20th Jefferson County Annual Survey Report 6-7-19

The Center for Community Studies
at Jefferson Community College
Presentation of Results:
Twentieth Annual
JEFFERSON
COUNTY
Survey of the Community
April 2019
20 Mr. Joel LaLone, Research Director

Mr. Larry Danforth, Research Coordinator
The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College
Table of Contents
Section 1 – Introduction................................................................ 5
Section 1.1 – Methodology – How These Data Were Collected............................ 5
Table 1 – Response Rates for the 20th Annual Jefferson County Survey..............................................................................7
Section 1.2 – Demographics of the sample – Who was Interviewed?................... 8

Table 2 – Demographics of the April 2019 Jefferson County Sample – The Nature of this Sample...................................... 9
Table 3 – Geographic Distribution of Participants in the 20th Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community….......... 10
Table 4 – Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes .......................................................................................................... 11
Section 2 – Topline Summary of Findings................................. 13

Section 2.0 – The View from 30,000 Feet! (or, “if one only has 30 seconds to read this report”).…13
Table 5 – Topline Summary of opinions regarding various societal issues.......................................................................... 14
Section 2.1 – Quality of Life in Jefferson County................................................. 15

Table 6 – Summary of Twelve Key Quality-of-Life Community Indicators (2019 and Recent Results)…….................................. 15
Section 2.2 – Personal Opinions – Issues in Our Society and Communities....... 17

Table 7 – More detailed summary of opinions regarding various societal issues.................................................................17
Section 2.3 – Other Tracked Local Community Characteristics.......................... 18

Section 2.4 – The New York State Zoo at Thompson Park – Residents’
Opinions about the Future............................................................. 19
Section 2.5 – Public Transportation in Jefferson County..................................... 20
Section 3 – Detailed Statistical Results .................................... 21
Table 8 – Sample Sizes for Each of Twenty Years of the Jefferson County Annual Survey............................................... 22
Table 9 – Sample Size and Margin of Error for Common Demographic Subgroups to be compared in 2019..................... 22
“Framing” a Statistic – Providing Perspective to Better Understand, Interpret, and Use this Survey Data………......23
Section 3.1 – Quality of Life Issues – 20-Year Trends in Responses…………... 24

Table 10 – Trends in Issues in Jefferson County – Years 2000-2019 – % Indicating “Excellent or Good”....................... 24
Table 11 – Trends in Issues in Jefferson County – Years 2000-2019 – % Indicating “Poor”............................................. 24
Section 3.2 – Quality of Life Issues – Summary of 2019 Results………………... 25

Table 12 – SUMMARY – Quality of Life Issues in Jefferson County – Year 2019............................................................... 25
Figure 1 – Community Quality-of-Life Indicators – Relative Standing of Satisfaction Levels…………………...................... 25
Section 3.3 – Detailed Analysis of Individual Quality-of-Life Indicators…...…..... 26

Table 13 – Cultural/Entertainment Opportunities ................................................................................................................. 27
Table 14 – Healthcare Quality ............................................................................................................................................. 28
Table 15 – Access to Higher Education................................................................................................................................ 29
Table 16 – Quality of the Environment................................................................................................................................. 30
Table 17 – County Government........................................................................................................................................... 31
Table 18 – Real Estate Taxes ............................................................................................................................................. 32
Table 19 – Downtown of Watertown .................................................................................................................................... 33
Table 20 – Availability of Good Jobs.................................................................................................................................... 34
Table 21 – Quality of K-12 Education .................................................................................................................................. 35
Table 22 – Overall State of the Local Economy................................................................................................................... 36
Table 23 – Availability of Housing ........................................................................................................................................ 37
Table 24 – Overall Quality of Life in the Area ...................................................................................................................... 38
Section 3.4 – Personal Opinions – Issues in Our Society and Communities…... 39

Table 25 – SUMMARY – Comparing dominance of opinions regarding various societal issues......................................... 40
Table 26 – SUMMARY – Inter-correlations between opinions regarding various societal issues........................................ 41
Presentation of Results — Twentieth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community — April 2019
Page 1
Table 27 – Globalism vs. Nationalism.................................................................................................................................. 42
Table 28 – Climate Change ................................................................................................................................................. 43
Table 29 – Responsibility for Healthcare............................................................................................................................. 44
Table 30 – Presidential Approval.......................................................................................................................................... 45
Table 31 – Physical Wall on US-Mexico Border................................................................................................................... 46
Table 32 – Social Security Funding...................................................................................................................................... 47
Table 33 – MeToo! Movement.............................................................................................................................................. 48
Table 34 – Same-sex Relationships..................................................................................................................................... 49
Table 35 – Abortion………………......................................................................................................................................... 50
Table 36 – Gun Control and Rights...................................................................................................................................... 51
Table 37 – Federal Income Tax Cuts................................................................................................................................... 52
Table 38 – What do you think is the single largest issue that is facing our nation right now?.............................................. 53
Section 3.5 – Other Tracked Local Community Characteristics………………..... 56

Table 39 – Employment Status – Current Occupation......................................................................................................... 56
Table 40 – Work remotely from home?................................................................................................................................ 58
Table 41 – 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?………………………….….......................................................... 59
Table 42 – SUMMARY – in the past 30 days have you used the Internet to _____________?...........................................60
Table 43 – In the past 30 days have you used the Internet to get local news?.................................................................... 61
Table 44 – In the past 30 days have you used the Internet to get national news?............................................................... 62
Table 45 – In the past 30 days have you used the Internet to seek information about local events?.................................. 63
Table 46 – In the past 30 days have you used the Internet to make an online purchase?...................................................64
Table 47 – In the past 30 days have you used the Internet to find medical or health information?...................................... 65
Table 48 – Political Ideologies of Participants………........................................................................................................... 66
Table 49 – Your opinion about the use of (legalization of) marijuana?................................................................................ 67
Table 50 – Which of the following best describes your personal cigarette use?.................................................................. 68
Table 51 – Have you heard of the Center for Community Studies at JCC before completing this survey?......................... 69
Opinions about the Future….......................................................... 70
Table 52 – When was the last time you visited the New York State Zoo at Thompson Park?............................................. 70
Table 53 – Which of the following are reasons why you visit the zoo?................................................................................ 71
Table 54 – What improvements or additions would you like to see at the zoo?................................................................... 72
Table 55 – How important do you think that having a zoo is to the quality of life in our county?......................................... 73
Table 56 – What do you believe are the barriers to visiting the Zoo?...................................................................…............ 74
Section 3.7 – Public Transportation in Jefferson County..................................... 75

Table 57 – Is there a vehicle available in your home for transportation?............................................................................. 75
Table 58 – Has a lack of transportation been a barrier to your ability to secure employment any time in the past year?.... 76
Table 59 – Does anyone in your household currently use public transportation in Jefferson County?................................ 77
Table 60 – For what uses, or locations, or activities would you use public transportation?................................................. 78
Table 61 – For the destination you most frequently visit, possibly work, school, or church, what method of transportation
do you most commonly use?….......................................................................................................................... 79
Table 62 – Interest in using potential public bus routes throughout Jefferson County......................................................... 80
Section 4 – Final Comments ...................................................... 81

Appendix – Technical Comments – Assistance in
Interpretation of the Statistical Results................. 82
Margin of Error – Constructing Confidence Intervals to Estimate for an Entire Population......................................................... 82
Margin of Error – More Detail for Those Interested in Maximizing Precision and Accuracy of Estimates................................... 82
Table 63 – More Detailed Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes and Varying Sample Proportions............................ 84
Significance Testing – Testing for Statistically Significant Trends, Differences, and Relationships............................................ 85
Correlated Explanatory Variables – How does one decide if there is a “statistically significant” correlation?...................... 86
Regional Comparisons – How does one decide if Jefferson County is “statistically significantly” different from Lewis
and/or St. Lawrence Counties?............................................................................................................................................ 87
Trend Analysis – How does one decide if Jefferson County has “statistically significantly” changed over time?................ 87
The Survey Instrument ............................................................... 90

Page 2
Acknowledgements
Sponsors of the 20th Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community:
The Center for Community Studies would like to thank following two local organizations for their generous financial support of this survey.
Faculty Supervisors:
Mr. Joel LaLone .....................................................................................Professor of Mathematics and
Research Director for the Center for Community Studies
Mr. Lawrence Danforth ........................................................... Assistant Professor of Mathematics and
Research Coordinator for the Center for Community Studies
Mr. Andrew Draper......................................................................................... Instructor of Mathematics
The Advisory Board of the Center for Community Studies:

Don Alexander Tracy Leonard
Mary Corriveau Carl McLaughlin
Larry Danforth John O’Driscoll
John Deans Ryan Piche
Sonja Draught Megan Stadler
Tom Finch Ty Stone
Joel LaLone Steven Todd
Matilda Larson Eric Virkler
Joe Lawrence Henricus Wagenaar
Dave Zembiec
Page 3
Student Associates who worked on this study:

The following 90 students at SUNY Jefferson participated in this study by completing the interviews of Jefferson County residents.
Bennett, Nicole Garbacz, Jeffrey LaClair, Sierra Phillips, Dziko

Bergevin, Anthony Gehrke, Grace Lange, Allison Pierce, Elizabeth
Bruner, Carson Goodwin, Hannah Lauber, Andrew Quinones, Jan
Chen, Henry Gotham, Breana Lewis Lejon Santillan, Carlos
Church, Ben Grill, Shane Livingston, Sandra Schafer, Shauna
Clacks, Jason Hall, Michael Lockwood, Sarah Seiptka, Kiera
Collins, Melissa Hendley, Madisyn Maccue, Demetrie Side, Kayla
Concha, Kyara Hennigan, David Mahon, Brooke Stevens, Aaron
Davis, Brandon Holt, Marissa Malloy, Chelsea Sudera, Gopal
Davis, Caden Horner, Wynn Manns, Laura Sugden, Hannah
Davis, Ema Hull, Makayla Maus, Jocelyne Thomas, Hope
Davis, Kayla Hunt, Joshua Monaghan, Ryanne Tucker, Natalie
DeForest, Griffin Ingerson, Noah Morris, Anthony Vazquez, Maggie
Ditch, Collin Inserra, Vincent Mott, Jahna Wallack, Aaron
Ditch, Jaxon Introvigne, Scott Moyer, Shane Ward, Lila
Doane, Dakota Johnson, Breana Nichols, Lauren Warren, Cyrus
Docteur, Grayce Jones, Alex Paige, Nicole Warren, Piper
Dudley, Bobby Kachurak, Joshua Palmer, Tyler Waterman, Tylor
Eaves, Schyler Knapp, Patrick Paquette, Kyle Watson, Mazzy
Elie, Adrian Knudsen, Ingrid Pease, Colman Westbrook, Destiny
Elie, Josephine Ko, Dail Peluso, Benjamin Wiley, Janiah
Fitzsimmons, Madeline Koster, Emily Perez, Wanda Ziegler, Cassie
Fulmer, McKay Kuba, John
Contact Information for the Center for Community Studies

For more information, please contact

at Jefferson Community College
1220 Coffeen Street
Watertown, New York 13601
E-mail: jlalone@sunyjefferson.edu
Website: www.sunyjefferson.edu/community/community-studies/
Phone: (315)-786-2264
A summary report of study findings is available free online at

www.sunyjefferson.edu/community/community-studies/#latest-surveys
Page 4
The Twentieth Annual

Jefferson County Survey of the Community
Based on 581 interviews conducted April 8 – April 25, 2019
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 in April of each of the twenty years, 2000 through 2019. The Center also completes a similar annual
survey in each of St. Lawrence County (in June annually) and Lewis County (in October annually).
This document is a summary of the results of the Twentieth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community,
including comparisons with the results of the survey from its first nineteen years. Further, the key community demographic
characteristics of Gender, Age, Education Level, Military Affiliation, Political Ideology, and Household Income Level are
investigated as potential explanatory variables that may be correlated with quality-of-life indicators for the region, using the
2019 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. Additionally, the most recent results in each of the neighboring counties of Lewis and St.
Lawrence are presented when possible to add perspective to the current Jefferson County results. The results of this annual
study 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 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. These survey
modifications are completed to include new questions of relevance to local organizations and agencies. The total survey
length each year is approximately 50 questions, with a core set of approximately 25 questions that are intended to be asked
each year that the survey is completed. Most of these core questions are phrased identically in the surveys of all three of
Jefferson, Lewis, and St. Lawrence Counties to facilitate regional comparison. 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 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 SUNY 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 2019 included completing a total of 581 interviews of Jefferson County adult residents. A mixed-mode
sampling methodology was employed in this study with three blended samples: 325 interviews/surveys completed using
Page 5
telephone-interview methodology (both landlines and cellular phones), 125 completed by intercept face-to-face surveys on
post at Fort Drum, NY, and finally, 131 additional surveys completed via an online survey using email invitation mode. In
accordance with the American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) Transparency Initiative pledge, the
following details and disclosure for the telephone-interviewing, intercept surveying, and online surveying employed in
this study, including the following characteristics and facts should be considered by any reader:
1. (T) Dates of Data Collection: April 8-25, 2019.
2. (R) Recruitment:
Telephone: All telephone participants were recruited to participate via telephone by random selection from a
list of all available valid active residential and cellular telephone lines in Jefferson County, New
York, USA.
Intercept: All face-to-face participants were recruited to as they entered or exited the PX and the
Commissary on post at Fort Drum, Jefferson County, New York, USA.
Online: All online participants were recruited to participate via an email invitation with a link to the survey
embedded.
3. (A) Population Under Study: All adult residents of Jefferson County, New York, USA. There are approximately
120,000 residents in the county, among which approximately 25,000 are active
military and their dependents stationed at Fort Drum. Approximately 90,000 of the
120,000 residents are adults, it is these adults who are the population of interest in
this study (70,000 military, 20,000 non-military affiliated).
4. (N) List Source: Telephone: Electronic Voice Services, Inc., www.voice-boards.com
Intercept: No list utilized
Online: Bulk Email Superstore, www.contactai.com
5. (S) Sampling Design:
Telephone: The entire phone list described in #2 was randomized, and approximately 5,200 valid residential
and cellular phone numbers were selected to contact to invite to participate in the survey.
Intercept: Every adult who attended either the PX or Commissary the evening of April 15, 2019 was invited
to participate.
Online: The entire email address list described in #4 was randomized, and approximately 9,000 email
addresses of residents of Jefferson County, NY were selected to contact to invite to participate
in the survey.
6. (P) Population Sampling Frame:
Telephone: As described in #2, the sampling frame includes all available residential listed phone numbers,
for adults in Jefferson County, NY, both landlines and cellular phones included.
Intercept: All military-affiliated adult residents of Jefferson County, New York, USA.
Online: As described in #5, the sampling frame includes all available email addresses of residents of
Jefferson County, NY.
7. (A) Administration:
Telephone: Survey administered via telephone from a call center in Watertown, NY, only in English.
Intercept: Survey administered face-to-face on post at Fort Drum, Jefferson County, New York, USA, only
in English.
Online: Survey administered online from an email invitation, only in English.
8. (R) Researchers: The study is an annual survey completed by the Center for Community Studies at Jefferson
Community College, with funding provided by the College and two community sponsors: the
Northern New York Community Foundation, Inc., and the Development Authority of the North
Country, Inc., Watertown, New York, USA
9. (E) Exact Wording of Survey: Survey instrument is attached as an appendix
10. (N) Sample Sizes: As is discussed in much greater detail for this study later in this report: n=581 overall for the study,
with an overall average margin of error of ±4.2%
11. (C) Calculation of Weights: As is discussed in much greater detail for this study later in this report: results are
weighted by gender, age, educational attainment, military affiliation, and phone
ownership, with slight calibration of the online results toward telephone results to
address potential social desirability bias. Target weighting parameters are obtained
from a combination of: the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) released by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for phone ownership; the Fort Drum
Regional Liaison Organization for military affiliation; and the U.S. Census for gender,
age, and educational attainment.
12. (Y) Contact Information: Mr. Joel LaLone, Research Director, Center for Community Studies, contact information on
page 4.
Page 6
Further details of study methodology and sampling include that a total of 581 interviews of Jefferson County adult
residents were completed. A mixed-mode sampling methodology was employed in this study with three blended samples:
325 interviews/surveys completed using telephone-interview methodology, 125 completed by intercept face-to-face surveys
on post at Fort Drum, NY, and finally, 131 additional surveys completed via an online survey after email invitation mode.
Approximately 52% of the total sample selected (302 of the 581 interviews) indicated that they are “cell-only”. To be eligible
to complete the survey, the resident was required to be at least 18 years old. All telephone calls were made between 4:00
and 9:00 p.m. from a call center in Watertown, New York on the evenings of April 8-10, 2019. The intercept interviews on
Fort Drum were completed the evening of April 15, 2019 at the entrance of the PX and Commissary, with prior approval
obtained from the Office of the Garrison Commander. The Jefferson Community College students who completed both the
telephone and face-to-face interviews had completed training in both human subject research methodology and effective
interviewing techniques. Professional staff from the Center supervised all interviewing at all times. The online sampling
was supervised by the professional staff at the Center, with two reminder follow-up emails sent to any non-responders over
the two week sampling time spanning April 11-25, 2019. No rewards, neither pre-incentives nor post-incentives, were used
in any of the three sampling modalities to encourage participation.
When each of the telephone numbers in the random telephone sampling portion of this study 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 Jefferson 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 resident’s refusal to answer more than one-half of the questions was considered a decline to be interviewed. The typical
length of a completed telephone 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), a maximum of four call-backs were made to the number. Telephone numbers that were not successfully
contacted were ultimately categorized as No Answer/Busy. No messages were left on answering machines at homes where
no person answered the telephone. Similarly, the face-to-face interview required approximately 10 minutes after obtaining
consent. Finally, the introductory script of the online version of the survey acquired consent and validation of adult age and
within-county residence. The response rate results for the study are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1 – Response Rates for the 20th Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community
Number of Number of % of Total
% of Total Number who
Surveys Surveys Sample who
Sample are “Cell-
Methodology Utilized Completed Completed are “Cell-
(weighted only” (weighted
(unweighted (weighted contribution to the contribution to the only” (weighted
contribution to the contribution to the sample) contribution to the
sample)
sample) sample) sample)
Telephone interviews on Landlines 196 175 30% 0 0%
Telephone interviews on Cell Phones 129 166 29% 119 20%
Intercept (face-to-face) interviews 125 125 22% 120 21%
Online surveys 131 114 20% 61 10%
Totals 581 581 100% 300 52%
Decline to
Response rates for LANDLINES & CELL Complete No Answer/
be TOTALS
PHONES COMBINED attempted in this study: Interview Busy
Interviewed
% of Valid Numbers 6% 18% 76% 100%
% of Contacted Residents 26% 74% 100%
Did Not
Response rates for ONLINE SURVEYS Complete
Complete TOTALS
attempted in this study: Survey
Survey
Count 131 7,815 7,946
Percentage 2% 98% 100%
Page 7
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, on the following page.
Page 8
Table 2 – Demographics of the April 2019 Jefferson County Sample – The Nature of this
Sample (samples weighted by Gender, Age, Education Level, Military Affiliation, and Phone Ownership)
Raw Sample Size
(n, to be used when
Demographic Characteristics: Weighted %
constructing confidence
intervals for subgroups)
Gender: (US Census for Jefferson County: 52% male)

Male 54% 293
Female 46% 275
Age: (US Census for Jefferson County: among those age 18+ ‒ 29% are under age 30, and 11% are age 70+)
18-29 years of age 28% 117
30-49 years of age 34% 128
50-69 years of age 27% 208
70 years of age or older 11% 117
Education Level: (US Census for Jefferson County: among those age 25+, 21% have Bach. Deg. or higher)
Less than high school graduate 4% 14
High school graduate (including GED) 39% 161
Some college, no degree 23% 137
Associate’s degree 15% 88
Bachelor’s degree 11% 90
Graduate degree 9% 80
Household Income: (US Census for Jefferson County: 26% earn less than $25,000, 17% earn $100,000+)
Less than $25,000 20% 101
$25,001-$50,000 30% 133
$50,001-$75,000 23% 90
$75,001-$100,000 13% 84
More than $100,000 15% 94
Housing Situation: (US Census for Jefferson County: among housing units, 44% are renter-occupied)
Own home 59% 377
Rent home 27% 111
Neither own nor rent home 12% 62
Not sure 2% 9
Military Affiliation: (According to the FDRLO the current number of soldiers and dependents accounts for 20%-30% of
the population in Jefferson Co.)
Active Military in the Household (81 AM, 29 “partners”) 23% 129
Employment is Related to Fort Drum (but no 9% 49
Active Military in the household)
No Connection to Fort Drum 68% 392
Marital Status: (US Census for Jefferson County: 63% of households include a married couple)
Married 56% 333
Never married 31% 123
Divorced 10% 60
Widowed 4% 35
Race/Ethnicity: (US Census for Jefferson County: 85% of residents report a race of White)
Black/African American 6% 25
White 83% 459
Hispanic 5% 25
Asian/Pacific Islander 2% 7
Native American 1% 5
Multiracial 3% 14
(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 is the distribution of city, towns, or villages of residence of the participating respondents in the
Twentieth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community, and after application of post-stratification weights for Gender,
Age, Education, Military Affiliation, and Phone Ownership, and calibration of the online results, the sampled residences
closely parallel that which is true for the distribution of all Jefferson County adults – the entire county was proportionally
represented accurately in this study.
Page 9
Table 3 – Geographic Distribution of Participants in the 20th Annual Jefferson County

Survey of the Community (weighted by Gender, Age, Education Level, Military Affiliation, and Phone Ownership)
20th Annual Survey Sample
(April 2019) US Census
(weighted by Gender, Age, Education, Military Affiliation, Phone Estimates
Ownership)
Count % (weighted contribution

among among the 561 who %
(unweighted in parentheses ) responded)
Town of Residence:
Adams 32 (28) 6% 5%
Alexandria 24 (18) 4% 4%
Antwerp 11 (8) 2% 1%
Brownville 24 (23) 4% 5%
Cape Vincent 10 (14) 2% 3%
Champion 23 (22) 4% 4%
Clayton 18 (17) 3% 4%
Ellisburg 25 (20 4% 3%
Henderson 9 (13) 2% 1%
Hounsfield 17 (15) 3% 3%
Leray 128 (124) 23% 19%
Lorraine 10 (9) 2% 1%
Lyme 11 (18) 2% 2%
Orleans 11 (8) 2% 2%
Pamelia 13 (14) 2% 3%
Philadelphia 15 (13) 3% 2%
Rodman 8 (12) 1% 1%
Rutland 14 (15) 3% 3%
Theresa 10 (16) 2% 3%
Watertown (town) 24 (24) 4% 4%
Watertown (city) 91 (99) 16% 23%
Wilna 30 (25) 5% 5%
Worth 2 (2) 0% 0%
Not sure/Refused 3 (3) -- --
TOTAL 561 100% 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, and calibration of the online results, the responses to the demographic
questions for the Jefferson County residents who are included in 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 Eighteenth 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 since 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. Finally, to address potential social desirability response bias the online
results were calibrated according to overall assessment of the quality of life and presidential approval opinion toward the
Page 10
telephone collected results. Thus, all subsequent statistics that will be reported in this document are weighted by Gender,
Age, and Education Level toward the 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 multi-mode sampling design and the high response rates, after application
of post-stratification weights for gender, age, education level, military affiliation, and phone ownership and calibration of the
online sample, it is felt that this 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, the resulting sample percentage for each question, the
confidence level utilized, and the design effect. Sample sizes tend to vary for each question on the survey, since some
questions are only appropriate for certain subgroups, 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 581 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 ±4.2 percentage points. For questions that were posed only to certain specific subgroups
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 Jefferson County males to all males
in Jefferson County) with a 95% confidence level to within a margin of error of larger than ±4.2 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 581
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%, and please note that all are using a 95%
confidence level, and all include the design effect of 1.64 for this study. 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 Approximate Margin of
(n=…) Error
30 ±18.3%
50 ±14.2%
75 ±11.6%
100 ±10.0%
125 ±9.0%
150 ±8.2%
175 ±7.6%
200 ±7.1%
250 ±6.3%
300 ±5.8%
350 ±5.4%
400 ±5.0%
450 ±4.7%
500 ±4.5%
550 ±4.3%
581 ±4.2%
In order to maximize comparability among the twenty annual surveys that have been completed in Jefferson County
between 2000 and 2019, the procedures used to collect information and the approximately twenty-five core questions asked
have remained virtually identical. All surveys were conducted in April each year to control for seasonal variability, and the
total number of interviews completed ranged from 340 to 581, depending upon the year. All interviewers have been similarly
and extensively trained preceding data collection each year. The survey methodology used to complete the Twentieth
Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community is comparable to that used in the previous nineteen years. Furthermore,
post-stratification weights for gender, age, and education level have also been applied to all results from the first thirteen
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. Finally, online
Page 11
surveying has been blended into the overall sample for the first time in 2019. This maintenance of consistent methodology
from year to year allows for valid comparisons for trends over the twenty-year period that will be illustrated later in this report.
Throughout this report, key community demographic characteristics of Gender, Age, Education Level, Military
Affiliation, Political Ideology, 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 23.
Page 12
Section 2 – Topline Summary of Study Findings

Section 2.0 – The View from 30,000 Feet! (or, “if one only has 30 seconds to read this report”)
1. Post-recession Jefferson County Quality-of-Life Perceptions

Among the wide variety of 12 community
characteristics – quality-of-life indicators – that
are included in the 2019 Annual Survey of
Jefferson County (most of which have been
measured annually over the past 20 years), a
distinct pattern over the most recent decade has
emerged. The pattern appears to be that county
residents were increasingly dissatisfied with local
community characteristics during and shortly
after the national recession of 2008-2014.
Perceptions then improved dramatically from
2014 to 2018 – suggesting satisfaction with the
economic recovery in our nation being linked with satisfaction with many or all other Jefferson County
quality-of-life indicators. As a result, the most positive results ever measured throughout the past two
decades were found between 2016 and 2018 for many indicators – please refer to Table 10 on page 24.
However, 2019 results suggest a dampening of spirits slightly from the all time highs measured during the
post-recession period of the preceding 3-4 years – in 2019 only one of the community indicators showed
a significant improvement from 2018 (“The Downtown of Watertown”), with several indicators trending
significantly negatively between 2018-2019 (often-times returning to long-term average satisfaction
levels). (Tables 6 and 22)
2. Attitudes Concerning Residents’ Personal Financial Situations

In 2019, two local community quality-of-life indicators that are related to personal and local economics
continue to result with very positive results when placed in the perspective of 20 continuous years of survey
sampling in the county. Although there remains much room for improvement, recently residents report to
feel better than ever (at least since year 2000) regarding the availability of good jobs locally, and their own
personal financial situations.
The numbers:
Availability of Good Jobs ̶ For the past three years (2017-2019) the rating of “Poor” has been the lowest
ever measured in 20 years of surveying, currently “Poor” is at 32% (was as
high as 66% in 2001, 61% in 2009, and 55% in 2014); while the ratings of
“Excellent or Good” over these three years (23%, 28%, and currently 25%)
are the highest ever measured. (Table 20)
Personal Financial Situation ̶ For the past six years (2014-2019), residents have expressed the most
positivity ever regarding their change in personal financial situation over
the preceding 12 months. In 2019 residents continue to be almost twice
as likely to indicate that their situation in the past 12 months has gotten
“Better” (30%), than they are to indicate gotten “Worse” (17%), again,
some of the most positive results ever measured (for example, in 2012
“Better”=16%, while “Worse”=21%). (Table 41)
3. Largest Issue Facing the Nation – It’s Government and Politics!

For the past eleven years of surveying in Jefferson County (2009-2019) the question “What is the largest
issue facing our nation right now?” has been included in this Annual Survey. A very strong argument could
be made that changes in the results to this survey question over this timeframe illustrate some of the most
stark transformations in Jefferson County residents’ opinions, more significant changes than have been
discovered in any other tracked community-indicator variables. For example, notable recent trends include
but are not limited to: in 2009 a very large 81% of participants responded to this open-ended question with
“Economy/Jobs” while the rate of responding this in 2019 has decreased to only 6%; at the same time
“Government/Leadership” has increased from 3% in 2009 to 18% in 2019; and “Politically-Polarized
Society” emerged for the first time in 2018 at a 4% rate and has increased to 12% in 2019; and most
dramatically and recently – “Immigration” has increased from 0% in 2016, to 3% in 2018, to 14% in 2019.
(Table 38)
Page 13
4. The Downtown of Watertown

One of the most dynamic and changing community
indicators included in this study each year is the local
residents’ rating of the Downtown of Watertown. The
“Excellent or Good” rate has shifted tremendously
between 2000-2019, with recent dramatic increases and
decreases between 2013-present. The 2019 rate of
“Excellent or Good” is 35%. Notably, the “Poor” rate in
2019 is the lowest ever measured at only 15%. This is
the only community quality-of-life indicator among the 12
studied indicators in 2019 that showed a significant
improvement in satisfaction rating between 2018 and 2019 (in 2018 the “Poor” rate was 21%, and has been as
high 39% in 2004, and 36% in 2008). (Table 19)
5. Personal Opinions Regarding Community and Societal Issues

For the first time in 20 years of surveying quality-of-life and local governance issues in Jefferson County,
in 2019 the Center for Community Studies included a section of eleven survey items that relate to personal
opinions of residents regarding issues that typically are of great importance to residents of any community
and society. The issues studied ranged from healthcare funding, to social security, to the role of
government, to Presidential approval, to gun control and rights, to abortion, to same-sex relationships, as
well as other issues/topics that are typically commonly discussed and debated in our society. The goal
was to learn the overall predominate opinions of the Jefferson County adult community. No political stance
or objective was or will be taken, of course, by the independent and unbiased researchers at the Center
for Community Studies. The results are summarized in the following table, with very interesting themes
of those which are typically considered as conservative stances being dominant among county adult
residents at times, while those which are typically considered as more moderate or somewhat liberal
stances being dominant among county adult residents at other times. In Section 3.4 of this report a
thorough data analytics exercise, deeper-diving into relative dominance of most commonly held personal
opinions, key drivers of opinion, and inter-correlations between opinions/issues is presented. (Tables 25-
37)
Table 5 – Topline Summary of opinions regarding various societal issues

Statement “A” (% Agree) Statement “B” (% Agree)
Wrong for adults to be romantically involved with other adults of All right for adults to be romantically involved with other adults
Same-sex Relationships the same sex. 24% of the same sex. 68%
Climate Change Climate change is pretty much exaggerated speculation. 29% Climate change is pretty much a proven scientific conclusion. 65%
The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects an
Gun violence in the US is out of control and some gun regulation
Gun Control and Rights individual’s right to own guns, and that should not be 64% 29%
similar to the NYS Safe Act is necessary.
compromised by laws such as the NYS Safe Act.
Choosing abortion is a woman's right, and society should protect
Abortion 62% Abortion is morally wrong, and society should prohibit it. 30%
that right.
Societal responsibility and government should ensure that good

Responsibility for Healthcare 62% Individual responsibility and government should stay out of it. 32%
healthcare is available to all people.
Social Security Funding Social security should be privatized. 33% Social security should be mostly left alone. 60%
Federal Income Tax Cuts Only significantly benefited the very rich US residents. 54% Significantly benefited all US residents. 30%
Presidential Approval Overall I think President Trump is good for our country. 52% Overall I think President Trump is bad for our country. 37%
The US needs to maintain its strong leadership role in the world The US needs to refocus its attention on our own people and
Globalism vs. Nationalism political and economic order. 38% problems and let the rest of the world take care of itself. 50%
Out of hand and greatly exaggerates some bad experiences of Long overdue and is finally opening up peoples’ eyes to the
MeToo! Movement some women. 40% inappropriate behavior that women have endured for years. 45%
To maintain and improve border security – our country should
Building Physical Wall on US- To maintain and improve border security – our country should
42% use other available technological methods and not build a 47%
Mexico Border build a physical wall along the entire US-Mexico border.
physical wall along the entire US-Mexico border.
Page 14
Section 2.1 – Quality of Life in Jefferson County (Tables 6 and 10-24)

1. In an attempt to gauge the current satisfaction with the quality of life in Jefferson County, participants were provided a
list of 12 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 6 summarizes the results with the
percentage that indicated that each indicator is “Excellent or Good”, as well as the percentage who report that it is
“Excellent”, and the percentage who rate as “Poor.” For a short-term trend analysis, the rates are also shown in
parentheses and smaller font for these results in 2018. The list of indicators is sorted from highest to lowest according
to the percentage who replied “Excellent or Good” in 2019. The indicators whose results are in pink shaded cells show
significant improvement between 2018 and 2019 (an increase in “Excellent or Good”; or an increase in just “Excellent”;
or a decrease in “Poor”). The indicators whose results are in gray shaded cells show a trend toward more negative
perceptions between 2018 and 2019 (a decrease in “Excellent or Good”; or a decrease in just “Excellent”; or an increase
in “Poor”). All pink or gray shaded changes are of size at least ±6% change from year-to-year. The indicators whose
results are in non-shaded cells show no significant trend toward either more negative and positive perceptions between
2018 and 2019 (of size at least 6% change). (Tables 6, 10-12)
Table 6 – Summary of Twelve Quality-of-Life Indicators (Sorted by “Excellent or Good” 2019 Results)
2019 % 2019 % 2019 %

Quality of Life Indicator: “Excellent or Good” “Excellent” “Poor”
(2018 result in parentheses) (2018 result in parentheses) (2018 result in parentheses)
1. Access to higher education 66.2% (74.4%) 20.6% (23.5%) 4.6% (5.7%)

2. Quality of the environment 64.4% (66.9%) 15.7% (18.8%) 6.1% (7.2%)
3. The overall quality of life in the area 61.7% (66.0%) 10.9% (13.4%) 9.3% (6.7%)
4. Quality of K-12 education 60.9% (65.3%) 16.9% (18.2%) 6.0% (3.8%)
5. Healthcare quality 51.3% (59.7%) 10.5% (13.4%) 13.0% (9.6%)
6. Availability of housing 50.5% (58.7%) 10.5% (15.4%) 13.3% (9.1%)
7. County government 35.5% (41.0%) 3.1% (5.9%) 14.7% (12.6%)
8. The Downtown of Watertown 34.7% (40.0%) 6.1% (5.8%) 14.9% (21.0%)
9. Cultural / entertainment opportunities 34.4% (48.7%) 7.8% (7.9%) 23.8% (12.4%)
10. The overall state of the local economy 32.5% (35.6%) 3.4% (3.8%) 21.2% (17.4%)
11. Availability of good jobs 24.1% (28.0%) 4.6% (5.2%) 31.5% (29.3%)
12. Real Estate Taxes 16.7% (22.5%) 3.2% (4.8%) 30.7% (30.4%)
2. Overall Quality of Life in the Area (Table 24)

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 in 2019 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”. The “Excellent or Good” rate been as high as
67% in 2017, and as low as 50% in 2001.
3. Availability of Good Jobs (Table 20)

Without question, the results regarding availability of good jobs found
recently, between 2016-2019, are the most positive ever measured in 20
years of study. The rate responding “Poor” is near its lowest level ever in
2019 (32% currently, has been as low as 29% in 2018, and has been as
great as 66% in 2001). The current rate of responding “Excellent or Good”
is 24%, while the most common response in 2019 is “Fair” (36%).
4. Overall State of the Local Economy (Table 22)

Similarly, the results regarding evaluation of the overall state of the local
economy recently have been very positive when compared to results over
the past two decades. The current rate of responding “Excellent or Good”
is 33% (has been as low as 15% in 2009), while the most common
response in 2019 is “Fair” (39%). The rate of responding “Poor” in 2019
is only 21% (was 48% in 2009).
Page 15
5. Availability of Housing (Table 23)
This quality-of-life indicator has been recorded for fifteen years, from 2005
to the present, and for the past six years respondents have consistently
rated “Excellent or Good” far more commonly than “Poor” by a factor of
approximately 4:1 (2019 results of 51% “Excellent or Good”, while only
13% “Poor”).
6. Real Estate Taxes (Table 18)

Over the past three years (from 2017 to 2019) the rate of responding
“Poor” is at the lowest ever measured (30%-31%). The most common
response in 2019 is “Fair” (36%), with 17% responding “Excellent or Good”
(“Excellent or Good” typically has been a rate of only approximately 10%
over the past two decades).
7. Healthcare Quality (Table 14)

In 2019 the majority of participants (51%) rate satisfaction with healthcare
quality as “Excellent or Good”, while only 13% rate as “Poor”. These
results have remained quite consistent over the 20 years of study.
8. Cultural/Entertainment Opportunities (Table 13)

Satisfaction with the local cultural and entertainment opportunities in the
county have varied greatly over the past five years. Currently 34% rate
as “Excellent or Good”, while 24% rate as “Poor”, with a most common
response of “Fair” (39%).
9. Access to Higher Education (Table 15)

Access to Higher Education is the most positively rated community
indicator among the 12 measured indicators in 2019, with 66% rating as
“Excellent or Good”, and only 5% rating as “Poor”.
10. The Downtown of Watertown (Table 19)

One of the most dynamic and changing community indicators included in
this study each year is residents’ rating of the Downtown of Watertown.
The “Excellent or Good” rate has shifted tremendously between 2000-
2019, with dramatic increases and decreases between 2013-present. The
2019 rate of “Excellent or Good” is 35%. Notably, the “Poor” rate in 2019
is the lowest ever measured at only 15%. This is the only community
quality-of-life indicator among the 12 studied indicators in 2019 that
showed a significant improvement in satisfaction rating between 2018 and 2019 (in 2018 the “Poor” rate was 21%, and
has been as high 39% in 2004).
11. Quality of K-12 Education (Table 21)

Jefferson County residents continue to rate the quality K-12 education
locally very positively, with 61% rating as “Excellent or Good”, and only
6% responding “Poor”.
Page 16
12. Quality of the Environment (Table 16)
Perceptions among Jefferson County residents regarding the quality of
the local environment were positive and relatively stable over the first
fifteen years of surveying (typically approximately 55% indicating
“Excellent or Good”, and about 10% indicating “Poor”). In the past four
years of this study this community indicator has been rated much more
positively with approximately 70% indicating “Excellent or Good” in 2016-
2019, and approximately 6% rating as “Poor” over this four-year period.
13. County Government (Table 17)

Satisfaction with county government in Jefferson County was first
measured in the 2016 study. In 2019 it continues to appear that residents
are more satisfied than not regarding this level of local government, with
36% responding “Excellent or Good” (however, this rate was 45% in 2016)
and 15% responding “Poor” (was 12% in 2016). The trending is not in a
positive direction.
Section 2.2 – Personal Opinions – Issues in Our Society and Communities

(Tables 5, 7, 25-38)
14. For the first time in 20 years of surveying quality-of-life and local governance issues in Jefferson County, the Center
for Community Studies included a section of eleven survey items that relate to personal opinions of residents
regarding issues that typically are of great importance to residents of any community and society. The issues
studied ranged from healthcare funding, to social security, to the role of government, to Presidential approval, to gun
control and rights, to abortion, to same-sex relationships, as well as other issues/topics that are typically commonly
discussed and debated in our society. The goal was to learn what the overall predominate opinions are of the Jefferson
County adult community. No political stance or objective was or will be taken, of course, by the independent and
unbiased researchers at the Center for Community Studies. The question phrasing is detailed in the exact format used
in the telephone interviews later in Section 3.4 of this report. The results are summarized in the table on the following
page, with very interesting themes of what is normally considered as conservative stances being dominant among
county adult residents at times, while what is normally considered as moderate or somewhat liberal stances being
dominant among county adult residents at other times. In Section 3.4 a thorough data analytics exercise, deeper-diving
into relative dominance of most commonly held personal opinions, key drivers of opinion, and inter-correlations between
opinions/issues is presented. (Tables 5, 7, 25-37)
Table 7 – More detailed summary of opinions regarding various societal issues

Difference Ratio
Statement “A” (% Agree) Statement “B” (% Agree) in %
(A:B or
B:A)
Wrong for adults to be romantically involved with All right for adults to be romantically involved
Same-sex Relationships other adults of the same sex. 24% with other adults of the same sex. 68% 44% 2.9
Climate change is pretty much exaggerated Climate change is pretty much a proven
Climate Change speculation. 29% scientific conclusion. 65% 36% 2.3
The Second Amendment of the US Constitution
Gun violence in the US is out of control and
protects an individual’s right to own guns, and
Gun Control and Rights 64% some gun regulation similar to the NYS Safe 29% 35% 2.2
that should not be compromised by laws such as
Act is necessary.
the NYS Safe Act.
Choosing abortion is a woman's right, and society Abortion is morally wrong, and society should
Abortion should protect that right. 62% prohibit it. 30% 32% 2.0
Societal responsibility and government should
Responsibility for Individual responsibility and government
ensure that good healthcare is available to all 62% 32% 30% 1.9
Healthcare should stay out of it.
people.
Social Security Funding Social security should be privatized. 33% Social security should be mostly left alone. 60% 28% 1.8
Only significantly benefited the very rich US
Federal Income Tax Cuts 54% Significantly benefited all US residents. 30% 24% 1.8
residents.
Overall I think President Trump is good for our Overall I think President Trump is bad for our
Presidential Approval country. 52% country. 37% 15% 1.4
The US needs to refocus its attention on our
The US needs to maintain its strong leadership
Globalism vs. Nationalism 38% own people and problems and let the rest of 50% 12% 1.3
role in the world political and economic order.
the world take care of itself.
Long overdue and is finally opening up
Out of hand and greatly exaggerates some bad
MeToo! Movement 40% peoples’ eyes to the inappropriate behavior 45% 5% 1.1
experiences of some women.
that women have endured for years.
To maintain and improve border security – our
To maintain and improve border security – our
Building Physical Wall on country should use other available
country should build a physical wall along the 42% 47% 5% 1.1
US-Mexico Border technological methods and not build a physical
entire US-Mexico border.
wall along the entire US-Mexico border.
Page 17
15. For the past eleven years of surveying in Jefferson County (2009-2019) the
question “What is the largest issue facing our nation right now?” has
been included in this Annual Survey. A very strong argument could be
made that changes in the results to this survey question over this
timeframe illustrate some of the most stark transformations in
Jefferson County residents’ opinions, more significant changes than
have been discovered in any other tracked community-indicator
variables. For example, notable recent trends include but are not limited to:
in 2009 a very large 81% of participants responded to this open-ended
question with “Economy/Jobs” while the rate of responding this in 2019
has decreased to only 6%; at the same time “Government/Leadership”
has increased from 3% in 2009 to 18% in 2019; and “Politically-polarized
Society” emerged for the first time in 2018 at a 4% rate and has increased
to 12% in 2019; and most dramatically – “Immigration” has increased from 0% in 2016, to 3% in 2018, to 14% in 2019.
(Table 38)
Section 2.3 – Other Long-term Tracked Local Community Characteristics

(Tables 39-51)
16. The employment status of Jefferson County residents has been studied in each of 2008 through 2019 with results
remaining remarkably consistent, with approximately 17%-22% of participants describing themselves as retired each
year (18% in 2019), and approximately 53%-67% of participants describing themselves as currently employed each
year (64% in 2019). Please refer to Table 39 for full detail of the occupation groups reported by participants. For the
first time in 2019 currently-employed residents were further asked “does your occupation involve working remotely from
home” and approximately one-in-four (22%) indicate that this is true (with 9% working entirely remotely from home).
(Tables 39-40)
17. Residents of Jefferson County continue to be most likely to indicate

that their family’s personal financial situation has “Stayed the
Same” over the past 12 months, with 49% of the participants
indicating this sentiment. Local personal financial situations in
Jefferson County appear to have improved over the past eight
years as evidenced by the “Better” rate almost doubling from
16% in 2012 to the current rate of 30%. As has been the case
during this entire recent interval – in 2019, residents are much more
likely to respond “Better” than “Worse” (almost twice as likely – 30%
to 17%). (Table 41)
18. Residents of Jefferson County very commonly use the Internet to

access information, and use has, of course, tremendously
increased since first measured in earlier studies, but has appeared
to plateau over the past three years (2019 rates do not differ
significantly from 2017 rates of use). (Tables 42-47)
19. In 2019, as has typically been the case every year of completing this
Annual Survey in Jefferson County, adult county residents more
frequently self-identify as conservative rather than as liberal by
a two-or-three-to-one ratio (32% vs. 14% in 2019, respectively).
However, the most commonly-reported self-identified political
ideology among Jefferson County adult residents continues to
be "middle-of-the-road" (39% in 2019). As can be seen throughout
the remainder of this study, in 2019 this political ideology attribute of
an individual appears to be more strongly than ever a key driver or
determining factor in their other reported opinions and behaviors. (Table 48)
Page 18
20. When last studied in April 2014 in Jefferson County adults were asked opinions regarding legalizing marijuana for
medicinal use, or even possibly, complete legalization and regulation of the substance, and in 2014 a minority of
Jefferson County adults (30%) indicated that they believed that marijuana should remain completely illegal –
and this rate has decreased significantly to only 19% in 2019. Currently more than three-fourths of local adults
(76% in 2019, was only 67% in 2014) support legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes, with the majority of these
participants supporting complete legalization (of the 76% who support legalization for medicinal purposes in 2019 –
45% support complete legalization, with another 31% supporting legalization for exclusively medicinal purposes).
(Table 49)
21. The current cigarette (tobacco) smoking rate in Jefferson County found in this 2019 study is 15%. (Table 50)
22. Periodically over the past two decades familiarity with the Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community
College has been measured. In 2019, 38% of participants indicated that they had heard of the Center for Community
Studies before completing the survey that day (has ranged 32%-46% over past 15 years when studied). (Table 51)
Opinions about the Future (Tables 52-56)
A series of questions in the 20th Annual Survey of the Jefferson County Community related to residents' potential use of the
New York State Zoo at Thompson Park and opinions about the future of the zoo. These questions were included in the
survey on behalf of the leadership and Board of the NYS Zoo at Thompson Park. Their goal is to use this data to assist in
their strategic planning over the next five years. Every year an invitation is extended by the Center for Community Studies
to community-based organizations in the county to include a limited number of survey questions in this annual study, and
in 2019 the City of Watertown and the leadership of the New York State Zoo at Thompson Park took advantage of this free
community service provided by Jefferson Community College. The New York State Zoo at Thompson Park also participated
in the 2014 Annual Survey of the Jefferson County Community by including a similar series of questions to those that have
been included in 2019.
23. Participants were asked their level of familiarity with, and visitation to, the New York State Zoo at Thompson Park,
in Watertown, New York. There continues to be a high level of familiarity with the zoo among local adults – with 89%
indicating that they are aware that the zoo exists at Thompson Park (was 96% when last studied in 2014). Visitation is
also quite high, with 43% of local adults indicating that they have visited the zoo at least once in the past three years
(was 65% in 2014), and 72% indicating that they have visited the zoo at least once ever (was 89% in 2014). (Table 52)
24. The most commonly-cited reasons for visiting the New York State Zoo at Thompson Park (among those who have
visited the zoo) are “Family time” (cited by 66% of the visitors in 2019, was 72% in 2014), “Recreational value” the
second most commonly-cited reason (cited by 45% of the visitors in 2019, was only 27% in 2014), and “Educational
value” the third most commonly-cited reason (cited by 25% of the visitors in 2019, was only 11% in 2014). (Table 53)
25. Zoo visitors were asked what improvements or additions they would like to see at the New York State Zoo at
Thompson Park. The three most common responses in both 2014 and 2019 were: “More variety of animals” (cited by
39% of the visitors in 2019, 30% in 2014), “More, a greater number of, animals” (cited by 30% of the visitors in 2019,
37% in 2014), and “No improvements or additions are necessary” (cited by 22% of the visitors in 2019, 32% in 2014).
(Table 54)
26. By a very large margin, the New York State Zoo at Thompson Park is considered important to the quality of life
in Jefferson County by local adult residents. Approximately seven-in-eight participants (87%) in this 2019 study
respond with important (43% “Very important”, 31% “Somewhat important”, 13% “A little important”), while only 9% of
participants reply with “Not at all important”. Note that these respective rates were – 93% “important”, and 6% “not at
all important”, in 2014. (Table 55)
27. When asked the most common barriers to visiting the New York State Zoo at Thompson Park, the most common
response (by 33% of participants) was “there are no barriers”. Among the barriers that were cited, the three most
common responses in 2019 were: “Price” (cited by 17% of participants), “Not enough there” (cited by 17% of
participants), and “Only New York State animals” (cited by 17% of participants). This inquiry for perceived barriers was
not included in the 2014 study. (Table 56)
Page 19
Section 2.5 – Public Transportation in Jefferson County (Tables 57-62)

The final questions in the 20th Annual Survey of the Jefferson County Community related to residents' potential use of public
transportation in Jefferson County. The following questions were included in the survey on behalf of the Volunteer
Transportation Center, a 501(c)(3) charitable organization in Watertown.
28. Participants were asked “is there a vehicle available in your home for transportation” and approximately nine-in-
ten (90%) respond “Yes”, however, this rate is only 68% among individuals who reside in households with annual
income of $25,000 or less. (Tables 57)
29. Approximately one-in-eleven (9%) participants indicate that lack of transportation has been a barrier to their ability
to secure employment in the past year, however, this rate increases to 32% among individuals who reside in
households with annual income of $25,000 or less. (Table 58)
30. Approximately 6% of participants live in households where at least one person currently uses public transportation
in Jefferson County, with 4% indicating that use is at least weekly. Among individuals who reside in households with
annual income of $25,000 or less, these rates increase to 14% and 12%, respectively. (Table 59)
31. Approximately two-thirds of participants (65%) indicate that they would never use public transportation (a rate that
decreases to 54% among individuals who reside in households with annual income of $25,000 or less). The two most
commonly-cited reasons why one would use public transportation are “Social activities/Visiting friends” (15%), and
“Shopping/Run errands” (14%). Interestingly, among individuals who reside in households with annual income of
$25,000 or less, the most common reason for use of public transportation changes to “Medical/Dental appointments”
(24%). (Table 60)
32. When asked “for the destination you most frequently visit, possibly work, school, or church, what method of
transportation do you most commonly use”, an overwhelming majority of participants (90%) respond with “Drive
Alone in a car/truck/van”. Among individuals who reside in households with annual income of $25,000 or less, this rate
decreases to only 75%. (Table 61)
33. Approximately one-half (48%) of adult residents of Jefferson County

indicate that they would use at least one public bus route throughout
Jefferson County. Five different possible bus routes were posed and the
percentage indicating that they would use each is summarized in the table
to the right. The largest level of interest (32%) was expressed for a bus
route from Watertown to the Clayton/Alexandria Bay area. (Table 62)
Page 20
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, when possible using four reporting-out processes:
(1) The current 2019 Jefferson County county-wide results for all sampled residents are combined and
summarized in a frequency distribution that shows the sampled frequency (unweighted) and sample
proportion (weighted) for each possible survey response for the survey question (recall, the % results are
weighted for Gender, Age, Education Level, Military Affiliation, and Phone Ownership).
For further detailed explanation of the statistical concept of “Margin of Error”, 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.” However, in short, one may interpret any statistics presented
in the 2019 county-wide results in this Section 3 of this report as having a margin of error of ±4.2%.
(2) A regional comparison analysis is completed and shown in a table for each survey question that was
measured in more than one of the three counties of Jefferson, Lewis, and/or St. Lawrence in the years
2018-2019. Regional county comparison results are also illustrated graphically with a stacked bar graph.
For further detailed explanation of the statistical concept of “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.” However, in short, one may interpret any
differences observed in regional comparison results tables, and those observed in correlational cross-tabulation
results tables, presented in this Section 3 of this report according to the following process.
1. Sample percentages in the same row and subtable (comparing demographic subgroups) not sharing the same
subscript are significantly different at p<0.05.
2. Sample percentages in the same row and subtable (comparing demographic subgroups) sharing the same subscript
are not significantly different at p<0.05.
(3) The 2019 Jefferson County results for each survey question have been cross-tabulated by each of
the demographic factors of Gender, Age, Education Level, Military Affiliation, Political Ideology, and
Household Income Level (there are a total of over 250 cross-tabulation tables included in this report).
These tables show all weighted percentage response distributions within each demographic subgroup to
be compared, with all statistically significant differences highlighted as described above.
(4) Finally, a trend analysis is completed and shown in a table for each survey question that was measured
in Jefferson County in at least three of the twenty years 2000-2019. Trends are also illustrated graphically
with line graphs and bar graphs.
For further detailed explanation of the statistical concepts of “Trend Analysis” 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.” However, in short, one may interpret
any differences observed in trend analysis results tables presented in this Section 3 of this report according to the
following process:
1. Construct a confidence interval around the statistic found in each year to compare.
2. If the constructed confidence intervals overlap then the two years do not differ significantly, if the two confidence
intervals do not overlap then a statistically significant difference (trend) has been found.
Finally, for ease of use, survey questions have been organized into the following sections:
Section 3.1 – Quality of Life Issues – Twenty-Year Trends in Responses (Tables 10-11)
Section 3.2 – Quality of Life Issues – Summary of 2019 Results (Table 12)
Section 3.3 – Quality of Life Issues – Detailed Analysis of Quality-of-Life Indicators (Tables 13-24)
Section 3.4 – Personal Opinions – Issues in Our Society and Communities (Tables 25-38)
Section 3.5 – Other Tracked Local Community Characteristics (Tables 39-51)
Section 3.6 – The New York State Zoo at Thompson Park – Residents’ Opinions about the Future (Tables
52-56)
Section 3.7 – Public Transportation in Jefferson County (Tables 57-62)
When comparing results across time, the sample sizes collected each year should be considered. The sample
sizes for each of the twenty years of the Jefferson County Annual Survey of the Community are summarized in the following
table. Note that the current Jefferson County results will be compared to Lewis and St. Lawrence County results when
possible throughout this report, and the most recent sample sizes (# interviews) used in those two studies are n=426 in
Lewis County in October 2018, and n=466 in St. Lawrence County in July 2018.
Page 21
Table 8 – Sample Sizes for Each of Twenty 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 2016 2017 2018 2019
Total sample Size 340 342 413 341 348 355 354 382 421 382 414 406 380 400 422 400 416 441 575 581
(# interviews completed)
The statistics reported in the correlative tables (cross-tabulations by gender, age, education, military affiliation,
political ideology, and income) are percentages within the sampled subgroups To determine the approximate raw
unweighted sample size for each subgroup – to avoid over-interpretation – the reader should refer to the following Table 9.
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 9 – Sample Size and Margin of Error for Common Demographic Subgroups to be
Compared in 2019
Number of Participants Approximate Margin of Error
Demographic Characteristic: Sampled (unweighted) (when analyzing only this subgroup)
Gender:
Male n=293 ±5.9%
Female n=275 ±6.0%
Age:
18-29 years of age n=117 ±9.3%
30-49 years of age n=128 ±8.9%
50-69 years of age n=208 ±7.0%
70 years of age or older n=117 ±9.3%
Education Level:
High school graduate (or less) n=175 ±7.6%
Some college (less than 4-year degree) n=225 ±6.7%
College graduate (4+ year degree) n=170 ±7.7%
Annual Household Income:
Less than $25,000 n=101 ±10.0%
$25,001-$50,000 n=133 ±8.7%
$50,001-$75,000 n=90 ±10.6%
$75,001-$100,000 n=84 ±10.9%
More than $100,000 n=94 ±10.3%
Military Affiliation:
Active Military in the Household n=129 ±8.8%
Employment Related to Fort Drum (no AM) n=49 ±14.3%
No Connection to Fort Drum n=392 ±5.1%
Political Ideology:
Conservative n=188 ±7.3%
Neither n=286 ±5.9%
Liberal n=80 ±11.2%
Page 22
“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 2018 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 30.2% of the participants responded with gotten better (reported later in Table 41). So …. what does this
30.2% really mean? Often-times community-based researchers will describe the process of “framing” a statistic as
completing as many as possible of the six following comparisons (frames) to better understand a reported statistic from a
sample:
 Within Response Scale 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 a Regional Average
(Compare to some regional average)
 Compare to Target/Benchmark
(Compare to an agency or community’s 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.
Page 23
Section 3.1 – Quality of Life Issues – Twenty Year Trends in Responses

(2000-2019)
The bolded and dark-shaded number (cell) in each row of Table 10 is the largest percentage responding “Excellent
or Good” found throughout the twenty years for each survey question, with the similar bolded and dark-shaded number
(cell) in each row of Table 11 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 – Assistance in Interpretation of the Statistical Results.”)
Table 10 – 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 2016 2017 2018 2019
1. Cultural / entertainment
opportunities 41 36 40 38 39 39 39 43 44 38 39 38 43 40 41 47 32 50 49 34
2. Health care quality 49 45 50 50 50 50 50 50 51 44 46 47 49 49 46 47 53 55 60 51
3. Access to higher education 68 63 64 63 63 61 60 63 65 60 62 59 62 60 65 58 67 71 74 66
4. Quality of the environment 53 52 53 50 56 53 50 49 49 49 52 49 53 53 51 52 73 67 67 64
5. County government ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 45 41 41 36
6. Real estate taxes 15 11 10 10 11 12 10 8 10 10 10 11 11 13 9 11 11 20 23 17
7. The Downtown of Watertown 30 26 24 27 23 26 28 26 28 43 43 42 41 36 39 47 25 36 40 35
8. Availability of good jobs 16 7 10 11 11 14 20 25 20 9 13 11 15 15 13 18 17 23 28 24
9. Quality of K-12 education 62 57 61 55 58 59 56 59 63 61 56 55 55 52 55 49 66 68 65 61
10. The overall state of the local
economy
28 16 19 18 20 24 29 31 24 15 20 19 23 23 22 32 23 36 36 33
11. Availability of housing ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 37 40 46 49 54 57 51 48 57 64 63 66 57 59 51
12. The overall quality of life in
the area 64 50 56 56 53 57 60 65 63 53 57 55 59 59 55 62 67 68 66 62
(Dark Gray shaded cell in each row of Table 10 indicates the year when the largest % responding “Excellent or Good” was found)
Table 11 – 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 2016 2017 2018 2019
1. Cultural / entertainment
opportunities
25 30 25 27 25 23 26 24 22 26 25 28 23 26 25 20 17 11 12 24
2. Health care quality 18 21 15 17 13 13 17 16 17 21 18 19 17 18 19 19 16 10 10 13
3. Access to higher education 7 11 9 10 9 10 12 10 9 11 11 13 10 11 9 9 4 6 6 5
4. Quality of the environment 13 13 11 15 8 11 14 15 16 16 14 16 12 12 14 9 5 7 7 6
5. County government ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 12 12 13 15
6. Real estate taxes 36 45 42 44 40 35 47 49 48 49 39 49 43 40 50 43 37 30 30 31
7. The Downtown of Watertown 34 38 39 34 39 37 34 36 36 19 19 20 21 24 23 18 26 21 21 15
8. Availability of good jobs 51 66 60 60 57 52 45 39 47 61 54 59 51 52 55 43 43 32 29 32
9. Quality of K-12 education 5 7 5 7 4 5 6 5 5 6 7 8 8 8 9 10 5 5 4 6
10. The overall state of the local
economy
30 47 43 43 38 32 30 26 35 48 40 42 36 37 37 21 21 17 17 21
11. Availability of housing ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 40 41 34 31 23 20 24 29 20 14 13 9 11 9 13
12. The overall quality of life in
the area
7 15 10 11 11 9 9 7 8 12 10 12 9 9 12 9 5 8 7 9
(Dark Gray shaded cell in each row of Table 11 indicates the year when the largest % responding “Poor” was found)
Page 24
Section 3.2 – Quality of Life Issues in Jefferson County – Summary of 2019

Results
Table 12 shows the detailed results for all 12 quality-of-life indicators recorded in 2019. The bolded and dark
shaded cell (number) in each row is the largest result (most common response) found for each survey question, providing
an easy method to determine whether a quality-of-life indicator is most commonly perceived currently as “Excellent,” “Good,”
“Fair,” or “Poor.”
Table 12 – SUMMARY – Quality of Life Issues in Jefferson County – Year 2019

(Dark Gray shaded cell in each row of Table 12 indicates the most common response for each indicator)
Quality of Life Indicator: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t Know
1. Cultural / entertainment opportunities 7.8% 26.6% 39.0% 23.8% 2.8%
2. Health care quality 10.5% 40.8% 30.8% 13.0% 4.9%
3. Access to higher education 20.6% 45.7% 24.7% 4.6% 4.4%
4. Quality of the environment 15.7% 48.7% 26.4% 6.1% 3.1%
5. County government 3.1% 32.4% 35.6% 14.7% 14.1%
6. Real estate taxes 3.2% 13.5% 35.8% 30.7% 16.7%
7. The Downtown of Watertown 6.1% 28.6% 42.5% 14.9% 7.9%
8. Availability of good jobs 4.6% 19.5% 36.4% 31.5% 7.9%
9. Quality of K-12 education 16.9% 44.1% 20.1% 6.0% 13.0%
10. The overall state of the local economy 3.4% 29.1% 39.4% 21.2% 6.9%
11. Availability of housing 10.5% 40.0% 24.9% 13.3% 11.4%
12. The overall quality of life in the area 10.9% 50.8% 26.9% 9.3% 2.2%
The following graphs highlights all 12 of the studied quality-of-life indicators in 2019, providing the ability for one to
observe the most positively and most negatively perceived community aspects.
Page 25
Section 3.3 – Quality of Life Issues in 2019 – Detailed Analysis of Quality-of-

Life Indicators
Tables 13-24, shown on the following pages, provide the greatest level of detail in results for the 12 investigated
quality-of-life indicators. In these 12 tables, the result for each of the quality-of-life indicators is shown, including all possible
responses to each survey question. A trend analysis is shown for each of the quality-of-life indicator, and results for similar
studies completed in 2018 in Lewis County and St. Lawrence County are also shown when possible. Finally, cross-
tabulations by six key demographic factors (Gender, Age, Military Affiliation, Educational Attainment, Political Ideology, and
Income) have been completed. By inspecting the results after cross-tabbing by any of these demographic factors, the
reader can better understand factors that may be significantly associated with perceptions of quality-of-life characteristics
of the county.
Page 26
Table 13 – Cultural/Entertainment Opportunities
2019 Jefferson County Results: Trend Analysis ‒ Graphical Presentation:
Trend Analysis – Detailed Results for Jefferson County:

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Excellent 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 5% 4% 4% 5% 5% 7% 8% 8%
Good 36% 32% 36% 34% 35% 35% 34% 38% 39% 34% 35% 34% 38% 36% 37% 42% 27% 43% 41% 27%
Fair 32% 32% 32% 32% 34% 33% 33% 31% 31% 32% 31% 31% 31% 32% 31% 31% 49% 36% 35% 39%
Poor 25% 30% 25% 27% 25% 23% 26% 24% 22% 26% 25% 28% 23% 26% 25% 21% 17% 11% 12% 24%
Don’t Know 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 2% 3% 3% 5% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 3% 4% 3%
Northern New York Regional Comparison in 2018-2019:
Jefferson County Cross-tabulations (using 2019 data):
Page 27
Table 14 – Healthcare Quality

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Excellent 8% 7% 8% 8% 7% 7% 9% 8% 9% 6% 7% 7% 7% 8% 7% 8% 9% 14% 13% 11%
Good 41% 38% 43% 41% 43% 43% 42% 42% 42% 38% 40% 40% 41% 41% 39% 39% 43% 42% 46% 41%
Fair 29% 32% 32% 30% 31% 31% 30% 30% 30% 32% 31% 32% 32% 31% 31% 33% 27% 32% 27% 31%
Poor 18% 21% 15% 17% 13% 13% 17% 16% 17% 21% 18% 19% 17% 18% 19% 19% 16% 10% 10% 13%
Don’t Know 3% 3% 3% 3% 6% 6% 3% 3% 2% 3% 5% 3% 3% 3% 4% 1% 4% 3% 4% 5%
Page 28
Table 15 – Access to Higher Education

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Excellent 19% 17% 17% 17% 16% 15% 16% 17% 18% 16% 17% 15% 16% 16% 18% 17% 19% 23% 24% 21%
Good 49% 46% 47% 46% 47% 46% 44% 46% 47% 45% 46% 44% 45% 44% 47% 41% 48% 48% 51% 46%
Fair 22% 24% 23% 23% 25% 26% 24% 23% 22% 25% 23% 25% 24% 24% 22% 29% 27% 21% 16% 25%
Poor 7% 11% 9% 10% 9% 10% 12% 10% 9% 11% 11% 13% 10% 11% 9% 9% 4% 6% 6% 5%
Don’t Know 3% 3% 4% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4% 4% 5% 4% 4% 3% 3% 4% 4%
Page 29
Table 16 – Quality of the Environment

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Excellent 10% 9% 9% 9% 10% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 8% 9% 9% 9% 11% 14% 18% 19% 16%
Good 43% 43% 44% 41% 46% 44% 41% 41% 40% 40% 42% 40% 44% 43% 42% 41% 59% 50% 48% 49%
Fair 33% 34% 34% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 34% 32% 34% 34% 33% 33% 38% 21% 25% 25% 26%
Poor 13% 13% 11% 15% 8% 11% 14% 15% 16% 16% 14% 16% 12% 12% 14% 9% 5% 7% 7% 6%
Don’t Know 1% 1% 1% 2% 3% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 1% 1% 3%
Page 30
Table 17 – County Government (preceding 2016, “Local Government” was the survey question)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Excellent -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2% 7% 6% 3%
Good -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 43% 34% 35% 32%
Fair -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 33% 36% 35% 36%
Poor -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 12% 12% 13% 15%
Don’t Know -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 10% 11% 11% 14%
Page 31
Table 18 – Real Estate Taxes

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Excellent 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 3% 5% 3%
Good 13% 10% 9% 8% 10% 11% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% 10% 10% 11% 8% 11% 11% 17% 18% 14%
Fair 35% 32% 32% 30% 32% 34% 31% 29% 31% 31% 31% 31% 34% 35% 31% 37% 34% 33% 32% 36%
Poor 36% 45% 42% 44% 40% 35% 47% 49% 48% 49% 39% 49% 43% 40% 50% 43% 37% 30% 30% 31%
Don’t Know 13% 12% 16% 17% 17% 19% 12% 14% 11% 10% 19% 9% 12% 12% 11% 9% 17% 17% 15% 17%
Page 32
Table 19 – The Downtown of Watertown

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Excellent 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 5% 5% 5% 4% 3% 4% 7% 2% 5% 6% 6%
Good 27% 24% 22% 25% 21% 24% 25% 24% 25% 38% 38% 37% 36% 32% 35% 40% 23% 31% 34% 29%
Fair 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 33% 33% 33% 34% 35% 36% 36% 35% 32% 43% 40% 35% 43%
Poor 34% 38% 39% 34% 39% 37% 34% 36% 36% 19% 19% 20% 21% 24% 23% 18% 26% 21% 21% 15%
Don’t Know 2% 2% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4% 3% 5% 4% 4% 8%

Not measured in either St. Lawrence or Lewis Counties.
Page 33
Table 20 – Availability of Good Jobs


2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Excellent 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 4% 5% 5% 5%
Good 16% 7% 9% 10% 11% 14% 19% 24% 19% 9% 13% 11% 14% 14% 12% 17% 13% 18% 23% 20%
Fair 30% 25% 27% 27% 28% 31% 31% 32% 30% 27% 28% 28% 29% 30% 28% 35% 38% 38% 35% 36%
Poor 51% 66% 60% 60% 57% 52% 45% 39% 47% 61% 54% 59% 51% 52% 55% 43% 43% 32% 29% 32%
Don’t Know 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 3% 3% 4% 3% 4% 3% 4% 4% 3% 6% 8% 8%
Page 34
Table 21 – Quality of K-12 Education


2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Excellent 18% 15% 15% 15% 14% 14% 15% 16% 17% 14% 15% 13% 14% 13% 15% 11% 15% 20% 18% 17%
Good 45% 43% 46% 40% 44% 44% 41% 43% 46% 46% 42% 42% 40% 39% 40% 38% 51% 47% 47% 44%
Fair 20% 24% 22% 22% 20% 21% 21% 21% 21% 25% 25% 27% 26% 26% 27% 31% 22% 15% 18% 20%
Poor 5% 7% 5% 7% 4% 5% 6% 5% 5% 6% 7% 8% 8% 8% 9% 11% 5% 5% 4% 6%
Don’t Know 13% 11% 12% 16% 18% 15% 16% 15% 11% 9% 11% 10% 12% 13% 9% 10% 7% 13% 13% 13%
Page 35
Table 22 – Overall State of the Local Economy


2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Excellent 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 3%
Good 25% 14% 16% 16% 18% 22% 25% 27% 21% 13% 17% 17% 21% 20% 20% 29% 20% 32% 32% 29%
Fair 40% 36% 37% 37% 39% 41% 40% 41% 38% 36% 38% 38% 39% 39% 39% 45% 54% 41% 40% 39%
Poor 30% 47% 43% 43% 38% 32% 30% 26% 35% 48% 40% 42% 36% 37% 37% 21% 21% 17% 17% 21%
Don’t Know 2% 1% 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 3% 6% 7% 7%
Page 36
Table 23 – Availability of Housing


2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Excellent -- -- -- -- -- 11% 13% 15% 16% 16% 17% 15% 14% 16% 19% 19% 15% 15% 15% 11%
Good -- -- -- -- -- 26% 26% 31% 34% 39% 40% 36% 34% 40% 45% 44% 51% 43% 43% 40%
Fair -- -- -- -- -- 19% 15% 15% 15% 18% 18% 19% 18% 18% 17% 17% 22% 24% 24% 25%
Poor -- -- -- -- -- 40% 41% 34% 31% 23% 20% 24% 29% 20% 14% 13% 9% 11% 9% 13%
Don’t Know -- -- -- -- -- 5% 5% 4% 4% 5% 5% 6% 5% 5% 4% 7% 4% 8% 9% 11%
Page 37
Table 24 – Overall Quality of Life in the Area


2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Excellent 9% 6% 7% 7% 6% 7% 8% 10% 9% 7% 8% 7% 7% 8% 7% 7% 8% 12% 13% 11%
Good 55% 44% 49% 49% 47% 50% 52% 55% 53% 47% 50% 48% 51% 52% 47% 56% 58% 55% 53% 51%
Fair 28% 33% 32% 32% 34% 32% 29% 26% 27% 32% 31% 32% 31% 31% 31% 27% 28% 22% 26% 27%
Poor 7% 15% 10% 11% 11% 9% 9% 7% 8% 12% 10% 12% 9% 9% 12% 9% 5% 8% 7% 9%
Don’t Know 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 0% 2% 1% 2%
Page 38
Section 3.4 – Personal Opinions – Issues in Our Society and Communities

“Next, we are interested in learning more about the opinions of residents of the county. For
several issues I am going to read you two statements, I'll call them Statement A and Statement
B, and for each I am interested in which statement you agree with, A or B, which is your
personal opinion?”
IF ASKED: "The college is asking these personal opinion questions as educators to learn more about the communities in which we reside. We
are not politically supporting or opposing any of these opinions."
Below are the eleven “personal opinion” pairs of statements A and B that were provided in the interview, in the exact order
and phrasing that they were included in the interview script.
Globalism vs. Nationalism

A: The United States needs to maintain its strong leadership role in the world political and economic order.
B: The United States needs to refocus its attention on our own people and problems and let the rest of the world take care
of itself.
Climate Change
A: All the talk about human’s role in climate change is pretty much exaggerated speculation.
B: Human contribution to climate change is pretty much a proven scientific conclusion.
Responsibility for Healthcare

A: Healthcare is a societal responsibility and government should ensure that good healthcare is available to all people.
B: Healthcare is an individual responsibility and government should stay out of it.
Presidential Approval
A: Overall I think President Trump is good for our country.
B: Overall I think President Trump is bad for our country.
Building a Physical Wall on the US-Mexico Border

A: To maintain and improve border security – our country should build a physical wall along the entire US-Mexico border.
B: To maintain and improve border security – our country should use other available technological methods and not build
a physical wall along the entire US-Mexico border.
Social Security Funding

A: Social security should be privatized so that people have more control and a chance to get better retirement benefits.
B: Social security should be mostly left alone so that it can be a trusted source of retirement income for everyone.
MeToo! Movement
A: The MeToo! movement is out of hand and greatly exaggerates some bad experiences of some women.
B: The MeToo! movement is long overdue and is finally opening up peoples’ eyes to the inappropriate behavior that
women have endured for years.
Same-sex Relationships
A: It is wrong for adults to be romantically involved with other adults of the same sex.
B: It is all right for adults to be romantically involved with other adults of the same sex.
Abortion
A: Choosing abortion is a woman's right, and society should protect that right.
B: Abortion is morally wrong, and society should prohibit it.
Gun Control and Rights

A: The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects an individual’s right to own guns, and that should not be
compromised by laws such as the NYS Safe Act.
B: Gun violence in the US is out of control and some gun regulation similar to the NYS Safe Act is necessary.
Federal Income Tax Cuts

A: Recent federal income tax cuts have pretty much only significantly benefited the very rich US residents.
B: Recent federal income tax cuts have pretty much significantly benefited all US residents.
Page 39
Table 25 – SUMMARY – Comparing dominance of opinions regarding various societal

issues
2019 Jefferson County Results:
Each of the 11 personal opinion survey items was originally recorded on a “Strongly A” – to – “Strongly B” scale. After
transforming to the following Likert Scale: “Strongly A”=1, “Somewhat A”=2, “Both or Not Sure”=”No Preference of A or B”=3, “Somewhat
B”=4, “Strongly B”=5, the means, standard deviations, t-tests, and p-values have been recorded for each item in Table 25 below. The
ratio of A:B or B:A to measure the relative magnitude of the dominant opinion to the minority opinion has also been calculated and
recorded. Finally, these t-tests and ratios have been used to sort from most opinion-dominated, to least opinion-dominated, issue. For
example, with a t=12.6, p=0.0000, and a B:A ratio of 2.9, without question the personal opinion issue that has the most majority, virtually
non-divided, support among Jefferson County residents is that “It is all right for adults to be romantically involved with other adults of the
same sex” (68%, vs. only 24% who suggest that these relationships are “wrong”). Conversely, opinions are most equally-divided
regarding whether or not to build a physical wall on the US-Mexico Border (47% do not want the wall built, while 42% do).
Difference
Table 25 Sample ̅)
Mean (𝒙 between 𝒙̅ Standard |t| p-value % % Difference Ratio
(testing (p<0.05 st. (A:B or
Data Analytics Size (on 1-5 scale) Deviation “A” “B” in %
and =3 vs. =3) sign.) B:A)
Same-sex Relationships 573 3.79 0.79 1.51 12.6 0.0000 23.5% 67.9% 44.4% 2.9
Climate Change 574 3.67 0.67 1.50 10.8 0.0000 28.7% 64.7% 36.0% 2.3
Gun Control and Rights 572 2.33 -0.67 1.61 10.0 0.0000 64.3% 29.3% 35.5% 2.2
Abortion 572 2.42 -0.58 1.60 8.7 0.0000 61.7% 30.1% 31.6% 2.0
Responsibility for Healthcare 574 2.48 -0.52 1.62 7.7 0.0000 61.5% 31.6% 29.9% 1.9
Social Security Funding 575 3.49 0.49 1.56 7.6 0.0000 32.7% 60.3% 27.6% 1.8
Federal Income Tax Cuts 570 2.54 -0.46 1.46 7.6 0.0000 54.3% 29.9% 24.4% 1.8
Presidential Approval 571 2.77 -0.23 1.67 3.3 0.0004 52.1% 36.6% 15.5% 1.4
Globalism vs. Nationalism 575 3.20 0.20 1.59 3.0 0.0012 38.0% 49.8% 11.8% 1.3
MeToo! Movement 573 3.10 0.10 1.51 1.6 0.0548 40.3% 45.2% 4.9% 1.1
Building a Physical Border Wall 575 3.10 0.10 1.71 1.4 0.0793 42.2% 47.1% 4.9% 1.1
Page 40
Table 26 – SUMMARY – Inter-correlations between opinions regarding various societal

issues
Each of the 11 personal opinion survey items was originally recorded on a categorical “Strongly A” – to – “Strongly B” scale.
After transforming to the following Likert Scale: “Strongly A”=1, “Somewhat A”=2, “Both or Not Sure”=”No Preference of A or B”=3,
“Somewhat B”=4, “Strongly B”=5, a complete correlation analysis between variables is shown below in Table 26. A correlation analysis,
generating correlation coefficients (denoted as r) between each pair of recorded variables, is the standard technique used to measure
strengths of relationships between recorded variables. In other words, are there strong, even at times predictive, relationships between
personal opinions held by Jefferson County residents? If one agrees with Statement A to one issue, are they then very likely to agree
with a certain statement (either A or B) to some other personal issue? A correlation analysis is often referred to as a key driver analysis
and is the first step toward establishing evidence of a potential causal (cause and effect) relationship. The correlation coefficients shown
below in Table 26 are statistics on a -1 to +1 scale, with the closer to either -1 or +1 then the more evidence that the two variables are
statistically significantly correlated. Conversely, the closer that r is to 0 then the less evidence that the two variables are correlated.
Finally, a test for statistical significance has been completed between each pair of variables (55 separate tests) with those relationships
that are statistically significant (p<0.05) noted in Table 26 with a single (*) and those that are even more strongly correlated and statistically
significant (p<0.01) noted in Table 26 with a double-asterisk (**). For easy reference, the strongest correlations found (r>0.4, and p<0.01)
have been highlighted in red. For example, among the entirety of 55 separate correlations calculated and reported in Table 26, the
strongest relationship found is that Jefferson County adults who support building a physical wall on the US-Mexico border also very
strongly tend to be those adults who believe that overall President Trump is good for our country. Note that correlation does not imply
causation. We cannot establish whether it is Presidential opinion that causes wall-building position, or wall-building position that causes
Presidential opinion, or whether there may be no causal relationship whatsoever (maybe a third confounding variable exists that is similarly
driving each of Presidential and wall-building positions?). However, it is irrefutable that a correlation exists between these two variables.
Inspection of Table 26 below will reveal many, many strongly correlated opinions among Jefferson County adult residents.
Table 26 Building Gun
Globalism Physical Wall Social Control Federal
Data vs. Climate Responsibility Presidential on US-Mexico Security MeToo! Same-sex and Income
Analytics Nationalism Change for Healthcare Approval Border Funding Movement Relationships Abortion Rights Tax Cuts
Globalism vs.
Nationalism
1
Climate
Change
-.040 1
Responsibility
for Healthcare
.128** -.333** 1
Presidential
Approval
-.183** .418** -.450** 1
Building
Border Wall
-.156** .419** -.382** .661** 1
Social Security
Funding -.002 .251** -.158** .224** .206** 1
MeToo!
Movement
-.087* .301** -.277** .391** .432** .252** 1
Same-sex
Relationships
.030 .278** -.119** .268** .332** .167** .212** 1
Abortion .085* -.250** .263** -.293** -.258** -.160** -.216** -.314** 1

Gun Control
and Rights
-.176** .344** -.347** .533** .447** .253** .329** .113** -.164** 1
Federal
Income Tax .023 -.276** .317** -.335** -.298** -.131** -.215** -.070 .247** -.241** 1
Cuts
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 significance level * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 significance level
To assist readers in better understanding the r=.661 correlation between Presidential and wall-building positions, note the two cross-tabulations shown
below. Among those who are for building the wall – 84% of those people believe President Trump is good for the country, while only 23% of those who
are against building the wall express that positive-Trump attitude. Alternatively expressed: among those who are Pro-Trump – 69% of those people are
for building the wall, while only 13% of those who are Anti-Trump express that same for building the wall attitude. These two variables are not independent
of one another.
Conversely, to assist readers in better understanding the very weak and not statistically significant r=-.002 correlation between social security
funding position and Globalism vs. Nationalism position, note the two cross-tabulations shown below (in green, designating a very, very weak correlation,
the weakest of all 55 r’s calculated). Among those who are pro Globalism – 35% of those people support privatizing Social Security, while similarly 36%
of those who are pro Nationalism express support privatizing Social Security (almost identical rates). Alternatively expressed: among those who are Pro-
privatize Social Security – 40% of those people are pro Globalism, while similarly 39% of those who support leaving Social Security as it is express that
same pro Globalism attitude. There is essentially no evidence whatsoever that attitudes about Globalism/Nationalism and Social Security funding are
linked, the two variables appear to be independent of one another.
Page 41
Table 27 – Globalism vs. Nationalism

A: The United States needs to maintain its strong leadership role in the world political and economic order.
B: The United States needs to refocus its attention on our own people and problems and let the rest of the
world take care of itself.
Trend Analysis ‒ Graphical Presentation: Trend Analysis – Detailed Results for Jefferson County:
Not measured in earlier Jefferson County studies. Not measured in earlier Jefferson County studies.
Page 42
Table 28 – Climate Change

A: All the talk about human’s role in climate change is pretty much exaggerated speculation.
B: Human contribution to climate change is pretty much a proven scientific conclusion.
Page 43
Table 29 – Responsibility for Healthcare

A: Healthcare is a societal responsibility and government should ensure that good healthcare is available to
all people.
B: Healthcare is an individual responsibility and government should stay out of it.
Page 44
Table 30 – Presidential Approval

A: Overall I think President Trump is good for our country.
B: Overall I think President Trump is bad for our country.
Page 45
Table 31 – Building a Physical Wall on the US-Mexico Border

A: To maintain and improve border security – our country should build a physical wall along the entire US-
Mexico border.
B: To maintain and improve border security – our country should use other available technological methods
and not build a physical wall along the entire US-Mexico border.

Not measured in either Lewis or St. Lawrence Counties.
Page 46
Table 32 – Social Security Funding

A: Social security should be privatized so that people have more control and a chance to get better
retirement benefits.
B: Social security should be mostly left alone so that it can be a trusted source of retirement income for
everyone.
Page 47
Table 33 – MeToo! Movement

A: The MeToo! movement is out of hand and greatly exaggerates some bad experiences of some women.
B: The MeToo! movement is long overdue and is finally opening up peoples’ eyes to the inappropriate
behavior that women have endured for years.
IF ASKED: "MeToo!" = "a movement against sexual harassment and sexual assault, especially in the
workplace"
Page 48
Table 34 – Same-sex Relationships

A: It is wrong for adults to be romantically involved with other adults of the same sex.
B: It is all right for adults to be romantically involved with other adults of the same sex.
Page 49
Table 35 – Abortion
A: Choosing abortion is a woman's right, and society should protect that right.
B: Abortion is morally wrong, and society should prohibit it.
Page 50
Table 36 – Gun Control and Rights

A: The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects an individual’s right to own guns, and that
should not be compromised by laws such as the NYS Safe Act.
B: Gun violence in the US is out of control and some gun regulation similar to the NYS Safe Act is
necessary.
Page 51
Table 37 – Federal Income Tax Cuts

A: Recent federal income tax cuts have pretty much only significantly benefited the very rich US residents.
B: Recent federal income tax cuts have pretty much significantly benefited all US residents.
Page 52
Table 38 – What do you think is the largest issue facing our nation right now?
Trend Analysis ‒ Graphical Presentation (Issues that show recent changes in perceived severity):
Page 53
Table 38 (cont.) – What do you think is the largest issue facing our nation right now?
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Healthcare 4% 24% 5% 11% 10% 12% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6%
Nuclear Capability in Iran 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Economy/Jobs 81% 38% 45% 49% 44% 39% 24% 27% 15% 10% 6%
Education 0% 1% 3% 1% 2% 1% 3% 4% 2% 2% 1%
Alternative Energy 2% 1% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Debt/Spending/Budget 1% 8% 15% 11% 11% 11% 3% 2% 2% 1% 2%
Government/Leadership 3% 6% 8% 4% 12% 17% 17% 19% 12% 11% 10%
Taxes 1% 1% 0% 1% 2% 2% 0% 2% 2% 1% 1%
Environment 0% 2% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2%
Moral Issues 0% 2% 1% 0% 2% 3% 2% 4% 3% 7% 6%
War in Afghanistan 0% 0% 4% 1% 0% 1% 1% 2% 0% 1% 0%
Immigration 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 1% 3% 14%
War in General 0% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 3% 2% 1%
Agriculture 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%
Too much involvement in other countries’ affairs 0% 0% 1% 4% 1% 3% 5% 0% 1% 1% 1%
High Cost of Living/Prices 0% 0% 1% 4% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2%
Terrorism 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 7% 5% 2% 2%
Cost of Energy/Gas 0% 0% 0% 3% 2% 3% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0%
Crime 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0%
Drugs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 10% 18% 15% 1%
Corporate greed 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 4%
Sequestration (federal spending cuts) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 1% 0% 0%
Gun Control Issues 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 1% 0% 1% 6% 1%
Poverty 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 5% 2% 2% 2%
Income inequality 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 3%
ISIS 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 2% 2% 1% 0%
Climate Change 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 2%
Donald Trump 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% 11% 8%
Racism/Civil Rights/Intolerance 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 3% 9%
Liberals 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 3%
Politically Polarized Society 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 9%
Media/Press 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1%
School Shootings 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0%
Russia 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%
All of the above 1% 4% 1% 6% 1% 1% 2% 4% 2% 2% 7%
Page 54
Table 38 (cont.) – What do you think is the largest issue facing our nation right now?
Page 55
Section 3.5 – Other Tracked Local Community Characteristics

Table 39 – Employment status, or occupation

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Retired 17% 18% 18% 19% 17% 21% 17% 17% 17% 22% 19% 18%
Unemployed 8% 11% 12% 8% 4% 8% 4% 2% 4% 1% 4% 3%
Homemaker 8% 6% 8% 6% 6% 5% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 4%
Student 3% 8% 5% 10% 5% 6% 15% 7% 7% 3% 3% 3%
Military 6% 7% 12% 3% 9% 5% 2% 16% 9% 20% 20% 18%
Managerial 7% 7% 2% 4% 4% 3% 4% 5% 7% 5% 5% 5%
Medical 7% 6% 6% 5% 3% 6% 9% 7% 5% 6% 6% 6%
Professional/Technical 10% 7% 9% 9% 6% 11% 6% 4% 10% 4% 5% 4%
Sales 6% 5% 4% 4% 10% 9% 5% 4% 7% 7% 5% 4%
Clerical 3% 2% 2% 4% 4% 2% 2% 3% 1% 3% 3% 4%
Service 10% 6% 9% 7% 10% 11% 9% 9% 11% 9% 5% 8%
Blue Collar/Production 8% 12% 8% 12% 13% 6% 15% 15% 5% 6% 11% 10%
Teacher/Education 4% 5% 3% 5% 4% 6% 3% 4% 8% 6% 6% 6%
Self-employed -- -- 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 4% 4%
Disabled -- -- -- 3% 2% 1% 2% 0% 2% 2% 2% 3%
Not sure 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1%
Page 56
Table 39 (cont.) – Employment status, or occupation

Page 57
Table 40 – Does your occupation currently involve working remotely from home?
Page 58
Table 41 – When considering your family’s personal financial situation - has it gotten
better, stayed about the same, or gotten worse in the past 12 months?

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Better 33% 24% 26% 20% 16% 24% 28% 30% 25% 25% 27% 30%
Same 43% 45% 50% 52% 64% 50% 52% 49% 56% 56% 54% 49%
Worse 24% 31% 23% 29% 21% 24% 20% 21% 18% 14% 13% 17%
Don’t Know 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 2% 0% 1% 1% 5% 6% 5%
Page 59
Table 42 – SUMMARY – "In the past 30 days have you used the Internet to ____________?"
Page 60
Table 43 – In the past 30 days have you used the Internet to get local news?

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Yes 57% -- 61% 77% 69% -- -- -- -- 78% -- 74%
No 43% -- 37% 23% 31% -- -- -- -- 22% -- 24%
Not sure 0% -- 2% 0% 0% -- -- -- -- 0% -- 1%

Not measured in either Lewis or St. Lawrence Counties recently.
Page 61
Table 44 – In the past 30 days have you used the Internet to get national news?

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Yes 45% -- 58% 71% 60% -- -- -- -- 76% -- 71%
No 55% -- 40% 29% 41% -- -- -- -- 24% -- 27%
Not sure 0% -- 2% 0% 0% -- -- -- -- 0% -- 2%

Page 62
Table 45 – In the past 30 days have you used the Internet to seek information about local
events?

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Yes 54% 53% -- -- -- -- 72% -- 69%
No 45% 47% -- -- -- -- 27% -- 29%
Not sure 1% 0% -- -- -- -- 1% -- 3%

Page 63
Table 46 – In the past 30 days have you used the Internet to make an online purchase?
Trend Analysis ‒ Graphical Presentation:

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Yes 53% 49% 45% 59% 55% 59% 58% -- 55% 62% 52% 60% 56% -- -- -- -- 73% -- 74%
No 47% 51% 55% 42% 45% 41% 42% -- 45% 38% 45% 39% 44% -- -- -- -- 27% -- 24%
Not sure 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -- 0% 0% 3% 1% 0% -- -- -- -- 0% -- 1%

Page 64
Table 47 – In the past 30 days have you used the Internet to find medical or health
information?

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Yes 42% -- 44% 54% 46% -- -- -- -- 55% -- 57%
No 58% -- 54% 45% 54% -- -- -- -- 43% -- 40%
Not sure 0% -- 2% 2% 0% -- -- -- -- 2% -- 2%

Page 65
Table 48 – Political Ideologies of Participants


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Very Conservative 6% 8% 9% 3% 6% 3% 6% 6% 5% 6% 4% 2% 9% 6% 9%
Conservative 29% 30% 27% 18% 25% 26% 28% 25% 21% 29% 22% 32% 26% 28% 23%
Middle of the Road 43% 40% 47% 39% 42% 33% 31% 40% 52% 49% 50% 46% 37% 36% 39%
Liberal 18% 15% 13% 14% 17% 11% 16% 11% 10% 8% 10% 10% 9% 10% 10%
Very Liberal 4% 7% 5% 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 5% 1% 2% 2% 2% 3% 4%
Don’t Know 0% 0% 0% 24% 9% 24% 15% 15% 7% 7% 12% 8% 18% 16% 15%
Page 66
Table 49 – Which of the following is closest to your opinion about the use of (legalization
of) marijuana?

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Legalize for medicinal purposes only 30% -- -- -- -- 31%
Legalize for both medicinal and recreational purposes 37% -- -- -- -- 45%
Do not legalize 30% -- -- -- -- 19%
Not sure 4% -- -- -- -- 5%

1.3
Page 67
Table 50 – Which of the following best describes your personal cigarette use?
Not measured in earlier Jefferson County studies.


Page 68
Table 51 – Have you heard of the Center for Community Studies at JCC before completing
this survey?

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Yes 40% 33% 34% 33% 37% -- 32% -- 46% 40% 37% 36% -- 44% -- 38%
No 60% 68% 66% 67% 62% -- 67% -- 53% 58% 62% 64% -- 54% -- 55%
Not sure 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% -- 1% -- 2% 2% 1% 0% -- 2% -- 7%

Page 69
Opinions About the Future
Table 52 – When was the last time you visited the New York State Zoo at Thompson Park?

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Know zoo is there, but never visited. 7% -- -- -- -- 17%
Did not know there was a zoo. 0% -- -- -- -- 8%
Visited in past 3 years. 65% -- -- -- -- 43%
Visited 4-5 years ago. 13% -- -- -- -- 8%
Visited 6+ years ago. 12% -- -- -- -- 21%
Not sure 4% -- -- -- -- 3%

Page 70
Table 53 – Which of the following are reasons why you visit the zoo? (only among recent-
visitors)

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Family Time 72% -- -- -- -- 66%
Recreational Value 27% -- -- -- -- 45%
Educational Value 11% -- -- -- -- 25%
Events 13% -- -- -- -- 23%

Page 71
Table 54 – What improvements or additions would you like to see at the zoo? (only among
recent-visitors)

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
More variety of animals 30% -- -- -- -- 39%
More animals (greater number) 37% -- -- -- -- 30%
More educational programs 5% -- -- -- -- 15%
More special events 5% -- -- -- -- 14%
Lower admission price 4% -- -- -- -- 14%
Better care of facilities 3% -- -- -- -- 5%
Larger gift shop 0% -- -- -- -- 4%
Better care of animals 0% -- -- -- -- 2%
No improvements mentioned/needed 32% -- -- -- -- 22%

Page 72
Table 55 – How important do you think that having a zoo is to the quality of life in our
county?

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Very important 53% -- -- -- -- 43%
Somewhat important 35% -- -- -- -- 31%
A little important 6% -- -- -- -- 13%
Not at all important 6% -- -- -- -- 9%
Not sure 1% -- -- -- -- 3%

Page 73
Table 56 – What do you believe are the barriers to visiting the Zoo?


Page 74
Section 3.7 – Public Transportation in Jefferson County
Table 57 – Is there a vehicle available in your home for transportation?

Page 75
Table 58 – Has a lack of transportation been a barrier to your ability to secure employment
any time in the past year?

Page 76
Table 59 – Does anyone in your household currently use public transportation in Jefferson
County?

Page 77
Table 60 – For what uses, or locations, or activities would you use public transportation?

Page 78
Table 61 – For the destination you most frequently visit, possibly work, school, or church,
what method of transportation do you most commonly use?

Page 79
Table 62 – Interest in using potential public bus routes throughout Jefferson County.
Would you personally use a public bus from Watertown to ______.

Page 80
Section 4 - Final Comments

This report is a presentation of the information collected from a combined 581 telephone, intercept, and online
interviews of adult residents of Jefferson County, New York conducted between April 8-25, 2019 with comparisons when
possible to similar annual surveys completed in Jefferson County in each of 2000-2018, and to recent (2018) results in each
of the neighboring Northern New York Counties of Lewis and St. Lawrence. The Center for Community Studies exists to
engage in a variety of community-based research activities, and to promote the productive discussion of ideas and issues
of significance to our community. As such, the results of this survey are available for use by any citizen or organization in
the community. If you use information from this survey, we simply ask that you acknowledge the source.
These interviews produced a large volume of data, which can be analyzed and assessed in a number of different
ways. Please contact the Center for Community Studies for specific analyses. Additionally, the staff at the Center is
available to make presentations of these survey findings to community groups and organizations upon request. Please
contact:

1220 Coffeen Street
Watertown, NY 13601
Telephone: (315) 786-2264
Joel LaLone, Research Director jlalone@sunyjefferson.edu

www.sunyjefferson.edu/community/community-studies/
The Twenty-first Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community is tentatively scheduled for April 2020.
Page 81
Appendix - Technical Comments – Assistance in Interpretation

of the Statistical Results in this Report
The results of this study will be disseminated to, and utilized in decision-making by, a very wide array of readers –
who, no doubt, have a very wide array of statistical backgrounds. The following comments are provided to give guidance
for interpretation of the presented findings so that readers with less-than-current statistical training might maximize the use
of the information contained in the 20th Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community.
Margin of Error – Constructing Confidence Intervals to Estimate for an Entire Population

When data is collected, of course, it is only possible for the researcher to analyze the results of the sample data,
the data from the group of individuals actually sampled, or in this case, actually interviewed. However, it is typically the goal
of the researcher to use this sample data to draw a conclusion, or estimate that which they believe is true, for the entire
population from which the sample was selected. To complete this estimation the standard statistical technique is to construct
a confidence interval – an interval of values between which one can be 95% certain, or confident, that the true population
value will fall. For example, if a researcher interviews n=500 randomly selected participants from some population of size
N=100,000 individuals, and the researcher finds that x=200 of the 500 sampled participants indicate that they “agree” with
some posed statement (200 out of 500 would be 40%), then the researcher can never be 100% certain that if all 100,000
population members were, in fact, interviewed then the result for this entire population investigation would be that 40%
would “agree” (that would be 40,000 out of the 100,000). In general, one can never guarantee with 100% certainty that a
statistic for some random sample will perfectly, exactly, result the same as the population value that describes the entire
population (this value is called a “parameter”). Fortunately, considering the types of variables and resulting data that
typically are generated in survey research, use of the statistical tools of probability distributions and sampling distributions
allows the determination of a very important distance – the distance that one would expect 95% of the samples of size n to
fall either above or below the true population value. This distance is commonly referred to as the margin of error. Once
this distance (margin of error) is measured, there is a 95% probability that the sample result (the result of the n=500 sampled
participants in the illustration above) will fall within that distance of the true population value. Therefore, to construct the
very useful and easily-interpreted statistical estimation tool known as a confidence interval, all one must do is calculate
the margin of error and add-and-subtract it to-and-from the sample result (statistic) and the outcome is that there is a 95%
chance that the resulting interval does, in fact, include the true population value within the interval.
To illustrate the above-described concepts of margin of error and confidence intervals, recall that the margin of error
for this survey has been earlier stated in Table 4 in the Methodology section in this report as approximately ±4.2 percentage
points when a survey question is answered by all 581 participants. Therefore, when a percentage is observed in one of the
included tables of statistics in this report, the appropriate interpretation is that we are 95% confident that if all Jefferson
County adult residents were surveyed (rather than just the 581 that were actually surveyed), the percentage that would
result for all residents would be within ±4.2 percentage points of the sample percentage that was surveyed, calculated, and
reported in this study. For example, in Table 13, it can be observed that 34.4% of the sample of 576 adults who answered
this survey question reported that they believe that cultural and entertainment opportunities in Jefferson County are
“Excellent or Good” (7.8% respond with “Excellent” and 26.6% respond with “Good”), note that five participants omitted this
survey question. With this sample result, one could infer with 95% confidence that if all Jefferson County adults were asked
– somewhere between 30.2% and 38.6% of the population of approximately 90,000 adults in Jefferson County believe that
cultural and entertainment opportunities in the county are “Excellent or Good” (generated by starting with the 34.4% that
was found in the sample and adding-and-subtracting the margin of error of ±4.2%). This resulting interval (30.2%-38.6%)
is known as a 95% Confidence Interval. The consumer of this report should use this pattern when attempting to generalize
any of these survey findings for survey questions that were answered by all 581 participants in this study to the entire adult
population of Jefferson County. When attempting to generalize results for survey questions which had smaller sample sizes
(the result of either screening questions, or participants refusing to answer certain questions, or investigating demographics
subgroups such as only females), the resulting margin of error will be larger than ±4.2 percentage points. Table 4 presented
earlier in this report, provides approximate margin of error values that should be used with sample sizes of less than n=581.
Margin of Error – More Detail for Those Interested in Maximizing Precision and Accuracy of Estimates
The introductory example above relating to cultural and entertainment opportunities used a margin of error of ±4.2%,
as a result of an illustration that used 581 participants in this study. However, again, the margin of error when using the
sample results in this study to construct a confidence interval to estimate a population percentage will not always be ±4.2%.
There is not one universal value of a margin of error that can be precisely calculated and used for the results for every
Page 82
question included in this survey, or for that matter, any multiple-question survey. Calculation methods used in this study for
generating the margin of error depend upon the following factors (which include three factors in addition to the sample-size
factor that has been mentioned earlier in Table 4):
1. The sample size is the number of adults who validly answered the survey question. The sample
size will not always be n=581 since individuals have a right to omit any question. Additionally,
some survey questions were only posed after screening questions. In general, the smaller the
sample size then the larger the margin of error, and conversely, the larger the sample size then
the smaller the margin of error.
2. The sample proportion or percentage is the calculated percentage of the sample who
responded with the answer or category of interest (i.e. responded “Agree”). This percentage can
vary from 0%-100%, and, of course, will change from question to question throughout the survey.
In general, the further that a sample percentage varies from 50%, in either direction (approaching
either 0% or 100%), the smaller the margin of error, and conversely, the closer that the actual
sample percentage is to 50% then the larger the resulting margin of error. As an example, if 160
out of 400 sampled residents “Agree” with some posed statement, then the sample proportion
would be (160÷400=0.4=40%)
3. The confidence level used in generalizing the results of the sample to the population that the
sample represented. In this study, the standard confidence level used in survey research, 95%
confidence level, will be used for all survey questions.
4. The design effect (DEFF) is a factor used in the calculation of the margin of error that
compensates for the impact upon the size of the margin of error of having a sample whose
demographic distributions do not well-parallel the distributions of the entire population that the
sampling is attempting to represent. In general, the further that the sample demographic
distributions deviate from the population distributions then the larger the design effect (margin of
error), and conversely, the closer that the sample demographic distributions parallel the
population distributions then the smaller the design effect (margin of error). Essentially the design
effect reflects the magnitude of the impact that reliance upon weighting of sample results will
have upon the reliability of population estimates. Note that the design effect for this study is 1.64.
In mathematical notation, the margin of error (ME) for each sample result for this study would be represented as:
p(100  p)
ME  1.96   DEFF
n
Where n=sample size = # valid responses to the survey question
N=population size
p=sample percentage for the survey question (between 0%-100%)
1.96 = the standard normal score associated with the 95% confidence level
DEFF = the design effect
n   wi2
and DEFF 
 w i
2
with wi=the post-stratification weight associated with i th of the 581 sampled individuals
An example of using this Margin of Error formula would be that if 300 residents are sampled and validly answer
some survey question, and 60 of those 300 residents report that they “Strongly Agree” with some statement, then the sample
proportion is p=(60/300)=0.2=20%. Therefore the margin of error for this sample (whose n is only 300) that has a sample
proportion that deviates quite largely from 50%, is found by: (please refer to Table 63 to verify)
𝑝(100 − 𝑝) (20)(100 − 20)

𝑀𝐸 = 1.96 ∙ √ ∙ √𝐷𝐸𝐹𝐹 = 1.96 ∙ √ ∙ √1.64 = 5.8%
𝑛 300
Since the sample size varies (in fact, could conceivably be different for every question included in the survey) and
the sample percentage varies (also, could conceivably be different for every question included in the survey) the following
table (Table 63) has been provided for the reader to determine the correct margin of error to use whenever constructing a
confidence interval using the sample data presented in this study. This table was generated using the ME formula shown
above.
Page 83
Table 63 – More Detailed Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes and Varying Sample
Proportions
Varying Sample Sizes (n=…):
Varying
Sample 30 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 581
%'s:
2% 6.4% 5.0% 4.1% 3.5% 3.1% 2.9% 2.7% 2.5% 2.2% 2.0% 1.9% 1.8% 1.7% 1.6% 1.5% 1.5%
4% 9.0% 7.0% 5.7% 4.9% 4.4% 4.0% 3.7% 3.5% 3.1% 2.8% 2.6% 2.5% 2.3% 2.2% 2.1% 2.0%
6% 10.9% 8.4% 6.9% 6.0% 5.3% 4.9% 4.5% 4.2% 3.8% 3.4% 3.2% 3.0% 2.8% 2.7% 2.5% 2.5%
8% 12.4% 9.6% 7.9% 6.8% 6.1% 5.6% 5.1% 4.8% 4.3% 3.9% 3.6% 3.4% 3.2% 3.0% 2.9% 2.8%
10% 13.7% 10.6% 8.7% 7.5% 6.7% 6.1% 5.7% 5.3% 4.8% 4.3% 4.0% 3.8% 3.5% 3.4% 3.2% 3.1%
12% 14.9% 11.5% 9.4% 8.2% 7.3% 6.7% 6.2% 5.8% 5.2% 4.7% 4.4% 4.1% 3.8% 3.6% 3.5% 3.4%
14% 15.9% 12.3% 10.1% 8.7% 7.8% 7.1% 6.6% 6.2% 5.5% 5.0% 4.7% 4.4% 4.1% 3.9% 3.7% 3.6%
16% 16.8% 13.0% 10.6% 9.2% 8.2% 7.5% 7.0% 6.5% 5.8% 5.3% 4.9% 4.6% 4.3% 4.1% 3.9% 3.8%
18% 17.6% 13.6% 11.1% 9.6% 8.6% 7.9% 7.3% 6.8% 6.1% 5.6% 5.2% 4.8% 4.5% 4.3% 4.1% 4.0%
20% 18.3% 14.2% 11.6% 10.0% 9.0% 8.2% 7.6% 7.1% 6.3% 5.8% 5.4% 5.0% 4.7% 4.5% 4.3% 4.2%
22% 19.0% 14.7% 12.0% 10.4% 9.3% 8.5% 7.9% 7.4% 6.6% 6.0% 5.6% 5.2% 4.9% 4.6% 4.4% 4.3%
24% 19.6% 15.2% 12.4% 10.7% 9.6% 8.8% 8.1% 7.6% 6.8% 6.2% 5.7% 5.4% 5.1% 4.8% 4.6% 4.4%
26% 20.1% 15.6% 12.7% 11.0% 9.8% 9.0% 8.3% 7.8% 7.0% 6.4% 5.9% 5.5% 5.2% 4.9% 4.7% 4.6%
28% 20.6% 15.9% 13.0% 11.3% 10.1% 9.2% 8.5% 8.0% 7.1% 6.5% 6.0% 5.6% 5.3% 5.0% 4.8% 4.7%
30% 21.0% 16.3% 13.3% 11.5% 10.3% 9.4% 8.7% 8.1% 7.3% 6.6% 6.1% 5.7% 5.4% 5.1% 4.9% 4.8%
32% 21.4% 16.6% 13.5% 11.7% 10.5% 9.6% 8.8% 8.3% 7.4% 6.8% 6.3% 5.9% 5.5% 5.2% 5.0% 4.9%
34% 21.7% 16.8% 13.7% 11.9% 10.6% 9.7% 9.0% 8.4% 7.5% 6.9% 6.4% 5.9% 5.6% 5.3% 5.1% 4.9%
36% 22.0% 17.0% 13.9% 12.0% 10.8% 9.8% 9.1% 8.5% 7.6% 7.0% 6.4% 6.0% 5.7% 5.4% 5.1% 5.0%
38% 22.2% 17.2% 14.1% 12.2% 10.9% 9.9% 9.2% 8.6% 7.7% 7.0% 6.5% 6.1% 5.7% 5.4% 5.2% 5.1%
40% 22.4% 17.4% 14.2% 12.3% 11.0% 10.0% 9.3% 8.7% 7.8% 7.1% 6.6% 6.1% 5.8% 5.5% 5.2% 5.1%
42% 22.6% 17.5% 14.3% 12.4% 11.1% 10.1% 9.4% 8.8% 7.8% 7.2% 6.6% 6.2% 5.8% 5.5% 5.3% 5.1%
44% 22.7% 17.6% 14.4% 12.5% 11.1% 10.2% 9.4% 8.8% 7.9% 7.2% 6.7% 6.2% 5.9% 5.6% 5.3% 5.2%
46% 22.8% 17.7% 14.4% 12.5% 11.2% 10.2% 9.5% 8.8% 7.9% 7.2% 6.7% 6.3% 5.9% 5.6% 5.3% 5.2%
48% 22.9% 17.7% 14.5% 12.5% 11.2% 10.2% 9.5% 8.9% 7.9% 7.2% 6.7% 6.3% 5.9% 5.6% 5.3% 5.2%
50% 22.9% 17.7% 14.5% 12.5% 11.2% 10.2% 9.5% 8.9% 7.9% 7.2% 6.7% 6.3% 5.9% 5.6% 5.3% 5.2%
52% 22.9% 17.7% 14.5% 12.5% 11.2% 10.2% 9.5% 8.9% 7.9% 7.2% 6.7% 6.3% 5.9% 5.6% 5.3% 5.2%
54% 22.8% 17.7% 14.4% 12.5% 11.2% 10.2% 9.5% 8.8% 7.9% 7.2% 6.7% 6.3% 5.9% 5.6% 5.3% 5.2%
56% 22.7% 17.6% 14.4% 12.5% 11.1% 10.2% 9.4% 8.8% 7.9% 7.2% 6.7% 6.2% 5.9% 5.6% 5.3% 5.2%
58% 22.6% 17.5% 14.3% 12.4% 11.1% 10.1% 9.4% 8.8% 7.8% 7.2% 6.6% 6.2% 5.8% 5.5% 5.3% 5.1%
60% 22.4% 17.4% 14.2% 12.3% 11.0% 10.0% 9.3% 8.7% 7.8% 7.1% 6.6% 6.1% 5.8% 5.5% 5.2% 5.1%
62% 22.2% 17.2% 14.1% 12.2% 10.9% 9.9% 9.2% 8.6% 7.7% 7.0% 6.5% 6.1% 5.7% 5.4% 5.2% 5.1%
64% 22.0% 17.0% 13.9% 12.0% 10.8% 9.8% 9.1% 8.5% 7.6% 7.0% 6.4% 6.0% 5.7% 5.4% 5.1% 5.0%
66% 21.7% 16.8% 13.7% 11.9% 10.6% 9.7% 9.0% 8.4% 7.5% 6.9% 6.4% 5.9% 5.6% 5.3% 5.1% 4.9%
68% 21.4% 16.6% 13.5% 11.7% 10.5% 9.6% 8.8% 8.3% 7.4% 6.8% 6.3% 5.9% 5.5% 5.2% 5.0% 4.9%
70% 21.0% 16.3% 13.3% 11.5% 10.3% 9.4% 8.7% 8.1% 7.3% 6.6% 6.1% 5.7% 5.4% 5.1% 4.9% 4.8%
72% 20.6% 15.9% 13.0% 11.3% 10.1% 9.2% 8.5% 8.0% 7.1% 6.5% 6.0% 5.6% 5.3% 5.0% 4.8% 4.7%
74% 20.1% 15.6% 12.7% 11.0% 9.8% 9.0% 8.3% 7.8% 7.0% 6.4% 5.9% 5.5% 5.2% 4.9% 4.7% 4.6%
76% 19.6% 15.2% 12.4% 10.7% 9.6% 8.8% 8.1% 7.6% 6.8% 6.2% 5.7% 5.4% 5.1% 4.8% 4.6% 4.4%
78% 19.0% 14.7% 12.0% 10.4% 9.3% 8.5% 7.9% 7.4% 6.6% 6.0% 5.6% 5.2% 4.9% 4.6% 4.4% 4.3%
80% 18.3% 14.2% 11.6% 10.0% 9.0% 8.2% 7.6% 7.1% 6.3% 5.8% 5.4% 5.0% 4.7% 4.5% 4.3% 4.2%
82% 17.6% 13.6% 11.1% 9.6% 8.6% 7.9% 7.3% 6.8% 6.1% 5.6% 5.2% 4.8% 4.5% 4.3% 4.1% 4.0%
84% 16.8% 13.0% 10.6% 9.2% 8.2% 7.5% 7.0% 6.5% 5.8% 5.3% 4.9% 4.6% 4.3% 4.1% 3.9% 3.8%
86% 15.9% 12.3% 10.1% 8.7% 7.8% 7.1% 6.6% 6.2% 5.5% 5.0% 4.7% 4.4% 4.1% 3.9% 3.7% 3.6%
88% 14.9% 11.5% 9.4% 8.2% 7.3% 6.7% 6.2% 5.8% 5.2% 4.7% 4.4% 4.1% 3.8% 3.6% 3.5% 3.4%
90% 13.7% 10.6% 8.7% 7.5% 6.7% 6.1% 5.7% 5.3% 4.8% 4.3% 4.0% 3.8% 3.5% 3.4% 3.2% 3.1%
92% 12.4% 9.6% 7.9% 6.8% 6.1% 5.6% 5.1% 4.8% 4.3% 3.9% 3.6% 3.4% 3.2% 3.0% 2.9% 2.8%
94% 10.9% 8.4% 6.9% 6.0% 5.3% 4.9% 4.5% 4.2% 3.8% 3.4% 3.2% 3.0% 2.8% 2.7% 2.5% 2.5%
96% 9.0% 7.0% 5.7% 4.9% 4.4% 4.0% 3.7% 3.5% 3.1% 2.8% 2.6% 2.5% 2.3% 2.2% 2.1% 2.0%
98% 6.4% 5.0% 4.1% 3.5% 3.1% 2.9% 2.7% 2.5% 2.2% 2.0% 1.9% 1.8% 1.7% 1.6% 1.5% 1.5%
Average 18.3% 14.2% 11.6% 10.0% 9.0% 8.2% 7.6% 7.1% 6.3% 5.8% 5.4% 5.0% 4.7% 4.5% 4.3% 4.2%
Page 84
Illustration of how to use Table 63 to determine the correct margin of error when investigating subgroups:
To estimate the percentage in the entire population of Jefferson County adult males who believe that the overall
state of the local economy is at least good (Excellent or Good) one must simply refer to Table 2 to determine the
raw/unweighted sample size – the raw/unweighted number of males in this sample is n=293. From Table 22 it is found that
38.3% of the sampled males replied with at least good. Reference to Table 63 on the preceding page indicates that the
appropriate margin of error would be ±7.0% (used p=38%, the closest to 38.3% that is shown in Table 63; and used n=300,
the closest to 293 that is included in Table 63). Therefore, we can be 95% confident that if all Jefferson County adult males
were to evaluate the state of the local economy the resulting percentage who would indicate at least good among this
population would be within ±7.0% of the 38.3% found in our sample. The interpretation of this would be that we are 95%
confident that among all Jefferson County adult males the percentage who believe that the state of the local economy is at
least good would be somewhere between 31.3% and 45.3%. Note that this margin of error of 7.0 percentage points is
larger than the earlier-cited study margin of error of approximately 4.2 percentage points as a result of there being only 293
males in this sample (n=293, not 581, for this example).
It should be noted that the margin error is a measurement of random error, error due to simply the random chance
of sampling. However, in survey research, it is humans who are being interviewed. When surveying humans there are
other potential sources of error, sources of error in addition to random error (which is the only error encompassed by the
margin of error). Response error, nonresponse error, process error, bias in sample selection, bias in question-phrasing,
lack of clarity in question-phrasing, social desirability bias, acquiescence bias, and undercoverage are common sources of
other-than-random error. Methods that should be, and have been in this Jefferson County study, employed to minimize
these other sources of error are: maximum effort to select the sample randomly, piloting and testing of utilized survey
questions, extensive training of all data collectors (interviewers), and application of post-stratification weight algorithms.
Hence, when using this study data to make estimates about the entire Jefferson County adult population, as is the case in
standard survey research practices, the margin of error will be the only error measurement cited and interpreted.
Significance Testing – Testing for Statistically Significant Trends, Differences, and Relationships
The technical discussion of statistical techniques above has focused on the statistical inference referred to as
estimation – construction of confidence intervals using the margins of error described in the tables shown on preceding
pages. To take full advantage of the data collected in this study, other statistical techniques are of value. Tests for significant
trends over time within Jefferson County, tests for differences between the three annually studied North Country counties,
and tests for significantly correlated factors with measured variables within Jefferson County are presented as well.
A comment or two regarding “statistical significance” could help readers of varying quantitative backgrounds most
appropriately interpret the results of what has been statistically analyzed. Again, because the data for the 20th Annual
Jefferson County Survey of the Community is based on a sample of 581 adult residents, as opposed to obtaining information
from every single adult resident in Jefferson County, there must be a method of determining whether an observed
relationship or difference in the sample survey data is likely to continue to hold true if every adult resident of the county
were, in fact, interviewed. To make this determination, tests of statistical significance are standard practice in evaluating
sample survey data.
For example, the sample data shows that male residents are more likely to report that cultural and entertainment
opportunities in the county are at least good (Excellent or Good) in Jefferson County than female residents (36.1% vs.
33.0%, respectively, Table 13), the researcher would want to know if this higher satisfaction with cultural and entertainment
opportunities among male residents would still be present if they interviewed every Jefferson County adult rather than just
the sample of 581 adults who were actually interviewed. To answer this question, the researcher uses a test of statistical
significance. The outcome of a test of statistical significance will be that the result is either “not statistically significant” or
the result is “statistically significant.”
The meaning of “not statistically significant” is that if the sample were repeated many more times (in this case that
would mean many more different groups of n=581 randomly selected adults from the approximately 90,000 adults in
Jefferson County), then the results of these samples would not consistently show that male residents are more likely to
report that cultural and entertainment opportunities are at least good in Jefferson County than female residents; some
samples would have males higher and some would have females higher. In this case, the researcher could not report with
high levels of confidence that the male satisfaction rate is statistically significantly different from the female rate. Rather, in
this case the difference found between males and females in the one actually selected sample of size n=581 Jefferson
County residents would be interpreted as small enough that it could be due simply to the random chance of sampling – not
statistically significant. Again, the determination of “how far apart is far enough apart to be statistically significant?” is
Page 85
calculated by using sampling distributions and the margins of error described earlier. These tools allow the measurement
of how far apart sample subgroups must be to be interpreted as a very unlikely difference to occur simply by random chance
(if one assumes that the population values for the subgroups are, in fact, equal).
Conversely, the meaning of “statistically significant” is that if the sample were repeated many more times, then the
results of these samples would consistently show that male Jefferson County adults are more likely to report that cultural
and entertainment opportunities are at least good than females; and further, if every adult were interviewed, we are confident
that the population “perceived as at least good” rate among males would be higher than the rate among females. One can
never be 100% certain (or confident) that the result of a sample will indicate appropriately whether the population
percentages are, in fact, statistically significantly different from one another or not. However, using the standard confidence
level of 95%, an interpretation of “not statistically significant” means that the size of the observed sample difference would
naturally be expected to be found in 95 out of 100 random samples of similar size n. The interpretation of a “statistically
significant” difference is that it is so large that there is a probability of less than 5% that this difference occurred simply due
to the random chance of sampling (if one assumes that the population values for the subgroups are, in fact, equal) – instead,
it is considered a “real” difference. In statistical vocabulary and notation, this would be represented as a p-value of less
than 5% (p<0.05).
Correlated Explanatory Variables – How does one decide if there is a “statistically significant” correlation?
Throughout this report, cross-tabulation comparisons for “relationships between collected variables” have been
completed. With investigations for relationships between variables, the focus is the identification of correlations between
variables – is the result for some survey question different when looking at various subgroups (or, levels) of some other
variable? Again, referring to the “satisfaction with cultural and entertainment opportunities” scenario, one could observe in
Table 13 that the “Excellent or Good” rate among males is 36.1%, and compare this to the rate among females (which is
33.0%). A very small difference between these within-subgroup rates (or, proportions) could be small enough to quite likely
occur simply due to the random chance of sampling when the real population values for all males and all females in the
county are equal – found to be not a statistically significant difference (p>0.05). Conversely, a very large difference between
these within-subgroup proportions could be large enough to be quite unlikely to occur simply due to the random chance of
sampling when the real population values for all males and all females in the county are equal – found to be a statistically
significant difference (p<0.05).
How does one determine if the observed difference in rates (or, percentages) when comparing subgroups is large
enough to be statistically significant, or so small that it is not statistically significant? The rule that should be applied to
determine statistical significance is:
1. Sample percentages in the same row and subtable (comparing demographic subgroups) not sharing
the same subscript are significantly different at p<0.05.
2. Sample percentages in the same row and subtable (comparing demographic subgroups) sharing the
same subscript are not significantly different at p<0.05.
All tests have been completed using the two-proportion z-test. Subsequent cell adjustment for all pairwise
comparisons within a row of each innermost sub-table using the Bonferroni Multiple Comparison corrections has been
completed when necessary. Tests assume equal variances and do not include the design effect in measuring the standard
error. All results for all significance tests are reported in the associated cross-tabulation contingency tables using APA-style
subscripts.
As an example, the demographic cross-tabulations for “satisfaction with cultural and entertainment opportunities”
for Jefferson County in 2019 are shown below (and, also earlier in this report this is Table 13):
Page 86
The cross-tabulation table on the preceding page shows that in 2019, 36.1% of male participants rate cultural and
entertainment opportunities in the county as “Excellent or Good”, while only 33.0% of female participants do so, however,
since these two groups do share a subscript (males are designated as “a”, and females are also designated “a”), the
two groups do not differ statistically significantly. Therefore, in 2019 in Jefferson County, men are not significantly more nor
less satisfied with cultural and entertainment opportunities than are women. The above-described process is the appropriate
process to use whenever comparing subgroups within the data set that has been collected and analyzed within this study.
Regional Comparisons – How does one decide if Jefferson County is “statistically significantly”
different from Lewis and/or St. Lawrence Counties?
The same process described above to determine whether or not subgroups differ significantly is applied throughout
this report to compare the three annually studied counties to one another, with the same tests applied, and the same
decision rule applied. As a reminder, the rule to determine statistical significance is:
1. Sample percentages in the same row and subtable (comparing counties) not sharing the same
subscript are significantly different at p<0.05.
2. Sample percentages in the same row and subtable (comparing counties) sharing the same subscript
are not significantly different at p<0.05.
As an example, Northern New York Regional Comparison cross-tabulation for “satisfaction with cultural and
entertainment opportunities” for the three studied counties in 2018-2019 is shown below (and, also earlier in this report this
is Table 13):
The cross-tabulation table above shows that in 2018-2019, 34.4% of Jefferson County participants rate cultural and
entertainment opportunities in the county as “Excellent or Good”, while the rates in Lewis and St. Lawrence Counties,
respectively, are 35.7% and 31.1%. Since all three counties are designated as “a”, none of these counties differ significantly
from one another. The above-described process is the appropriate process to use whenever comparing counties within the
data set that has been collected and analyzed in this study.
Trend Analysis – How does one decide if Jefferson County has “statistically significantly” changed over
time?
Whenever possible in this report, comparisons are made between the current results and the results in earlier
community studies completed in Jefferson County. The research question that is being investigated in these comparisons
is, “Has there been any statistically significant change in attitudes or behaviors among the adult residents in Jefferson
County between 2000 and 2019?”
When interpreting the comparisons that have been provided, the reader should consider the following factors. The
Center for Community Studies also completed the earlier Jefferson County studies. The earlier studies used telephone-
interviewing methodology that was virtually identical to the telephone-interviewing portion of sampling methodology which
was utilized in the present 2019 Jefferson County study, as well as similar post-stratification weighting procedures.
Page 87
However, the earlier survey instruments that were used are not exactly the same instrument that has been used in 2019 in
Jefferson County. Therefore, only the questions/items that were also measured in earlier studies are available for trend
analysis to compare with the current results. With the similar methodologies and weighting procedures that have been
applied, it is valid to make comparisons between the studies – observe changes or trends.
The same concept of statistical significance that has been described in the preceding pages regarding “Correlational
Analyses” and “Comparison to Other North Country Counties” is also applied when a researcher attempts to investigate
whether or not results in Jefferson County have changed significantly over the past 20 years. The focus now becomes the
comparison of the 2019 Jefferson County result to earlier Jefferson County results (rather than comparing males to females,
for example, as was the case in the correlational analysis illustration shown earlier) or the comparison of Jefferson County
to each of Lewis and St. Lawrence Counties (also illustrated earlier). The technique that is recommended in this study to
determine whether a statistically significant trend has occurred in Jefferson County is to apply the following method that has
also been recommended by the New York State Department of Health in its presentation of the Expanded Behavioral Risk
Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). The NYSDOH Expanded BRFSS (on page 12 of 151 in the 2009 report) cites the
following:
“When the confidence intervals of two estimates of the same indicator from
different areas (or, subgroups) do not overlap, they may be said to be statistically
significantly different, i.e., these differences are unlikely related to chance and are
considered true differences. If there is any value that is included in both intervals,
the two estimates are not statistically significantly different.”
In other words, first the reader must identify the specific response choice of interest. For example, is one interested
in only investigating “Excellent”, or is one more interested in collapsing the two possible response choices of “Excellent”
and “Good” together into a response choice group that could be referred to as “At Least Good”? Then, after observing the
sample sizes for the years to be compared (Table 8 on page 22 of this report), one may refer to Table 63 in this study to
identify the correct approximate margins of error (or directly calculate these margins of error with more accuracy and
precision using the ME formula shown and demonstrated on page 83) if estimating proportions (or, “percentages” or “rates”)
for differing years. With these margins of error, two separate confidence intervals may be constructed, one for each year,
and the overlap-vs.-non-overlap rule recommended above by the NYSDOH may be applied to determine whether or not the
observed sample difference between years should be considered statistically significant. This technique for testing for
statistical significance does include the design effect in measuring the standard error.
To illustrate a trend analysis, please consider the “Cultural/Entertainment Opportunities” variable. Reference to
Table 13 of this report shows that:
In 2018: in Jefferson County: n=575 participants (found in Table 8 earlier in this report), and in Table 13
p=49% responded either Excellent (8%) or Good (41%); therefore from Table 63 the approximate
margin of error is ±5.2%. The resulting confidence interval for 2018 is: 49%±5.2%, or
(43.8%,54.2%).
In 2019: in Jefferson County: n=576 participants, and in Table 13 p=34.4% responded either Excellent
(7.8%) or Good (26.6%); therefore from Table 63 the approximate margin of error is ±4.9%. The
resulting confidence interval for 2019 is: 34.4%±4.9%, or (29.5%,39.3%).
Since these two confidence intervals do not overlap, the difference between 2018 and 2019 in Jefferson County
(the trend over the past year) is considered statistically significant. In other words, based upon the sample data collected
in this survey, the rate of evaluating cultural and entertainment opportunities in Jefferson County as “Excellent or Good” has
changed significantly between 2018 and 2019. The 34% rate found in 2019 is far enough away from (below) the 49% rate
found in 2018 to be a statistically significant change, this 15% difference is quite unlikely to occur by random chance if the
satisfaction rates in the entire adult populations in the county are truly the same in these two compared years.
Finally, the preceding comments regarding statistically significant differences between subgroups, statistically
significant differences between North Country Counties, and statistically significant changes between study years, are
comments addressing statistical significance … which, of course, is not one-and-the-same as practical significance.
The reader should be reminded that statistical significance addresses the concept of probability, as follows – “is this
difference likely to occur in a sample of size n=581 if there is no difference in the entire sampled populations… could the
result simply be due to chance?” However, practical significance is an interpretation that is left to the subject area expert,
since practical significance addresses the concept of usefulness, as follows – “is this result useful in the real world?” A
Page 88
difference identified in a sample may be statistically significant without being practically significant, however, a difference
identified in a sample may not be practically significant without being statistically significant.
Please direct any questions regarding margin of error, confidence intervals, other sources of sampling error, tests
of statistical significance, and practical significance to the professional staff at the Center for Community Studies.
Page 89
The Survey Instrument
Page 90
20th Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community - 2019
Introduction
Good evening. My name is (first name), I am a student at Jefferson Community College, how are you doing
this evening (afternoon)? This call is not to ask for money or donations, I am calling for the Center for
Community Studies at JCC. We are conducting the 20th Annual Jefferson County Survey of the
Community; we do this survey every year in April; we are interested in your opinions about the quality of life
and future direction of Jefferson County. Do you have a few minutes to do a survey for us (or, “help us
out”)?
If NO . . . Might there be another adult in the home who might wish to participate or is there a more
convenient time to call?
If YES . . . (First verify that the person is 18 years old.) Great, well, let's begin.
IMPORTANT - ESPECIALLY WITH CELL PHONES - Verify that they do live in Jefferson County, if they do
not then just thank them for their time and wish them a good day/evening.
BE PREPARED TO EXPLAIN:
-this call is NOT a call looking for a donation
-Jefferson County Legislature uses this data in their planning and decision-making,
-the survey is paid for by JCC, with the help of some local sponsors
-results will be available to the public for free in June 2019, at www.sunyjefferson.edu/ccs
-your number has been randomly generated, we do not know who you are
IF THEY ARE "ON THE FENCE": "Would you like me to start with the first question, and you can stop the
survey anytime you'd like?"
Quality of Life Indicators
1
Q1: Our first questions are about the characteristics of Jefferson County. I’m going to read you a
list of characteristics of the county. For each, we are interested in how you would currently RATE
that characteristic on an EXCELLENT, GOOD, FAIR, or POOR scale. "Cultural and entertainment
Opportunities, do you feel they are Excellent, Good, Fair, or Poor in the county?" (Don't read the
"Don't Know" choice aloud)
Don't
Know/Not
Excellent Good Fair Poor Sure
1.a. Cultural/entertainment opportunities
1.b. Health care quality
1.c. Access to higher education
1.d. Quality of the environment
1.e. County government
1.f. Real estate taxes
1.g. Downtown of Watertown
1.h. Availability of good jobs
1.i. Quality of K-12 education
1.j. The overall state of the local economy
1.k. Availability of housing
1.l. The overall quality of life in the area
Personal Opinions
2
READ THIS:
Q2: Next, we are interested in learning more about the opinions of residents of the county.
For several issues I am going to read you two statements, I'll call them Statement A and Statement
B, and for each I am interested in which statement you agree with, A or B, which is your personal
opinion?
NOTE 1: ask whether "Somewhat" or "Strongly", don't read "Both or Neither"

NOTE 2: IF ASKED: "The college is asking these personal opinion questions as educators to learn
more about the communities in which we reside. We are not politically supporting or opposing any
of these opinions."
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Neither/Not
A A Both B B Sure
Q2.a.
STATEMENT A: "The United States needs to maintain its

strong leadership role in the world political and economic
order."
STATEMENT B: "The United States needs to refocus its

attention on our own people and problems and let the rest of
the world take care of itself."
Q2.b.
A: "All the talk about human’s role in climate change is pretty

much exaggerated speculation."
B: "Human contribution to climate change is pretty much a

proven scientific conclusion."
Q2.c.
A: "Healthcare is a societal responsibility and government

should ensure that good healthcare is available to all people."
B: "Healthcare is an individual responsibility and government

should stay out of it."
3
Q2.d-Q2.f:
A A Both B B Sure
Q2.d.
A: "Overall I think President Trump is good for our country."
B: "Overall I think President Trump is bad for our country."
Q2.e.
A: “To maintain and improve border security - our country

should build a physical wall along the entire US-Mexico
border.”
B: "To maintain and improve border security– our country

should use other available technological methods and not
build a physical wall along the entire US-Mexico border.”
Q2.f.
A: "Social security should be privatized so that people have

more control and a chance to get better retirement benefits."
B: "Social security should be mostly left alone so that it can

be a trusted source of retirement income for everyone."
4
Q2.g-Q2.i:
A A Both B B Sure
Q2.g.
A: "The MeToo! movement is out of hand and greatly

exaggerates some bad experiences of some women."
B: "The MeToo! movement is long overdue and is finally

opening up peoples’ eyes to the inappropriate behavior that
women have endured for years."
IF ASKED: "MeToo!" = "a movement against sexual

harassment and sexual assault, especially in the workplace"
(from Wikipedia)
Q2.h.
A: "It is wrong for adults to be romantically involved with other

adults of the same sex."
B: "It is all right for adults to be romantically involved with

other adults of the same sex."
Q2.i.
A: "Choosing abortion is a woman's right, and society should

protect that right."
B: "Abortion is morally wrong, and society should prohibit it."
Q2.j-Q2.k:
A A Both B B Sure
Q2.j.
A: "The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects

an individual’s right to own guns, and that should not be
compromised by laws such as the NYS Safe Act."
B: " Gun violence in the US is out of control and some gun

regulation similar to the NYS Safe Act is necessary."
Q2.k.
A: "Recent federal income tax cuts have pretty much only

significantly benefited the very rich US residents."
B: "Recent federal income tax cuts have pretty much

significantly benefited all US residents."
5
Q3. What do you think is the single largest issue that is facing OUR NATION right now? (do not read
the choices unless the participant asks for clarification)
Healthcare War in Afghanistan Corporate Greed
Nuclear Capability in Iran Immigration Sequestration (Federal funding

cuts)
Economy/Jobs War in General
Gun Control Issue
Education Agriculture
Poverty
Alternative Energy Too much Involvement in Other
Countries' Affairs Income Inequality
Debt/Spending/Budget
High Cost of Living/Prices ISIS
Government/Leadership
Terrorism Climate Change
Taxes
Cost of Gas/Energy Donald Trump
Environment
Crime All of the above
Moral Issues
Drugs
Other (please specify)
Tracked Questions
READ THIS:
Our next group questions relate to other aspects of life in Jefferson County such as personal financial
situation, technology use, and health attitudes and behaviors. These questions are tracked in the county
and asked regularly as part of our annual survey.
Q4: 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?
Better Same Worse Don't Know
6
Q5: READ THIS:
Next, we are interested in continuing to study the uses of technology among Jefferson County
residents.
"In the past 30 days have you used the Internet to ___________________?"
Yes No Not Sure
Q5.a. Get local news
Q5.b. Get national news
Q5.c. Seek information about local events
Q5.d. Make an online purchase
Q5.e. Find medical or health information
Q6. Which of the following is closest to your opinion about the use of marijuana? (Read the first
three choices aloud)
New York State should legalize the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes only.
New York State should legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana completely, for both medicinal and recreational use.
Marijuana use should remain illegal in New York State.
Not sure
Q6.1. Which of the following best describes your personal cigarette use?
You are a current smoker of cigarettes.
You are a former smoker of cigarettes.
You have never smoked cigarettes.
Not sure
Q7. Have you heard of the Center for Community Studies Studies at JCC before completing this
survey?
Yes No Not sure
The NYS Zoo at Thompson Park
READ THIS:
One benefit of this annual survey is that we provide an opportunity for local community-based
7
agencies to ask a limited number of questions each year to help them make data-driven decisions
in their continuous improvement. The next few questions are asked on behalf of the New York
State Zoo at Thompson Park in Watertown.
Q8.a When was the last time you visited the New York State Zoo at Thompson Park? (Probe - if
"never", do they know it exists?)
"I know the zoo is there, but I have never visited the zoo."
"I did not know there was a zoo."
Visited in the past 3 years.
Visited 4-5 years ago.
Visited 6+ years ago.
Not sure
Among Zoo Visitors:
Q8.b. Which of the following are reasons why you visit the zoo?
(READ the four choices, check all for which the participant responds "Yes")
Educational value
Recreational value
Events
Family time
8
Q8.c. What improvements or additions would you like to see at the zoo?
(DO NOT read choices, check all that are mentioned to this open-ended question)
More animals (greater number)
More variety of animals
Larger gift shop
Lower admission price
More special events
More educational programs
Back to Everyone - How to improve the zoo.
Q8.d: How important do you think that having a zoo is to the quality of life in our county? (read first
four choices)
Very important
Somewhat important
"A little" important
Not important at all
Not sure
Q8.e. What do you believe are the barriers to visiting the Zoo?
(DO NOT read choices, check all that are mentioned to this open-ended question)
Price Poor quality at the zoo
Location Poor maintenance/upkeep at the zoo
Only NYS animals Safety
Just don't like zoos Not enough there
9
Public Transportation in Jefferson County
READ THIS:
Our next short set of questions relate to public transportation in Jefferson County. In Jefferson County the
two available public transportation options include public bus and paratransit bus transportation.
IF ASKED: Paratransit is the transportation afforded to individuals under the "Americans with Disabilities
Act." This bus is designed to allow for wheel chairs, accommodate the blind and visually impaired, and
individuals with other mobility issues.
Q9.a. Is there a vehicle available in your home for transportation?

IF ASKED: Includes car, truck, van, and motorcycle
Yes No Not sure
Q9.b. Has a lack of transportation been a barrier to your ability to secure employment any time in
the past year?
Yes No Not sure
Q9.c. Does anyone in your household currently use public transportation in Jefferson County?
Yes, at least once a week
Yes, but less than once a week
No
Not sure
Q9.d. For what uses, or locations, or activities would you use public transportation? To get to...
(Read Choices-choose all that apply)
Would never use public transit
School (college)
Work
Shopping/Run errands
Medical/Dental appointments
Social activities/visiting friends
Daycare
10
Q9.e. For the destination you most frequently visit, possibly work, school, or church, what method
of transportation do you most commonly use?
Car/Truck/Van - Drive Alone Rideshare (Lyft, Uber)
Carpool Bicycle
Vanpool Public transit (bus/paratransit)
Walk Motorcyle
Taxi
9.f. We are going list five potential bus routes with stops along the way throughout Jefferson
County. For each potential route please indicate whether or not you would personally use the
route.
Yes No Not sure
9.f.1. Watertown to the Adams area
9.f.2. Watertown to the Carthage area
9.f.3. Watertown to the Clayton/Alexandria Bay area
9.f.4. Watertown to the Sackets Harbor/Henderson area
9.f.5. Watertown to the Fort Drum area
Demographics
READ THIS:
We are almost finished. These last few questions help us to get a better sense of whether the randomly
selected people we are calling accurately reflects the characteristics of the general population of Jefferson
County.
11
* Q10. Age: I am going to read some categories of age classification. Please stop me when I get to
the category in which your age falls.
Teens Fifties
Twenties Sixties
Thirties Seventies
Forties Eighty or older
* Q11. Education: I am going to read some categories relating to education. Please stop me when I
get to the category in which your highest level of formal education falls.
Less than a high school graduate
High school graduate (include GED)
Some college, no degree (include technical school)
Associate Degree
Bachelor's Degree
Graduate Degree
Q12. What is your current occupation? (do not read all of the choices)
Retired Sales (includes retail, marketing, customer service,...)
Not currently employed (but not retired) Clerical (office support, administrative support, typist, ...)
Homemaker Service (Restaurant, bartender, catering, ...)
Student Blue-collar (Production, Carpentry, Plumbing, Mechanic)
Military Teacher/Education
Managerial (Supervisor or manager at a business) Self-employed, own a business
Medical (Physician, dentist, chiropractor, nurse, health Not Sure

aide, ...)
Disabled
Professional/Technical (Non-supervisor, engineer, law,
accountant, social services...)
Q13: IF EMPLOYED: Does your occupation currently involve working remotely from home?
Yes, entirely from home. Yes, part of my time remotely from home. No Not sure
12
Q14. How would you classify your political beliefs? (read the list of choices)
Very Conservative
Conservative
Middle of the Road
Liberal
Very Liberal
Don't Know
Q15. Household income range: I am going to read some categories relating to income. Please stop
me when I get to the category in which your yearly household income falls:
Refused $50,001-$75,000
Up to $10,000 $75,001-$100,000
$10,001-$25,000 $100,001-$125,000
$25,001-$50,000 Over $125,000
* Q16. Is anyone in your household active military, stationed at Fort Drum?
Yes (you!) Yes (someone else in the household) No
* Q17. Is your residence in Jefferson County currently related to either civilian or military
employment at Fort Drum, by either you or a family member?
Yes No
Q18. Do you rent or own the home that you now live in?
Own Rent Neither Not Sure
Q19. What is your current marital status?
Married Never Married Divorced Widowed
13
Q20. In what Jefferson County township do you reside?
Adams (Adams Center) Lyme (Three Mile Bay, Chaumont)
Alexandria (Alexandria Bay, Collins Landing, Plessis, Orleans (Fineview, Fishers Landing, LaFargeville,
Redwood, Wellesley Island) Thousand Island Park)
Antwerp (Oxbow) Pamelia
Brownville (Dexter, Glen Park) Philadelphia
Cape Vincent Rodman
Champion (Deferiet, Great Bend, West Carthage) Rutland (Black River, Felts Mills)
Clayton (Depauville, Gindston Island) Theresa (Lakes)
Ellisburg (Belleville, Mannsville, Pierrepont Manor, Town of Watertown (Burrville)

Woodville)
City of Watetown
Henderson (Henderson Harbor)
Wilna (Carthage, Croghan, Natural Bridge)
Hounsfield (Sackets Harbor, Sulfur Springs, Smithville)
Worth
LeRay (Calcium, Evans Mills, Fort Drum)
Not Sure
Lorraine
Q21. How would you describe yourself in regard to your race or ethnicity?
Black/African American Asian/Pacific Islander
White Native American
Hispanic Multiracial
* Q22. If you don't mind me asking ... what is your gender?
Male Female Transgender
14
* Q23. Is the phone you are now speaking on a landline or a cell phone?
IF ASKED: this information assists the Center in determining how representative this sample is of
the entire population of the County.
Landline (and it is a LISTED number) Landline (and it is an UNLISTED number) Cell phone
* Q24. Which of the following describes your phone ownership? You have....
Both a Cell Phone and a Landline
Landline only
Cell phone only
Final Comments
Thank you very much for helping us out this evening. The results are planned to be released in June. If you
have any questions, please contact Mr. Joel LaLone, Research Director at the Center for Community
Studies, 315-786-2264, jlalone@sunyjefferson.edu. Have a great afternoon/evening.
BOOKKEEPING - After you hang up...
* Phone number of participant:
* Name of Interviewer:
15

20th Jefferson County Annual Survey Report 6-7-19

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

20th Jefferson County Annual Survey Report 6-7-19

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

The Center for Community Studies

at Jefferson Community College

20 Mr. Joel LaLone, Research Director

Section 1.2 – Demographics of the sample – Who was Interviewed?................... 8

Section 2 – Topline Summary of Findings................................. 13

Section 2.1 – Quality of Life in Jefferson County................................................. 15

Section 2.2 – Personal Opinions – Issues in Our Society and Communities....... 17

Section 2.3 – Other Tracked Local Community Characteristics.......................... 18

Section 3.1 – Quality of Life Issues – 20-Year Trends in Responses…………... 24

Section 3.2 – Quality of Life Issues – Summary of 2019 Results………………... 25

Section 3.3 – Detailed Analysis of Individual Quality-of-Life Indicators…...…..... 26

Section 3.4 – Personal Opinions – Issues in Our Society and Communities…... 39

Section 3.5 – Other Tracked Local Community Characteristics………………..... 56

Section 3.7 – Public Transportation in Jefferson County..................................... 75

Section 4 – Final Comments ...................................................... 81

The Survey Instrument ............................................................... 90

The Advisory Board of the Center for Community Studies:

Student Associates who worked on this study:

Bennett, Nicole Garbacz, Jeffrey LaClair, Sierra Phillips, Dziko

Contact Information for the Center for Community Studies

The Center for Community Studies

A summary report of study findings is available free online at

The Twentieth Annual

Section 1.1 – Methodology – How These Data Were Collected

Section 1.2 – Demographics of the sample – Who was interviewed?

Gender: (US Census for Jefferson County: 52% male)

Table 3 – Geographic Distribution of Participants in the 20th Annual Jefferson County

Count % (weighted contribution

Table 4 – Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes

Section 2 – Topline Summary of Study Findings

1. Post-recession Jefferson County Quality-of-Life Perceptions

2. Attitudes Concerning Residents’ Personal Financial Situations

3. Largest Issue Facing the Nation – It’s Government and Politics!

4. The Downtown of Watertown

5. Personal Opinions Regarding Community and Societal Issues

Table 5 – Topline Summary of opinions regarding various societal issues

Societal responsibility and government should ensure that good

Section 2.1 – Quality of Life in Jefferson County (Tables 6 and 10-24)

2019 % 2019 % 2019 %

1. Access to higher education 66.2% (74.4%) 20.6% (23.5%) 4.6% (5.7%)

2. Overall Quality of Life in the Area (Table 24)

3. Availability of Good Jobs (Table 20)

4. Overall State of the Local Economy (Table 22)

6. Real Estate Taxes (Table 18)

7. Healthcare Quality (Table 14)

8. Cultural/Entertainment Opportunities (Table 13)

9. Access to Higher Education (Table 15)

10. The Downtown of Watertown (Table 19)

11. Quality of K-12 Education (Table 21)

13. County Government (Table 17)

Section 2.2 – Personal Opinions – Issues in Our Society and Communities

Table 7 – More detailed summary of opinions regarding various societal issues

Section 2.3 – Other Long-term Tracked Local Community Characteristics

17. Residents of Jefferson County continue to be most likely to indicate

18. Residents of Jefferson County very commonly use the Internet to

Section 2.5 – Public Transportation in Jefferson County (Tables 57-62)

33. Approximately one-half (48%) of adult residents of Jefferson County

Section 3 - Detailed Statistical Results

“Framing” a Statistic – Providing Perspective to Better Understand, Interpret, and

Section 3.1 – Quality of Life Issues – Twenty Year Trends in Responses

Table 10 – Trends in Issues in Jefferson County – % Indicating “Excellent or Good”

Table 11 – Trends in Issues in Jefferson County – % Indicating “Poor”

Section 3.2 – Quality of Life Issues in Jefferson County – Summary of 2019

Table 12 – SUMMARY – Quality of Life Issues in Jefferson County – Year 2019

Abortion .085* -.250 .263 -.293 -.258 -.160 -.216 -.314** 1