8th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community

October 2014

8th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community

Table of Contents

Section 1 Introduction.................................................................4

Section 1.1 Methodology How This Data Was Collected................................. 4 Table 1 Response Rates for the 8th Annual Lewis County Survey..................................................................................... 5

Section 1.2 Demographics of the Sample Who was Interviewed?...................5 Table 2 Demographics of the October 2014 Lewis County Sample.................................................................................... 6 Table 3 Geographic Distribution of Participants in the 8th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community.................... 7 Table 4 Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes ............................................................................................................ 8

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

Section 2.1 Highlights Five Study Findings of Particular Interest................ 10 Section 2.2 Longevity of Living in Lewis County............................................... 12 Section 2.3 Quality of Life in Lewis County....................................................... 12

Table 5 Summary of 18 Key Quality of Life Indicators (2014 Results)........................................................................... 12 Section 2.4 Internet Access and Use................................................................ 15

Table 6 Summary of Internet Access among Lewis County Residents............................................................................. 16 Section 2.5 Transportation................................................................................ 16 Section 2.6 Healthcare...................................................................................... 16 Section 2.7 The Local Economy....................................................................... 17 Section 2.8 Education Issues.... 18 Section 2.9 County and State Government, and Political Issues...................... 19 Section 2.10 Familiarity with the Center for Community Studies at JCC... 19

Section 3 Detailed Statistical Results .....................................20 Table 7 Sample Sizes for each of Eight Years of the Lewis County Annual Survey......................................................... 20 Table 8 Sample Size and Margin of Error for Common Demographic Subgroups to be Compared in 2014.................... 21

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

Section 3.1 Longevity of Living in Lewis County............................................... 22 Table 9 How long have you lived in Lewis County?....................................................................................................... 22 Table 10 Do you expect that you will still be living in Lewis County in five years?............................................................ 23

Section 3.2 Quality of Life Issues Summary of Trends (2007-2014)... 24 Table 11 Trends in Issues in Lewis County Years 2007-2014 % Indicating Excellent or Good.............................24 Table 12 Trends in Issues in Lewis County Years 2007-2014 % Indicating Poor................................................... 24

Section 3.3 Quality of Life Issues Summary of 2014 Results... 25 Table 13 SUMMARY Quality of Life Issues in Lewis County Year 2014..................................................................... 25 Graphs of Most Positively and Negatively Perceived Quality of Life Issues in Lewis County ..............................................26

Section 3.4 Satisfaction with Overall Quality of Life in Lewis County Key Driver Analysis Factor(s) that have the most influence.... 27

Table 14 Correlation Analysis Among Quality of Life Issues in Lewis County (Year 2014)........................................... 28 Table 15 Factor Analysis Quality of Life Issues in Lewis County Five Key Lewis County Community-Satisfaction

Factors (Year 2014)... 29 Table 16 Regression Modeling and Relative Importance Which community-satisfaction factors contribute most to residents attitudes about the Overall Quality of Life in Lewis County? (Year 2014)...................................... 30

Section 3.5 Detailed Analysis of Individual Quality of Life Indicators..... 31 Table 17 Opportunities for Youth....................................................................................................................................... 31 Table 18 Cultural/Entertainment Opportunities ................................................................................................................ 32 Table 19 Cost of Energy.................................................................................................................................................... 33 Table 20 Healthcare Access.............................................................................................................................................. 34 Table 21 Healthcare Quality ............................................................................................................................................. 35 Table 22 Public Outdoor Recreational Opportunities.........................................................................................................36

Table 23 Quality of the Environment................................................................................................................................. 37 Table 24 County Government........................................................................................................................................... 38 Table 25 Town and Village Government........................................................................................................................... 39 Table 26 Real Estate Taxes ............................................................................................................................................. 40 Table 27 Policing and Crime Control................................................................................................................................. 41 Table 28 Availability of Good Jobs.................................................................................................................................... 42 Table 29 Shopping Opportunities ..................................................................................................................................... 43 Table 30 Quality of K-12 Education .................................................................................................................................. 44 Table 31 Overall State of the Local Economy................................................................................................................... 45 Table 32 Overall Quality of Life in the Area ...................................................................................................................... 46 Table 33 Availability of Care for the Elderly ...................................................................................................................... 47 Table 34 Access to Higher Education................................................................................................................................ 48 Table 35 Most important issue facing the residents of Lewis County at the present time?............................................... 49 Table 36 The presence of Fort Drum in the local area improves the overall quality of life for local residents?................. 52

Section 3.6 Internet Access and Use ............................................................... 53 Table 37 In the past 30 days have you used the Internet at all?................................................................................... 53 Table 38 Do you have access to the Internet at home? (among Internet users)............................................................... 54 Table 39 Do you access the Internet elsewhere, like at work, family and friends' homes, or public locations?................ 55 Table 40 SUMMARY Internet connection types at home? Multiple options available? Satisfaction with service?....... 56 Table 41 Do you access the Internet at home from a wired service (typically cable or DSL)?.......................................... 57 Table 42 Were you able to choose from more than one provider of wired service at your home?................................... 58 Table 43 How would you rate the quality of your wired service at home?......................................................................... 59 Table 44 Do you access the Internet using mobile service through a cellular provider (smartphone or tablet)?.............. 60 Table 45 Were you able to choose from more than one provider for mobile (cellular) access?........................................ 61 Table 46 How would you rate the quality of your mobile/cellular for Internet service at home?........................................ 62 Table 47 Do you access the Internet using a satellite dish at home?................................................................................ 63 Table 48 How would you rate the quality of your satellite service for Internet access at home?....................................... 64 Table 49 Which of the following reasons for not using the Internet at home describe you?.............................................. 65

Section 3.7 Transportation................................................................................ 66 Table 50 Has a lack of transportation kept you from securing employment or meeting your daily needs?....................... 66 Table 51 What would you say is the primary transportation issue that you've had?..........................................................67 Table 52 Would you use the Countys public transportation system for a daily commute to Utica?.................................. 68

Section 3.8 Healthcare...................................................................................... 69 Table 53 Currently have health insurance?....................................................................................................................... 69 Table 54 Ignored healthcare in past 12 months because of cost?.................................................................................... 70 Table 55 Which of the following most closely describes your opinion about the Affordable Care Act?............................. 71 Table 56 How has the Affordable Care Act affected the healthcare of you and your family?............................................ 72 Table 57 Prefer that Lewis County General Hospital remain county-owned, or prefer that it become a nonprofit, not-

county-owned hospital?...................................................................................................................................... 73 Table 58 If Lewis County General Hospital needed additional funding to conduct operations, we are interested in what

amount you would be willing to pay to support the hospital that would be added to your annual county tax bill. Please tell me which of the following five statements is closest to your opinion.................................................74

Section 3.9 The Local Economy....................................................................... 75 Table 59 Employment Status Current Occupation......................................................................................................... 75 Table 60 When considering your familys personal financial situation- has it gotten better, stayed about the same, or gotten worse in the past 12 months?.............................................................................................................. 77 Table 61 Have the federal spending cuts this past year caused by "sequestration" and the government shutdown

negatively affected the financial situation for you or your family?....................................................................... 78 Table 62 Estimate how many hours per month that you volunteer for community service activities.... 79 Table 63 "Tourism has a beneficial impact on our local economy."...................................................................................81 Table 64 How much county funding do you think that Lewis County should be investing in annual tourism promotion and marketing?................................................................................................................................................... 82

Section 3.10 Education Issues.......................................................................... 83 Table 65 Lewis County schools are adequately preparing our youth for the technology/economy of the future............ 83 Table 66 Which of the following most closely describes your opinion about the Common Core Learning Standards?.... 84

Section 3.11 County and State Government, and Political Issues.................... 85 Table 67 How would you classify your political beliefs?................................................................................................ 85 Table 68 "I feel that I am adequately informed about issues facing the County."........ 86 Table 69 "I feel that my local elected county officials represent my concerns effectively.".... 87 Table 70 Do you support or oppose the increase in the minimum wage that has been approved by New York State from its current level of $8/hour to a rate of $9/hour that will start on January 1, 2016?........88 Table 71 Which of the following is closest to your opinion about legalization of marijuana?......... 89

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

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

Appendix Technical Comments Assistance in Interpretation of the Statistical Results................. 92

Table 73 Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes ........................................................................................................ 93 Table 74 More Detailed Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes and Varying Sample Proportions.............................94

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

Acknowledgements

Student Associates:

Sung Ahn

Wartika Edwards

Debra Lynch

Taylor Russell Jennifer Allen

Clarissa Flaherty

Kylee Lynch

Alanna Savage Mallory Babcock

Justin Frechette

Mason Maitland

Angela Scherer Alana Bell

Elizabeth Gantt

Karl Marshall

Desiree Smith Josh Biggs

Thomas Gitlin

Andrea McGrath

Anthony Thompson Kristyn Chiappone

Laura Grohn

Zach Miller

Skylah Thompson Patrick Crane

Ashley Hall

Jillian Primicias

Gates Thruston Chrystal Cronk

Amanda Hirschey

Jennifer Reifke

Madison Tierney Deleha Decker

Ben Luptak

Julian Rodriguez-Ortiz

Kayleigh Willis

Faculty Supervisors:

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

Director of the Center for Community Studies

The Advisory Board of the Center for Community Studies:

Dennis Affinati 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)-786-2488

for additional information.

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

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College

1220 Coffeen Street Watertown, New York 13601

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

The Eighth Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community

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

Section 1 - Introduction

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

The annual Lewis County Survey of the Community is one specific activity conducted each year by the Center to gauge the attitudes and opinions of a representative sample of Lewis County adult citizens. This activity results in a yearly updated inventory of the attitudes and opinions of adult citizens of Lewis County. This survey in Lewis County has been completed each of the eight years, 2007 through 2014. This document is a summary of the results of the Eighth Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community, including comparisons with the results of the survey from its first seven years. Further, the key community demographic characteristics of Gender, Age, Education Level, and Household Income Level are investigated as potential explanatory variables that may be correlated with quality-of-life indicators for the region, using the 2014 survey results. It is standard methodology with professional surveys to provide this more detailed information to the reader information that may assist in explaining the overall findings by reporting the results for all subgroups within these key demographic variables. The results provide important information about contemporary thinking of citizens; and, over time, will continue to provide important baseline and comparative information as well.

Section 1.1 Methodology How This Data Was Collected

The original survey instrument used in this annual survey was constructed in the fall of 2007 through the combined efforts of the professional staff of the Center for Community Studies and members of the Lewis County Annual Survey Planning Committee. The instrument is modified each year by the Center for Community Studies, with input from its staff and Advisory Board, the Lewis County Annual Survey Planning Committee, and student assistants employed at the Center throughout the current academic year. These survey modifications are completed to include new questions of relevance to local organizations and agencies. The total survey length each year is approximately 60 questions, with a core set of approximately 30 questions that are intended to be asked each year that the survey is completed. Several survey questions are asked on an every-other-year basis. Newly developed questions regarding current county topics are typically introduced into the survey instrument each year.

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

This study in 2014 included completing interviews of 328 randomly-selected Lewis County adult residents. All interviews were completed via telephone. The goal before commencing the data collection was to complete at least 20% of the interviews while the participant (Lewis County adult resident) was contacted on their cellular phone and the

remaining at-most 80% of the interviews while the participant was contacted on their landline, with a total goal of approximately 350 completed interviews. To be eligible to complete the survey, the resident was required to be at least 18 years old. To complete the landline portion of the sampling, two thousand two hundred personal residence telephone numbers were randomly selected from the population of approximately 10,000 personal residence telephone numbers in Lewis County. These numbers were obtained from Accudata America, a subsidiary of Primis, Inc. Accudata America is a firm that specializes in providing contact information for residents of the United States. The telephone numbers were obtained from an un-scrubbed list, ensuring that individuals whose households are included in the telemarketing do-not-call list would be represented in this study. After receiving the 2,200 randomly selected landline telephone numbers, the list was randomly sorted a second time and a group of 1,600 residential landline numbers were attempted for interviews, resulting with 256 completed interviews; it was not necessary to attempt all 2,200 numbers to reach 256 completed interviews. To complete the cell phone portion of the sampling, a random-digit generation process with manual dialing was utilized where common 3-digit prefixes for cell phones in use in the Lewis County region were identified (i.e. 955, 778, 771, 767, 486, 408, etc.) and random sets of 4-digit phone number endings after these common prefixes were generated to be attempted. Attempts were made to 1,486 of these randomly generated cell phone numbers to successfully complete 72 interviews (72 out of 328 completes equates to 22% via cell phone, a result that is larger than the target of 20% of the overall goal of 350 interviews).

All telephone calls were made between 4:00 and 9:00 p.m. from a call center in Watertown, New York, on evenings between October 27th and October 29th 2014. Calls are made in late October each year to control for seasonal variation when sampling. The Jefferson Community College students who completed the interviews had completed training in both human subject research methodology and effective interviewing techniques. Professional staff from the Center supervised the telephone interviewing at all times.

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

Table 1 Response Rates for the 8th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community

Response rates for LANDLINES & CELL PHONES COMBINED attempted in this study: (22% via cell phones)

Complete Interview

Decline to be Interviewed

Not Valid Telephone

Number No Answer/

Busy TOTALS

Frequency 328 635 788 1,335 3,086 % of Numbers Attempted 11% 21% 26% 43% 100% % of Valid Numbers 14% 28% 58% 100% % of Contacted Residents 34% 66% 100%

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

Section 1.2 Demographics of the Sample Who was Interviewed?

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

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

2. Secondly, this demographic information facilitates the ability for the data to be sorted or partitioned to investigate for significant relationships relationships between demographic characteristics of residents and their attitudes and behaviors regarding the quality of life in Lewis County. Identification of significant relationships allows local citizens to use the data more effectively, to better understand the factors that are correlated with various aspects of life in the county.

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

Table 2 Demographics of the October 2014 Lewis County Sample (weighted by Gender, Age, Education Level, Geography, and Phone Ownership)

Demographic Characteristics: Count %

Gender: (2013 US Census updates for Lewis County: 50% male) Male 165 50% Female 163 50% Age: (2013 US Census updates for Lewis County: among those 18+, 27% are age 60+)

18-29 years of age 61 19% 30-39 years of age 49 15% 40-49 years of age 62 19% 50-59 years of age 67 20% 60-69 years of age 43 13% 70 years of age or older 46 14% Education Level: (2013 US Census for Lewis County: among those age 25+, 14% have Bach. Deg. or higher)

Less than high school graduate 14 4% High school graduate (including GED) 187 57% Some college, no degree 51 16% Associates degree 28 9% Bachelors degree 19 6% Graduate degree 28 9% Annual Household Income: (2013 US Census for Lewis County: 25% earn less than $25,000, 21% earn $75,000+)

Less than $25,000 49 17% $25,001-$50,000 107 37% $50,001-$75,000 79 28% More than $75,000 53 19% Household Size: (2013 US Census for Lewis County: average # persons per household = 2.51, 25% of households are single-person)

1 person 60 19% 2 people 113 36% 3 people 44 14% 4 people 34 11% 5 people 26 8% 6 people 26 8% 7 people 9 3% 8+ people 2 1% Mean per household: 2.93 persons Children in the Home Attending K-12 School in the County: (no comparative statistics for the entire county)

1+ children attending K-12 in County. 105 34% No children attending K-12 in County. 208 66%

(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)

Table 2 (cont.) Demographics of the October 2014 Lewis County Sample (weighted by Gender, Age, Education Level, Geography, and Phone Ownership)

Demographic Characteristics: Count %

Marital Status: (2013 US Census for Lewis County: among those age 15+, 61% are currently married)

Single 93 29% Married 190 60% Other 36 11% Active Military in the Household: (no comparative statistics for the entire county)

Yes (you) 2 1% Yes (another family member) 2 1% No 317 99% Household Resident has Civilian or Military Employment at Fort Drum: (no comparative statistics for the entire county)

Yes 13 4% No 304 96%

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

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

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

8th Annual Survey Sample (October 2014)

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

U.S. Census Estimates (updated in 2013)

Count % Count % Town of Residence: Castorland (village) 6 2% 221 1% Constableville (village) 0 0% 281 1% Copenhagen (village) 8 3% 708 3% Croghan (town) 59 18% 2,420 9% Croghan (village) 3 1% 628 2% Denmark (town) 14 4% 1,659 6% Diana (town) 0 0% 1,036 4% Greig (town) 13 4% 1,290 5% Harrisburg (town) 9 3% 379 1% Harrisville (village) 9 3% 600 2% Lewis (town) 8 2% 724 3% Leyden (town) 15 5% 1,138 4% Lowville (village) 42 13% 3,429 13% Lowville (town) 13 4% 898 3% Lyons Falls (village) 9 3% 748 3% Lyonsdale (town) 8 2% 1,226 5% Martinsburg (town) 10 3% 1,373 5% Montague (town) 0 0% 94 0% New Bremen (town) 31 10% 2,580 10% Osceola (town) 0 0% 235 1% Pinckney (town) 0 0% 232 1% Port Leyden (village) 9 3% 775 3% Turin (town) 6 2% 545 2% Turin (village) 4 1% 177 1% Watson (town) 38 12% 2,008 8% West Turin (town) 13 4% 801 3% TOTAL 328 100% 26,205 100%

In general, Tables 2-3 demonstrate that after weighting the data collected in this study for Gender, Age, Education, Geography, and Phone Ownership, the responses to the demographic questions for the Lewis County residents who are included in the survey (those who actually answered the telephone and completed the survey) appear to closely parallel that which is true for the entire adult population of the county. The targets for demographic characteristics were drawn from the U.S. Census 2013 updates for Lewis County. Gender, Age, Education, and Geography were selected as the factors by which to weight the survey data, since the data collected in this Eighth Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community is susceptible to the typical types of sampling error that are inherent in telephone methodology: women were more likely than men to answer the telephone and/or agree to a survey; older residents are more likely to participate in the survey than younger adult residents; those individuals with higher formal education levels are more likely to agree to the interviews; and residents of more urban regions (in Lewis County, this would be villages) are more likely to participate than residents of rural regions. Standard survey research methodology has shown that regardless of the subject of the survey, these are four expected sources of sampling error. In addition to these standard four weight variables it has become increasingly the case that adults in our society are not accessible via landline they are cell-phone-only individuals. Therefore, the current Lewis County data has additionally been weighted by Phone Ownership, with targets that have been generated from repeated surveying in Lewis County by the Center for Community Studies (targets in 2014 are: 70% have both a landline and a cell phone; 15% are landline-only; and 15% are cell-only). To compensate for this overrepresentation of females, older residents, village residents, the highly educated, and those interviewed on landlines in the sample collected in this study, post-stratification weights for Gender, Age, Education Level, Geography, and Phone Ownership have been applied in any further analysis of the data analyzed in this report. In summary, all subsequent statistics that will be reported in this document are weighted by Gender, Age, Education Level, and Geography toward the 2013 U.S. Census reports that describe the Gender, Age, Educational Attainment, and Town/Village of Residence distributions of the actual entire adult population that resides in Lewis County, and toward the Phone Ownership targets described above.

Given the diligence placed on scientific sampling design and the high response rates, after application of post-stratification weights for gender, age, education level, geography, and phone ownership, it is felt that this random sample of Lewis County adults does accurately represent the entire population of Lewis County adults. When using the sample statistics presented in this report to estimate that which would be expected for the entire Lewis County adult population, the exact margin of error for this survey is question-specific. The margin of error depends upon the sample size for each specific question and the resulting sample percentage for each question. Sample sizes tend to vary for each question on the survey, since some questions are only appropriate for certain subgroups (e.g. only persons who indicated that they have wired Internet access at home were then further asked to evaluate the quality of that wired access), and/or as a result of persons refusing to answer questions. In general, the results of this survey for any questions that were answered by the entire sample of 328 residents may be generalized to the population of all adults at least 18 years of age residing in Lewis County with a 95% confidence level to within a margin of error of approximately 4.3 percentage points. For questions that were posed only to certain specific subgroups, such as the evaluate the quality of your wired Internet access question described above, the resulting smaller sample sizes allow generalization to the specific subpopulation of all adults at least 18 years of age residing in the county (e.g. generalization of some specific characteristics of sampled persons who have wired Internet access to all persons in Lewis County who have wired Internet access) with a 95% confidence level to within a margin of error of larger than 4.3 percentage points. Table 4 is provided below as a guide for the appropriate margin of error to use when analyzing subgroups of the entire group of 328 interviewed adults. Note that the approximate margins of error provided in Table 4 are average margins of error, averaging across all possible sample proportions that might result between 0% and 100%. For more specific detail regarding the margin of error for this survey, please refer to the appendices of this report and/or contact the professional staff at the Center for Community Studies.

Table 4 Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes

Sample Size (n=) 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% 328 4.3%

In order to maximize comparability among the eight annual surveys that have been completed in Lewis County between 2007 and 2014, the procedures used to collect information and the core questions asked have remained virtually identical. All surveys were conducted in the month of October each year to control for seasonal variability, and the total number of interviews completed ranged from 328 to 421, depending upon the year. All interviewers have been similarly and extensively trained preceding data collection each year. The survey methodology used to complete the Eighth Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community was comparable to that used in the previous seven years. Furthermore, post-stratification weights for gender, age, and education level were applied to all results from the first three years of surveying, while geography was additionally incorporated as a slight weighting factor since the fourth year of the survey (since 2010), and phone-ownership was added as a slight weighting factor since the sixth year of the survey (since 2012), allowing for valid comparisons for trends over the eight-year period that will be illustrated later in this report.

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

All data compilation and statistical analyses within this study have been completed using Minitab, Release 17 and SPSS, Release 22.

Section 2 - Summary of Findings

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

Finding #1: The Local Economy and Personal Finance

Lewis County residents perceptions of the overall state of the economy, availability of good jobs and the trend in personal finance situation continues to show improvement in 2014. The percentage of respondents who rated the Local Economy as either excellent or good went up from 19% in 2013 to 24% in 2014, while those who rated the Local Economy as fair or poor declined from 80% in 2013 to 74% in 2014. Although one out of every four residents (26.3%) described the state of the Local Economy as poor, this is the second lowest rate in the eight years of study and the lowest rate since the 2008 recession.

With the respect to availability of good jobs, residents again expressed significant dissatisfaction and are roughly five times more likely to rate the availability of good jobs as fair or poor (83%) than as excellent or good (16.3%). However this represents over a three year period a significant rebounding from the 10.1% rating of residents as excellent or good availability of good jobs in 2011.

In 2014, roughly one out of every five (22%) residents of Lewis County indicated that their familys personal financial situation has gotten worse over the past twelve months and 13% responded that it has gotten better. Over the eight years of the study of this question in Lewis County this is the lowest level for worse and this ratio of getting worse to getting better has been as high as nearly 4 to 1 in 2008 and roughly 3 to 1 in 2009-2011, but now stands as 1.5 to 1 in 2013-2014. The rate of responding worse at 21.6% is approximately one half of what was found in 2008, which was 40.1%.

Finding #2: Healthcare Quality and Access

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

Finding #3: Health-insuredness and The Affordable Care Act

Roughly one out of every eight adults (13%) in Lewis County report that they do not have any type of health insurance, down from the 9% in 2012 who reported not having insurance, but up from 19% who reported not having it in 2013. Those respondents in households with income under $25,000 reported double the rate of not having health insurance (25%). In those same households where respondents were the ages of 40-59 the uninsuredness rate nearly doubled again to 45%.

Another measure of the impact of Health-Insuredness is whether Lewis County adults have chosen not to seek medical care because of cost in the past twelve months. In both 2013 and 2014, approximately one of every seven residents (14%) indicated that they had not sought medical care due to cost. This percentage increases among younger adults aged 18-29 (37%) and among those from households with incomes less than $25,000 (26%). For those who have health insurance only 10% have not chosen to seek medical care because of cost, but for those who are uninsured this rate is 42%, the same as in 2013.

Three questions were asked of Lewis County residents on the Affordable Care Act; familiarity, level of support, and the effect on them and their families. In 2013 roughly one out of every four residents (27%) indicated that they were not familiar with the Affordable Care Act. In 2014 the rate decreases to one out of every six residents (17%).

There may be a disconnect between opinions of what should happen with the act and how it is affecting the healthcare with residents and their families because there are less negative experiences of the healthcare act but continued calls to repeal it. For instance, while in 2013, 45% expected that they would have been affected more negatively, in 2014, only 22% indicated that they had, in fact, been affected more negatively. Likewise, only 11% expected to have neither a positive nor negative effect, but in 2014, nearly two-thirds (63%) indicated that this was, in fact, their experience.

For those who do not currently have health insurance, 71% said the Affordable Care Act should be repealed, not funded, while only 30% of those currently insured provided the same response.

Beginning in 2012, Lewis County residents have been asked for their views regarding the financial challenges faced by Lewis County General Hospital. When asked whether the hospital should remain county-owned or become a non-profit, non-county-owned institution, 51% agreed it should remain county-owned, and 15% said it should become a non-profit, non-county-owned hospital, with one out of four (27%) indicating that they were not sure. This represents a significant decline from the 58% who agreed it should remain county-owned in 2013, and a significant increase in the not-sure respondents from 18% in 2013. Residents were asked what amount they would be willing to have added to their annual tax bills if Lewis County General Hospital needed additional operating funds. Roughly one in three (35%) indicated up to $100 annually, and an additional 6% responded that they were willing to have more than $100 added annually; but 51% said they would not be willing to have any additional taxes added to their annual bills to assist with funding of hospital operations.

Finding #4: Education

Four questions asked of Lewis County residents shed light upon their views on K-12 education. While residents of Lewis County remain satisfied (73%) with the "quality of K-12 education" system in the county, that satisfaction level has declined significantly since its peak in 2012, when 87% rated it as "excellent" or "good." This 2014 satisfaction rate is the lowest combined rate in the eight years of study for "excellent "or "good, " is also the highest rate for "fair" during that same eight years (21.2%), and the next-highest rate for "fair" was 12.7% in 2013.

Again, while Lewis County residents agree with the statement that "Lewis County schools are adequately preparing our young people for the technology and economy of the future" (68%), the rate of residents indicating "strongly agree" has declined threefold, from 35% in 2010 to 10% in 2014. At the same time, the rate of disagreement with this statement, combining "strongly disagree" with "disagree," has gone up from 5% in 2010 to 20% in 2014.

In addition to these two recurring questions above, two new questions were added regarding the Common Core learning standards in math and English. Residents were asked for their opinions about the Common Core learning standards, including their degree of familiarity with them. One of every four (25%) indicated that they were not familiar with the Common Core, and nearly half (45%) responded that "the Common Core is a bad idea and should be eliminated." Only 4% were in favor of keeping the Common Core as it is; however, nearly another one-quarter of residents (23%) answered "the concept is a good idea, but it needs changes."

Although there were no survey questions specifically addressing K-12 school funding in 2014, a significant portion of the real-estate tax burden is comprised of property taxes to support schools. The 2014 survey reveals both the highest levels of dissatisfaction (78% rating of "fair" or "poor") with real-estate taxes and the lowest rating of satisfaction with real-estate taxes (16% rating of "excellent" or "good") throughout the eight years of study.

Finding #5: Government and Political Issues

Regarding county government, Lewis County residents by a wide margin agree that they are "adequately informed about issues facing the county" (57%), compared with the 39% who disagreed with this statement, a positive trend from the 51% agreement and 45% disagreement found in 2013.

By a smaller margin, residents agree that "local elected county officials represent my concerns effectively" (50% agree; 40% disagree), which was an improvement over the 2013 ratings of 44% agreeing and 47% disagreeing with this statement.

Residents were asked for their views on the increase in New York State's minimum-wage rate to $9 per hour that will be implemented in January, 2016. Over three-fourths of participants (78%) responded positively to the increase, compared to only 17% who were opposed.

Lewis County residents were asked for their opinions about the legalization of medical marijuana or possibly complete legalization and regulation of it. One-third of Lewis County adults (33%) responded that marijuana should remain completely illegal, a significantly higher percentage than the figure reported in the Sienna Research Institute's March 2014 statewide poll, which indicated that only one in five upstate New York residents (21%) felt that it should remain completely illegal. However, this was the minority opinion in Lewis County, where 60% support complete legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes, and nearly half of that 60% (26% of the 60%) support complete legalization.

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

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

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

Summary of 2014 Quality-of-Life Indicators Results:

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

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

Quality of Life Indicator: %

Excellent + % Good

% Excellent

% Poor

1. Quality of the environment 85.2% 37.3% 4.2% 2. Public outdoor recreational opportunities 75.2% 35.5% 12.4% 3. The overall quality of life in the area 74.8% 21.5% 7.7% 4. Quality of k-12 education 73.4% 25.8% 3.2% 5. Policing and crime control 72.6% 13.7% 5.9% 6. Health care quality 70.5% 13.3% 9.6% 7. Availability of care for the elderly. 64.7% 14.1% 6.3% 8. Health care access 55.2% 10.6% 12.3% 9. Town and village government 42.9% 2.1% 10.4% 10. County government 40.2% 1.7% 19.2% 11. Access to higher education 36.7% 7.7% 31.9% 12. Shopping opportunities 35.8% 4.8% 27.4% 13. Cultural/entertainment opportunities 30.3% 3.3% 29.6% 14. Opportunities for youth 27.5% 5.5% 33.4% 15. Cost of energy 25.8% 0.6% 29.3% 16. The overall state of the local economy 23.5% 1.5% 26.3% 17. Availability of good jobs 16.3% 0.2% 52.7% 18. Real estate taxes 16.2% 0.6% 39.8%

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

Satisfaction with Overall Quality of Life in Lewis County Key Driver Analysis Factor(s) that have the most influence:

4. Among the 17 quality-of-life characteristics that were studied (the quality of life indicators, excluding Overall Quality of Life in the Area) a multivariate correlation analysis was completed and each of the 17 characteristics is positively correlated with ones perception of the overall quality of life. After a Factor Analysis was completed, the seventeen characteristics reduced to the following five key factors factors that have the most influence upon residents perceptions of the overall quality of life in Lewis County: (Tables 14-15)

Factor 1: Healthcare and Education Factor 2: Opportunities, not employment-related Factor 3: Government Factor 4: Cost of Living, Jobs, Personal Finance Factor 5: The Environment

5. To determine which of these five identified quality-of-life factors is the most important in contributing to, or impacting, ones impression of the Overall Quality of Life in the Area another mathematical technique, called model-building, was completed. Once the model was constructed to best predict perception of Overall Quality of Life in the Area a relative importance analysis was completed for the model to finally identify the factor(s) that have the greatest impact upon ones Overall Quality of Life in the Area (happiness with the quality of life in Lewis County). The interpretation of this relative importance analysis is a measurement of the size of the contribution to Overall Quality of Life that is generated (the relative importance). Cost of Living/Jobs/Finance and The Environment are identified as the two factors that contribute the most to predicting ones perception of the Overall Quality of Life in Lewis County, it is found that these two factors account for 57% of an individuals rating for Overall Quality of Life. Note that the meaning of a relative importance of 31% for Cost of Living/Jobs/Finance versus a relative importance of 11% for Healthcare/Education is that ones perception of Cost of Living/Jobs/Finance is about three times more important in contributing to ones Overall Quality of Life rating than is ones perception of Healthcare/Education (31%11%=2.8). In other words, ones perception of Healthcare/Education is that it is quite minimal in its contribution toward ones Overall Quality of Life rating, while ones perception of Cost of Living/Jobs/Finance is that it is quite large in its contribution toward ones Overall Quality of Life rating. (Table 16) Below are the contributions that each of the five studied factors have toward ones Overall Quality of Life rating:

Factor: Relative Importance: Cost of Living, Jobs, Personal Finance 31% The Environment 26%

Opportunities, not employment-related 17% Government 15%

Healthcare and Education 11%

Economic-related Quality-of-Life Indicators:

6. Availability of Good Jobs Availability of Good Jobs continues to clearly be the most negatively-perceived community characteristic among adult residents of Lewis County with only 16.1% responding as Good and 0.2% rating as Excellent. However, the perception of local job availability has shown significant positive progress since 2011, when the most negative perceptions were indicated (Excellent or Good in 2011 was 10.1%). In the past year, however, there has been no significant change 2013 and 2014 results parallel one another very closely. (Table 28)

7. Overall State of the Local Economy Level of dissatisfaction with Overall State of the Local Economy reported by Lewis County residents has continued to reduce in 2014. In 2007, 19% rated the Overall State of the Local Economy as Poor; this rate increased significantly to 34% in 2008, and increased significantly again to 44% in 2009. However, in 2010 the rating of the Overall State of the Local Economy as Poor did not increase significantly to continue this preceding three-year negative trend in 2010, 41% rated the Overall State of the Local Economy as Poor. In 2012, this rate of responding Poor significantly decreased back to only 30%, and in 2013 this rate continued to decrease to a level of 29.6% (decreased to 26.3% in 2014). In 2014, the most common rating continued to be Fair (48%), while in all three years between 2009-2011, the most common response was Poor. Significant improvement has been found between 2013-2014, with the Poor rate now being the second lowest ever found in 8 years of study (lowest since 2007), and a significant shift from Poor or Fair to Good occurred in the past year, with Poor or Fair decreasing by 8% in the past year, and at the same time Good increased by 7%. (Table 31)

8. Shopping Opportunities A positive trend in satisfaction with Shopping Opportunities in the county has been found between 2013-2014. In 2011, 28% responded with Excellent or Good, a rate that increased to 38% in 2012, but a rate that then decreased in 2013 back to 31%, and one that has rebounded to 36% in 2014. At the same time over the past year there has been a shift from Fair to Good in assessment of Shopping Opportunities (2013: Fair=46% and Good=22%; while in 2014: Fair=37% and Good=31%). (Table 29)

9. Cost of Energy Residents of Lewis County continue to be less than happy with the Cost of Energy, however, the level of discontent

is one of the lowest levels found in eight years of surveying in the county. Although only 26% of participants in 2014 rate the Cost of Energy as Good or Excellent, the rate of responding Poor is the second lowest ever found. In 2014 only 29% rate the Cost of Energy as Poor while that rate was as high as 48% in 2008. There was no significant change in perceptions of the Cost of Energy between 2013-2014, Poor remains lower than in 2007-2012. (Table 19)

10. Real Estate Taxes In 2014 residents of Lewis County continue to report a rather high level of dissatisfaction with the current status of Real Estate Taxes, with only 16% responding with Excellent or Good (an all-time low) and 40% responding with Poor. Less than 1% of the participants currently rate this community characteristic as Excellent. (Table 26)

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

11. Healthcare Access and Healthcare Quality Residents of Lewis County continue to report relatively high satisfaction levels with both the Quality of Healthcare and Access to Healthcare in the county, however, the satisfaction levels have decreased significantly in the past two years. More than two-thirds of participants (71%) currently rate Healthcare Quality as either Excellent or Good, while Healthcare Access is rated as either Excellent or Good by 55% of participants. However, both of these rates found in 2014 are significantly less positive than were found in the county in 2012, when Healthcare Quality was at 79% and Healthcare Access was at 72%. In fact, for Healthcare Access the rating as Poor in 2014 is at an all-time high of 12%. (Tables 20-21)

12. Quality of the Environment The environment in Lewis County continues to be perceived very positively by residents. More than eight-out-of-ten

residents (86%) rated Quality of the Environment as Excellent or Good (with 37% rating as Excellent). This Excellent or Good rate has varied between 83% to 91% in all eight studied years, while approximately 4% of participants currently rate the quality of the environment as Poor (highest rate ever found). This very positive perception is quite uniformly shared across all demographic subgroups studied. (Table 23)

13. Public Outdoor Recreational Opportunities Public Outdoor Recreational Opportunities continues to be among the most positively rated of the 18 studied community characteristics in Lewis County with over 75% of participants rating as Excellent or Good (significantly lower rate, however, than the all-time high of 83% found in 2012. (Table 22)

14. Quality of K-12 Education Residents of Lewis County remain satisfied with the Quality of the K-12 Education system available in the county, however, satisfaction is decreasing. This community characteristic was rated second highest among the 18 investigated characteristics in 2013, and dropped to fourth in 2014. Further, with 73% of the respondents rating the K-12 education provided in Lewis County as either Excellent or Good in 2014 this is clearly positive, yet it is the lowest rate ever found (87% found in 2012). In 2014 the trend has gravitated toward Fair as an assessment more than ever before. (Table 30)

15. Availability of Care for the Elderly Attitudes among residents of Lewis County regarding the Availability of Care for the Elderly in the county in 2014 returned to typical values with much more positive than negative assessment (65% rate as Excellent or Good, while only 6% rate as Poor). In 2012, the most positive rating ever for availability of care for the elderly was found, with over 70% rating this as either Excellent or Good, 2014 results are similar to 2012 results. (Table 33)

16. Cultural/Entertainment Opportunities Residents of Lewis County continue to report low satisfaction with Cultural/Entertainment Opportunities in the county. Approximately three-in-ten residents (30%) rate this quality-of-life indicator as Excellent or Good, while

there has been a significant shift from Fair to Poor between 2013-2014, with Poor currently at an all-time high of 30%. In 2014 only 3% rated Cultural/Entertainment Opportunities as Excellent. (Table 18)

17. Opportunities for Youth A negative trend in perception of Opportunities for Youth was found between 2012 and 2013 in Lewis County, and this negative trend has continued Poor is at an all-time high of 33% (was 25% in 2013). Residents most commonly indicate in 2014 that they feel that Opportunities for Youth are Fair 35% respond with this rating, while in 2012 the most common rating was Good. For the first time in eight years of study, the younger participants show a very low level of optimism about opportunities for youth 17% of those under the age of 30 responded with Excellent in 2013, while 0% of these younger folks did so in 2014. (Table 17)

18. Access to Higher Education Access to Higher Education as a community indicator has been measured since 2009 in Lewis County, and the results have been quite consistent throughout the six years of study. As has been the case in earlier years, residents are more negative than positive about these opportunities; in 2014 it was found that 37% rate this indicator as Excellent or Good, and 60% rate it as Fair or Poor (highest rate ever found). This 60% is a significant increase from 52% found in 2012. Very interestingly, the demographic subgroup most likely to be pursuing higher education those age 18-29 are the participants with a more positive perception of access to higher education (17% of these younger adults rate this as Excellent). (Table 34)

19. Policing and Crime Control Residents of Lewis County continue to be satisfied with Policing and Crime Control in the Area, with 73% rating it as

either Excellent or Good, and only 6% rating it as Poor (rates were 68% and 4%, respectively, in 2013). Satisfaction with Policing and Crime Control in the county is one of the most consistent community indicators studied each year, there has been very little change between 2007-2014 with Good always the most common rating reported. (Table 27)

20. County Government Residents of Lewis County continue to be neither tremendously satisfied nor dissatisfied with the quality of local

government in the county, with remarkably little change in results between 2011 and 2014. The majority of participants in 2014 (74%) rate County Government as either Fair or Good (similar to 76% found in 2011, 75% found in 2012, and 65% in 2013). Note, however, that Good is the most common response in 2014, for the first time since last occurring in 2008. (Table 24)

21. Town and Village Government When evaluating Town and Village Government, Lewis County residents most commonly respond neither tremendously satisfied nor dissatisfied. In 2014, 83% respond with Fair or Good (41% Good, 42% Fair). In 2012 this rate of Fair or Good was 79%. This middle-of-the-road sentiment in assessment of town and village governments throughout the county has shifted more negatively since 2012. In 2013 there was a significant decrease in Excellent or Good to the 7-year low rate of 42.3% at that time, and the 2014 result has remained stable at 42.9% Excellent or Good (was 52% in 2012). (Table 25)

22. Most Important Issue Facing Residents of Lewis County Participants were asked to identify the most important issue facing the residents of Lewis County. This question was open-ended, giving the residents the opportunity to specify the primary issue, while they may earlier have identified several issues as Poor via responses to the preceding 18 community indicators. The most commonly cited most important issue continues to be employment issues, loss of jobs (currently 47%; was 32% in 2007; 33% in 2008; 34% in 2009; 40% in 2010; 37% in 2011; 40% in 2012; and 49% in 2013). The 2013 rate of 49% citing employment issues, loss of jobs was a statistically significant increase from past years and was at the highest rate ever measured, the 2014 finding has not changed significantly from the 2013 rate. Jobs as the most important issue is particularly problematic among those who have at least a 4-year college degree, cited by 61% among this subgroup. Between 2009-2012 the second most common issue had been economic decline, loss of industry, however, in both 2013 and 2014 the second most commonly cited issue is Taxes (cited by 15% in 2013, 19% in 2014, the highest rate ever found). At the same time, economic decline, loss of industry is now cited by an all-time low percentage of participants (6% in 2014, was as high as 24% in 2010). (Table 35)

23. Impact of Fort Drum on Quality of Life in Lewis County When Lewis County residents are asked Do you agree or disagree that the presence of Fort Drum in the local area improves the overall quality of life for local residents?, the vast majority (80%) agree while only 12% disagree. A significant increase in Agree can be identified when 2014 results are compared to earlier results found when this question was posed in 2007-2009 (in 2007 only 67% agreed, while 29% disagreed). (Table 36)

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

24. Internet access and use were studied among Lewis County residents in 2014 in ways that have not previously been studied. Approximately three-fourths of adult residents have used the Internet in the past 30 days (73% among all participants, 36% among those age 70 or older). Among those who have used the Internet in the past 30 days 95% indicate that they have access to the Internet at home, and among the 5% of Internet-users who do not have Internet access at home 82% of this group indicates that they have Internet access elsewhere at work, a friends home, or public locations. The overall estimate is that 69% of adult residents in Lewis County currently have Internet access at home (assuming that all of those with Internet access at home actually use the Internet, which may not be universally true). (Tables 37-39)

25. Internet connection type, number of options available, and satisfaction with service were studied for each of three possible Internet services available in the county wired, mobile/cellular, and satellite. By far the most common Internet service used is wired access at home (used by 85% of those who have used the Internet in the past 30 days). Mobile/cellular access is used by 60% of those who have used the Internet in the past 30 days. It is far more common that those who access the Internet via smartphones have multiple options/providers from which to choose than those who use wired access at home (83% vs. 59%, respectively, indicate that they chose from more than one provider). Satisfaction with service is very similar when comparing wired access to mobile/cellular access, with both perceived much more positively than satellite access (48% of those using satellite access evaluate the service as Poor, a rate that is only 14% among those using wired access, and 9% among those using mobile/cellular access). Use, options available, and satisfaction for varying Internet access services among those who have used the Internet in the past 30 days are summarized below in Table 6. (Tables 40-48)

Table 6 Internet Access in Lewis County

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

Section 2.5 Transportation (Tables 50-52)

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

and over 15% of those residents whose annual household income is under $25,000 (13% in 2012, and 25% in 2013), report that lack of transportation has kept them from securing employment or meeting daily living needs in the past year. The most commonly cited transportation issues by those who indicated being kept from securing employment or meeting daily living needs in the past year continues to be Dont have a vehicle (currently 55%, was 51% in 2013) and Cost of gas (currently 30%, was 32% in 2013). (Tables 50-51)

28. About one-in-four Lewis County residents (18% Yes, and another 5% Maybe) indicate that they would potentially use a public transportation system for a daily commute to Utica if it were available, while 76% indicate that they would not use this service. Not surprisingly, those under the age of 30 (41% interested) most commonly report interest in a daily bus commute to Utica and back. (Table 52)

Section 2.6 Healthcare (Tables 53-58)

29. Almost 13% of adults in Lewis County report that they do not currently have any type of health insurance (87% report that they currently have health insurance, was 91% in 2012, 81% in 2013). Among those who are from households with annual income of under $25,000 the rate of insuredness decreases to only 75%. (Table 53)

30. Approximately one-in-seven Lewis County adults (14%) have chosen not to seek medical care because of cost in the past 12 months, a rate that has not changed significantly from 11% found in the county in 2011, 10% found in 2012, and 14% found in 2013. Younger adults are very likely to have ignored needed medical care because of cost in the past year 37% of those ages 18-29 report having done so, as are those from low-income households 26% of those from households with annual incomes of under $25,000 have ignored needed medical care due to cost. A very strong relationship between having health insurance and ignoring needed medical care continues to be evident among those who do have health insurance only 10% have chosen not to seek medical care because of cost in the past 12 months (was 7% in each of 2012 and 2013), while among those who are uninsured in 2014 this rate is 42% (was 48% among the uninsured in 2012, 42% in 2013). (Table 54)

31. The Affordable Care Act provision providing health insurance exchanges was implemented in the United States on October 1, 2013. In 2013 this annual survey was completed three weeks later, and at that point in time about 27% of Lewis County residents indicated that they were Not Familiar with the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. One year later, in October 2014, the rate of unfamiliarity has decreased to only 17%. In October 2013, adults in Lewis County tended to be more supportive of the Affordable Care Act than opposed. Approximately one-third of the participants (35%) thought that the Affordable Care Act was a good idea (13% preferred to keep the Affordable Care Act as it is, another 22% thought it was a good idea but needed some changes), while 29% of participants indicated that they believe that the Affordable Care Act should not be funded and should be repealed. After one year of experiencing the Affordable Care Act residents continue to be slightly more in favor than opposed to the law current rates are that 39% favor while only 36% want it repealed. Essentially the group who has become familiar with the law between 2013 and 2014 has followed a similar distribution of favor vs. opposition as those who were familiar in 2013. (Table 55)

32. In October 2013, only three weeks after the Affordable Care Act was enacted, adults in Lewis County tended to think that the effect that the Affordable Care Act will have on them and their family would be more negative than positive. In 2013, only 24% of participants expected to be affected more positively, while 45% indicated that they expect to be affected more negatively, with 11% responding neither, and 19% responding that they are not sure. After one year in place, the actual or realized effect of the healthcare law is essentially that very little has changed. In 2014, only 8% of participants have been affected more positively (24% expected this to occur), while 22% indicated that they have been affected more negatively (45% expected this to occur), with 63% responding neither (only 11% expected this to occur), and 4% responding that they are not sure (19% were unsure in 2013). (Table 56)

33. Two local healthcare questions were posed to Lewis County residents in each of the three years 2012-2014 specifically relating to the current financial challenge that Lewis County General Hospital is facing. When asked whether one prefers that the hospital remain county-owned versus become a nonprofit hospital (non-county-owned), support for remaining county-owned continues to be found, but is diminishing significantly in 2014, 51% prefer remaining county-owned (was 58% in 2012, and 63% in 2013), while 15% prefer becoming a non-county-owned nonprofit hospital (was 17% in 2012, and 15% in 2013), and 27% indicate that they are not sure (was 22% in 2012, and 18% in 2013). (Table 57, including exact wording of the specific survey question)

34. Residents of the county who own property (pay property taxes) were further asked what amount they would be willing to pay in additional property taxes to support the hospital, an amount that would be added to their annual county tax bill. Approximately one-half of property-owners (51%) indicate that they would not be willing to

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

Section 2.7 The Local Economy (Tables 59-64)

35. The employment status of Lewis County residents has been studied in each of 2008 through 2014 with results remaining remarkably consistent. The percentage of participants who report to be retired has always been between 21%-24% (23% in 2014), blue-collar is currently the occupation classification most commonly reported (25% in 2014, was 20% in 2013, has been between 11%-25% in each year of study), and 7% of participants currently indicate that they are self-employed. (Table 59)

36. Residents of Lewis County continue to be more likely to indicate that their families personal financial situation has gotten worse over the past 12 months than they are to indicate that it has gotten better. About one-in-five residents (22%) of the surveyed households in Lewis County indicate that their situation has gotten worse (however, this was 40% in 2008, 34% in 2009, 30% in 2010, 30% again in 2011, 25% in 2012, and 28% in 2013). In fact, the current rate of gotten worse is the lowest ever measured in seven years of posing this survey question. Currently only 13% indicate that it has gotten better in 2014 (was 18% in 2013). However, in the spectrum of the seven years of study in Lewis County, the 2013 and 2014 personal-financial-situation results are the most positive yet found in 2008 the ratio of Worse-to-Better was almost four-to-one (40% to 12%), in 2009 this ratio was approximately three-to-one (34% to 11%), in 2010 this ratio was less than three-to-one (30% to 12%), in 2011 this ratio continued at less than three-to-one (30% to 12%), whereas that ratio in 2012 reduced significantly to less than two-to-one (25.3%-to-13.6% is a ratio of 1.86). In 2013 and 2014 this ratio continued at less than two-to-one (in 2013: 28% to 18% resulted in a ratio of 1.6:1; in 2014: 22% to 13% now results in a ratio of 1.7:1). The results are the most positive ever in 2014 the difference between better and worse is the least found yet. In 2008 the difference between better and worse was 28% (40% worse 12% better = 28% difference), and in 2012 this difference was 11% (25% worse 14% better = 11% difference), while in 2013 this difference was only 10% (28% worse 18% better = 10% difference). Currently this difference is only 8.4% (21.6% worse 13.2% better). Again, the 22% who indicate that their personal financial situation has gotten worse in the past 12 months is the lowest rate ever found in seven years of asking this question in Lewis County. (Table 60)

37. Approximately one-in-seven Lewis County residents (15%) respond Yes when asked Have the recent federal spending cuts this past year caused by "sequestration" and the government shutdown negatively affected the financial situation for you or your family? (rate was 25% in 2013) Negative effects of the sequestration spending cuts are very common among the lower-income residents 30% of those from households with annual income of $25,000 or less indicate that there has been a negative effect on their financial situation (was 46% in 2013). (Table 61)

38. The spirit of volunteerism remains high among Lewis County residents, with 60% of participants indicating that they volunteer at least one hour per month for community service activities such as church, school and youth activities, charitable organizations, local government boards, and so forth. The percentages who indicated that they do volunteer in recent years have been 60% in 2007, 59% in 2008, 57% in 2009, 63% in 2012, and 58% in 2013 (not measured in 2010-2011). The average number of hours per month volunteered among all participants in 2014 is 10.8 hours. Extrapolation of this 10.8 hours/month results with 130 hours/year per adult. Given that there are approximately 20,000 adults in the county, one could then estimate that approximately 2.6 million hours per year are devoted to volunteering among Lewis County adults. Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics 2013 hourly wage average estimate of $26.24/hour in New York State, this would generate an annual economic impact of approximately $68,000,000. (Table 62)

39. There continues to be very strong agreement among Lewis County residents that tourism has a beneficial impact on the local economy 90% agree with statement (was 89% in 2012, 92% in 2013), while only 6% disagree (was 7% in 2012, 4% in 2013). (Table 63)

40. Residents were further asked how much funding that they believe Lewis County should be investing in annual tourism promotion and marketing. A small portion of residents (11%, not changed significantly from 8% found in 2012, or 7% found in 2013) indicate that they believe that taxpayer dollars should not be used for tourism promotion and marketing, while the most common responses are $50,000-$100,000 by 37% of participants (was 37% in 2012, and 40% in 2013), and Up to $50,000 by 25% of participants (was 29% in 2012, and 23% in 2013). (Table 64)

Section 2.8 Education Issues (Tables 65-66)

41. In general, Lewis County adults are satisfied with the local schools, approximately two-thirds (68%) of Lewis County residents agree with the notion that Lewis County schools are adequately preparing our young people for the technology and economy of the future, while only 23% disagree. However, over the past five years there has been a very dramatic negative trend in the perception of the local schools preparing young people for the technology and economy of the future between 2010 and 2014 the rate of indicating Strongly Agree has decreased from 35% to the current rate of 10%, while over this same time frame the rate of indicating Disagree (strongly disagree combined with disagree) has increased from 5% in 2010 to the current rate of 23%. (Table 65)

42. Approximately three-fourths (72%) of Lewis County residents indicated that they are familiar with the Common Core Learning Standards in math and English. Among those who are familiar with the Common Core, by approximately a two-to-one ratio residents are more likely to believe that the Common Core should be eliminated than they are to believe that these standards should not be eliminated. Almost one-half of participants (45%) think that the Common Core should be eliminated, while only 27% do not support elimination (only 4% prefer to keep the Common Core as it is, another 23% think they are a good idea but need some changes). (Table 66)

Section 2.9 County and State Government, and Political Issues (Tables 67-71)

43. Political ideology is researched and recorded each year of the Lewis County Annual Survey. In 2014, similar to all other previous years, participants are much more likely to self-identify as conservative as to self-identify as liberal (35% vs. 9%, respectively), however, the most common response to political beliefs is to self-identify as middle-of-the-road (36%). (Table 67)

44. By a larger margin in 2014 than was found in 2013, Lewis County residents tend to agree that they are adequately informed about issues facing the County 57% agree (was only 51% in 2013) with statement that they are adequately informed, while 39% disagree (was 45% in 2013). (Table 68)

45. Lewis County residents tend to agree that their local elected county officials represent their concerns effectively 50% agree with statement that their concerns are effectively represented, while 40% disagree (a significant improvement and reverse of the 44% agree and 47% disagree found in 2013). (Table 69)

46. Overwhelming support for the increase in the minimum wage that has been approved by New York State from its current level of $8.00/hour (rate in October 2014, when survey completed) to the rate of $9.00/hour that will be implemented on January 1, 2016 is evident among Lewis County adults. More than three-fourths of participants (78%) support this increase in the minimum wage, while only 17% voice opposition. (Table 70)

47. When asked opinions regarding legalizing marijuana for medicinal use, or even possibly complete legalization and regulation of the substance, a minority of Lewis County adults (33%) indicate that they believe that marijuana should remain completely illegal. Approximately three-in-five local adults (60%) support legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes, with almost one-half of these participants supporting complete legalization (of the 60% who support legalization for medicinal purposes it can be partitioned further into 26% support complete legalization, with the other 34% supporting legalization for exclusively medicinal purposes). According to Siena Research Institute in a March 2014 statewide poll, the percentage of New Yorkers who favored keeping marijuana completely illegal was 20%. When only the upstate New York residents who participated in the Siena poll at that time were investigated, the result increased to 21%. (Table 71)

Section 2.10 Familiarity with the Center for Community Studies at JCC (Table 72)

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

Section 3 - Detailed Statistical Results

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

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

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

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

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

For ease of use, survey questions have been organized into the following sections: Section 3.1 Longevity of Living in Lewis County (Tables 9-10) Section 3.2 Quality of Life Issues Summary of Trends (2007-2014) (Tables 11-12) Section 3.3 Quality of Life Issues Summary of 2014 Results (Table 13) Section 3.4 Satisfaction with Overall Quality of Life in Lewis County Key Driver Analysis (Tables 14-16) Section 3.5 Detailed Analysis of Individual Quality of Life Indicators (Tables 17-36) Section 3.6 Internet Access and Use (Tables 37-49) Section 3.7 Transportation (Tables 50-52) Section 3.8 Healthcare (Tables 53-58) Section 3.

Documents

8th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community