Regional Economic Tracking Survey

The Center for Community Studies
at Jefferson Community College
Presentation of Results:
Second Biennial
Regional Economic
Tracking Survey
Jefferson-Lewis-St. Lawrence
Counties
September 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 and Description of the Study........... 5
1.1 Background................................................................................................. 6
1.2 Goals for this Study.................................................................. 7
1.3 Methodology How These Data Were Collected..................................... 8
Table 1 Response Rates for the 2nd Biennial Jefferson-Lewis-St. Lawrence County Regional Economic Tracking
Survey.................................................................................................................................................................... 9
1.4 Demographics of the Sample Who was Interviewed?........................ 10

Table 2 Demographics of the Study Sample for the 2nd Biennial Jefferson-Lewis-St. Lawrence County Regional
Economic Tracking Survey................................................................................................................................... 11
Table 3 Geographic Distribution of Participants in the 2nd Biennial Jefferson-Lewis-St. Lawrence County Regional
Economic Tracking Survey..... 12
Section 2 Summary of Study Findings.................. 15

2.1 Attitudes about the Local Economy Perceived Importance of
Potential Economic Development Initiatives..... 16
2.2 Attitudes about the Local Economy Satisfaction with Potential
Economic Development Initiatives... 16
2.3 Support for New Local Businesses............................ 17
2.4 Entrepreneurship...................................................................................... 18
2.5 Passenger Air Service.............................................................................. 20
2.6 Internet Access......................................................................................... 20
2.7 Healthcare Access.................................................................................... 21
2.8 Housing and Real Estate............ 22
2.9 Employment.............................................................................................. 23
Section 3 Detailed Statistical Results .................................... 25

Framing a Statistic Providing Perspective to Better Understand, Interpret, and Use this Survey Data ......................... 27
3.0 Technical Comments to Assist Interpretation of the Data.................... 28

Table 4 Approximate Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes .................................................................................... 29
Table 5 More Detailed Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes and Varying Sample Proportions.............................. 31
3.1 Attitudes about the Local Economy Perceived Importance of

Potential Economic Development Initiatives......................................... 35
Table 6 SUMMARY: Perceived Importance of Seven Potential Economic Development Initiatives................................. 36
Table 7 Construction of additional rental housing..............................................................................................................37
Table 8 New home construction........................................................................................................................................ 39
Table 9 Improvement of railways in the region (both freight and passenger).................................................................... 41
Table 10 Canadian spending in the local region................................................................................................................43
Table 11 Keeping Northern New York college graduates living and working locally......................................................... 45
Table 12 Expanding local businesses that process and/or distribute local agriculture products....................................... 46
Table 13 Expanding activities and attractions for more tourism........................................................................................ 49
Table 14 How important that these potential economic initiatives be pursued in a "green" or "sustainable" manner?..... 51
Presentation of Results Second Biennial Jefferson-Lewis-St. Lawrence County Regional Economic Tracking Survey September 2015
Page 1
3.2 Attitudes about the Local Economy Satisfaction with Potential

Economic Development Initiatives... 53
Table 15 SUMMARY: Satisfaction with Four Potential Economic Development Initiatives............................................... 54
Table 16 Availability of rental housing............................................................................................................................... 55
Table 17 Keeping Northern New York college graduates living and working locally......................................................... 57
Table 18 Environmental-related projects such as "green energy" as part of local development efforts............................ 59
Table 19 Revitalization projects that improve community quality of life.............................................................................61
3.3 Support for New Local Businesses............................ 63

Table 20 SUMMARY I'm going to list several types of businesses that could be added locally. Please tell me whether
for each you think it would be a good thing to increase or add locally.............................................................. 64
Table 21 Bookstores.......................................................................................................................................................... 65
Table 22 Childcare and preschool services............................................................................... 67
Table 23 Clothing stores.................................................................................................................................................... 69
Table 24 Cultural or entertainment facilities...................................................................................................................... 71
Table 25 Electronics stores............................................................................................................................................... 73
Table 26 Food or grocery stores....................................................................................................................................... 75
Table 27 High-speed Internet providers............................................................................................................................ 77
Table 28 Restaurants........................................................................................................................................................ 79
Table 29 Sporting goods stores......................................................................................................................................... 81
3.4 Entrepreneurship...................................................................................... 83
Table 30 Do you currently own or operate a business in Jefferson, Lewis, or St. Lawrence County?.............................. 84
Further questions for those who are Current Business Owners:
Table 31 How many employees do you have currently? ......................................................................... 85
Table 32 How many employees have you expanded in the past 12 months?.. 87
Table 33 What single change would be necessary for you to expand your business by 2 or 3 employees over the
next two years? ............................................................................................... 89
Table 34 What portion of your annual revenue do you believe is accounted for by Canadian spending?........................ 93
Further questions for those who are Not Current Business Owners:
Table 35 Level of interest in owning or operating a business in the North Country within the next three years............... 95
Further questions for those who are Not Current Business Owners and Want to Become a Business Owner:
Table 36 Type of business that you would be interested in owning.................................................................................. 97
Table 37 Barriers to you owning or operating a business in the North Country?............................................................ 100
Table 38 If there were a business incubator available locally would you be more likely to start your business?............ 101
Table 39 If you were to start this business, how many new jobs would it create?...........................................................103
3.5 Passenger Air Service............................................................................ 106

Table 40 How satisfied are you with your access to local passenger air service?.......................................................... 107
Table 41 Do you more commonly fly out of local airports, or do you more commonly fly out of airports that are not in
the three North Country counties?.................................................................................................................... 109
3.6 Internet Access....................................................................................... 111

Table 42 Do you currently have high-speed Internet access at your home?...................................................................112
Further questions for those who Have Internet Access at Home:
Table 43 What is your primary Internet access provider at home?................................................................................. 114
Table 44 Has your home Internet access gotten better, stayed the same, or gotten worse over the past three years?. 118
3.7 Healthcare Access.................................................................................. 120

Table 45 How often do you travel outside of your county for healthcare services?.........................................................121
Further question for those who Travel Outside of Their County for Healthcare Services:
Table 46 When you do travel for healthcare services, is it to another county outside the Tri-county region?................. 123
Further question for those who Travel Outside of the Tri-County Region for Healthcare Services:
Table 47 What healthcare services do you travel outside of the Tri-County region to access?...................................... 125
3.8 Housing and Real Estate....... 130

Table 48 Do you rent or own your home?....................................................................................................................... 131
Table 49 How many bedrooms are there in the home or apartment where you now live?..............................................133
Table 50 In the next three years, do you plan to build a new home?.............................................................................. 136
Table 51 In the next three years, do you plan to buy a new or different existing home?.................................................138
Further questions for those who are Current Homeowners:
Table 52 Do you plan to make any energy-efficient improvements to your home in the next three years?.................... 140
Table 53 In the past year do you think that the market value of your home has increased, decreased, or stayed
about the same?............................................................................................................................................... 142
Page 2
3.9 Employment............................................................................................ 144

Table 54 Current employment situation.......145
Further questions for those who are Currently Employed:
Table 55 Are you employed in the three-county North Country region?.........................................................................147
Table 56 Have you started a new job in the past 12 months?.............................................149
Table 57 What industry do you work in?......... 151
Table 58 Do you work for a Canadian or other foreign-owned company?. 154
Table 59 Do you believe that you have skills, experience, and/or credentials that surpass what is typically needed
For the job that you now have .... in other words, do you feel that you are now "under-employed"?..... 156
Further employment-related questions for All Participants:
Table 60 Do you believe that you have skills, experience, and/or credentials that surpass what is typically needed
For the job that you now have .... in other words, do you feel that you are now "under-employed"?..... 158
Table 61 Are you a native of Jefferson, Lewis, or St. Lawrence County?...................................................................... 160
Table 62 What prompted your move to the North Country?........................................................................................... 162
Appendix The Survey Instrument.......................................... 164
Contact Information
The Center for Community Studies:
Mr. Joel LaLone
Professor of Mathematics and Research Director for the Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College
1220 Coffeen Street
Watertown, New York 13601
(315)-786-2264
jlalone@sunyjefferson.edu
www.sunyjefferson.edu/community-business/center-community-studies
The Development Authority of the North Country:

Mr. James Wright
Executive Director of the Development Authority of the North Country
317 Washington Street
Watertown, New York 13601
(315)-661-3200
jwright@danc.org
www.danc.org
Page 3
The Second Biennial

Jefferson-Lewis-St.
Lawrence County
Regional Economic
Tracking Survey
Based on 1,305 interviews conducted April 6 April 16, 2015
Page 4
Section 1
Introduction and
Description of
the Study
Page 5
1.1
BACKGROUND
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 Biennial Jefferson-Lewis-St. Lawrence County Regional Economic Tracking Survey is one specific activity conducted
by the Center. This survey is completed in collaboration with the Development Authority of the North Country, with a goal
of once every two years measuring economic-related attitudes and behaviors of a representative sample of Jefferson, Lewis,
and St. Lawrence County adult citizens. This Regional Economic Tracking Survey was completed for the first time in 2013
by surveying adults in Jefferson and Lewis Counties; in 2015 the survey was expanded to also include adults who reside in
St. Lawrence County. Both input regarding survey questions that could be important to use in this study, and total funding
to complete this study, are now provided by the Development Authority of the North Country.
Throughout the seventeen years of existence of the Center it has been frequently suggested by local community
leaders that the Center undertake a consistent data collection and study process with a focus on economic indicators
attitudes and behaviors of North Country adult residents. The suggestion included that these more qualitative
measurements of human attitudes and behaviors collected via interviews might enhance the many more quantitative
employment and business indicators that are measured by other labor, workforce and economic development and
government agencies to provide a more complete assessment of local economic issues. Over time the changes in these
economic indicators measured in the current survey study will provide important and useful information to economic
planners, business owners, elected officials, potential entrepreneurs, and citizens.
This document is a summary of the results of the second Biennial Jefferson-Lewis-St. Lawrence County Regional
Economic Tracking Survey, a survey of 1,305 adult residents of the three counties, with all interviews completed in April
2015. This report includes a complete presentation of results for each survey question used in 2015, with county-specific
results shown. When possible, trend analyses are shown for results of survey questions used in both 2013 and 2015 in
Jefferson and Lewis Counties. 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 the measured economic-related indicators within each county. 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. Again, the results provide important current
information about contemporary economic-related thinking and behaviors of citizens, and, over time, will continue to provide
important baseline and comparative information as well for regional leadership.
Page 6
1.2
GOALS FOR THIS STUDY
This study was designed with the following two primary goals:
1. Planning The first goal is to collect economic-related attitude and behavior information via surveying local adult
residents to provide baseline data that will be useful to Jefferson, Lewis, and St. Lawrence County economic planners,
business owners, elected officials, potential entrepreneurs, and citizens. This goal would involve using the data to
ascertain the current status of these economic indicators and best make data-driven local economic decisions about
planning future initiatives. These initiatives could involve, but are not limited to, possible start-up businesses, assisting
in grant applications, design of marketing, promotions, and activities, identifying needed training, and advocating for
economic-related changes.
2. Evaluation The second goal involves measuring economic-related data via a survey of adults to allow for evaluation.
Currently many economic development initiatives are underway in Northern New York. This Regional Economic
Tracking Survey has a goal to collect economic-related attitude and behavior information from local adult residents with
the capability of identifying statistically significant changes over time in the region, hence the title of a tracking survey.
The analysis for trends is useful to Jefferson, Lewis, and St. Lawrence County economic planners, business owners,
elected officials, potential entrepreneurs, and citizens to attempt to identify which initiatives have been most effective.
The variables recorded in this study (survey questions) were developed with a focus of accomplishing these two
goals. The survey included approximately 60 survey questions relating to the following nine economic-related topics. Within
each of these nine survey sections, local adult residents were asked such qualitative attributes related to these economicrelated factors as their opinions on perceived importance, suggestions for development, current level of satisfaction, level
of interest, perceived barriers, and current behaviors; as well as their educational and employment situations and
backgrounds.
The specific nine economic-related survey sections that are studied and reported in the remainder of this document
are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Attitudes about the Local Economy Perceived Importance of Potential Economic Development Initiatives
Attitudes about the Local Economy Satisfaction with Potential Economic Development Initiatives
Support for New Local Businesses
Entrepreneurship
Passenger Air Service
Internet Access
Healthcare Access
Housing and Real Estate
Employment
Page 7
1.3
METHODOLOGY HOW
THESE DATA WERE
COLLECTED
The survey instrument used in the first biennial economic tracking survey was constructed in spring 2013 by the
professional staff of the Center for Community Studies with further input from faculty members of the Business Division at
the College. Revisions to the survey instrument as it was implemented a second time in 2015 were made by the Centers
professional staff with assistance from the leadership of each of the following four Northern New York economic planning
organizations: the Development Authority of the North Country; and the Industrial Development Agencies (IDAs) of each of
the three represented counties. The primary goal of the Biennial Jefferson-Lewis-St. Lawrence County Regional Economic
Tracking Survey is to collect data regarding economic issues of importance to local citizens and leadership. 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 editing to data collection
(interviewing), to data entry and cleansing, to data analysis. The students analyze the data collected in this study as
assignments in statistics classes at the College. 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 this survey, however, is made exclusively
by the professional staff at the Center. Similarly, data analysis of the information collected through this economic tracking
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 included completing interviews of 1,305 Northern New York adult residents 489 interviews from
Jefferson County (total adult population size of approximately 88,000 adult residents), 361 interviews from Lewis County
(total adult population size of approximately 21,000 adult residents), and 455 from St. Lawrence County (total adult
population size of approximately 87,000 adult residents). All interviews were completed via telephone. The goal before
commencing the data collection was to have approximately 50% of the interviews represented by those completed on cell
phones, and the remaining 50% of the interviews represented by landline interviews, with a total goal of at least 1,200
completed interviews (targets were 450 in Jefferson County, 300 in Lewis County, and 450 in St. Lawrence County). The
result was that interviews that were completed on the cell phone of the participants represented 668 of the 1,305 completed
interviews (approximately 51% of all completed interviews), and interviews that were completed on the landline telephone
of the participants represented 637 of the 1,305 completed interviews (approximately 49% of all 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, personal residence telephone numbers were randomly selected from the populations of approximately
80,000 personal residence telephone numbers in the three-county region. These landline telephone numbers were obtained
from Accudata America, a subsidiary of Primis, Inc. Accudata America is a firm that specializes in providing contact
information for residents of the United States. The telephone numbers were obtained from an 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 randomly selected telephone numbers, the lists were randomly sorted a second time and a group of
residential landline numbers were attempted for interviews in each county. To complete the cell phone portion of the
sampling, a random-digit generation process with manual dialing was utilized in which common three-digit prefixes for cell
phones in use in the Jefferson, Lewis and St. Lawrence County region were identified and random sets of four-digit
telephone number endings after these common prefixes were generated to be attempted.
Page 8
All telephone calls were made between 4:00 and 9:00 p.m. from a call center in Watertown, New York, on the
weekday evenings between April 6th and 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 (including persons who lived in none of the three counties).
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 2nd Biennial Jefferson-Lewis-St. Lawrence County

Regional Economic Tracking Survey
Response rates for LANDLINES & CELL

PHONES COMBINED attempted in this study:
(51% of interviews were completed on cell phones)
Frequency
% of Numbers Attempted
% of Valid Numbers
% of Contacted Residents
Complete
Interview
Decline to
be
Interviewed
Not Valid
Telephone
Number
1,305
14%
16%
39%
2,025
21%
25%
61%
1,330
14%
No Answer/
Busy
4,857
51%
59%
TOTALS
9,517
100%
100%
100%
Within the fields of social science and community-based research, when using a hybrid sampling design including
both landline telephone interview and cell phone interview methodology, a response rate of approximately 39% of all
successful contacts where a person is actually talking on the phone is considered quite successful.
Page 9
1.4
DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE
SAMPLE WHO WAS
INTERVIEWED?
This section of the report includes a description of the results for the demographic variables included in the survey
sample. The demographic characteristics of the sampled adult residents can be used to attain three separate objectives.
1. Initially, this information adds to the knowledge and awareness about the true characteristics of the
population of adult residents in the sampled county (e.g. What is the typical annual household income level
in Jefferson, Lewis, or St. Lawrence 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 economic issues in Jefferson, Lewis, and St. Lawrence
Counties. Identification of significant relationships allows readers to use the data more effectively, to better
understand the factors that are correlated with various economic-related aspects of life in the region.
3. Finally, the demographic information also serves an important purpose when compared to established facts
about Jefferson, Lewis, and St. Lawrence Counties to analyze the representativeness of the samples that
were 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 Study Sample for the 2nd Biennial Jefferson-Lewis-St.

Lawrence County Regional Economic Tracking Survey (weighted by Gender, Age, Education Level, Military
Affiliation, and Phone Ownership)
Jefferson County
Count in
Collected
Sample
Gender:
Lewis County
St. Lawrence County
Count in
Collected
Sample
% in
Collected
Sample
Count in
Collected
Sample
% in
Collected
Sample
182
179
50%
50%
231
224
51%
49%
(US Census for Jefferson: 52% male; Lewis: 50% male; St. Lawrence 51% male )
Male
Female
Age:
% in
Collected
Sample
252
237
52%
48%
(US Census for Jefferson: among those age 18+ 28% are under age 30 and 22% are age 60+; Lewis: 18% under 30 and 28% are 60+; St.Law.: 25% under 30 and 26% are 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
135
93
81
74
52
54
28%
19%
17%
15%
11%
11%
66
54
66
75
46
54
18%
15%
18%
21%
13%
15%
113
67
76
81
58
61
25%
15%
17%
18%
13%
13%
Page 10
Table 2
Demographics of the Study Sample for the 2nd Biennial Jefferson-Lewis-St.

Jefferson County
Count in
Collected
Sample
Education:
% in
Collected
Sample
Lewis County
Count in
Collected
Sample
% in
Collected
Sample
St. Lawrence County

Count in
Collected
Sample
% in
Collected
Sample
187
38
79
57
53
40
41%
8%
18%
13%
12%
9%
(US Census for Jefferson: among those age 25+ 20% have at least a 4-year degree; Lewis: 14%; and St. Lawrence 20%)
High School Graduate (or less)

Technical School (after high school)
Some College Coursework (no degree)
Associate Degree
Bachelors Degree
Graduate Degree
Household Income:
206
23
81
82
62
36
42%
5%
17%
17%
13%
7%
186
27
54
45
30
19
52%
8%
15%
12%
8%
5%
(US Census for Jefferson: 24% earn < $25,000, 26% earn $75,000+; Lewis: 24% < $25,000 and 26% $75,000+; St. Law.: 28% < $25,000 and 25% $75,000+)
Less than $25,000

$25,001-$50,000
$50,001-$75,000
More than $75,000
109
111
103
109
25%
26%
24%
25%
71
74
86
83
22%
24%
27%
27%
81
110
76
100
22%
30%
21%
27%
Military Affiliation: (Estimates provided by the Fort drum Regional Liaison Organization: Jefferson: 25% of adults in HH w/Active Military; Lewis: 3%; St. Law.: 3%)
Active military in household.
Former military, chose to remain local.
Employment is due to Fort Drum, but no active
or retired military connection.
No employment connection to Fort Drum.
Refused/Preferred Not to Reply (PNA)
122
73
25%
15%
11
32
3%
9%
14
23
3%
5%
73
215
5
15%
44%
1%
54
260
4
15%
72%
1%
68
346
5
15%
76%
1%
The following distribution of towns or villages of residence (self-reported) of the participating respondents resulted
in the Biennial Jefferson-Lewis-St. Lawrence County Regional Economic Tracking Survey, and after application of poststratification weights for Gender, Age, Education, Military Affiliation, and Phone Ownership, closely parallel that which is
true for the distribution of all Jefferson, Lewis, and St. Lawrence County adults the entire counties were proportionally
represented accurately in this study.
Page 11
Table 3

Distribution of Participants in the 2nd Biennial
Geographic
Jefferson-Lewis-St.
Jefferson County
Lewis County
Town/Villages
U.S.
Census
Estimates
% in
Collected
Sample
Adams (town)
Alexandria (town)
Antwerp (town)
Brownville (town)
Cape Vincent (town)
Champion (town)
Clayton (town)
Ellisburg (town)
Henderson (town)
Hounsfield (town)
Leray (town)
Lorraine (town)
Lyme (town)
Orleans (town)
Pamelia (town)
Philadelphia (town)
Rodman (town)
Rutland (town)
Theresa (town)
Watertown (town)
Watertown (city)
Wilna (town)
Worth (town)
Not sure
4%
3%
1%
5%
3%
4%
4%
3%
2%
3%
19%
1%
2%
2%
3%
2%
1%
3%
2%
4%
23%
6%
0%
--
8%
2%
1%
5%
2%
3%
6%
3%
1%
3%
16%
1%
2%
1%
1%
3%
1%
1%
1%
7%
23%
4%
0%
5%
100%
100%
TOTAL
Town/Villages
Castorland (village)
Constableville (village)
Copenhagen (village)
Croghan (town)
Croghan (village)
Denmark (town)
Diana (town)
Greig (town)
Harrisburg (town)
Harrisville (village)
Lewis (town)
Leyden (town)
Lowville (village)
Lowville (town)
Lyons Falls (village)
Lyonsdale (town)
Martinsburg (town)
Montague (town)
New Bremen (town)
Osceola (town)
Pinckney (town)
Port Leyden (village)
Turin (town)
Turin (village)
Watson (town)
West Turin (town)
Not Sure
TOTAL
St. Lawrence County
U.S.
Census
Estimates
% in
Collected
Sample
1%
1%
3%
9%
2%
6%
4%
5%
1%
2%
3%
4%
13%
3%
3%
5%
5%
0%
10%
1%
1%
3%
2%
1%
8%
3%
1%
1%
1%
11%
1%
9%
1%
3%
1%
2%
6%
1%
16%
12%
5%
3%
5%
0%
6%
2%
0%
1%
4%
0%
4%
3%
1%
100%
100%
Town/Villages
Brasher (Town)
Canton (Village)
Canton (Town)
Clare (Town)
Clifton (Town)
Colton (Town)
De Kalb (Town)
De Peyster (Town)
Edwards (Town)
Fine (Town)
Fowler (Town)
Gouverneur (Village)
Gouverneur (Town)
Hammond (Village)
Hammond (Town)
Hermon (Village)
Hermon (Town)
Heuvelton (Village)
Hopkinton (Town)
Lawrence (Town)
Lisbon (Town)
Louisville (Town)
Macomb (Town)
Madrid (Town)
Massena (Village)
Massena (Town)
Morristown (Village)
Morristown (Town)
Norfolk (Town)
Norwood (Village)
Ogdensburg (City)
Oswegatchie (Town)
Parishville (Town)
Piercefield (Town)
Pierrepont (Town)
Pitcairn (Town)
Potsdam (Village)
Potsdam (Town)
Rensselaer Falls (Village)
Richville (Village)
Rossie (Town)
Russell (Town)
Stockholm (Town)
Waddington (Village)
Waddington (Town)
Not Sure
TOTAL
U.S.
Census
Estimates
% in
Collected
Sample
2%
6%
3%
0%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
2%
3%
3%
0%
1%
0%
1%
1%
1%
2%
4%
3%
1%
2%
10%
2%
0%
1%
3%
1%
10%
3%
2%
0%
2%
1%
8%
7%
0%
0%
1%
2%
3%
1%
1%
2%
4%
6%
0%
1%
1%
2%
0%
1%
1%
1%
2%
4%
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
1%
0%
4%
2%
0%
0%
11%
8%
1%
2%
7%
2%
9%
1%
3%
0%
1%
1%
3%
7%
1%
0%
0%
2%
3%
1%
1%
3%
100%
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, Lewis,
and St. Lawrence 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 populations of the counties. The
targets for demographic characteristics were drawn from the most recent U.S. Census updates for the counties. Gender,
Age, and Education were selected as the factors by which to weight the survey data, since the data collected in this Biennial
Page 12
Jefferson-Lewis-St. Lawrence County Regional Economic Tracking Survey is susceptible to the typical types of sampling
error that are inherent in telephone methodology: women were more likely than men to answer the telephone and/or agree
to a survey; older residents are more likely to participate in the survey than younger adult residents; 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 data has
additionally been weighted by Phone Ownership, with targets that have been generated from repeated surveying in these
counties by the Center for Community Studies. Also, the Northern New York military population has recently tended to be
under-represented in telephone-methodology surveying, therefore slight weights were applied to the data in 2015 to adjust
for military-affiliation to more accurately reflect the size of the local military-affiliated population in the region. 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 2014 U.S. Census reports that describe the Gender, Age, and Educational Attainment distributions of the actual entire
adult population residing in Northern New York, toward military-affiliation proportion estimates provided by the leadership
of the Fort Drum Regional Liaison Organization, and toward the Phone Ownership targets that have been developed from
recent repeated surveying by the Center for Community Studies. Whenever the three counties results are combined to
generate regional estimates a further weight for county population size has been applied to accurately reflect that the
Jefferson County and St. Lawrence County adult populations are each more than four times larger than the Lewis County
adult population.
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, these random samples of
Jefferson, Lewis, and St. Lawrence County adults do accurately represent the entire adult populations of the three counties.
When using the sample statistics presented in this report to estimate that which would be expected for entire adult
populations, 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 (for example, only persons who
have indicated that they want to start a business would then be asked some further question about the specific type of
business), 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 1,305 adults may be generalized to the population of all adults at least 18 years
of age residing in the three-county region with a 95% confidence level to within a margin of error of approximately 2.2
percentage points (there is an average margin of error of 2.2% with a sample size of n=1,305). For questions that were
posed only to certain specific subgroups, or for results that are presented for subgroups (such as when only investigating
Jefferson County female adult results), 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 region (i.e. generalization of some specific
characteristics of sampled Jefferson County adult females to all Jefferson County adult females) with a 95% confidence
level to within a margin of error of larger than approximately 2.2 percentage points. In other words, one can be 95%
confident that any sample statistic presented in the remainder of this report for the entire combined sample of n=1,305
adults from the three counties would/could only deviate from the true value that would be found if all of the 200,000 adults
in the three counties were in fact interviewed, by at most 2.2 percentage points. Note that the preceding statement regarding
95% confidence that the statistics in this study are at the most only 2.2 percentage points away from the true population
values if all 200,000 adults in the counties were interviewed is based upon the fundamental mathematical, probability, and
sampling theory facts and theorems that are proven in any first-semester college statistics course. Often times to the nonstatistician 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 the theory and practice of statistical analysis at times pose a question such as why would I ever believe the
results from only surveying 489 adults from Jefferson County, when that means that approximately 87,500 of the 88,000
Jefferson County adult residents have not been interviewed? While this observation of such a small proportional sample
size is true (489 out of 88,000 is only 0.56%, about one out of every 180 residents) the suggestion that it is too small, or
that the 87,500 not sampled is even relevant, is incorrect, no less incorrect 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 489 in Jefferson County) not
population size (the 88,000 in Jefferson County). The question of whether n=489 in Jefferson County is large enough
might also raise the question of why the sample size in Jefferson County was not selected to be four times larger than the
sample size in Lewis County. Again, the reader is reminded that the size of the sampled population rarely, if ever, is related
to the size of the sample selected from that population. If the Center for Community Studies were to survey the adult
Page 13
residents of Jefferson County (N8 8,000 in the population) a sample size of approximately n=400-500 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 approximately n=400-500 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 n400-500, would have the exact same resulting margins of error of approximately 4
percentage points.
Throughout this report, the key community demographic characteristics of County of Residence, Gender, Age,
Education Level, Military Affiliation, and Household Income Level are investigated as potential explanatory variables that
may be correlated with economic indicators for the region. 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. For more specific detail regarding the margin
of error for this survey, please refer later in this report to Section 3.0 Technical Comments to Assist Interpretation of the
Data 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 23.
Page 14
Section 2
Summary of
Study Findings
Page 15
2.1 PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE OF POTENTIAL

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
Seven potential local economic development initiatives were studied from the perspective of residents
levels of perceived importance of each of the initiatives to be further developed locally in the future.
1.
Residents levels of perceived importance for possible local economic development initiatives were
quite similar among the three studied counties with each countys residents citing the three following initiatives
as most important. Rates for responding Very Important for expand local businesses that produce
and/or distribute local agricultural products were: 90% in Jefferson; 81% in Lewis, and 86% in St.
Lawrence. Second most positively, rates for responding Very Important for keeping Northern New York
college graduates living and working locally were: 80% in Jefferson; 78% in Lewis, and 79% in St.
Lawrence. Rates for responding Very Important for expand activities and attractions for more tourism
were: 63% in Jefferson; 59% in Lewis, and 58% in St. Lawrence. Significant changes in responding that the
perceived importance of construction of additional rental housing is Very Important are found when 2013
and 2015 results are compared within each of Jefferson and Lewis Counties: Jefferson decreased from 42%
to 31%, and Lewis decreased from 49% to 27%. (Tables 6-13)
2. Economic development being completed in a green or sustainable manner continues to be very

important to local residents. Approximately 61% of local participants (65% in Jefferson, 60% in Lewis, and
57% in St. Lawrence) indicate that this development approach is Very Important to them, with another 33%
(31% in Jefferson, 32% in Lewis, and 35% in St. Lawrence) indicating that this development approach is
Somewhat Important to them. Results have not changed significantly between 2013 and 2015. (Table 14)
2.2 SATISFACTION WITH POTENTIAL

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
Four potential local economic development initiatives were studied from the perspective of residents
current levels of satisfaction with the initiatives.
Page 16
3. Satisfaction with availability of rental housing has increased significantly in Jefferson County between
2013 and 2015 (from 35% Excellent or Good in 2013 to 55% Excellent or Good in 2015). Satisfaction with
availability of rental housing in Lewis and St. Lawrence Counties is much lower than in Jefferson County, and
in Lewis County is unchanged from 2013 results. (Table 16)
4. Satisfaction with keeping Northern New York college graduates living and working locally remains
unchanged from 2013 results found and at a quite unsatisfied level compared to the other three rated
initiatives, especially in St. Lawrence County where only 19% rate this as Excellent or Good (33% in
Jefferson in 2015, and 28% in Lewis in 2015). (Table 17)
5. Satisfaction with environmental-related projects such as green energy as part of local development
efforts is most commonly rated as Fair, with satisfaction levels most high in Lewis County and low in St.
Lawrence County in 2015. (Table 18)
6. Residents are more satisfied than dissatisfied with revitalization projects that improve community
quality of life with over 40% of residents rating this as Excellent or Good and only 16% rating as Poor.
Satisfaction levels are highest in Jefferson and Lewis Counties. (Table 19)
2.3 SUPPORT FOR NEW LOCAL BUSINESSES

Nine types of businesses that could be added locally were studied in 2015, with the goal of measuring
residents opinions regarding whether it would be a good thing to add or increase each type of business locally.
Residents level of support results for the top four of nine studied types of businesses are summarized in the
following Figure 3. In general, high levels of interest were found for adding: childcare or preschool services,
cultural or entertainment facilities, high-speed Internet providers, and bookstores. For each of these four
possible new businesses less than 20% of local residents (three-county region combined) responded with
Definitely no. County-specific differences found include that Jefferson County is comparably high in interest
with more bookstores, Lewis County is comparably high in interest with more food or grocery stores, and St.
Lawrence County is comparably high in interest with more clothing stores and restaurants. For further detailed
county-specific results and identification of any trends that may have occurred in Jefferson and Lewis Counties
between 2013 and 2015, please refer to statistical tables later in this report. (Tables 20-29)
Page 17
2.4 ENTREPRENEURSHIP
7. Approximately one-in-nine adults in the three-county region (11%, not significantly changed from the regionwide 2013 result) currently own or operate a business (11% in Jefferson, 16% in Lewis, and 9% in St.
Lawrence), which equates to approximately 20,000 current entrepreneurs in the three-county region. Among
these current business owners about one-third (33%) employ only themselves (36% in Jefferson, 38% in
Lewis, and 26% in St. Lawrence), however, about one-fourth (24%) own businesses that are large enough
to employ six or more persons (26% in Jefferson, 28% in Lewis, and 21% in St. Lawrence). The median
number of employees per business among these locally-owned businesses is 2.0 (same as found in 2013
study), with a mean of 4.9 (was 6.0 in 2013). When asked how many employees the business owners
have expanded by in the past twelve months, 75% indicated that they have not expanded, with 9% having
expanded by one employee and another 10% having expanded by two employees. (Tables 30-32)
8. Current business owners were asked what single change would be necessary for you to expand your
business by two or three employees over the next two years? The most common response is More
sales (27%, increased from 24% in 2013; the rate in Lewis County in 2015 is a comparably high 54%), with
the second most common necessary change cited being lower business taxes (15%, increased from 9% in
2013), while about one-in-four current business owners (23%, increased from 21% in 2013) indicate that
nothing could cause them to add employees, they do not want to expand. (Table 33)
Page 18
9. Among current business owners more than one-half (51%) indicate that none of their annual revenue is
accounted for by Canadian spending. There is variation in the degree of impact of Canadian spending
across the three counties represented in this study in Jefferson County 10% of business owners indicate
that more than 10% of their revenue is accounted for by Canadian spending, with this rate being only 6% in
Lewis County, but over 21% from Canadians in St. Lawrence County. (Table 34)
10. Among those who are not current business owners there is a quite prevalent interest in becoming a
business owner. Approximately one-in-five adults who does not currently own a business in the threecounty region indicates that they have an interest in owning or operating a business in the next three years
(19% for the three-county region; was 16% in 2013; currently 17% in Jefferson, 13% in Lewis, and 23% in St.
Lawrence). Among these might-be-interested-in-owning-a-business residents there is a relatively large group
who are definitely interested 83 of the 1164 surveyed non-current owners (7.1%) are definitely interested
in buying an existing business or starting a new business now (increased from 4.6% in 2013). If this 7.1%
interest rate is extrapolated to the entire population of approximately 180,000 adults in the three-county region
who are not currently business owners, then it would suggest that there are over 12,000 very-interested
potential entrepreneurs living locally. (Table 35)
11. The five most common responses among interested entrepreneurs when asked what type of business are
you interested in owning are Sporting Goods Stores, Restaurants, Solar/renewable Energy,
Construction, and Landscaping/Excavating. Much more detail is provided in later statistical tables for this
collapsed open-ended question. (Table 36)
12. Interested potential entrepreneurs were asked Which of the following do you consider as barriers to
you owning or operating a business in Jefferson or Lewis County? The most common responses are
Need lower business taxes (cited by 55% of the prospective entrepreneurs, was cited by 68% in 2013),
Need lower utility rates (cited by 40%, was cited by 65% in 2013), and Need more government financial
assistance/incentives (cited by 39%, was cited by 62% in 2013), while less than 4% of the prospective
entrepreneurs indicate that there are No barriers (was cited by 1% in 2013). (Table 37)
13. Among interested potential entrepreneurs there is a high level of interest in having a business incubator
being available locally, but not as high as was found in 2013. The exact phrasing of the survey question is:
If there was a business incubator available locally would you be more likely to start your business? Slightly
more than one-half (51%) of local residents who express an interest in starting a new business indicate that
a business indicator would definitely make them more likely to start the business (was 76% in 2013), with
another 25% indicating Maybe it would (was 13% in 2013). Likelihood to respond Definitely yes in 2015
varies significantly between the three studied counties with rates of 60% in Jefferson, 68% in Lewis, and
only 42% in St. Lawrence. (Table 38)
14. Among interested potential entrepreneurs approximately one-in-nine (11%) indicate that if they started the
business it would only employ one person, themselves. More than one-half of the potential business owners
(52%) plan to start businesses that are large enough to employ five or more persons, however, this
rate is only 17% in Lewis County. (Table 39)
Page 19
2.5 PASSENGER AIR SERVICE
15. In 2015 two questions were asked regarding local passenger air service. Opinions regarding satisfaction
with local passenger air service vary widely, with approximately one-half (50%) responding with Very or
Somewhat satisfied, and 18% responding with Not Satisfied at All. Responses distributions for satisfaction
levels are relatively similar in the three studied counties with Jefferson County residents slightly more satisfied
than either Lewis or St. Lawrence County residents. (Table 40)
16. When asked whether one flies more commonly from airports located in the three North Country
counties results are very similar in the three studied counties, with residents more than three times more
likely to fly out of airports not located in the three counties as they are to use local airports (50% vs. 15%,
respectively). (Table 41)
2.6 INTERNET ACCESS
17. Over 82% of adult residents in the region report to have high-speed Internet access at their home (84%
in Jefferson, only 71% in Lewis, and 83% in St. Lawrence). (Table 42)
Page 20
18. By far, the most common Internet provider for residents at home in the North Country is Time Warner
(71% among those who do have high-speed Internet access in the three-county region; 77% in Jefferson,
53% in Lewis, and 68% in St. Lawrence). Approximately 10% of regional residents who do have high-speed
Internet access report to access high-speed Internet at home through Verizon, while all other providers
account for a less than 4% share of the three-county high-speed Internet at home market. Notably, Frontier
provides this service for over 23% of Lewis County residents who have high-speed Internet at home. (Table
43)
19. When asked whether their home Internet access has gotten better, stayed the same, or gotten worse in
the past three years the most common response is stayed the same (48% for the region; 53% in Jefferson,
48% in Lewis, and 42% in St. Lawrence). In each of Jefferson and St. Lawrence Counties participants are
more likely to respond gotten better than gotten worse, however, in Lewis County the reverse is true.
(Table 44)
2.7 HEALTHCARE ACCESS
20. North Country residents are more likely than not to travel outside of their county for at least some
healthcare services only 40% in the region respond with Never travel outside my county, with countyspecific rates of Never being 47% in Jefferson, 32% in Lewis, and 35% in St. Lawrence. (Table 45)
21. Among North Country residents who do travel outside their county for at least some healthcare services (the
approximately 60% in the highlighted finding #20 above who did not respond with Never, more precisely,
this was 58.8%), these residents are more likely than not to indicate that this travel is to a county that is
outside the three-county North Country region (35% indicate always and 28% indicate sometimes. With
over one-third (37%) responding never, which indicates that they are traveling to another county within the
three-county region. Therefore, this extrapolates to an estimate of 37% of residents travel outside the
three-county region for healthcare (63% of the 58.8%). Likelihood to travel outside the North Country for
healthcare is very similar in all three studied counties. (Table 46)
22. The four most common specific healthcare services cited by participants who travel outside the TriCounty region for healthcare are: Primary Care (21%), Cardiology (16%, but much lower in Jefferson),
Orthopedic services including Physical Therapy (12%, but much lower in St. Lawrence), and In-patient
Surgery (admitted) (10%). (Table 47)
Page 21
2.8 HOUSING AND REAL ESTATE
23. Approximately one-in-four adult residents in the region currently rent their home (25%; 33% in Jefferson,
14% in Lewis, and 20% in St. Lawrence). (Table 48)
24. The most common number of bedrooms reported in residents homes or apartments continues to be
three bedrooms (46% in the region in 2015, was 44% in 2013; in 2015 46% in Jefferson, 51% in Lewis, and
45% in St. Lawrence). (Table 49)
25. Approximately one-in-eight residents in 2015 (12% in the three-county region, with 11% in Jefferson, 7% in
Lewis, and 15% in St. Lawrence) report plans to build a new home in the next three years, with 4% of the
residents in the region replying with definitely yes when asked about building a new home. (Table 50)
26. Almost one-in-four residents (22% in the three-county region, with 23% in Jefferson, 14% in Lewis, and 23%
in St. Lawrence) report plans to buy a new or existing home in the next three years, with 11% of the
residents in the region replying with definitely yes when asked about purchasing a home. Note that the
plan-to-buy rates in both Jefferson and Lewis Counties have changed in the past two years, in opposite
directions, with Jefferson increasing from 17% and Lewis decreasing from 29%. (Table 51)
27. Among current homeowners almost one-half (46%, decreased from 50% in 2013) report plans to potentially
make energy-efficient improvements to their home in the next three years (48% in Jefferson, 45% in
Lewis, and 46% in St. Lawrence), with 32% of the homeowners in the region replying with definitely yes
when asked about making energy-efficient improvements to their home. (Table 52)
28. Current homeowners in the region express high optimism about their investment in their homes with 38%
indicating that they believe that in the past year the market value of their home has increased (43% in
Jefferson, 32% in Lewis, 34% in St. Lawrence), while only 12% of homeowners in the three-county region
feel that the market value of their home has decreased in the past year. However, this optimism is not as
high as it was two years ago when in 2013 the rates were 45% feeling that their home value had increased
and only 7% felt that there had been a decrease in the preceding two years. (Table 53)
Page 22
2.9 EMPLOYMENT
29. Over 60% of local adult residents in the three studied counties combined report to be currently employed
(67% in Jefferson, 58% in Lewis, and 54% in St. Lawrence). The rates in Jefferson and Lewis County in 2013
were 62% and 61%, respectively. Approximately one-in-five adults in the region indicate that they are retired
(18% in Jefferson, 24% in Lewis, and 23% in St. Lawrence). (Table 54)
30. Among currently employed residents in the three-county region the vast majority (91%) report that they are
employed in the three-county North Country region (93% in Jefferson, 81% in Lewis, and 93% in St.
Lawrence). (Table 55)
31. Among currently employed residents in the three-county region about one-in-five (18%) report that they have
started a new job in the past 12 months, with 16% indicating that it is their only job and 3% indicating that
it is an additional second job. (New Job: 17% in Jefferson, 16% in Lewis, and 20% in St. Lawrence). (Table
56)
32. Among currently employed residents in the three-county region the industry in which one works varies
noticeably. In Jefferson County the two largest industry sectors reported are Government (22%) and Retail
(22%). In Lewis County the four largest industry sectors reported are Retail (17%), Education (15%),
Healthcare (14%), and Blue Collar (14%). In St. Lawrence County the two largest industry sectors reported
are Education (14%) and Healthcare (14%). (Table 57)
33. Among currently employed residents in the three-county region it is rare that they report to be employed by
a Canadian or foreign-owned company, with only 2% indicating that this is true (2% in Jefferson, 1% in
Lewis, and 2% in St. Lawrence). (Table 58)
34. Currently employed residents were asked whether they feel under-employed in their current job. The
specific survey question is: Do you believe that you have skills, experience, and/or credentials that surpass
what is typically needed for the job that you now have .... in other words, do you feel that you are now "underemployed"? In 2015 participants are far less likely to indicate that they feel under-employed than was the
case in 2013. Rates of responding Yes, Im under-employed in Jefferson County decreased from 56% to
39% in the past two years, and in Lewis County decreased from 64% to 36% (the current rate in St. Lawrence
is 38%). (Table 59)
35. Among all participants about 5% report that they have sought employment in the past 12 months but
were not able to obtain the job because of a lack of the necessary skills or training (6% in Jefferson,
3% in Lewis, and 6% in St. Lawrence). (Table 60)
Page 23
36. All participants were asked whether or not they are a native of the North Country, with a result that
approximately 57% of Jefferson County residents are North Country natives (54% native to Jefferson County),
approximately 85% of Lewis County residents are North Country natives (74% native to Lewis County), and
approximately 75% of St. Lawrence County residents are North Country natives (72% native to St. Lawrence
County). The most common cited reason for moving to the North Country among the non-natives are:
Military in Jefferson, and Spouse/Partner in both Lewis and St. Lawrence. (Tables 61-62)
Page 24
Section 3
Detailed
Statistical
Results
Page 25
This section of the Final Report of Study Findings provides a detailed presentation of the results for each of the
questions in the survey. There are ten separate sections of presentation of detailed statistical results to follow (Sections
3.0-3.9). The first of these ten sections (Section 3.0) includes technical comments and is provided to explain the details of
how to best interpret the included statistics. Descriptions of the correct margin of error to use for any provided statistic, and
how to determine statistical significance, are explained in detail within these technical comments. Following the technical
comments in Section 3.0 are nine sections of detailed presentation of economic-related statistical results. Each of these
nine sections is comprised of an analysis of a set of related economic survey questions. The survey questions included in
this study and analyzed in this report have been organized into the following nine sections:
3.1 Perceived Importance of Potential Economic Development Initiatives (Tables 6-14)
3.2 Satisfaction with Potential Economic Development Initiatives (Tables 15-19)
3.3 Support for New Local Businesses (Tables 20-29)
3.4 Entrepreneurship (Tables 30-39)
3.5 Passenger Air Service (Tables 40-41)
3.6 Internet Access (Tables 42-44)
3.7 Healthcare Access (Tables 45-47)
3.8 Housing and Real Estate (Tables 48-53)
3.9 Employment (Tables 54-62)
The organization of the tabular presentation of statistical results in each of these nine sections is as follows.
Whenever there are multiple items (survey questions) that are all posed with the same resulting scale (e.g. all asking VerySomewhat-Not Very Important) then an overall comparison table for these comparative results is presented. Technically,
four of these overall comparison tables are presented one for combined regional results, and one each for Jefferson,
Lewis, and St. Lawrence County. Typically these multiple-item comparative summary tables are located at the beginning
of a subsection of detailed statistical results presentation.
The most detailed statistical results, however, are presented within the next nine sections of this report on an
individual-question basis. Whenever possible, the results for each of the approximately 60 individual economic-related
survey questions are presented in this section of the report with the following organizational structure, each typically
organized as its own page:
(1)
The results for all sampled residents in the three-county region 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 (in these tables the
results are weighted for County Population Size, Gender, Age, Education Level, Military
Affiliation, and Phone Ownership). The benefit of these tables is to provide current
three-county regional prevalence estimate data.
(2)
The 2015 results for each survey question have been cross-tabulated by County. The
benefit of these tables is to provide an opportunity to identify differences between
Jefferson, Lewis, and St. Lawrence Counties in 2015. Readers are reminded that the
method to determine which observed sample differences between the counties in 2015 are
statistically significant differences is explained in detail in the Technical Comments
section in this report, Section 3.0.
(3)
When possible, the 2013 results for each survey question that was used in both 2013 and
2015 have been presented in a county-specific manner. The benefit of these tables is
to provide an opportunity to identify trends in responses that may have changed in
the past two years within Jefferson and Lewis Counties (recall, no sampling in St.
Lawrence County was completed in 2013). Readers are reminded that the method to
determine which observed sample differences between 2013 and 2015 are statistically
significant trends is explained in detail in the Technical Comments section in this report,
Section 3.0.
(4)
Finally, the results for each survey question have been cross-tabulated within each
countys set of results by each of the demographic factors of Gender, Age, Education Level,
Military Affiliation, and Household Income Level (there is a total of over 500 crosstabulation tables included in this report). The benefit of these tables is to provide an
opportunity to identify possible significant correlations between demographic
explanatory variables and economic-related outcome variables. Again, readers are
reminded that the method to determine which observed sample differences between
Page 26
subgroups (e.g. comparing males to females in Jefferson County, or comparing Lewis

County young adults to Jefferson County young adults) are statistically significant
differences is explained in detail in the Technical Comments section in this report, Section
3.0.
The statistics reported in the correlative tables (the cross-tabulations by County, 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.
Framing a Statistic Providing Perspective to Better Understand, Interpret, and

Use this Survey Data
The rationale behind providing so many analyses (statistics) for every survey question included in this study is that
one never fully understands the information contained in a reported statistic without framing that statistic. Framing involves
adding a more rich perspective to the value of some reported statistic. For example, when Lewis County residents in April
2015 were asked the survey question: Do you think that it would be a good thing to add bookstores locally?, the
result in the current study is that 54.3% of the participants responded with definitely yes (reported later in Table 21). So .
what does this 54.3% really mean? Often-times community-based researchers will describe the process of framing a
statistic as completing as many as possible of the five following comparisons (frames) to better understand a reported
statistic from a sample:
Within Response Distribution
(Is it a majority? 4:1 ratio? Three times more likely to respond with better . than worse?)
Trend Across Time

(Has it increased? Decreased?)
Compare to Target/Benchmark
(Compare to some regional average? Compare to an agency or communitys goal or target?)
Ranking Among Similar Variables

(Among many different similar locations, characteristics, options, or attributes, that all use the same response scale, is this specific
item ranked first? last?)
Cross-tabulations by Potential Explanatory Variables

(Different political ideological people differ in opinion or behavior? Age-dependent? Gender-dependent? Education-dependent?
Income-dependent? Military-affiliation-dependent? Geography-dependent?)
The design of this final report of study 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 27
3.0
TECHNICAL COMMENTS TO
ASSIST INTERPRETATION
OF THE DATA
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 Second Biennial Jefferson-Lewis-St. Lawrence County Regional Economic Tracking
Survey.
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 that the result for this entire population investigated would be that 40% (that
would be 40,000 out of the 100,000) would agree. In general, one can never guarantee with 100% certainty that a statistic
for some random sample will perfectly, exactly, result the same as the population value that describes the entire population
(this value is called a parameter). Fortunately, considering the types of variables and resulting data that typically are
generated in survey research, use of the statistical tools of probability distributions and sampling distributions allows the
determination of a very important distance the distance that one would expect 95% of the samples of size n to fall either
above or below the true population value. This distance is commonly referred to as the margin of error. Once this distance
(margin of error) is measured, there is a 95% probability that the sample result (the result of the n=500 sampled participants
in the illustration above) will fall within that distance of the true population value. Therefore, to construct the very useful and
easily-interpreted statistical estimation tool known as a confidence interval, all one must do is calculate the margin of error
and add-and-subtract it to-and-from the sample result (statistic) and the outcome is that there is a 95% chance that the
resulting interval does, in fact, include the true population value within the interval.
To illustrate the above-described concepts of margin of error and confidence intervals, recall that the margin of error
for this survey has been earlier stated in the Methodology section in this report as approximately 2.2 percentage points
when a survey question is answered by all 1,305 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,
Lewis, and St. Lawrence County adult residents were surveyed (rather than just the 1,305 that were actually surveyed), the
percentage that would result for all residents would be within 2.2 percentage points of the sample percentage that we
surveyed, calculated, and reported in this study. For example, in Table 42, it can be observed that 82.2% of the sample of
1,302 adults in the three-county region reported that they do have high-speed Internet access at their home. With this
sample result, one could infer with 95% confidence that if all Jefferson County adults and all Lewis County adults and all St.
Lawrence County adults were asked somewhere between 80.0% and 84.4% of the combined population of approximately
200,000 adults in Jefferson, Lewis, and St. Lawrence Counties have high-speed Internet access at their homes (generated
by starting with the 82.2% that was found in the sample and adding-and-subtracting the margin of error of 2.2%). This
Page 28
resulting interval (80.0%-84.4%) 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, or almost
all, 1,305 participants in this study to the entire adult population of Jefferson, Lewis, and St. Lawrence Counties combined.
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 demographic subgroups such as only
females, or when simply investigating for one of the three studied counties), the resulting margin of error will be larger than
2.2 percentage points. Table 4 presented below provides approximate margin of error values that should be used with
sample sizes of less than n=1,305.
Table 4
Approximate Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes

Sample Size
(n=)
Approximate Margin of
Error
30
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
350
400
450
489
1,305
14.3%
11.1%
9.0%
7.8%
7.0%
6.4%
5.9%
5.5%
5.2%
5.0%
4.7%
4.5%
4.2%
3.9%
3.7%
3.5%
2.2%
Margin of Error More Detail for Those Interested in Maximizing Precision and Accuracy of Estimates
The preceding introductory example used a margin of error of 2.2%, as a result of an illustration that used all 1,305
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 2.2%. There is not one universal value of a
margin of error that can be precisely calculated and used for the results for every question included in this survey, or for
that matter, any multiple-question survey. Calculation methods used in this study for generating the margin of error depend
upon the following three factors, which include two factors in addition to the sample-size factor that has just been mentioned:
1.
The sample size is the number of adults who validly answered the survey question. The sample
size will not always be n=1,305 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. Conversely, the closer that
the actual sample percentage is to 50% then the larger is the resulting margin of error. As an
example, if 1,044 out of 1,305 sampled residents Agree with some posed statement, then the
sample proportion would be (10441305=0.8=80%)
Page 29
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 5) 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 30
More Detailed Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes and Varying Sample
Proportions
Table 5
Varying Sample Sizes (n=):

175
200
225
250
275
Varying
Sample %'s:
2%
30
50
75
100
125
150
5.0%
3.9%
3.2%
2.7%
2.5%
2.2%
2.1%
1.9%
1.8%
1.7%
4%
7.0%
5.4%
4.4%
3.8%
3.4%
3.1%
2.9%
2.7%
2.6%
2.4%
6%
8.5%
6.6%
5.4%
4.7%
4.2%
3.8%
3.5%
3.3%
3.1%
8%
9.7%
7.5%
6.1%
5.3%
4.8%
4.3%
4.0%
3.8%
10%
10.7%
8.3%
6.8%
5.9%
5.3%
4.8%
4.4%
12%
11.6%
9.0%
7.4%
6.4%
5.7%
5.2%
14%
12.4%
9.6%
7.9%
6.8%
6.1%
16%
13.1%
10.2%
8.3%
7.2%
18%
13.7%
10.6%
8.7%
20%
14.3%
11.1%
22%
14.8%
24%
300
350
400
450
489
1305
1.7%
1.6%
1.5%
1.4%
1.3%
1.2%
0.8%
2.3%
2.2%
2.1%
1.9%
1.8%
1.7%
1.1%
2.9%
2.8%
2.7%
2.5%
2.3%
2.2%
2.1%
1.3%
3.5%
3.4%
3.2%
3.1%
2.8%
2.7%
2.5%
2.4%
1.5%
4.2%
3.9%
3.7%
3.5%
3.4%
3.1%
2.9%
2.8%
2.7%
1.6%
4.8%
4.5%
4.2%
4.0%
3.8%
3.7%
3.4%
3.2%
3.0%
2.9%
1.8%
5.6%
5.1%
4.8%
4.5%
4.3%
4.1%
3.9%
3.6%
3.4%
3.2%
3.1%
1.9%
6.4%
5.9%
5.4%
5.1%
4.8%
4.5%
4.3%
4.1%
3.8%
3.6%
3.4%
3.2%
2.0%
7.5%
6.7%
6.1%
5.7%
5.3%
5.0%
4.8%
4.5%
4.3%
4.0%
3.8%
3.5%
3.4%
2.1%
9.1%
7.8%
7.0%
6.4%
5.9%
5.5%
5.2%
5.0%
4.7%
4.5%
4.2%
3.9%
3.7%
3.5%
2.2%
11.5%
9.4%
8.1%
7.3%
6.6%
6.1%
5.7%
5.4%
5.1%
4.9%
4.7%
4.3%
4.1%
3.8%
3.7%
2.2%
15.3%
11.8%
9.7%
8.4%
7.5%
6.8%
6.3%
5.9%
5.6%
5.3%
5.0%
4.8%
4.5%
4.2%
3.9%
3.8%
2.3%
26%
15.7%
12.2%
9.9%
8.6%
7.7%
7.0%
6.5%
6.1%
5.7%
5.4%
5.2%
5.0%
4.6%
4.3%
4.1%
3.9%
2.4%
28%
16.1%
12.4%
10.2%
8.8%
7.9%
7.2%
6.7%
6.2%
5.9%
5.6%
5.3%
5.1%
4.7%
4.4%
4.1%
4.0%
2.4%
30%
16.4%
12.7%
10.4%
9.0%
8.0%
7.3%
6.8%
6.4%
6.0%
5.7%
5.4%
5.2%
4.8%
4.5%
4.2%
4.1%
2.5%
32%
16.7%
12.9%
10.6%
9.1%
8.2%
7.5%
6.9%
6.5%
6.1%
5.8%
5.5%
5.3%
4.9%
4.6%
4.3%
4.1%
2.5%
34%
17.0%
13.1%
10.7%
9.3%
8.3%
7.6%
7.0%
6.6%
6.2%
5.9%
5.6%
5.4%
5.0%
4.6%
4.4%
4.2%
2.6%
36%
17.2%
13.3%
10.9%
9.4%
8.4%
7.7%
7.1%
6.7%
6.3%
6.0%
5.7%
5.4%
5.0%
4.7%
4.4%
4.3%
2.6%
38%
17.4%
13.5%
11.0%
9.5%
8.5%
7.8%
7.2%
6.7%
6.3%
6.0%
5.7%
5.5%
5.1%
4.8%
4.5%
4.3%
2.6%
40%
17.5%
13.6%
11.1%
9.6%
8.6%
7.8%
7.3%
6.8%
6.4%
6.1%
5.8%
5.5%
5.1%
4.8%
4.5%
4.3%
2.7%
42%
17.7%
13.7%
11.2%
9.7%
8.7%
7.9%
7.3%
6.8%
6.4%
6.1%
5.8%
5.6%
5.2%
4.8%
4.6%
4.4%
2.7%
44%
17.8%
13.8%
11.2%
9.7%
8.7%
7.9%
7.4%
6.9%
6.5%
6.2%
5.9%
5.6%
5.2%
4.9%
4.6%
4.4%
2.7%
46%
17.8%
13.8%
11.3%
9.8%
8.7%
8.0%
7.4%
6.9%
6.5%
6.2%
5.9%
5.6%
5.2%
4.9%
4.6%
4.4%
2.7%
48%
17.9%
13.8%
11.3%
9.8%
8.8%
8.0%
7.4%
6.9%
6.5%
6.2%
5.9%
5.7%
5.2%
4.9%
4.6%
4.4%
2.7%
50%
17.9%
13.9%
11.3%
9.8%
8.8%
8.0%
7.4%
6.9%
6.5%
6.2%
5.9%
5.7%
5.2%
4.9%
4.6%
4.4%
2.7%
52%
17.9%
13.8%
11.3%
9.8%
8.8%
8.0%
7.4%
6.9%
6.5%
6.2%
5.9%
5.7%
5.2%
4.9%
4.6%
4.4%
2.7%
54%
17.8%
13.8%
11.3%
9.8%
8.7%
8.0%
7.4%
6.9%
6.5%
6.2%
5.9%
5.6%
5.2%
4.9%
4.6%
4.4%
2.7%
56%
17.8%
13.8%
11.2%
9.7%
8.7%
7.9%
7.4%
6.9%
6.5%
6.2%
5.9%
5.6%
5.2%
4.9%
4.6%
4.4%
2.7%
58%
17.7%
13.7%
11.2%
9.7%
8.7%
7.9%
7.3%
6.8%
6.4%
6.1%
5.8%
5.6%
5.2%
4.8%
4.6%
4.4%
2.7%
60%
17.5%
13.6%
11.1%
9.6%
8.6%
7.8%
7.3%
6.8%
6.4%
6.1%
5.8%
5.5%
5.1%
4.8%
4.5%
4.3%
2.7%
62%
17.4%
13.5%
11.0%
9.5%
8.5%
7.8%
7.2%
6.7%
6.3%
6.0%
5.7%
5.5%
5.1%
4.8%
4.5%
4.3%
2.6%
64%
17.2%
13.3%
10.9%
9.4%
8.4%
7.7%
7.1%
6.7%
6.3%
6.0%
5.7%
5.4%
5.0%
4.7%
4.4%
4.3%
2.6%
66%
17.0%
13.1%
10.7%
9.3%
8.3%
7.6%
7.0%
6.6%
6.2%
5.9%
5.6%
5.4%
5.0%
4.6%
4.4%
4.2%
2.6%
68%
16.7%
12.9%
10.6%
9.1%
8.2%
7.5%
6.9%
6.5%
6.1%
5.8%
5.5%
5.3%
4.9%
4.6%
4.3%
4.1%
2.5%
70%
16.4%
12.7%
10.4%
9.0%
8.0%
7.3%
6.8%
6.4%
6.0%
5.7%
5.4%
5.2%
4.8%
4.5%
4.2%
4.1%
2.5%
72%
16.1%
12.4%
10.2%
8.8%
7.9%
7.2%
6.7%
6.2%
5.9%
5.6%
5.3%
5.1%
4.7%
4.4%
4.1%
4.0%
2.4%
74%
15.7%
12.2%
9.9%
8.6%
7.7%
7.0%
6.5%
6.1%
5.7%
5.4%
5.2%
5.0%
4.6%
4.3%
4.1%
3.9%
2.4%
76%
15.3%
11.8%
9.7%
8.4%
7.5%
6.8%
6.3%
5.9%
5.6%
5.3%
5.0%
4.8%
4.5%
4.2%
3.9%
3.8%
2.3%
78%
14.8%
11.5%
9.4%
8.1%
7.3%
6.6%
6.1%
5.7%
5.4%
5.1%
4.9%
4.7%
4.3%
4.1%
3.8%
3.7%
2.2%
80%
14.3%
11.1%
9.1%
7.8%
7.0%
6.4%
5.9%
5.5%
5.2%
5.0%
4.7%
4.5%
4.2%
3.9%
3.7%
3.5%
2.2%
82%
13.7%
10.6%
8.7%
7.5%
6.7%
6.1%
5.7%
5.3%
5.0%
4.8%
4.5%
4.3%
4.0%
3.8%
3.5%
3.4%
2.1%
84%
13.1%
10.2%
8.3%
7.2%
6.4%
5.9%
5.4%
5.1%
4.8%
4.5%
4.3%
4.1%
3.8%
3.6%
3.4%
3.2%
2.0%
86%
12.4%
9.6%
7.9%
6.8%
6.1%
5.6%
5.1%
4.8%
4.5%
4.3%
4.1%
3.9%
3.6%
3.4%
3.2%
3.1%
1.9%
88%
11.6%
9.0%
7.4%
6.4%
5.7%
5.2%
4.8%
4.5%
4.2%
4.0%
3.8%
3.7%
3.4%
3.2%
3.0%
2.9%
1.8%
90%
10.7%
8.3%
6.8%
5.9%
5.3%
4.8%
4.4%
4.2%
3.9%
3.7%
3.5%
3.4%
3.1%
2.9%
2.8%
2.7%
1.6%
92%
9.7%
7.5%
6.1%
5.3%
4.8%
4.3%
4.0%
3.8%
3.5%
3.4%
3.2%
3.1%
2.8%
2.7%
2.5%
2.4%
1.5%
94%
8.5%
6.6%
5.4%
4.7%
4.2%
3.8%
3.5%
3.3%
3.1%
2.9%
2.8%
2.7%
2.5%
2.3%
2.2%
2.1%
1.3%
96%
7.0%
5.4%
4.4%
3.8%
3.4%
3.1%
2.9%
2.7%
2.6%
2.4%
2.3%
2.2%
2.1%
1.9%
1.8%
1.7%
1.1%
98%
5.0%
3.9%
3.2%
2.7%
2.5%
2.2%
2.1%
1.9%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.5%
1.4%
1.3%
1.2%
0.8%
Average
14.3%
11.1%
9.0%
7.8%
7.0%
6.4%
5.9%
5.5%
5.2%
5.0%
4.7%
4.5%
4.3%
4.2%
3.9%
3.6%
2.2%
Page 31
Illustration of how to use Table 5: To estimate the percentage in the entire population of Jefferson County adults
who have high-speed Internet access at their homes in 2015 one must simply refer to Table 42 to determine the sample
size and percentage of this sample of Jefferson County adults who respond with Yes. From Table 42 it is found that 84.2%
of the sampled Jefferson County adults in 2015 indicate that they have high-speed Internet access at home, and the sample
size for Jefferson County is n=487. Reference to Table 5 on the preceding page indicates that the appropriate margin of
error would be 3.2% (used n=489, the closest entry to n=487 in the table, and used p=84%, the closest entry to p=84.2%
in the table). Therefore, we can be 95% confident that if all Jefferson County adults were asked, the resulting percentage
who would indicate that they have high-speed Internet access at home among this population would be within 3.2% of the
84.2% found in our sample. The interpretation of this would be that we are 95% confident that among all Jefferson County
adults the percentage who have high-speed Internet access at home would be somewhere between 81.0% and 87.4%.
Note that this margin of error of 3.2 percentage points is larger than the earlier-cited study margin of error of 2.2 percentage
points as a result of there being only 487 Jefferson County residents 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 5 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, Lewis, and St. Lawrence County study, employed
to minimize these other sources of error are: maximum effort to select the sample randomly, piloting and testing of utilized
survey questions, extensive training of all data collectors (interviewers), and application of post-stratification algorithms.
Hence, when using this study data to make estimates to the entire Jefferson, Lewis, and St. Lawrence 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 Relationships (Differences)

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 Table 5. To take full advantage of
the data collected in this study, other statistical techniques are of value. Tests for significantly correlated factors with
measured economic-related 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 this Second Biennial
Jefferson-Lewis-St. Lawrence County Regional Economic Tracking Survey is based on a sample of 1,305 adult residents,
as opposed to obtaining information from every single adult resident in Jefferson, Lewis, and St. Lawrence Counties, 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 in the region 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 Jefferson County residents are more likely to report to have high-speed
Internet access at home than Lewis County residents (84.2% vs. 70.5%, respectively, Table 42), the researcher would want
to know if this greater high-speed Internet access rate among Jefferson County residents would still be present if they
interviewed every Jefferson County adult rather than just the sample of 487 adults who were actually interviewed and
provided this information, and likewise, if every Lewis County adult were sampled. 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=1,305 randomly selected local adults from the approximately 200,000 adults
in the three counties), then the results of these samples would not consistently show that Jefferson County residents are
more likely to report to have high-speed Internet access at home than Lewis County residents. Some samples would have
Page 32
Jefferson County higher and some would have Lewis County higher. In this case, the researcher could not report with high
levels of confidence that the Jefferson County high-speed Internet access rate is statistically significantly different from the
Lewis County rate. Rather, the difference found between the two counties in the one actually-selected sample of size
n=1,305 local 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 Jefferson County adults are more likely to report high-speed Internet
access at home than Lewis County adults; and further, if every Jefferson County adult were interviewed, we are confident
that the population have high-speed Internet access at home rate among Jefferson County adults would be higher than
the rate among Lewis County adults. One can never be 100% certain (or confident) that the result of a sample will indicate
appropriately whether the population percentages are, in fact, different from one another or not. The interpretation of a
statistically significant difference is that it is so large that there is a probability of less than 5% that this difference occurred
simply due to the random chance of sampling (if one assumes that the population values for the subgroups are, in fact,
equal) instead, it is considered a real difference. In statistical vocabulary and notation, this would be represented as a
p-value of less than 5% (p<0.05).
Often times with survey data, a Chi Square Test is utilized to determine whether an observed difference is or is not
large enough to be a statistically significant difference. An alternative to the use of a traditional Chi Square Test to answer
the question posed above (Is having high-speed Internet access at home significantly related to County i.e. Jefferson
and Lewis Counties differ significantly in their home high-speed Internet access rates?) 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 interest in owning a business is presented in its own table). As a result of approximately
50 outcome variables in this study each cross-tabulated by County of Residence, and within each county cross-tabulated
by all five of the potential explanatory variables of Gender, Age, Education, Military Affiliation, and Income there are well
over 500 cross-tabulation correlational investigation tables included in the Detailed Statistical Results section of this report.
This large number of cross-tabulation tables (combined with the variety of ways that the response distribution for many
survey questions could be collapsed) suggests that an alternative, more versatile, approach to testing for significance in the
cross-tabulation tables is utilized. Therefore, rather than calculating and reporting the results for every cross-tabulation
table, the following method is recommended.
When the reader wishes to determine whether or not an observed difference in a cross-tabulation table is statistically
significant (e.g. Does the 84.2% of the 487 sampled Jefferson County adults who report high-speed Internet access at
home differ significantly from the 70.5% of the 358 sampled Lewis County adults who reported this access?), the following
method is recommended for this Second Biennial Jefferson-Lewis-St. Lawrence County Regional Economic Tracking
Survey:
When the confidence intervals of two estimates of the same indicator from
different areas (or, subgroups) do not overlap, they may be said to be statistically
significantly different, i.e., these differences are unlikely related to chance and are
considered true differences. If there is any value that is included in both intervals,
the two estimates are not statistically significantly different.
In other words, the reader may identify the specific response choice of interest, e.g. is one interested in only
investigating Excellent, or more interested in collapsing the two possible response choices Excellent and Good
together. Or, does one want only to investigate Strongly Agree, or does one prefer to collapse Strongly Agree and
Somewhat Agree together? Then, after observing the sample sizes at the bottom of the cross-tabulation tables, one may
again refer to Table 5 in this study to identify the correct margins of error if estimating proportions (or, percentages or
rates) for subgroups. With these two margins of error, two separate confidence intervals may be constructed, and this
overlap-vs.-non-overlap rule recommended above may be applied to determine whether or not the observed sample
difference between demographic subgroups should be considered statistically significant.
To illustrate with the County and high-speed Internet access at home potential relationship described earlier:
For Jefferson:
n=487, and p=84.2% respond Yes, have access.; therefore from Table 5 the
approximate margin of error is 3.2%. The resulting confidence interval is: 84.2%3.2%,
or (81.0%,87.4%)
Page 33
For Lewis:
n=358, and p=70.5% respond Yes, have access.; therefore from Table 5 the
approximate margin of error is 4.8%. The resulting confidence interval is: 70.5%4.8%,
or (65.7%,75.3%)
Since these two confidence intervals do not overlap, the difference between Jefferson and Lewis Counties is
considered statistically significant. In other words, having high-speed Internet access at home is significantly related to
county, the 13.7% difference in rates found among residents of the two counties (84.2% in Jefferson, only 70.5% in Lewis)
is large enough to be extremely unlikely that it could be explained as due simply to the chance of random sampling with
samples of size 487 and 358, respectively it is a relatively large difference that is very unexpected to occur by random
chance.
Again, keep in mind the difference between the analyses that include all 1,305 sampled residents versus those that
involved questions that were only asked of certain subgroups (e.g. only those who are currently employed asked some
further question). When interpreting the cross-tabulations completed in this study, partitioning the overall sample of n=1,305
by levels of some demographic factors such as Education Level, sample sizes within specific factor/level combinations can
become quite small. With these small sample sizes, extremely large sample differences must be found to be considered
statistically significant (p<0.05).
When possible, comparisons are made between the current results and the results in the 2013 First Biennial
Jefferson-Lewis County Regional Economic Tracking Survey (only completed in Jefferson and Lewis Counties). The
research question that is being investigated in these comparisons is, Has there been a statistically significant change
among the adult residents of a county between 2013 and 2015? Of course, only the questions/items that were also
measured in 2013 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 to observe changes
or trends.
The same concept of statistical significance that was described in the preceding paragraphs about Correlational
Analyses and Cross-tabulations is also applied when a researcher attempts to investigate for whether or not results in
Jefferson or Lewis County have changed significantly over the past two years; however, the focus now becomes, for
example, 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 Perceived importance of construction of additional rental housing in
Jefferson County variable. Reference to Table 7 shows that:
In 2013: n=374 participants, and p=86.9% respond Very or Somewhat Important; therefore from Table 5
the approximate margin of error is 3.6%. The resulting confidence interval is: 86.9%3.6%, or
(83.3%,90.5%)
in 2015: n=488 participants, and p=64.1% respond Very or Somewhat Important; therefore from Table 5
the approximate margin of error is 4.3%. The resulting confidence interval is: 64.1%4.3%, or
(59.8%,68.4%)
Since these two confidence intervals do not overlap, the difference between 2013 and 2015 (the 2-year trend) is
considered statistically significant. In other words, attitudes about the importance of construction of additional rental housing
in Jefferson County have change significantly in the past two years residents now perceive this type of construction as far
less important than they did two years ago in the county.
Finally, the preceding comments regarding statistically significant differences between subgroups are comments
addressing statistical significance which, of course, is not one-and-the-same as practical significance. The reader
should be reminded that statistical significance addresses the concept of probability, as follows is this difference likely to
occur in a sample of size n=1,305 (or, even smaller, at times) if there is no difference in the entire sampled population.
Could the result simply be due to chance? However, practical significance is an interpretation that is left to the subject
area expert, since practical significance addresses the concept of usefulness, as follows is this result useful in the real
world? A difference identified in a sample may be statistically significant without being practically significant; however, a
difference identified in a sample may not be practically significant without being statistically significant.
Please direct any questions regarding margin of error, confidence intervals, other sources of sampling error, tests
of statistical significance, and practical significance to the professional staff at the Center for Community Studies.
Page 34
3.1
PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE
OF POTENTIAL ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
INITIATIVES
Page 35
Table 6
SUMMARY:
Perceived Importance of Seven Potential Economic Development Initiatives
2015 Three-County Combined Regional Results:
2015 County-Specific Results and For Each of Jefferson, Lewis, and St. Lawrence Counties:
Jefferson County Summary:
Lewis County Summary:
St. Lawrence County Summary:
Page 36
Table 7
Perceived Importance of Construction of additional rental housing
County-Specific Results and Trend Analysis Within Each of Jefferson and Lewis Counties:
2015 Results:
2013 Results:
Comparison of Demographic Subgroups Within Each County (using only 2015 data):
Jefferson County Demographic Cross-tabulations:
NOTE: PNA
represents Prefer Not
to Answer (the
participant refused to
disclose military
affiliation)
Page 37
Table 7
(cont.)
Perceived Importance of Construction of additional rental housing
Lewis County Demographic Cross-tabulations:
St. Lawrence County Demographic Cross-tabulations:
Page 38
Table 8
Perceived Importance of New home construction
2015 Results:
2013 Results:
Page 39
Table 8
(cont.)
Perceived Importance of New home construction
Page 40
Table 9
Perceived Importance of Improvement of railways in the region (both freight/passenger)
2015 Results:
2013 Results:
Page 41
Table 9
(cont.)
Perceived Importance of Improvement of railways in the region (both freight/passenger)
Page 42
Table 10 Perceived Importance of Canadian spending in the local region

2015 Results:
2013 Results:
Page 43
Table 10 Perceived Importance of Canadian spending in the local region

(cont.)
Page 44
Perceived Importance of Keeping Northern New York college graduates living
Table 11 and working locally
2015 Results:
2013 Results:
Page 45
Table 11 Perceived Importance of Keeping Northern New York college graduates living
(cont.)
and working locally
Page 46
Perceived Importance of Expanding local businesses that process and/or
Table 12 distribute local agriculture products

2015 Results:
2013 Results:
Page 47
Table 12 Perceived Importance of Expanding local businesses that process and/or

(cont.)
distribute local agriculture products
Page 48
Table 13 Perceived Importance of Expand activities and attractions for more tourism
2015 Results:
2013 Results:
Page 49
Table 13 Perceived Importance of Expand activities and attractions for more tourism
(cont.)
Page 50
How important that these potential economic initiatives be pursued in a "green"
Table 14 or "sustainable" manner?
2015 Results:
2013 Results:
Page 51
Table 14 How important that these potential economic initiatives be pursued in a "green"
(cont.)
or "sustainable" manner?
Page 52
3.2
SATISFACTION WITH
POTENTIAL ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
INITIATIVES
Page 53
SUMMARY:
Table 15 Satisfaction with Four Potential Economic Development Initiatives

Page 54
Table 16 Satisfaction with Availability of rental housing

2015 Results:
2013 Results:
Page 55
Table 16 Satisfaction with Availability of rental housing

(cont.)
Page 56
Satisfaction with Keeping Northern New York college graduates living and
Table 17 working locally
2015 Results:
2013 Results:
Page 57
Table 17 Satisfaction with Keeping Northern New York college graduates living and
(cont.)
working locally
Page 58
Satisfaction with Environmental-related projects such as green energy as part
Table 18 of local development efforts

2015 Results:
2013 Results: Survey question not used.
Page 59
Table 18 Satisfaction with Environmental-related projects such as green energy as part

(cont.)
of local development efforts
Page 60
Satisfaction with Revitalization projects that improve community quality of
Table 19 life
2015 Results:
Page 61
Table 19 Satisfaction with Revitalization projects that improve community quality of

(cont.)
life
Page 62
3.3
SUPPORT FOR NEW LOCAL
BUSINESSES
Page 63
SUMMARY:
Table 20
I'm going to list several types of businesses that could be added locally. Please tell
me whether for each you think it would be a good thing to increase or add locally.
Page 64
Table 21 Bookstores Good thing to increase or add locally?

2015 Results:
2013 Results:
Page 65
Table 21 Bookstores Good thing to increase or add locally?

(cont.)
Page 66
Table 22 Childcare and preschool services Good thing to increase or add locally?
2015 Results:
2013 Results:
Page 67
Table 22 Childcare and preschool services Good thing to increase or add locally?
(cont.)
Page 68
Table 23 Clothing stores Good thing to increase or add locally?

2015 Results:
2013 Results:
Page 69
Table 23 Clothing stores Good thing to increase or add locally?

(cont.)
Page 70
Table 24 Cultural or entertainment facilities Good thing to increase or add locally?

2015 Results:
2013 Results:
Page 71
Table 24 Cultural or entertainment facilities Good thing to increase or add locally?

(cont.)
Page 72
Table 25 Electronics stores Good thing to increase or add locally?

2015 Results:
2013 Results:
Page 73
Table 25 Electronics stores Good thing to increase or add locally?

(cont.)
Page 74
Table 26 Food or grocery stores Good thing to increase or add locally?

2015 Results:
2013 Results:
Page 75
Table 26 Food or grocery stores Good thing to increase or add locally?

(cont.)
Page 76
Table 27 High-speed Internet providers Good thing to increase or add locally?

2015 Results:
2013 Results:
Page 77
Table 27 High-speed Internet providers Good thing to increase or add locally?

(cont.)
Page 78
Table 28 Restaurants Good thing to increase or add locally?

2015 Results:
2013 Results:
Page 79
Table 28 Restaurants Good thing to increase or add locally?

(cont.)
Page 80
Table 29 Sporting goods stores Good thing to increase or add locally?

2015 Results:
2013 Results:
Page 81
Table 29 Sporting goods stores Good thing to increase or add locally?

(cont.)
Page 82
3.4
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Page 83
Do you currently own or operate a business in Jefferson, Lewis, or St.
Table 30 Lawrence County?
2015 Results:
2013 Results:
Page 84
Table 31 How many employees do you have currently? (among those who currently own a business)
2015 Results:
2013 Results:
Page 85
Page 86
many employees have you expanded in the past 12 months? (among those who
Table 32 How
currently own a business)
2015 Results:
Page 87
Page 88
What single change would be necessary for you to expand your business by 2
Table 33 or 3 employees over the next two years? (among those who currently own a business)
2015 Results:
Page 89
Table 33 What single change would be necessary for you to expand your business by 2
(cont.)
or 3 employees over the next two years? (among those who currently own a business)
2013 Results:
Page 90
(cont.)
Page 91
(cont.)
Page 92
What portion of your annual revenue do you believe is accounted for by
Table 34 Canadian spending? (among those who currently own a business)

2015 Results:
Page 93
Table 34 What portion of your annual revenue do you believe is accounted for by
(cont.)
Canadian spending? (among those who currently own a business)
Page 94
Level of interest in owning or operating a business in the North Country within
Table 35 the next three years. (among those who do not currently own a business)
2015 Results:
2013 Results:
Page 95
Table 35 Level of interest in owning or operating a business in the North Country within
(cont.)
the next three years. (among those who do not currently own a business)
Page 96
of business that you would be interested in owning. (among those who do not
Table 36 Type
currently own a business, but are interested in starting a business)
Describe the type of business
that you would be interested in
owning.
Describe the type of business

that you would be interested in
owning.
Frequency
Percentage
Frequency
Percentage
3.9%
Glass Etching
0+
0.0%
0+
0.2%
Greenhouse
1.4%
Art Gallery
0.8%
Hair Salon
0+
0.1%
Automobile Sales
0.6%
Healthcare
0.4%
Automotive/Mechanical Repair
4.2%
Horse Sales
0.4%
Automotive Restoration
1.2%
Landscaping/ Excavating
10
5.7%
Bait Shop
0.4%
Manufacturing HVAC
1.4%
Bakery
3.6%
Marine/Boating
0.6%
Bed and Breakfast
0+
0.2%
Medical Transcription
0.8%
Bookstore
0+
0.3%
Metal Fabrication
0.5%
Boutique
0+
0.2%
Online Business
0.7%
Brewery
2.4%
Pet Care
3.4%
Catering
0+
0.1%
Plumbing and Heating
2.4%
Childcare Services
2.8%
Real Estate
0.8%
Cleaning Business
0+
0.1%
Rebuild Mining Equipment
0.6%
Clothing
0.5%
Restaurant
12
7.1%
Coffee Shop/Caf
4.7%
Retail Dress Store
0.3%
Computer Software Design
0+
0.1%
Retail Sales
0.4%
Construction
10
5.7%
Service Oriented
4.0%
Counseling Service
0.4%
Sewing/Alterations
0+
0.1%
Craft Store
2.4%
Small Trucking
0.6%
Educational Program
0.7%
Snowmobile Sales/Service
0.4%
Electronics Store
4.2%
Solar/Renewable Energy
11
6.1%
0+
0.2%
Sporting Goods
15
8.7%
Firearms Shop
0.7%
Technology
0.9%
Fitness Center
1.3%
Tourism
3.6%
Food Store
0.3%
Welding Shop
0.3%
Food Truck
0+
0.3%
Woodworking
0.7%
4.9%
Writing/Publishing
0+
0.2%
172
100%
Agriculture
Archery Shop
Farm Center
Furniture Store
TOTALS
Page 97
What county do you live in?
Jefferson
Lewis
St. Lawrence
Agriculture
3.5%
6.4%
3.8%
Archery Shop
0.0%
1.9%
0.0%
Art Gallery
2.2%
0.0%
0.0%
Automobile Sales
0.0%
0.0%
1.1%
Automotive/Mechanical Repair
10.1%
0.0%
0.9%
Automotive Restoration
0.0%
0.0%
2.1%
Bait Shop
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Bakery
0.0%
8.1%
5.2%
Bed and Breakfast
0.0%
1.1%
0.3%
Bookstore
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
Boutique
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
Brewery
0.0%
0.0%
4.4%
Catering
0.0%
1.2%
0.0%
Childcare Services
5.6%
2.4%
1.1%
Cleaning Business
0.0%
1.5%
0.0%
Clothing
0.5%
0.0%
0.6%
Coffee Shop/Caf
4.7%
0.0%
5.4%
Computer Software Design
0.0%
1.5%
0.0%
Construction
11.5%
2.3%
2.4%
Counseling Service
1.2%
0.0%
0.0%
Craft Store
4.2%
1.2%
1.4%
Educational Program
0.0%
0.0%
1.2%
Electronics Store
0.0%
0.0%
7.6%
Farm Center
0.0%
2.6%
0.0%
Firearms Shop
0.0%
3.6%
0.7%
Fitness Center
2.6%
0.0%
0.7%
Food Store
0.0%
3.6%
0.0%
Food Truck
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
Furniture Store
0.0%
0.8%
8.7%
Glass Etching
0.0%
0.5%
0.0%
Greenhouse
0.0%
0.0%
2.4%
Hair Salon
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
Healthcare
0.5%
0.0%
0.4%
Horse Sales
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
Landscaping/ Excavating
2.1%
3.6%
8.4%
Manufacturing HVAC
3.8%
0.0%
0.0%
Marine/Boating
1.7%
0.0%
0.0%
Medical Transcription
0.0%
0.0%
1.4%
Page 98
(continued)
What county do you live in?
Jefferson
Lewis
St. Lawrence
Metal Fabrication
1.3%
0.0%
0.0%
Online Business
0.0%
1.0%
1.1%
Pet Care
2.8%
27.7%
0.0%
Plumbing and Heating
4.6%
8.9%
0.0%
Real Estate
0.9%
0.0%
0.9%
Rebuild Mining Equipment
0.0%
0.0%
1.1%
11.7%
4.3%
4.5%
Retail Dress Store
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
Retail Sales
0.0%
5.1%
0.0%
Service Oriented
3.5%
0.8%
4.9%
Sewing/Alterations
0.0%
1.5%
0.0%
Small Trucking
0.0%
0.0%
1.1%
Snowmobile Sales/Service
1.1%
0.0%
0.0%
Solar/Renewable Energy
8.7%
0.0%
5.4%
Sporting Goods
7.6%
0.5%
10.7%
Technology
0.0%
3.6%
1.2%
Tourism
1.1%
0.0%
5.8%
Welding Shop
0.0%
3.4%
0.0%
Woodworking
0.0%
0.0%
1.2%
Writing/Publishing
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
100%
100%
100%
Restaurant
TOTALS
Page 99
to you owning or operating a business in the North Country? (among those

Table 37 Barriers
who do not currently own a business, but are interested in starting a business)
2015 Results:
2013 Results:
Page 100
If there were a business incubator available locally would you be more likely to
Table 38 start your business? (among those who do not currently own a business, but are interested in starting a
business)
2015 Results:
2013 Results:
Page 101
Table 38 If there were a business incubator available locally would you be more likely to
(cont.)
start your business? (among those who do not currently own a business, but are interested in starting a
business)
Page 102
you were to start this business, how many new jobs would it create? (among those
Table 39 If
2015 Results:
2013 Results:
Page 103
Table 39 If you were to start this business, how many new jobs would it create? (among those
(cont.)
Page 104
Table 39 If you were to start this business, how many new jobs would it create? (among those
(cont.)
Page 105
3.5
PASSENGER AIR SERVICE
Page 106
Table 40 How satisfied are you with your access to local passenger air service?
2015 Results:
Page 107
Table 40 How satisfied are you with your access to local passenger air service?
(cont.)
Page 108
Do you more commonly fly out of local airports, or do you more commonly fly
Table 41 out of airports that are not in the three North Country counties?
2015 Results:
Page 109
Table 41 Do you more commonly fly out of local airports, or do you more commonly fly
(cont.)
out of airports that are not in the three North Country counties?
Page 110
3.6
INTERNET ACCESS
Page 111
Table 42 Do you currently have high-speed Internet access at your home?

2015 Results:
Page 112
Table 42 Do you currently have high-speed Internet access at your home?

(cont.)
Page 113
is your primary Internet access provider at home? (among those who have Internet
Table 43 What
access at home)
2015 Results:
Page 114
Table 43 What is your primary Internet access provider at home? (among those who have Internet
(cont.)
access at home)
Page 115
(cont.)
access at home)
Page 116
(cont.)
access at home)
Page 117
Has your home Internet access gotten better, stayed the same, or gotten worse
Table 44 over the past three years? (among those who have Internet access at home)
2015 Results:
Page 118
Table 44 Has your home Internet access gotten better, stayed the same, or gotten worse
(cont.)
over the past three years? (among those who have Internet access at home)
Page 119
3.7
HEALTHCARE ACCESS
Page 120
Table 45 How often do you travel outside of your county for healthcare services?
2015 Results:
Page 121
Table 45 How often do you travel outside of your county for healthcare services?
(cont.)
Page 122
When you do travel for healthcare services, is it to another county outside the
Table 46 Tri-county region? (among those who do travel outside their county for healthcare services)
2015 Results:
Page 123
Table 46 When you do travel for healthcare services, is it to another county outside the
(cont.)
Tri-county region? (among those who do travel outside their county for healthcare services)
Page 124
What healthcare services do you travel outside of the Tri-County region to
Table 47 access? (among those who travel outside the Tri-County region for healthcare services)
Page 125
Table 47 What healthcare services do you travel outside of the Tri-County region to
(cont.)
access? (among those who travel outside the Tri-County region for healthcare services)
2015 Results:
Page 126
(cont.)
Page 127
(cont.)
Page 128
(cont.)
Page 129
3.8
HOUSING AND REAL
ESTATE
Page 130
Table 48 Do you rent or own your home?

2015 Results:
2013 Results:
Page 131
Table 48 Do you rent or own your home?

(cont.)
Page 132
Table 49 How many bedrooms are there in the home or apartment where you now live?
2015 Results:
2013 Results:
Page 133
(cont.)
Page 134
(cont.)
Page 135
Table 50 In the next three years, do you plan to build a new home?
2015 Results:
2013 Results:
Page 136
Table 50 In the next three years, do you plan to build a new home?
(cont.)
Page 137
Table 51 In the next three years, do you plan to buy a new or different existing home?
2015 Results:
2013 Results:
Page 138
Table 51 In the next three years, do you plan to buy a new or different existing home?
(cont.)
Page 139
Do you plan to make any energy-efficient improvements to your home in the
Table 52 next three years? (among current homeowners)

2015 Results:
2013 Results:
Page 140
Table 52 Do you plan to make any energy-efficient improvements to your home in the
(cont.)
next three years? (among current homeowners)
Page 141
In the past year do you think that the market value of your home has increased,
Table 53 decreased, or stayed about the same? (among current homeowners)

2015 Results:
2013 Results:
Page 142
Table 53 In the past year do you think that the market value of your home has increased,
(cont.)
decreased, or stayed about the same? (among current homeowners)
Page 143
3.9
EMPLOYMENT
Page 144
Table 54 Current employment situation

2015 Results:
2013 Results:
Page 145
Table 54 Current employment situation

(cont.)
Page 146
you employed in the three-county North Country region? (among those who are
Table 55 Are
currently employed)
2015 Results:
Page 147
Table 55 Are you employed in the three-county North Country region? (among those who are
(cont.)
currently employed)
Page 148
Table 56 Have you started a new job in the past 12 months? (among those who are currently employed)
2015 Results:
Page 149
Table 56 Have you started a new job in the past 12 months? (among those who are currently employed)
(cont.)
Page 150
Table 57 What industry do you work in? (among those who are currently employed)
2015 Results:
Page 151
(cont.)
Page 152
(cont.)
Page 153
you work for a Canadian or other foreign-owned company? (among those who are
Table 58 Do
currently employed)
2015 Results:
Page 154
Table 58 Do you work for a Canadian or other foreign-owned company? (among those who are
(cont.)
currently employed)
Page 155
Table 59
Do you believe that you have skills, experience, and/or credentials that
surpass what is typically needed for the job that you now have .... in other
words, do you feel that you are now "under-employed"? (among those who are currently
employed)
2015 Results:
2013 Results:
Page 156
Do you believe that you have skills, experience, and/or credentials that
Table 59 surpass what is typically needed for the job that you now have .... in other
(cont.)
words, do you feel that you are now "under-employed"? (among those who are currently
employed)
Page 157
Have you sought employment in the past 12 months but were not able to
Table 60 obtain a job because you did not have the necessary skills or training? (among all
participants)
2015 Results:
Page 158
Table 60 Have you sought employment in the past 12 months but were not able to
(cont.)
obtain a job because you did not have the necessary skills or training? (among all
participants)
Page 159
Table 61 Are you a native of Jefferson, Lewis, or St. Lawrence County? (among all participants)
2015 Results:
Page 160
Table 61 Are you a native of Jefferson, Lewis, or St. Lawrence County? (among all participants)
(cont.)
Page 161
Table 62 What prompted your move to the North Country? (among all participants)
2015 Results:
Page 162
Table 62 What prompted your move to the North Country? (among all participants)
(cont.)
Page 163
Appendix
The Survey
Instrument
Page 164
2nd Biennial Regional Economic Tracking Survey - 2015

Introduction
Hello.Mynameis(firstnameonly),IamastudentatJeffersonCommunityCollege,howareyoudoingthisevening
(afternoon)?Tonight(today)IamcallingfortheCenterforCommunityStudiesatJCC.Wearenotcallingforadonation.
Other
WeareconductingthesecondregionaleconomictrackingsurveyinJefferson,Lewis,andSt.LawrenceCounties.The
goalistogatherinformationfromresidentslikeyouthatcouldbeusefulincreatingmorejobsandeconomicdevelopment
locallyinthefuture.WecompletethissurveyeveryotheryearonbehalfoftheDevelopmentAuthorityoftheNorth
Country.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."
Attitudes About the Local Economy
READTHIS:
Ourfirstfewquestionsareaskingyouropinionsaboutsomepartsofthelocaleconomy.
READ THIS:
I'm going to list several potential local economic development initiatives. For each I'd like
to know HOW IMPORTANT to the local economy you think it is to be further developed ....
is it VERY important, SOMEWHAT important, NOT THAT important, or NOT AT ALL
important that it be developed?
Veryimportant
Somewhat
Notthat
Notatall
important
important
important
Notsure
Q1.Constructionofadditionalrentalhousing
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
Q2.Newhomeconstruction
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
Q3.Improvementofrailwaysintheregion(bothfreight
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Q4.Canadianspendinginthelocalregion
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Q5.KeepingNorthernNewYorkcollegegraduatesliving
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
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
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
andpassenger)
andworkinglocally
Q6.ExpandlocalbusinessesthatPROCESSand/or
DISTRIBUTElocalagricultureproducts(e.g.milkto
yogurtlocalproduce)
Q7.Expandactivitiesandattractionsformoretourism
Page 1

Q8. In general, how important is it to you that these potential economic initiatives just
mentioned be pursued in a "green" or "sustainable" manner? (READ FIRST 4 CHOICES)
j Veryimportant
k
l
m
n
j Somewhatimportant
k
l
m
n
j Notthatimportant
k
l
m
n
j Notatallimportant
k
l
m
n
j Notsure
k
l
m
n
READ THIS:
Other
I'm now going to list four local economic development initiatives and for each I'd like to
know YOUR CURRENT LEVEL OF SATISFACTION with that initiative in your county ....
would you rate each as EXCELLENT, GOOD, FAIR, or POOR?
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Notsure
Q9.Availabilityofrentalhousing
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Q10.KeepingNorthernNewYorkcollegegraduates
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
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
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
livingandworkinglocally.
Q11.Environmentalrelatedprojectssuchas"green
energy"aspartoflocaldevelopmentefforts
Q12.Revitalizationprojectsthatimprovecommunity
qualityoflife.(ifasked:"forexample,Downtown
RedevelopmentoftheMercySiteinWatertown,or
SinglefamilyhousingrenovationsintheCityof
Ogdensburg,ortheLyonsFallsRedevelopmentinLewis
County")
Needed Local Businesses
Page 2

READ THIS:
I'm now going to list several types of businesses that COULD be added locally. Please tell
me whether for each you think it would be a GOOD THING TO INCREASE OR ADD
LOCALLY. Please respond with DEFINITELY YES, MAYBE, or DEFINITELY NO. Should
there be more ...
DefinitelyYes
Maybe
DefinitelyNo
Notsure
Q13.Bookstores
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Q14.Childcareandpreschoolservices
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Q15.Clothingstores
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Q16.Culturalorentertainmentfacilities
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Q17.Electronicsstores
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Q18.Food,orgrocery,stores
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Q19.HighspeedInternetproviders.
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Q20.Restaurants
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Q21.Sportinggoodsstores
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Entreprenuership Interest & Barriers
READTHIS:
Next,weareinterestedinyourviewsaboutlocallyownedbusinesses.
Q22. Do you currently own or operate a business in Jefferson, Lewis, or St. Lawrence
County?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
If already an entreprenuer:
j No
k
l
m
n
Q23. How many employees do you have currently, including yourself and any full or part
time employees?
j 1
k
l
m
n
j 2
k
l
m
n
j 3
k
l
m
n
j 4
k
l
m
n
j 5
k
l
m
n
j 610
k
l
m
n
j 1120
k
l
m
n
j 2130
k
l
m
n
Ifmorethan30employees,howmany?
Page 3

Q24. How many employees have you added or expanded by in the past 12 months?
j None,havenotadded.
k
l
m
n
j 1
k
l
m
n
j 2
k
l
m
n
j 3
k
l
m
n
j 4
k
l
m
n
j 5
k
l
m
n
j 610
k
l
m
n
j 1120
k
l
m
n
j 2130
k
l
m
n
Ifmorethan30employees,howmany?
Q25. What SINGLE change would be necessary for you to expand your business by 2 or 3
employees over the next two years?
("Openended" DO NOT read the entire list, ONLY read some items on the list IF ASKED
to do so)
j Notsure
k
l
m
n
j Availabilityofaffordablespaceatadesirablelocation.
k
l
m
n
j Lowerbusinesstaxes.
k
l
m
n
j Accesstocredit.
k
l
m
n
j Moreskilledlaboravailable.
k
l
m
n
j Moretechnicalsupportservicesavailable.(includesSBDC)
k
l
m
n
j ImprovedbroadbandorhighspeedInternetaccess.
k
l
m
n
j Lowerutilityrates.
k
l
m
n
j Moresales.
k
l
m
n
Other
j Governmentfinancialassistance/incentives.
k
l
m
n
j Other(pleasespecify)
k
l
m
n
j Lowerlabor/benefitscosts.
k
l
m
n
j Nothingcouldcausemetoadd23employees.
k
l
m
n
5
6
Q26. What portion of your annual revenue do you believe is accounted for by Canadian
spending? (READ the first 6 choices)
j None
k
l
m
n
j Lessthan
k
l
m
n
j 11%30%
k
l
m
n
10%
If not already an entreprenuer:
j 31%50%
k
l
m
n
j 51%75%
k
l
m
n
j Morethan
k
l
m
n
j Notsure
k
l
m
n
75%
Page 4

Q27. We would like to know your level of interest in owning or operating a business in the
North Country within the next three years. Which of the following best describes your
situation? (READ FIRST FOUR CHOICES)
j You'dliketoBUYanexistingbusiness.
k
l
m
n
j You'dliketostartaNEWbusiness.
k
l
m
n
j Youmaybeinterested,butarenotsure.
k
l
m
n
j Youarenotinterested.
k
l
m
n
Among those who do not own a business, but want to.
Q28. Please briefly describe the type of business that you would be interested in owning.
5
6
Q29. Which of the following do you consider as barriers to you owning or operating a
business in Jefferson, Lewis, or St. Lawrence County? (READ THE LIST, check all that
apply)
c NeedimprovedbroadbandorhighspeedInternetaccess.
d
e
f
g
c Needmoreskilledlaboravailable.
d
e
f
g
c Needlowerlabor/benefitscost.
d
e
f
g
c Needgovernmentfinancialassistance/incentives.
d
e
f
g
c Needlowerbusinesstaxes.
d
e
f
g
Other
c Needeasieraccesstocredit.
d
e
f
g
c Notalargeenoughmarketexists.
d
e
f
g
c Needaffordablespaceatadesirablelocation.
d
e
f
g
c "ThereareNObarriers"
d
e
f
g
c Needmoresupportservices.
d
e
f
g
c Needlowerutilityrates.
d
e
f
g
c Notsure
d
e
f
g
c Other(pleasespecify)
d
e
f
g
5
6
Page 5

Q30. If there were a business incubator available locally that provided affordable space,
access to shared amenities, technical advice, and support .... would you be more likely to
start your business?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j Maybe
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
j Don'tknow
k
l
m
n
Q31. If you were to start this business, how many new jobs would it create, including both
full and part time employees, including yourself?
j 1
k
l
m
n
j 2
k
l
m
n
j 3
k
l
m
n
j 4
k
l
m
n
j 5
k
l
m
n
j 610
k
l
m
n
j 1120
k
l
m
n
j 2130
k
l
m
n
j Notsure
k
l
m
n
Ifmorethan30,howmany?
Local Passenger Air Service
READTHIS:
Nextwehavetwoquestionsaboutlocalpassengerairservice.
Q32. How satisfied are you with your access to local passenger air service? (READ FIRST
4 CHOICES)
j VerySatisfied
k
l
m
n
j SomewhatSatisfied
k
l
m
n
j ALittleSatisfied
k
l
m
n
j NotSatisfiedAtAll
k
l
m
n
j NotSure
k
l
m
n
Q33. Do you more commonly fly out of local airports, or do you more commonly fly out of
airports that are not in the three North Country counties?
j LocalAirportsMoreCommonly
k
l
m
n
j AirportsOutsideJefferson,Lewis,andSt.LawrenceCountiesMoreCommonly
k
l
m
n
j EquallyLocallyandNotLocally
k
l
m
n
j Idonotflyever.
k
l
m
n
j Don'tknow
k
l
m
n
Type Internet Access
READTHIS:
NextweareinterestedinyourthoughtsaboutInternetaccesslocally.
Page 6

Q34. Do you currently have highspeed Internet access at your home?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No(Ihavedialupaccess.)
k
l
m
n
j No(IhavenoInternet
k
l
m
n
j Don'tknow
k
l
m
n
accessathome)
Among those with HighSpeed Internet access at home:
Q35. What is your primary Internet access provider at home? The provider you use most
commonly.
j TimeWarner
k
l
m
n
j Verizon
k
l
m
n
j Frontier
k
l
m
n
j TMobile
k
l
m
n
j Sprint
k
l
m
n
j Westelcom
k
l
m
n
j Citizens
k
l
m
n
j ATT
k
l
m
n
j RidgeviewTelephone
k
l
m
n
j Village/Town/MunicipalWiFi
k
l
m
n
j NotSure
k
l
m
n
j NicholvilleTelephone
k
l
m
n
j CastleCable
k
l
m
n
k
l
m
n
Back to All Participants
Q36. Has your home Internet access gotten better, stayed the same, or gotten worse over
the past three years?
j Better
k
l
m
n
j Same
k
l
m
n
Healthcare Access
j Worse
k
l
m
n
j Don'tknow
k
l
m
n
j Notapplicable
k
l
m
n
READTHIS:
Wenowareinterestedinsomeofyouropinionsabouthealthcareaccesslocally.
Q37. How often do you travel outside of your county for healthcare services? (READ ONLY
FIRST 5 CHOICES ALOUD)
j Never
k
l
m
n
j Rarely
k
l
m
n
j Mostofthetime
k
l
m
n
j Someofthetime
k
l
m
n
j Allofthetime
k
l
m
n
j Don'tknow
k
l
m
n
Among those who do travel for healthcare services:
Page 7

Q38. When you do travel for healthcare services, is it to another county OUTSIDE the
Jefferson, Lewis, and St. Lawrence County region?
j Yes,always.
k
l
m
n
j Yes,sometimes,
k
l
m
n
If travel outside TriCounty Region:
j No.
k
l
m
n
j Notsure.
k
l
m
n
Q39. What healthcare services do you travel outside of the TriCounty region to access? (if
"SURGERY" or "INPATIENT" prompt for what type? Check all that are mentioned.)
c PrimaryCare
d
e
f
g
c CancerTreatment
d
e
f
g
c EmergencyRoomCare
d
e
f
g
c OutpatientSurgery
d
e
f
g
c Cardiology
d
e
f
g
c Neurology
d
e
f
g
c InPatientMedicalCare(admitted)
d
e
f
g
c WomensHealthServices
d
e
f
g
c MentalHealthServices
d
e
f
g
c Dermatology
d
e
f
g
c Gastroenterology
d
e
f
g
c NotSure
d
e
f
g
c OrthopedicservicesincludingPhysicalTherapy
d
e
f
g
c Other(pleasespecify)
d
e
f
g
c CardiacSurgery
d
e
f
g
c InPatientSurgery(admitted)
d
e
f
g
Housing and Real Estate
READTHIS:
Nextwearehopingtolearnmoreabouthomesandhousinglocallyasanothersetofeconomicindicatorsforourregion.
Q40. Do you rent or own your home?

j Rent
k
l
m
n
j Own
k
l
m
n
Homeowners:
j Neither
k
l
m
n
j Refused
k
l
m
n
Q41. Do you plan to make any energyefficient improvements to your home in the next
THREE years? (examples: windows, insulation, lighting, appliances)
j Definitelyyes
k
l
m
n
j Maybe
k
l
m
n
j Definitelyno
k
l
m
n
j Don'tknow
k
l
m
n
Page 8

Q42. In the PAST YEAR do you think that the market value of your home has increased,
decreased, or stayed about the same?
j Increased
k
l
m
n
j Decreased
k
l
m
n
j Same
k
l
m
n
Back to both renters and owners:
j Don'tknow
k
l
m
n
Q43. How many bedrooms are there in the home or apartment where you now live?
j 1
k
l
m
n
j 2
k
l
m
n
j 3
k
l
m
n
j 4
k
l
m
n
j 5
k
l
m
n
j 6
k
l
m
n
j 7
k
l
m
n
j 8
k
l
m
n
j 9
k
l
m
n
j 10+
k
l
m
n
Which of the following do you plan to do in the NEXT THREE YEARS regarding your
housing? In the next three years do you plan to ....
Definitelyyes
Maybe
Definitelyno
Don'tknow
Q44.Buildanewhome?
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Q45.Buyanewordifferentexistinghome?
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Demographics Education & Training
READTHIS:
Asweapproachtheendofthissurvey,wearenowinterestedintheeducationlevelsandemploymentstatusesofNorth
Countryadults.
*Q46. What is the highest level of formal education that you have completed?
j Highschool(orless)
k
l
m
n
j Associatedegree
k
l
m
n
j Technicalschool(afterhighschool)
k
l
m
n
j Somecollegecourses,nodegree
k
l
m
n
j Bachelor'sdegree
k
l
m
n
j Graduatedegree
k
l
m
n
Q47. What is your current employment situation? Are you ... (read the list of choices)
j Retired
k
l
m
n
j Disabled
k
l
m
n
j Unemployed(lessthan1year)
k
l
m
n
j Fulltimeemployed
k
l
m
n
j Unemployed(morethan1year)
k
l
m
n
j Parttimeemployed
k
l
m
n
j Homemaker
k
l
m
n
Other(pleasespecify)
Page 9

Demographics Among Those Currently Employed
Q48. Are you employed in the threecounty North Country region?
j Yes,entirely.
k
l
m
n
j Yes,partofmy
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
j Notsure
k
l
m
n
employment.
Q49. Have you started a new job in the past 12 months?

j Yes,anditismyonlyjob.
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
j Yes,anditisasecondoradditionaljob.
k
l
m
n
j Notsure
k
l
m
n
Q50. What industry do you work in? (READ CHOICES, SELECT PRIMARY CHOICE
INDICATED)
j Healthcare
k
l
m
n
j Government
k
l
m
n
j Manufacturing
k
l
m
n
j Agriculture
k
l
m
n
j Tourism
k
l
m
n
j Retail
k
l
m
n
j Education
k
l
m
n
k
l
m
n
j Notsure
k
l
m
n
Q51. Do you work for a Canadian or other foreignowned company?

j Yes,Canadianowned.
k
l
m
n
j Yes,otherforeignowned.
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
j Notsure
k
l
m
n
Q52. Do you believe that you have skills, experience, and/or credentials that SURPASS
what is typically needed for the job that you now have .... in other words, do you feel that
you are now "underemployed"?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
Demographics Back To Everybody
j Notsure
k
l
m
n
Q53. Have you sought employment in the past 12 months but were not able to obtain a job
because you did not have the necessary skills or training?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
j Notsure
k
l
m
n
Demographics Other than Education and Employment
READTHIS:
Finally,tohelpusbestunderstandandusethedatacollectedinthisstudy,wehaveafewstandarddemographic
Page 10

questionsforadultsinourregion.
*Q54. I'm going to read you some categories of age, 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
Q55. Which of the following best describes your household regarding affiliation with the
military? (Read first 4 choices)
j ThereisatleastonepersonlivinginmyhouseholdnowwhoisACTIVEmilitary.
k
l
m
n
j I,orwe,wereFORMERLYinthemilitaryatFortDrumandchosetostayintheNorthernNewYorkregiontolive.
k
l
m
n
j Nopersoninourhouseholdisactiveorretiredmilitary,butourresidencehereisduetoemploymentat,ordirectlyRELATEDTO,Fort
k
l
m
n
Drum.
j IhaveNOTHADANYEMPLOYMENTCONNECTIONtothemilitarywhileinNorthernNewYork.
k
l
m
n
k
l
m
n
5
6
*Q56. What county do you live in?

j Jefferson
k
l
m
n
j Lewis
k
l
m
n
j St.Lawrence
k
l
m
n
Page 11

Q57. In what township or village do you reside?
j JEFFERSON:
k
l
m
n
j Harrisburg(town)
k
l
m
n
j Adams(AdamsCenter)
k
l
m
n
j Lewis(town)
k
l
m
n
Landing,Plessis,Redwood,WellesleyIsland)
j Champion(Deferiet,GreatBend,West
k
l
m
n
j Clayton(Depauville,GrindstoneIsland)
k
l
m
n
j Henderson(HendersonHarbor)
k
l
m
n
j Montague(town)
k
l
m
n
j Osceola(town)
k
l
m
n
j Hounsfield(SacketsHarbor,Sulfur
k
l
m
n
j LeRay(Calcium,EvansMills,FortDrum)
k
l
m
n
j Lyme(ThreeMileBay,Chaumont)
k
l
m
n
j Orleans(Fineview,FishersLanding,
k
l
m
n
LaFargeville,ThousandIslandPark)
j Theresa(Lakes)
k
l
m
n
Bridge)
j
k
l
m
n
j LEWIS:
k
l
m
n
j Turin(village)
k
l
m
n
j Watson(town)
k
l
m
n
j Canton(Town)
k
l
m
n
j Castorland(village)
k
l
m
n
j Constableville(village)
k
l
m
n
j Pitcairn(Town)
k
l
m
n
j Fowler(Town)
k
l
m
n
j Potsdam(Town)
k
l
m
n
j RensselaerFalls(Village)
k
l
m
n
j Richville(Village)
k
l
m
n
j Rossie(Town)
k
l
m
n
j Russell(Town)
k
l
m
n
j Stockholm(Town)
k
l
m
n
j Potsdam(Village)
k
l
m
n
j Piercefield(Town)
k
l
m
n
j Pierrepont(Town)
k
l
m
n
j Parishville(Town)
k
l
m
n
j DeKalb(Town)
k
l
m
n
j Oswegatchie(Town)
k
l
m
n
j Clifton(Town)
k
l
m
n
j Fine(Town)
k
l
m
n
j Morristown(Village)
k
l
m
n
j Ogdensburg(City)
k
l
m
n
j Edwards(Town)
k
l
m
n
j Norwood(Village)
k
l
m
n
j Edwards(Village)
k
l
m
n
j Norfolk(Town)
k
l
m
n
j DePeyster(Town)
k
l
m
n
j Morristown(Town)
k
l
m
n
j Colton(Town)
k
l
m
n
j Wilna(Carthage,Croghan,Natural
k
l
m
n
j Massena(Town)
k
l
m
n
j Clare(Town)
k
l
m
n
j Madrid(Town)
k
l
m
n
j Canton(Village)
k
l
m
n
j CityofWatertown
k
l
m
n
j Macomb(Town)
k
l
m
n
j PortLeyden(village)
k
l
m
n
j Brasher(Town)
k
l
m
n
j Louisville(Town)
k
l
m
n
j Massena(Village)
k
l
m
n
j ST.LAWRENCE
k
l
m
n
j TownofWatertown(Burrville)
k
l
m
n
j WestTurin(town)
k
l
m
n
j Rutland(BlackRiver,FeltsMills)
k
l
m
n
Worth
j Turin(town)
k
l
m
n
j Rodman
k
l
m
n
j Lisbon(Town)
k
l
m
n
j Pinckney(town)
k
l
m
n
Springs,Smithville)
j Lawrence(Town)
k
l
m
n
j NewBremen(town)
k
l
m
n
j Hopkinton(Town)
k
l
m
n
j Heuvelton(Village)
k
l
m
n
j Martinsburg(town)
k
l
m
n
PierrepontManor,Woodville)
j Philadelphia
k
l
m
n
j Lyonsdale(town)
k
l
m
n
j Ellisburg(Belleville,Mannsville,
k
l
m
n
j Pamelia
k
l
m
n
j Hermon(Town)
k
l
m
n
j LyonsFalls(village)
k
l
m
n
Carthage)
j Lorraine
k
l
m
n
j Lowville(town)
k
l
m
n
j Hammond(Town)
k
l
m
n
j Hermon(Village)
k
l
m
n
j Lowville(village)
k
l
m
n
j Leyden(town)
k
l
m
n
j Brownville(Dexter,GlenPark)
k
l
m
n
j CapeVincent
k
l
m
n
j Hammond(Village)
k
l
m
n
j Harrisville(village)
k
l
m
n
j Alexandria(AlexandriaBay,Collins
k
l
m
n
j Antwerp(Oxbow)
k
l
m
n
j Waddington(Village)
k
l
m
n
Page 12

j Copenhagen(village)
k
l
m
n
j Croghan(town)
k
l
m
n
j Denmark(town)
k
l
m
n
j Greig(town)
k
l
m
n
j Gouverneur(Village)
k
l
m
n
j Croghan(village)
k
l
m
n
j Diana(town)
k
l
m
n
j Gouverneur(Town)
k
l
m
n
j Waddington(Town)
k
l
m
n
j Notsure
k
l
m
n
Q58. Are you a native of Jefferson, Lewis, or St. Lawrence County? (if asked: "born and/or
raised there")
j Jefferson
k
l
m
n
j Lewis
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
j Notsure
k
l
m
n
j St.Lawrence
k
l
m
n
Nonnatives What attracted you here?
Q59. What prompted your move to the North Country?

c Military
d
e
f
g
c College
d
e
f
g
c AJob
d
e
f
g
c PerceivedQualityofLife
d
e
f
g
c Spouse/Partner
d
e
f
g
c Notsure
d
e
f
g
Final Demographics
Q60. Next, I'm going to read you some categories of annual household income, please
stop me when I get to the category in which the annual income of your household falls.
j Upto$10,000
k
l
m
n
j $10,000$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 Don'tknow
k
l
m
n
j Refused
k
l
m
n
*Q61. If you don't mind me asking .... what is your gender?

j Male
k
l
m
n
j Female
k
l
m
n
Page 13
*READ THIS:
Finally, to help us best understand the accuracy of the sample we are selecting we have
two questions for you about the phone on which you are now speaking.
Q62. Is the phone you are now on a cell phone or a landline?
j Landline
k
l
m
n
j Cell
k
l
m
n
*Q63. Which of the following best describes your current 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
Concluding Comments and "Thank you."
Thankyouverymuchforhelpingusoutthisevening.Theresultswillbereleasedtothecommunityinlatesummer.Ifyou
haveanyquestions,pleasecontactDr.RaymondPetersen,DirectoroftheCenterforCommunityStudies,3157862223
orrpetersen@sunyjefferson.edu.Haveagreatevening.
Bookeeping
*Phone Number Called:
*Interviewer name:
6
Any important observations or comments about this interview that Dr. Petersen and/or Mr.
LaLone and/or Mr. Danforth should know, enter here. (Complaints? Comments?
Compliments? Interesting participants? Difficulties?)
5
Page 14

Regional Economic Tracking Survey

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Regional Economic Tracking 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

1.4 Demographics of the Sample Who was Interviewed?........................ 10

Section 2 Summary of Study Findings.................. 15

Section 3 Detailed Statistical Results .................................... 25

3.0 Technical Comments to Assist Interpretation of the Data.................... 28

3.1 Attitudes about the Local Economy Perceived Importance of

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

3.2 Attitudes about the Local Economy Satisfaction with Potential

3.3 Support for New Local Businesses............................ 63

3.5 Passenger Air Service............................................................................ 106

3.6 Internet Access....................................................................................... 111

3.7 Healthcare Access.................................................................................. 120

3.8 Housing and Real Estate....... 130

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

3.9 Employment............................................................................................ 144

Appendix The Survey Instrument.......................................... 164

The Development Authority of the North Country:

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

The Second Biennial

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

Response Rates for the 2nd Biennial Jefferson-Lewis-St. Lawrence County

Response rates for LANDLINES & CELL

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

Demographics of the Study Sample for the 2nd Biennial Jefferson-Lewis-St.

St. Lawrence County

18-29 years of age

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

Demographics of the Study Sample for the 2nd Biennial Jefferson-Lewis-St.

St. Lawrence County

High School Graduate (or less)

Less than $25,000

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

St. Lawrence County

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

2.1 PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE OF POTENTIAL

2. Economic development being completed in a green or sustainable manner continues to be very

2.2 SATISFACTION WITH POTENTIAL

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

2.3 SUPPORT FOR NEW LOCAL BUSINESSES

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

2.5 PASSENGER AIR SERVICE

2.6 INTERNET ACCESS

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

2.7 HEALTHCARE ACCESS

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

2.8 HOUSING AND REAL ESTATE

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College