You are on page 1of 121

October

2015

9th Annual Lewis


County Survey of the
Community

Table of Contents
Section 1 Introduction................................................................ 5
Section 1.1 Methodology How This Data Was Collected................................. 5
Table 1 Response Rates for the 9th Annual Lewis County Survey..................................................................................... 6

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


Table 2 Demographics of the October 2015 Lewis County Sample.................................................................................... 7
Table 3 Geographic Distribution of Participants in the 9th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community.................... 8
Table 4 Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes ............................................................................................................9

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


Section 2.1 Longevity of Living in Lewis County............................................... 11
Section 2.2 Quality of Life in Lewis County.......................................................11
Table 5 Summary of 21 Key Quality of Life Indicators (2015 Results)...........................................................................11

Section 2.3 Transportation................................................................................ 14


Section 2.4 Healthcare......................................................................................14
Section 2.5 Education........ 15
Section 2.6 Charitable Activities and Planning... 16
Section 2.7 County Government....................................................................... 16
Section 2.8 The Local Economy....................................................................... 16
Section 2.9 State Government, and Political Issues......................................... 16
Section 2.10 Internet Access and Use.............................................................. 17
Section 2.11 Familiarity with the Center for Community Studies at JCC... 18

Section 3 Detailed Statistical Results .................................... 19


Table 6 Sample Sizes for each of Nine Years of the Lewis County Annual Survey.......................................................... 19
Table 7 Sample Size and Margin of Error for Common Demographic Subgroups to be Compared in 2015.................... 20

Framing a Statistic Providing Perspective to Better Understand, Interpret, and Use this Survey Data......20

Section 3.1 Longevity of Living in Lewis County............................................... 21


Table 8 How long have you lived in Lewis County?....................................................................................................... 21
Table 9 Do you expect that you will still be living in Lewis County in five years?.............................................................. 22

Section 3.2 Quality of Life Issues Summary of Trends (2007-2015)...23


Table 10 Trends in Issues in Lewis County Years 2007-2015 % Indicating Excellent or Good............................ 23
Table 11 Trends in Issues in Lewis County Years 2007-2015 % Indicating Poor................................................... 24

Section 3.3 Quality of Life Issues Summary of 2015 Results...25


Table 12 SUMMARY Quality of Life Issues in Lewis County Year 2015..................................................................... 25
Graphs of Most Positively and Negatively Perceived Quality of Life Issues in Lewis County ............................................. 26

Section 3.4 Detailed Analysis of Individual Quality-of-Life Indicators........ 27


Table 13 Opportunities for Youth....................................................................................................................................... 28
Table 14 Cultural/Entertainment Opportunities ................................................................................................................ 29
Table 15 Cost of Energy.................................................................................................................................................... 30
Table 16 Healthcare Access.............................................................................................................................................. 31
Table 17 Healthcare Quality ............................................................................................................................................. 32
Table 18 Access to Higher Education................................................................................................................................33
Table 19 Public Outdoor Recreational Opportunities........................................................................................................ 34
Table 20 Quality of the Environment................................................................................................................................. 35
Table 21 County Government........................................................................................................................................... 36
Table 22 Town and Village Government........................................................................................................................... 37
Table 23 Real Estate Taxes ............................................................................................................................................. 38
Table 24 Policing and Crime Control................................................................................................................................. 39
Table 25 Availability of Good Jobs.................................................................................................................................... 40
Table 26 Shopping Opportunities ..................................................................................................................................... 41
Page 1 of 104

Table 27 Quality of K-12 Education .................................................................................................................................. 42


Table 28 Overall State of the Local Economy................................................................................................................... 43
Table 29 Availability of Care for the Elderly ...................................................................................................................... 44
Table 30 Availability of Housing ........................................................................................................................................45
Table 31 Availability of Childcare ......................................................................................................................................46
Table 32 Availability of Behavioral Health Services ..........................................................................................................47
Table 33 Overall Quality of Life in the Area ...................................................................................................................... 48
Table 34 Most important issue facing the residents of Lewis County at the present time?............................................... 49

Section 3.5 Transportation................................................................................ 53


Table 35 Are you aware that Lewis County has a public transportation system?............................................................. 53
Table 36 How often do you use the Countys public transportation system to commute to Utica?................................... 54

Section 3.6 Healthcare......................................................................................55


Table 37 Currently have health insurance?....................................................................................................................... 55
Table 38 Ignored healthcare in past 12 months because of cost?.................................................................................... 56
Table 39 Which of the following most closely describes your opinion about the Affordable Care Act?.............................57
Table 40 How has the Affordable Care Act affected the healthcare of you and your family?............................................59
Table 41 Prefer that Lewis County General Hospital remain county-owned, or prefer that it become a nonprofit, notcounty-owned hospital?...................................................................................................................................... 61
Table 42 If Lewis County General Hospital needed additional funding to conduct operations, we are interested in what
amount you would be willing to pay to support the hospital that would be added to your annual county tax bill.
Please tell me which of the following five statements is closest to your opinion................................................ 62

Section 3.7 Education....................................................................................... 63


Table 43 Lewis County schools are adequately preparing our youth for the technology/economy of the future............ 63
Table 44 How do you feel about the implementation of the Common Core Standards in New York schools?................. 65
Table 45 Who do you trust more to improve K-12 education in New York State, Governor Cuomo or the teachers'
unions?........ 66

Section 3.8 Charitable Activities and Planning................................................. 67


Table 46 Estimate how many hours per month that you volunteer for community service activities.... 67
Table 47 Do you have a will?.............................................................................................................................................69
Table 48 Have you included a local charitable organization as a beneficiary in your will?................................................70

Section 3.9 County Government....................................................................... 71


Table 49 "I feel that I am adequately informed about issues facing the County."........ 71
Table 50 "I feel that my local elected county officials represent my concerns effectively.".... 72
Table 51 Do you support or oppose Lewis County providing low interest loans to small businesses for start up or
expansion? ..... 73

Section 3.10 The Local Economy..................................................................... 74


Table 52 Employment Status Current Occupation......................................................................................................... 74
Table 53 When considering your familys personal financial situation- has it gotten better, stayed about the same,
or gotten worse in the past 12 months?..............................................................................................................76

Section 3.11 State Government, and Political Issues........................................ 77


Table 54 How would you classify your political beliefs?.................................................................................................77
Table 55 Opinions about raising the minimum wage in New York State over the next several years......79
Table 56 Aware of state mandated programs that must be funded by local government property taxation?.............80
Table 57 Believe that the New York State property tax cap of 2% is effective?............................ 81
Table 58 How would you rate the job that Andrew Cuomo is doing as Governor of New York State?............................. 82

Section 3.12 Internet Access and Use ............................................................. 83


Table 59 Do you have school age children in your home who are unable to complete homework because they do not
have adequate access to a quality broadband connection? (among all participants)........................................ 83
Table 60 In the past 30 days have you used the Internet at all? (among all participants)................................................. 84
Table 61 Locations where one uses the Internet (among Internet users)......................................................................... 85
Table 62 Do you have access to the Internet at home? (among all participants).............................................................. 86
Among those who do have Internet access at their home:
Table 63 How do you access the Internet at home?......................................................................................................... 87
Table 64 What Internet access options do you have where your home is located?.......................................................... 88
Table 65 Frequency of using the Internet for work and/or completing coursework..... 89
Table 66 Using smart home technology in ones home..................................................................................................... 90
Table 67 How would you rate the quality of the Internet service at home?....................................................................... 91
Among all participants:
Table 68 Do you own, operate, or work on a farm?...........................................................................................................92
Page 2 of 104

Among participants who are employed at a farm in Lewis County:


Table 69 Does the farming equipment at your farm have Internet capability?.................................................................. 93
Table 70 Would you be interested in the integration of smart farming techniques to assist with things like crop hydration,
soil quality monitoring, veterinary visits through video conferencing?................................................................ 94

Section 3.13 Familiarity with the Center for Community Studies at JCC.......... 95
Table 71 Have you ever heard of the Center for Community Studies at JCC before this survey?.................................... 95

Section 4 Final Comments ...................................................... 96


Appendix Technical Comments Assistance in
Interpretation of the Statistical Results................. 97
Table 72 Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes ........................................................................................................98
Table 73 More Detailed Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes and Varying Sample Proportions............................ 99

The Survey Instrument ............................................................. 104

Acknowledgements
Sponsors of the 9th Annual Lewis 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 for this Study:


Mr. Joel LaLone .....................................................................................................................Professor of Mathematics and
Research Director for the Center for Community Studies
Mr. Larry Danforth .................................................................................................. Assistant Professor of Mathematics and
Research Coordinator for the Center for Community Studies
Mr. Michael K. White .................................................................................................................... Professor of Mathematics

The Advisory Board of the Center for Community Studies:


Don Alexander
Mary Corriveau
John Deans
Kelly Fish
Joel LaLone
Carole McCoy
Carl McLaughlin
Lisa Porter
Eric Virkler

Bruce Armstrong
Larry Danforth
Tom Finch
Fred Garry
Tracy Leonard
Michael McKinnon
John ODriscoll
Lynn Sprott
Dave Zembiec

Page 3 of 104

Student Research Associates:


The following students at SUNY Jefferson participated in this study by completing the interviews of Lewis County residents.
Adrian
Hailey
Michael
Olivia
Jacob
Alyssa
Lauren
Deontae
Jena
Jacqueline
Marissa
Sara
Caitlin
Megan
Ellexis
Jonas
Madison

Allen
Babcock
Bamann
Barker
Beeman
Benson
Bianco
Bonner
Brancatella
Brouty
Brown
Buchanan
Byrnes
Campaney
Cecconi
Colbert
Comins

Conner
Elizabeth
Alex
Carrie
Megan
Katelyn
Dominic
Maggie
Cassie
Greg
Carla
Kelsea
Jacob
Theresa
Tiffany
Adam
Rebecca

Cummings
Davis
Delosh
Denise
Donato
Elmer
Farone
French
Gamble
Gilligan
Hamann
Hanzel-Burke
Hatch
Henault
Holder
Hoover
Hudon

Amanda
Timothy
Sarah
Kaitlyn
Amber
Laura
Ryan
Karlie
Patrick
Timothy
Caitlin
Ashley
Michelle
Tyler
Glennanne
Kimberly
Mark

Keller
King
LaParr
Larkin
Little
Little
Loar
Maloney
McAnulty
McConnell
McCright
McNitt
Mims
Mitchell
Nagales
Pantleo
Patrick

Elyzabeth
Chenaya
Jason
Samantha
Garrett
Kali
Karly
Sarah
Elizabeth
Katie
Bruce
Stefanie
Nicholas
Kayla
Sarah
Abigail
Blaire
Tierney L.

Phelps
Renski
Robbins
Rutter
Schell
Sherbino
Sherman
Shraenkler
Skaggs
Smith
Steele III
Timerson
Toutant
Vanderpool
Wallace
Wells
Wickwire-VanArnam
Yousey

Contact Information for the Center for Community Studies


For more information, please contact
The Center for Community Studies
at Jefferson Community College
1220 Coffeen Street
Watertown, New York 13601
E-mail: jlalone@sunyjefferson.edu
Website: www.sunyjefferson.edu/community-business/center-community-studies
Phone: (315)-786-2264
This final report of study findings is available free online at
w http://www.sunyjefferson.edu/community-business/center-community-studies/annual-survey-community

Page 4 of 104

The Ninth Annual Lewis County Survey of


the Community
Based on 396 telephone interviews conducted October 26 October 28, 2015

Section 1 - Introduction
The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College was established in October 1999, to engage in
a variety of community-building and community-based research activities and to promote the productive discussion of ideas
and issues of significance to our region. In collaboration with community partners, the Center conducts research that will
benefit the local population, and engages in activities that reflect its commitment to enhancing the quality of life of the area.
The annual Lewis County Survey of the Community is one specific activity conducted each year by the Center to
gauge the attitudes and opinions of a representative sample of Lewis County adult citizens. This activity results in a yearly
updated inventory of the attitudes and opinions of adult citizens of Lewis County. This survey in Lewis County has been
completed in October of each of the nine years, 2007 through 2015. The Center also completes a similar annual survey in
each of Jefferson County (in April annually) and St. Lawrence County (in June annually).
This document is a summary of the results of the Ninth Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community, including
comparisons with the results of the survey from its first eight years. Further, the key community demographic characteristics
of Gender, Age, Education Level, and Household Income Level are investigated as potential explanatory variables that may
be correlated with quality-of-life indicators for the region, using the 2015 survey results. It is standard methodology with
professional surveys to provide this more detailed information to the reader information that may assist in explaining the
overall findings by reporting the results for all subgroups within these key demographic variables. Additionally, the most
recent results in each of the neighboring counties of Jefferson and St. Lawrence are presented when possible to add
perspective to the current Lewis 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 This Data Was Collected


The original survey instrument used in this annual survey was constructed in the fall of 2007 through the combined
efforts of the professional staff of the Center for Community Studies and members of the Lewis County Annual Survey
Planning Committee. The instrument is modified each year by the Center for Community Studies, with input from its staff
and Advisory Board, the Lewis County Annual Survey Planning Committee, and student assistants employed at the Center
throughout the current academic year. These survey modifications are completed to include new questions of relevance to
local organizations and agencies. The total survey length each year is approximately 60 questions, with a core set of
approximately 30 questions that are intended to be asked each year that the survey is completed. Several survey questions
are asked on an every-other-year basis. Newly developed questions regarding current county topics are typically introduced
into the survey instrument each year.
The primary goal of the Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community is to collect data regarding quality-of-life
issues of importance to the local citizens. A secondary goal is to provide a very real, research-based learning experience
for undergraduate students enrolled at Jefferson Community College. In accomplishing this second goal, students are
involved in all aspects of the research, from question formation to data collection (interviewing), to data entry and cleansing,
to data analysis. The students analyze the data collected in this study annually as assignments and projects in statistics
classes. However, all final responsibility for question-phrasing, question-inclusion versus omission, final data analysis, and
final reporting of findings (this document) lies exclusively with the professional staff of the Center. The discussions that lead
to the inclusion of questions at times arise from classroom discussions involving students and Center staff. The decision to
include any question as a legitimate and meaningful part of an annual survey, however, is made exclusively by the Center.
Similarly, data analysis of the information collected through the annual survey will transpire with faculty and students in the
classrooms at Jefferson Community College; however, any statistical analysis reported in this document has been
completed by the professional staff of the Center. Copies of the introductory script and survey instrument used in this study
are attached as an appendix.

Page 5 of 104

This study in 2015 included completing interviews of 396 randomly-selected Lewis County adult residents. All
interviews were completed via telephone. The goal before commencing the data collection was to result with at least 20%
of the interviews represented while the participant (Lewis County adult resident) was contacted on their cellular phone and
the remaining at-most 80% of the interviews while the participant was contacted on their landline, with a total goal of
approximately 400 completed interviews. To be eligible to complete the survey, the resident was required to be at least 18
years old. To complete the landline portion of the sampling, two thousand five hundred personal residence telephone
numbers were randomly selected from the population of approximately 10,000 personal residence telephone numbers in
Lewis County. These numbers were obtained from Accudata America, a subsidiary of Primis, Inc. Accudata America is a
firm that specializes in providing contact information for residents of the United States. The telephone numbers were
obtained from an un-scrubbed list, ensuring that individuals whose households are included in the telemarketing do-notcall list would be represented in this study. After receiving the 2,500 randomly selected landline telephone numbers, the
list was randomly sorted a second time and a group of 1,386 residential landline numbers were attempted for interviews,
resulting with a sample representation of 246 completed interviews; it was not necessary to attempt all 2,500 numbers to
reach 246 interviews. To complete the cell phone portion of the sampling, a random-digit generation process with manual
dialing was utilized where common 3-digit prefixes for cell phones in use in the Lewis County region were identified (i.e.
955, 778, 771, 767, 486, 408, etc.) and random sets of 4-digit phone number endings after these common prefixes were
generated to be attempted. Attempts were made to almost 7,000 of these randomly generated cell phone numbers to
successfully complete interviews representing 150 cellular phone completes (150 out of 396 completes equates to 38%
represented via cell phone, a result that is larger than the target of at least 20% of the overall goal of 400 interviews).
All telephone calls were made between 4:00 and 9:00 p.m. from a call center in Watertown, New York, on evenings
between October 26th and October 28th, 2015. Calls are made in late October each year to control for seasonal variation
when sampling. The Jefferson Community College students who completed the interviews had completed training in both
human subject research methodology and effective interviewing techniques. Professional staff from the Center supervised
the telephone interviewing at all times.
When each of the telephone numbers was attempted, one of four results occurred: Completion of an interview; a
Decline to be interviewed; No Answer/Busy; or an Invalid Number (including both disconnected numbers, as well as
numbers for individuals who do not currently reside in Lewis County). Voluntary informed consent was obtained from each
resident before the interview was completed. This sampling protocol included informing each resident that it was his or her
right to decline to answer any and all individual questions within the interview. To be categorized as a completed interview,
at least one-half of the questions on the survey had to be completed. The residents refusal to answer more than one-half
of the questions was considered a decline to be interviewed. The typical length of a completed survey was approximately
10 minutes. Declines to be interviewed (refusals) were not called back in an attempt to convince the resident to reconsider
the interview. If no contact was made at a telephone number (No Answer/Busy), call-backs were made to the number.
Telephone numbers that were not successfully contacted and, as a result, were ultimately categorized as No Answer/Busy
were attempted a minimum of four times. No messages were left on answering machines at homes where no person
answered the telephone. The response rate results for the study are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Response Rates for the 9th Annual Lewis County Survey of the
Community
Response rates for LANDLINES &
CELL PHONES COMBINED attempted
in this study: (38% via cell phones,
30% are cell-only)
Frequency
% of Numbers Attempted
% of Valid Numbers
% of Contacted Residents

Complete
Interview

Decline to be
Interviewed

396

578
7%
11%
59%

5%
8%
41%

Not Valid
Telephone
Number
2,871
35%

No Answer/
Busy
4,337
53%
82%

TOTALS
8,182
100%
100%
100%

Within the fields of social science and educational research, when using a hybrid design including both cell phone
and landline telephone interview methodology, a response rate of approximately 8% of all valid phone numbers attempted,
and approximately 41% of all successful contacts where a person is actually talking on the phone, are both considered quite
successful. The methodology employed in this annual survey continues to meet industry standards.

Section 1.2 Demographics of the Sample Who was Interviewed?


This section of the report includes a description of the results for the demographic variables included in the survey
sample. The demographic characteristics of the sampled adult residents can be used to attain three separate objectives.
Page 6 of 104

1. Initially, this information adds to the knowledge and awareness about the true characteristics of the population of
adult residents in the sampled county (e.g. What is the typical household size, educational profile, and household
income level in Lewis County?).
2. Secondly, this demographic information facilitates the ability for the data to be sorted or partitioned to investigate
for significant relationships relationships between demographic characteristics of residents and their attitudes and
behaviors regarding the quality of life in Lewis County. Identification of significant relationships allows local citizens
to use the data more effectively, to better understand the factors that are correlated with various aspects of life in
the county.
3. Finally, the demographic information also serves an important purpose when compared to established facts about
Lewis County to analyze the representativeness of the sample that was randomly selected in this study, and to
determine the post-stratification weighting schematic to be applied to the data.
The results for the demographic questions in the survey are summarized in Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 2 Demographics of the October 2015 Lewis County Sample


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

Demographic Characteristics:

Count

200
196

51%
49%

73
59
72
82
50
59

18%
15%
18%
21%
13%
15%

43
191
70
38
27
27

11%
48%
18%
10%
7%
7%

57
97
75
81

18%
31%
24%
26%

35
142
63
63
41
16
3
1
2.99 persons

10%
39%
17%
17%
11%
5%
1%
0%

123
249

33%
67%

Gender: (2014 US Census updates for Lewis County: 51% male)


Male
Female

Age: (2014 US Census updates for Lewis County: among those 18+,
28% are age 60+)

18-29 years of age


30-39 years of age
40-49 years of age
50-59 years of age
60-69 years of age
70 years of age or older

Education Level: (2014 US Census for Lewis County:


among those age 25+, 14% have Bach. Deg. or higher)

Less than high school graduate


High school graduate (including GED)
Some college, no degree
Associates degree
Bachelors degree
Graduate degree

Annual Household Income: (2014 US Census


for Lewis County: 24% earn less than $25,000, 26% earn $75,000+)

Less than $25,000


$25,001-$50,000
$50,001-$75,000
More than $75,000

Household Size: (2014 US Census for Lewis County:


average # persons per household = 2.51, 24% of households are singleperson)

1 person
2 people
3 people
4 people
5 people
6 people
7 people
8+ people
Mean per household:

Children in the Home Attending K-12


School in the County:
(no comparative statistics for the entire county)

1+ children attending K-12 in County.


No children attending K-12 in County.

(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)

Page 7 of 104

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

Table 3 Geographic Distribution of Participants in the 9th Annual Lewis County


Survey of the Community
9th Annual Survey Sample
(October 2015)
(weighted by Gender, Age, Education, Geography, Phone Ownership)

U.S. Census Estimates


(updated in 2014)

Count

Count

21
10
20
57
7
22
5
14
10
13
9
7
51
16
16
2
10
0
38
0
3
9
8
2
23
18
5
396

5%
3%
5%
14%
2%
5%
1%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
13%
4%
4%
1%
3%
0%
10%
0%
1%
2%
2%
1%
6%
5%
1%
100%

221
281
708
2,420
628
1,659
1,036
1,290
379
600
724
1,138
3,429
898
748
1,226
1,373
94
2,580
235
232
775
545
177
2,008
801

26,205

1%
1%
3%
9%
2%
6%
4%
5%
1%
2%
3%
4%
13%
3%
3%
5%
5%
0%
10%
1%
1%
3%
2%
1%
8%
3%

100%

Town of Residence:
Castorland (village)
Constableville (village)
Copenhagen (village)
Croghan (town)
Croghan (village)
Denmark (town)
Diana (town)
Greig (town)
Harrisburg (town)
Harrisville (village)
Lewis (town)
Leyden (town)
Lowville (village)
Lowville (town)
Lyons Falls (village)
Lyonsdale (town)
Martinsburg (town)
Montague (town)
New Bremen (town)
Osceola (town)
Pinckney (town)
Port Leyden (village)
Turin (town)
Turin (village)
Watson (town)
West Turin (town)
Not sure

TOTAL

In general, Tables 2-3 demonstrate that after weighting the data collected in this study for Gender, Age, Education,
Geography, and Phone Ownership, the responses to the demographic questions for the Lewis County residents who are
included in the survey (those who actually answered the telephone and completed the survey) appear to closely parallel
that which is true for the entire adult population of the county. The targets for demographic characteristics were drawn from
the U.S. Census 2014 updates for Lewis County. Gender, Age, Education, and Geography were selected as the factors by
which to weight the survey data, since the data collected in this Ninth Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community is
susceptible to the typical types of sampling error that are inherent in telephone methodology: women were more likely than
men to answer the telephone and/or agree to a survey; older residents are more likely to participate in the survey than
younger adult residents; those individuals with higher formal education levels are more likely to agree to the interviews; and
residents of more urban regions (in Lewis County, this would be villages) are more likely to participate than residents of
rural regions. Standard survey research methodology has shown that regardless of the subject of the survey, these are
four expected sources of sampling error. In addition to these standard four weight variables it has become increasingly the
case that adults in our society are not accessible via landline they are cell-phone-only individuals. Therefore, the current
Lewis County data has additionally been weighted by Phone Ownership, with targets that have been generated from
repeated surveying in Lewis County by the Center for Community Studies (targets in 2015 are: 50% have both a landline
and a cell phone; 20% are landline-only; and 30% are cell-only). To compensate for this overrepresentation of females,
older residents, village residents, the highly educated, and those interviewed on landlines in the sample collected in this
study, post-stratification weights for Gender, Age, Education Level, Geography, and Phone Ownership have been applied
in any further analysis of the data analyzed in this report. In summary, all subsequent statistics that will be reported in this
Page 8 of 104

document are weighted by Gender, Age, Education Level, and Geography toward the 2014 U.S. Census reports that
describe the Gender, Age, Educational Attainment, and Town/Village of Residence distributions of the actual entire adult
population that resides in Lewis County, and toward the Phone Ownership targets described above.
Given the diligence placed on scientific sampling design and the high response rates, after application of poststratification weights for gender, age, education level, geography, and phone ownership, it is felt that this random sample
of Lewis County adults does accurately represent the entire population of Lewis County adults. When using the sample
statistics presented in this report to estimate that which would be expected for the entire Lewis County adult population, the
exact margin of error for this survey is question-specific. The margin of error depends upon the sample size for each specific
question and the resulting sample percentage for each question. Sample sizes tend to vary for each question on the survey,
since some questions are only appropriate for certain subgroups (e.g. only persons who indicated that they have Internet
access at home were then further asked to evaluate the quality of that access), and/or as a result of persons refusing to
answer questions. In general, the results of this survey for any questions that were answered by the entire sample of 396
residents may be generalized to the population of all adults at least 18 years of age residing in Lewis County with a 95%
confidence level to within a margin of error of approximately 3.9 percentage points. For questions that were posed only to
certain specific subgroups, such as the evaluate the quality of your Internet access question described above, the resulting
smaller sample sizes allow generalization to the specific subpopulation of all adults at least 18 years of age residing in the
county (e.g. generalization of some specific characteristics of sampled persons who have Internet access to all persons in
Lewis County who have Internet access) with a 95% confidence level to within a margin of error of larger than 3.9
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 396 interviewed adults. Note that the approximate margins of error provided in Table 4 are average
margins of error, averaging across all possible sample proportions that might result between 0% and 100%. For more
specific detail regarding the margin of error for this survey, please refer to the appendices of this report and/or contact the
professional staff at the Center for Community Studies.

Table 4 Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes


Sample Size
(n=)

Approximate Margin
of Error

30
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
325
350
375
396

14.3%
11.1%
9.0%
7.8%
7.0%
6.4%
5.9%
5.5%
5.2%
5.0%
4.7%
4.5%
4.3%
4.2%
4.0%
3.9%

In order to maximize comparability among the nine annual surveys that have been completed in Lewis County
between 2007 and 2015, the procedures used to collect information and the core questions asked have remained virtually
identical. All surveys were conducted in the month of October each year to control for seasonal variability, and the total
number of interviews completed ranged from 328 to 421, depending upon the year. All interviewers have been similarly
and extensively trained preceding data collection each year. The survey methodology used to complete the Ninth Annual
Lewis County Survey of the Community is comparable to that used in the previous eight years. Furthermore, poststratification weights for gender, age, and education level were applied to all results from the first three years of surveying,
while geography was additionally incorporated as a slight weighting factor since the fourth year of the survey (since 2010),
and phone-ownership was added as a slight weighting factor since the sixth year of the survey (since 2012), allowing for
valid comparisons for trends over the nine-year period that will be illustrated later in this report.
Throughout this report, key community demographic characteristics of Gender, Age, Education Level, and
Household Income Level are investigated as potential explanatory variables that may be correlated with quality-of-life
Page 9 of 104

indicators and other community attitude and opinion variables for the county. It is standard methodology with professional
surveys to provide this further rich information to the reader information that may assist in explaining the overall findings
by reporting the cross-tabulated results for all subgroups within key demographic variables. The results provide important
information about contemporary thinking of citizens and over time will continue to provide important baseline and
comparative information as well. Further, the results for both Jefferson and St. Lawrence Counties have also been
presented when possible, and the methodology used in each of these other two Northern New York counties is identical to
that which is used in Lewis County, allowing valid between-county comparisons of results. Again, for more specific detail
regarding tests of statistical significance completed within this study, please refer to the appendices of this report and/or
contact the professional staff at the Center for Community Studies.
All data compilation and statistical analyses within this study have been completed using Minitab, Release 17 and
SPSS, Release 23.

Page 10 of 104

Section 2 - Summary of Findings


Section 2.1 Longevity of Living in Lewis County (Tables 8-9)
1. Among Lewis County adults in 2015, over 86% reported having lived in the county for more than seven years, a rate
that is typical throughout the nine years of this community survey (2014 rate of 97% was the highest ever measured,
the lowest measured was 81%, in 2007). When asked whether one plans to remain living in Lewis County for the
next five years the vast majority of participants in 2015 continue to indicate that they do plan to remain in the county
(85% in 2015, was 88% in 2014, with a lowest-ever rate of 78% found in 2011. (Tables 8-9)

Section 2.2 Quality of Life in Lewis County (Tables 10-34)


Summary of 2015 Quality-of-Life Indicators Results:
2. In an attempt to gauge the current satisfaction with the quality of life in Lewis County, participants were provided a list
of 21 key community characteristics, or indicators. For each of these characteristics, the participants reported
whether they feel that the characteristic in the county is Excellent, Good, Fair, or Poor. Table 5 shown below
summarizes the results with the percentage that indicated that each indicator is Excellent or Good reported, as well
as the percentage who report that it is Excellent, and finally, the percentage that indicated that each indicator is Poor.
The list of indicators in Table 5 is sorted from highest to lowest according to the percentage who replied Excellent or
Good in 2015. The indicators whose results are in
shaded cells show significant improvement between 2014
and 2015 (either an increase in Excellent or the combined Excellent or Good, or a decrease in Poor). The indicators
whose results are in
shaded cells show a trend toward more negative perceptions between 2014 and 2015 (either
a decrease in Excellent or the combined Excellent or Good, or an increase in Poor). All green or gray shaded
changes over the past year are of size at least 5%. The indicators whose results are in
shaded cells show no
significant trend toward either more negative and positive perceptions between 2014 and 2015. (Tables 10-12)

Table 5 Summary of Quality of Life Indicators (2015 Results sorted by Excellent + Good)
Quality of Life Indicator:

%
Excellent +
% Good
(2014 result in
parentheses)

%
Excellent

%
Poor

(2014 result in
parentheses)

(2014 result in
parentheses)

1.

Quality of the environment

89.4% (85.2%)

36.3% (37.3%)

0.9% (4.2%)

2.

Quality of k-12 education

82.9% (73.4%)

30.0% (25.8%)

4.5% (3.2%)

3.

The overall quality of life in the area

76.9% (74.8%)

20.0% (21.5%)

1.6% (7.7%)

4.

Public outdoor recreational opportunities

71.6% (75.2%)

35.4% (35.5%)

9.3% (12.4%)

5.

Health care quality

69.2% (70.5%)

17.9% (13.3%)

6.1% (9.6%)

6.

Health care access

66.0% (55.2%)

13.6% (10.6%)

8.0% (12.3%)

7.

Policing and crime control

65.5% (72.6%)

13.8% (13.7%)

11.8% (5.9%)

8.

Availability of housing

62.5% ()

11.6% ()

6.6% ()

9.

Availability of care for the elderly.

56.9% (64.7%)

9.9% (14.1%)

10.4% (6.3%)

10. Access to higher education

45.1% (36.7%)

7.0% (7.7%)

24.7% (31.9%)

11. Town and village government

44.7% (42.9%)

6.6% (2.1%)

13.8% (10.4%)

12. County government

44.7% (40.2%)

7.5% (1.7%)

19.5% (19.2%)

43.3% ()

4.6% ()

10.9% ()

13. Availability of childcare


14. Availability of behavioral health services

35.0% ()

6.2% ()

16.4% ()

15. Shopping opportunities

34.0% (35.8%)

5.2% (4.8%)

27.8% (27.4%)

16. Opportunities for youth

34.0% (27.5%)

6.7% (5.5%)

23.4% (33.4%)

17. The overall state of the local economy

31.3% (23.5%)

3.4% (1.5%)

29.2% (26.3%)

18. Cost of energy

30.7% (25.8%)

3.5% (0.6%)

28.6% (29.3%)

19. Cultural/entertainment opportunities

26.9% (30.3%)

2.6% (3.3%)

28.7% (29.6%)

20. Real estate taxes


21. Availability of good jobs

21.1% (16.2%)

2.4% (0.6%)

32.8% (39.8%)

14.7% (16.3%)

1.7% (0.2%)

48.2% (52.7%)

Page 11 of 104

3. Most Lewis County adult residents continue to view the overall quality of life in the region as very positive, 77% of
the surveyed residents in 2015 report that the overall quality of life in the area is Excellent or Good (was 75% in 2014
and 71% in 2013), while only 2% currently believe the overall quality of life in the area is Poor (lowest rate of Poor
ever found in nine years of surveying). (Tables 10, 11, 12, and 33)

Economic-related Quality-of-Life Indicators:


4. Availability of Good Jobs
Availability of Good Jobs continues to clearly be the most negatively-perceived community characteristic from the 21
indicators measured among adult residents of Lewis County, with the most common response being Poor (48%).
There was a significant shift from Fair to Poor between the 2012-2014 surveys, and this shift has reversed between
2014-2015. The current rate of 15% indicating Excellent or Good has remained very stable for nine years (always
between 10%-20%). (Table 25)
5. Overall State of the Local Economy
Although Lewis County residents are less than satisfied with the Overall State of the Local Economy, this level of
dissatisfaction has continued to reduce in 2015. Very significant improvement has been found between 2013-2015, with
the Excellent or Good rate of 31% now being the second highest ever found in 9 years of study (was only 19% in
2013, and is currently the highest found since the 2007 rate of 35%), and a significant shift from Fair to Excellent or
Good occurred in the past year. (Table 28)
6. Shopping Opportunities
Levels of satisfaction with Shopping Opportunities in the county have remained quite consistent and less than positive
throughout the nine years of study. The 2015 results of 34% rating as Excellent or Good and 66% rating as Fair or
Poor is similar to past results. (Table 26)
7. Cost of Energy
Residents of Lewis County continue to be less than happy with the Cost of Energy, however, the level of discontent
has diminished tremendously over the past five years with the current 2015 rate of rating as Excellent or Good at an
all-time high of 31% (was only 22% in 2010) and the 29% rate of responding Poor is currently the second lowest ever
found (was 25% in 2013). (Table 15)
8. Real Estate Taxes
In 2014 residents of Lewis County reported a very high level of dissatisfaction with the current status of Real Estate
Taxes, with only 16% responding with Excellent or Good (an all-time low) and 40% responding with Poor. Less
than 1% of the participants in 2014 rated this community characteristic as Excellent. Perceptions of real estate taxes
improved over the past year. In 2015 the rate of responding Poor (33%) is the lowest ever found and the rate of
responding Excellent or Good increased from 16% to a more typical-of-long-term-results rate of 21%. (Table 23)

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


9. Healthcare Access and Healthcare Quality
Residents of Lewis County continue to report high satisfaction levels with both the Quality of Healthcare and Access
to Healthcare in the county. Satisfaction with quality has remained very stable over the nine years of study with the
2015 rates of 69% responding Excellent or Good, and only 6% responding Poor, being quite typical. Satisfaction
with access, however, has improved significantly over the past year (from 55% responding Excellent or Good in 2014
to a 2015 rate of 66%). (Tables 16-17)
10. Quality of the Environment
The environment in Lewis County continues to be perceived very positively by residents. In 2015, as in every other
year of study, this indicator is the most positive rated community characteristic among the 21 characteristics studied.
Nine-out-of-ten residents (90%) rated Quality of the Environment as Excellent or Good (with 36% rating as
Excellent). This Excellent or Good rate has varied between 83% to 91% in all nine studied years, while only 1% of
participants currently rate the quality of the environment as Poor (lowest rate ever found). This very positive perception
is quite uniformly shared across all demographic subgroups studied. (Table 20)
11. Public Outdoor Recreational Opportunities
In 2015, Public Outdoor Recreational Opportunities continues to be among the most positively rated of the 21 studied
community characteristics in Lewis County with approximately three-fourths of participants (72%) rating as Excellent
or Good (significantly lower rate, however, than the all-time high of 83% found in 2012). (Table 19)
Page 12 of 104

12. Quality of K-12 Education


Residents of Lewis County remain very satisfied with the Quality of the K-12 Education system available in the county.
However, satisfaction decreased significantly between 2012-2014, with the 2014 rate of responding Excellent or Good
hitting an all-time low of 73% (was as high as 87%, found in 2012). In 2015 this negative trend has reversed, with a
current rate of 83% responding Excellent or Good. A very noticeable shift from Fair to Excellent or Good occurred
in the past year. The Quality of the K-12 Education community characteristic was rated second highest among the 18
investigated characteristics in 2013, and dropped to fourth in 2014, while in 2015 it has returned to being the secondmost positively perceived (behind only Quality of the Environment). (Table 27)
13. Availability of Housing
Availability of Housing in Lewis County has been studied for the first time in in 2015, and perceptions tend to be very
positive 63% of participants respond with Excellent or Good, while only 7% rate as Poor. (Table 30)
14. Availability of Care for the Elderly
Attitudes among residents of Lewis County regarding the Availability of Care for the Elderly in the county remain quite
positive (57% rate as Excellent or Good, while only 10% rate as Poor). However, the past-year trend has been
negative in that the Excellent or Good rate in 2014 was 65%. (Table 29)
15. Availability of Childcare
Availability of Childcare in Lewis County has been studied for the first time in in 2015, and perceptions tend to be quite
varied and not dominated by either positive or negative sentiment 43% of participants respond with Excellent or
Good, while only 41% rate as Fair or Poor (only 11% Poor). (Table 31)
16. Availability of Behavioral Health Services
Availability of Behavioral Health Services in Lewis County has been studied for the first time in in 2015, and perceptions
tend to be less than satisfied only 35% of participants respond with Excellent or Good, while 47% rate as Fair or
Poor (16% rate as Poor). (Table 32)
17. Cultural/Entertainment Opportunities
Residents of Lewis County continue to report low satisfaction with Cultural/Entertainment Opportunities in the county,
with this indicator the 19th most positive rated characteristic among the 21 indicators that are tracked (only more
positively perceived than Real Estate Taxes and Availability of Good Jobs). In 2015, approximately one-in-four
residents (27%) rate this quality-of-life indicator as Excellent or Good, with Poor over the past two years at all-time
highs of 30% and 29%, respectively. In 2015 only 3% rated Cultural/Entertainment Opportunities as Excellent.
(Table 14)
18. Opportunities for Youth
A negative trend in perception of Opportunities for Youth was found between 2012 and 2013 in Lewis County, and
this negative trend continued in 2014 Poor in 2014 was at an all-time high of 33%. However, a significant increase
in Excellent or Good has resulted between 2014-2015, reversing that negative trend that occurred between 20122014. Poor dropped from 33% to 23% in the past year. In 2015 a very noticeable relationship has emerged the
younger adult participants show a very high level of optimism about opportunities for youth 23% of those under the
age of 30 responded with Excellent in 2015, while 60% of these younger folks responded with Excellent or Good
(only 11% rated as Poor). (Table 13)
19. Access to Higher Education
Access to Higher Education as a community indicator has been measured since 2009 in Lewis County, and the results
were quite consistent throughout the first six years of study. However, in 2015, residents are more positive than in past
years about these opportunities; in 2014 it was found that 37% rate this indicator as Excellent or Good, (with 32%
rating it as Poor) and in 2015 these perceptions have improved to 45% rating this indicator as Excellent or Good,
(with 25% rating it as Poor). The results in 2015 are the most positive yet found. (Table 18)
20. Policing and Crime Control
Residents of Lewis County continue to be more satisfied than dissatisfied with Policing and Crime Control in the Area,
with 66% rating it as either Excellent or Good, and only 12% rating it as Poor. Satisfaction with Policing and Crime
Control in the county is one of the most consistent community indicators studied each year, there has been very little
change between 2007-2015 with Good always the most common rating reported. However, it should be noted that
Policing and Crime Control in the Area is one of only two of the 21 studied community indicators that showed a negative
trend in the past year the 2014 rate of Excellent or Good was 73% (dropped significantly to 66% in 2015) and in
2014 only 6% rated it as Poor (increased to 12% in 2015). (Table 24)
Page 13 of 104

21. County Government


Residents of Lewis County continue to be neither tremendously satisfied nor dissatisfied with the quality of local
government in the county. The majority of participants in 2015 (69%) rate County Government as either Fair or
Good (similar to 76% found in 2011, 75% found in 2012, 65% in 2013, and 74% in 2014). Note, however, that Good
was the most common response in 2014 in 2015, for the first times since last occurring in 2008 (in 2009-2013 the most
common response was Fair). It should be noted that a positive trend in perceptions appears to have surfaced in the
past year with the Excellent or Good rate increasing from 40% to 45%. (Table 21)
22. Town and Village Government
When evaluating Town and Village Government, Lewis County residents most commonly respond neither
tremendously satisfied nor dissatisfied. In 2014, 83% respond with Fair or Good (41% Good, 42% Fair), and in
2015 this rate is 75% (38% Good, 37% Fair). (Table 22)
23. Most Important Issue Facing Residents of Lewis County
Each year participants are asked to identify the most important issue facing the residents of Lewis County. This question
is open-ended, giving the residents the opportunity to specify the primary issue, while they may earlier have identified
several issues as Poor via responses to the preceding 21 community indicators, or potentially a largest issue does
not happen to be included in the 21 community indicators that are studied as a part of the standard annual survey script.
There has been a tremendous change in sentiment regarding the largest local issue in 2015. Employment issues/Loss
of jobs decreased significantly and tremendously between 2014-2015 from 47% to only 14%; Taxes also decreased
from an all-time high of 19% in 2014 to only 3% in 2015; while Healthcare (11%), Inefficient government and
leadership (14%), Drugs/alcohol problems (9%), and Moral values and issues (5%) all were reported at all-time high
rates in 2015. (Table 34)

Section 2.3 Transportation (Tables 35-36)


24. A large majority of Lewis County residents (82%) indicate that they are aware that Lewis County has a public
transportation system (significantly increased from 73% aware when last studied in 2009). When asked whether one
uses the Countys public transportation system to commute to Utica less than 1% of participants report to do so
monthly or more frequently (97% respond with Never). (Tables 35-36)

Section 2.4 Healthcare (Tables 37-42)


25. Approximately 4% of adults in Lewis County do not report that they currently have some type of health
insurance (96% report that they currently have health insurance, was 91% in 2012, 81% in 2013, and 87% in 2014).
(Table 37)
26. Approximately one-in-ten Lewis County adults (10%) have chosen not to seek medical care because of cost in the
past 12 months, a rate that has not changed significantly from 11% found in the county in 2011, 10% found in 2012,
14% found in 2013, and 14% in 2014. A very strong relationship between having health insurance and ignoring needed
medical care continues to be evident among those who do have health insurance only 10% have chosen not to seek
medical care because of cost in the past 12 months (was 7% in each of 2012 and 2013, and 10% in 2014), while among
those who are uninsured in 2015 this rate is 19% (was 48% among the uninsured in 2012, 42% in 2013, and 42% in
2014). (Table 38)
27. The Affordable Care Act provision providing health insurance exchanges was implemented in the United States on
October 1, 2013. In 2013 this annual survey was completed three weeks later, and at that point in time about 27% of
Lewis County residents indicated that they were Not Familiar with the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. One year
later, in October 2014, the rate of unfamiliarity decreased to only 17%, and in 2015 has similarly been found to be 19%.
In October 2013, adults in Lewis County tended to be more supportive of the Affordable Care Act than opposed.
Approximately one-third of the participants (35%) thought that the Affordable Care Act was a good idea (13% preferred
to keep the Affordable Care Act as it is, another 22% thought it was a good idea but needed some changes), while 29%
of participants indicated that they believe that the Affordable Care Act should not be funded and should be repealed.
After one year of experiencing the Affordable Care Act residents became slightly more in favor than opposed to the law
2014 rates were that 39% favored while only 36% wanted it repealed. Now, in 2015, after two years of experiencing
the Affordable Care Act, support has continued to increase in Lewis County in 2015 almost one-half of the
participants (47%) think that the Affordable Care Act is a good idea (8% prefer to keep the Affordable Care Act as
it is, another 40% think it is a good idea but needs some changes), while one-fourth (26%) of participants indicate
that they believe that the Affordable Care Act should not be funded and should be repealed. (Table 39)
Page 14 of 104

28. In October 2013, only three weeks after the Affordable Care Act was enacted, adults in Lewis County tended to think
that the effect that the Affordable Care Act will have on them and their family would be more negative than positive, and
without question, a large majority believed that there would be some effect or change. At that time in 2013, only 24%
of participants expected to be affected more positively, while 45% indicated that they expect to be affected more
negatively, with a mere 11% responding neither, and 19% responding that they are not sure. After two years in
place, the actual or realized effect of the healthcare law is essentially that nowhere near as much as expected
has changed. In 2014, only 8% of participants had been affected more positively (24% expected this to occur in 2013)
and in 2015, 11% report that this is true. Similarly, in 2014, 22% indicated that they have been affected more negatively
(45% expected this to occur), and in 2015 27% report that this is true. While only 11% responded neither change
expected in 2013, the actual result has been that 63% and 46% have responded neither in 2014 and 2015,
respectively. Among those who have realized a change in 2015 by more than a two-to-one ratio the change has been
more negative than positive (27% vs. 11%). (Table 40)
29. Two local healthcare questions have been posed to Lewis County residents in each of the four years 2012-2015 that
specifically relate to the current financial challenge that Lewis County General Hospital is facing. When asked whether
one prefers that the hospital remain county-owned versus become a nonprofit hospital (non-county-owned),
support for remaining county-owned continues to be found in 2015, 63% prefer remaining county-owned (was 51% in
2014, 63% in 2013, and 58% in 2012), while 14% prefer becoming a non-county-owned nonprofit hospital (was 15% in
2014, 15% in 2013, and 17% in 2012), and 19% indicate that they are not sure (was 27% in 2014, 18% in 2013, and
22% in 2012). (Table 41)
30. Residents of the county who own property (pay property taxes) were further asked what amount they would be willing
to pay in additional property taxes to support the hospital, an amount that would be added to their annual
county tax bill. More than one-half of property-owners (54%, was 51% in 2014) indicate that they would not be willing
to pay any additional property taxes to help fund Lewis County General Hospital. Approximately one-third (30%, was
35% in 2014) of property-owners indicate that they would be willing to pay up to $100 more annually, while only 10%
(was 6% in 2014) of property-owners indicate that they would be willing to pay more than $100 more annually. (Table
42)

Section 2.5 Education (Tables 43-45)


31. Lewis County adults in many ways in this study have expressed the sentiment that they are very satisfied with the local
K-12 school systems. More than two-thirds (69%) of Lewis County residents agree with the notion that Lewis County
schools are adequately preparing our young people for the technology and economy of the future, while only
17% disagree. However, over the past six years there has been a negative trend in the perception of the local schools
preparing young people for the technology and economy of the future between 2010 and 2015 the rate of indicating
Strongly Agree has decreased from 35% to the current rate of 15%, while over this same time frame the rate of
indicating Disagree (strongly disagree combined with disagree) has increased from 5% in 2010 to the current rate of
17%. (Table 43)
32. By a five-to-one ratio Lewis County residents are far more likely to believe that the implementation of the Common
Core Standards in New York schools has worsened public education than has improved public education (40%
vs. 8%, respectively). According to Siena College in an October 2015 statewide poll, the responses in New York State
to this same question were: 40% worsened; and 21% improved. When only the upstate New York residents who
participated in the Siena poll are investigated, the results parallel the local Lewis County results more closely by having
almost the same 4:1 ratio of Worsened-to-Improved. Siena poll results in October 2015 for the upstaters are: 51%
worsened; and 15% improved. (www.siena.edu/news-events/article/half-of-voters-view-cuomo-favorably) (Table 44)
33. When asked about future improvement of the quality of K-12 education in New York State, by a ten-to-one margin Lewis
County adults overwhelmingly trust the teachers unions more than Governor Cuomo to improve the quality of
K-12 education in New York State with 71% more trusting of the teachers unions, and only 7% more trusting
of the governor. According to Quinnipiac University in a September 2015 statewide poll, the responses in New York
State to this same question were: 54% Teachers Unions; and 31% Cuomo. When only the upstate New York
residents who participated in the Quinnipiac poll are investigated, the results parallel the local Lewis County results
more closely. Quinnipiac poll results in September 2015 for the upstaters are: 64% Teachers Unions; and 19%
Cuomo. (www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/new-york-state/release-detail?ReleaseID=2281) (Table 45)

Page 15 of 104

Section 2.6 Charitable Activities and Planning (Tables 46-48)


34. The spirit of volunteerism remains high among Lewis County residents, with 56% of participants indicating that they
volunteer at least one hour per month for community service activities such as church, school and youth
activities, charitable organizations, local government boards, and so forth. The percentages who indicated that
they do volunteer in recent years have been 60% in 2007, 59% in 2008, 57% in 2009, 63% in 2012, 58% in 2013, and
60% in 2014 (not measured in 2010-2011). (Table 46)
35. Approximately one-half (50%) of Lewis County adults in 2015 indicate that they have a will. Among those who
do have a will about one-in-eight (13%) indicate that they have included a charitable organization as a
beneficiary in their will. This 13% naming a charitable organization rate applied to the 50% who have a will
extrapolates to a total approximation of 6.3% of all adults have a charitable organization named in a will that they have.
(Tables 47-48)

Section 2.7 County Government (Tables 49-51)


36. By a large margin in 2015 Lewis County residents tend to agree that they are adequately informed about issues
facing the County 56% agree (was 51% in 2013, and 57% in 2014) with the statement that they are adequately
informed, while 37% disagree (was 45% in 2013, and 39% in 2014). (Table 49)
37. Lewis County residents tend to agree that their local elected county officials represent their concerns effectively
51% agree with statement that their concerns are effectively represented (was 50% in 2014, and only 44% in 2013),
while currently 41% disagree (was 40% in 2014, and 47% in 2013). These changes in level of agreement represent a
significant improvement between 2013-2015. (Table 50)
38. Lewis County residents overwhelmingly support the county providing low interest loans to small businesses for
start-up or expansion 86% support these county programs while only 9% oppose. (Table 51)

Section 2.8 The Local Economy (Tables 52-53)


39. The employment status and occupation of Lewis County residents has been studied in each of 2008 through 2015
with results remaining remarkably consistent. The percentage of participants who report to be retired has always been
between 21%-25% (23% in 2014, and 25% in 2015), blue-collar is currently the occupation classification most
commonly reported (19% in 2015, 25% in 2014, was 20% in 2013, has been between 11%-25% in each year of study),
and 5% of participants currently indicate that they are self-employed (was 7% in 2014, and 9% in 2013, has been
between 2%-14% in each year of study). (Table 52)
40. For the first time in eight years of study residents of Lewis County are equally likely to indicate that their families
personal financial situation has gotten better over the past 12 months as they are to indicate that it has gotten
worse (both 18%), while the most common response remains stayed the same (62%). The 2015 rate of 18% indicating
worse is the lowest ever measured. In comparison, in 2008 the rate of better was only 12% while the rate of worse
was 40%. A consistent and dramatic positive trend in families financial situations continues to be discovered in 2015.
(Table 53)

Section 2.9 State Government, and Political Issues (Tables 54-58)


41. Political ideology is researched and recorded each year of the Lewis County Annual Survey. In 2015, similar to all other
previous years, participants are much more likely to self-identify as conservative as to self-identify as liberal
(28% vs. 10%, respectively), however, the most common response to political beliefs is to self-identify as middle-ofthe-road (55% in 2015, was only 36% in 2014). (Table 54)
42. Overwhelming support for an increase in the minimum wage is evident among Lewis County adults.
Approximately 81% support a raise in the minimum wage, while only 17% voice opposition. The most common
preference is to raise the minimum wage, but not as high as $15.00/hour (65%), while 16% prefer that the minimum
wage be raised to $15.00/hour or more. According to Quinnipiac University in a September 2015 statewide poll, the
responses in New York State to this same question were: 89% increase the minimum wage; and 8% do not increase
the minimum wage. When only the upstate New York residents who participated in the Quinnipiac poll are investigated,
the results parallel the local Lewis County results more closely. Quinnipiac poll results in September 2015 for the
upstaters are: 86% increase the minimum wage; and 13% do not increase the minimum wage; with the most
Page 16 of 104

common upstater response the same as is found in Lewis County 65% of Lewis County adults respond with raise
the minimum wage but not as high as $15.00/hour, and 48% of upstaters indicated this preference in the Quinnipiac
poll. (www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/new-york-state/release-detail?ReleaseID=2281) (Table 55)
43. When asked whether one is aware that approximately 90% of homeowners local property tax levy goes to New York
State to fund nine state mandated programs such as Medicaid, and Indigent Defense, and that the state requires these
programs to be provided by local government but does not provide the funding to do so, a minority of Lewis County
residents indicate that they are aware of these state-mandate facts (only 39% are aware). (Table 56)
44. When asked whether one believes that the New York State property tax cap is an effective way to manage property
taxes, or in other words, whether one believes that the property tax cap at 2% gives counties and school districts
sufficient ability to effectively and efficiently manage their budgets, a majority (50%) of Lewis County residents
indicate that they do support the effectiveness of the 2% property tax cap (while only 34% do not believe that the
property tax cap is effective). (Table 57)
45. When asked to rate the job that Andrew Cuomo is doing as governor, approximately one-in-every-five Lewis County
participants (22%) rated the job that Andrew Cuomo was doing as governor of New York State as Good (18%)
or Excellent (4%), while a very large percentage (36%) rate the governors performance as Poor. According
to Siena Research Institute in a October 2015 statewide poll, Cuomos approval ratings statewide were: 9% Excellent;
32% Good; 35% Fair; and 23% Poor. When only the upstate New York residents who participated in the Siena
poll are investigated, the results parallel the local Lewis County results more closely. Siena poll results in October 2015
for the upstaters are: 6% Excellent; 29% Good; 33% Fair; and 31% Poor. (www.siena.edu/news-events/article/half-ofvoters-view-cuomo-favorably) (Table 58)

Section 2.10 Internet Access and Use (Tables 59-70)


46. By more than a 7:1 ratio, those who have school-age children living in their home in Lewis County are more likely to
respond No than to respond Yes to the question: Do you have school age children in your home who are unable
to complete homework because they do not have adequate access to a quality broadband connection? (30%
vs. 4%, respectively, with 64% of participants not having school-age children in the home). (Table 59)
47. Slightly more than 80% of Lewis County adults have used the Internet at least some in the past 30 days. Among
the Internet users, ones home is overwhelmingly the most common location where he or she uses the Internet
(93% among current users, which would extrapolate to 75% among all Lewis County adult residents). (Tables 60 and
61)

Further questions among those who do have Internet access at their home:
48. Approximately four-in-five adults (81%) in Lewis County has access to the Internet at their home. DSL and Cable
are by far the two most common ways that residents access the Internet at their home, with each having very
similar market shares (DSL: 41% among those with Internet access at their home which would extrapolate to 34%
among all Lewis County adult residents; and Cable: 41% among those with Internet access at their home which would
extrapolate to 33% among all Lewis County adult residents). When asked what Internet access options one has at
his or her home, again, DSL and cable are the most common responses (DSL: 56% among those with Internet access
at their home; and Cable: 52% among those with Internet access at their home). (Tables 62-64)
49. Among those Lewis County residents who do have Internet access in their home, more than one-third (36%) currently
uses the Internet to work or complete college cousework or training from their homes. (Table 65)
50. Approximately one-in-six Lewis County adult residents currently uses smart home technology at their home (20%
among participants who earlier indicated that they do have Internet access at their home, which equates to
approximately 16% among all participants). Use is defined as for home security, or for energy efficiency, or both.
(Table 66)
51. More than one-half of those who do have Internet access at their home rate the quality of that Internet service at
their home as at least Good (16% rate as Excellent, and 42% rate as Good), while only 16% rate their Internet
service at home as Poor. (Table 67)

Page 17 of 104

Further Smart-farming Technology questions among all participants:


52. Approximately one-tenth of participants are employed at a farm by either owning, managing, and/or working at a farm
in the county. Among those who work at farms about 16% report that the farming equipment at their farm has
Internet capability (14% have the capability and use it, while 3% have the capability but it is not used). (Tables 6869)
53. Among those participants who are employed at a farm by either owning, managing, and/or working at a farm in the
county, 29% express interest in the integration of smart farming techniques to assist with things like crop
hydration, soil quality monitoring, veterinary visits through video conferencing, while 41% respond that they are
not interested, and the remaining 30% indicate that they are not sure. (Table 70)

Section 2.11 Familiarity with the Center for Community Studies at JCC
(Table 71)
54. Familiarity with the Center for Community Studies among Lewis County residents is at an all-time high in 2015, as
46% of participants indicate that they had heard of the community-based research center at Jefferson Community
College (was only 30% in 2008, was 42% in 2014). (Table 71)

Page 18 of 104

Section 3 - Detailed Statistical Results


This section of the study provides a detailed presentation of the results for each of the questions in the survey. The
results for each of these survey questions are presented in this section of the report with the following organizational
structure:
(1)

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

(2)

A trend analysis is completed and shown in a table for each survey question that was measured
in at least three of the nine years 2007-2015. Trends are also illustrated graphically with a line
graph. Statistically significant trends between 2007 and 2015 are highlighted throughout
reported at the top of each Trend Analysis table.

(3)

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 year 2015. Regional county comparison results are also illustrated graphically
with a stacked bar graph.

(4)

The 2015 results for each survey question have been cross-tabulated by each of the
demographic factors of Gender, Age, Education Level, and Household Income Level (there is
a total of over 200 cross-tabulation tables included in this report). At times other potential
explanatory variables are also shown as cross-tabulations when relevant, for example,
selected variables are also cross-tabulated by Political Ideology, or by Children in the Home.
Statistically significant relationships and differences may be identified by using the descriptions
and examples shown in the appendix of this report.

For further explanation of the statistical concepts of Margin of Error and Statistical Significance, to assist the
reader in best interpreting and utilizing the presented information, please refer to the appendix of this report Technical
Comments Assistance in Interpretation of the Statistical Results.
For ease of use, survey questions have been organized into the following sections:
Section 3.1 Longevity of Living in Lewis County (Tables 8-9)
Section 3.2 Quality of Life Issues Summary of Trends (2007-2015) (Tables 10-11)
Section 3.3 Quality of Life Issues Summary of 2015 Results (Table 12)
Section 3.4 Detailed Analysis of Individual Quality-of-Life Indicators (Tables 13-34)
Section 3.5 Transportation (Tables 35-36)
Section 3.6 Healthcare (Tables 37-42)
Section 3.7 Education Issues (Tables 43-45)
Section 3.8 Charitable Giving and Planning (Tables 46-48)
Section 3.9 County Government (Tables 49-51)
Section 3.10 The Local Economy (Tables 52-53)
Section 3.11 State Government, and Political Issues (Tables 54-58)
Section 3.12 Internet Access and Use (Tables 59-70)
Section 3.13 Familiarity with the Center for Community Studies at JCC (Table 71)
When comparing results across time, the sample sizes collected each year should be considered. The sample
sizes for each of the nine years of the Lewis County Annual Survey of the Community are summarized in the following
table.

Table 6 Sample Sizes for Each of Nine Years of the Lewis County Annual Survey
Year of Study:

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Total Sample Size

409

393

404

400

409

421

381

328

396

(# interviews completed)

The statistics reported in the correlative tables (cross-tabulations by gender, age, education, and income) are
percentages within the sampled subgroups. To determine the sample size for each subgroup to avoid over-interpretation
the reader should refer to the bottom row in each cross-tabulation table. Again, findings should be considered with sample
sizes in mind. Statistical tests of significance take into consideration these varying sample sizes. The typical sample size
Page 19 of 104

within each demographic subgroup is shown, along with the appropriate approximate margin of error for each of these
subgroup sample sizes, in the following table.

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

Approximate
Margin of Error

Number of
Participants
Sampled (weighted)

(when analyzing only this


subgroup)

n=200
n=196

5.5%
5.6%

n=73
n=59
n=72
n=82
n=50
n=59

9.2%
10.2%
9.2%
8.6%
11.1%
10.2%

n=234
n=108
n=54

5.1%
7.5%
10.7%

n=57
n=97
n=75
n=81

10.4%
8.0%
9.0%
8.7%

Gender:
Male
Female

Age:
18-29 years of age
30-39 years of age
40-49 years of age
50-59 years of age
60-69 years of age
70 years of age or older

Education Level:
High school graduate (or less)
Some college (less than 4-year degree)
College graduate (4+ year degree)

Annual Household Income:


Less than $25,000
$25,001-$50,000
$50,001-$75,000
More than $75,000

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

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


this Survey Data
The rationale behind providing so many analyses (statistics) for every survey question included in this study is that
one never fully understands the information contained in a reported statistic without framing that statistic. Framing involves
adding a more rich perspective to the value of some reported statistic. For example, when Lewis County residents 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 2015 community study is that
18.4% of the participants responded with gotten worse (reported later in Table 53). So . what does this 18.4% 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 Distribution
(Is it a majority? 4:1 ratio? Three times more likely to respond with better . than worse?)

Trend Across Time


(Has it increased? Decreased?)

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

Compare to A Regional Average Result


(Compare to some regional average or similar counties?)

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?
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 20 of 104

Section 3.1 Longevity of Living in Lewis County


Table 8 How long have you lived in Lewis County?
2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Significant increase in 7+ years between 2011-2014, with the 2014 rate at an all-time high, however, the 2015 rate of 87% returned to near the 9-year
average. Not measured in any other NNY county in past 12 months.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Less than 1 year
1.0%
2.1%
0.5%
2.7%
1.9%
1.4%
0.2%
0.1%
1.2%
1-3 years
9.3%
2.8%
2.6%
4.8%
3.3%
3.8%
1.9%
0.9%
8.8%
4-7 years
9.0%
7.2%
9.2%
8.0%
10.5%
4.2%
2.7%
2.4%
3.4%
More than 7 years
80.7%
87.9%
87.7%
84.5%
84.2%
90.6%
95.2%
96.6%
86.6%

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 21 of 104

Table 9 Do you expect you will still be living in Lewis County in five years?
2015 Lewis County Results:
Frequency

Percentage

Yes

335

85.3%

No

39

9.8%

Not sure

19

4.9%

Totals

393

100.0%

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Significant increase in Plan to Stay between 2011-2012, rate has not changed significantly between 2012-2015. Not measured in any other NNY
county in past 12 months.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Yes
85.8% 90.1% 92.4% 89.3% 77.6% 88.3% 88.4% 88.3% 85.3%
No
7.4%
5.4%
4.0%
5.6%
17.7% 10.9%
8.4%
8.5%
9.8%
Not sure
6.8%
4.5%
3.5%
5.1%
4.8%
0.9%
3.2%
3.2%
4.9%

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 22 of 104

Section 3.2 Quality of Life Issues Summary of Trends (2007-2015)


The larger font, bolded, and dark-cell-shaded number in each row of Table 10 is the largest percentage responding
Excellent or Good found throughout the studied nine years for each survey question. Similarly, the larger font, bolded,
and dark-cell-shaded number in each row of Table 11 is the largest percentage responding Poor found throughout the
nine years of study. For quick reference, considering the sample sizes collected each year in the Lewis County Annual
Survey of the Community, a difference of 6% or larger between any two years (between any two numbers located in the
same row) may be considered a statistically significant trend, or change over time. (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 Lewis County Years 2007-2015 % Indicating Excellent


or Good
Quality of Life Indicator:
1. Opportunities for youth
2. Cultural/entertainment opportunities
3. Cost of energy
4. Health care access
5. Health care quality
6. Access to Higher Education
7. Public outdoor recreational opportunities
8. Quality of the environment
9. County government
10. Town and village government
11. Real estate taxes
12. Policing and crime control
13. Availability of good jobs
14. Shopping opportunities
15. Quality of k-12 education
16. The overall state of the local economy
17. Availability of care for the elderly
18. Availability of housing
19. Availability of childcare
20. Availability of behavioral health services
21. The overall quality of life in the area

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

28
27
22
63
74

38
34
22
64
75

38
35

31

30

61
64
36
74
86
41
51
20
74
10
28
80
19
61

72
79
46
83
91

55

33
29
22
66
70
42
70
90
32
44
19
78
13
33
84
23
65

33
31

84
21
64

30
26
26
63
71
38
78
90
33
45
18
69
11
35
85
21
62

70

29
29
30
58
68
41
73
84
35
42
22
68
16
31
75
19
54

28
30
26
55
71
37
75
86
40
43
16
73
16
36
73
24
65

74

82

73

78

73

77

71

75

34
27
31
66
69
45
72
90
45
45
21
66
15
34
83
31
57
63
43
35
77

78
83
43
48
25
70

80
89

46
53
22

77

17

13

35
82

40

35

39
52

27
75
13
38

87
30

(Dark Gray shaded cell in each row of Table 10 indicates the year when the largest % responding Excellent or Good was found)

Page 23 of 104

Table 11 Trends in Issues in Lewis County Years 2007-2015 % Indicating Poor


Quality of Life Indicator:
1. Opportunities for youth
2. Cultural/entertainment opportunities
3. Cost of energy
4. Health care access
5. Health care quality
6. Access to Higher Education
7. Public outdoor recreational opportunities
8. Quality of the environment
9. County government
10. Town and village government
11. Real estate taxes
12. Policing and crime control
13. Availability of good jobs
14. Shopping opportunities
15. Quality of k-12 education
16. The overall state of the local economy
17. Availability of care for the elderly
18. Availability of housing
19. Availability of childcare
20. Availability of behavioral health services
21. The overall quality of life in the area

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

29
26
44
9
4

25
24

31
23
36

5
2
13
14
33
6
41

6
3
15
11
36
7
45
26
1
34

29
4
43
6

28
22
36
10
6
25
7
1
17
15
34
7
44
24
1
30
7

25
23
25
11
8
28
9
2
20
14
38
4
53
22

33
30

48

32
28
38
11
8
31
8
1

30
10

19
10
40
6
53
27
3
26
6

23
29
29
8
6
25
9
1
20
14
33
12
48
28

3
19
8

12

32
25
40
7
7
27
7
2
18
13
41
4
55
32
1
41
8

31

11
7

24
19
42
10
56
26
2

44

12
11
37
7
2
15
13
37
7

57

(Dark Gray shaded cell in each row of Table 11 indicates the year when the largest % responding Poor was found)

Page 24 of 104

29
12
10
32

12
4

5
29
10
7
11
16
2

Section 3.3 Quality of Life Issues Summary of 2015 Results


Table 12 shows the detailed results for all 21 quality-of-life indicators recorded in 2015. The larger font, dark-grayshaded, and bolded number in each row is the largest result 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 Lewis County Year 2015


(Dark Gray shaded cell in each row of Table 12 indicates the most common response)
Excelle
nt

Good

Fair

Poor

Dont
Know

1. Opportunities for youth

6.7%

27.3%

39.6%

23.4%

3.0%

2. Cultural/entertainment opportunities

2.6%

24.3%

43.0%

28.7%

1.4%

3. Cost of energy

3.5%

27.3%

38.8%

28.6%

1.8%

4. Health care access

13.6%

52.4%

24.2%

8.0%

1.8%

5. Health care quality

17.9%

51.3%

22.6%

6.1%

2.1%

6. Access to Higher Education

7.0%

38.1%

28.3%

24.7%

1.9%

7. Public outdoor recreational opportunities

35.4%

36.3%

18.1%

9.3%

0.9%

8. Quality of the environment

36.3%

53.2%

8.9%

0.9%

0.8%

9. County government

7.5%

37.2%

31.5%

19.5%

4.4%

10. Town and village government

6.6%

38.1%

36.5%

13.8%

5.0%

11. Real estate taxes

2.4%

18.7%

38.3%

32.8%

7.8%

12. Policing and crime control

13.8%

51.7%

22.6%

11.8%

0.1%

13. Availability of good jobs

1.7%

13.0%

36.2%

48.2%

1.0%

14. Shopping opportunities

5.2%

28.8%

38.2%

27.8%

0.0%

15. Quality of k-12 education

30.0%

52.8%

9.9%

4.5%

2.7%

16. The overall state of the local economy

3.4%

27.9%

37.8%

29.2%

1.7%

17. Availability of care for the elderly

9.9%

47.1%

30.5%

10.4%

2.3%

18. Availability of housing

11.6%

50.9%

25.5%

6.6%

5.4%

19. Availability of childcare

4.6%

38.7%

30.3%

10.9%

15.4%

20. Availability of behavioral health services

6.2%

28.9%

30.9%

16.4%

17.6%

21. The overall quality of life in the area

20.0%

56.8%

21.2%

1.6%

0.3%

Quality of Life Indicator:

Page 25 of 104

The following two graphs highlight the most positively and most negatively perceived of the 21 studied quality-oflife indicators in 2015, with 2011-2014 results also shown for a recent trend comparison.

Page 26 of 104

Section 3.4 Detailed Analysis of Individual Quality of Life Indicators


Tables 13-33, shown on the following pages, provide the greatest level of detail in results for the 21 investigated
quality-of-life indicators. In these 21 tables, the result for each of the quality-of-life indicators is shown, including all possible
responses to each survey question. A trend analysis is completed for each of the quality-of-life indicators (except any newlyadded indicators first used in 2015), with statistically significant changes between 2007 and 2015 identified above each
trend-analysis table. Results for similar studies completed in 2015 in Jefferson County and St. Lawrence County are also
shown when possible. Finally, cross-tabulations by four key demographic factors (Gender, Age, Education, and Income)
have been completed. By inspecting the results after cross-tabbing by any of these four demographic factors, the reader
can better understand factors that may be significantly correlated with perceptions of quality-of-life characteristics of the
county.

Page 27 of 104

Table 13 Opportunities for Youth


2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Significant increase in Excellent or Good between 2014-2015, reversing a negative trend regarding Opportunities for Youth that occurred between
2012-2014.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Excellent
5.1%
4.6%
2.4%
10.2%
6.2%
4.3%
6.7%
5.5%
6.7%
Good
23.4%
33.2%
28.2%
22.8%
26.8%
33.9%
22.1%
22.0%
27.3%
Fair
39.4%
36.5%
35.4%
31.3%
30.8%
32.6%
44.3%
35.3%
39.6%
Poor
28.9%
24.6%
31.9%
31.5%
31.1%
27.8%
25.2%
33.4%
23.4%
Dont know
3.1%
1.2%
2.1%
4.2%
5.0%
1.7%
1.7%
3.7%
3.0%

County
Lewis

Jefferson

St. Lawrence

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

(July 2015)

Excellent

6.7%

14.4%

3.6%

Good

27.3%

30.7%

23.3%

Fair

39.6%

29.9%

37.3%

Poor

23.4%

23.8%

33.0%

Dont Know

3.0%

1.3%

2.7%

Sample Size

396

393

442

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 28 of 104

Table 14 Cultural/Entertainment Opportunities


2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Significant negative trend between 2012-2015, with Poor at the all-time high levels of 30% in 2014 and 29% in 2015.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Excellent
4.7%
5.5%
4.4%
2.6%
3.6%
3.7%
2.3%
3.3%
Good
21.6%
27.8%
22.1%
26.3%
27.7%
31.6%
26.5%
27.0%
Fair
45.8%
39.7%
43.4%
42.8%
40.6%
41.9%
45.8%
37.8%
Poor
26.0%
24.4%
27.6%
25.3%
22.9%
22.3%
23.3%
29.6%
Dont know
1.9%
2.6%
2.6%
3.1%
5.2%
0.4%
2.1%
2.3%

2015
2.6%
24.3%
43.0%
28.7%
1.4%

County
Lewis

Jefferson

St. Lawrence

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

(July 2015)

Excellent

2.6%

4.6%

5.5%

Good

24.3%

42.3%

22.4%

Fair

43.0%

30.7%

43.0%

Poor

28.7%

20.5%

26.1%

Dont Know

1.4%

1.9%

3.0%

Sample Size

396

391

442

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Education Level

Annual Household Income

HSG or less
Excellent

Up to $25,000

Over $75,000

2.9%

1.3%

3.8%

4.1%

0.0%

4.7%

0.2%

Good

27.2%

21.3%

17.6%

27.4%

32.1%

16.2%

22.5%

Fair

40.5%

43.6%

52.2%

45.2%

35.6%

51.0%

42.3%

Poor

27.8%

31.8%

26.2%

18.4%

30.6%

28.1%

35.0%

Don't Know/Not Sure

1.5%

1.9%

0.2%

4.9%

1.7%

0.0%

0.0%

Sample Size

234

108

54

57

97

75

81

Page 29 of 104

Table 15 Cost of Energy


2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Significant positive change between 2010-2015, with Excellent or Good at the all-time high of 31% in 2015.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Excellent
1.7%
3.0%
1.9%
3.1%
3.5%
2.7%
3.1%
Good
20.2%
19.4%
24.1%
19.0%
27.5%
27.0%
26.5%
Fair
31.0%
29.8%
32.3%
32.5%
29.3%
31.5%
42.8%
Poor
43.8%
47.7%
38.4%
39.9%
36.0%
35.6%
25.0%
Dont know
3.3%
0.2%
3.3%
5.5%
3.6%
3.2%
2.6%

2014
0.6%
25.1%
44.0%
29.3%
0.8%

2015
3.5%
27.3%
38.8%
28.6%
1.8%

County
Lewis

Jefferson

St. Lawrence

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

(July 2015)

3.5%

3.2%

5.9%

Excellent
Good

27.3%

17.9%

28.3%

Fair

38.8%

36.7%

33.9%

Poor

28.6%

38.9%

30.4%

Dont Know

1.8%

3.2%

1.4%

Sample Size

395

392

440

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Education Level

Annual Household Income

HSG or less
Excellent

Up to $25,000

Over $75,000

4.0%

3.3%

1.5%

12.1%

2.1%

2.4%

3.1%

Good

21.9%

29.8%

45.5%

21.8%

16.5%

34.3%

28.4%

Fair

42.9%

31.3%

36.1%

30.2%

50.6%

35.4%

32.5%

Poor

28.9%

34.3%

15.7%

34.5%

30.8%

27.9%

33.6%

Don't Know/Not Sure

2.2%

1.3%

1.1%

1.4%

0.0%

0.1%

2.4%

Sample Size

234

107

54

57

96

75

81

Page 30 of 104

Table 16 Healthcare Access


2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Significant and dramatic increase in Excellent or Good between 2014-2015, returning to a similar rate of positive results as the all-time high found in
2012.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Excellent
14.7%
16.1%
12.2%
20.1%
15.6%
17.5%
14.2%
10.6%
13.6%
Good
47.8%
47.8%
51.4%
45.9%
45.7%
54.8%
43.8%
44.6%
52.4%
Fair
27.1%
23.6%
23.7%
25.8%
24.7%
17.4%
27.7%
32.1%
24.2%
Poor
9.1%
10.7%
11.0%
7.1%
11.6%
9.9%
11.4%
12.3%
8.0%
Dont know
1.4%
1.7%
1.6%
1.2%
2.3%
0.3%
3.0%
0.4%
1.8%

County
Lewis

Jefferson

St. Lawrence

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

(July 2015)

Excellent

13.6%

6.1%

8.3%

Good

52.4%

43.2%

45.1%

Fair

24.2%

33.8%

29.8%

Poor

8.0%

14.9%

14.6%

Dont Know

1.8%

2.0%

2.2%

Sample Size

396

393

442

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Education Level

Annual Household Income

HSG or less

Up to $25,000

Over $75,000

Excellent

12.5%

15.3%

15.0%

23.0%

10.4%

13.8%

8.8%

Good

55.0%

43.4%

59.2%

45.8%

66.8%

51.0%

49.7%

Fair

21.3%

30.7%

24.0%

22.8%

19.4%

26.0%

24.5%

Poor

8.4%

10.3%

1.5%

8.4%

3.4%

9.2%

14.1%

Don't Know/Not Sure

2.9%

0.3%

0.4%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

3.0%

Sample Size

234

108

54

57

97

75

81

Page 31 of 104

Table 17 Healthcare Quality


2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Very stable results over the 9 years of study with 2012 being the only exception, when results were more positive than usual.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Excellent
23.7%
22.5%
18.8%
19.7%
18.9%
17.2%
20.2%
13.3%
Good
50.4%
52.3%
52.3%
50.5%
45.2%
61.9%
47.7%
57.2%
Fair
19.9%
14.6%
19.0%
22.0%
22.5%
14.9%
22.4%
19.8%
Poor
4.4%
6.8%
7.6%
6.6%
10.5%
5.8%
7.7%
9.6%
Dont know
1.5%
3.8%
2.3%
1.2%
2.8%
0.1%
1.9%
0.1%

2015
17.9%
51.3%
22.6%
6.1%
2.1%

County
Lewis

Jefferson

St. Lawrence

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

(July 2015)

17.9%

7.9%

13.6%

Excellent
Good

51.3%

39.2%

44.7%

Fair

22.6%

32.5%

28.7%

Poor

6.1%

19.2%

11.1%

Dont Know

2.1%

1.1%

2.0%

Sample Size

396

393

441

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Education Level

Annual Household Income

HSG or less

Up to $25,000

Over $75,000

Excellent

18.3%

16.1%

19.4%

25.4%

24.2%

15.8%

13.5%

Good

51.0%

51.5%

51.9%

54.4%

59.8%

47.3%

46.6%

Fair

21.1%

24.3%

26.0%

11.1%

9.8%

27.6%

35.8%

Poor

6.5%

7.8%

1.2%

9.1%

4.8%

9.3%

0.7%

Don't Know/Not Sure

3.0%

0.3%

1.6%

0.0%

1.4%

0.0%

3.4%

Sample Size

234

108

54

57

97

75

81

Page 32 of 104

Table 18 Access to Higher Education


2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Significant increase in Excellent or Good between 2014-2015, reaching an all-time high rate of 45%.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Excellent
--7.6%
8.9%
5.7%
12.9%
Good
--29.8%
33.4%
30.7%
32.7%
Fair
--26.9%
27.7%
21.3%
27.5%
Poor
--31.1%
26.7%
37.1%
24.7%
Dont know
--4.5%
3.3%
5.3%
2.2%

2013
7.9%
33.0%
28.2%
27.6%
3.3%

2014
7.7%
29.0%
28.1%
31.9%
3.4%

2015
7.0%
38.1%
28.3%
24.7%
1.9%

County
Lewis

Jefferson

St. Lawrence

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

(July 2015)

7.0%

16.9%

32.2%

Excellent
Good

38.1%

40.8%

45.3%

Fair

28.3%

29.3%

15.6%

Poor

24.7%

8.8%

5.3%

Dont Know

1.9%

4.2%

1.6%

Sample Size

391

391

441

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Education Level

Annual Household Income

HSG or less
Excellent

Up to $25,000

Over $75,000

7.7%

6.2%

5.7%

10.2%

8.5%

7.4%

4.7%

Good

42.9%

31.4%

30.1%

45.9%

43.1%

38.0%

35.2%

Fair

27.7%

28.3%

30.7%

22.7%

35.0%

27.8%

29.2%

Poor

19.0%

33.4%

32.4%

21.2%

13.4%

24.7%

31.0%

Don't Know/Not Sure

2.6%

0.6%

1.1%

0.0%

0.0%

2.0%

0.0%

Sample Size

234

107

51

57

97

75

78

Page 33 of 104

Table 19 Public Outdoor Recreational Opportunities


2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Significant decrease in Excellent or Good between 2012-2013, returning to typical long-term average rate in 2013, and continuing at a similar rate in
2013-2015.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Excellent
45.9%
41.6%
40.9%
34.2%
27.7%
30.1%
35.9%
35.5%
35.4%
Good
31.6%
38.2%
36.5%
35.7%
46.6%
53.0%
37.5%
39.7%
36.3%
Fair
17.4%
11.7%
13.6%
21.6%
16.2%
8.9%
16.4%
11.1%
18.1%
Poor
4.7%
6.0%
8.2%
6.7%
7.4%
6.8%
8.6%
12.4%
9.3%
Dont know
0.4%
2.5%
0.8%
1.9%
2.0%
1.1%
1.6%
1.3%
0.9%

County
Lewis

Jefferson

St. Lawrence

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

(July 2015)

Excellent

35.4%

15.6%

32.3%

Good

36.3%

53.0%

34.3%

Fair

18.1%

21.2%

21.7%

Poor

9.3%

9.4%

10.9%

Dont Know

0.9%

0.7%

0.8%

Sample Size

396

391

441

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Education Level

Annual Household Income

HSG or less

Up to $25,000

Over $75,000

Excellent

30.4%

37.1%

53.6%

24.4%

36.4%

40.3%

50.2%

Good

37.6%

31.5%

40.0%

36.1%

43.3%

32.3%

36.3%

Fair

22.6%

15.7%

3.5%

33.5%

16.6%

15.1%

8.2%

Poor

9.4%

12.6%

2.3%

6.0%

3.3%

11.0%

5.3%

Don't Know/Not Sure

0.0%

3.0%

0.6%

0.0%

0.3%

1.3%

0.0%

Sample Size

234

108

54

57

97

75

81

Page 34 of 104

Table 20 Quality of the Environment


2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


No significant change throughout 2007-2015.
2007
Excellent
36.7%
Good
45.8%
Fair
14.6%
Poor
2.5%
Dont know
0.4%

2008
38.8%
50.4%
7.4%
2.7%
0.8%

2009
34.8%
54.9%
9.0%
1.3%
0.0%

2010
34.3%
55.4%
7.7%
1.7%
0.9%

2011
29.7%
55.9%
11.8%
1.8%
0.8%

2012
36.5%
54.8%
8.0%
0.5%
0.3%

2013
35.4%
48.6%
13.6%
1.8%
0.6%

2014
37.3%
48.4%
9.2%
4.2%
0.9%

2015
36.3%
53.2%
8.9%
0.9%
0.8%

County
Lewis

Jefferson

St. Lawrence

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

(July 2015)

Excellent

36.3%

10.9%

26.7%

Good

53.2%

41.0%

46.3%

Fair

8.9%

38.4%

20.1%

Poor

0.9%

9.3%

6.5%

Dont Know

0.8%

0.4%

0.4%

Sample Size

396

393

442

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Education Level

Annual Household Income

HSG or less

Up to $25,000

Over $75,000

Excellent

28.9%

43.7%

53.5%

27.7%

37.5%

36.9%

44.6%

Good

58.6%

46.6%

42.9%

51.0%

52.3%

55.8%

49.9%

Fair

10.6%

7.7%

3.6%

20.1%

7.4%

5.9%

4.9%

Poor

1.0%

1.1%

0.0%

1.2%

0.4%

0.0%

0.6%

Don't Know/Not Sure

1.0%

0.9%

0.0%

0.0%

2.4%

1.3%

0.0%

Sample Size

234

108

54

57

97

75

81

Page 35 of 104

Table 21 County Government


2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Significant increase in Excellent or Good occurred between 2010-2011 and results remained not significantly changed between 2011-2014, however
there has been a slight positive trend in past year, with current satisfaction levels (45% Excellent or Good) returning to the all-time high rates found in
2007-2008.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Excellent
3.2%
2.5%
3.3%
2.2%
4.1%
3.1%
6.6%
1.7%
7.5%
Good
40.3%
43.2%
30.2%
29.8%
36.4%
35.9%
28.7%
38.5%
37.2%
Fair
38.3%
34.4%
38.1%
38.6%
39.9%
38.7%
36.0%
35.1%
31.5%
Poor
13.3%
15.2%
24.4%
17.9%
15.4%
17.3%
20.0%
19.2%
19.5%
Dont know
5.0%
4.7%
4.1%
11.5%
4.2%
5.1%
8.7%
5.5%
4.4%

County
Lewis

Jefferson *

St. Lawrence

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

(July 2015)

Excellent

7.5%

0.9%

3.8%

Good

37.2%

22.9%

31.6%

Fair

31.5%

38.1%

38.4%

Poor

19.5%

32.2%

17.2%

Dont Know

4.4%

5.9%

8.9%

Sample Size

396

387

442

*16th Annual Jefferson County Survey asked about satisfaction with local government and did not separate town and village government from county government.

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Education Level

Annual Household Income

HSG or less
Excellent

Up to $25,000

Over $75,000

8.6%

6.0%

5.6%

20.5%

4.3%

7.0%

7.9%

Good

35.2%

34.9%

50.6%

46.6%

40.2%

32.8%

41.0%

Fair

30.5%

32.1%

34.3%

17.8%

32.0%

45.7%

35.2%

Poor

21.6%

21.3%

6.3%

15.1%

17.3%

11.1%

12.1%

Don't Know/Not Sure

4.1%

5.6%

3.3%

0.0%

6.2%

3.4%

3.8%

Sample Size

234

108

54

57

97

75

81

Page 36 of 104

Table 22 Town and Village Government


2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Significant increase in Excellent or Good between 2010-2011 remained not significantly changed between 2011-2012, however in 2013 there was a
significant decrease, to the 7-year low rate of 42%, and the 2014-15 results have remained stable at 43% and 45%.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Excellent
3.6%
7.4%
4.9%
4.5%
4.0%
2.7%
7.9%
2.1%
6.6%
Good
44.1%
46.0%
39.9%
39.1%
46.6%
48.8%
34.4%
40.8%
38.1%
Fair
34.2%
30.6%
32.4%
36.3%
32.2%
29.9%
35.4%
41.7%
36.5%
Poor
14.0%
11.3%
19.1%
13.3%
13.3%
14.6%
13.7%
10.4%
13.8%
Dont know
4.2%
4.6%
3.7%
6.9%
3.9%
4.0%
8.7%
5.1%
5.0%

County
Lewis

Jefferson *

St. Lawrence

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

(July 2015)

Excellent

6.6%

0.9%

5.1%

Good

38.1%

22.9%

38.3%

Fair

36.5%

38.1%

32.5%

Poor

13.8%

32.2%

14.8%

Dont Know

5.0%

5.9%

9.3%

Sample Size

396

387

442

*16th Annual Jefferson County Survey asked about satisfaction with local government and did not separate town and village government from county government.

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Education Level

Annual Household Income

HSG or less
Excellent

Up to $25,000

Over $75,000

5.6%

8.7%

6.9%

18.1%

3.3%

7.0%

3.8%

Good

36.1%

34.1%

54.4%

40.8%

39.4%

38.8%

46.8%

Fair

40.2%

31.5%

30.6%

22.6%

40.2%

40.5%

34.5%

Poor

12.8%

20.4%

4.8%

18.4%

10.5%

8.4%

10.5%

Don't Know/Not Sure

5.3%

5.3%

3.3%

0.0%

6.6%

5.2%

4.4%

Sample Size

234

108

54

57

97

75

81

Page 37 of 104

Table 23 Real Estate Taxes


2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:

Excellent or Good in 2014 was at an all-time low of 16% and the rate increased in past year to a more typical 21%.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Excellent
1.5%
2.6%
1.0%
1.7%
1.4%
0.4%
1.5%
0.6%
Good
22.8%
18.9%
16.8%
16.9%
18.2%
26.4%
21.0%
15.6%
Fair
37.1%
35.8%
35.6%
33.1%
36.6%
31.7%
31.8%
37.8%
Poor
33.4%
36.5%
41.7%
40.7%
36.5%
34.3%
38.2%
39.8%
Dont know
5.2%
6.2%
4.9%
7.6%
7.3%
7.3%
7.6%
6.3%

2015
2.4%
18.7%
38.3%
32.8%
7.8%

County
Lewis

Jefferson

St. Lawrence

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

(July 2015)

Excellent

2.4%

0.1%

2.6%

Good

18.7%

11.0%

19.4%

Fair

38.3%

36.5%

32.2%

Poor

32.8%

43.1%

35.1%

Dont Know

7.8%

9.2%

10.8%

Sample Size

396

393

442

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Education Level

Annual Household Income

HSG or less
Excellent

Up to $25,000

Over $75,000

3.6%

0.7%

0.6%

7.0%

1.1%

0.0%

0.0%

Good

16.3%

21.0%

24.0%

4.2%

27.6%

15.3%

14.1%

Fair

36.7%

42.0%

38.0%

46.7%

42.8%

41.6%

32.3%

Poor

32.7%

33.5%

32.2%

26.0%

25.7%

39.6%

46.3%

Don't Know/Not Sure

10.7%

2.8%

5.2%

16.1%

2.8%

3.5%

7.2%

234

108

54

57

97

75

81

Sample Size

Page 38 of 104

Table 24 Policing and Crime Control


2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


There has been a negative trend between 2014-2015 with the current 12% rate of Poor an all-time high, and the Excellent or Good rate at an all-time
low.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Excellent
19.3%
22.8%
16.3%
18.3%
13.6%
19.6%
15.0%
13.7%
13.8%
Good
50.6%
54.1%
53.2%
59.6%
60.4%
55.0%
53.1%
58.9%
51.7%
Fair
23.0%
15.5%
20.5%
16.0%
18.4%
17.4%
25.6%
21.3%
22.6%
Poor
6.2%
6.8%
9.7%
4.2%
6.9%
7.4%
3.7%
5.9%
11.8%
Dont know
0.9%
0.9%
0.4%
1.9%
0.7%
0.6%
2.6%
0.2%
0.1%

County
Lewis

Jefferson

St. Lawrence

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

(July 2015)

Excellent

13.8%

18.4%

15.6%

Good

51.7%

42.9%

50.0%

Fair

22.6%

28.5%

27.5%

Poor

11.8%

8.6%

6.5%

Dont Know

0.1%

1.7%

0.4%

Sample Size

396

392

442

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Education Level

Annual Household Income

HSG or less

Up to $25,000

Over $75,000

Excellent

12.1%

14.9%

19.1%

34.7%

10.7%

7.8%

14.0%

Good

52.2%

46.6%

59.5%

42.4%

46.2%

63.2%

57.6%

Fair

20.8%

28.4%

19.2%

14.5%

32.9%

22.0%

19.2%

Poor

15.0%

9.8%

2.1%

8.4%

10.2%

7.0%

9.2%

Don't Know/Not Sure

0.0%

0.4%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Sample Size

234

108

54

57

97

75

81

Page 39 of 104

Table 25 Availability of Good Jobs


2015 Lewis County Results:
Frequency
Excellent

Availability of good jobs

Percentage

1.7%

Good

51

13.0%

Fair

142

36.2%

Poor

189

48.2%

1.0%

392

100.0%

Don't Know/Not Sure


Totals

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


There was a significant shift from Fair to Poor between 2012-2014 and this shift has reversed between 2014-2015. The current rate of 15% indicating
Excellent or Good has remained very stable for nine years (always between 10%-20%).
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Excellent
2.0%
0.5%
2.4%
2.6%
0.0%
0.0%
3.1%
0.2%
1.7%
Good
14.9%
12.1%
9.2%
10.5%
10.1%
12.5%
12.4%
16.1%
13.0%
Fair
40.6%
40.0%
31.2%
27.8%
29.0%
42.6%
29.4%
30.2%
36.2%
Poor
41.0%
44.8%
55.6%
55.0%
57.2%
44.2%
53.0%
52.7%
48.2%
Dont know
1.5%
2.5%
1.6%
4.2%
3.7%
0.7%
2.0%
0.8%
1.0%

County
Lewis

Jefferson

St. Lawrence

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

(July 2015)

Excellent

1.7%

0.5%

0.9%

Good

13.0%

17.3%

9.3%

Fair

36.2%

35.2%

31.8%

Poor

48.2%

43.0%

55.7%

Dont Know

1.0%

3.9%

2.3%

Sample Size

392

387

442

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Education Level

Annual Household Income

HSG or less
Excellent

Up to $25,000

Over $75,000

2.7%

0.0%

1.0%

3.0%

0.1%

0.4%

3.7%

Good

12.5%

12.8%

15.2%

16.5%

10.5%

8.7%

8.4%

Fair

33.1%

33.5%

54.9%

34.5%

39.5%

27.6%

45.0%

Poor

50.9%

52.2%

28.5%

45.9%

49.9%

63.3%

39.1%

Don't Know/Not Sure

0.8%

1.5%

0.5%

0.2%

0.0%

0.0%

3.8%

Sample Size

230

108

54

57

97

75

81

Page 40 of 104

Table 26 Shopping Opportunities


2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Results have remained very consistent throughout 2007-2015.
2007
2008
Excellent
6.5%
11.8%
Good
29.1%
27.9%
Fair
32.8%
34.3%
Poor
31.1%
25.6%
Dont know
0.6%
0.5%

2009
6.1%
28.6%
37.7%
26.4%
1.3%

2010
3.2%
29.4%
35.4%
31.7%
0.3%

2011
2.7%
25.3%
42.2%
29.3%
0.4%

2012
4.7%
33.0%
37.7%
23.5%
1.0%

2013
8.5%
22.4%
46.4%
22.3%
0.3%

2014
4.8%
31.0%
36.6%
27.4%
0.2%

2015
5.2%
28.8%
38.2%
27.8%
0.0%

County
Lewis

Jefferson

St. Lawrence

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

(July 2015)

Excellent

5.2%

25.2%

4.5%

Good

28.8%

42.2%

16.2%

Fair

38.2%

20.9%

29.5%

Poor

27.8%

9.9%

49.1%

Dont Know

0.0%

1.7%

0.8%

Sample Size

395

393

442

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Education Level

Annual Household Income

HSG or less
Excellent

Up to $25,000

Over $75,000

7.8%

2.0%

0.8%

7.9%

5.3%

2.8%

3.7%

Good

34.5%

19.2%

23.1%

37.5%

20.8%

28.2%

31.7%

Fair

35.2%

40.4%

46.9%

45.3%

55.0%

39.2%

29.3%

Poor

22.6%

38.4%

29.2%

9.3%

18.9%

29.8%

35.3%

Don't Know/Not Sure

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Sample Size

234

108

54

57

97

75

81

Page 41 of 104

Table 27 Quality of K-12 Education


2015 Lewis County Results:

Quality of k-12 education

Frequency

Percentage

Excellent

118

30.0%

Good

207

52.8%

Fair

39

9.9%

Poor

18

4.5%

Don't Know/Not Sure

11

2.7%

Totals

392

100.0%

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


A significant decrease in Excellent or Good occurred between 2012-2013, at which time it was lowest rate found in 7-years of study (75%), and this
rate then set an all-time low again in 2014 of 73%. However, in 2015 this negative trend reversed to a current rate of 83% responding Excellent or
Good. A very noticeable shift from Fair to Excellent or Good occurred in the past year.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Excellent
37.2%
33.0%
39.1%
35.5%
27.4%
24.0%
29.1%
25.8%
30.0%
Good
44.7%
50.8%
46.1%
48.7%
52.5%
62.9%
46.0%
47.6%
52.8%
Fair
12.0%
11.2%
5.9%
7.8%
10.2%
9.5%
12.7%
21.2%
9.9%
Poor
2.9%
1.3%
2.2%
1.2%
3.9%
1.4%
5.2%
3.2%
4.5%
Dont know
3.2%
3.7%
6.7%
6.8%
6.2%
2.2%
6.9%
2.3%
2.7%

County
Lewis

Jefferson

St. Lawrence

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

(July 2015)

Excellent

30.0%

11.2%

12.7%

Good

52.8%

37.7%

52.4%

Fair

9.9%

30.8%

24.1%

Poor

4.5%

10.5%

4.5%

Dont Know

2.7%

9.8%

6.3%

Sample Size

392

390

440

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Education Level

Annual Household Income

HSG or less

Up to $25,000

Over $75,000

Excellent

25.8%

31.2%

46.1%

40.6%

30.6%

25.8%

37.6%

Good

60.2%

41.6%

43.5%

39.8%

54.4%

54.3%

48.1%

Fair

6.5%

20.0%

4.6%

12.2%

7.1%

16.5%

5.8%

Poor

4.6%

4.2%

4.5%

2.0%

5.3%

3.0%

7.6%

Don't Know/Not Sure

2.8%

3.1%

1.3%

5.4%

2.7%

0.4%

0.9%

Sample Size

231

108

53

57

97

75

77

Page 42 of 104

Table 28 Overall State of the Local Economy


2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Very significant improvement has been found between 2013-2015, with the Excellent or Good rate of 31% now being the second highest ever found in
9 years of study (highest since 2007), and a significant shift from Fair to Excellent or Good occurred in the past year.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Excellent
2.4%
0.2%
0.5%
1.3%
1.3%
0.5%
3.9%
1.5%
3.4%
Good
32.8%
21.4%
20.1%
21.6%
18.0%
29.9%
15.3%
22.0%
27.9%
Fair
44.4%
42.0%
35.2%
34.5%
36.7%
38.3%
50.7%
47.8%
37.8%
Poor
18.5%
33.7%
43.6%
40.7%
43.2%
30.3%
29.6%
26.3%
29.2%
Dont know
1.9%
2.6%
0.7%
1.7%
0.7%
1.0%
0.5%
2.5%
1.7%

County
Lewis

Jefferson

St. Lawrence

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

(July 2015)

Excellent

3.4%

3.0%

1.4%

Good

27.9%

29.4%

17.1%

Fair

37.8%

45.1%

40.7%

Poor

29.2%

21.4%

38.8%

Dont Know

1.7%

1.1%

2.0%

Sample Size

396

391

442

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Education Level

Annual Household Income

HSG or less
Excellent

Up to $25,000

Over $75,000

4.0%

1.0%

5.4%

3.0%

0.2%

2.6%

4.7%

Good

29.5%

19.2%

38.5%

26.7%

35.8%

24.2%

22.6%

Fair

33.5%

45.7%

40.5%

36.8%

27.8%

41.3%

46.3%

Poor

31.2%

31.6%

15.5%

32.4%

34.2%

31.9%

22.7%

Don't Know/Not Sure

1.9%

2.4%

0.0%

1.2%

1.9%

0.0%

3.6%

Sample Size

234

108

54

57

97

75

81

Page 43 of 104

Table 29 Availability of Care for the Elderly


2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Significant negative shift between 2014-2015, with the Fair or Poor rate increasing from 29% to 41%.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Excellent
11.5%
18.1%
12.3%
16.2%
8.9%
18.2%
Good
43.4%
45.9%
49.6%
48.5%
52.0%
51.9%
Fair
26.2%
17.4%
22.3%
20.6%
19.9%
17.7%
Poor
8.4%
12.0%
9.3%
7.6%
5.6%
6.9%
Dont know
10.4%
6.6%
6.5%
7.1%
13.5%
5.3%

2013
15.0%
39.0%
28.1%
9.6%
8.4%

2014
14.1%
50.6%
22.3%
6.3%
6.6%

2015
9.9%
47.1%
30.5%
10.4%
2.3%

County
Lewis

Jefferson

St. Lawrence

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

(July 2015)

Excellent

9.9%

8.2%

9.7%

Good

47.1%

34.1%

35.0%

Fair

30.5%

25.8%

29.8%

Poor

10.4%

14.6%

18.4%

Dont Know

2.3%

17.4%

7.1%

Sample Size

393

391

442

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Education Level

Annual Household Income

HSG or less

Up to $25,000

Over $75,000

Excellent

11.3%

7.6%

8.4%

26.5%

8.5%

8.3%

4.8%

Good

50.3%

42.5%

42.4%

50.1%

55.3%

47.7%

45.5%

Fair

28.7%

31.9%

35.2%

13.6%

21.8%

37.7%

32.9%

Poor

8.9%

14.6%

8.0%

9.9%

12.5%

6.4%

8.8%

Don't Know/Not Sure

0.8%

3.5%

5.9%

0.0%

1.9%

0.0%

8.0%

Sample Size

231

108

54

55

97

75

81

Page 44 of 104

Table 30 Availability of Housing


2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Not measured in any years previous to 2015 in Lewis County.

County
Lewis

Jefferson

St. Lawrence

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

(July 2015)

Excellent

11.6%

19.1%

8.5%

Good

50.9%

43.9%

45.9%

Fair

25.5%

17.2%

31.3%

Poor

6.6%

12.6%

10.3%

Dont Know

5.4%

7.3%

4.0%

Sample Size

396

391

440

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Education Level

Annual Household Income

HSG or less

Up to $25,000

Over $75,000

Excellent

12.5%

11.3%

8.4%

27.2%

6.9%

9.1%

7.5%

Good

49.1%

47.2%

66.0%

22.1%

58.6%

52.7%

65.0%

Fair

26.4%

28.7%

15.0%

36.7%

15.8%

34.5%

17.6%

Poor

5.8%

7.6%

8.2%

5.1%

12.2%

1.9%

4.2%

Don't Know/Not Sure

6.2%

5.3%

2.4%

8.9%

6.6%

1.9%

5.7%

Sample Size

234

108

54

57

97

75

81

Page 45 of 104

Table 31 Availability of Childcare


2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Not measured in any years previous to 2015 in Lewis County.

County
Lewis

Jefferson

St. Lawrence

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

(July 2015)

Excellent

4.6%

4.7%

Good

38.7%

29.6%

Fair

30.0%

27.6%

Poor

10.9%

16.7%

Dont Know

15.4%

21.4%

Sample Size

396

441

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Education Level

Annual Household Income

HSG or less
Excellent

Up to $25,000

Over $75,000

4.5%

4.4%

5.4%

4.9%

0.0%

3.2%

1.9%

Good

46.8%

23.6%

34.0%

31.8%

46.6%

39.9%

38.2%

Fair

29.9%

31.7%

29.6%

35.8%

24.7%

40.9%

24.6%

Poor

5.8%

21.9%

11.1%

10.8%

16.6%

9.6%

11.8%

13.1%

18.4%

19.8%

16.9%

12.2%

6.4%

23.5%

234

108

54

57

97

75

81

Don't Know/Not Sure


Sample Size

Page 46 of 104

Table 32 Availability of Behavioral Health Services


2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Not measured in any years previous to 2015 in Lewis County.

County
Lewis

Jefferson

St. Lawrence

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

(July 2015)

Excellent

6.2%

4.7%

Good

28.9%

28.5%

Fair

30.9%

29.7%

Poor

16.4%

20.0%

Dont Know

17.6%

17.1%

Sample Size

396

436

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Education Level

Annual Household Income

HSG or less
Excellent

Up to $25,000

Over $75,000

6.6%

7.7%

1.2%

21.0%

1.1%

0.1%

5.8%

Good

32.7%

21.2%

27.4%

19.7%

39.8%

38.1%

23.1%

Fair

29.2%

38.2%

24.0%

25.2%

41.0%

30.9%

27.7%

Poor

13.2%

17.8%

27.6%

11.4%

12.8%

14.7%

18.1%

Don't Know/Not Sure

18.3%

15.2%

19.8%

22.7%

5.3%

16.2%

25.3%

234

108

54

57

97

75

81

Sample Size

Page 47 of 104

Table 33 Overall Quality of Life in the Area


2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


No significant trend between 2007-2015, very stable and positive results.
2007
2008
2009
2010
Excellent
21.9%
21.4%
18.2%
17.5%
Good
52.2%
61.4%
55.2%
60.5%
Fair
21.0%
12.9%
20.2%
18.8%
Poor
4.9%
4.1%
6.3%
3.2%
Dont know
0.0%
0.2%
0.1%
0.0%

2011
18.1%
54.5%
19.5%
7.2%
0.7%

2012
13.5%
63.8%
20.1%
2.5%
0.0%

2013
22.0%
49.1%
25.3%
3.7%
0.0%

2014
21.5%
53.3%
17.2%
7.7%
0.3%

2015
20.0%
56.8%
21.2%
1.6%
0.3%

County
Lewis

Jefferson

St. Lawrence

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

(July 2015)

20.0%

6.8%

15.2%

Excellent
Good

56.8%

55.6%

46.0%

Fair

21.2%

27.4%

29.4%

Poor

1.6%

8.8%

8.9%

Dont Know

0.3%

1.3%

0.4%

Sample Size

396

392

441

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Education Level

Annual Household Income

HSG or less

Up to $25,000

Over $75,000

Excellent

18.7%

18.7%

28.6%

19.0%

12.2%

13.7%

18.1%

Good

57.5%

56.3%

55.0%

48.6%

72.8%

58.9%

58.7%

Fair

20.9%

25.0%

15.2%

32.4%

13.2%

26.6%

23.2%

Poor

2.5%

0.0%

1.2%

0.0%

1.8%

0.9%

0.0%

Don't Know/Not Sure

0.5%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Sample Size

234

108

54

57

97

75

81

Page 48 of 104

Table 34 What do you think is the most important issue facing the residents of
Lewis County at the present time?
2015 Lewis County Results:
Frequency

Percentage

Crime

11

2.9%

Drug, alcohol problems

32

8.7%

Economic decline (loss of industry, etc.)

65

17.3%

Education, problems with schools

14

3.7%

Environmental issues

0.5%

Health care issues

43

11.4%

Inefficient, ineffective government

31

8.2%

Intolerance

0.6%

"Isolation," lack of cult/recr/shop opps

0.6%

Lack of "community vision"

0.6%

51

13.6%

1.3%

Employment issues, loss of jobs, etc.


Military/civilian relations
Overall depressed economy

0.5%

10

2.8%

Youth related issues

1.1%

Energy issues (cost, availability)

0.0%

Housing

0.0%

Availability of care for the elderly

0.5%

Access to higher education

0.0%

Agriculture, price of milk

0.0%

Cost of Living

2.2%

Transportation

0.0%

Windmill Concerns

0.0%

Taxes

Budget, Spending, Mandates


Gun Control, the "NYS Safe Act"
Ebola Crisis
ISIS Terrorism

0.6%

13

3.5%

0.0%

1.8%

Presidential Election/Leadership

22

5.8%

Moral Values and Issues

18

4.8%

Global Warming, Climate Change

1.6%

Racism

0.4%

The Media

0.9%

Income Inequality

0.1%

All of the above

16

4.3%

Totals

373

100.0%

Page 49 of 104

Table 34 (cont.) What do you think is the most important issue facing the residents
of Lewis County at the present time?
Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:
Employment issues/Loss of jobs decreased significantly and tremendously between 2014-2015 from 47% to only 14%; Taxes also decreased from an
all-time high of 19% in 2014 to only 3% in 2015; while Healthcare, Inefficient government and leadership, Drugs/alcohol problems, and Moral
values and issues all were reported at all-time high rates in 2015.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Crime
Drug, alcohol problems
Economic decline (loss of industry)
Education, problems with schools
Environmental issues
Healthcare issues
Inefficient, ineffective government
Intolerance
"Isolation," lack of cult/recreation/shop opps.
Lack of "community vision"
Employment issues, loss of jobs, etc.
Military/civilian relations
Overall depressed economy
Taxes
Youth related issues
Energy issues (cost, availability)
Housing
Availability of care for the elderly
Access to higher education
Agriculture, the price of milk
Cost of living
Transportation
Windmill concerns
Budget, Spending, Mandates
Gun Control, the NYS SAFE Act
Ebola Crisis
ISIS Terrorism
Presidential Election/Leadership
Moral Values and Issues
Global Warming/Climate Change
Racism
The Media
Income Inequality
All of the above
Other issues

1.0%
2.7%
11.8%
1.2%
1.4%
4.8%
1.7%
0.4%
2.7%
1.3%
32.4%
1.1%
2.1%
18.2%
2.4%
5.2%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
8.8%

1.1%
0.5%
16.4%
0.7%
0.1%
4.0%
1.1%
0.0%
1.8%
0.8%
32.6%
0.6%
5.3%
12.2%
2.2%
20.2%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.4%
1.3%
19.3%
1.0%
0.9%
5.0%
2.5%
0.6%
1.6%
0.5%
33.8%
0.0%
4.3%
18.5%
2.5%
1.7%
0.3%
0.8%
1.2%
1.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.8%
1.0%

Page 50 of 104

0.0%
1.2%
24.0%
1.3%
1.4%
1.8%
2.7%
0.0%
0.4%
2.1%
39.8%
0.0%
3.1%
13.8%
2.5%
1.2%
2.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
1.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.4%
0.5%
23.4%
1.6%
1.1%
3.1%
1.5%
0.0%
5.0%
0.1%
36.8%
0.8%
1.7%
12.6%
3.4%
3.9%
0.8%
0.1%
0.3%
0.7%
0.5%
0.2%
0.0%
1.4%
1.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

3.9%
0.6%
17.5%
0.4%
0.4%
6.4%
3.7%
0.0%
2.1%
0.2%
40.2%
0.0%
1.3%
11.9%
2.6%
1.7%
0.5%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
4.5%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.4%
0.0%

0.0%
3.8%
10.9%
0.8%
0.7%
3.8%
3.6%
0.0%
0.1%
2.0%
49.3%
0.0%
0.8%
15.1%
1.1%
0.0%
1.1%
0.3%
0.0%
0.1%
1.4%
1.0%
0.0%
1.2%
2.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
0.0%

0.0%
0.3%
5.9%
1.6%
1.4%
1.5%
6.1%
0.0%
2.5%
0.7%
47.0%
0.0%
0.0%
18.7%
2.3%
1.8%
0.6%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
3.9%
0.3%
0.0%
2.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

2.9%
8.7%
17.3%
3.7%
0.5%
11.4%
8.2%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
13.6%
1.3%
0.5%
2.8%
1.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
2.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
3.5%
0.0%
1.8%
5.8%
4.8%
1.6%
0.4%
0.9%
0.1%
4.3%
0.0%

Table 34 (cont.) What do you think is the most important issue facing the residents
of Lewis County at the present time?
Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):
Gender

Age Group

Male

Female

18-29

30-39

40-49

50-59

60-69

70+

Crime

1.7%

4.2%

4.5%

6.6%

0.0%

3.0%

0.0%

2.7%

Drug, alcohol problems

11.6%

5.4%

34.8%

2.8%

1.0%

1.3%

6.7%

3.2%

Economic decline (loss of industry, etc.)

19.3%

15.1%

22.7%

13.7%

19.8%

24.5%

4.9%

12.4%

Education, problems with schools

4.5%

2.9%

0.0%

0.5%

8.5%

8.5%

1.0%

1.9%

Environmental issues

0.8%

0.1%

0.7%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

2.1%

Health care issues

13.3%

9.3%

1.8%

13.4%

20.4%

13.7%

8.7%

10.1%

Inefficient, ineffective government

7.6%

8.9%

4.7%

3.3%

8.4%

4.2%

18.1%

14.4%

Intolerance

0.8%

0.3%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

2.1%

2.0%

"Isolation," lack of cult/recr/shop opps

0.0%

1.3%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

4.0%

Lack of "community vision"

0.8%

0.3%

0.0%

0.0%

1.7%

0.0%

1.4%

0.6%

Employment issues, loss of jobs, etc.

13.4%

13.8%

10.4%

18.5%

15.4%

11.2%

18.8%

8.8%

Military/civilian relations

0.3%

2.4%

2.7%

3.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.6%

1.7%

Overall depressed economy

0.6%

0.5%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.8%

2.7%

0.0%

Taxes

2.5%

3.1%

0.0%

4.4%

3.4%

4.7%

1.6%

2.2%

Youth related issues

0.5%

1.8%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1.8%

0.0%

5.2%

Energy issues (cost, availability)

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Housing

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Availability of care for the elderly

0.0%

1.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

3.1%

Access to higher education

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Agriculture, price of milk

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Cost of Living

0.1%

4.6%

0.0%

2.3%

3.0%

3.4%

3.4%

1.2%

Transportation

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Windmill Concerns

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Budget, Spending, Mandates

0.2%

1.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1.3%

1.2%

0.9%

Gun Control, the "NYS Safe Act"

4.2%

2.8%

0.0%

16.3%

0.0%

4.8%

0.0%

0.0%

Ebola Crisis

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

ISIS Terrorism

0.9%

2.7%

0.0%

0.0%

2.5%

0.4%

2.6%

6.0%

Presidential Election/Leadership

4.4%

7.5%

8.9%

7.1%

3.4%

1.7%

6.8%

8.5%

Moral Values and Issues

5.5%

3.9%

3.3%

2.3%

9.0%

2.1%

10.6%

2.5%

Global Warming, Climate Change

1.2%

1.9%

0.0%

2.3%

3.4%

1.2%

0.6%

1.9%

Racism

0.4%

0.3%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1.7%

0.0%

0.0%

The Media

1.7%

0.0%

0.0%

3.0%

0.0%

2.1%

0.0%

0.0%

Income Inequality

0.0%

0.3%

0.0%

0.4%

0.0%

0.4%

0.0%

0.0%

All of the above

3.7%

4.8%

5.4%

0.0%

0.0%

7.2%

7.9%

4.7%

Sample Size

196

177

69

57

65

78

49

55

Page 51 of 104

Table 34 (cont.) What do you think is the most important issue facing the residents
of Lewis County at the present time?
Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 52 of 104

Section 3.5 Transportation


Table 35 Are you aware that Lewis County has a public transportation system?
2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Significant increase in Yes between 2009 and 2015 in Lewis County; not measured in either of Jefferson or St. Lawrence Counties in the past.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Yes
--72.5%
-----81.7%
No
--27.3%
-----17.1%
Not sure
--0.2%
-----1.2%

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 53 of 104

Table 36 How often do you use the Countys public transportation system to
commute to Utica?
2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County, and not measured in either of Jefferson or St. Lawrence Counties.

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 54 of 104

Section 3.6 Healthcare


Table 37 Do you currently have health insurance? (includes employer-provided,
privately purchased, Medicare, Medicaid, Military TriCare, etc.)
2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Significant increase in having health insurance between 2011-2015.
2007
2008
2009
Yes
---No
---Not sure
----

2010
----

2011
89.7%
10.3%
0.0%

2012
90.7%
9.3%
0.0%

2013
81.2%
18.8%
0.0%

County
Lewis

Jefferson

St. Lawrence

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

(July 2015)

Yes

96.2%

97.9%

91.5%

No

2.8%

2.0%

8.2%

Not sure

1.0%

0.1%

0.3%

Sample Size

390

362

440

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 55 of 104

2014
87.1%
12.7%
0.2%

2015
96.2%
2.8%
1.0%

Table 38 In the past 12 months have you not obtained needed medical treatment
because of cost?
2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


No significant change in ignored needed medical care between 2011-2015.
2007
2008
2009
2010
Yes
----No
----Not sure
-----

2011
11.1%
88.8%
0.1%

2012
10.4%
89.1%
0.5%

2013
13.5%
84.7%
1.8%

2014
13.9%
85.8%
0.2%

County
Lewis

Jefferson

St. Lawrence

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

(July 2015)

Yes

10.0%

9.0%

13.5%

No

89.0%

90.6%

86.1%

Not sure

1.0%

0.4%

0.3%

Sample Size

389

362

441

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

(ignored was 42% among uninsured in Lewis County in each of 2013 and 2014)
Page 56 of 104

2015
10.0%
89.0%
0.9%

Table 39 Which of the following most closely describes your opinion about the
Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)?
2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Significant increase in familiarity with ACA between 2013-2015, and increased support for believe that it is good, but needs changing during that time.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
In favor as is.
------12.7%
9.7%
7.5%
Its good but needs changing.
------22.3%
29.2%
39.5%
Repeal the ACA.
------28.9%
35.6%
26.4%
Not familiar with ACA.
------26.7%
17.4%
18.9%
Not sure
------9.4%
8.1%
7.6%

County

In favor as is.
Its good but needs changing.
Repeal the ACA.
Not familiar with ACA.
Not sure
Sample Size

Lewis

Jefferson

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

St.
Lawrence

7.5%
39.5%
26.4%
18.9%
7.6%
384

11.6%
36.0%
34.0%
17.3%
1.1%
365

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 57 of 104

(July 2015)

Table 39 (cont.) Which of the following most closely describes your opinion about
the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)?
Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 58 of 104

Table 40 How has the Affordable Care Act affected the healthcare of you and your
family?
2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


In 2013 this survey question measured expected ACA impact, while in 2014 and 2015 it measured realized ACA impact. Clearly the reality is lesser
impact upon persons healthcare than expected. Residents are twice as likely to indicate ngatively as they are to indicate positively.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
More positively
24.4%
7.7%
10.8%
------More negatively
45.0%
22.0%
26.5%
------Neither
10.6%
62.7%
46.1%
------Both
1.3%
3.4%
12.3%
------Not sure
18.6%
4.2%
4.3%
-------

County
Lewis

Jefferson

St. Lawrence

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

(July 2015)

10.8%
26.5%
46.1%
12.3%
4.3%
282

12.5%
19.1%
61.2%
5.9%
1.3%
302

More positively
More negatively
Neither
Both
Not sure
Sample Size

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):


Gender

Age Group

Male

Female

18-29

30-39

40-49

50-59

60-69

70+

More positively

9.7%

12.1%

21.5%

8.3%

4.8%

9.3%

15.0%

7.1%

More negatively

35.2%

17.5%

12.5%

41.0%

30.2%

27.7%

21.9%

23.4%

Neither (no change for my family)

49.4%

42.6%

34.9%

38.4%

55.5%

47.4%

41.7%

60.5%

Both (some +, some -)

4.5%

20.4%

31.2%

8.0%

7.7%

11.3%

10.9%

2.8%

Not sure

1.3%

7.4%

0.0%

4.3%

1.8%

4.3%

10.5%

6.2%

Sample Size

143

139

43

41

53

74

44

27

Page 59 of 104

Table 40 (cont.) How has the Affordable Care Act affected the healthcare of you
and your family?
Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 60 of 104

Table 41 Based on what you know about Lewis County General Hospital, would
you prefer that the hospital remain county-owned, or prefer that it
become a nonprofit, not-county-owned hospital?
2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


In 2014 there is significantly less support for remaining county-owned than found in either of 2012 or 2013, however, in 2015 rate of support returned to
the 2012-2013 rates.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Remain county-owned.
-----58.3%
63.0%
50.9%
62.5%
Become a non-profit, not county-owned.
-----17.1%
15.1%
14.7%
13.5%
Neither
-----2.2%
3.8%
7.2%
5.5%
Not sure/Dont know
-----22.4%
18.1%
27.2%
18.6%

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 61 of 104

Table 42 If Lewis County General Hospital needed additional funding to conduct


operations, we are interested in what amount you would be willing to pay
to support the hospital that would be added to your annual county tax
bill. Please tell me which of the following five statements is closest to
your opinion. (among only those who currently own a home or other property in Lewis
County, 83% of participants, n=319, are homeowners)
2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


No significant trend between 2014-2015.
$0 (no budget support)
Up to $100 annually
Between $100-$200 annually
Between $200-$500 annually
More than $500 annually

Not sure/Dont know

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

-------

-------

-------

-------

-------

-------

-------

50.5%
35.1%
5.0%
0.6%
0.1%
8.6%

54.1%
30.4%
7.1%
2.1%
0.7%
5.6%

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Education Level

Annual Household Income

HSG or less

Up to $25,000

Over $75,000

$0 (no budget support)

64.8%

40.6%

35.7%

57.5%

47.3%

53.2%

51.3%

Up to $100 annually

28.9%

32.5%

32.6%

29.7%

42.0%

30.1%

27.3%

Between $100-$200 annually

2.3%

11.7%

18.2%

6.2%

4.8%

8.7%

12.9%

Between $200-$500 annually

0.7%

3.7%

5.0%

0.8%

0.7%

0.8%

3.0%

More than $500 annually

0.0%

0.5%

4.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

3.4%

Don't Know/Not Sure

3.3%

11.0%

4.5%

5.8%

5.1%

7.2%

2.2%

Sample Size

186

87

45

35

90

66

68

Page 62 of 104

Section 3.7 Education


Table 43 Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Lewis County
schools are adequately preparing our young people for the technology
and economy of the future."?
2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Tremendous and significant decrease in Strongly Agree between 2010-2015 from 35% to 15%, while disagreement has significantly increased from
5% in 2010 to 17% in 2015 (Disagree + Strongly Disagree combined). However, the 2015 results are an improvement from the results in 2014, which
were the least positive ever measured.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Strongly Agree
---34.6% 26.5% 18.6% 13.2% 10.1% 14.5%
Agree
---43.8% 46.7% 60.5% 60.1% 58.3% 54.1%
Neutral/No opinion
---16.2%
8.7%
9.6%
8.3%
8.7%
14.2%
Disagree
---4.4%
9.8%
8.5%
11.2% 19.7% 14.8%
Strongly Disagree
---1.0%
8.4%
2.8%
7.2%
3.2%
2.4%

County
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral/No opinion
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Sample Size

Lewis

Jefferson

St. Lawrence

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

(July 2015)

14.5%
54.1%
14.2%
14.8%
2.4%
383

5.4%
46.3%
16.3%
18.9%
17.0%
395

6.1%
45.0%
20.3%
24.0%
4.6%
438

Page 63 of 104

Table 43

(cont.)

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Lewis


County schools are adequately preparing our young people for the
technology and economy of the future."?

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 64 of 104

Table 44 How do you feel about the implementation of the Common Core
Standards in New York schools? Has it
2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County, and not measured in either of Jefferson or St. Lawrence Counties.

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):


Gender

Age Group

Male

Female

18-29

30-39

40-49

50-59

60-69

70+

Improved public education

8.2%

8.7%

18.0%

9.7%

6.2%

2.9%

7.5%

6.6%

Worsened public education

37.4%

43.2%

16.4%

42.7%

56.5%

51.4%

47.1%

27.4%

Had no meaningful effect on public education

11.9%

10.7%

4.9%

25.0%

9.7%

7.5%

16.2%

10.3%

"I don't have enough information."

34.9%

30.7%

44.0%

22.5%

22.2%

33.0%

24.6%

47.1%

Don't know/No opinion

7.6%

6.8%

16.8%

0.0%

5.5%

5.3%

4.5%

8.6%

Sample Size

191

192

73

52

69

82

50

57

Page 65 of 104

Table 45 Who do you trust more to improve K-12 education in New York State,
Governor Cuomo or the teachers' unions?
2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County.

County
Governor Cuomo
Teachers Unions
Neither
Dont Know
Sample Size

Lewis

Jefferson

St. Lawrence

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

(July 2015)

6.7%
71.3%
0.0%
22.1%
376

13.6%
70.9%
0.7%
14.8%
390

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 66 of 104

Section 3.8 Charitable Activities and Planning


Table 46 Please estimate how many hours per month that you volunteer for
community service activities such as church, school and youth activities,
charitable organizations, local government boards, and so forth.
2015 Lewis County Results:
Frequency

Percentage

None

167

43.8%

Up to 5 hours

76

20.1%

6-10 hours

48

12.6%

11-20 hours

45

11.8%

More than 20 hours

44

11.6%

Totals

380

100.0%

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


No significant change in at least some between 2007-2015.
2007
2008
None
40.1%
40.6%
1-5 hours
27.6%
25.0%
6-10 hours
13.9%
11.2%
11-20 hours
8.8%
14.0%
21+ hours
9.6%
9.2%

2009
43.1%
21.4%
13.8%
10.0%
11.7%

2010
------

2011
------

2012
37.1%
12.0%
22.9%
11.2%
16.9%

2013
41.7%
19.1%
13.4%
12.6%
13.2%

County
None
1-5 hours
6-10 hours
11-20 hours
21+ hours
Sample Size

Lewis

Jefferson

St. Lawrence

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

(July 2015)

43.8%
20.1%
12.6%
11.8%
11.6%
380

45.1%
17.1%
10.3%
10.9%
16.5%
389

Page 67 of 104

2014
39.6%
14.8%
15.1%
18.0%
12.5%

2015
43.8%
20.1%
12.6%
11.8%
11.6%

Table 46

(cont.)

Please estimate how many hours per month that you volunteer for
community service activities such as church, school and youth
activities, charitable organizations, local government boards, and
so forth.

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 68 of 104

Table 47 Do you have a will?


2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County.

County
Yes
No
Not sure
Sample Size

Lewis

Jefferson

St. Lawrence

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

(July 2015)

49.6%
48.8%
1.6%
380

36.6%
62.9%
0.4%
389

39.2%
59.7%
1.1%
434

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 69 of 104

Table 48 Have you included a local charitable organization as a beneficiary in


your will?
2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County.

County
Yes
No
Not sure
Sample Size

Lewis

Jefferson

St. Lawrence

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

(July 2015)

12.8%
83.2%
4.0%
186

15.4%
82.5%
2.2%
143

14.2%
85.4%
0.5%
171

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 70 of 104

Section 3.9 County Government


Table 49 Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? "I feel that I am
adequately informed about issues facing the County."
2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Significant decrease in Strongly Disagree or Disagree between 2013-2015 (from 45% to 37%).
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Strongly agree
-----Agree
-----Disagree
-----Strongly disagree
-----Not sure
------

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 71 of 104

2012
------

2013
7.4%
43.7%
33.5%
11.5%
3.9%

2014
7.0%
50.3%
32.8%
6.5%
3.5%

2015
3.3%
52.9%
31.0%
5.9%
6.9%

Table 50 Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? "I feel that my
local elected county officials represent my concerns effectively."
2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Significant increase in Strongly Agree or Agree between 2013-2015 (from 44% to 51%).
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Strongly agree
-----Agree
-----Disagree
-----Strongly disagree
-----Not sure
------

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 72 of 104

2012
------

2013
3.2%
41.2%
27.2%
19.5%
8.9%

2014
3.2%
47.1%
33.8%
5.8%
10.2%

2015
2.3%
48.9%
34.8%
5.8%
8.1%

Table 51 Do you support or oppose Lewis County providing low interest loans to
small businesses for start up or expansion?
2015 Lewis County Results:
Frequency

Percentage

Support

322

86.0%

Oppose

33

8.9%

Not sure/It depends

19

5.1%

Totals

375

100.0%

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County, and not measured in either of Jefferson or St. Lawrence Counties.

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 73 of 104

Section 3.10 The Local Economy


Table 52 What is your current occupation?
2015 Lewis County Results:
Retired
Not currently employed

Percentage

94

25.4%

2.1%

Homemaker

19

5.2%

Student

17

4.6%

Military

0.2%

Managerial

16

4.3%

Medical

24

6.6%

Professional/Technical
Occupation

Frequency

2.4%

Sales

29

7.7%

Clerical

10

2.8%

Service

21

5.7%

Blue-collar

71

19.2%

Teacher/Education

19

5.2%

Self-employed

17

4.7%

1.3%

Not Sure
Disabled

10

2.7%

Totals

369

100.0%

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


No significant change throughout 2008-2015.
Retired
Not employed
Homemaker
Student
Military
Managerial
Medical
Professional/Technical
Sales
Clerical
Service
Blue Collar
Teacher/Education
Self-employed
Not sure
Disabled

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

-----------------

21.3%
6.6%
7.9%
1.2%
1.2%
4.0%
5.4%
6.0%
3.6%
2.8%
5.7%
14.2%
6.7%
11.6%
1.7%
0.0%

21.3%
5.3%
6.1%
2.0%
0.9%
4.6%
6.9%
8.5%
2.9%
3.3%
6.1%
12.9%
5.2%
13.6%
0.5%
0.0%

22.0%
5.7%
6.0%
1.2%
2.4%
5.4%
7.2%
6.5%
5.7%
5.5%
3.3%
10.6%
5.1%
10.6%
0.6%
2.3%

20.5%
6.6%
4.4%
0.8%
4.6%
6.0%
8.8%
5.5%
2.9%
6.0%
3.9%
20.9%
5.2%
2.4%
0.6%
0.9%

22.7%
2.7%
8.3%
1.8%
0.6%
3.1%
4.0%
8.4%
2.2%
6.4%
5.6%
17.0%
3.5%
10.7%
0.1%
3.0%

23.6%
7.9%
6.5%
1.8%
0.3%
4.1%
5.4%
3.5%
1.8%
3.3%
3.7%
19.8%
4.3%
8.9%
2.9%
2.3%

23.1%
6.3%
2.8%
3.3%
0.0%
1.3%
6.2%
4.1%
4.4%
2.3%
2.1%
24.5%
8.0%
7.1%
1.3%
3.3%

25.4%
2.1%
5.2%
4.6%
0.2%
4.3%
6.6%
2.4%
7.7%
2.8%
5.7%
19.2%
5.2%
4.7%
1.3%
2.7%

County

Retired
Unemployed
Homemaker
Student
Employed for Wages
Self-employed
Disabled
Sample Size

Lewis

Jefferson

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

St.
Lawrence

25.4%
2.1%
5.2%
4.6%
54.1%
4.7%
2.7%
369

16.6%
1.9%
5.7%
7.0%
66.7%
1.7%
0.3%
396

24.4%
7.3%
1.2%
5.5%
52.6%
4.1%
4.7%
440

(July 2015)

Page 74 of 104

Table 52 (cont.) What is your current occupation?


Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):
Gender

Age Group

Male

Female

18-29

30-39

40-49

50-59

60-69

70+

Retired

20.3%

30.4%

0.0%

0.0%

2.4%

13.2%

58.0%

92.3%

Not currently employed

0.0%

4.1%

3.3%

0.0%

1.5%

4.5%

0.0%

1.1%

Homemaker

0.6%

9.7%

10.4%

5.2%

9.3%

1.3%

0.0%

4.0%

Student

0.3%

8.8%

21.4%

1.2%

0.0%

1.5%

0.0%

0.0%

Military

0.5%

0.0%

1.2%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Managerial

5.2%

3.4%

4.3%

5.1%

8.0%

5.5%

1.8%

0.0%

Medical

0.0%

13.0%

1.4%

12.8%

14.7%

6.0%

6.0%

0.0%

Professional/Technical

3.5%

1.3%

0.0%

6.5%

5.4%

0.8%

2.7%

0.5%

Sales

10.5%

5.1%

18.6%

4.4%

11.2%

7.2%

0.6%

0.0%

Clerical

0.0%

5.7%

1.4%

1.2%

5.6%

4.3%

3.6%

0.3%

Service

7.4%

4.0%

10.5%

12.8%

1.5%

6.3%

2.8%

0.0%

Blue-collar

36.4%

2.2%

17.1%

31.8%

23.7%

23.4%

17.8%

1.7%

Teacher/Education

3.0%

7.3%

4.9%

6.9%

11.4%

5.4%

1.4%

0.0%

Self-employed

7.8%

1.7%

2.8%

11.3%

5.2%

5.6%

4.7%

0.2%

Not Sure

0.0%

2.6%

2.7%

0.0%

0.0%

3.6%

0.0%

0.0%

Disabled

4.6%

0.8%

0.0%

0.8%

0.0%

11.3%

0.6%

0.0%

Sample Size

183

185

71

48

64

81

47

59

Education Level

Annual Household Income

HSG or less
Retired

Up to $25,000

Over $75,000

31.1%

17.6%

18.0%

46.7%

21.0%

15.4%

Not currently employed

3.1%

0.9%

0.0%

7.1%

2.7%

1.3%

0.0%

Homemaker

6.3%

3.8%

3.6%

15.3%

2.8%

4.4%

1.9%

Student

6.4%

3.2%

0.0%

10.9%

8.3%

0.0%

1.9%

Military

0.0%

0.8%

0.0%

0.0%

0.9%

0.0%

0.0%

Managerial

1.3%

4.3%

16.2%

1.2%

2.7%

5.3%

9.6%

Medical

3.4%

12.9%

6.9%

3.4%

4.7%

10.6%

9.1%

Professional/Technical

0.3%

5.0%

5.3%

0.0%

3.7%

3.8%

2.5%

Sales

8.3%

9.5%

2.3%

4.5%

13.8%

5.1%

7.6%

Clerical

1.3%

7.4%

0.0%

0.3%

4.8%

3.9%

2.0%

Service

2.7%

9.4%

10.1%

0.3%

6.0%

12.5%

6.3%

Blue-collar

8.4%

24.1%

17.9%

2.1%

1.5%

11.6%

24.1%

30.0%

Teacher/Education

0.9%

3.2%

25.5%

0.0%

1.1%

5.1%

13.8%

Self-employed

5.2%

3.2%

5.7%

0.8%

7.5%

5.3%

6.8%

Not Sure

1.4%

0.0%

3.5%

0.0%

3.1%

2.6%

0.0%

Disabled

4.2%

0.7%

0.7%

8.0%

5.2%

0.6%

0.0%

Sample Size

211

104

54

57

96

73

80

Page 75 of 104

Table 53 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?
2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


The rate of responding Worse in 2015 is now at an all-time low of 18%, less than one-half of what was found in 2008 (40%), and significantly lower
than was found as recently as in 2013 (28%).
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Better
-11.9%
11.2%
12.4%
11.7%
13.6%
17.9%
13.2%
17.9%
Same
-48.0%
55.1%
55.0%
57.0%
60.8%
52.8%
65.1%
61.8%
Worse
-40.1%
33.6%
30.1%
30.1%
25.3%
28.4%
21.6%
18.4%
Dont Know
-0.0%
0.1%
2.6%
1.2%
0.3%
0.8%
0.1%
1.9%

County
Better
Same
Worse
Dont Know
Sample Size

Lewis

Jefferson

St. Lawrence

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

(July 2015)

17.9%
61.8%
18.4%
1.9%
374

29.5%
48.5%
21.2%
0.8%
396

24.9%
56.5%
17.8%
0.8%
439

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 76 of 104

Section 3.11 State Government, and Political Issues


Table 54 How would you classify your political beliefs?
2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


No significant change between 2008-2015 when comparing the rates of Conservative vs. Liberal vs. Neither (Middle of the Road, or Dont Know).
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Very Conservative
-7.6%
6.4%
8.5%
6.9%
7.3%
5.9%
6.8%
4.0%
Conservative
-29.3%
30.3%
27.4%
28.2%
26.4%
26.5%
28.1%
24.1%
Middle of the Road
-42.3%
39.4%
40.5%
45.3%
52.7%
44.0%
36.0%
54.5%
Liberal
-11.0%
10.3%
8.9%
9.7%
6.1%
11.1%
7.9%
8.8%
Very Liberal
-0.4%
2.5%
3.2%
2.1%
2.3%
0.8%
0.8%
1.1%
Dont Know
-9.4%
11.1%
11.5%
8.0%
5.2%
11.8%
20.3%
7.5%

County
Very Conservative
Conservative
Middle of the Road
Liberal
Very Liberal
Dont Know
Sample Size

Lewis

Jefferson

St. Lawrence

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

(July 2015)

4.0%
24.1%
54.5%
8.8%
1.1%
7.5%
365

3.5%
22.4%
49.5%
10.1%
2.1%
12.4%
355

4.1%
22.2%
42.5%
10.5%
2.5%
18.2%
435

Page 77 of 104

Table 54 (cont.) How would you classify your political beliefs?


Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 78 of 104

Table 55 Which comes closest to your point of view regarding raising the
minimum wage in New York State over the next several years?
2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County, and not measured in either of Jefferson or St. Lawrence Counties.

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 79 of 104

Table 56 Are you aware that approximately 90% of homeowners local property
tax levy goes to New York State to fund nine state mandated programs
such as Medicaid, and Indigent Defense? The state requires these
programs to be provided by local government but does not provide the
funding to do so.
2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County, and not measured in either of Jefferson or St. Lawrence Counties.

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 80 of 104

Table 57 Do you believe that the New York State property tax cap is an effective
way to manage property taxes, in other words, do you believe that the
property tax cap at 2% gives counties and school districts sufficient
ability to effectively and efficiently manage their budgets?
2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County, and not measured in either of Jefferson or St. Lawrence Counties.

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 81 of 104

Table 58 How would you rate the job that Andrew Cuomo is doing as Governor of
New York State?
2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County.

County
Lewis

Jefferson

St. Lawrence

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

(July 2015)

Excellent

3.8%

4.0%

Good

18.0%

20.9%

Fair

39.5%

32.8%

Poor

35.7%

39.0%

Dont Know

2.9%

3.3%

Sample Size

368

392

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 82 of 104

Section 3.12 Internet Access and Use


Table 59 Do you have school age children in your home who are unable to
complete homework because they do not have adequate access to a
quality broadband connection?
2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County, and not measured in either of Jefferson or St. Lawrence Counties.

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 83 of 104

Table 60 In the past 30 days have you used the Internet at all?
2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County, and not measured in either of Jefferson or St. Lawrence Counties.

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 84 of 104

Table 61 At which of the following locations do you use the Internet? (among
Internet users)
2015 Lewis County Results:
Among
CURRENT
INTERNET
USERS
(n=296)

Extrapolated to
among
ALL
PARTICIPANTS
(n=368)

Home

92.7%

74.5%

Work

42.7%

34.3%

School

16.4%

13.2%

Friends or Family House


Community Organization

30.7%
16.9%

24.7%
13.6%

Local Businesses (Wi-Fi)

18.7%

15.0%

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County, and not measured in either of Jefferson or St. Lawrence Counties.

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015): (NOTE: results below are among current Internet users)

Education Level

Annual Household Income

HSG or less

Up to $25,000

Over $75,000

Home

91.6%

93.1%

95.0%

78.1%

88.9%

95.8%

97.2%

Work

28.1%

49.8%

71.6%

12.8%

40.8%

54.3%

56.9%

School

5.5%

31.7%

18.9%

3.2%

12.9%

14.7%

26.5%

Friends or Family House

28.3%

36.0%

27.5%

55.2%

39.1%

23.5%

27.9%

Community Organization

13.7%

23.3%

14.0%

17.7%

19.6%

14.2%

15.4%

Local Businesses (Wi-Fi)

13.4%

26.1%

20.2%

5.3%

19.4%

14.9%

26.0%

Page 85 of 104

Table 62 Do you have access to the Internet at home? (among all participants)
2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County, and not measured in either of Jefferson or St. Lawrence Counties.

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 86 of 104

Table 63 How are you accessing the Internet in your home? (among those who have
Internet access at their home)
2015 Lewis County Results:
Among THOSE
WHO HAVE
INTERNET
ACCESS AT
HOME
(n=299)

Extrapolated to
among
ALL
PARTICIPANTS
(n=368)

Cable

40.8%

33.1%

DSL

41.2%

33.5%

Satellite
Cellular Phone (using data)

7.5%
17.7%

6.1%
14.4%

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County, and not measured in either of Jefferson or St. Lawrence Counties.

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 87 of 104

Table 64 What Internet access options do you have where your home is located?
(among those who have Internet access at their home)
2015 Lewis County Results:
Among THOSE
WHO HAVE
INTERNET
ACCESS AT
HOME
(n=299)

Cable

52.1%

DSL

55.7%

Satellite
Cellular Phone (using data)

37.9%
34.4%

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County, and not measured in either of Jefferson or St. Lawrence Counties.

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 88 of 104

Table 65 Does anyone in your household use the Internet to work and/or complete
college coursework or training from your home? (among those who have
Internet access at their home)
2015 Lewis County Results:
Among THOSE
WHO HAVE
INTERNET
ACCESS AT
HOME

Extrapolated to
among
ALL
PARTICIPANTS

Work

13.1%

10.5%

Coursework

15.0%

12.1%

Both

8.0%

6.4%

Neither

61.5%

49.5%

Dont know

2.4%

1.9%

Samle Size

296

368

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County, and not measured in either of Jefferson or St. Lawrence Counties.

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 89 of 104

Table 66 Using smart home technology in ones home. (among those who have
Internet access at their home)
2015 Lewis County Results:
Among THOSE
WHO HAVE
INTERNET
ACCESS AT
HOME

Extrapolated to
among
ALL
PARTICIPANTS

Security

1.2%

1.0%

Energy Efficiency

11.0%

8.8%

Both

7.6%

6.1%

Neither

77.1%

61.8%

Not sure
Samle Size

3.0%
295

2.4%
368

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County, and not measured in either of Jefferson or St. Lawrence Counties.

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 90 of 104

Table 67 How would you rate the quality of the Internet service at home? (among
those who have Internet access at their home)
2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County, and not measured in either of Jefferson or St. Lawrence Counties.

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 91 of 104

Table 68 Do you own, operate, or work on a farm? (among all participants)


2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County, and not measured in either of Jefferson or St. Lawrence Counties.

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 92 of 104

Table 69 Does the farming equipment at your farm have Internet capability?
(among those employed at a farm)
2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County, and not measured in either of Jefferson or St. Lawrence Counties.

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 93 of 104

Table 70 Would you be interested in the integration of smart farming techniques to


assist with things like crop hydration, soil quality monitoring, veterinary
visits through video conferencing? (among those employed at a farm)
2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Not measured in earlier studies in Lewis County, and not measured in either of Jefferson or St. Lawrence Counties.

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 94 of 104

Section 3.13 Familiarity with the Center for Community Studies at JCC
Table 71 Have you ever heard of the Center for Community Studies at JCC before
this survey?
2015 Lewis County Results:

Lewis County Trend Analysis and NNY Regional Comparison:


Significant increase in familiarity between 2008-2015, with the current level the highest ever found 46% (was only 30% in 2008).
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Yes
-30.1%
41.8%
-37.2%
--42.1%
46.0%
No
-68.8%
57.9%
-61.0%
--57.2%
51.6%
Not sure
-1.1%
0.3%
-1.8%
--0.7%
2.4%

County
Lewis

Jefferson

St. Lawrence

(October 2015)

(April 2015)

(July 2015)

Yes

46.0%

36.1%

16.2%

No

51.6%

63.5%

82.3%

Not sure

2.4%

0.4%

1.5%

363

388

441

Sample Size

Lewis County Cross-tabulations (2015):

Page 95 of 104

Section 4 - Final Comments


This report is a presentation of the information collected from 396 telephone interviews of adult residents of Lewis
County, New York conducted during the evenings of October 26-28, 2015 with comparisons to similar annual surveys
completed in Lewis County in each of 2007 through 2014, and when possible, comparisons to recent (2015) results in each
of the neighboring Northern New York Counties of Jefferson 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, we are available to make
presentations of these survey findings to community groups and organizations upon request. Please contact:
The Center for Community Studies
1220 Coffeen Street
Watertown, NY 13601
Telephone: (315) 786-2264
Joel LaLone, Research Director
jlalone@sunyjefferson.edu
www.sunyjefferson.edu/community-business/center-community-studies
The Tenth Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community is tentatively scheduled for October 2016.

Page 96 of 104

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 9th Annual Lewis 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% (that
would be 40,000 out of the 100,000) would agree. In general, one can never guarantee with 100% certainty that a statistic
for some random sample will perfectly, exactly, result the same as the population value that describes the entire population
(this value is called a parameter). Fortunately, considering the types of variables and resulting data that typically are
generated in survey research, use of the statistical tools of probability distributions and sampling distributions allows the
determination of a very important distance the distance that one would expect 95% of the samples of size n to fall either
above or below the true population value. This distance is commonly referred to as the margin of error. Once this distance
(margin of error) is measured, there is a 95% probability that the sample result (the result of the n=500 sampled participants
in the illustration above) will fall within that distance of the true population value. Therefore, to construct the very useful and
easily-interpreted statistical estimation tool known as a confidence interval, all one must do is calculate the margin of error
and add-and-subtract it to-and-from the sample result (statistic) and the outcome is that there is a 95% chance that the
resulting interval does, in fact, include the true population value within the interval.
To illustrate the above-described concepts of margin of error and confidence intervals, recall that the margin of error
for this survey has been earlier stated in Table 4 in the Methodology section in this report as approximately 3.9 percentage
points. 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 Lewis County adult residents were surveyed (rather than only the 396
that were actually surveyed), the percentage that would result for all residents would be within 3.9 percentage points of
the sample percentage that we surveyed, calculated, and reported in this study. For example, in Table 13, it can be
observed that 34.0% of the sample of 396 adults reported that they believe that opportunities for youth in Lewis County are
At Least Good (Excellent or Good). With this sample result, one could infer with 95% confidence that if all Lewis County
adults were asked somewhere between 30.1% and 37.9% of the population of approximately 20,000 adults in Lewis
County believe that opportunities for youth in the county are At Least Good (started with the 34.0% that was found in the
sample and added-and-subtracted a margin of error of 3.9%). This resulting interval (30.1%37.9%) 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 396 participants in this study to the entire adult population
of Lewis 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 smaller demographic
subgroups, such as only those over the age of 60), the resulting margin of error will be larger than 3.9 percentage points.
Table 4 presented earlier in this report, (and, copied again as the following Table 72) provides approximate margin of error
values that should be used with sample sizes of less than n=396.

Page 97 of 104

Table 72 Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes


Sample Size
(n=)

Approximate Margin
of Error

30
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
325
350
375
396

14.3%
11.1%
9.0%
7.8%
7.0%
6.4%
5.9%
5.5%
5.2%
5.0%
4.7%
4.5%
4.3%
4.2%
4.0%
3.9%

Margin of Error More Detail for Those Interested in Maximizing Precision and Accuracy of Estimates
The introductory example on the preceding page used a margin of error of 3.9%, as a result of an illustration that
used all 396 participants in this study. However, again, the margin of error when using the sample results in this study to
construct a confidence interval to estimate a population percentage will not always be 3.9%. There is not one universal
value of a margin of error that can be precisely calculated and used for the results for every question included in this survey,
or for that matter, any multiple-question survey. Calculation methods used in this study for generating the margin of error
depend upon the following three factors, which include two factors in addition to the sample-size factor that has just been
addressed:
1.

The sample size is the number of adults who validly answered the survey question. The sample
size will not always be n=396 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 (160400=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.
In mathematical notation, the margin of error for each sample result for this study would be represented as:

ME = 1.96

p (100 p )
n

Where n=sample size = # valid responses to the survey question


p=sample percentage for the survey question (between 0%-100%)
1.96 = the standard normal score associated with the 95% confidence level
Since the sample size varies (in fact, 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 73) has been provided for the reader to determine the correct margin of error to use whenever constructing a
Page 98 of 104

confidence interval using the sample data presented in this study. This table was generated using the ME formula shown
on the preceding page.

Table 73 More Detailed Margins of Error for Varying Sample Sizes and Varying
Sample Proportions
Varying Sample Sizes (n=):
125
150
200
250

Varying Sample %'s:

30

50

75

100

2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
22%
24%
26%
28%
30%
32%
34%
36%
38%
40%
42%
44%
46%
48%
50%
52%
54%
56%
58%
60%
62%
64%
66%
68%
70%
72%
74%
76%
78%
80%
82%
84%
86%
88%
90%
92%
94%
96%
98%

5.0%
7.0%
8.5%
9.7%
10.7%
11.6%
12.4%
13.1%
13.7%
14.3%
14.8%
15.3%
15.7%
16.1%
16.4%
16.7%
17.0%
17.2%
17.4%
17.5%
17.7%
17.8%
17.8%
17.9%
17.9%
17.9%
17.8%
17.8%
17.7%
17.5%
17.4%
17.2%
17.0%
16.7%
16.4%
16.1%
15.7%
15.3%
14.8%
14.3%
13.7%
13.1%
12.4%
11.6%
10.7%
9.7%
8.5%
7.0%
5.0%

3.9%
5.4%
6.6%
7.5%
8.3%
9.0%
9.6%
10.2%
10.6%
11.1%
11.5%
11.8%
12.2%
12.4%
12.7%
12.9%
13.1%
13.3%
13.5%
13.6%
13.7%
13.8%
13.8%
13.8%
13.9%
13.8%
13.8%
13.8%
13.7%
13.6%
13.5%
13.3%
13.1%
12.9%
12.7%
12.4%
12.2%
11.8%
11.5%
11.1%
10.6%
10.2%
9.6%
9.0%
8.3%
7.5%
6.6%
5.4%
3.9%

3.2%
4.4%
5.4%
6.1%
6.8%
7.4%
7.9%
8.3%
8.7%
9.1%
9.4%
9.7%
9.9%
10.2%
10.4%
10.6%
10.7%
10.9%
11.0%
11.1%
11.2%
11.2%
11.3%
11.3%
11.3%
11.3%
11.3%
11.2%
11.2%
11.1%
11.0%
10.9%
10.7%
10.6%
10.4%
10.2%
9.9%
9.7%
9.4%
9.1%
8.7%
8.3%
7.9%
7.4%
6.8%
6.1%
5.4%
4.4%
3.2%

2.7%
3.8%
4.7%
5.3%
5.9%
6.4%
6.8%
7.2%
7.5%
7.8%
8.1%
8.4%
8.6%
8.8%
9.0%
9.1%
9.3%
9.4%
9.5%
9.6%
9.7%
9.7%
9.8%
9.8%
9.8%
9.8%
9.8%
9.7%
9.7%
9.6%
9.5%
9.4%
9.3%
9.1%
9.0%
8.8%
8.6%
8.4%
8.1%
7.8%
7.5%
7.2%
6.8%
6.4%
5.9%
5.3%
4.7%
3.8%
2.7%

2.5%
3.4%
4.2%
4.8%
5.3%
5.7%
6.1%
6.4%
6.7%
7.0%
7.3%
7.5%
7.7%
7.9%
8.0%
8.2%
8.3%
8.4%
8.5%
8.6%
8.7%
8.7%
8.7%
8.8%
8.8%
8.8%
8.7%
8.7%
8.7%
8.6%
8.5%
8.4%
8.3%
8.2%
8.0%
7.9%
7.7%
7.5%
7.3%
7.0%
6.7%
6.4%
6.1%
5.7%
5.3%
4.8%
4.2%
3.4%
2.5%

2.2%
3.1%
3.8%
4.3%
4.8%
5.2%
5.6%
5.9%
6.1%
6.4%
6.6%
6.8%
7.0%
7.2%
7.3%
7.5%
7.6%
7.7%
7.8%
7.8%
7.9%
7.9%
8.0%
8.0%
8.0%
8.0%
8.0%
7.9%
7.9%
7.8%
7.8%
7.7%
7.6%
7.5%
7.3%
7.2%
7.0%
6.8%
6.6%
6.4%
6.1%
5.9%
5.6%
5.2%
4.8%
4.3%
3.8%
3.1%
2.2%

1.9%
2.7%
3.3%
3.8%
4.2%
4.5%
4.8%
5.1%
5.3%
5.5%
5.7%
5.9%
6.1%
6.2%
6.4%
6.5%
6.6%
6.7%
6.7%
6.8%
6.8%
6.9%
6.9%
6.9%
6.9%
6.9%
6.9%
6.9%
6.8%
6.8%
6.7%
6.7%
6.6%
6.5%
6.4%
6.2%
6.1%
5.9%
5.7%
5.5%
5.3%
5.1%
4.8%
4.5%
4.2%
3.8%
3.3%
2.7%
1.9%

Average

14.3%

11.1%

9.0%

7.8%

7.0%

6.4%

5.5%

Page 99 of 104

300

350

396

1.7%
2.4%
2.9%
3.4%
3.7%
4.0%
4.3%
4.5%
4.8%
5.0%
5.1%
5.3%
5.4%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
6.0%
6.1%
6.1%
6.2%
6.2%
6.2%
6.2%
6.2%
6.2%
6.2%
6.1%
6.1%
6.0%
6.0%
5.9%
5.8%
5.7%
5.6%
5.4%
5.3%
5.1%
5.0%
4.8%
4.5%
4.3%
4.0%
3.7%
3.4%
2.9%
2.4%
1.7%

1.6%
2.2%
2.7%
3.1%
3.4%
3.7%
3.9%
4.1%
4.3%
4.5%
4.7%
4.8%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.4%
5.5%
5.5%
5.6%
5.6%
5.6%
5.7%
5.7%
5.7%
5.6%
5.6%
5.6%
5.5%
5.5%
5.4%
5.4%
5.3%
5.2%
5.1%
5.0%
4.8%
4.7%
4.5%
4.3%
4.1%
3.9%
3.7%
3.4%
3.1%
2.7%
2.2%
1.6%

1.5%
2.1%
2.5%
2.8%
3.1%
3.4%
3.6%
3.8%
4.0%
4.2%
4.3%
4.5%
4.6%
4.7%
4.8%
4.9%
5.0%
5.0%
5.1%
5.1%
5.2%
5.2%
5.2%
5.2%
5.2%
5.2%
5.2%
5.2%
5.2%
5.1%
5.1%
5.0%
5.0%
4.9%
4.8%
4.7%
4.6%
4.5%
4.3%
4.2%
4.0%
3.8%
3.6%
3.4%
3.1%
2.8%
2.5%
2.1%
1.5%

1.4%
1.9%
2.3%
2.7%
3.0%
3.2%
3.4%
3.6%
3.8%
3.9%
4.1%
4.2%
4.3%
4.4%
4.5%
4.6%
4.7%
4.7%
4.8%
4.8%
4.9%
4.9%
4.9%
4.9%
4.9%
4.9%
4.9%
4.9%
4.9%
4.8%
4.8%
4.7%
4.7%
4.6%
4.5%
4.4%
4.3%
4.2%
4.1%
3.9%
3.8%
3.6%
3.4%
3.2%
3.0%
2.7%
2.3%
1.9%
1.4%

5.0%

4.5%

4.2%

3.9%

Illustration of how to use Table 73 to determine the correct margin of error when investigating subgroups:
To estimate the percentage in the entire population of Lewis 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 28 to determine the sample size
and percentage of this sample of males who respond with at least good. From Table 28 it is found that 33.6% of the sampled
males replied with at least good, and the sample size of males in this study was n=200 males. Reference to Table 73 on
the preceding page indicates that the appropriate margin of error would be 6.6% (used p=34%, the closest to 33.6% that
is shown in Table 73; and used n=200, the closest to 200 that is included in Table 73). Therefore, we can be 95% confident
that if all Lewis 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 6.6% of the 33.6% found in our sample. The interpretation
of this would be that we are 95% confident that among all Lewis County adult males the percentage who believe that the
state of the local economy is at least good would be somewhere between 27.0% and 40.2%. Note that this margin of error
of 6.6 percentage points is larger than the earlier-cited study margin of error of approximately 3.9 percentage points as a
result of there being only 200 males in this sample (n=200, not 396, for this analysis).
It should be noted that the margin error is a measurement of random error, error due to simply the random chance
of sampling. For example, if one were to flip a fair coin n=300 times, the population percentage for the percentage of the
time that the coin would result with a head is, of course, 50%. Use of Table 73 indicates that with a margin of error of 5.7%,
one would determine that there is a 95% chance that a sample of n=300 flips would fall with 5.7% of this real population
value of 50%. In other words, there is a 95% chance that the sample result will be between 50%5.7%, between 44.3%
and 55.7%. Only 5% of the time would a sample of n=300 flips result with either less than 44.3% heads, or greater than
55.7% heads.
However, in survey research, it is not coins that are being flipped; it is humans who are being interviewed. When
surveying humans there are other potential sources of error, sources of error in addition to random error (which is the only
error encompassed by the margin of error). Response error, nonresponse error, process error, bias in sample selection,
bias in question-phrasing, lack of clarity in question-phrasing, and undercoverage are common sources of other-thanrandom error. Methods that should be, and have been in this Lewis County study, employed to minimize these other
sources of error are: maximum effort to select the sample randomly, piloting and testing of utilized survey questions,
extensive training of all data collectors (interviewers), and application of post-stratification algorithms. Hence, when using
this study data to make estimates to the entire Lewis County adult populations, as is the case in standard survey research
practices, the margin of error will be the only error measurement cited and interpreted.

Significance Testing Testing for Statistically Significant Trends, 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, tests for differences between counties, and tests for significantly correlated factors with measured variables
are presented as well.
A comment or two regarding statistical significance could help readers of varying quantitative backgrounds most
appropriately interpret the results of what has been statistically analyzed. Again, because the data for the 9th Annual Lewis
County Survey of the Community is based on a sample of 396 adult residents, as opposed to obtaining information from
every single adult resident in Lewis County, there must be a method of determining whether an observed relationship or
difference in the sample survey data is likely to continue to hold true if every adult resident of the county were, in fact,
interviewed. To make this determination, tests of statistical significance are standard practice in evaluating sample
survey data.
For example, if the sample data shows that male residents are more likely to report that opportunities for youth are
at least good (Excellent or Good) in Lewis County than female residents (34.3% vs. 33.6%, respectively, Table 13), the
researcher would want to know if this higher satisfaction with opportunities for youth among male residents would still be
present if they interviewed every Lewis County adult rather than just the sample of 396 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=396 randomly selected adults from the approximately 20,000 adults in Lewis
County), then the results of these samples would not consistently show that male residents are more likely to report that
opportunities for youth are at least good in Lewis County than female residents; some samples would have males higher
Page 100 of 104

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=396 Lewis County residents would be interpreted
as small enough that it could be due simply to the random chance of sampling not statistically significant. Again, the
determination of how far apart is far enough apart to be statistically significant? is calculated by using sampling distributions
and the margins of error described earlier. These tools allow the measurement of how far apart sample subgroups must be
to be interpreted as a very unlikely difference to occur simply by random chance (if one assumes that the population values
for the subgroups are, in fact, equal).
Conversely, the meaning of statistically significant is that if the sample were repeated many more times, then the
results of these samples would consistently show that male Lewis County adults are more likely to report that opportunities
for youth 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. The interpretation of a statistically significant difference is that
it is so large that there is a probability of less than 5% that this difference occurred simply due to the random chance of
sampling (if one assumes that the population values for the subgroups are, in fact, equal) instead, it is considered a real
difference. In statistical vocabulary and notation, this would be represented as a p-value of less than 5% (p<0.05).
Often times with survey data, a Chi Square Test is utilized to determine whether an observed difference is or is not
large enough to be a statistically significant difference. An alternative to the use of a traditional Chi Square Test to answer
the question posed above (the question: Is perception of opportunities for youth in the county as at least good significantly
related to gender i.e. males and females differ significantly in their perceptions regarding opportunities for youth?) will be
used throughout this study. Each correlational investigation in this report is presented in its own cross-tabulation table (e.g.
an investigation for a relationship between Age and perception about real estate taxes is presented in its own table). As
a result of approximately 50 outcome variables in this study each cross-tabulated by all four of the potential explanatory
variables of Gender, Age, Education, and Income, and cross-tabulated by years-studied, if possible there are more than
200 cross-tabulation correlational investigation tables included in the Detailed Statistical Results section of this report.
This large number of cross-tabulation tables (combined with the variety of ways that the response distribution for many
survey questions could be collapsed) suggests that an alternative, more versatile, approach to testing for significance in the
cross-tabulation tables is utilized. Therefore, rather than calculating and reporting the results for every cross-tabulation
table, the following method is recommended.
When the reader wishes to determine whether or not an observed difference in a cross-tabulation table is statistically
significant (e.g. Does the 34.3% of the 200 sampled males in Lewis County believing that opportunities for youth are at
least good differ significantly from the 33.6% of the 196 sampled females who expressed this perception?), the following
mathematical method is recommended for this 2015 Lewis County 9th Annual Survey of the Community:
When the confidence intervals of two estimates of the same indicator from
different areas (or, subgroups) do not overlap, they may be said to be statistically
significantly different, i.e., these differences are unlikely related to chance and are
considered true differences. If there is any value that is included in both intervals,
the two estimates are not statistically significantly different.
In other words, the reader may identify the specific response choice of interest is one interested in only
investigating Excellent, or more interested in collapsing the two possible response choices Excellent and Good together
or, does one want only to investigate Strongly Agree, or does one prefer to collapse Strongly Agree and Somewhat
Agree together? Then, after observing the sample sizes at the bottom of the cross-tabulation tables, one may again refer
to Table 73 in this study to identify the correct margins of error if estimating proportions (or, percentages or rates) for
subgroups. With these two margins of error, two separate confidence intervals may be constructed, and this overlap-vs.non-overlap rule may be applied to determine whether or not the observed sample difference between demographic
subgroups should be considered statistically significant.
To illustrate with the gender and perception regarding opportunities for youth potential relationship described
earlier:
For Males:

n=200, and p=34.3% respond at least good; therefore from Table 73 the approximate
margin of error is 6.6%. The resulting confidence interval is: 34.3%6.6%, or (27.7%,40.9%)

For Females:

n=196, and p=33.6% respond at least good; therefore from Table 73 the approximate
margin of error is 6.6%. The resulting confidence interval is: 33.6%6.6%, or (27.0%,40.2%)

Since these two confidence intervals do overlap, the difference between males and females is not considered
statistically significant. In other words, attitude about opportunities for youth in Lewis County is not significantly related to
Page 101 of 104

gender, the 0.7% difference in rates found among males and females (34.3% among males, and 33.6% among females) is
small enough to be quite likely that it could be due simply to the chance of random sampling with samples of size 200 and
196, respectively, if the entire populations of males and females are truly not different in their perceptions of opportunities
for youth.
Again, keep in mind the difference between the analyses that include all 396 sampled residents versus those that
involved questions that were only asked of certain subgroups (e.g. only those who are currently employed on a farm asked
some further question). When interpreting the cross-tabulations completed in this study, partitioning the overall sample of
n=396 by levels of some demographic factors such as Education Level, sample sizes within specific factor/level
combinations can become quite small, which will drive the margin of error to be much larger. With these small sample sizes,
extremely large sample differences must be found to be considered statistically significant (p<0.05).
When possible, comparisons are made between the current results and the results in the eight earlier Lewis County
Annual Surveys (2007-2014). The research question that is being investigated in these comparisons is, Has there been a
statistically significant change among the Lewis County residents between 2007 and 2015? When interpreting the
comparisons that have been provided, the reader should consider the following factors. The earlier studies used telephoneinterviewing methodology that was virtually identical to that which was utilized in the present 2015 Lewis County study, as
well as similar post-stratification weighting procedures. However, the earlier survey instruments that were used are not
exactly the same instrument that has been used in 2015. Therefore, only the questions/items that were also measured in
some earlier year, along with measurement in 2015, of course, are available for trend analysis to compare with the current
2015 results. With the similar methodologies and weighting procedures that have been applied, it is valid to make
comparisons between the studies observe changes or trends.
The same concept of statistical significance that was described in the preceding paragraphs about Correlational
Analyses is also applied when a researcher attempts to investigate for whether or not results in Lewis County have changed
significantly over the past nine years; however, the focus now becomes the comparison of the 2015 Lewis County result to
the earlier Lewis County results, and the same overlap-vs.-non-overlap rule recommended above may be applied to
determine whether or not the observed sample difference between years should be considered statistically significant.
To illustrate a trend analysis, consider the Overall State of the Local Economy variable. Reference to Table 28
shows that:
In 2013: n=378 participants, and p=19.2% respond at least good; therefore from Margin of Error Table in the 2013
report, the approximate margin of error is 3.9%. The resulting confidence interval is: 19.2%3.9%, or
(15.3%,23.1%)
In 2015: n=396 participants, and p=31.3% respond at least good; therefore from Table 73 in the 2015 report, the
approximate margin of error is 4.6%. The resulting confidence interval is: 31.3%4.6%, or (26.7%,35.9%)

Since these two confidence intervals do not overlap, the difference between 2013 and 2015 (the 2-year trend) is
considered statistically significant. In other words, attitude about the overall state of the local economy in Lewis County has
improved significantly changed between 2013 and 2015.
Finally, once again the same concept of statistical significance that has been described in the preceding paragraphs
about Correlational Analyses and Trend Analysis may be applied when a researcher attempts to investigate for whether
or not results in Lewis County are significantly different from the results in Jefferson and/or St. Lawrence County. However,
the focus now becomes the comparison of the Lewis County results to another countys results, rather than the comparison
of the 2015 Lewis County result to earlier Lewis County results, or the comparison of subgroups within the 2015 Lewis
County data. The same overlap-vs.-non-overlap rule recommended earlier may be applied to determine whether or not
the observed sample difference between counties should be considered statistically significant.
To illustrate a county-comparison analysis, consider the Quality of K-12 Education variable. Reference to Table
27 shows that in year 2015:
In Lewis County:

n=392 participants, and p=82.8% respond at least good; therefore from Table 73, the approximate
margin of error is 3.8%. The resulting confidence interval is: 82.8%3.8%, or (79.0%,86.6%)

In Jefferson County: n=390 participants, and p=48.9% respond at least good; therefore from Table 73, the
approximate margin of error is 4.9%. The resulting confidence interval is: 48.9%4.9%, or
(44.0%,53.8%)

Since these two confidence intervals do not overlap, the difference between Lewis and Jefferson Counties is
considered statistically significant. In other words, attitude about the quality of K-12 education in Lewis County is
significantly more positive than is the case in Jefferson County.
Page 102 of 104

Finally, the preceding comments regarding statistically significant differences between subgroups, and statistically
significant changes between study years, are comments addressing statistical significance which, of course, is not
one-and-the-same as practical significance. The reader should be reminded that statistical significance addresses the
concept of probability, as follows is this difference likely to occur in a sample of size n=396 if there is no difference in the
entire sampled populations could the result simply be due to chance? However, practical significance is an interpretation
that is left to the subject area expert, since practical significance addresses the concept of usefulness, as follows is this
result useful in the real world? A difference identified in a sample may be statistically significant without being practically
significant, however, a difference identified in a sample may not be practically significant without being statistically
significant.
Please direct any questions regarding margin of error, confidence intervals, other sources of sampling error, tests
of statistical significance, and practical significance to the professional staff at the Center for Community Studies.

Page 103 of 104

The Survey Instrument

Page 104 of 104

9th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community - 2015


Introduction
Goodevening.Mynameis(firstname),IamastudentatJeffersonCommunityCollege,howareyoudoingthis
evening(afternoon)?Thiscallisnottoaskformoneyordonations,IamcallingfortheCenterforCommunity
StudiesatJCC.WeareconductingtheninthannualLewisCountysurveyofthecommunitywedothissurvey
everyyearinOctoberweareinterestedinyouropinionsaboutthequalityoflifeandfuturedirectionofLewis
County.Doyouhaveafewminutestodoasurveyforus(or,helpusout)?
IfNO...Mighttherebeanotheradultinthehomewhomightwishtoparticipateoristhereamoreconvenient
timetocall?
IfYES...(Firstverifythatthepersonis18yearsold.)Great,well,let'sbegin.
IMPORTANTESPECIALLYWITHCELLPHONESVerifythattheydoliveinLewisCounty,iftheydonotthen
justthankthemfortheirtimeandwishthemagoodday/evening.

OurfirsttwoquestionsareaboutthechoicetoliveinLewisCounty.
Q1:HowlonghaveyoulivedinLewisCounty?
Lessthan1year

47years

13years

Morethan7years

Q2:DoyouexpectyouwillstillbelivinginLewisCountyin5years?
Yes

No

Notsure

QualityofLifeIndicators

Page 1

9th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community - 2015


Next,ImgoingtoreadyoualistofcharacteristicsoflifeinLewisCounty.Pleasetellus
howyouvieweachaspectofthecountyonascaleofEXCELLENTGOODFAIRPOOR.
Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Don't
Know/NotSure

Q3.Opportunitiesforyouth
Q4.Cultural/entertainmentopportunities
Q5.Costofenergy
Q6.Healthcareaccess
Q7.Healthcarequality
Q8.Accesstohighereducation
Q9.Publicoutdoorrecreationalopportunities
Q10.Qualityoftheenvironment
Q11.Countygovernment
Q12.Townandvillagegovernment
Q13.Realestatetaxes
Q14.Policingandcrimecontrol
Q15.Availabilityofgoodjobs
Q16.Shoppingopportunities
Q17.QualityofK12education
Q18.Theoverallstateofthelocaleconomy
Q19.Availabilityofcarefortheelderly.
Q20.Availabilityofhousing
Q21.Availabilityofchildcare
Q22.Availabilityofbehavioralhealthservices
Q23.Theoverallqualityoflifeinthearea

Page 2

9th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community - 2015


Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Don't
Know/NotSure

Q24:WhatdoyouthinkistheMOSTIMPORTANTISSUEfacingtheresidentsofourNATION
atthepresenttime?(DoNotReadChoices)

Other(pleasespecify)

Transportation
OurnexttwoquestionsrelatetopublictransportationinLewisCounty.

Q25:AreyouawarethatLewisCountyhasapublictransportationsystem?
Yes

No

Notsure

Q26.HowoftendoyouusetheCountyspublictransportationsystemtocommutetoUtica?
Daily

Rarely,<1/month

23times/week

Never

Once/week

Notsure

Once/month

Healthcare
Ournextfewitemsrelatetohealthcare.
Q27.Doyoucurrentlyhavehealthinsurance?(includesemployerprovided,privately
purchased,Medicare,Medicaid,MilitaryTriCare,etc.)
Yes

No

Notsure

Q28.Inthepast12monthshaveyounotobtainedneededmedicaltreatmentbecauseof
cost?
Yes

No

Notsure

Page 3

9th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community - 2015


Q29.WhichofthefollowingmostcloselydescribesyouropinionabouttheAffordableCare
Act(Obamacare)?(READthefirstfourchoicesaloud)
"InfavoroftheAffordableCareActasitis,letscontinuetoseehowitworks."
"TheconceptoftheAffordableCareActisagoodidea,butpartsneedtobechanged."
"TheAffordableCareActshouldberepealed,notfunded."
NOTFAMILIAR
Notsure
Other(pleasespecify)

Page 4

9th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community - 2015


IffamiliarwiththeAffordableCareAct:
Q30.HowhastheAffordableCareActaffectedthehealthcareofyouandyourfamily?
(ONLYREADthefirstfourchoicesaloud)
Morepositively
Morenegatively
Neither(nochangeformyfamily)
Both(some+,some)
Notsure

FurtherHealthcareQuestions:
Q31.BasedonwhatyouknowaboutLewisCountyGeneralHospital,wouldyoupreferthat
thehospitalremaincountyowned,orpreferthatitbecomeanonprofit,notcountyowned
hospital?(donotreadchoices)
Remaincountyowned.
Becomeanonprofitnotcountyownedhospital.
Neither
Notsure/Don'tKnow
Comments:

Q32.DoyoucurrentlyownahomeorotherpropertyinLewisCounty?
Yes

No

Notsure

Ifapropertyowner(taxpayer):

Page 5

9th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community - 2015


Q33.IfLewisCountyGeneralHospitalneededadditionalfundingtoconductoperations,we
areinterestedinwhatamountyouwouldbewillingtopaytosupportthehospitalthat
wouldbeaddedtoyourannualcountytaxbill.
Pleasetellmewhichofthefollowingfivestatementsisclosesttoyouropinion.(Readfirst
five)
No,youwouldnotsupportadditionaltaxesusedtosupportthehospital.
Yes,yousupporta$50$100taxincreaseannually
Yes,yousupporta$100$200taxincreaseannually
Yes,yousupporta$200$500taxincreaseannually
Yes,yousupportataxincreaseofmorethan$500annually
Don'tKnow/NotSure

Page 6

9th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community - 2015


Education
Ournextfewquestionsareabouteducationissues.
Q34.Doyouagreeordisagreewiththefollowingstatement:"LewisCountyschoolsare
adequatelypreparingouryoungpeopleforthetechnologyandeconomyofthefuture."
(Probefor"strongly")
Stronglyagree

Agree

Neutral/NoOpinion/

Disagree

StronglyDisagree

NotSure

Q35.HowdoyoufeelabouttheimplementationoftheCommonCoreStandardsinNew
Yorkschools?(READthefirstfourchoicesaloud)
"ImprovedpubliceducationinNewYork."
"WorsenedpubliceducationinNewYork."
"HadnomeaningfuleffectonpubliceducationinNewYork."
"Idon'thaveenoughinformation."
Don'tknow/Noopinion
Other(pleasespecify)

Q36:WhodoyoutrustmoretoimproveK12educationinNewYorkState,GovernorCuomo
ortheteachers'unions?(besuretofullyread"teachers'unions")
GovernorCuomo

Teachers'Unions

Don'tknow/Noopinion

CommunityOrganizationQuestions
READTHIS:
"OurnextthreequestionsarebeingaskedonbehalfofsomeLewisCountycommunityorganizations."
IFASKED:"NorthernNYCommunityFoundation"

Q37.PleaseestimatehowmanyHOURSPERMONTHthatyouvolunteerforcommunity
serviceactivitiessuchaschurch,schoolandyouthactivities,charitableorganizations,
localgovernmentboards,andsoforth.(EnteraNUMBER,if"NONE",thentypeinthezero)

Page 7

9th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community - 2015


Q38.Doyouhaveawill?
Yes

No

Notsure

Ifhaveawill:
Q39.Haveyouincludedalocalcharitableorganizationasabeneficiaryinyourwill?
(beneficiary=nonprofitgroup)
Yes

No

Notsure

LocalGovernmentandEconomy
OurnextsetofquestionsrelatestolocalgovernmentandeconomyinLewisCounty.

Q40.Doyouagreeordisagreewiththefollowingstatement?
"IfeelthatIamadequatelyinformedaboutissuesfacingtheCounty."
Stronglyagree

Agree

Disagree

Stronglydisagree

Notsure

Q41.Doyouagreeordisagreewiththefollowingstatement?
"Ifeelthatmylocalelectedcountyofficialsrepresentmyconcernseffectively."
Stronglyagree

Agree

Disagree

Stronglydisagree

Notsure

Q42:DoyousupportoropposeLewisCountyprovidinglowinterestloanstosmall
businessesforstartuporexpansion?
Support

Oppose

Notsure/Itdepends

Q43:Whenconsideringyouoryourfamily'spersonalfinancialsituationhasitgotten
BETTER,stayedabouttheSAME,orgottenWORSEinthepast12months?
Better

Same

Worse

Don'tKnow

StateGovernmentIssues
WenowhaveasetofquestionsaboutNewYorkStateGovernmentissues.

Page 8

9th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community - 2015


Q44.Whichcomesclosesttoyourpointofviewregardingraisingthestate'sminimum
wageoverthenextseveralyears?(Readthefirstfourchoicesaloud)
ThereshouldbeNOINCREASEintheminimumwage.
ThereshouldbeanINCREASEintheminimumwage,butNOTASHIGHas$15/hour
ThereshouldbeanINCREASEintheminimumwage,TO$15/hour
ThereshouldbeanINCREASEintheminimumwage,toHIGHERthan$15/hour
Don'tknow/Noopinion

Page 9

9th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community - 2015


Q45.Areyouawarethatapproximately90%ofhomeowners'localpropertytaxlevygoesto
NewYorkStatetofund9statemandatedprogramssuchasMedicaid,andIndigent
Defense.Thestaterequirestheseprogramstobeprovidedbylocalgovernmentbutdoes
notprovidethefundingtodoso?
Yes,Iwasaware.

No,Iwasnotaware.

Notsure.

Q46:DoyoubelievethattheNewYorkStatepropertytaxcapisaneffectivewaytomanage
propertytaxes,inotherwords,doyoubelievethepropertytaxcapat2%givescounties
andschooldistrictssufficientabilitytoeffectivelyandefficientlymanagetheirbudgets?
Yes

No

Notsure

Q47:HowwouldyouratethejobthatAndrewCuomoisdoingasGovernorofNewYork
State?Wouldyourateitasexcellent,good,fair,orpoor?
Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Don'tknow/No
opinion

InternetAccessandUse
OurfinalsetofsurveyquestionsbeforeabriefsetofdemographicshastodowithInternetaccessandusein
ruralLewisCounty.

48:Doyouhaveschoolagechildreninyourhomewhoareunabletocompletehomework
becausetheydonothaveadequateaccesstoaqualitybroadbandconnection?
Yesmychildrenhavethisproblem.
No,Idonothaveanyschoolagedchildreninmyhome.
No,mychildrendonothavethisproblem.
Notsure

Q49:Inthepast30dayshaveyouusedtheInternetatall?
Yes

No

Don'tknow/Notsure

AmongInternetUsersWhereused?
Q50:AtwhichofthefollowinglocationsdoyouusetheInternet?(readlistofchoices)
Home

Work

School

Friendsor
FamiliesHouse

Community
Organizations

Local
Businesses(WiFi)

Page 10

9th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community - 2015


Internetaccessathome?
Q51.DoyouhaveaccesstotheInternetathome?
Yes

No

Don'tknow/Notsure

AmongthosewithhomeInternetaccess:
Q52:HowareyouaccessingtheInternetinyourhome?(readallfourchoices)
Cableconnection
DSLConnection
SatelliteDishConnection
CellularConnectionUsingData(notWiFi)
Other(pleasespecify)

Q53:WhatInternetaccessoptionsdoyouhavewhereyourhomeislocated?(readallfour
choices)
Cableconnection
DSLConnection
SatelliteDishConnection
CellularConnectionUsingData(notWiFi)
Other(pleasespecify)

Q54:DoesanyoneinyourhouseholdusetheInternetto:(readthefirsttwochoices)
Workfromhome?

Complete

Both

Neither

Don'tknow

coursework,including
collegeorjobtraining?

Q55:Areyouutilizingsmarthometechnologyinyourhometo:(readfirsttwochoices)
Assistwithsecurity

Assistwithenergy

Both

Neither

Notsure

efficiency

Page 11

9th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community - 2015


Q56.HowwouldyouratethequalityoftheInternetserviceatyourhome?(Readfirstfour
choices)
Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Don'tknow/Notsure

InternetuseinAgriculture
Q57:Doyouown,operate,orworkonafarm?
Yes,own.

No.

Yes,operate/manage.

Notsure

Yes,workonafarm,butnotowner/operator.

AmongCurrentFarmers:
Q58:DoesthefarmingequipmentatyourfarmhaveInternetcapability?
Yes,andweusethatcapability.
Yes,butwedonotusethatcapability.
No.
Notsure.

Q59:Wouldyoubeinterestedintheintegrationofsmartfarmingtechniquestoassistwith
thingslikecrophydration,soilqualitymonitoring,veterinaryvisitsthroughvideo
conferencing?
Yes

No

Notsure

Demographics
Wearealmostfinished.Theselastfewquestionshelpustogetabettersenseofwhethertherandomlyselected
peoplewearecallingaccuratelyreflectsthecharacteristicsofthegeneralpopulationofLewisCounty.

*Q60.Age:Iamgoingtoreadsomecategoriesofageclassification.Pleasestopme
whenIgettothecategoryinwhichyouragefalls.
Teens

Fifties

Twenties

Sixties

Thirties

Seventies

Forties

Eightyorolder

Page 12

9th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community - 2015

*Q61.Education:Iamgoingtoreadsomecategoriesrelatingtoeducation.Pleasestop
mewhenIgettothecategoryinwhichyourhighestlevelofformaleducationfalls.
Lessthanahighschoolgraduate
Highschoolgraduate(includeGED)
Somecollege,nodegree(includetechnicalschool)
AssociateDegree
Bachelor'sDegree
GraduateDegree

Q62.Whatisyourcurrentoccupation?(donotreadallofthechoices)
Retired

Sales(includesretail,marketing,customerservice,...)

Notcurrentlyemployed(butnotretired)

Clerical(officesupport,administrativesupport,typist,...)

Homemaker

Service(Restaurant,bartender,catering,...)

Student

Bluecollar(Production,Carpentry,Plumbing,Mechanic)

Military

Teacher/Education

Managerial(Supervisorormanageratabusiness)

Selfemployed,ownabusiness

Medical(Physician,dentist,chiropractor,nurse,healthaide,...)

NotSure

Professional/Technical(Nonsupervisor,engineer,law,accountant,

Disabled

socialservices...)
Other(pleasespecify)

Q63.Howwouldyouclassifyyourpoliticalbeliefs?(readthelistofchoices)
Veryconservative
Conservative
MiddleoftheRoad
Liberal
VeryLiberal
Don'tKnow

Page 13

9th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community - 2015


Q64.Howmanypersonsliveinyourhousehold,includingyou?
1

10+

Page 14

9th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community - 2015


Q65.ArethereanychildrenwholiveinyourhouseholdwhocurrentlyattendpublicK12
schoolinLewisCounty?
Yes

No

Notsure

*Q66.InwhatLewisCountyvillageortownshipdoyoureside?

Other(pleasespecify)

Q67.Householdincomerange:Iamgoingtoreadsomecategoriesrelatingtoincome.
PleasestopmewhenIgettothecategoryinwhichyouryearlyhouseholdincomefalls:
Refused

$50,001$75,000

Upto$10,000

$75,001$100,000

$10,001$25,000

$100,001$125,000

$25,001$50,000

Over$125,000

*Q68.Ifyoudon'tmindmeasking...whatisyourgender?
Male

Female

*Q69.Isthephoneyouarenowspeakingonalandlineoracellphone?
Landline

Cellphone

Refused

*Q70.Whichofthefollowingdescribesyourphoneownership?Youhave....
BothaCellPhoneandaLandline
Landlineonly
Cellphoneonly
Refused

Q71.HaveyoueverheardoftheCenterforCommunityStudiesatJCCbeforethissurvey?
Yes

No

Notsure

Q72.Areyou,oranimmediatefamilymemberorrelative,acurrentorretiredemployeeof
LewisCountyGeneralHospital?
Yes(currentorretiredLCGHemployee)
No
Refused

Page 15

9th Annual Lewis County Survey of the Community - 2015


FinalComments
Thankyouverymuchforhelpingusoutthisevening.TheresultsareplannedtobereleasedinFebruary.Ifyou
haveanyquestions,pleasecontactMr.JoelLaLone,ResearchDirectorattheCenterforCommunityStudies,
7862264,jlalone@sunyjefferson.edu.Haveagreatafternoon/evening.

BOOKKEEPINGAfteryouhangup...

*Phonenumberofparticipant:
*NameofInterviewer:

Page 16