stable and similar to recent-past years of
study with 47% of participants indicating that the quality is Excellent or Good, and only 19% rating the quality as
Poor.
12. Cultural/Entertainment Opportunities (Table 12)
In 2015, Jefferson County residents report the highest ratings of cultural/entertainment opportunities as Excellent or
Good ever found in the Annual Survey (47% rate as Excellent or Good, while only 21% rate as Poor).
Page 15
13. Recreational Opportunities (Table 17)

Since 2010 this indicator has shown steady positive trending to a current all-time high of 69% responding Excellent or
Good, while the 2015 rate of only 9% responding with Poor is the lowest ever found in sixteen years of studying
local recreational opportunities.
14. Access to Higher Education (Table 16)
In 2015 ratings of access to higher education have remained very stable, quite positive, and similar to recent-past
years of study. However, the current Excellent or Good rate is the lowest ever found for access to higher education
in this annual survey (currently 58%, significantly decreased from 65% found in the county in 2014). In fact, this
access to higher education community indicator is one of only two indicators among the nineteen that are annually
tracked where the ratings between 2014 and 2015 became more negative (with the other negative-trending indicator
being Quality of K-12 Education).
15. Downtown Watertown (Table 21)
One of the most striking differences found in the 2009 Annual Survey was the perception of the Downtown of
Watertown. In 2008, only 28% reported that they perceived the Downtown of Watertown as Excellent or Good, while
36% rated it as Poor. The following year, in 2009, the results transformed in that the Downtown of Watertown was
rated as Excellent or Good by 43%, and rated as Poor by only 19% a massive change of sentiment in the
community in one year. The improved-Public-Square-perception sentiment has still not ended five years later, and, in
fact, it appears to be regaining momentum in 2015, 47% reported that they perceived the Downtown of Watertown
as Excellent or Good, the highest rate ever found, while the current 18% Poor rate is the lowest ever found. It
appears that all of the recent real estate development and restoration projects that are underway in the Downtown of
Watertown are being positively perceived by county residents.
16. Policing and Crime Control (Table 22)
In 2015, assessment of policing and crime control has remained very typical compared to long term distributions of
Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor ratings over the past sixteen years of study in Jefferson County. Residents continue to be
far more positive than negative in their opinions about policing and crime control, with 61% rating it as Excellent or
Good and only 9% rating as Poor.
17. Quality of K-12 Education (Table 25)
Since 2008 this quality of K-12 education community indicator has shown steady negative trending each year,
reaching the all-time lowest rating of quality of K-12 education in 2015. Currently only 49% of participants rate the
quality of K-12 education as Excellent or Good (was 63% in 2008), and currently 11% rate it as Poor (highest
Poor rating ever measured, has been as low as 4% in the past). In fact, this quality of K-12 education community
indicator is one of only two indicators among the nineteen that are annually tracked where the ratings between 2014
and 2015 became more negative (with the other negative-trending indicator being Access to Higher Education).
18. Availability of Care for the Elderly (Table 28)
There was a significant increase in Excellent or Good as the rating of availability of care for the elderly in Jefferson
County between 2010-2013, to an all-time high of 46% in 2013. The rate of responding Excellent or Good has
remained stable between 2013 and 2015, with 42% indicating these positive perceptions in 2015 (while only 15% rate
the availability of care for the elderly as Poor in 2015).
19. Quality of the Environment (Table 18)
Perceptions among Jefferson County residents regarding the quality of the local environment have remained very
positive and relatively stable over the sixteen years of surveying. In every studied year the most common response
has been Good, with the typical response distributions including 45%-55% rating as Excellent or Good and 10%20% rating as Poor. An all-time low, however, of only 9% rating as Poor was found in the county in 2015.
20. Local Government (Table 19)
In 2013, the most negative sentiment ever expressed regarding Local Government in the first fourteen years of
surveying was found, with only 19% of participants responding Good and 0% rating as Excellent (and the 37% who
rated as Poor in 2013 was the least favorable ever discovered in fourteen years of surveying). Over the past two
years ratings of local government have improved and returned to near the historic average rates in 2015, 24% rate
as Excellent or Good, while 32% rate as Poor.
Page 16
The Largest Issue Currently Facing Our Nation

21. In 2015, Jobs and the Economy continue to be cited as the largest issue currently facing our nation right now
however, it is cited by only 24% of participants whereas in the past this has been cited by as much as 81%.
Other significant changes observed in 2015 regarding the largest national issue include that Government/Leadership
is now cited by 17% (has been as low as 3% in the past) and Terrorism/ISIS was cited by 11% (was never cited
before 2015 by participants). (Table 30)
Section 2.3 The Local Economy Personal Financial Situations (Tables 31-32)
22. The employment status of Jefferson County residents has been studied in each of 2008 through 2015 with results
remaining remarkably consistent. Please refer to Table 31 for full detail of the occupation groups reported by
participants. (Table 31)
23. Residents of Jefferson County continue to be most likely to indicate that their familys personal financial situation
has Stayed the Same over the past 12 months, with 49% of the participants indicating this sentiment
(significantly decreased from 64% reporting Stayed the Same in 2012, but not significantly changed from 2013 and
2014 results of 50% and 52%, respectively). Currently 79% of residents indicate that their personal financial situation
has remained at least the same or improved in the past year (30% improved, 49% remained same). The significant
negative trend in assessing ones personal financial situation that occurred between 2008 and 2012 in the county
(Getting Better rate was 33% in 2008, 24% in 2009, 26% in 2010, 20% in 2011, and only 16% in 2012) appears to
have improved over the past three years the Getting Better rate increased significantly to 24% in 2013 (then
surpassing the Getting Worse rate again for the first time since 2010), and increased again in 2014 to 28%, and has
continued to increase up to the current 30% level. In fact, when Better is compared to Worse within each year of
study, it can be seen that 2015 is the most positive year ever studied with this survey question (Better surpasses
Worse by 9%, 30% vs. 21%, respectively). (Table 32)
Section 2.4 K-12 Education (Tables 33-34)

24. In general, Jefferson County adults are more satisfied than dissatisfied with the local K-12 schools, with 47% of
Jefferson County residents agreeing with the notion that Jefferson County schools are adequately preparing our
young people for the technology and economy of the future, and only 36% disagreeing with this statement.
However, the current results demonstrate a very dramatic and significant negative trend that has continued over the
past three years the rate of strongly agreeing decreased from 21% to 5% between 2013 and 2015, while the rate of
strongly disagreeing increased from 5% to 17% between 2013 and 2015. (Table 33)
25. When asked about future improvement of the quality of K-12 education in New York State, by a five-to-one margin
Jefferson County adults overwhelmingly trust the teachers unions more than Governor Cuomo to improve
the quality of K-12 education in New York State with 71% more trusting of the teachers unions, and only
14% more trusting of the governor. According to Quinnipiac University in a March 2015 statewide poll, the
responses in New York State to this same question were: 55% Teachers Unions; and 28% Cuomo. When only
the upstate New York residents who participated in the Quinnipiac poll are investigated, the results parallel the local
Jefferson County results more closely. Quinnipiac poll results in March 2015 for the upstaters are: 62% Teachers
Unions; and 20% Cuomo. (Table 34)
Section 2.5 Healthcare and the Affordable Care Act (Tables 35-38)
26. The Affordable Care Act provision providing health insurance exchanges was implemented in the United States on
October 1, 2013. In 2014 this annual survey was completed six months later, and at that point in time about 28% of
Jefferson County residents indicated that they were Not Familiar with the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. One
year later, in April 2015, the rate of unfamiliarity has decreased to only 17%. In April 2014, adults in Jefferson County
tended to be more opposed to the Affordable Care Act than supportive at that time approximately one-third of the
participants (34%) thought that the Affordable Care Act was a good idea (13% preferred to keep the Affordable Care
Act as it is, another 21% thought it was a good idea but needed some changes), while in 2014 a larger 38% 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 are now more in favor than opposed to the
Page 17
law current rates are that 48% favor while only 34% want it repealed. Essentially it appears that the group who has
become familiar with the law between 2014 and 2015 has become supportive of the healthcare law. (Table 35)
27. In April 2014, six months after the Affordable Care Act was enacted, adults in Jefferson County very strongly
expressed a belief that the effect that the Affordable Care Act would have on them and their family would be more
negative than positive. In 2014, only 19% of participants expected to be affected more positively, while 64% indicated
that they expect to be affected more negatively, with 13% responding neither, and 4% 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 April 2015, only 13% of participants have been affected more positively (19% expected this to
occur), while 19% indicated that they have been affected more negatively (64% expected this to occur), with 61%
responding neither (only 13% expected this to occur), and 1% responding that they are not sure (4% were unsure in
2014). (Table 36)
28. Only 2% of adults in Jefferson County who participated in this study report that they do not currently have any type of
health insurance. In 2015, approximately one-in-eleven Jefferson County adults (9%) have chosen not to seek
medical care because of cost in the past 12 months, a rate that has decreased significantly from 18% found in the
county in 2009, but not significantly different from 12% found in 2012. 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 8% have chosen not to seek medical care because of cost in the past 12 months, while among the
admittedly small group of participants who are uninsured in 2015 this rate is 74%. (Tables 37-38)
Section 2.6 Fort Drum Presence and Impact in Jefferson County (Tables 39-41)
29. When asked Does the presence of Fort Drum in the local area have a positive effect upon you and your
familys employment or financial situation?, almost two-thirds of participants in 2015 responded Yes (64%
indicated Yes, while 36% indicated No). This rate of 64% indicating the positive impact that Fort Drum has upon
their financial situation has increased significantly in 2015 from earlier-year study findings (such as only 51% found in
2014). Further investigation for a relationship between ones Fort Drum affiliation and the impact that the military base
has upon ones financial situation interestingly reveals that even among those who indicate that they have no
connection to the military (no active military in the household, and their employment in the county is not related to Fort
Drum) 53% of these no connection participants respond that the presence of Fort Drum in the local area does
have a positive effect upon their own employment or financial situation. (Table 39)
30. The vast majority of local residents continue to agree that the presence of Fort Drum in the local area improves
the overall quality of life for the residents, with 83% agreeing with this positive quality-of-life impact, and only 9%
disagreeing (these rates were 78% and 13%, respectively, in 2014). Further investigation for a relationship between
ones Fort Drum affiliation and their opinion about the effect of Fort Drum revealed the following percentages who
responded Strongly Agree or Agree: if active military in household 90%; if no active military in the household but
ones local residence is due to civilian employment at Fort Drum 79%; and among those with no connection to Fort
Drum 82%. (Table 40)
31. If Fort Drum were to drastically reduce in size, approximately one-third of local adult residents report that
they would not continue to live in Jefferson County. (60% indicated that they would stay, 34% would leave).
Further investigation for a relationship between ones Fort Drum affiliation and their intention to remain living locally if
Fort Drum were to dramatically reduce in size revealed the following percentages who responded Yes, would stay: if
active military in household 10%; if no active military in the household but ones local residence is due to civilian
employment at Fort Drum 56%; and among those with no connection to Fort Drum 79%. (Table 41)
Section 2.7 Watertown International Airport (Tables 42-45)

32. Familiarity with the Watertown International Airport is tremendously high among county residents. When
asked Are you aware that there is an airport that passengers can fly in and out of in Watertown called the Watertown
International Airport? almost all participants (99.5%) responded with Yes. (Table 42)
33. When further asked Are you aware that there are daily flights for passengers from Watertown to the
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania airport for connecting flights to other locations? approximately four-fifths (80%) of
participants indicate that they are aware of the daily Philadelphia connection arrangement. (Table 43)
Page 18
34. Approximately one-in-three Jefferson County adults (34%) have flown out of the Watertown International
Airport with slightly more than one-half of these adults (18%) having flown out of the airport in the past year. (Table
44)
35. Jefferson County adults strongly believe that having air transportation in Watertown is important to the
quality of life in the county with 80% indicating that they believe that it is at least somewhat important (55%
respond Very Important and another 25% respond Somewhat Important). (Table 45)
Section 2.8 Local Charitable Organization Issues (Tables 46-49)

36. The spirit of volunteerism remains high among Jefferson County residents in 2015, with 55% 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 48% in 2010, 57% in 2011, 57% in 2012, 56% in 2013, and 55% in 2014.
The average number of hours per month volunteered among all participants in 2015 has increased significantly to
10.5 hours/month/adult from a rate of 8.3 found in 2014. (Table 46)
37. A minority of Jefferson County adults in 2015 indicate that they have a will (37% in 2015 have a will, significantly
decreased from 49% found when last studied in the county in 2002). Among those who do have a will about onein-six (15%) indicate that they have included a charitable organization as a beneficiary in their will (similar to
13% found when last studied in the county in 2002). This 15% naming a charitable organization rate applied to the
37% who have a will extrapolates to a total approximation of 5.5% of all adults have a charitable organization named
in their will. (Tables 47-48)
38. When asked have you or anyone in your immediate family ever used the services of Hospice of Jefferson
County? the result found in 2015 (41% responded Yes) is the same as was found when last studied in 2011.
(Table 49)
Section 2.9 Government and Political Issues (Tables 50-51)

39. In 2014, as has typically been the case every year of completing this Annual Survey, participants more frequently
self-identify as conservative than as liberal by a two-or-three-to-one ratio (26% vs. 12% in 2015, respectively, was
34% vs. 10% in 2014; and 26% vs. 15% in 2013). However, the most commonly-reported self-identified political
ideology among Jefferson County adult residents continues to be "middle-of-the-road" (50% in 2015; was 49%
in 2014; and 52% in 2013). (Table 50)
40. When asked to rate the job that Andrew Cuomo is doing as governor (in the first week of April each year), in 2015
approximately one-in-every-four participants (25%) rated the job that Andrew Cuomo was doing as governor
of New York State as Good (21%) or Excellent (4%), while a very large percentage (39%) rate the
governors performance as Poor. These ratings among Jefferson County adults are a significant trend
toward the negative since first measured in the county in 2011 in fact, the rate of responding Poor has
quadrupled between 2011 and 2015 from 10% to the current 39%. According to Siena Research Institute in a May
2015 statewide poll, Cuomos approval ratings statewide were: 9% Excellent; 32% Good; 36% Fair; and 23%
Poor. When only the upstate New York residents who participated in the Siena poll are investigated, the results
parallel the local Jefferson County results very closely. Siena poll results in May 2015 for the upstaters are: 6%
Excellent; 24% Good; 36% Fair; and 34% Poor. (Table 51)
Section 2.10 Familiarity with the Center for Community Studies (Table 52)
41. Familiarity with the Center for Community Studies was at an all-time high in 2012, when 46% of participants
indicated that they had heard of the community-based research center at SUNY Jefferson. Familiarity in 2013
through 2015 remains relatively high in that 40%, 37%, and 36%, respectively, reported to have heard of the Center.
(Table 52)
Page 19
Section 3 - Detailed Statistical Results

This section of the Report of Findings 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, Military
Affiliation, 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 sixteen years 2000-2015. Statistically significant trends between 2000
and 2015 are highlighted throughout reported at the top of each Trend Analysis table.
(3)
The 2015 results for each survey question have been cross-tabulated by each of the
demographic factors of Gender, Age, Education Level, Military Affiliation, and Household Income
Level (there is a total of over 200 cross-tabulation tables included in this report). Statistically
significant correlations 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.
For ease of use, survey questions have been organized into the following sections:
Section 3.1 Quality of Life Issues Sixteen Year Trends in Responses (2000-2015) (Tables 8-9)
Section 3.2 Quality of Life Issues Detailed Investigation of Year 2015 Results (Tables 10-30)
Section 3.3 The Local Economy Personal Financial Situations (Tables 31-32)
Section 3.4 K-12 Education (Tables 33-34)
Section 3.5 Healthcare and the Affordable Care Act (Tables 35-38)
Section 3.6 Fort Drum Presence and Impact in Jefferson County (Tables 39-41)
Section 3.7 Watertown International Airport (Tables 42-45)
Section 3.8 Local Charitable Organization Issues (Tables 46-49)
Section 3.9 Government and Political Issues (Tables 50-51)
Section 3.10 Familiarity with the Center for Community Studies (Table 52)
When comparing results across time, the sample sizes collected each year should be considered. The sample
sizes for each of the sixteen years of the Jefferson County Annual Survey of the Community are summarized in the
following table.
Table 6 Sample Sizes for Each of Sixteen Years of the Jefferson County Annual Survey
Year of Study:
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Total sample Size
340
342
413
341
348
355
354
382
421
382
414
406
380
400
422
400
(# interviews completed)
The statistics reported in the correlative tables (cross-tabulations by gender, age, education, military affiliation,
and income) are percentages within the sampled subgroups. To determine the sample size for each subgroup to avoid
over-interpretation 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 7 Sample Size and Margin of Error for Common Demographic Subgroups to be
Compared in 2015
Demographic Characteristic:
Approximate
Margin of Error
Number of
Participants
Sampled (weighted)
(when analyzing only this

subgroup)
n=206
n=194
5.5%
5.6%
n=100
n=79
n=68
n=63
n=44
n=46
7.8%
8.8%
9.5%
9.9%
11.8%
11.5%
n=187
n=133
n=80
5.7%
6.8%
8.8%
n=57
n=109
n=66
n=102
10.4%
7.5%
9.6%
7.8%
n=100
7.8%
n=80
8.8%
n=220
5.3%
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
Military Affiliation:
Active Military in the Household
Employment is Related to Fort Drum (but no Active
Military in the household)
No Connection to Fort Drum
Again, the reader can identify the statistically significant trends throughout this report by noting the comment
directly above each trend table, and may identify statistically significant differences between subgroups shown in
correlational cross-tabulation 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 Jefferson County
residents in April 2015 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 community study is that 21.2% of the participants responded with gotten worse (reported later in Table 32). So
. what does this 21.2% 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?)
Page 21
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? Military-affiliation-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 22
Section 3.1 Quality of Life Issues in Jefferson County Sixteen Year

Trends in Responses
The bolded and dark-shaded number (cell) in each row of Table 8 is the largest percentage responding Excellent or Good
found throughout the sixteen years for each survey question, with the similar bolded and dark-shaded number (cell) in each row of
Table 9 representing the largest percentage responding Poor. 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 is considered statistically significant. For
more detail regarding statistical significance, please refer to the appendix of this report Technical Comments. Note that in years
2000-2014 these community indicators were annually measured on a Better-Same-Worse scale. In years 2004 and 2015 all indicators
were also measured on an Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor scale, similar to that which is currently in use annually in Lewis County and will be
implemented in St. Lawrence County starting in July 2015. To facilitate a standard process for all three counties, past data in Jefferson
County for these 19 community indicators has been transformed to the Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor scale for all sixteen years of 20002015. Item-specific ordinal level multinomial multivariate calibration models were developed and applied for each community indicator
for past years 2000-2014 to generate the Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor response distributions.
Table 8 Trends in Issues in Jefferson County % Indicating Excellent or Good

2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
1.
Opportunities for youth
2.
Cultural / entertainment opportunities
3.
Cost of energy
4.
Health care access
5.
Health care quality
6.
7.
8.
39
41
8
51
49
68
65
53
26
15
30
65
16
56
62
28
64
36
36
7
45
45
63
61
52
23
11
26
65
7
51
57
16
50
31
40
9
47
50
64
61
53
26
10
24
64
10
46
61
19
56
33
38
7
47
50
63
63
50
23
10
27
66
11
49
55
18
56
32
39
9
45
50
63
61
56
25
11
23
65
11
52
58
20
53
34
35
39
8
48
50
61
62
53
25
12
26
58
14
57
59
24
57
35
37
38
39
7
47
50
60
62
50
22
10
28
64
20
70
56
29
60
41
40
40
43
8
49
50
63
64
49
24
8
26
61
25
71
59
31
65
36
46
40
44
8
49
51
65
64
49
26
10
28
66
20
71
63
24
63
39
49
34
38
9
40
44
60
61
49
24
10
43
63
9
57
61
15
53
32
54
34
39
10
43
46
62
56
52
22
10
43
62
13
59
56
20
57
31
57
33
38
8
44
47
59
60
49
22
11
42
61
11
62
55
19
55
37
51
34
43
9
46
49
62
62
53
24
11
41
64
15
64
55
23
59
43
48
34
40
12
47
49
60
61
53
20
13
36
58
15
64
52
23
59
46
57
34
41
7
44
46
65
64
51
23
9
39
62
13
62
55
22
55
45
64
45
47
21
49
47
58
69
52
24
11
47
61
18
67
49
32
62
42
63
9.
Local government
10.
Real Estate taxes
11.
The Downtown of Watertown
12.
13.
Availability of good jobs
14.
15.
16.
The overall state of the local economy
17.
18.
Availability of care for the elderly
19.
Table 9 Trends in Issues in Jefferson County % Indicating Poor

2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
1.
Opportunities for youth
2.
Cultural / entertainment opportunities
3.
Cost of energy
4.
Health care access
5.
Health care quality
6.
7.
8.
23
25
62
17
18
7
12
13
25
36
34
8
51
14
5
30
7
29
30
66
22
21
11
14
13
32
45
38
8
66
18
7
47
15
30
25
56
19
15
9
14
11
28
42
39
8
60
21
5
43
10
28
27
61
20
17
10
12
15
30
44
34
7
60
21
7
43
11
27
25
56
18
13
9
12
8
25
40
39
7
57
15
4
38
11
13
24
23
63
15
13
10
11
11
22
35
37
10
52
12
5
32
9
14
40
23
26
69
20
17
12
13
14
28
47
34
9
45
7
6
30
9
14
41
22
24
62
18
16
10
12
15
26
49
36
10
39
6
5
26
7
16
34
23
22
66
20
17
9
12
16
28
48
36
8
47
6
5
35
8
15
31
28
26
61
23
21
11
13
16
29
49
19
8
61
14
6
48
12
20
23
28
25
56
22
18
11
16
14
33
39
19
9
54
13
7
40
10
20
20
28
28
66
22
19
13
14
16
32
49
20
10
59
11
8
42
12
19
24
26
23
58
21
17
10
12
12
28
43
21
8
51
9
8
36
9
15
29
26
26
51
20
18
11
14
12
37
40
24
12
52
9
8
37
9
13
20
28
25
65
22
19
9
11
14
32
50
23
9
55
10
9
37
12
17
14
24
20
39
15
19
9
9
9
32
43
18
9
43
10
10
21
9
15
13
9.
Local government
10.
Real Estate taxes
11.
The Downtown of Watertown
12.
13.
Availability of good jobs
14.
15.
16.
The overall state of the local economy
17.
18.
Availability of care for the elderly
19.
Page 23
Section 3.2 Quality of Life Issues in Jefferson County Detailed

Investigation of Year 2015 Results
Table 10 shows the detailed results for all 19 quality of life indicators recorded in 2015. The larger font, bolded
and dark shaded cell (number) in each row is the largest result (most common response) 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 10 SUMMARY Quality of Life Issues in Jefferson County Year 2015

Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Dont
Know
1. Opportunities for youth
14.4%
30.7%
29.9%
23.8%
1.3%
2. Cultural / entertainment opportunities
4.6%
42.3%
30.7%
20.5%
1.9%
3. Cost of energy
3.2%
17.9%
36.7%
38.9%
3.2%
4. Health care access
6.1%
43.2%
33.8%
14.9%
2.0%
5. Health care quality
7.9%
39.2%
32.5%
19.2%
1.1%
6. Access to higher education
16.9%
40.8%
29.3%
8.8%
4.2%
7. Recreational opportunities
15.6%
53.0%
21.2%
9.4%
0.7%
8. Quality of the environment
10.9%
41.0%
38.4%
9.3%
0.4%
9. Local government
0.9%
22.9%
38.1%
32.2%
5.9%
10. Real Estate taxes
0.1%
11.0%
36.5%
43.1%
9.2%
11. The Downtown of Watertown
7.2%
39.8%
31.6%
18.3%
3.1%
18.4%
42.9%
28.5%
8.6%
1.7%
13. Availability of good jobs
0.5%
17.3%
35.2%
43.0%
3.9%
14. Shopping opportunities
25.2%
42.2%
20.9%
9.9%
1.7%
15. Quality of K-12 education
11.2%
37.7%
30.8%
10.5%
9.8%
16. The overall state of the local economy
3.0%
29.4%
45.1%
21.4%
1.1%
17. The overall quality of life in the area
6.8%
55.6%
27.4%
8.8%
1.3%
18. Availability of care for the elderly
8.2%
34.1%
25.8%
14.6%
17.4%
19.1%
43.9%
17.2%
12.6%
7.3%
12. Policing and crime control
19. Availability of housing
Page 24
The following two graphs highlight the most positively and most negatively perceived of the 19 studied quality-of-life
indicators in 2015, with years 2011 through 2014 results also shown for a recent trend comparison.
Page 25
Tables 11-29, shown on the following pages, provide the greatest level of detail in results for the 19 investigated
quality-of-life indicators. In these 19 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 2000 and 2015 identified above each trend-analysis table. Finally, crosstabulations by five key demographic factors (Gender, Age, Military Affiliation, Education, and Income) have been
completed. By inspecting the results after cross-tabbing by any of these demographic factors, the reader can better
understand factors that may be significantly associated with perceptions of quality-of-life characteristics of the county.
Table 11 Opportunities for Youth

2015 Results:
Trend Analysis Graphical Presentation:
Trend Analysis: Significant increase in Excellent or Good in 2015, most positive results ever found, similar to 2006-2008 findings.
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Dont Know
2000
10%
29%
33%
23%
4%
2001
11%
25%
31%
29%
3%
2002
9%
22%
32%
30%
6%
2003
10%
24%
32%
28%
7%
2004
9%
24%
34%
27%
8%
2005
9%
26%
34%
24%
7%
2006
10%
28%
32%
23%
7%
2007
10%
29%
31%
22%
7%
2008
11%
29%
31%
23%
6%
2009
10%
24%
33%
28%
5%
2010
10%
24%
32%
28%
6%
2011
9%
24%
35%
28%
4%
2012
9%
25%
34%
26%
5%
2013
9%
25%
33%
26%
6%
2014
10%
24%
33%
28%
6%
Cross-tabulations (using 2015 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 26
2015
14%
31%
30%
24%
1%
Table 12 Cultural/Entertainment Opportunities

2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: Significant increase in Excellent or Good between 2009-2015, current rate of 20.5% Poor is lowest ever found.
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Dont Know
2000
4%
36%
32%
25%
2%
2001
4%
32%
32%
30%
2%
2002
4%
36%
32%
25%
3%
2003
4%
34%
32%
27%
3%
2004
4%
35%
34%
25%
3%
2005
4%
35%
33%
23%
4%
2006
4%
34%
33%
26%
3%
2007
5%
38%
31%
24%
2%
2008
5%
39%
31%
22%
3%
2009
4%
34%
32%
26%
3%
2010
4%
35%
31%
25%
5%
2011
4%
34%
31%
28%
2%
2012
5%
38%
31%
23%
3%
2013
4%
36%
32%
26%
3%
2014
4%
37%
31%
25%
3%
Page 27
2015
5%
42%
31%
21%
2%
Table 13 Cost of Energy

2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: Dramatic and significant decrease in Poor in 2015, to by far the lowest rate ever found.
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Dont Know
2000
1%
7%
25%
62%
5%
2001
1%
6%
22%
66%
5%
2002
1%
8%
28%
56%
7%
2003
1%
6%
24%
61%
8%
2004
1%
8%
28%
56%
7%
2005
1%
7%
24%
63%
5%
2006
1%
6%
21%
69%
4%
2007
1%
7%
24%
62%
7%
2008
1%
7%
23%
66%
3%
2009
1%
8%
26%
61%
3%
2010
1%
8%
28%
56%
6%
2011
1%
7%
23%
66%
2%
2012
1%
8%
26%
58%
5%
2013
1%
11%
33%
51%
5%
2014
1%
6%
23%
65%
5%
Page 28
2015
3%
18%
37%
39%
3%
Table 14 Healthcare Access

2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: In 2015 results are the most positive found yet with 49.3% responding Excellent or Good and only 14.9% responding
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Dont Know
Poor. This is the greatest difference found in recent years, and overall has approached the most positive results ever
found (in 2000, and 2006-2008).
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
8%
6%
7%
7%
7%
7%
7%
7%
7%
6%
6%
6%
7%
7%
6%
6%
43%
38%
40%
40%
38%
40%
41%
42%
42%
35%
37%
37%
39%
40%
38%
43%
29%
30%
30%
29%
30%
31%
29%
28%
28%
31%
30%
30%
31%
29%
29%
34%
17%
22%
19%
20%
18%
15%
20%
18%
20%
23%
22%
22%
21%
20%
22%
15%
3%
3%
4%
4%
8%
6%
4%
5%
3%
6%
5%
4%
3%
4%
5%
2%
Page 29
Table 15 Healthcare Quality

2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: In 2015 results have remained very stable and similar to recent-past years of study.
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Dont Know
2000
8%
41%
29%
18%
3%
2001
7%
38%
32%
21%
3%
2002
8%
43%
32%
15%
3%
2003
8%
41%
30%
17%
3%
2004
7%
43%
31%
13%
6%
2005
7%
43%
31%
13%
6%
2006
9%
42%
30%
17%
3%
2007
8%
42%
30%
16%
3%
2008
9%
42%
30%
17%
2%
2009
6%
38%
32%
21%
3%
2010
7%
40%
31%
18%
5%
2011
7%
40%
32%
19%
3%
2012
7%
41%
32%
17%
3%
2013
8%
41%
31%
18%
3%
2014
7%
39%
31%
19%
4%
Page 30
2015
8%
39%
33%
19%
1%
Table 16 Access to Higher Education

2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: In 2015 results have remained very stable and similar to recent-past years of study, however, the Excellent or Good rate
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Dont Know
(57.7%) is the lowest ever found.

2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
19%
17%
17%
17%
16%
49%
46%
47%
46%
47%
22%
24%
23%
23%
25%
7%
11%
9%
10%
9%
3%
3%
4%
3%
4%
2005
15%
46%
26%
10%
4%
2006
16%
44%
24%
12%
4%
2007
17%
46%
23%
10%
4%
2008
18%
47%
22%
9%
4%
2009
16%
45%
25%
11%
3%
2010
17%
46%
23%
11%
4%
2011
15%
44%
25%
13%
4%
2012
16%
45%
24%
10%
4%
2013
16%
44%
24%
11%
5%
2014
18%
47%
22%
9%
4%
Page 31
2015
17%
41%
29%
9%
4%
Table 17 Recreational Opportunities

2015 Results:
Trend Analysis:
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Dont Know
Since 2010 this indicator has shown steady positive trending to a current all-time high of 68.6% responding Excellent
or Good, while the rate of 9.4% responding with Poor is the lowest ever found.
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
17%
15%
15%
15%
13%
14%
16%
16%
17%
14%
14%
14%
14%
14%
16%
16%
48%
46%
46%
48%
48%
48%
46%
47%
47%
47%
42%
46%
48%
46%
48%
53%
22%
24%
24%
23%
25%
24%
23%
22%
21%
25%
24%
25%
24%
25%
22%
21%
12%
14%
14%
12%
12%
11%
13%
12%
12%
13%
16%
14%
12%
14%
11%
9%
1%
2%
2%
1%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
3%
2%
1%
1%
3%
1%
Page 32
Table 18 Quality of the Environment

2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: Significant decrease in Poor reported in 2015, to a current rate that is the second lowest ever measured, with Excellent
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Dont Know
now at its all-time highest level.

2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
10%
9%
9%
9%
10%
43%
43%
44%
41%
46%
33%
34%
34%
33%
33%
13%
13%
11%
15%
8%
1%
1%
1%
2%
3%
2005
9%
44%
33%
11%
3%
2006
9%
41%
33%
14%
2%
2007
9%
41%
33%
15%
3%
2008
9%
40%
33%
16%
2%
2009
9%
40%
34%
16%
2%
2010
9%
42%
32%
14%
3%
2011
8%
40%
34%
16%
2%
2012
9%
44%
34%
12%
2%
2013
9%
43%
33%
12%
2%
2014
9%
42%
33%
14%
2%
Page 33
2015
11%
41%
38%
9%
0%
Table 19 Local Government

2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: Since 2005 there has been a gradual and rather steady increase in Poor (from 22% in 2005 to a current rate of 32%).
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Dont Know
2000
1%
26%
38%
25%
10%
2001
1%
23%
37%
32%
8%
2002
1%
25%
39%
28%
7%
2003
1%
22%
37%
30%
10%
2004
1%
24%
39%
25%
11%
2005
1%
25%
40%
22%
12%
2006
0%
21%
38%
28%
12%
2007
1%
23%
39%
26%
12%
2008
1%
26%
37%
28%
9%
2009
0%
23%
39%
29%
8%
2010
1%
22%
36%
33%
9%
2011
0%
21%
37%
32%
9%
2012
1%
24%
39%
28%
8%
2013
0%
19%
36%
37%
7%
2014
1%
22%
35%
32%
9%
Page 34
2015
1%
23%
38%
32%
6%
Table 20 Real Estate Taxes

2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: Results are very consistent between 2000-2015, with four years of lesser rates of responding Poor (2000, 2005, 2010, and
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Dont Know
2013) than was found in 2015. Current 2015 results are essentially the same as the long term averages 11% indicating
Excellent or Good and 43% indicating Poor.
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
0%
13%
10%
9%
8%
10%
11%
9%
7%
9%
9%
9%
10%
10%
11%
8%
11%
35%
32%
32%
30%
32%
34%
31%
29%
31%
31%
31%
31%
34%
35%
31%
37%
36%
45%
42%
44%
40%
35%
47%
49%
48%
49%
39%
49%
43%
40%
50%
43%
13%
12%
16%
17%
17%
19%
12%
14%
11%
10%
19%
9%
12%
12%
11%
9%
Page 35
Table 21 The Downtown of Watertown

2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: Between 2013 and 2015 a tremendous positive trend has occurred Excellent or Good has increased from 35% to 47%,
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Dont Know
while Poor has decreased from 24% to 18%. Current satisfactions are the most positive ever measured.
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
3%
5%
5%
5%
4%
3%
27%
24%
22%
25%
21%
24%
25%
24%
25%
38%
38%
37%
36%
32%
34%
34%
34%
34%
34%
34%
34%
33%
33%
33%
34%
35%
36%
36%
34%
38%
39%
34%
39%
37%
34%
36%
36%
19%
19%
20%
21%
24%
2%
2%
3%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
3%
4%
4%
4%
3%
4%
2014
4%
35%
35%
23%
4%
Page 36
2015
7%
40%
32%
18%
3%
Table 22 Policing and Crime Control

2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: In 2015, assessment of policing and crime control has remained very typical compared to long term rates of ExcellentExcellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Dont Know
Good-Fair-Poor.
2000
2001
2002
16%
17%
14%
50%
49%
50%
25%
24%
25%
8%
8%
8%
2%
3%
3%
2003
16%
49%
24%
7%
3%
2004
14%
50%
25%
7%
4%
2005
13%
45%
28%
10%
4%
2006
17%
47%
24%
9%
3%
2007
16%
45%
26%
10%
4%
2008
18%
47%
23%
8%
3%
2009
14%
50%
26%
8%
2%
2010
16%
47%
25%
9%
4%
2011
15%
46%
26%
10%
3%
2012
15%
49%
25%
8%
3%
2013
15%
44%
27%
12%
3%
2014
15%
48%
26%
9%
3%
Page 37
2015
18%
43%
29%
9%
2%
Table 23 Availability of Good Jobs

2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: By far, in 2015 the most positive results since 2009 regarding availability of good jobs have been found. The rate of Poor
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Dont Know
decreased from 55% in 2014 to 43% in 2015 (in 2007 Poor was only 39%, but that is the only year that a lower rate was
found than in 2015), and the rate of Excellent or Good increased from 13% in 2014 to 18% in 2015 (in both 2006 and 2008
Excellent or Good was 20%, and in 2007 Excellent or Good was 25%, but these are the only years that higher rates
were found than in 2015).
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
1%
0%
1%
1%
1%
1%
16%
7%
9%
10%
11%
14%
19%
24%
19%
9%
13%
11%
14%
14%
12%
17%
30%
25%
27%
27%
28%
31%
31%
32%
30%
27%
28%
28%
29%
30%
28%
35%
51%
66%
60%
60%
57%
52%
45%
39%
47%
61%
54%
59%
51%
52%
55%
43%
3%
2%
3%
3%
3%
3%
4%
4%
3%
3%
4%
3%
4%
3%
4%
4%
Page 38
Table 24 Shopping Opportunities

2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: Steady and significant increase in Excellent or Good between 2009-2015 (from 57% to 67%), almost returning to the allExcellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Dont Know
time high rates found in 2006-2008.

2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
15%
13%
10%
12%
12%
41%
38%
36%
36%
40%
28%
30%
32%
30%
29%
14%
18%
21%
21%
15%
1%
1%
2%
1%
4%
2005
14%
43%
28%
12%
3%
2006
22%
47%
22%
7%
1%
2007
23%
48%
21%
6%
2%
2008
23%
48%
21%
6%
1%
2009
15%
42%
28%
14%
1%
2010
17%
42%
26%
13%
2%
2011
17%
45%
27%
11%
1%
2012
18%
46%
26%
9%
1%
2013
19%
45%
24%
9%
2%
2014
19%
44%
24%
10%
3%
Page 39
2015
25%
42%
21%
10%
2%
Table 25 Quality of K-12 Education

2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: In 2015 a steady 12-year trend of more negative perceptions of K-12 education has continued, changing from 4%
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Dont Know
responding Poor in 2004 to the all-time high rate of 11% found in 2015. Similarly, in 2008 the rate of responding
Excellent or Good was 63%, while that rate in 2015 has now significantly decreased to an all-time low of 49%.
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
18%
15%
15%
15%
14%
14%
15%
16%
17%
14%
15%
13%
14%
13%
15%
45%
43%
46%
40%
44%
44%
41%
43%
46%
46%
42%
42%
40%
39%
40%
20%
24%
22%
22%
20%
21%
21%
21%
21%
25%
25%
27%
26%
26%
27%
5%
7%
5%
7%
4%
5%
6%
5%
5%
6%
7%
8%
8%
8%
9%
13%
11%
12%
16%
18%
15%
16%
15%
11%
9%
11%
10%
12%
13%
9%
Page 40
2015
11%
38%
31%
11%
10%
Table 26 Overall State of the Local Economy

2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: In 2015 a steady 6-year trend of more positive perceptions of the overall state of the local economy has continued,
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Dont Know
changing from 48% responding Poor in 2009 to the all-time high low of 21% found in 2015. Similarly, in 2009 the rate of
responding Excellent or Good was only 15%, while that rate in 2015 has now significantly increased and more than
doubled to an all-time high of 32%.
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
4%
4%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
3%
3%
3%
25%
14%
16%
16%
18%
22%
25%
27%
21%
13%
17%
17%
21%
20%
20%
29%
40%
36%
37%
37%
39%
41%
40%
41%
38%
36%
38%
38%
39%
39%
39%
45%
30%
47%
43%
43%
38%
32%
30%
26%
35%
48%
40%
42%
36%
37%
37%
21%
2%
1%
2%
2%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
2%
2%
1%
2%
2%
1%
Page 41
Table 27 Overall Quality of Life in the Area

2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: Rates of responding Poor have remained incredibly consistent for 16 years ranging between 7% and 15%. Rates of
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Dont Know
responding Excellent or Good have varied a bit more, and have increased from 54% to 63% in the past year.
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
9%
6%
7%
7%
6%
7%
8%
10%
9%
7%
8%
7%
7%
8%
7%
55%
44%
49%
49%
47%
50%
52%
55%
53%
47%
50%
48%
51%
52%
47%
28%
33%
32%
32%
34%
32%
29%
26%
27%
32%
31%
32%
31%
31%
31%
7%
15%
10%
11%
11%
9%
9%
7%
8%
12%
10%
12%
9%
9%
12%
1%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
2%
Page 42
2015
7%
56%
27%
9%
1%
Table 28 Availability of Care for the Elderly

2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: There was a significant increase in Excellent or Good between 2010-2013 to an all-time high of 46% in 2013, and rates
have remained stable between 2013-2015.
2004
2005
2006
2007
Excellent
4%
4%
6%
4%
Good
30%
32%
35%
32%
Fair
24%
26%
25%
26%
Poor
13%
14%
14%
16%
Dont Know
28%
24%
20%
22%
2008
5%
33%
25%
15%
22%
2009
3%
29%
29%
20%
19%
2010
3%
28%
28%
20%
21%
2011
4%
32%
30%
19%
14%
2012
6%
37%
28%
15%
14%
2013
7%
39%
26%
13%
15%
2014
7%
38%
27%
17%
12%
2015
8%
34%
26%
15%
17%
Page 43
Table 29 Availability of Housing

2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: Significant increase in Excellent or Good (and decrease in Poor) between 2012-2014, and rates have remained stable
between 2014-2015. The 2015 rate of 13% responding Poor is the lowest ever measured, and less than one-third of the
rates found in 2005-2006.
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Excellent
11%
13%
15%
16%
16%
17%
15%
14%
16%
19%
19%
Good
26%
26%
31%
34%
39%
40%
36%
34%
40%
45%
44%
Fair
19%
15%
15%
15%
18%
18%
19%
18%
18%
17%
17%
Poor
40%
41%
34%
31%
23%
20%
24%
29%
20%
14%
13%
Dont Know
5%
5%
4%
4%
5%
5%
6%
5%
5%
4%
7%
Page 44
Table 30 What do you think is the largest issue facing our nation right now?
2015 Results:
Page 45
Table 30 (cont.) What do you think is the largest issue facing our nation right now?
Trend Analysis: Economy/Jobs has decreased to an all-time low of 24% (was 39% in 2014); while Government/Leadership has increased
to an all-time high of 17% (was only 3% in 2009); and Terrorism/ISIS increased to 11% in 2015 from an earlier result of 0%
responding these as the most important issue.
Healthcare
Nuclear Capability in Iran
Economy/Jobs
Education
Alternative Energy
Debt/Spending/Budget
Government/Leadership
Taxes
Environment
Moral Issues
War in Afghanistan
Immigration/Race Relations
War in General
Agriculture
Too much involvement in other countries affairs
High Cost of Living/Prices
Terrorism
Cost of Energy/Gas
Crime
Drugs
Corporate greed
Sequestration (federal spending cuts)
Gun Control Issues
Poverty
Income inequality
ISIS
Climate Change
Diversity/Culture
Racism
Veteran Care
Too much housing
Viability of Social Security, MC, MA
All of the above
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
4%
24%
5%
11%
10%
12%
7%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
81%
38%
45%
49%
44%
39%
24%
0%
1%
3%
1%
2%
1%
3%
2%
1%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
8%
15%
11%
11%
11%
3%
3%
6%
8%
4%
12%
17%
17%
1%
1%
0%
1%
2%
2%
0%
0%
2%
1%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
2%
1%
0%
2%
3%
2%
0%
0%
4%
1%
0%
1%
1%
0%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
2%
0%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
4%
1%
3%
5%
0%
0%
1%
4%
1%
1%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
6%
0%
0%
0%
3%
2%
3%
1%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
1%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
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%
0%
0%
0%
1%
4%
1%
6%
1%
1%
2%
Page 46
Table 30 (cont.) What do you think is the largest issue facing our nation right now?
Page 47
Section 3.3 The Local Economy Personal Financial Situations

Table 31 Employment status, or occupation
2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: No significant change between 2008-2015, with the exception that military are more accurately proportionally reflected in
the 2015 sample.
Retired
Unemployed
Homemaker
Student
Military
Managerial
Medical
Professional/Technical
Sales
Clerical
Service
Blue Collar/Production
Teacher/Education
Not Sure
Self-employed
Disabled
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
17%
18%
18%
19%
17%
21%
17%
17%
8%
11%
12%
8%
4%
8%
4%
2%
8%
6%
8%
6%
6%
5%
7%
6%
3%
8%
5%
10%
5%
6%
15%
7%
6%
7%
12%
3%
9%
5%
2%
16%
7%
7%
2%
4%
4%
3%
4%
5%
7%
6%
6%
5%
3%
6%
9%
7%
10%
7%
9%
9%
6%
11%
6%
4%
6%
5%
4%
4%
10%
9%
5%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
4%
4%
2%
2%
10%
6%
9%
7%
10%
11%
9%
9%
8%
12%
8%
12%
13%
6%
15%
15%
4%
5%
3%
5%
4%
6%
3%
4%
3%
2%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
--
--
1%
1%
1%
2%
2%
2%
--
--
--
3%
2%
1%
2%
0%
Page 48
Table 31 (cont.) Employment status, or occupation

Page 49
Table 32 When considering your familys personal financial situation - has it gotten
better, stayed about the same, or gotten worse in the past 12 months?
2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: Significant increase in Better between 2012-2015. A significant increase in Better was found between 2012-2014
from 16% to 24%, and in 2015 this rate is even higher at 29.5% the second highest Better rate ever found. Further, the
Worse rate (21.2%) currently is the second lowest ever found.
Better
Same
Worse
Dont Know
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
33%
43%
24%
1%
24%
45%
31%
0%
26%
50%
23%
2%
20%
52%
29%
0%
16%
64%
21%
0%
24%
50%
24%
2%
28%
52%
20%
0%
30%
49%
21%
1%
Page 50
Section 3.4 K-12 Education

Table 33 Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? "Jefferson County
schools are adequately preparing our young people for the technology and
economy of the future.
2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: Significant decrease in Agree between 2013-2015 decreasing from 57% to 47%.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral/No Opinion
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
2013
2014
2015
21%
36%
15%
23%
5%
5%
45%
11%
24%
16%
5%
42%
16%
19%
17%
Page 51
Table 34 Who do you trust more to improve K-12 education in New York State, Governor
Cuomo or the teachers' unions?
2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: Not measured in earlier annual surveys.

Page 52
Section 3.5 Healthcare and the Affordable Care Act

Table 35 Which of the following most closely describes your opinion about the
Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)?
2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: Significant shift between 2014-2015 from not familiar toward it is a good concept, but needs some changing.
"In favor of the Affordable Care Act as it is, lets see how it works."
"The concept of the Affordable Care Act is a good idea, but parts
need to be changed."
"The Affordable Care Act should be repealed, not funded."
Not familiar with the Affordable Care Act.
Not sure.
2014
2015
13%
12%
21%
36%
38%
28%
0%
34%
17%
1%
Page 53
Table 36 How has the Affordable Care Act affected the healthcare of you and your family,
more positively or negatively?
2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: In 2014 the expected impact was measured, while in 2015 the realized impact was measured. The table below shows
the 2014 expected impact opinions. Clearly, there was a far greater expectation of some sort of impact in 2014 (19.0%
expected +, while 64.1% expected -), whereas the realized impact was tremendously lower only 12.5% have
experienced +, and only 19.1% have experienced -)
Page 54
Table 37 Do you currently have health insurance?

2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: Significant increase in Yes in 2015.

Yes
No
Not sure
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
84%
16%
0%
87%
13%
0%
----
----
88%
11%
0%
----
----
98%
2%
0%
Page 55
Table 38 In the past 12 months have you not obtained needed medical treatment because
of cost?
2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: Significant decrease in Yes between 2009-2015.

Yes
No
Not sure
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
18%
82%
0%
----
----
12%
86%
1%
----
----
9%
91%
0%
Page 56
Section 3.6 Fort Drum Presence and Impact in Jefferson County

Table 39 Does the presence of Fort Drum in the local area have a positive effect upon you
or your family's employment or financial situation?
2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: Yes in 2015 is significantly higher than rates found in the mid-2000s and found last year, in 2014. Note that more
current active military are included in the 2015 sample than were included in the previous survey samples.
Yes
No
Not Sure
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
48%
52%
0%
41%
59%
0%
40%
60%
0%
----
----
----
----
----
51%
47%
3%
64%
36%
0%
Page 57
Table 40 Do you agree or disagree that the presence of Fort Drum in the local area
improves the overall quality of life for local residents?
2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: No significant difference in Strongly Agree or Agree when 2015 rate is compared to rates found in the late-2000s, nor
when compared to the 2014 result. Note that more current active military are included in the 2015 sample than were
included in the previous survey samples.
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral/Not sure
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
37%
45%
11%
6%
1%
40%
42%
8%
8%
1%
36%
41%
8%
12%
3%
38%
38%
8%
12%
4%
39%
36%
10%
10%
6%
------
------
------
28%
50%
12%
10%
3%
49%
34%
8%
8%
1%
Page 58
Table 41 If Fort Drum were to drastically reduce in size (if asked: "by about 90%") or
close entirely, would you continue to live in Jefferson County?
2015 Results:
Trend Analysis:
Yes
No
Not Sure
Yes in 2015 is significantly lower than rate found in 2014, note that more current active military are included in the
2015 sample than were included in the previous survey samples.
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
72%
24%
5%
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
77%
18%
5%
60%
34%
6%
Page 59
Section 3.7 Watertown International Airport

Table 42 Are you aware that there is an airport that passengers can fly in and out of in
Watertown called the Watertown International Airport?
2015 Results:

Page 60
Table 43 Are you aware that there are daily flights for passengers from Watertown to the
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania airport for connecting flights to other locations?
2015 Results:

Page 61
Table 44 How often have you flown out of the Watertown airport?
2015 Results:

Page 62
Table 45 How important do you think that having air transportation in Watertown is to the
quality of life in the county?
2015 Results:

Page 63
Section 3.8 Local Charitable Organization Issues

Table 46 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.
2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: Significant increase in mean number of hours volunteered per month, current rate of 10.5 hrs/mo is all-time high.
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Mean
7.1
9.4
9.4
6.8
6.6
10.2
7.0
6.2
7.0
9.4
8.9
7.9
8.0
8.3
10.5
Median
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.5
2.0
Standard Deviation
16.7
22.1
19.3
12.2
13.3
18.9
16.9
14.2
14.0
24.5
21.7
19.1
17.8
15.2
17.4
Range
0-120
0-250
0-150
0-80
0-100
0-160
0-170
0-100
0-240
0-300
0-300
0-168
0-200
0-200
0-160
(in 2015, 54.9% of the participants volunteer at least some, greater than 0 hours/month an increase
from 47.8% in 2010, and unchanged from 57.0% in 2011, 56.9% in 2012, 56.4% in 2013, and 54.7%
found in 2014)
By Gender:
By Age:
Page 64
Table 49 (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.
By Military Affiliation:
By Education Level:
By Income Level:
Page 65
Table 47 Do you have a will?

2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: Likelihood to have a will has decreased significantly between 2002 and 2015.
Yes
No
Not Sure
2002
2015
49%
51%
0%
37%
63%
0%
Page 66
Table 48 Have you included a local charitable organization as a beneficiary in your will?
2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: Results in 2002 and 2015 are very similar.

Yes
No
Not Sure
2002
2015
13%
87%
0%
15%
83%
2%
Page 67
Table 49 Have you or anyone in your immediate family ever used the services of Hospice
of Jefferson County?
2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: Results in 2011 and 2015 are almost identical.

Yes
No
Not Sure
2011
2015
41%
58%
1%
41%
59%
0%
Page 68
Section 3.9 Government and Political Issues

Table 50 How would you classify your political beliefs?
2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: Significant increase in Middle of the Road since 2010, while Conservatives continue to outnumber Liberals by
approximately a 2:1 ratio (25.9% to 12.2% in 2015).
Very Conservative
Conservative
Middle of the Road
Liberal
Very Liberal
Dont Know
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
6%
29%
43%
18%
4%
0%
8%
30%
40%
15%
7%
0%
9%
27%
47%
13%
5%
0%
3%
18%
39%
14%
2%
24%
6%
25%
42%
17%
2%
9%
3%
26%
33%
11%
2%
24%
6%
28%
31%
16%
4%
15%
6%
25%
40%
11%
4%
15%
5%
21%
52%
10%
5%
7%
6%
29%
49%
8%
1%
7%
4%
22%
50%
10%
2%
12%
Page 69
Table 50 (cont.) How would you classify your political beliefs?

Page 70
Table 51 How would you rate the job that Andrew Cuomo is doing as Governor of New
York State? Would you rate it excellent, good, fair, or poor?
2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: Significant and dramatic increase in Poor between 2012 and 2015 (from 10.0% to 39.0%), while Excellent or Good has
decreased (from 49.5% in 2012; to an all-time low of 24.9% in 2015).
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Dont Know
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
11%
33%
35%
10%
11%
8%
42%
32%
10%
9%
8%
33%
32%
25%
3%
4%
25%
46%
19%
7%
4%
21%
33%
39%
3%
Page 71
Section 3.10 Familiarity with the Center for Community Studies

Table 52 Have you heard of the Center for Community Studies before this survey?
2015 Results:
Trend Analysis: Familiarity has remained quite stable between 32%-46% between 2004-2015.
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Yes
No
Not Sure
40%
60%
0%
33%
68%
0%
34%
66%
0%
33%
67%
0%
37%
62%
1%
----
32%
67%
1%
----
2012
2013
2014
2015
46%
53%
2%
40%
58%
2%
37%
62%
1%
36%
64%
0%
Page 72
Section 4 - Final Comments

This report is a presentation of the information collected from 400 telephone interviews of adult residents of
Jefferson County, New York conducted during the evenings of April 6-16, 2015 with comparisons to similar annual
surveys completed in each of 2000-2014. The Center for Community Studies exists to engage in a variety of communitybased 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, the staff at the Center is
available to make presentations of these survey findings to community groups and organizations upon request. Please
contact:
1220 Coffeen Street
Watertown, NY 13601
Telephone: (315) 786-2488
Joel LaLone, Research Coordinator
Raymond Petersen, Director
jlalone@sunyjefferson.edu
rpetersen@sunyjefferson.edu
www.sunyjefferson.edu/community-business/center-community-studies
The Seventeenth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community is tentatively scheduled for April 2016.
Page 73
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
use of the information contained in the 16th Annual Jefferson 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% would agree (that would be 40,000 out of the 100,000). 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 3.9
percentage points when a survey question is answered by all 400 participants. 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
Jefferson County adult residents were surveyed (rather than just the 400 that were actually surveyed), the percentage that
would result for all residents would be within 3.9 percentage points of the sample percentage that we surveyed,
calculated, and reported in this study. For example, in Table 11, it can be observed that 45.1% of the sample of 400
adults reported that they believe that opportunities for youth in Jefferson County are Excellent or Good (14.4% respond
with Excellent and 30.7% respond with Good). With this sample result, one could infer with 95% confidence that if all
Jefferson County adults were asked somewhere between 41.2% and 49.0% of the population of approximately 90,000
adults in Jefferson County believe that opportunities for youth in the county are Excellent or Good (generated by starting
with the 45.1% that was found in the sample and adding-and-subtracting the margin of error of 3.9%). This resulting
interval (41.2%-49.0%) 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 400
participants in this study to the entire adult population of Jefferson 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 demographics subgroups such as only females), the resulting margin of error
will be larger than 3.9 percentage points. Table 4 presented earlier in this report, (and, copied again as the following
Table 53) provides approximate margin of error values that should be used with sample sizes of less than n=400.
Page 74
Table 53 Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes (approximations)
Sample Size
(n=)
30
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
250
300
350
400
Approximate Margin of
Error
14.3%
11.1%
9.0%
7.8%
7.0%
6.4%
5.9%
5.5%
5.0%
4.5%
4.2%
3.9%
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 3.9%, as a result of an
illustration that used all 400 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 3.9%. 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 ever completed by any group. 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 mentioned:
1.
The sample size is the number of adults who validly answered the survey question. The
sample size will not always be n=400 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 (e.g. 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 is 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:
p(100 p)
ME = 1.96
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, is conceivably different for each question on the survey) and the sample
percentage varies (also, conceivably different for each question on the survey) the following table (Table 54) 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 above.
Page 75
Table 54 More Detailed Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes and Varying Sample
Proportions
Varying Sample Sizes (n=):
Varying Sample %'s:
30
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
250
300
350
400
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%
3.9%
3.2%
2.7%
2.5%
2.2%
2.1%
1.9%
1.7%
1.6%
1.5%
1.4%
7.0%
5.4%
4.4%
3.8%
3.4%
3.1%
2.9%
2.7%
2.4%
2.2%
2.1%
1.9%
8.5%
6.6%
5.4%
4.7%
4.2%
3.8%
3.5%
3.3%
2.9%
2.7%
2.5%
2.3%
9.7%
7.5%
6.1%
5.3%
4.8%
4.3%
4.0%
3.8%
3.4%
3.1%
2.8%
2.7%
10.7%
8.3%
6.8%
5.9%
5.3%
4.8%
4.4%
4.2%
3.7%
3.4%
3.1%
2.9%
11.6%
9.0%
7.4%
6.4%
5.7%
5.2%
4.8%
4.5%
4.0%
3.7%
3.4%
3.2%
12.4%
9.6%
7.9%
6.8%
6.1%
5.6%
5.1%
4.8%
4.3%
3.9%
3.6%
3.4%
13.1%
10.2%
8.3%
7.2%
6.4%
5.9%
5.4%
5.1%
4.5%
4.1%
3.8%
3.6%
13.7%
10.6%
8.7%
7.5%
6.7%
6.1%
5.7%
5.3%
4.8%
4.3%
4.0%
3.8%
14.3%
11.1%
9.1%
7.8%
7.0%
6.4%
5.9%
5.5%
5.0%
4.5%
4.2%
3.9%
14.8%
11.5%
9.4%
8.1%
7.3%
6.6%
6.1%
5.7%
5.1%
4.7%
4.3%
4.1%
15.3%
11.8%
9.7%
8.4%
7.5%
6.8%
6.3%
5.9%
5.3%
4.8%
4.5%
4.2%
15.7%
12.2%
9.9%
8.6%
7.7%
7.0%
6.5%
6.1%
5.4%
5.0%
4.6%
4.3%
16.1%
12.4%
10.2%
8.8%
7.9%
7.2%
6.7%
6.2%
5.6%
5.1%
4.7%
4.4%
16.4%
12.7%
10.4%
9.0%
8.0%
7.3%
6.8%
6.4%
5.7%
5.2%
4.8%
4.5%
16.7%
12.9%
10.6%
9.1%
8.2%
7.5%
6.9%
6.5%
5.8%
5.3%
4.9%
4.6%
17.0%
13.1%
10.7%
9.3%
8.3%
7.6%
7.0%
6.6%
5.9%
5.4%
5.0%
4.6%
17.2%
13.3%
10.9%
9.4%
8.4%
7.7%
7.1%
6.7%
6.0%
5.4%
5.0%
4.7%
17.4%
13.5%
11.0%
9.5%
8.5%
7.8%
7.2%
6.7%
6.0%
5.5%
5.1%
4.8%
17.5%
13.6%
11.1%
9.6%
8.6%
7.8%
7.3%
6.8%
6.1%
5.5%
5.1%
4.8%
17.7%
13.7%
11.2%
9.7%
8.7%
7.9%
7.3%
6.8%
6.1%
5.6%
5.2%
4.8%
17.8%
13.8%
11.2%
9.7%
8.7%
7.9%
7.4%
6.9%
6.2%
5.6%
5.2%
4.9%
17.8%
13.8%
11.3%
9.8%
8.7%
8.0%
7.4%
6.9%
6.2%
5.6%
5.2%
4.9%
17.9%
13.8%
11.3%
9.8%
8.8%
8.0%
7.4%
6.9%
6.2%
5.7%
5.2%
4.9%
17.9%
13.9%
11.3%
9.8%
8.8%
8.0%
7.4%
6.9%
6.2%
5.7%
5.2%
4.9%
17.9%
13.8%
11.3%
9.8%
8.8%
8.0%
7.4%
6.9%
6.2%
5.7%
5.2%
4.9%
17.8%
13.8%
11.3%
9.8%
8.7%
8.0%
7.4%
6.9%
6.2%
5.6%
5.2%
4.9%
17.8%
13.8%
11.2%
9.7%
8.7%
7.9%
7.4%
6.9%
6.2%
5.6%
5.2%
4.9%
17.7%
13.7%
11.2%
9.7%
8.7%
7.9%
7.3%
6.8%
6.1%
5.6%
5.2%
4.8%
17.5%
13.6%
11.1%
9.6%
8.6%
7.8%
7.3%
6.8%
6.1%
5.5%
5.1%
4.8%
17.4%
13.5%
11.0%
9.5%
8.5%
7.8%
7.2%
6.7%
6.0%
5.5%
5.1%
4.8%
17.2%
13.3%
10.9%
9.4%
8.4%
7.7%
7.1%
6.7%
6.0%
5.4%
5.0%
4.7%
17.0%
13.1%
10.7%
9.3%
8.3%
7.6%
7.0%
6.6%
5.9%
5.4%
5.0%
4.6%
16.7%
12.9%
10.6%
9.1%
8.2%
7.5%
6.9%
6.5%
5.8%
5.3%
4.9%
4.6%
16.4%
12.7%
10.4%
9.0%
8.0%
7.3%
6.8%
6.4%
5.7%
5.2%
4.8%
4.5%
16.1%
12.4%
10.2%
8.8%
7.9%
7.2%
6.7%
6.2%
5.6%
5.1%
4.7%
4.4%
15.7%
12.2%
9.9%
8.6%
7.7%
7.0%
6.5%
6.1%
5.4%
5.0%
4.6%
4.3%
15.3%
11.8%
9.7%
8.4%
7.5%
6.8%
6.3%
5.9%
5.3%
4.8%
4.5%
4.2%
14.8%
11.5%
9.4%
8.1%
7.3%
6.6%
6.1%
5.7%
5.1%
4.7%
4.3%
4.1%
14.3%
11.1%
9.1%
7.8%
7.0%
6.4%
5.9%
5.5%
5.0%
4.5%
4.2%
3.9%
13.7%
10.6%
8.7%
7.5%
6.7%
6.1%
5.7%
5.3%
4.8%
4.3%
4.0%
3.8%
13.1%
10.2%
8.3%
7.2%
6.4%
5.9%
5.4%
5.1%
4.5%
4.1%
3.8%
3.6%
12.4%
9.6%
7.9%
6.8%
6.1%
5.6%
5.1%
4.8%
4.3%
3.9%
3.6%
3.4%
11.6%
9.0%
7.4%
6.4%
5.7%
5.2%
4.8%
4.5%
4.0%
3.7%
3.4%
3.2%
10.7%
8.3%
6.8%
5.9%
5.3%
4.8%
4.4%
4.2%
3.7%
3.4%
3.1%
2.9%
9.7%
7.5%
6.1%
5.3%
4.8%
4.3%
4.0%
3.8%
3.4%
3.1%
2.8%
2.7%
8.5%
6.6%
5.4%
4.7%
4.2%
3.8%
3.5%
3.3%
2.9%
2.7%
2.5%
2.3%
7.0%
5.4%
4.4%
3.8%
3.4%
3.1%
2.9%
2.7%
2.4%
2.2%
2.1%
1.9%
5.0%
3.9%
3.2%
2.7%
2.5%
2.2%
2.1%
1.9%
1.7%
1.6%
1.5%
1.4%
14.3%
11.1%
9.0%
7.8%
7.0%
6.4%
5.9%
5.5%
5.0%
4.5%
4.2%
3.9%
Average
Page 76
Illustration of how to use Table 54: To estimate the percentage in the entire population of Jefferson County adult
males who believe that the overall state of the local economy is Poor one must simply refer to Table 26 to determine the
sample size and percentage of this sample of males who respond with Poor. From Table 26 it is found that 22.7% of the
sampled males replied with Poor, and the sample size for males who responded to that specific survey question in this
study was n=201. Reference to Table 54 on the preceding page indicates that the appropriate margin of error would be
5.7% (used p=22%, which is the closest to 22.7% that is included in Table 54; and used n=200, which is which is the
closest to n=201 that is included in Table 54). Therefore, we can be 95% confident that if all Jefferson County adult males
were to evaluate the state of the local economy the resulting percentage who would indicate Poor among this population
would be within 5.7% of the 22.7% found in our sample. The interpretation of this would be that we are 95% confident
that among all Jefferson County adult males the percentage who believe that the state of the local economy is Poor
would be somewhere between 17.0% and 28.4%. Note that this margin of error of 5.7 percentage points is larger than the
earlier-cited study margin of error of approximately 3.9 percentage points as a result of there being only 201 males in this
sample.
It should be noted that the margin of 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 54 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 Jefferson County study, employed to minimize these other
sources of error are: maximum effort to select the sample randomly with minimal undercoverage among the population
that is desired to be represented, 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 Jefferson 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 table shown above. 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
appropriately interpret the results of what has been statistically analyzed. Again, because the data for the 16th Annual
Jefferson County Survey of the Community is based on a sample of 400 adult residents, as opposed to obtaining
information from every single adult resident in Jefferson 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 more likely to report that opportunities for youth
are Excellent or Good in Jefferson County than female residents (50.3% vs. 39.5%, respectively, Table 11), the
researcher would want to know if this higher satisfaction with opportunities for youth among male residents would still be
present if they interviewed every Jefferson County adult rather than just the sample of 400 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=400 randomly selected adults from the approximately 90,000 adults in
Jefferson County), then the results of these samples would not consistently show that male residents are more likely to
Page 77
report that opportunities for youth are Excellent or Good in Jefferson 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 between males and females in the one actually-selected sample of size n=400 Jefferson 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 Jefferson County adults are more likely to report that
opportunities for youth are Excellent or Good than females; and further, if every adult were interviewed, we are confident
that the population perceived as Excellent or Good rate among males would be higher 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 or Logistic Regression Model 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 or Logistic Regression Model to answer the question posed above (the question: Is
perception of opportunities for youth in the county as Excellent or 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 cross-tabulation 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 40 outcome variables in this study each cross-tabulated by all at the minimum all five of the potential
explanatory variables of Gender, Age, Education, Military Affiliation, and Income, and cross-tabulated by years-of-study, if
possible there are over 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, a very, very important factor!) 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 50.3% among the 202 sampled males in Jefferson County believing that
opportunities for youth are Excellent or Good differ significantly from the 39.5% among the 190 sampled females who
expressed this perception?), the following method is recommended for this 2015 Jefferson County 16th Annual Survey of
the Community:
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 must 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 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 54 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 may be applied to determine whether or not the observed sample difference between
demographic subgroups should be considered statistically significant.
Page 78
To illustrate with the gender and perception regarding opportunities for youth potential relationship described
earlier:
For Males:
n=202, and p=50.3% respond Excellent or Good; therefore from Table 54 the
approximate margin of error is 6.9%. The resulting confidence interval is: 50.3%6.9%,
or (43.4%,57.2%)
For Females: n=190, and p=39.5% respond Excellent or Good; therefore from Table 54 the
approximate margin of error is 6.8%. The resulting confidence interval is: 39.5%6.8%,
or (32.7%,46.3%)
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 Jefferson County is not significantly related
to gender, the 10.8% difference in rates found among males and females (50.3% among males, only 39.5% among
females) is not large enough to be extremely unlikely that it could be explained due simply to the chance of random
sampling with samples of size 202 and 190, respectively it is a relatively small difference that could, in fact, be expected
to occur by random chance.
Again, keep in mind the difference between the analyses that include all 400 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 by partitioning the overall sample of
n=400 into levels of some demographic factors such as Education Level, the 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 fifteen earlier Jefferson
County Annual Surveys (2000-2014). The research question that is being investigated in these comparisons is, Has there
been a statistically significant change among the Jefferson County residents between 2000 and 2015? 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 2015 Jefferson
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 2015. Therefore, only the questions/items that were
also measured in some earlier year, along with measurement in 2015, of course, are available for trend analysis to
compare with the current 2015 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 Jefferson County have
changed significantly over the past sixteen years; however, the focus now becomes the comparison of the 2015 Jefferson
County result to the earlier Jefferson County result (rather than comparing subgroups within the 2015 results), and the
same overlap-vs.-non-overlap rule recommended earlier 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 26
shows that:
In 2011: n=406 participants, and p=41.7% respond Poor; therefore from Table 54 the approximate
margin of error is 4.8%. The resulting confidence interval is: 41.7%4.8%, or (36.9%,46.5%)
in 2015: n=400 participants, and p=21.4% respond Poor; therefore from Table 54 the approximate
margin of error is 4.1%. The resulting confidence interval is: 21.4%4.1%, or (17.3%,25.5%)
Since these two confidence intervals do not overlap, the difference between 2011 and 2015 (the 4-year trend) is
considered statistically significant. In other words, current attitude about the state of the local economy in Jefferson
County is significantly less negative than the 2011 finding residents are now far less likely to perceive that the Overall
State of the Local Economy is Poor than they were four years ago.
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
Page 79
concept of probability, as follows is this difference likely to occur in a sample of size n=400 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.
The Survey Instrument
Page 80
16th Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community

Introduction
Hello.Mynameis(firstnameonly),IamastudentatJeffersonCommunityCollege,howareyoudoingthisevening
(afternoon)?Tonight(today)IamcallingfortheCenterforCommunityStudiesatJCC.Wearenotcallingforadonation.
Weareconductingthesixteenthannualsurveyofthecommunityweareinterestedinyouropinionsaboutthequalityof
lifeinNorthernNewYork.Doyouhaveafewminutestodoasurveyforus(or,helpusout)?
IfNO...Mighttherebeanotheradultinthehomewhomightwishtoparticipateoristhereamoreconvenienttimeto
call?IfstillNO,trytoarrangeaCALLBACKtime.
IfYES...(Firstverifythatthepersonis18yearsold.)"Great,thanks,let'sbegin."
NOTE:Asyoustarttheinterview:"Iwouldliketospeaktoamemberofthehouseholdwhoisage18orolder.Yourhelp
isvoluntary,butimportant.Ifwecometoaquestionyoudontwanttoanswer,wewillskipoverit.Youcanendthe
interviewatanytime.Theinformationyouprovidewillbekeptstrictlyconfidential."
READ THIS:
Im going to begin by reading you a list of characteristics of our county. For each, please
tell me whether in your opinion in the PAST YEAR, it has gotten BETTER, stayed about the
SAME, or gotten WORSE. (Don't read the "Don't Know" choice aloud)
Better
Same
Worse
Don'tKnow
Q1.Opportunitiesforyouth
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Q2.Cultural/entertainmentopportunities
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Q3.Costofenergy
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Q4.Healthcareaccess
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Q5.Healthcarequality
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Q6.Accesstohighereducation
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Q7.Recreationalopportunities
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Q8.Qualityoftheenvironment
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Q9.Localgovernment
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Q10.Realestatetaxes
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Q11.ThedowntownofWatertown
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Q12.Policingandcrimecontrol
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Q13.Availabilityofgoodjobs
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Q14.Shoppingopportunities
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Q15.Qualityofk12education
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Q16.Theoverallstateofthelocaleconomy
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Q17.Theoverallqualityoflifeinthearea
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Q18.Availabilityofcarefortheelderly.
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Q19.Availabilityofhousing
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Current Rating of Each Community Characteristic
Page 1

READ THIS:
Thank you for providing your thoughts about the recent TRENDS for each of these
characteristics, now we are interested in how you would currently RATE each
characteristic on an EXCELLENT, GOOD, FAIR, or POOR scale. "Opportunities for Youth,
do you feel they are Excellent, Good, Fair, or Poor?" (Don't read the "Don't Know" choice
aloud)
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Don'tKnow
Q20.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
Q21.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
Q22.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
Other
Q23.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
Q24.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
Q25.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
Q26.Recreationalopportunities
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
Q27.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
Q28.Localgovernment
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
Q29.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
Q30.ThedowntownofWatertown
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
Q31.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
Q32.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
Q33.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
Q34.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
Q35.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
Q36.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
Q37.Availabilityofcarefortheelderly.
Other
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
Q38.Availabilityofhousing
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
Nation's Single Largest Issue
Nextwe'dlikeyoutoconsiderthenationasawhole.
Page 2

Q39. What do you think is the single largest issue that is facing our NATION right now? (do
not read the choices unless the participant asks for clarification)
j Heathcare
k
l
m
n
j ToomuchInvolvementinOtherCountries'Affairs
k
l
m
n
j NuclearCapabilityinIran
k
l
m
n
j Economy/Jobs
k
l
m
n
j Education
k
l
m
n
j HighCostofLiving/Prices
k
l
m
n
j Terrorism
k
l
m
n
j Crime
k
l
m
n
j Debt/Spending/Budget
k
l
m
n
j Government/Leadership
k
l
m
n
j Drugs
k
l
m
n
j Sequestration(Federalfundingcuts)
k
l
m
n
j Environment
k
l
m
n
j MoralIssues
k
l
m
n
j GunControlIssue
k
l
m
n
j Poverty
k
l
m
n
j WarinAfghanistan
k
l
m
n
j Immigration
k
l
m
n
j ISIS
k
l
m
n
j Other(pleasespecify)
k
l
m
n
j ClimateChange
k
l
m
n
j IncomeInequality
k
l
m
n
j WarinGeneral
k
l
m
n
j Agriculture
k
l
m
n
j CorporateGreed
k
l
m
n
j CostofGas/Energy
k
l
m
n
j AlternativeEnergy
k
l
m
n
j Taxes
k
l
m
n
j Alloftheabove
k
l
m
n
Other Tracked Community Characteristics
READTHIS:
OurnextsetquestionsrelatetootheraspectsoflifeinJeffersonCountythatwehavetrackedovertime.
Q40. 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
Community Organization Questions
j Worse
k
l
m
n
j Don'tKnow
k
l
m
n
READTHIS:
"OurnextfewquestionsarebeingaskedonbehalfofsomeJeffersonCountycommunityorganizations."
(ifasked:"NorthernNYCommunityFoundation"and"HospiceofJeffersonCounty")
Page 3

Q41. 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)
Q42. Do you have a will?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
Among those who have a will:
j Notsure
k
l
m
n
Q43. Have you included a local charitable organization as a beneficiary in your will? (non
profit groups)
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
Back to everyone:
j Notsure
k
l
m
n
Have you or anyone in your immediate family ever used the services of Hospice of
Jefferson County?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
j Don'tknow/Notsure
k
l
m
n
Q44. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Jefferson 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/No
k
l
m
n
j Disagree
k
l
m
n
j StronglyDisagree
k
l
m
n
opinion/Notsure
Q45. 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
Q46. How would you rate the job that Andrew Cuomo is doing as Governor of New York
State? Would you rate it excellent, good, fair, or poor?
j Excellent
k
l
m
n
j Good
k
l
m
n
j Fair
k
l
m
n
j Poor
k
l
m
n
j Don'tKnow/No
k
l
m
n
Opinion
Page 4

Q47. Who do you trust more to improve K12 education in New York State, Governor
Cuomo or the teachers' unions?
(READ ONLY FIRST TWO CHOICES)
j GovernorCuomo
k
l
m
n
j Teachers'Unions
k
l
m
n
j Don'tKnow/NoOpinion
k
l
m
n
Other(pleasespecify)
Healthcare Issues
READTHIS:
Ournextquestionsrelatetohealthcareandhealthinsurance.
Q48: 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
k
l
m
n
If familiar with the Affordable Care Act:
Q49: 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
More Healthcare:
Page 5

Q50: 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
Q51: 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
Impact of Fort Drum on Local Community
PeriodicallyweaskquestionsrelatedtoFortDruminthisannualsurvey,thisyearwehavethefollowingthreeitems.
Q52. Does the presence of Fort Drum in the local area have a positive effect upon you or
your family's employment or financial situation?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
j Notsure
k
l
m
n
Q53. 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
j Neutral
k
l
m
n
j Disagree
k
l
m
n
j Strongly
k
l
m
n
j Notsure
k
l
m
n
disagree
Q54. If Fort Drum were to drastically reduce in size (if asked: "by about 90%") or close
entirely, would you continue to live in Jefferson County?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
The Watertown International Airport
j Notsure
k
l
m
n
OurnextsetofquestionsrelatetothelocalWatertownInternationalAirport.
Q55: Are you aware that there is an airport that passengers can fly in and out of in
Watertown called the Watertown International Airport?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
If familiar with Watertown International Airport:
j Notsure
k
l
m
n
Q56: Are you aware that there are daily flights for passengers from Watertown to the
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania airport for connecting flights to other locations?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
j Notsure
k
l
m
n
Page 6

Q57: How often have you flown out of the Watertown airport? (READ first six choices)
j Neverever.
k
l
m
n
j 610timesinpastyear.
k
l
m
n
j Haveflownout,butnotinthepastyear.
k
l
m
n
j Onceinpastyear.
k
l
m
n
j Morethan10timesinpastyear.
k
l
m
n
j Notsure
k
l
m
n
j 25timesinpastyear.
k
l
m
n
Final Airport Question
Q58: How important do you think that having air transportation in Watertown is to the
quality of life in the county? (READ the first four choices)
j Veryimportant
k
l
m
n
j Somewhatimportant
k
l
m
n
j "Alittle"important
k
l
m
n
j Notimportantatall
k
l
m
n
j Notsure
k
l
m
n
Demographics
Wearealmostfinished.Thelastfewdemographicquestionswillhelpusgetabettersenseofthegeneralnatureofthe
peoplewhohavehelpeduswiththisproject.
*Q59. 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 Forties
k
l
m
n
j Twenties
k
l
m
n
j Seventies
k
l
m
n
j Fifties
k
l
m
n
j Eightyorolder
k
l
m
n
j Thirties
k
l
m
n
j Sixties
k
l
m
n
*Q60. 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 AssociateDegree
k
l
m
n
j Somecollege,nodegree(includetechnicalschool)
k
l
m
n
j Bachelor'sDegree
k
l
m
n
j GraduateDegree
k
l
m
n
Page 7

Q61. 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 Upto$10,000
k
l
m
n
j $10,001$25,000
k
l
m
n
j $25,001$50,000
k
l
m
n
j $50,001$75,000
k
l
m
n
j $75,001$100,000
k
l
m
n
j Over$100,000
k
l
m
n
j Refused
k
l
m
n
Q62. What is your occupation? (only read choices if necessary)

j Retired
k
l
m
n
j Managerial
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 Medical
k
l
m
n
j Service
k
l
m
n
j Bluecollar/Production
k
l
m
n
j Professional/Technical
k
l
m
n
j Teacher/Education
k
l
m
n
j Sales
k
l
m
n
j Clerical
k
l
m
n
k
l
m
n
j NotSure
k
l
m
n
Q63. Is anyone living in your household active military, stationed at Fort Drum?
j Yes(you!)
k
l
m
n
j Yes(someoneelseinthehousehold)
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
Q64. Is your residence in Jefferson County currently related to either civilian or military
employment at Fort Drum, by either you or a family member?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
Q65. How would you describe yourself in regard to your race or ethnicity?
j Black/AfricanAmerican
k
l
m
n
j White
k
l
m
n
j Hispanic
k
l
m
n
j Asian/PacificIslander
k
l
m
n
j NativeAmerican
k
l
m
n
k
l
m
n
j Multiracial
k
l
m
n
Page 8

Q66. 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
Q67. In what Jefferson County township do you reside?

j Adams(AdamsCenter)
k
l
m
n
j Lyme(ThreeMileBay,Chaumont)
k
l
m
n
j Alexandria(AlexandriaBay,CollinsLanding,Plessis,Redwood,
k
l
m
n
WellesleyIsland)
j Brownville(Dexter,GlenPark)
k
l
m
n
j Pamelia
k
l
m
n
j Rodman
k
l
m
n
j Clayton(Depauville,GrindstoneIsland)
k
l
m
n
j TownofWatertown(Burrville)
k
l
m
n
j CityofWatertown
k
l
m
n
j Hounsfield(SacketsHarbor,SulfurSprings,Smithville)
k
l
m
n
j Theresa(Lakes)
k
l
m
n
j LeRay(Calcium,EvansMills,FortDrum)
k
l
m
n
j Rutland(BlackRiver,FeltsMills)
k
l
m
n
j Ellisburg(Belleville,Mannsville,PierrepontManor,Woodville)
k
l
m
n
j Henderson(HendersonHarbor)
k
l
m
n
j Philadelphia
k
l
m
n
j Champion(Deferiet,GreatBend,WestCarthage)
k
l
m
n
j Lorraine
k
l
m
n
j Orleans(Fineview,FishersLanding,LaFargeville,Thousand
k
l
m
n
IslandPark)
j Antwerp(Oxbow)
k
l
m
n
j CapeVincent
k
l
m
n
j Wilna(Carthage,Croghan,NaturalBridge)
k
l
m
n
j Worth
k
l
m
n
j Notsure
k
l
m
n
Other(pleasespecify)
*Q68. If you don't mind me asking ... what is your gender?

j Male
k
l
m
n
j Female
k
l
m
n
*Q69. Are you now speaking to me on a landline or a cell phone?

j Landline
k
l
m
n
j Cellphone
k
l
m
n
Page 9
*Q70. Which of the following describes your phone ownership? You have....
j Bothalandlineandacell
k
l
m
n
j Cellonly
k
l
m
n
j Landlineonly
k
l
m
n
j Refused
k
l
m
n
Final Comments
Thankyouverymuchforhelpingusoutthisevening.TheresultswillbereleasedinJune.Ifyouhaveanyquestions,
pleasecontactDr.RaymondPetersen,DirectoroftheCenterforCommunityStudies,3157862223or
rpetersen@sunyjefferson.edu.Haveagreatevening.
After You Hang Up Bookkeeping
Youmustcompletethefollowingtwoitems.
*Phone Number of Participant (from Call Sheet, in format xxxxxxxxxx)
*Interviewer (click on Your Name)

6
Any important observations or comments about this interview that Dr. Petersen, Mr.
LaLone, Mr. Danforth, or Mr. White should know, enter here. (Complaints? Comments?
Compliments? Interesting participants? Difficulties?)
Page 10

2015 Jefferson County Quality of Life Survey

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2015 Jefferson County Quality of Life Survey

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Center for Community Studies

at Jefferson Community College

Dr. Raymond Petersen, Director

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

Section 1.2 Demographics of the sample Who was Interviewed?................... 6

Section 2 Summary of Findings............................................... 11

Section 2.3 The Local Economy Personal Financial Situations..................... 17

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

Section 3.1 Quality of Life in Jefferson County 16-Year Trends in

Section 3.2 Quality of Life in Jefferson County Detailed Investigation

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

Table 17 Recreational Opportunities................................................................................................................................. 32

Section 3.3 The Local Economy Personal Financial Situations..................... 48

Section 3.4 K-12 Education.............................................................................. 51

Section 3.5 Healthcare and the Affordable Care Act........................................ 53

Section 3.6 Fort Drum Presence and Impact in Jefferson County.. 57

Section 3.7 Watertown International Airport................................ 60

Section 3.8 Local Charitable Organization Issues................64

Section 3.9 Government and Political Issues....................................................69

Section 3.10 Familiarity with the Center for Community Studies...................... 72

Section 4 Final Comments .......................................................73

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

Table 53 Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes ....................................................................................................... 75

The Survey Instrument ............................................................... 80

Student Associates who worked on this study:

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

The Advisory Board of the Center for Community Studies:

For more information, please contact

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

The Sixteenth Annual

Section 1.1 Methodology How These Data Were Collected

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

Section 1.2 Demographics of the sample Who was interviewed?

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

Table 2 Demographics of the April 2015 Jefferson County Sample

Gender: (2013 US Census for Jefferson County: 51% male)

18-29 years of age

Education Level: (2013 US Census for Jefferson

Less than high school graduate

Household Income: (2013 US Census for Jefferson

Less than $25,000

Military Affiliation: (According to the Fort Drum

Active Military in the Household (67 AM, 33 partners)

No Connection to Fort Drum

Race/Ethnicity: (2013 US Census for Jefferson County:

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

Table 3 Geographic Distribution of Participants in the 16th Annual Jefferson County

% (among the 385 who

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

Table 4 Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

Section 2 - Summary of Findings

Finding #1: Jobs and Local Economy

Finding #2: Fort Drum Impact

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

Finding #3: Military-Personnel Perceptions of Jefferson County

Finding #4: Education

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

Finding #5: State and Federal Government Issues

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

Section 2.2 Quality of Life in Jefferson County (Tables 8-30)

(2014 result in parentheses)