2015 Jefferson County quality of life survey

Presentation of Results:

Sixteenth Annual

JEFFERSON COUNTY

Survey of the Community

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

Dr. Raymond Petersen, Director Mr. Joel LaLone, Research Coordinator

April 2015


Presentation of Results Sixteenth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community April 2015 Page 1

Table of Contents

Section 1 Introduction.................................................................5

Section 1.1 Methodology How These Data Were Collected............................ 5 Table 1 Response Rates for the 16th Annual Jefferson County Survey.............................................................................. 6

Section 1.2 Demographics of the sample Who was Interviewed?................... 6 Table 2 Demographics of the April 2015 Jefferson County Sample.................................................................................... 7 Table 3 Geographic Distribution of Participants in the 16th Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community............ 8 Table 4 Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes .......................................................................................................... 10

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

Section 2.1 Highlights Five Study Findings of Particular Interest................ 11

Section 2.2 Quality of Life in Jefferson County................................................. 14 Table 5 Summary of Nineteen Key Quality-of-Life Community Indicators (2015 and Recent Results)............................ 14

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

Section 2.4 K-12 Education...............................................................................17

Section 2.5 Healthcare and the Affordable Care Act................... 17

Section 2.6 Fort Drum Presence and Impact in Jefferson County............. 18

Section 2.7 Watertown International Airport................................ 18

Section 2.8 Local Charitable Organization Issues................19

Section 2.9 Government and Political Issues............ 19

Section 2.10 Familiarity with the Center for Community Studies....... 19

Section 3 Detailed Statistical Results .....................................20 Table 6 Sample Sizes for Each of Sixteen Years of the Jefferson County Annual Survey................................................20 Table 7 Sample Size and Margin of Error for Common Demographic Subgroups to be compared in 2015..................... 21

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

Section 3.1 Quality of Life in Jefferson County 16-Year Trends in Responses...23

Table 8 Trends in Issues in Jefferson County Years 2000-2015 % Indicating Excellent or Good......................... 23 Table 9 Trends in Issues in Jefferson County Years 2000-2015 % Indicating Poor............................................... 23

Section 3.2 Quality of Life in Jefferson County Detailed Investigation of 2015 Results...24

Table 10 SUMMARY Quality of Life Issues in Jefferson County Year 2015............................................................... 24 Figure 1 Most Positively Perceived Quality-of-Life Indicators % Excellent or Good (current, and recent trend).................... 25 Figure 2 Most Negatively Perceived Quality-of-Life Indicators % Poor (current, and recent trend)......................................... 25 Table 11 Opportunities for Youth...................................................................................................................................... 26 Table 12 Cultural/Entertainment Opportunities................................................................................................................. 27

Table 13 Cost of Energy.................................................................................................................................................... 28 Table 14 Healthcare Access.............................................................................................................................................. 29 Table 15 Healthcare Quality ............................................................................................................................................. 30 Table 16 Access to Higher Education............................................................................................................................... 31



Table 17 Recreational Opportunities................................................................................................................................. 32 Table 18 Quality of the Environment................................................................................................................................. 33 Table 19 Local Government.............................................................................................................................................. 34 Table 20 Real Estate Taxes ............................................................................................................................................. 35 Table 21 The Downtown of Watertown............................................................................................................................. 36 Table 22 Policing and Crime Control................................................................................................................................. 37 Table 23 Availability of Good Jobs.................................................................................................................................... 38 Table 24 Shopping Opportunities ..................................................................................................................................... 39 Table 25 Quality of K-12 Education .................................................................................................................................. 40 Table 26 Overall State of the Local Economy................................................................................................................... 41 Table 27 Overall Quality of Life in the Area ...................................................................................................................... 42 Table 28 Availability of Care for the Elderly ...................................................................................................................... 43 Table 29 Availability of Housing................................................................................... 44 Table 30 The largest issue facing our nation right now............................................... 45

Section 3.3 The Local Economy Personal Financial Situations..................... 48 Table 31 Employment Status, or Occupation.................................................................................................................... 48 Table 32 When considering your familys personal financial situation- has it gotten better, stayed about the same, or gotten worse in the past 12 months?.............................................................................................................. 50

Section 3.4 K-12 Education.............................................................................. 51 Table 33 Jefferson County schools are adequately preparing our youth for the technology/economy of the future...... 51 Table 34 Who do you trust more to improve K-12 education in New York State, Governor Cuomo or the teachers' unions?........ 52

Section 3.5 Healthcare and the Affordable Care Act........................................ 53 Table 35 Which of the following most closely describes your opinion about the Affordable Care Act?............................ 53 Table 36 How has the Affordable Care Act affected the healthcare of you and your family, more positively or negatively?.......................................................................................................................................................... 54 Table 37 Do you currently have health insurance?........................................................................................................... 55 Table 38 In the past 12 months have you not obtained needed medical treatment because of cost?............................ 56

Section 3.6 Fort Drum Presence and Impact in Jefferson County.. 57 Table 39 Presence of Fort Drum have a positive effect on your familys employment or financial situation?................... 57 Table 40 Presence of Fort Drum improves the overall quality of life for local residents?.................................................. 58 Table 41 If Fort Drum were to drastically reduce in size, would you continue to live in Jefferson County?...................... 59

Section 3.7 Watertown International Airport................................ 60 Table 42 Are you aware that there is an airport that passengers can fly in and out of in Watertown called the Watertown International Airport?........................................................................................................................ 60 Table 43 Are you aware that there are daily flights for passengers from Watertown to the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

airport for connecting flights to other locations?................................................................................................. 61 Table 44 How often have you flown out of the Watertown airport?................................................................................... 62 Table 45 How important do you think that having air transportation in Watertown is to the quality of life in the county?.. 63

Section 3.8 Local Charitable Organization Issues................64 Table 46 Estimate how many hours per month that you volunteer for community service activities.... 64 Table 47 Do you have a will?............................................................................................................................................. 66 Table 48 Have you included a local charitable organization as a beneficiary in your will?................................................ 67 Table 49 Have you or anyone in your immediate family ever used the services of Hospice of Jefferson County?.......... 68

Section 3.9 Government and Political Issues....................................................69 Table 50 How would you classify your political beliefs?................................................................................................ 69 Table 51 How would you rate the job that Andrew Cuomo is doing as Governor of New York State?............................. 71

Section 3.10 Familiarity with the Center for Community Studies...................... 72 Table 52 Have you ever heard of the Center for Community Studies?............................................................................. 72

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

Appendix Technical Comments Assistance in Interpretation of the Statistical Results................. 74



Table 53 Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes ....................................................................................................... 75 Table 54 More Detailed Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes and Varying Sample Proportions............................ 76

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

Acknowledgements

Sponsors of the 16th Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community:

Student Associates who worked on this study:

Faculty Supervisors:

Mr. Joel LaLone .....................................................................................Professor of Mathematics and Research Coordinator for the Center for Community Studies Mr. Lawrence Danforth .................................................................. Assistant Professor of Mathematics Mr. Michael K. White ..................................................................................... Professor of Mathematics Dr. Raymond Petersen ..................................................................... Professor of Political Science and

Director of the Center for Community Studies

Morou Amidou

Jillian Grady Mark Patrick Ashley Bastien

Cricket Gray Tammy Patterson

Jennifer Bell

Kierstin Hall Lindsay Paulin Heidi Beuttenmuller

Jonathan Hamilton Jared Pignone

E. Adelle Blake

Jessica Hawk Nola Pominville Michelle Bourgal

Kyle Hedger Jason Reape

Robert Breckenridge

Victoria Holmes Cayla Ross Brianna Brizuela

William Johnson Alanna Savage

Megan Bush

Taylor Jones Emily Schenck Aliza Canell

Brooke LaLone Ryan Shippee

Joyoti Choudhury

Trevor Lehman Margery Skilinski Charmaine Conklin

Mason Maitland Lexi Smith

Patrick Crane

Michaela McCargar Grant Spence Victoria Cummins

Kristin McGraw Kristen Stone

Justin Davis Merritt Meeks Rachael Waite Clarissa Flaherty

Brooke Minnick James Wakeman

Jose Garcia Bailey Muntz Grace Wallace Rachel Gardner Honey Nohle Stephanie Weston Thomas Gitlin Kirsten Osburn Antonette Young Jessica Goutremout



The Advisory Board of the Center for Community Studies:

Dennis Affinati Tracy Leonard Donald Alexander Michael MacKinnon Bruce Armstrong Carole McCoy Mary Corriveau Carl McLaughlin John W. Deans Ray Petersen Frank Doldo Lisa Porter Tom Finch Lynn Sprott Fred Garry Daniel Villa Joel LaLone Eric Virkler

For more information, please contact The Center for Community Studies at (315)-786-2264

for additional information.

The report is available free online at www.sunyjefferson.edu/community-business/center-community-studies


1220 Coffeen Street Watertown, New York 13601

E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.sunyjefferson.edu/community-business/center-community-studies



The Sixteenth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community

Based on 400 telephone interviews conducted April 6 April 16, 2015

Section 1 Introduction

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College was established in October 1999, to engage in a variety of community-building and community-based research activities and to promote the productive discussion of ideas and issues of significance to our region. In collaboration with community partners, the Center conducts research that will benefit the local population, and engages in activities that reflect its commitment to enhancing the quality of life of the area.

The annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community is one specific activity conducted each year by the Center to gauge the attitudes and opinions of a representative sample of Jefferson County adult citizens. This activity results in a yearly updated inventory of the attitudes and opinions of adult citizens of Jefferson County. This survey in Jefferson County has been completed each of the sixteen years, 2000 through 2015.

This document is a summary of the results of the Sixteenth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community, including comparisons with the results of the survey from its first fifteen years. Further, the key community demographic characteristics of Gender, Age, Education Level, Military Affiliation, and Household Income Level are investigated as potential explanatory variables that may be correlated with quality-of-life indicators for the region, using the 2015 survey results. It is standard methodology with professional surveys to provide this more detailed information to the reader information that may assist in explaining the overall findings by reporting the results for all subgroups within these key demographic variables. The results provide important information annually about contemporary thinking of citizens; and, over time, will continue to provide important baseline and comparative information as well.

Section 1.1 Methodology How These Data Were Collected

The original survey instrument used in the annual survey of the community was constructed in Spring 2000 by a team of Jefferson Community College faculty. The instrument is modified each year by the Center for Community Studies, with input from its staff and Advisory Board, community leaders, and students employed at the Center throughout the current academic year, to include new questions of relevance to local organizations, agencies, and residents. There is a core set of approximately 30 questions that have been asked every year since 2000.

The primary goal of the Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community is to collect data regarding quality-of-life issues of importance to the local citizens. A secondary goal is to provide a very real, research-based, learning experience for undergraduate students enrolled at Jefferson. In accomplishing this second goal, students are involved in all aspects of the research, from question formation to data collection (interviewing), to data entry and cleansing, to data analysis. The students analyze the data collected in this study annually as assignments in statistics classes. However, all final responsibility for question-phrasing, question-inclusion versus omission, final data analysis, and reporting of findings lies exclusively with the professional staff of the Center. The discussions that lead to the inclusion of questions at times arise from classroom discussions involving students and Center staff. The decision to include any question as a legitimate and meaningful part of an annual survey, however, is made exclusively by the Center. Similarly, data analysis of the information collected through the annual survey will transpire with faculty and students in the classrooms at Jefferson, however, any statistical analysis reported in this document has been completed by the professional staff of the Center. Copies of the introductory script and survey instrument are attached as an appendix.

This study in 2015 included completing interviews of 400 Jefferson County adult residents. All interviews were completed via telephone. The goal before commencing the data collection was to complete at least 30% of the interviews on cellular phones, and the remaining at most 70% of the interviews completed on landlines, with a total goal of approximately 400 completed interviews. To be eligible to complete the survey, the resident was required to be at least 18 years old. To complete the landline portion of the sampling, two thousand personal residence telephone numbers were randomly selected from the population of approximately 30,000 personal residence telephone numbers in Jefferson County. These numbers were obtained from Accudata America, a subsidiary of Primis, Inc. Accudata America is a firm that specializes in providing contact information for residents of the United States. The telephone numbers were obtained



from an unscrubbed list, ensuring that individuals whose households are included in the telemarketing do-not-call list would be represented in this study. After receiving the 2,000 randomly selected telephone numbers, the list was randomly sorted a second time and a group of residential landline numbers were attempted for interviews. To complete the cellular phone portion of the sampling, a random-digit generation process with manual dialing was utilized where common 3-digit prefixes for cellular phones in use in the Jefferson County region were identified (i.e. 778, 771, 767, 486, 408, etc.) and random sets of 4-digit phone number endings after these common prefixes were generated to be attempted. Interviews completed on the landline telephone of the participants accounted for approximately 45% of this study survey data (178 of the 400 completed interviews), while interviews completed on the cellular phone of the participants accounted for approximately 55% of this study survey data (222 of the 400 completed interviews, far surpassing the initial study goal of at least 30% completed via cellular phone). Among those who were contacted on their cellular phones, more than nine-tenths indicated that they are cell-only with no landline telephone in their home. These cell-only participants account for approximately 50% of the entire sample of 400 participants.

All telephone calls were made between 3:00 and 9:00 p.m. from a call center in Watertown, New York, on the evenings of April 6th through April 16th, 2015. The Jefferson Community College students who completed the interviews had completed training in both human subject research methodology and effective interviewing techniques. Professional staff from the Center supervised the telephone interviewing at all times.

When each of the telephone numbers was attempted, one of four results occurred: Completion of an interview; a Decline to be interviewed; No Answer/Busy; or an Invalid Number. Voluntary informed consent was obtained from each resident before the interview was completed. This sampling protocol included informing each resident that it was his or her right to decline to answer any and all individual questions within the interview. To be categorized as a completed interview, at least one-half of the questions on the survey had to be completed. The residents refusal to answer more than one-half of the questions was considered a decline to be interviewed. The typical length of a completed survey was approximately 10-15 minutes. Declines to be interviewed (refusals) were not called back in an attempt to convince the resident to reconsider the interview. If no contact was made at a telephone number (No Answer/Busy), call-backs were made to the number. Telephone numbers that were not successfully contacted and, as a result, were ultimately categorized as No Answer/Busy were attempted on the average four times. No messages were left on answering machines at homes where no person answered the telephone. The response rate results for the study are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Response Rates for the 16th Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community

Response rates for LANDLINES & CELL PHONES COMBINED attempted in this study: (55% of study data is represented by interviews completed on cell phones of participants, with 50% of study data represented by participants who indicate that they are cell-only)

Complete Interview

Decline to be

Interviewed

Not Valid Telephone

Number No Answer/

Busy TOTALS

Frequency 400 588 322 1,104 2,436 % of Numbers Attempted 17% 24% 13% 45% 100% % of Valid Numbers 20% 28% 52% 100% % of Contacted Residents 42% 58% 100%

Within the fields of social science and educational research, when using a hybrid sampling design including both landline telephone interview and cell phone interview methodology, a response rate of approximately 42% of all successful contacts where a person is actually talking on the phone is considered very successful.

Section 1.2 Demographics of the sample Who was interviewed?

This section of the report includes a description of the results for the demographic variables included in the survey sample. The demographic characteristics of the sampled adult residents can be used to attain three separate objectives.

1. Initially, this information adds to the knowledge and awareness about the true characteristics of the population of adult residents in the sampled county (e.g. What are the educational profile, and typical annual household income level in Jefferson County?).

2. Secondly, this demographic information facilitates the ability for the data to be sorted or partitioned to investigate for significant relationships relationships between demographic characteristics of residents and their attitudes and behaviors regarding the quality of life in Jefferson County. Identification of



significant relationships allows local citizens to use the data more effectively, to better understand the factors that are correlated with various aspects of life in the county.

3. Finally, the demographic information also serves an important purpose when compared to established facts about Jefferson County to analyze the representativeness of the sample that was randomly selected in this study, and to determine the post-stratification weighting schematic to be applied to the data. The results for the demographic questions in the survey are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 Demographics of the April 2015 Jefferson County Sample (weighted by Gender, Age, Education Level, Military Affiliation, and Phone Ownership)

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

The following distribution of towns or villages of residence (self-reported) of the participating respondents resulted in the Sixteenth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community, and after application of post-stratification weights for

Count in Collected Sample

% in Collected Sample

Gender: (2013 US Census for Jefferson County: 51% male) Male 206 51% Female 194 49%

Age: (2013 US Census for Jefferson County: among those age 18+ 25% are under age 30, and 22% are age 60+)

18-29 years of age 100 25% 30-39 years of age 79 20% 40-49 years of age 68 17% 50-59 years of age 63 16% 60-69 years of age 44 11% 70 years of age or older 46 11%

Education Level: (2013 US Census for Jefferson County: among those age 25+, 20% have Bach. Deg. or higher)

Less than high school graduate 19 5% High school graduate (including GED) 168 42% Some college, no degree 85 21% Associates degree 48 12% Bachelors degree 52 13% Graduate degree 28 7%

Household Income: (2013 US Census for Jefferson County: 24% earn less than $25,000, 27% earn $75,000+)

Less than $25,000 57 17% $25,001-$50,000 109 33% $50,001-$75,000 66 20% More than $75,000 102 31%

Military Affiliation: (According to the Fort Drum Region Liaison Organization the current number of soldiers and dependents accounts for 25%-30% of the population in Jefferson Co.)

Active Military in the Household (67 AM, 33 partners) 100 25% Employment is Related to Fort Drum (but no Active Military in the household) 80 20% No Connection to Fort Drum 220 55%

Race/Ethnicity: (2013 US Census for Jefferson County: 89% of residents report a race of White, )

Black/African American 27 8% White 322 90% Hispanic 8 2% Asian/Pacific Islander 1 0% Native American 1 0% Multiracial 1 0%



Gender, Age, Education, Military Affiliation, and Phone Ownership, closely parallel that which is true for the distribution of all Jefferson County adults the entire county was proportionally represented accurately in this study.

Table 3 Geographic Distribution of Participants in the 16th Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community (weighted by Gender, Age, Education Level, Military Affiliation, and Phone Ownership)

16th Annual Survey Sample (April 2015)

(weighted by Gender, Age, Education, Military Affiliation, Phone Ownership)

US Census Estimates

Count % (among the 385 who responded) %

Town of Residence: Adams 24 6% 4% Alexandria 8 2% 3% Antwerp 11 3% 1% Brownville 27 7% 5% Cape Vincent 4 1% 3% Champion 18 5% 4% Clayton 13 3% 4% Ellisburg 12 3% 3% Henderson 2 1% 2% Hounsfield 10 3% 3% Leray 83 21% 19% Lorraine 5 1% 1% Lyme 5 1% 2% Orleans 5 1% 2% Pamelia 5 1% 3% Philadelphia 13 3% 2% Rodman 1 0% 1% Rutland 13 3% 3% Theresa 5 1% 2% Watertown (town) 21 5% 4% Watertown (city) 86 22% 23% Wilna 12 3% 6% Worth 0 0% 0% Not sure/Refused 15 -- -- TOTAL 400 100% 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 County residents who are included in the survey (those who actually answered the telephone and completed the survey) appear to closely parallel that which is true for the entire adult population of the county. The targets for demographic characteristics were drawn from the most recent U.S. Census updates for Jefferson County as well as from estimates provided by the Fort Drum Regional Liaison Organization. Gender, Age, and Education were selected as the factors by which to weight the survey data, since the data collected in this Sixteenth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community is susceptible to the typical types of sampling error that are inherent in telephone methodology: women are more likely than men to answer the telephone and/or agree to a survey; older residents are more likely to participate in the survey than younger adult residents; and those individuals with higher formal education levels are more likely to agree to the interviews. Standard survey research methodology has shown that regardless of the subject of the survey, these are three expected sources of sampling error when participants are contacted via telephone. In addition to these standard three weight variables it has become increasingly the case that adults in our society are not accessible via landline they are cell-phone-only individuals. Therefore, the current Jefferson County data has additionally been weighted by Phone Ownership, with targets that have been generated from repeated surveying in Jefferson County by the Center for Community Studies, along with cell-only estimates for geographic regions in the United States that are published by the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Finally, as a result of past studies that under-represented the military persons stationed at Fort Drum, weights have also been applied for a



first time in 2015 to the Jefferson County Annual Survey data to more accurately reflect their proportion of the entire Jefferson County adult population. The target for this final weighting step was provided by the Fort Drum Regional Liaison Organization. In summary, to compensate for this overrepresentation of females, older residents, the highly educated, the non-military affiliated, and those interviewed on landlines in the sample collected in this study, post-stratification weights for Gender, Age, Education Level, Military Affiliation, and Phone Ownership have been applied in any further analysis of the data analyzed in this report. In summary, all subsequent statistics that will be reported in this document are weighted by Gender, Age, and Education Level toward the 2013-2014 U.S. Census reports that describe the Gender, Age, and Educational Attainment distributions of the actual entire adult population that resides in Jefferson County, and toward the Military Affiliation and Phone Ownership targets described above.

Given the diligence placed on scientific sampling design and the high response rates, after application of post-stratification weights for gender, age, education level, military affiliation, and phone ownership, it is felt that this random sample of Jefferson County adults does accurately represent the entire population of Jefferson County adults. When using the sample statistics presented in this report to estimate that which would be expected for the entire Jefferson County adult population, the exact margin of error for this survey is question-specific. The margin of error depends upon the sample size for each specific question and the resulting sample percentage for each question. Sample sizes tend to vary for each question on the survey, since some questions are only appropriate for certain subgroups (e.g. only persons who are currently employed would then be asked some further question about their current occupation), and/or as a result of persons refusing to answer questions. In general, the results of this survey for any questions that were answered by the entire sample of 400 residents may be generalized to the population of all adults at least 18 years of age residing in Jefferson County with a 95% confidence level to within a margin of error of approximately 4 percentage points (there is an average margin of error of 3.9% with a sample size of n=400). For questions that were posed only to certain specific subgroups, or for results that are presented for subgroups (such results only females), the resulting smaller sample sizes in these instances allow generalization to the specific subpopulation of all adults at least 18 years of age residing in the county (e.g. generalization of some specific characteristics of sampled females to all Jefferson County adult females) with a 95% confidence level to within a margin of error of larger than approximately 4 percentage points. In other words, one can be 95% confident that any sample statistic presented in the remainder of this report would/could only deviate from the true value that would be found if all 90,000 (approximately) adults in the county were, in fact interviewed by at most four percentage points. Note that the preceding statement regarding 95% confidence that the statistics in this study are at the most only four percentage points away from the true population values if all 90,000 adults in the county were interviewed are based upon the fundamental proven mathematical, probability, and sampling theory facts and theorems that are proven in any first-semester college statistics course. Often times to the non-statistician these statements could appear counter-intuitive, and one might assume that the accuracy of a survey would somehow be related to the small portion of the entire population that is actually sampled. In other words, those who have not studied statistics coursework at times may pose some accusatory statement such as, why would I ever believe the results from only surveying 400 participants, when that means that 89,600 of the 90,000 Jefferson County residents have not been interviewed and, you did not call me? While this observation of such a small proportional sample size is true, the suggestion that it is too small, or that the 89,600 not sampled is even relevant, is categorically false, no less false than it would be to state that 2+2=5. In summary, the size of the margin of error when sampling (surveying) is entirely independent of the size of the population from which one is sampling. The size of the margin of error is directly a function of sample size (the 400), not population size (the 90,000). If the Center for Community Studies were to survey the adult residents of Jefferson County (N90,000 in the population) a sample size of n400 would be recommended/implemented. Likewise, if the Center for Community Studies were to survey the adult residents of the entirety of New York State (N15,000,000 in the population) a sample size of n400 would also be recommended/implemented. And, these two studies, one of smaller Jefferson County and one of larger New York State, using the same sample sizes of n400, would have the exact same resulting margins of error of approximately 4 percentage points. For more specific detail regarding the margin of error for this survey, please refer to the appendix of this report and/or contact the professional staff at the Center for Community Studies. Table 4 on the following page is provided as a guide for the appropriate margin of error to use when analyzing subgroups of the entire group of 400 interviewed adults.



Table 4 Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes

Sample Size (n=)

Approximate Margin of Error

30 14.3% 50 11.1% 75 9.0% 100 7.8% 125 7.0% 150 6.4% 175 5.9% 200 5.5% 250 5.0% 300 4.5% 350 4.2% 400 3.9%

In order to maximize comparability among the sixteen annual surveys that have been completed in Jefferson County between 2000 and 2015, the procedures used to collect information and the approximately thirty core questions asked have remained virtually identical. All surveys were conducted within the first two weeks of April each year to control for seasonal variability, and the total number of interviews completed ranged from 340 to 422, depending upon the year. All interviewers have been similarly and extensively trained preceding data collection each year. The survey methodology used to complete the Sixteenth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community is comparable to that used in the previous fifteen years. Furthermore, post-stratification weights for gender, age, and education level have also been applied to all results from the first fifteen years of surveying, with phone ownership (landline only vs. cell only vs. both) added as an additional weighting factor in 2013 and military affiliation added as an additional weighting factor in 2015 as parts of the continuous improvement methods applied at the Center in an attempt to maximize the representativeness of the collected sample of adults. This maintenance of consistent methodology from year to year allows for valid comparisons for trends over the sixteen-year period that will be illustrated later in this report.

Throughout this report, key community demographic characteristics of Gender, Age, Education Level, Military Affiliation, and Household Income Level are investigated as potential explanatory variables that may be correlated with quality-of-life indicators for the county. It is standard methodology with professional surveys to provide this further rich information to the reader information that may assist in explaining the overall findings by reporting the cross-tabulated results for all subgroups within key demographic variables. The results provide important information about contemporary thinking of citizens and over time will continue to provide important baseline and comparative information as well. Again, for more specific detail regarding tests of statistical significance completed within this study, please refer to the appendix of this report and/or contact the professional staff at the Center for Community Studies. All data compilation and statistical analyses within this study have been completed using SPSS, Release 22.



Section 2 - Summary of Findings

Section 2.1 Highlights Five Study Findings of Particular Interest

Finding #1: Jobs and Local Economy

Jefferson County residents indicated in 2015 that they feel better or more positive about the local economy than they have felt since the Great Recession of 2008. With respect to the Availability of Good Jobs, the rating of Poor declined from 55% in 2014 to 43% in 2015. This is the lowest rating for Poor since 2007, when it was 39%, and the 18% who rated Availability of Good Jobs as Excellent or Good (increased from 13% in 2014) was the highest since the spring of 2008, when it was 20% (Table 23). Another useful indicator of perceptions of the economy can be found with the responses to the question, What do you think is the largest issue facing our nation right now? In 2009, 81% of respondents said the Economy and Jobs was the largest issue facing our nation, and in 2010-2014 it ranged between 38% and 49% (roughly between four out of ten and five out of ten residents), indicating that Economy and Jobs was the number-one issue. In 2015, only 24% rated this as the number-one issue, or about one out of every four residents. By contrast, Healthcare was the second-largest issue in 2010, at 24%, and in 2015 was down to 7%; Debt/Spending/Budget was considered the largest issue by 15% of the respondents in 2011, and only by 3% in 2015 (Table 30).

Three other indicators provide support for this positive trend. The lowest percentage ever of residents rated the Cost of Energy as Poor (39%), a decline from 65% in 2014, while 21% rated the Cost of Energy as Excellent or Good in 2015, triple the 7% in 2014, and nearly double the highest previous percentage, which was 12% in 2013 (Table 13). An all-time low (21%) of respondents rated the Overall State of the Local Economy as Poor in 2015, and nearly one in three residents (32%) rated it as Excellent or Good, an all-time high (Table 26). Finally, 30% (the second-highest percentage ever found) of residents indicated that their Families Personal Financial Situation had gotten better in the past 12 months, the highest percentage since the onset of the Great Recession, when it was 33% in 2008. Most respondents (49%) indicated it had stayed about the same, while 21% (the second-lowest ever found) indicated it had gotten worse, a statistically insignificant change from the 20% in 2014 (Table 32).

Finding #2: Fort Drum Impact

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



Finding #3: Military-Personnel Perceptions of Jefferson County

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

Finding #4: Education

The trend of negative perceptions regarding K-12 education continued in 2015, with an all-time high of 11% rating this as Poor, and an all-time low of 49% rating the Quality of K-12 Education as Excellent or Good. With respect to the military connection, only one out of every three (31%) households with active military personnel rated this as Excellent or Good, compared to the 54% with no Fort Drum connection who rated it as Excellent or Good (Table 25). Similarly, there has been a significant decrease between 2013 and 2015, from 57% to 47%, in those agreeing with the statement Jefferson County schools are adequately preparing our young people for the technology and economy of the future (Table 33).

The 16th Annual Survey asked a new question regarding education: Whom do you trust more to improve K-12 education in New York StateGovernor Cuomo or the teachers unions? By a five-to-one margin, Jefferson County residents indicated they had more trust in the teachers unions than in Governor Andrew Cuomo (71% to 14%) (Table 34).



Finding #5: State and Federal Government Issues

Governor Cuomos job rating has continued to worsen since its peak in 2012, when 50% of residents indicated that his job performance was Excellent or Good. In 2015, that Excellent or Good job rating was cut in half, to 25%, while those indicating his job performance was Poor in 2012 (10%) increased nearly four times, to 39% in 2015. A Siena Research Institute statewide poll conducted in May, 2015, the month after the Jefferson County annual survey, reported for upstaters that 30% rated him as Excellent or Good, while 34% rated him as Poor in his job as governor (Table 51).

Over the last two years, the survey has included questions on healthcare and the Affordable Care Act. In both years, we asked what the respondents opinions were concerning the Affordable Care Act, and there have been significant shifts in opinion over the past year. In 2014, 28% indicated they were not familiar with the Affordable Care Act, and 38% said the act should be repealed and not funded. Results in 2015 show a drop in those not familiar with the Affordable Care Act to 17% (from one out of every four to one out of every six), and a significant increase (from 21% to 36%) in those saying the concept of the Affordable Care Act is a good idea, but parts of it need to be changed (Table 35). In 2014, residents were asked how they expected the Affordable Care Act would affect the healthcare of their familiesmore positively, or negatively. Nearly two of every three residents (64%) expected the Affordable Care Act to affect their families healthcare More Negatively, while 19% indicated More Positively. Survey results in 2015 demonstrate the realized impact of the Affordable Care Act on family healthcare. Three out of five respondents (61%) indicated there was neither a positive nor a negative impact, and only 19% reported a more negative effect, while 13% reported a More Positive effect of the Affordable Care Act, and 6% had both (Table 36).

Jefferson County residents reported a significant decrease in Not Obtaining Needed Medical Treatment Because of Cost in 2015, compared to the 2009 response rate (from 18% in 2009 to 9% in 2015) (Table 38).



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

1. In an attempt to gauge the current satisfaction with the quality of life in Jefferson County, participants were provided a list of 19 key community characteristics, or indicators. For each of these characteristics, the participants reported whether they rate the characteristic as Excellent, Good, Fair, or Poor. Table 5 summarizes the results with the percentage that indicated that each indicator is Excellent or Good reported, as well as the percentage who report that it is Poor. For a short-term trend analysis, the rates are also shown in parentheses and smaller font for these results in 2014. The list of indicators is sorted from highest to lowest according to the percentage who replied Excellent or Good in 2015. The indicators whose results are in pink shaded cells show significant improvement between 2014 and 2015 (either an increase in Excellent or Good or a decrease in Poor). The indicators whose results are in gray shaded cells show a trend toward more negative perceptions between 2014 and 2015 (either a decrease in Excellent or Good or an increase in Poor). All pink or gray shaded changes are of size at least 5%. The indicators whose results are in white shaded cells show no significant trend toward either more negative and positive perceptions between 2014 and 2015. (Tables 8-10)

Table 5 Summary of Quality of Life Indicators (Sorted by Excellent or Good 2015 Results)

2. Most Jefferson County adult residents continue to view the quality of life in the region as positive, with a current rate of 62% of the surveyed residents reporting that the overall quality of life in the area is Excellent or Good, while currently only 9% believe the overall quality of life in the area is Poor. (Tables 8, 9, 10, and 27)

Economic-related Quality-of-Life Indicators:

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

Quality of Life Indicator: 2015 %

Excellent or Good (2014 result in parentheses)

2015 % Poor

(2014 result in parentheses)

1. Recreational opportunities 68.6% (64.2%) 9.4% (11.5%) 2. Shopping opportunities 67.4% (62.1%) 9.9% (10.5%) 3. Availability of housing 63.0% (64.4%) 12.6% (14.1%) 4. The overall quality of life in the area 62.4% (54.5%) 8.8% (11.8%) 5. Policing and crime control 61.3% (62.3%) 8.6% (8.9%) 6. Access to higher education 57.7% (65.1%) 8.8% (9.2%) 7. Quality of the environment 51.9% (50.8%) 9.3% (14.5%) 8. Healthcare access 49.3% (44.4%) 14.9% (22.1%) 9. Quality of K-12 education 48.9% (54.9%) 10.5% (9.4%) 10. Cultural / entertainment opportunities 46.9% (41.2%) 20.5% (24.8%) 11. Healthcare quality 47.1% (46.3%) 19.2% (19.1%) 12. The Downtown of Watertown 47.0% (38.8%) 18.3% (22.5%) 13. Opportunities for youth 45.1% (33.8%) 23.8% (27.9%) 14. Availability of care for the elderly 42.3% (44.6%) 14.6% (16.6%) 15. The overall state of the local economy 32.4% (22.2%) 21.4% (37.0%) 16. Local government 23.8% (23.0%) 32.2% (32.3%) 17. Cost of energy 21.1% (7.5%) 38.9% (65.0%) 18. Availability of good jobs 17.8% (12.9%) 43.0% (54.9%) 19. Real Estate Taxes 11.1% (8.5%) 43.1% (50.2%)



4. Overall State of the Local Economy (Table 26) In 2015 a steady 6-year trend of more positive perceptions of the overall state of the local economy has continued, changing from 48% responding Poor in 2009 to the all-time high low of 21% responding Poor found in 2015. Similarly, in 2009 the rate of responding Excellent or Good was only 15%, while that rate in 2015 has now significantly increased, and more than doubled, to an all-time high of 32%. In 2009-2011 residents had a quite negative outlook about the local economy (in each of these three years over 40% responded with Poor); the evidence in 2015 is that perception of the overall state of the local economy has improved greatly since that three-year post-recession period.

5. Shopping Opportunities (Table 24) Steady and significant increases in Excellent or Good as ratings of shopping opportunities have been seen between 2009 and 2015 (from 57% to 67%), almost returning to the all-time high rates that were found in 2006-2008. In 2008 the Excellent or Good rate was 71%.

6. Availability of Housing (Table 29) This quality-of-life indicator has been recorded for eleven years, from 2005 to the present. Arguably the recent improvement in satisfaction with this housing-availability indicator is the most dramatic and significant among the collection of all quality-of-life variables measured in this annual study. A very significant increase in Excellent or Good (and decrease in Poor) has been found between 2012 and 2014, and these rates have remained stable between 2014 and 2015. The 2015 rate of 13% responding Poor is the lowest ever measured, and less than one-third of the rates found in 2005-2006 (in both years the Poor rate was over 40%).

7. Cost of Energy (Table 13) Throughout the first fifteen years of completing this annual survey, the cost of energy has consistently been viewed by

a majority of participants as Poor, but in 2015 the results have improved greatly an all-time low rate of only 39% rating the cost of energy as Poor was found, while an all-time high of 21% rated this community indicator as Excellent or Good (no doubt impacted by the recent decreases in the price of gasoline and utilities).

8. Real Estate Taxes (Table 20) Dissatisfaction with real estate taxes has been very consistently expressed between 2000 and 2015. Current 2015 results are essentially the same as the long term averages 11% indicating Excellent or Good and 43% indicating Poor.

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

9. Opportunities for Youth (Table 11) A significant increase in Excellent or Good as a rating of opportunities for youth was found in 2015, with the most positive results ever found occurring in 2015 45% rating this indicator as Excellent or Good and only 24% rating as Poor (rates similar to the 2006-2007 findings which heretofore have been the most positive regarding opportunities for youth).

10. Healthcare Access (Table 14) A very significant negative shift occurred among Jefferson County residents between 2008 and 2009 regarding perceptions of healthcare access in the county. In 2008, the highest rate ever reported of healthcare access as Excellent or Good (49%) was found, however, this rate decreased to 41% in 2009. There has been a steady positive rebound in perceptions of healthcare access between 2009 and 2015, with the 2015 Excellent or Good rate recovering to the high level found in 2008 in 2015 the Excellent or Good rate is back to 49%. Similarly, the current 2015 rate of rating healthcare access as Poor is at an all-time low of 15%.

11. Healthcare Quality (Table 15) In 2015, perceptions of healthcare quality in the county have remained very stable and similar to recent-past years of study with 47% of participants indicating that the quality is Excellent or Good, and only 19% rating the quality as Poor.

12. Cultural/Entertainment Opportunities (Table 12) In 2015, Jefferson County residents report the highest ratings of cultural/entertainment opportunities as Excellent or Good ever found in the Annual Survey (47% rate as Excellent or Good, while only 21% rate as Poor).



13. Recreational Opportunities (Table 17) Since 2010 this indicator has shown steady positive trending to a current all-time high of 69% responding Excellent or

Good, while the 2015 rate of only 9% responding with Poor is the lowest ever found in sixteen years of studying local recreational opportunities.

14. Access to Higher Education (Table 16) In 2015 ratings of access to higher education have remained very stable, quite positive, and similar to recent-past years of study. However, the current Excellent or Good rate is the lowest ever found for access to higher education in this annual survey (currently 58%, significantly decreased from 65% found in the county in 2014). In fact, this access to higher education community indicator is one of only two indicators among the nineteen that are annually tracked where the ratings between 2014 and 2015 became more negative (with the other negative-trending indicator being Quality of K-12 Education).

15. Downtown Watertown (Table 21) One of the most striking differences found in the 2009 Annual Survey was the perception of the Downtown of Watertown. In 2008, only 28% reported that they perceived the Downtown of Watertown as Excellent or Good, while 36% rated it as Poor. The following year, in 2009, the results transformed in that the Downtown of Watertown was rated as Excellent or Good by 43%, and rated as Poor by only 19% a massive change of sentiment in the community in one year. The improved-Public-Square-perception sentiment has still not ended five years later, and, in fact, it appears to be regaining momentum in 2015, 47% reported that they perceived the Downtown of Watertown as Excellent or Good, the highest rate ever found, while the current 18% Poor rate is the lowest ever found. It appears that all of the recent real estate development and restoration projects that are underway in the Downtown of Watertown are being positively perceived by county residents.

16. Policing and Crime Control (Table 22) In 2015, assessment of policing and crime control has remained very typical compared to long term distributions of Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor ratings over the past sixteen years of study in Jefferson County. Residents continue to be far more positive than negative in their opinions about policing and crime control, with 61% rating it as Excellent or Good and only 9% rating as Poor.

17. Quality of K-12 Education (Table 25) Since 2008 this quality of K-12 education community indicator has shown steady negative trending each year, reaching the all-time lowest rating of quality of K-12 education in 2015. Currently only 49% of participants rate the quality of K-12 education as Excellent or Good (was 63% in 2008), and currently 11% rate it as Poor (highest Poor rating ever measured, has been as low as 4% in the past). In fact, this quality of K-12 education community indicator is one of only two indicators among the nineteen that are annually tracked where the ratings between 2014 and 2015 became more negative (with the other negative-trending indicator being Access to Higher Education).

18. Availability of Care for the Elderly (Table 28) There was a significant increase in Excellent or Good as the rating of availability of care for the elderly in Jefferson County between 2010-2013, to an all-time high of 46% in 2013. The rate of responding Excellent or Good has remained stable between 2013 and 2015, with 42% indicating these positive perceptions in 2015 (while only 15% rate the availability of care for the elderly as Poor in 2015).

19. Quality of the Environment (Table 18) Perceptions among Jefferson County residents regarding the quality of the local environment have remained very

positive and relatively stable over the sixteen years of surveying. In every studied year the most common response has been Good, with the typical response distributions including 45%-55% rating as Excellent or Good and 10%-20% rating as Poor. An all-time low, however, of only 9% rating as Poor was found in the county in 2015.

20. Local Government (Table 19) In 2013, the most negative sentiment ever expressed regarding Local Government in the first fourteen years of surveying was found, with only 19% of participants responding Good and 0% rating as Excellent (and the 37% who rated as Poor in 2013 was the least favorable ever discovered in fourteen years of surveying). Over the past two years ratings of local government have improved and returned to near the historic average rates in 2015, 24% rate as Excellent or Good, while 32% rate as Poor.



The Largest Issue Currently Facing Our Nation

21. In 2015, Jobs and the Economy continue to be cited as the largest issue currently facing our nation right now however, it is cited by only 24% of participants whereas in the past this has been cited by as much as 81%. Other significant changes observed in 2015 regarding the largest national issue include that Government/Leadership is now cited by 17% (has been as low as 3% in the past) and Terrorism/ISIS was cited by 11% (was never cited before 2015 by participants). (Table 30)

Section 2.3 The Local Economy Personal Financial Situations (Tables 31-32)

22. The employment status of Jefferson County residents has been studied in each of 2008 through 2015 with results remaining remarkably consistent. Please refer to Table 31 for full detail of the occupation groups reported by participants. (Table 31)

23. Residents of Jefferson County continue to be most likely to indicate that their familys personal financial situation has Stayed the Same over the past 12 months, with 49% of the participants indicating this sentiment (significantly decreased from 64% reporting Stayed the Same in 2012, but not significantly changed from 2013 and 2014 results of 50% and 52%, respectively). Currently 79% of residents indicate that their personal financial situation has remained at least the same or improved in the past year (30% improved, 49% remained same). The significant negative trend in assessing ones personal financial situation that occurred between 2008 and 2012 in the county (Getting Better rate was 33% in 2008, 24% in 2009, 26% in 2010, 20% in 2011, and only 16% in 2012) appears to have improved over the past three years the Getting Better rate increased significantly to 24% in 2013 (then surpassing the Getting Worse rate again for the first time since 2010), and increased again in 2014 to 28%, and has continued to increase up to the current 30% level. In fact, when Better is compared to Worse within each year of study, it can be seen that 2015 is the most positive year ever studied with this survey question (Better surpasses Worse by 9%, 30% vs. 21%, respectively). (Table 32)

Section 2.4 K-12 Education (Tables 33-34)

24. In general, Jefferson County adults are more satisfied than dissatisfied with the local K-12 schools, with 47% of Jefferson County residents agreeing with the notion that Jefferson County schools are adequately preparing our young people for the technology and economy of the future, and only 36% disagreeing with this statement. However, the current results demonstrate a very dramatic and significant negative trend that has continued over the past three years the rate of strongly agreeing decreased from 21% to 5% between 2013 and 2015, while the rate of strongly disagreeing increased from 5% to 17% between 2013 and 2015. (Table 33)

25. When asked about future improvement of the quality of K-12 education in New York State, by a five-to-one margin Jefferson County adults overwhelmingly trust the teachers unions more than Governor Cuomo to improve the quality of K-12 education in New York State with 71% more trusting of the teachers unions, and only 14% more trusting of the governor. According to Quinnipiac University in a March 2015 statewide poll, the responses in New York State to this same question were: 55% Teachers Unions; and 28% Cuomo. When only the upstate New York residents who participated in the Quinnipiac poll are investigated, the results parallel the local Jefferson County results more closely. Quinnipiac poll results in March 2015 for the upstaters are: 62% Teachers Unions; and 20% Cuomo. (Table 34)

Section 2.5 Healthcare and the Affordable Care Act (Tables 35-38)

26. The Affordable Care Act provision providing health insurance exchanges was implemented in the United States on October 1, 2013. In 2014 this annual survey was completed six months later, and at that point in time about 28% of Jefferson County residents indicated that they were Not Familiar with the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. One year later, in April 2015, the rate of unfamiliarity has decreased to only 17%. In April 2014, adults in Jefferson County tended to be more opposed to the Affordable Care Act than supportive at that time approximately one-third of the participants (34%) thought that the Affordable Care Act was a good idea (13% preferred to keep the Affordable Care Act as it is, another 21% thought it was a good idea but needed some changes), while in 2014 a larger 38% of participants indicated that they believe that the Affordable Care Act should not be funded and should be repealed. After one year of experiencing the Affordable Care Act residents are now more in favor than opposed to the



law current rates are that 48% favor while only 34% want it repealed. Essentially it appears that the group who has become familiar with the law between 2014 and 2015 has become supportive of the healthcare law. (Table 35)

27. In April 2014, six months after the Affordable Care Act was enacted, adults in Jefferson County very strongly expressed a belief that the effect that the Affordable Care Act would have on them and their family would be more negative than positive. In 2014, only 19% of participants expected to be affected more positively, while 64% indicated that they expect to be affected more negatively, with 13% responding neither, and 4% responding that they are not sure. After one year in place, the actual or realized effect of the healthcare law is essentially that very little has changed. In April 2015, only 13% of participants have been affected more positively (19% expected this to occur), while 19% indicated that they have been affected more negatively (64% expected this to occur), with 61% responding neither (only 13% expected this to occur), and 1% responding that they are not sure (4% were unsure in 2014). (Table 36)

28. Only 2% of adults in Jefferson County who participated in this study report that they do not currently have any type of health insurance. In 2015, approximately one-in-eleven Jefferson County adults (9%) have chosen not to seek medical care because of cost in the past 12 months, a rate that has decreased significantly from 18% found in the county in 2009, but not significantly different from 12% found in 2012. A very strong relationship between having health insurance and ignoring needed medical care continues to be evident among those who do have health insurance only 8% have chosen not to seek medical care because of cost in the past 12 months, while among the admittedly small group of participants who are uninsured in 2015 this rate is 74%. (Tables 37-38)

Section 2.6 Fort Drum Presence and Impact in Jefferson County (Tables 39-41)

29. When asked Does the presence of Fort Drum in the local area have a positive effect upon you and your familys employment or financial situation?, almost two-thirds of participants in 2015 responded Yes (64% indicated Yes, while 36% indicated No). This rate of 64% indicating the positive impact that Fort Drum has upon their financial situation has increased significantly in 2015 from earlier-year study findings (such as only 51% found in 2014). Further investigation for a relationship between ones Fort Drum affiliation and the impact that the military base has upon ones financial situation interestingly reveals that even among those who indicate that they have no connection to the military (no active military in the household, and their employment in the county is not related to Fort Drum) 53% of these no connection participants respond that the presence of Fort Drum in the local area does have a positive effect upon their own employment or financial situation. (Table 39)

30. The vast majority of local residents continue to agree that the presence of Fort Drum in the local area improves the overall quality of life for the residents, with 83% agreeing with this positive quality-of-life impact, and only 9% disagreeing (these rates were 78% and 13%, respectively, in 2014). Further investigation for a relationship between ones Fort Drum affiliation and their opinion about the effect of Fort Drum revealed the following percentages who responded Strongly Agree or Agree: if active military in household 90%; if no active military in the household but ones local residence is due to civilian employment at Fort Drum 79%; and among those with no connection to Fort Drum 82%. (Table 40)

31. If Fort Drum were to drastically reduce in size, approximately one-third of local adult residents report that they would not continue to live in Jefferson County. (60% indicated that they would stay, 34% would leave). Further investigation for a relationship between ones Fort Drum affiliation and their intention to remain living locally if Fort Drum were to dramatically reduce in size revealed the following percentages who responded Yes, would stay: if active military in household 10%; if no active military in the household but ones local residence is due to civilian employment at Fort Drum 56%; and among those with no connection to Fort Drum 79%. (Table 41)

Section 2.7 Watertown International Airport (Tables 42-45)

32. Familiarity with the Watertown International Airport is tremendously high among county residents. When asked Are you aware that there is an airport that passengers can fly in and out of in Watertown called the Watertown International Airport? almost all participants (99.5%) responded with Yes. (Table 42)

33. When further asked Are you aware that there are daily flights for passengers from Watertown to the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania airport for connecting flights to other locations? approximately four-fifths (80%) of participants indicate that they are aware of the daily Philadelphia connection arrangement. (Table 43)



34. Approximately one-in-three Jefferson County adults (34%) have flown out of the Watertown International Airport with slightly more than one-half of these adults (18%) having flown out of the airport in the past year. (Table 44)

35. Jefferson County adults strongly believe that having air transportation in Watertown is important to the quality of life in the county with 80% indicating that they believe that it is at least somewhat important (55% respond Very Important and another 25% respond Somewhat Important). (Table 45)

Section 2.8 Local Charitable Organization Issues (Tables 46-49)

36. The spirit of volunteerism remains high among Jefferson County residents in 2015, with 55% indicating that they volunteer at least one hour per month for community service activities such as church, school and youth activities, charitable organizations, local government boards, and so forth. The percentages who indicated that they do volunteer in recent years have been 48% in 2010, 57% in 2011, 57% in 2012, 56% in 2013, and 55% in 2014. The average number of hours per month volunteered among all participants in 2015 has increased significantly to 10.5 hours/month/adult from a rate of 8.3 found in 2014. (Table 46)

37. A minority of Jefferson County adults in 2015 indicate that they have a will (37% in 2015 have a will, significantly decreased from 49% found when last studied in the county in 2002). Among those who do have a will about one-in-six (15%) indicate that they have included a charitable organization as a beneficiary in their will (similar to 13% found when last studied in the county in 2002). This 15% naming a charitable organization rate applied to the 37% who have a will extrapolates to a total approximation of 5.5% of all adults have a charitable organization named in their will. (Tables 47-48)

38. When asked have you or anyone in your immediate family ever used the services of Hospice of Jefferson County? the result found in 2015 (41% responded Yes) is the same as was found when last studied in 2011. (Table 49)

Section 2.9 Government and Political Issues (Tables 50-51)

39. In 2014, as has typically been the case every year of completing this Annual Survey, participants more frequently self-identify as conservative than as liberal by a two-or-three-to-one ratio (26% vs. 12% in 2015, respectively, was 34% vs. 10% in 2014; and 26% vs. 15% in 2013). However, the most commonly-reported self-identified political ideology among Jefferson County adult residents continues to be "middle-of-the-road" (50% in 2015; was 49% in 2014; and 52% in 2013). (Table 50)

40. When asked to rate the job that Andrew Cuomo is doing as governor (in the first week of April each year), in 2015 approximately one-in-every-four participants (25%) rated the job that Andrew Cuomo was doing as governor of New York State as Good (21%) or Excellent (4%), while a very large percentage (39%) rate the governors performance as Poor. These ratings among Jefferson County adults are a significant trend toward the negative since first measured in the county in 2011 in fact, the rate of responding Poor has quadrupled between 2011 and 2015 from 10% to the current 39%. According to Siena Research Institute in a May 2015 statewide poll, Cuomos approval ratings statewide were: 9% Excellent; 32% Good; 36% Fair; and 23% Poor. When only the upstate New York residents who participated in the Siena poll are investigated, the results parallel the local Jefferson County results very closely. Siena poll results in May 2015 for the upstaters are: 6% Excellent; 24% Good; 36% Fair; and 34% Poor. (Table 51)

Section 2.10 Familiarity with the Center for Community Studies (Table 52)

41. Familiarity with the Center for Community Studies was at an all-time high in 2012, when 46% of participants indicated that they had heard of the community-based research center at SUNY Jefferson. Familiarity in 2013 through 2015 remains relatively high in that 40%, 37%, and 36%, respectively, reported to have heard of the Center. (Table 52)



Section 3 - Detailed Statistical Results

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

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

(2) A trend analysis is completed and shown in a table for each survey question that was measured in more than one of the sixteen years 2000-2015. Statistically significant trends between 2000 and 2015 are highlighted throughout reported at the top of each Trend Analysis table.

(3) The 2015 results for each survey question have been cross-tabulated by each of the demographic factors of Gender, Age, Education Level, Military Affiliation, and Household Income Level (there is a total of over 200 cross-tabulation tables included in this report). Statistically significant correlations may be identified by using the descriptions and examples shown in the appendix of this report.

For further explanation of the statistical concepts of Margin of Error and Statistical Significance, to assist the reader in best interpreting and utilizing the presented information, please refer to the appendix of this report Technical Comments.

For ease of use, survey questions have been organized into the following sections: Section 3.1 Quality of Life Issues Sixteen Year Trends in Responses (2000-2015) (Tables 8-9) Section 3.2 Quality of Life Issues Detailed Investigation of Year 2015 Results (Tables 10-30) Section 3.3 The Local Economy Personal Financial Situations (Tables 31-32) Section 3.4 K-12 Education (Tables 33-34) Section 3.5 Healthcare and the Affordable Care Act (Tables 35-38) Section 3.6 Fort Drum Presence and Impact in Jefferson County (Tables 39-41) Section 3.7 Watertown International Airport (Tables 42-45) Section 3.8 Local Charitable Organization Issues (Tables 46-49) Section 3.9 Government and Political Issues (Tables 50-51) Section 3.10 Familiarity with the Center for Community Studies (Table 52)

When comparing results across time, the sample sizes collected each year should be considered. The sample sizes for each of the sixteen years of the Jefferson County Annual Survey of the Community are summarized in the following table.

Table 6 Sample Sizes for Each of Sixteen Years of the Jefferson County Annual Survey

Year of Study: 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total sample Size (# interviews completed) 340 342 413 341 348 355 354 382 421 382 414 406 380 400 422 400

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



Table 7 Sample Size and Margin of Error for Common Demographic Subgroups to be Compared in 2015

Demographic Characteristic: Number of

Participants Sampled (weighted)

Approximate Margin of Error

(when analyzing only this subgroup)

Gender: Male n=206 5.5% Female n=194 5.6%

Age: 18-29 years of age n=100 7.8% 30-39 years of age n=79 8.8% 40-49 years of age n=68 9.5% 50-59 years of age n=63 9.9% 60-69 years of age n=44 11.8% 70 years of age or older n=46 11.5%

Education Level: High school graduate (or less) n=187 5.7% Some college (less than 4-year degree) n=133 6.8% College graduate (4+ year degree) n=80 8.8%

Annual Household Income: Less than $25,000 n=57 10.4% $25,001-$50,000 n=109 7.5% $50,001-$75,000 n=66 9.6% More than $75,000 n=102 7.8%

Military Affiliation: Active Military in the Household n=100 7.8% Employment is Related to Fort Drum (but no Active Military in the household) n=80 8.8% No Connection to Fort Drum n=220 5.3%

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

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

The rationale behind providing so many analyses (statistics) for every survey question included in this study is that one never fully understands the information contained in a reported statistic without framing that statistic. Framing involves adding a more rich perspective to the value of some reported statistic. For example, when Jefferson County residents in April 2015 were asked the survey question: When considering you or your family's personal financial situation has it gotten better, stayed about the same, or gotten worse in the past 12 months?, the result in the current community study is that 21.2% of the participants responded with gotten worse (reported later in Table 32). So . what does this 21.2% really mean? Often-times community-based researchers will describe the process of framing a statistic as completing as many as possible of the five following comparisons (frames) to better understand a reported statistic from a sample:

Within Response Distribution (Is it a majority? 4:1 ratio? Three times more likely to respond with better . than worse?)

Trend Across Time (Has it increased? Decreased?)

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



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

Cross-tabulations by Potential Explanatory Variables (Different political ideological people differ in opinion or behavior? Age-dependent? Gender-dependent? Education-dependent? Income-dependent? Military-affiliation-dependent? Geography-dependent?)

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



Section 3.1 Quality of Life Issues in Jefferson County Sixteen Year Trends in Responses

The bolded and dark-shaded number (cell) in each row of Table 8 is the largest percentage responding Excellent or Good found throughout the sixteen years for each survey question, with the similar bolded and dark-shaded number (cell) in each row of Table 9 representing the largest percentage responding Poor. For quick reference, considering the sample sizes collected each year in the Annual Survey of the Community, a difference of 6% or larger between any two years is considered statistically significant. For more detail regarding statistical significance, please refer to the appendix of this report Technical Comments. Note that in years 2000-2014 these community indicators were annually measured on a Better-Same-Worse scale. In years 2004 and 2015 all indicators were also measured on an Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor scale, similar to that which is currently in use annually in Lewis County and will be implemented in St. Lawrence County starting in July 2015. To facilitate a standard process for all three counties, past data in Jefferson County for these 19 community indicators has been transformed to the Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor scale for all sixteen years of 2000-2015. Item-specific ordinal level multinomial multivariate calibration models were developed and applied for each community indicator for past years 2000-2014 to generate the Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor response distributions.

Table 8 Trends in Issues in Jefferson County % Indicating Excellent or Good

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

34 35 41 36 39 32 31 37 43 46 45 42 19. Availability of housing

37 40 46 49 54 57 51 48 57 64 63

Table 9 Trends in Issues in Jefferson County % Indicating Poor

Quality of Life Indicator: 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 1. Opportunities for youth 23 29 30 28 27 24 23 22 23 28 28 28 26 26 28 24 2. Cultural / entertainment opportunities 25 30 25 27 25 23 26 24 22 26 25 28 23 26 25 20 3. Cost of energy 62 66 56 61 56 63 69 62 66 61 56 66 58 51 65 39 4. Health care access 17 22 19 20 18 15 20 18 20 23 22 22 21 20 2

Documents

2015 Jefferson County quality of life survey