2008 - Jefferson Community College

Table of Contents (continued)Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityTable 42 – Blogs……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Page 37Table 43 – Facebook…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………... Page 38Table 44 – Chat Rooms……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Page 38Table 45 – Have you made an online Internet purchase in the past year?……………………………………………………… Page 38Section 3.5 – Cell Phone Prevalence……………………………………………………………………….Page 39Table 46 – Do you personally have a cell phone?…………………………………………………………………………………. Page 39Table 47 – How many cell phones are used by members of your household?…………………………………………………. Page 39Table 48 – Do you know anyone living in Jefferson County who is “cell-phone-only”, no landline in the home?…………… Page 40Section 3.6 – Passports and International Travel………………………………………………………..Page 41Table 49 – Do you currently have a valid passport?……………………………………………………………………………….. Page 41Table 50 – How many times have you crossed the border into Eastern Ontario in the past year?....................................... Page 41Section 3.7 – Volunteerism and Community Involvement…………………………………………... Page 42Table 51 – How many hours per month do you volunteer for community service activities? ………………………………… Page 42Table 52 – How often have you gone to a community-based meeting in the past year?...................................................... Page 42Section 3.8 – Sources for Local Information – News and Events…………………………………….Page 43Table 53 – What is your primary source of information about local events?......................................................................... Page 43Table 54 – What is your primary source of information about local news?........................................................................... Page 44Section 3.9 – Alternative Energy Sources in the North Country………………………………………Page 45Table 55 – Do you support or oppose the development of windfarms as an energy source in the North Country?.............. Page 45Table 56 – Do you support or oppose the development of hydroelectric generators as an energy source in the NC?......... Page 45Table 57 – Do you support or oppose the development of nuclear power plants as an energy source in the NC?.............. Page 46Section 3.10 – Personal/Household Financial Challenges……………………………………………..Page 47Table 58 – Do you rent or own your home?……………………………………………………………………..………………….. Page 47Table 59 – Has your rent increased in the past 6 months? If so, has it caused you to move?..……………………………… Page 47Table 60 – Do you currently have health insurance?..……………………………………………………………………………... Page 48Table 61 – Lack of transportation kept you from securing employment or meeting your daily living needs?........................ Page 48Table 62 – When considering you or your family’s personal financial situation – has it gotten better, stayed about thesame, or gotten worse in the past 12 months?.................................................................................................... Page 49Section 3.11 – Familiarity with The Center for Community Studies………………………………….Page 49Table 63 – Heard of The Center before the survey this evening?………………………………………..………………………. Page 49Table 64 – Heard of this annual survey before the call this evening?………………………………………..…………………... Page 50Section 3.12 – Fort Drum Expansion Impact Upon Jefferson County……………………………….Page 50Table 65 – “The presence of the 10 th Mountain Division at Fort Drum since 1985 has improved the overall quality oflife of Jefferson County citizens.”......................................................................................................................... Page 50How has the Recent Growth of Fort Drum (2003-2008) impacted:Table 66 – “The overall economy and job/financial health of Jefferson County residents?”…………..………………………. Page 51Table 67 – “Your personal job/financial health?”………………………………………..………………………………………….. Page 52Table 68 – “The overall quality of life of Jefferson County residents?”………………..…………………………………………. Page 52Table 69 – Is your residence in Jefferson County due to Fort Drum related employment?................................................... Page 53Table 70 – Active Military in Household?............................................................................................................................... Page 53Section 3.13 – Political Questions – Involvement, Ideology, Voting Preference………………... Page 54Table 71 – Political Beliefs – Conservative? Moderate? Liberal?.......................................................................................... Page 54Table 72 – Did you vote in the last Presidential election?..................................................................................................... Page 55Table 73 – Are you currently registered to vote?................................................................................................................... Page 55Table 74 – In which political party are you currently registered?........................................................................................... Page 56Table 75 – Do you plan to vote in the next Presidential election in November 2008? (identifying the “likely voters”)........... Page 56Among “Likely Voters”:Table 76 – What is the largest factor that is influencing your vote for the 2008 Presidential election?................................. Page 57Table 77 – If the election were today – Clinton vs. McCain – who would you vote for?........................................................ Page 59Table 78 – If the election were today – Obama vs. McCain – who would you vote for?....................................................... Page 60Section 4 - Final Comments …...………………………………………………………………...Page 61Appendix I – Technical Comments – Assistance in Interpretation of these Results…..Page 62Appendix II – The Survey Instrument ………………………………………………….……….Page 64The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community Collegeiii

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeChange #3:Change #4:response distribution collapsing has been completed, resulting with more rich and detailedinformation for the reader.Several new survey questions have been added in 2008 that are related to Technology andPolitics.All data collected was directly entered electronically into a server-based survey instrument duringthe interview process. This approach minimized data transcription errors and allowed for morerigorous control over question sequence and logic.Methodology – How This Data Was CollectedThe original survey instrument used in the annual survey of the community was constructed in spring 2000by a team of Jefferson Community College faculty including the following:Dr. Richard L. HalpinMr. Joel LaLoneDr. Ingrid OverackerDr. Ronald A. PalmerDr. Raymond PetersenMs. Rebecca RiehmMr. Michael WhiteDr. Jerome WichelnsFormer Professor, Sociology; Former Director, The Center for Community StudiesExecutive Director, Cornell Cooperative Extension of Jefferson CountyProfessor, MathematicsAssociate Professor, HistoryAssociate Professor, HistoryProfessor, Political ScienceAssociate Professor, SociologyProfessor, MathematicsFormer Associate Professor, PhilosophyThe instrument is modified each year by The Center for Community Studies, with input from its staff, andAdvisory Board, and students employed at The Center throughout the current academic year, to include newquestions of relevance to local organizations and agencies. There is a core set of approximately 40 questions thathave been asked every year since 2000. The primary goal of The Annual Jefferson County Survey of theCommunity is to collect data regarding quality of life issues of importance to the local citizens. A secondary goal isto provide a very real, research-based, learning experience for undergraduate students enrolled at Jefferson. Inaccomplishing this second goal, students are involved in all aspects of the research, from question formation to datacollection (interviewing), to data entry and cleansing, to data analysis. The students analyze the data collected inthis study annually as assignments in statistics classes. However, all final responsibility for question-phrasing,question-inclusion versus omission, final data analysis, and reporting of findings lies exclusively with theprofessional staff of The Center. The discussions that lead to the inclusion of questions at times arise fromclassroom discussions involving students and Center staff. The decision to include any question as a legitimate andmeaningful part of an annual survey, however, is made exclusively by The Center. Similarly, data analysis of theinformation collected through the annual survey will transpire with faculty and students in the classrooms atJefferson, however, any statistical analysis reported in this document has been completed by the professional staffof The Center. Copies of the introductory script and survey instrument are attached as an appendix.This study included completing interviews of 421 Jefferson County adult residents. All interviews werecompleted via telephone. To be eligible to complete the survey, the resident was required to be at least 18 yearsold. Two thousand personal residence telephone numbers were randomly selected from the population ofapproximately 29,000 personal residence telephone numbers in Jefferson County. These numbers were obtainedfrom Accudata America, a subsidiary of Primis, Inc. Accudata America is a firm that specializes in providing contactinformation for residents of the United States. The telephone numbers were obtained from an unscrubbed list,ensuring that individuals whose households are included in the “telemarketing do-not-call list” would be representedin this study. After receiving the 2,000 randomly selected telephone numbers, the list was randomly sorted asecond time and a group of 1,935 residential numbers were attempted for interviews. It was not necessary toattempt all 2,000 numbers to reach (and in this year … even surpass!) a goal of 400 completed interviews. Alltelephone calls were made between 4:30 and 9:00 p.m. from a call center on the Jefferson Community Collegecampus, in Watertown, New York, on three evenings between March 31 st and April 2 nd , 2008. The JeffersonCommunity College students who completed the interviews had completed training in human subject researchmethodology and effective interviewing techniques. Professional staff from The Center supervised the telephoneinterviewing at all times.Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 2

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeWhen each of the 1,935 telephone numbers was attempted, one of four results occurred: (1) Completion ofan interview; (2) a Decline to be interviewed; (3) No Answer/Busy; or (4) an Invalid Number. Voluntary informedconsent was obtained from each resident before the interview was completed. This sampling protocol includedinforming each resident that it was his or her right to decline to answer any and all individual questions within theinterview. To be categorized as a completed interview, at least half of the questions on the survey had to becompleted. The resident’s refusal to answer more than half of the questions was considered a decline to beinterviewed. The typical length of a completed survey was approximately 10 to 15 minutes. Declines to beinterviewed (refusals) were not called back in an attempt to convince the resident to reconsider the interview. If nocontact was made at a telephone number (No Answer/Busy), call-backs were made to the number. Telephonenumbers 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 noperson answered the telephone. The response rate results for the study are summarized in Table 1.Result:Table 1 – Response Rates for the 9 TH Annual Survey of the CommunityCompleteInterviewDecline to beInterviewedNot ValidTelephoneNumberNo Answer/BusyTOTALSFrequency 421 402 246 866 1935% of Numbers Attempted 21.8% 20.8% 12.7% 44.8% 100%% of Valid Numbers 24.9% 23.8% 51.3% 100%% of Contacted Residents 51.2% 48.8% 100%Within the fields of social science and educational research, when using telephone interview methodology,a response rate of 20%-30% of all valid phone numbers and over 50% of all successful contacts where a person isactually talking on the phone are both considered quite successful.Socio-demographics of the sample – Who was Interviewed?This section of the report includes a description of the results for the socio-demographic variables includedin the survey sample. The socio-demographic characteristics of the sampled adult residents can be used to attainthree separate objectives.1. Initially, this information adds to the knowledge and awareness about the true characteristics of the populationof adult residents in the sampled county (i.e. What is the typical household size, educational profile, andincome level in Jefferson County?).2. Secondly, this socio-demographic information facilitates the ability for the data to be sorted or partitioned toinvestigate for significant relationships – relationships between socio-demographic characteristics of peopleand their attitudes and behaviors regarding the quality of life in Jefferson County. Identification of significantrelationships allows local citizens to use the data more effectively to better understand the factors that arecorrelated with various aspects of life in the County.3. Finally, the socio-demographic information also serves an important purpose when compared to establishedfacts about Jefferson County to analyze the representativeness of the sample that was randomly selected inthis study.The results for the socio-demographic questions in the survey are summarized in Table 2. Note that thesocio-demographic data presented in Table 2 is raw, or unweighted; it represents the actual characteristics of theresidents who were interviewed via the previously described telephone methodology.Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 3

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeTable 2 – Socio-demographics of the Sample Compared to Census Estimates forJefferson CountySocio-demographicCharacteristic:9 th Annual Survey of the CommunitySample ResultsJefferson County PopulationParameters (U.S. Census2005)n % %GENDERMale 152 36.1% 49.0%Female 269 63.9% 51.0%AGE GROUP (US Census %’s are among those 18 years old or older)18-29 64 15.2% 23.6%30-39 77 18.3% 21.0%40-49 91 21.6% 19.2%50-59 71 16.9% 15.2%60-69 68 16.2% 9.1%70+ 50 11.9% 11.9%EDUCATION LEVELDid not complete HS 45 11.1% 12.6%HS Graduate 121 29.8% 34.6%Some College 166 40.9% 33.0%College Graduate74 18.3% 19.8%(4+years)ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOMELess than $25,000 117 30.5% 28.4%$25,000-$50,000 121 31.6% 31.6%$50,000-$75,000 81 21.1% 20.5%More than $75,000 64 16.7% 19.5%CHILDREN LIVING IN THE HOMENo children 217 53.7% 63.7%1 child 71 17.6%2 children 63 15.6%3 children 35 8.7%4 or more children 18 4.4%36.3% have at least one child inthe homeRACE/ETHNICITYWhite 369 92.3% 91.7%Black or African7 1.8% 4.0%AmericanHispanic or Latino 8 2.0% 3.3%Asian, Pacific Islander 5 1.3% 1.3%Native American 8 2.0% 0.3%Multiracial 3 0.8% 1.4%MARITAL STATUSSingle 96 23.6%Married 243 59.9%Other 67 16.5%57.0% MarriedIn general, the responses to the socio-demographic questions included in the survey appear to closelyparallel that which is true for the entire adult populations of Jefferson County, with the exception that women weremore likely than men to answer the telephone and/or agree to a survey, and older residents are more likely to besampled as well. The 2005 U.S. Census reports for gender and age distributions of the actual adult populations thatreside in Jefferson County are shown in Table 3. Additionally, the gender and age distributions of the interviewedadults for this study are shown for comparison.Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 4

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeTable 3 – Age and Gender of the Sample Compared to U.S. Census 2005Reported Distributions for Persons 18+ Years Old Living in Jefferson CountyAge9 th Annual Survey of theCommunity SampleAgeJefferson CountyUS Census 2005 StatisticsGroups: % Male % Female Totals Groups: % Male % Female Totals18-29 5.5 9.7 15.2 18-29 13.3 10.3 23.630-39 7.4 10.9 18.3 30-39 10.7 10.3 21.040-49 7.8 13.8 21.6 40-49 9.4 9.8 19.250-59 6.9 10.0 16.9 50-59 7.2 8.0 15.260-69 5.7 10.5 16.2 60-69 4.1 5.0 9.170+ 2.9 9.0 11.9 70+ 4.3 7.6 11.9Totals 36.1 63.9 100.0 Totals 49.0 51.0 100.0Table 3 clearly illustrates a type of sampling error that is inherent in telephone methodology: Females andolder persons are typically overrepresented – regardless of the subject of the survey. To compensate for thisoverrepresentation of females and older residents in the sample collected in this study, post-stratification weightingsby gender and age have been completed in any further analysis of the data analyzed in this report. All subsequentstatistics that will be reported in this document are weighted by gender and age.Given the extreme diligence placed on scientific sampling design and the high response rates, afterapplication of post-stratification weightings by age and gender, it is felt that this random sample of Jefferson Countyadults does accurately represent the population of Jefferson County adults. Additionally, an analysis of the postalzip codes of the respondents paralleled that which is true for the distribution of all Jefferson County adults veryclosely – the entire county was proportionally represented.When using the sample statistics presented in this report to estimate that which would be expected for theentire Jefferson County adult population, the exact margin of error for this survey is question-specific. The margin oferror depends upon the sample size for each specific question and the resulting sample statistic(s) for each surveyquestion. Sample sizes tend to vary for each question on the survey, since some questions are only appropriate forcertain subgroups, (i.e. only persons who reported that they currently rent their home were then asked if their renthad increased in the past six months), and/or as a result of persons refusing to answer questions. In general, theresults of this survey for any questions that were answered by the entire sample of 421 residents may begeneralized to the population of all adults at least 18 years of age residing in Jefferson County with a 95%confidence level to within a margin of error of approximately ±4 to ±5 percentage points. For questions that wereonly posed to certain specific subgroups, such as the “has your rent increased” question, the resulting smallersample sizes of n=50-100 allow generalization to the specific subpopulation of all adults at least 18 years of ageresiding in that county (i.e. generalization of some specific characteristics of renters to all Jefferson County renters)with a 95% confidence level to within a margin of error of approximately ±8 to ±10 percentage points. For morespecific detail regarding the margin of error for any individual questions included in this survey, please contact thestaff at The Center for Community Studies.In order to maximize comparability among the nine annual surveys that have been completed between 2000and 2008, the procedures used to collect information and the core questions asked have remained virtuallyidentical. All surveys were conducted in the first week in April each year, and the total number of interviewscompleted ranged from 340 to 421, depending upon the year. All interviewers have been similarly and extensivelytrained preceding data collection each year. The survey methodology used to complete the Ninth Annual JeffersonCounty Survey of the Community was comparable to that used in the previous eight years. Furthermore, poststratificationweights for age and gender have also been applied to all results from the first eight years of surveying,to allow for valid comparisons for trends over the nine-year period that will be illustrated later in this report.All data compilation and statistical analyses within this study have been completed using Minitab, Release15 and SPSS, Release 14.Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 5

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeThe "Typical" Respondent in Year 2008A profile of a typical respondent is that they have lived in Jefferson County more than seven years, andintend to continue living here. They have completed a high school education and perhaps some college studies.They tend to own their home and live in a household with an annual income between $25,000 and $75,000. Theyare currently registered to vote, voted in the most recent local and presidential elections and hold mostly Middle ofthe Road political views. They are most concerned about The Economy as the largest factor influencing theirvote in the 2008 Presidential election. They have Internet access, either at home, at work, or both. They accessthe Internet through a cable provider and spend about 10 hours per week on the Internet. They use e-mail. Theyhave made an online purchase in the past year. They have a personal cell phone and live in a household that hastwo cell phones. They regard the overall quality of life in the county as positive, and are feeling more positive aboutPolicing and Crime Control, our Local Government, the Availability of Goods and Services in the Area, andthe Availability of Housing than they have in the past eight years. They are feeling more concerned about theQuality of the Environment than they have in the past eight years. They believe that Healthcare Access,Healthcare Quality, and Cultural/Entertainment Opportunities are improving. This year, they are mostconcerned about the Cost of Energy and Real-estate Taxes. They volunteer in the local community, contributingan average of 6 hours per month. They continue to rely on the local daily newspaper and local television station tolearn about local events, and the local television station to learn about local news, with the local daily newspaperand the Internet being the next two likely sources to acquire local news. They continue to believe that the locationof the 10 th Mountain Division at Fort Drum positively impacts both the quality of life and the economy of the regionand that the recent growth of Fort Drum has positively impacted their own personal financial health. They stronglysupport the development of Windfarms and Hydroelectric Generators as energy sources in the North Country.They currently have Health Insurance and believe that their Family’s Personal Financial Situation has remainedthe Same or Gotten Better.Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 6

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeIn Jefferson County, residents ….100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%79% 80%76% 76%63%22%26%36%77% 79%31%61%76%68%37%Lived Here 7+ yearsPlan to StayHave Internet AccessOwn a Cell PhoneUse emailHave a Valid PassportVisited Ontario Past YearAttend Community MeetingsSupport WindfarmsSupport HydroelectricSupport Nuclear PowerOwn HomeFinances are Same/BetterSee FD Growth as (+)Have Heard of CCSPolitically, in Jefferson County, residents...100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%22%ConservativeMiddle of the Road39%78%76%61%45%40%35% 36%34%24%16%14%17%15%LiberalVoted in '04Currently RegisteredRepublicanDemocratIndependentPlan to Vote '08Economy - Largest FactorWar in Iraq - Largest FactorHonesty - Largest FactorVote McCain (vs. Obama)Vote Obama (vs. McCain)Undecided (O vs. M)Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 7

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeSection 2 –Summary of FindingsSection 2.1 - Perceptions of Quality of Life in JeffersonCounty:1. Most Jefferson County adult residents continue to view the quality of life in the region as positive, 82%of the surveyed residents report that the overall quality of life in the area is getting better or staying the same, only14% believe the overall quality of life in the area is getting worse. (Table 8)2. The overall quality of life in the area was reported as getting better by 44% of the residents, the secondhighest rate of satisfaction ever reported in the nine years of completing this survey. Residents were threetimes more likely to report that the overall quality of life in the area is “getting better” than they were toindicate that it is “getting worse”. Level of satisfaction with the overall quality of life is not significantly differentacross genders, age levels, education levels, or income levels among respondents. (Tables 6-8, and Table 26)Percentage of Participants Who Reportthat "The Overall Quality of Life inJefferson County is Getting Better "50%40%30%20%41%21%23%25%19%35%47%44%10%16%0%2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20083. Residents reported the most satisfaction with the following aspects of our community: (Table 8)• Shopping Opportunities (85% indicated “getting better”)• Availability of Goods and Services (70% indicated “getting better”)• Internet Access (68% indicated “getting better”)• Access to Higher Education (55% indicated “getting better”)• Quality of K-12 Education (46% indicated “getting better”)• Policing and Crime Control (44% indicated “getting better”)• The Overall Quality of Life in Jefferson County (44% indicated “getting better”)• Cultural and Entertainment Opportunities (44% indicated “getting better”)4. Residents reported the most dissatisfaction with the following aspects of our community: (Table 8)• Cost of Energy (82% indicated “getting worse”)• Real-estate Taxes (61% indicated “getting worse”)• Availability of Good Jobs (45% indicated “getting worse”)• The Overall State of the Local Economy (45% indicated “getting worse”)• Availability of Housing (43% indicated “getting worse”)Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 8

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College5. Economic-related Quality of Life Findings:6. The data indicate that residents are generally concerned about the Cost of Energy and Real-estate Taxesshowing a trend that things are getting worse, particularly within the last few years.Availability of Good Jobs:Residents were most likely to report the availability of good jobs as getting worse (45%). This is astatistically significantly higher rate than the rate reported in 2007 (31%). Respondents reporting “gettingbetter” (23%) dropped from 2007. (Table 22)90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%Perceptions About the Availability of GoodJobs in Jefferson County52%17%5%81%7%70% 69%63%49%9%8%10%41%31%22%31%45%23%2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Getting BetterGetting WorseOverall State of Local Economy:Residents were the most likely to report that the overall state of the local economy is getting worse (45%).This is a statistically significantly higher rate than the rate reported in 2007 (25%). Respondents reporting“getting better” (27%) dropped significantly from the 2007 rate (39%). (Table 25)80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%Perceptions About the Overall State of theLocal Economy in Jefferson County31%28%9%69%58% 61% 49%12% 13%12%32%15%35%33%39%25%45%27%2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Getting BetterGetting WorsePresentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 9

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeShopping Opportunities:An overwhelming majority of Jefferson County residents (across all ages, income levels, education levels,and within both genders) believe that shopping opportunities in the county are getting better. The 85%reporting getting better is the second highest ever recorded in this annual survey. The trend of gettingbetter has significantly increased since 2005. Only 4% of the residents reported that they believed thatshopping opportunities are getting worse. (Table 23)100%80%Percentage of Participants Who Report that"Shopping Opportunities in JeffersonCounty are Getting Better "86%81%85%60%40%20%51% 40%30%39%38%46%0%2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Availability of Goods/Services:Again, residents reported the highest rate of availability of goods and services as getting better that hasbeen recorded throughout the years of completing this survey (70%, the same as in 2007). This rate hasnearly tripled since 2005, from 24% to 70%. Male residents were significantly more likely to report gettingbetter than females. (Table 27)Availability of Housing:In 2008, residents are still much more likely to believe that housing availability is getting worse than gettingbetter (43% versus 33%), however, the rate of reporting getting better continues to increase each year from12% when first recorded in 2005, to the current rate of 33%. (Table 29)Cost of Energy:Throughout the eight years of completing this annual survey, the cost of energy has consistently beenviewed by the majority as getting worse. In 2008 that continued to be reflected with 82% reporting gettingworse, and only 4% reporting getting better. (Table 11)Real-estate Taxes:Residents reported the second highest rate of real estate taxes as getting worse that has been recordedthroughout the nine years of data collection (61%, slightly lower than the 63% reported in 2007. As acomparison, in 2000, the first year of this annual survey, and a year when quality of life attitudes amongresidents were at very high/positive levels similar to that which has been found currently in this 2008 study,only 41% of the residents reported that real estate taxes were getting worse. (Table 19)7. Lifestyle-related (less economic) Quality of Life Findings:Opportunities for Youth:In 2008, residents reported the highest ever of “opportunities for youth” getting better (33%, the same as in2007). (Table 9)Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 10

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeHealthcare Access and Healthcare QualityIn 2008, we saw the highest rate ever reported of healthcare access getting better (38%) and of healthcarequality getting better (37%), with residents far more likely to report each of these community healthattributes as getting better than they were to indicate getting worse. Residents over 60 years of age aresignificantly more likely to report getting better. (Tables 12 and 13)Cultural/Entertainment Opportunities:In 2008, we saw the highest rate ever reported that cultural/entertainment opportunities in the county aregetting better, (44%). This rate is independent of gender, age, income, and education level – all groupsappear to have similar perceptions of the state of cultural/entertainment opportunities in the county. Thegetting better rate has risen significantly since 2006. (Table 10)Recreational Opportunities:Perceptions of recreational opportunities in the county continued their upward trend since 2004 – the mostlikely response (43%) is getting better with the remaining residents more likely to indicate that recreationalopportunities are staying the same than getting worse (41% versus 10%). (Table 16)Access to Higher Education:Residents are more than nine times as likely to report access to higher education getting better than gettingworse. The getting better rate has risen significantly since 2005. (Table 14)Downtown Watertown:In 2008, attitudes among county residents regarding downtown Watertown had reached the most positivelevel since 2000 – a five year positive trend 2004-2008 continues. Although in 2007, this trend had a slightdip, this year, 30% of the participants report that downtown Watertown is getting better. (Table 20)Policing and Crime Control:In 2008, we saw the highest rate of residents that view policing and crime control as getting better (44%).The rate of getting better has significantly increased since 2005. (Table 21)Quality of K-12 Education:K-12 education is viewed as getting better by more residents than at any time since 2000, with residentsalmost six times as likely to report that K-12 education is getting better than getting worse (46% vs 8%).Interestingly, the residents with the highest education level themselves are the least likely to perceive K-12education as getting better. (Table 24)Availability of Elder Care:The perception of availability of care for the elderly reported in 2008 was not significantly different than therate over the preceding two years – 24% of the participants perceive availability of care for the elderly asgetting better. However, residents were more likely to perceive availability of care for the elderly as gettingworse, with 32% reporting this opinion. Residents age 60 or older, and those with lower formal educationlevels, and those from lower income households were the most likely to view availability of care for theelderly positively. (Table 28)Internet Access:Year after year the residents of Jefferson County respond positively regarding Internet access. The resultsin 2008, 68% indicating getting better and 4% indicating getting worse, are quite typical. The perception ofInternet access as getting better is significantly higher among the residents 18-60 years old than amongolder residents, and highest among those with incomes less than $75,000. The getting better rate has risensignificantly since 2005. (Table 15)Quality of the Environment:Perceptions among Jefferson County residents regarding the quality of the local environment haveremained relatively stable over the nine years of surveying. In 2008, 41% report staying the same, andamong those who perceive a change it being a very similar rate that reports better versus worse (26% and28%, respectively). There is a significant difference between income levels, those with incomes between$50,001 and $75,000 least likely to rate this getting better (13%) and those with incomes over $75,000 theleast likely to rate this getting worse (17%). (Table 17)Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 11

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeLocal Government:A dramatic rise in the rate of getting better was evident in 2008. This is the highest rate of getting betterdocumented in the nine years of this annual survey. Interestingly, the residents ages 30-59 are significantlyless likely to report that local government is getting better than both younger and older age groups.(Table 18)Section 2.2 - Profile of a Resident of Jefferson County:Longevity of Living in Jefferson County:8. Among our respondents, 79% have lived in the county for more than seven years, while only 14% reportedthat they did not expect to be living here five years from now – the lowest percentage ever recorded. However,likelihood of remaining in the county is significantly correlated with each of Age and Education – younger residentsand those with at least some college education are most likely to indicate that they will not be living in JeffersonCounty in five years. (Tables 4-5)Internet Access and Utilization:9. The majority of Jefferson County residents (76%) have access to the Internet, either at home or at work orboth. This rate has remained relatively stable since first measured in 2002. Younger residents (under age 60) andthose with higher formal education levels and from higher income households are most likely to have Internetaccess. Interestingly, over 40% of the residents age 60+ report to have Internet access. (Table 30)10. Among those who have Internet access at home, the most common source is via cable (63%, increasedfrom 39% found in 2006), with dial-up access the second most common source (23%). (Table 31)11. The average numbers of hours per week of Internet use among Jefferson County adults is 10.3 hours/week.Younger residents (under age 60) and those with higher education levels use the Internet most frequently, whilelevel of use appears to be independent of Gender and Household Income. (Table 32)12. Eleven common uses of the Internet were studied among Jefferson County adults in 2007. More than halfof the residents (63%) indicate that they used email at least once in the past 30 days. Similarly, the majority (57%)indicate that they have used the Internet for local news at least once in the past 30 days. (Table 33) In general,use of the Internet for these purposes in more common among younger and more highly educated residents.Interestingly, females are significantly more likely than males to use the Internet for email and obtainingmedical/health information. Conversely, males are more likely to use chat rooms than females. For more detailregarding the specific correlations for each of the eleven studied Internet uses, refer to Tables 34-44.100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%emailUsed the Internet at least once in the past30 days for ...63%57%45% 42% 42%27% 26% 25%Local NewsNational NewsPlan TravelMedical Info.IMYouTubeMySpaceBlogs12% 8% 5%FacebookChat RoomsPresentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 12

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College13. The majority of Jefferson County residents (55%) have made an online Internet purchase within the pastyear, a rate not significantly different from that which has consistently been found since 2003 (between 55%-60%each year). Younger residents (under age 60), those with higher formal education levels, and those fromhouseholds whose annual income exceeds $25,000 are most likely to have made an online Internet purchase.(Table 45)Cell Phone Prevalence:14. Cell phone use among Jefferson County residents remains high – three in four adult residents has apersonal cell phone, not significantly different from the rate found in 2007. Younger residents (under age 60), thosewith at least some college education, and those from households with annual incomes exceeding $25,000 are mostlikely to have a personal cell phone. (Table 46)15. The average number of cell phones per household in Jefferson County is 2.04, increased from 1.49 found in2005, and 1.66 in 2006. (Table 47)16. In 2008, 55% of the surveyed Jefferson County residents indicated that they know someone who lives in thecounty who has only a cell phone; they have no landline in their home. This rate has increased from increased from44% found in 2005, and 53% in 2006. (Table 48)Passports and Cross-border Travel:17. Less than one in four Jefferson County adults currently has a valid passport. Likelihood to have a validpassport is correlated to each of Education and Income – the higher the education and the higher the annualincome then the more likely one is to have a valid passport. (Table 49)18. There has been a clear and fairly steep trend toward reduced cross-border travel over the past eight years,which has reached an all-time low in 2008. Currently, only 26% of residents indicate they have crossed the borderinto Eastern Ontario in the past year (this has been as high as 67% in the past). Cross-border travel is significantlycorrelated with Age, Education, and Income – residents age 30-59, those with a 4+ year degree, and those fromhouseholds with incomes exceeding $50,000 are most likely to have crossed the border into Eastern Ontario in thepast year. (Table 50)80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%Percentage of Respondents Who Report toVisit Eastern Ontario at least once in the PastYear61%67%51%51%52%44%34% 36%26%0%2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 13

Volunteerism and Community Involvement:The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College19. The spirit of volunteerism remains strong in Jefferson County. The mean number of hours volunteered percitizen of 6.2 hours/month continues the downward trend since the high of 10.2 hours/month found in 2006. Thoseindividuals with a 4+ year college degree volunteer significantly more hours than those with less formal education.Volunteerism is not significantly different when comparing genders, age groups, or income groups. (Table 51)20. Over one-third of residents (36%, similar to the 37% rate found in 2006 and 38% in 2007) have attended atleast one community-based meeting (school, church, town, firehall etc.). This rate of community participationappears to be independent of gender, however, older residents, those with higher education levels and those fromhigher income households are significantly more likely to report that they attend community-based meetings.(Table 52)Sources for Local Information – Events and News:21. Jefferson County residents report their most common source of information about local events asWatertown-based television (42% report this source), while the Watertown Daily Times is the next most cited sourceof local events (22%). Over 17% of the residents reported the Internet as their primary source of information aboutlocal events. (Table 53)22. Jefferson County residents report their most common source of information about local news asWatertown-based television (57% report this source), while the Watertown Daily Times (17%) and the Internet(17%) as the next most cited sources of local news. (Table 54)Alternative Energy Sources in the North Country:23. The majority of Jefferson County residents support the development of windfarms as an energy source inthe North Country in the future (77% support, with 48% strongly supporting). This rate of support has not changedsignificantly from that which was found in 2007 in the county. This high level of support was evident among bothgenders, all education level groups, all age groups, and all income groups, with the only significant relationshipfound being that females are more likely than males to indicate “no opinion.” (Table 55)24. The majority of Jefferson County residents support the development of hydroelectric generators as anenergy source in the North Country in the future (68% support, with 38% strongly supporting). This high level ofsupport was evident across both genders, all education level groups, all age groups, and all income groups, with theonly significant relationship found being that females are more likely than males to indicate “no opinion.” (Table 56)25. There is less support for the development of nuclear power plants as an energy source in the North Countryin the future (52% oppose, with 27% strongly opposing). Level of support is significantly correlated with gender andeducation level – females and those residents with less than a 4+ year college degree are most likely to oppose thedevelopment of nuclear power plants as an energy source in the North Country in the future. (Table 57)Personal/Household Finances:26. The majority of Jefferson County residents own their own homes (61%). Of the 35% who rent, nearly onefourth(24%) reported that their rent has increased in the past six months, a rate that is decreased from the 27% ofrenters who reported rental fee increases in 2007. (Tables 58-59)27. The majority (84%) of Jefferson County residents currently have health insurance. (Table 60)28. The majority (86%) of Jefferson County residents reported that a lack of transportation has NOT kept themfrom securing employment or meeting their daily needs at any time in the past year. (Table 61)Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 14

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeFamiliarity with The Center for Community Studies:29. Familiarity with The Center for Community Studies continues to increase, with 37% having heard of thecommunity-based research center before the interview (up from 33% in 2007), and 29% having heard of the annualsurvey before the interview that evening (similar to 30% found in 2007). Women, individuals over age 29, and thosefrom households with $25,000+ annually are most likely to be familiar with The Center and its Annual Survey.(Tables 63 and 64)Fort Drum Expansion Impact Upon Jefferson County:30. The findings of 2008 annual survey, consistent with all other years of this annual survey, overwhelminglyindicate support for Fort Drum. Over 74% of adults in Jefferson County agree that the presence of the 10 thMountain Division at Fort Drum since 1985 has improved the overall quality of life of Jefferson County citizens. Ahigh rate of Fort Drum support persists among all gender, age, education and income groups, with at least 65%agreeing in each partitioned subgroup. (Table 65)31. Considering the more recent growth of Fort Drum since 2003, Jefferson County residents again stronglyreport that this growth has had a positive impact on the county and its residents.o Over 78% of the residents report that this recent growth has had a positive impact on the overalleconomy and job/financial health of county residents (while only 9% reported a negative impact). (Table 66)o Over 40% of the residents report that this recent growth has had a positive impact on their personaljob/financial health (while only 8% reported a negative impact). (Table 67)o Over 68% of the residents report that this recent growth has had a positive impact on the overallquality of life of county residents (while only 11% reported a negative impact). (Table 68)50%The recent growth of Fort Drum since 2003 hasimpacted the overall quality of life of JeffersonCounty residents ...47%40%30%20%10%0%21%21%10%1%Very Positively Positively Neutral/No Opinion Negatively Very Negatively32. The significance of the presence of Fort Drum among the Jefferson County community is demonstrated bythe fact that nearly one out of every four households (25%) in the survey group report that their residence inJefferson County is related to either their or a family member’s civilian or military employment at Fort Drum.Further, approximately 17% of the survey group indicated that there is a member of the household who is activemilitary. (Tables 69-70)Political Questions – Involvement, Ideology, Voting Preference:33. The majority of residents classify their political beliefs as Middle of the Road, with Don’t Know (24%),Conservative (22%), and Liberal (16%) following in order. (Table 71)34. Nearly 61% of residents reported that they voted in the last Presidential election. (Table 72)Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 15

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College35. More than 3 out of 4 residents (78%) are registered to vote. (Table 73)36. Among “likely voters” nearly 3 out of 4 residents (74%) plan to vote in the next Presidential election.(Table75)37. Among “likely voters” the three largest factors influencing their vote for the 2008 Presidential election areThe Economy (34%), War in Iraq (24%), and the Honesty/Integrity of the Candidate (17%). (Table 76)38. Among “likely voters” if the election were March 31-April 2, 2008 and the candidates were Hillary Clintonand John McCain, 45% selected Hillary Clinton and 38% selected John McCain. (Table 77)39. Among “likely voters” if the election were March 31-April 2, 2008 and the candidates were Barack Obamaand John McCain, 38% selected Barack Obama and 44% selected John McCain. (Table 78)Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 16

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeSection 3 - Detailed Statistical ResultsThis section of the Report of Findings provides a detailed presentation of the results for each of thequestions in the 2008 survey. The results for each of these survey questions are presented in this section of thereport with the following organizational structure:(1) The results for each year that the question was asked are presented in a table to allow for an analysis oftrends or changes.(2) The 2008 results for most of the questions included in the survey have been cross-tabulated by each of thedemographic factors of gender, age, education level, and household income level (total of over 200 crosstabulationtables). Additionally, political-related questions have been cross-tabulated by Party of Registration(PartyID).(3) Statistically significant trends and correlations are highlighted for each survey question. For furtherexplanation of the statistical concepts of “Margin of Error” and “Statistical Significance”, please refer toAppendix I – “Technical Comments”.For ease of use, survey questions have been organized into the following sections:Section 3.1 - Longevity of Living in Jefferson County (Tables 4-5)Section 3.2 - Quality of Life Issues – Nine Year Trends in Responses (Tables 6-7)Section 3.3 - Quality of Life Issues – Detailed Investigation of Year 2008 Results (Tables 8-29)Section 3.4 - Internet Access and Utilization (Tables 30-45)Section 3.5 - Cell Phone Prevalence (Tables 46-48)Section 3.6 - Passports and Cross-border Travel (Tables 49-50)Section 3.7 - Volunteerism and Community Involvement (Tables 51-52)Section 3.8 - Sources for Local Information – Events and News (Tables 53-54)Section 3.9 - Alternative Energy Sources in the North Country (Tables 55-57)Section 3.10 - Personal/Household Finances (Tables 58-62)Section 3.11 - Familiarity with The Center for Community Studies (Tables 63-64)Section 3.12 - Fort Drum Expansion Impact Upon Jefferson County (Tables 65-70)Section 3.13 - Political Questions - Involvement, Ideology, Voting Preference (Tables 71-78)The statistics reported in the correlative tables (correlating with Gender, Age, etc.) are percentages withinthe sampled subgroups. To determine the sample size for each subgroup – to avoid over interpretation – thereader should refer to the preceding socio-demographic table (Table 2) that provide counts, or sample sizes, as wellas the tables below. Again, findings should be considered with sample sizes in mind. The statistical tests ofsignificance take into consideration these varying sample sizes.The following sample sizes were collected within each of the four key demographic variable subgroups:Sample Sizes Within Each Socio-demographic Factor SubgroupGender n Age n Education n Income nMales 152 18-29 64 No College 166 Less than $25,000 117Females 269 30-59 239 Some College 166 $25,001-$50,000 12160+ 118 4+ Year Degree 74 $50,001-$75,000 81More than $75,000 64Finally, the reader can identify the statistically significant results (trends and/or relationships) in each crosstabulationtable and each trend table by noting the bold comment directly below the tables. For more detail, referto Appendix I.Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 17

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeSection 3.1 - Longevity of Living in Jefferson CountyTable 4 – How long have you lived in Jefferson County?How Long Lived Here:2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20087 Years 81.7% 73.4% 77.9% 78.1% 71.1% 77.0% 76.6% 71.8% 79.0%Col %Longevity Living inJefferson County7 yearsGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total3.1% 3.4% 5.6% 3.3% .0% 3.2%6.6% 9.2% 15.2% 6.0% 3.2% 7.9%11.0% 8.7% 17.8% 8.6% 2.7% 9.9%79.3% 78.7% 61.5% 82.1% 94.1% 79.0%Col %Longevity Living inJefferson County7 yearsStatistically Significant Relationships:Statistically Significant Trend: NoneAge, EducationTable 5 – Do you expect that you will still be living in Jefferson County in 5 years?Plan to Stay?2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Yes 78.1% 65.8% 73.0% 72.7% 66.1% 72.1% 74.2% 74.3% 80.0%No 19.6% 28.8% 21.0% 22.6% 28.3% 19.4% 18.2% 17.8% 14.0%Not Sure 2.3% 5.4% 6.0% 4.7% 5.6% 8.4% 7.6% 7.9% 6.1%Col %Expect to Remain inJefferson County in5 YearsYesNoNot SureGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total79.1% 80.9% 57.9% 86.1% 93.2% 80.0%14.5% 13.4% 30.4% 9.5% 4.0% 14.0%6.3% 5.8% 11.7% 4.5% 2.8% 6.1%Col %Expect to Remain inJefferson County in5 YearsYesNoNot SureEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,000.7% 2.1% 10.7% 2.3% 2.3% 3.4% 8.9%3.9% 8.2% 12.0% 4.5% 10.9% 12.3% 4.8%6.5% 16.2% 2.0% 9.4% 4.8% 11.3% 9.0%88.9% 73.5% 75.3% 83.9% 82.0% 73.0% 77.3%EducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00088.7% 74.8% 82.3% 83.5% 80.2% 81.5% 82.7%9.3% 15.5% 12.1% 10.8% 13.5% 15.2% 14.6%2.0% 9.7% 5.6% 5.7% 6.3% 3.4% 2.7%Statistically Significant Relationships: Age, EducationStatistically Significant Trend: “Planning to Stay” has risen significantly since 2004Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 18

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeSection 3.2 - Quality of Life Issues – Nine Year Trends inResponsesThe shaded sets of adjacent cells in each of the following two tables are significant variations in responsesof Jefferson County residents between earlier results and the current 2008 results. The larger font and boldednumber in each row is the largest percentage found throughout the nine years for each survey question. For quickreference, considering the sample sizes collected each year in the Annual Survey of the Community, a difference of6% or larger between any two years is considered statistically significant. For more detail regarding statisticalsignificance, please refer to Appendix I.Table 6 – Trends in Issues in Jefferson County – Years 2000-2008% Indicating “Getting Better” Each YearIssue or Characteristic 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20081. Opportunities for youth 31 26 17 21 18 22 29 33 332. Cultural / entertainment opportunities 36 26 32 28 26 26 28 42 443. Cost of energy 3 2 7 1 2 2 1 2 44. Health care access 36 25 25 32 22 22 33 37 385. Health care quality 33 22 26 31 21 20 35 31 376. Access to higher education 62 45 50 48 41 34 43 49 557. Internet access 75 61 65 70 49 44 58 63 688. Recreational opportunities 44 37 35 36 27 29 37 41 439. Quality of the environment 30 23 19 24 22 22 23 21 2610. Local government 17 10 12 14 13 12 9 12 2111. Real-estate taxes 12 5 5 6 5 6 5 4 712. The downtown of Watertown 33 25 22 25 16 22 27 26 3013. Policing and crime control 35 39 31 39 33 19 36 30 4414. Availability of good jobs 17 5 7 9 8 10 22 31 2315. Shopping opportunities 51 40 30 39 38 46 81 86 8516. Quality of K-12 education 50 31 33 37 31 31 38 41 4617. The overall state of the local economy 28 9 12 13 12 15 35 39 2718. The overall quality of life in the area 41 21 23 25 16 19 35 47 4419. Availability of goods and services in the area 28 37 28 24 51 70 7020. Availability of care for the elderly 15 15 28 19 2421. Availability of housing 12 20 29 33Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 19

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeTable 7 – Trends in Issues in Jefferson County – Years 2000-2008% Indicating “Getting Worse” Each YearIssue or Characteristic 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20081. Opportunities for youth 18 32 31 27 22 16 18 16 192. Cultural / entertainment opportunities 13 21 13 17 9 7 14 12 103. Cost of energy 77 84 65 77 68 78 88 77 824. Health care access 19 29 21 25 19 13 25 22 265. Health care quality 21 25 14 19 11 9 19 17 196. Access to higher education 3 8 6 9 4 5 11 7 67. Internet access 1 14 3 3 4 5 6 5 48. Recreational opportunities 10 13 12 10 8 7 11 10 109. Quality of the environment 20 20 16 25 10 16 24 25 2810. Local government 23 34 28 31 24 19 29 24 2611. Real-estate taxes 41 55 51 55 47 39 58 63 6112. The downtown of Watertown 39 45 47 38 45 42 38 42 4213. Policing and crime control 14 14 10 11 8 18 18 20 1614. Availability of good jobs 52 81 70 69 63 49 41 31 4515. Shopping opportunities 13 19 22 25 10 6 5 5 416. Quality of K-12 education 9 15 8 15 5 7 13 10 817. The overall state of the local economy 31 69 58 61 49 32 33 25 4518. The overall quality of life in the area 11 30 16 19 16 11 16 13 1419. Availability of goods and services in the area 16 13 9 5 6 4 520. Availability of care for the elderly 15 16 17 21 1821. Availability of housing 54 57 48 43Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 20

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeSection 3.3 - Quality of Life Issues in Jefferson County –Detailed Investigation of Year 2008 ResultsTable 8 shows the detailed results for all 21 quality of life indicators recorded in 2008. The larger font andbolded number in each row is the largest result found for each survey question, providing an easy method todetermine whether a quality of life indicator is perceived currently as getting better or worse.Table 8 – SUMMARY – Quality of Life Issues in Jefferson County – Year 2008(table entries are %’s)StayingGettingGetting Don’tIssue or CharacteristictheBetterWorse KnowSame1. Opportunities for youth 33 36 19 122. Cultural / entertainment opportunities 44 37 10 93. Cost of energy 4 10 82 44. Health care access 38 31 26 55. Health care quality 37 40 19 46. Access to higher education 55 31 6 87. Internet access 68 17 4 118. Recreational opportunities 43 41 10 69. Quality of the environment 26 41 28 510. Local government 21 42 26 1111. Real-estate taxes 7 17 61 1512. The downtown of Watertown 30 23 42 513. Policing and crime control 44 33 16 814. Availability of good jobs 23 27 45 515. Shopping opportunities 85 10 4 116. Quality of K-12 education 46 32 8 1417. The overall state of the local economy 27 24 45 518. The overall quality of life in the area 44 38 14 519. Availability of goods and services in the area 70 22 5 320. Availability of care for the elderly 24 32 18 2621. Availability of housing 33 18 43 6Tables 9-29, shown on the following pages, provide the greatest level of detail in results. In these 21 tables,the results for each of the quality of life indicators are shown for each year sampled (includes all possible responsesto each survey question each year), along with cross-tabulations by four key demographic factors. By inspectingthe results after cross-tabbing by any of these demographic factors the reader can better understand factors thatmay be significantly correlated with perceptions of quality of life characteristics of the county. Again, significantcorrelations are highlighted in bold below each set of tables.Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 21

Table 9 - Opportunities forYouthThe Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Better 31.1% 25.9% 17.4% 21.4% 17.7% 22.4% 28.9% 32.7% 32.8%Same 41.8% 35.1% 39.2% 36.9% 43.9% 47.3% 38.1% 37.3% 36.2%Worse 18.0% 31.8% 31.1% 26.7% 22.2% 16.4% 18.1% 15.8% 18.9%Don’t Know 9.1% 7.2% 12.3% 15.0% 16.3% 14.0% 14.9% 14.2% 12.1%Col %Opportunitiesfor YouthBetterSameWorseDon't KnowGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total36.9% 28.4% 36.6% 33.1% 27.0% 32.8%36.3% 36.1% 35.0% 37.7% 33.7% 36.2%15.4% 22.8% 11.1% 22.3% 20.2% 18.9%11.5% 12.7% 17.3% 6.9% 19.1% 12.1%Col %Opportunitiesfor YouthBetterSameWorseDon't KnowStatistically Significant Relationships: GenderStatistically Significant Trend: “Better” has risen significantly since 2004Table 10 - Cultural/Entertainment Opportunities2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Better 36.2% 26.1% 32.3% 28.4% 26.2% 25.5% 28.4% 41.5% 44.0%Same 45.0% 48.3% 47.0% 48.0% 57.9% 56.9% 51.1% 40.0% 37.4%Worse 13.3% 20.6% 13.5% 16.7% 9.2% 7.4% 13.7% 12.1% 9.8%Don’t Know 5.4% 5.0% 7.2% 6.9% 6.7% 10.2% 6.8% 6.3% 8.9%Col %Cultural/EntertainmentOpportunitiesBetterSameWorseDon't KnowGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total44.3% 43.7% 44.2% 43.6% 44.8% 44.0%38.0% 36.7% 39.0% 41.1% 25.3% 37.4%8.4% 11.2% 8.1% 9.5% 12.5% 9.8%9.4% 8.4% 8.7% 5.8% 17.4% 8.9%Col %Cultural/EntertainmentOpportunitiesBetterSameWorseDon't KnowEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00033.1% 32.1% 36.7% 38.7% 32.0% 24.6% 31.0%37.7% 37.0% 35.7% 31.5% 39.0% 43.7% 37.7%16.4% 23.0% 14.7% 18.2% 13.7% 27.7% 14.6%12.9% 8.0% 12.8% 11.7% 15.2% 4.1% 16.7%EducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00046.1% 42.6% 48.5% 50.8% 44.9% 40.4% 45.5%35.6% 39.3% 41.3% 27.0% 34.4% 49.6% 40.8%9.7% 9.7% 6.1% 12.0% 5.6% 8.9% 8.5%8.6% 8.4% 4.1% 10.1% 15.1% 1.1% 5.2%Statistically Significant Relationships: NoneStatistically Significant Trend: “Better” has risen significantly since 2006Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 22

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeTable 11 - Cost of Energy 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Better 2.8% 1.6% 6.9% 1.2% 1.7% 2.0% 1.5% 2.0% 4.4%Same 12.8% 7.8% 17.4% 10.0% 21.2% 12.9% 5.8% 11.7% 9.6%Worse 77.0% 83.8% 65.3% 76.7% 67.8% 78.0% 88.0% 76.9% 82.2%Don’t Know 7.4% 6.8% 10.4% 12.1% 9.3% 7.1% 4.7% 9.3% 3.7%Col %Cost ofEnergyBetterSameWorseDon't KnowGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total4.3% 4.6% 10.2% 2.5% 1.8% 4.4%12.4% 6.6% 14.4% 6.6% 11.4% 9.6%80.9% 83.7% 67.7% 88.0% 85.9% 82.2%2.4% 5.1% 7.7% 2.8% .9% 3.7%Col %Cost ofEnergyBetterSameWorseDon't KnowStatistically Significant Relationships:Statistically Significant Trend: NoneAgeTable 12 - HealthcareAccess2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Better 36.2% 25.2% 24.8% 31.5% 22.0% 21.7% 32.5% 36.6% 38.0%Same 39.8% 40.9% 47.5% 35.8% 45.2% 54.6% 35.2% 33.3% 30.9%Worse 18.8% 29.2% 21.4% 25.4% 19.5% 13.3% 25.0% 21.8% 25.8%Don’t Know 5.3% 4.7% 6.3% 7.3% 13.3% 10.4% 7.3% 8.3% 5.3%Col %HealthcareAccessBetterSameWorseDon't KnowGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total35.8% 40.4% 36.4% 33.7% 51.5% 38.0%33.5% 28.0% 35.9% 28.7% 30.0% 30.9%24.2% 27.6% 21.5% 31.5% 16.2% 25.8%6.5% 4.1% 6.2% 6.0% 2.3% 5.3%Col %HealthcareAccessBetterSameWorseDon't KnowEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,0001.5% 6.0% 8.7% 2.9% 4.2% 5.4% 4.6%10.5% 8.5% 9.9% 11.3% 6.8% 12.2% 4.6%85.8% 80.1% 77.2% 79.7% 86.2% 76.4% 90.8%2.1% 5.4% 4.2% 6.1% 2.8% 6.0% .0%EducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00039.9% 36.4% 36.2% 43.7% 34.9% 31.2% 31.7%31.2% 27.7% 36.2% 27.8% 27.0% 43.4% 30.0%26.2% 28.0% 25.2% 25.6% 28.4% 24.3% 34.3%2.7% 8.0% 2.3% 2.9% 9.7% 1.1% 4.1%Statistically Significant Relationships: AgeStatistically Significant Trend: “Better” has risen significantly since 2005Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 23

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeTable 13 - Healthcare Quality 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Better 33.5% 21.9% 26.0% 31.4% 20.9% 19.8% 34.9% 30.5% 37.0%Same 37.9% 48.1% 53.8% 43.2% 56.7% 58.4% 40.0% 45.8% 40.4%Worse 21.4% 24.8% 14.1% 19.0% 10.5% 9.1% 18.8% 16.6% 19.0%Don’t Know 7.2% 5.2% 6.0% 6.5% 11.9% 12.6% 6.4% 7.0% 3.6%Col %HealthcareQualityBetterSameWorseDon't KnowGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total35.5% 38.7% 27.1% 34.0% 58.2% 37.0%46.2% 34.3% 52.4% 40.6% 24.1% 40.4%15.2% 23.1% 14.3% 23.6% 12.9% 19.0%3.2% 3.9% 6.2% 1.8% 4.8% 3.6%Col %HealthcareQualityBetterSameWorseDon't KnowStatistically Significant Relationships: Age, IncomeStatistically Significant Trend: “Better” has risen significantly since 2007Table 14 - Access to HigherEducation2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Better 62.4% 45.1% 50.0% 47.9% 41.4% 33.7% 42.8% 48.5% 55.0%Same 27.0% 42.2% 35.5% 36.5% 47.1% 54.7% 36.7% 34.8% 31.1%Worse 3.4% 8.3% 6.3% 8.6% 4.4% 5.4% 11.5% 7.1% 6.0%Don’t Know 7.2% 4.4% 8.2% 7.0% 7.1% 6.3% 9.0% 9.5% 7.9%Col %Access toHigherEducationBetterSameWorseDon't KnowGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total51.2% 59.1% 48.2% 55.1% 63.8% 55.0%35.6% 26.3% 36.4% 32.8% 19.6% 31.1%5.1% 7.0% 4.6% 7.5% 3.8% 6.0%8.2% 7.6% 10.8% 4.6% 12.9% 7.9%Col %Access toHigherEducationBetterSameWorseDon't KnowEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00037.9% 37.3% 37.2% 34.8% 45.7% 23.9% 37.3%41.4% 40.1% 38.5% 43.6% 31.3% 59.8% 32.5%17.9% 19.1% 23.1% 19.0% 17.7% 15.1% 30.2%2.8% 3.5% 1.1% 2.7% 5.3% 1.1% .0%EducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00056.7% 58.7% 51.1% 56.3% 63.2% 55.4% 42.4%25.8% 31.2% 37.9% 20.1% 25.8% 38.7% 42.8%5.4% 7.6% 2.8% 9.5% 2.3% 5.4% 7.2%12.1% 2.5% 8.2% 14.0% 8.7% .5% 7.7%Statistically Significant Relationships: NoneStatistically Significant Trend: “Better” has risen significantly since 2005Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 24

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeTable 15 - Internet Access 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Better 74.7% 60.9% 64.7% 69.7% 49.0% 44.2% 57.9% 62.7% 67.8%Same 8.0% 11.7% 18.6% 12.9% 31.4% 32.7% 22.9% 20.1% 16.9%Worse 1.3% 14.5% 3.5% 3.3% 3.6% 4.6% 5.7% 4.8% 4.2%Don’t Know 16.1% 12.9% 13.3% 14.2% 16.0% 18.6% 13.5% 12.4% 11.1%Col %InternetAccessBetterSameWorseDon't KnowGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total68.2% 67.3% 75.4% 70.8% 49.8% 67.8%19.1% 14.6% 19.0% 19.2% 8.0% 16.9%3.4% 5.0% 1.0% 5.7% 4.2% 4.2%9.2% 13.1% 4.6% 4.2% 38.1% 11.1%Col %InternetAccessBetterSameWorseDon't KnowStatistically Significant Relationships: Age, IncomeStatistically Significant Trend: “Better” has risen significantly since 2005Table 16 - RecreationalOpportunities2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Better 43.7% 36.6% 34.6% 36.5% 27.3% 29.4% 37.5% 40.5% 43.3%Same 42.8% 46.2% 47.2% 50.2% 59.6% 57.7% 44.5% 43.8% 40.6%Worse 9.6% 12.8% 12.5% 9.9% 7.9% 6.8% 11.4% 9.7% 10.2%Don’t Know 3.9% 4.4% 5.7% 3.5% 5.3% 6.2% 6.6% 6.0% 5.9%Col %RecreationalOpportunitiesBetterSameWorseDon't KnowGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total43.2% 43.5% 30.2% 46.7% 51.5% 43.3%41.8% 39.2% 54.4% 39.8% 24.3% 40.6%11.0% 9.4% 7.2% 10.5% 13.6% 10.2%4.1% 7.9% 8.2% 3.0% 10.6% 5.9%Col %RecreationalOpportunitiesBetterSameWorseDon't KnowEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00068.2% 71.7% 59.0% 60.0% 75.7% 73.1% 64.8%11.4% 18.1% 27.3% 14.8% 9.2% 23.5% 28.7%4.4% 5.2% 1.0% 6.7% 3.5% 2.4% 1.6%15.9% 5.0% 12.7% 18.5% 11.6% 1.0% 4.9%EducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00043.1% 45.0% 45.7% 45.0% 54.6% 37.9% 36.6%38.0% 40.3% 46.9% 35.8% 27.4% 49.4% 57.0%11.5% 11.8% 4.5% 12.9% 10.3% 8.8% 5.3%7.4% 3.0% 2.8% 6.3% 7.7% 3.9% 1.1%Statistically Significant Relationships: Age, IncomeStatistically Significant Trend: “Better” has risen significantly since 2005Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 25

Table 17 - Quality of theEnvironmentThe Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Better 30.4% 22.9% 19.4% 24.1% 22.5% 21.7% 22.8% 21.0% 26.0%Same 47.6% 54.2% 61.8% 45.8% 61.1% 55.5% 47.7% 46.7% 41.1%Worse 19.7% 19.8% 16.0% 24.9% 10.2% 16.0% 23.8% 25.2% 27.5%Don’t Know 2.2% 3.1% 2.8% 5.2% 6.2% 6.8% 5.7% 7.1% 5.4%Col %Quality of theEnvironmentBetterSameWorseDon't KnowGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total29.1% 22.6% 21.6% 24.5% 35.9% 26.0%44.3% 37.7% 42.1% 45.0% 29.4% 41.1%22.2% 33.2% 26.6% 26.6% 31.3% 27.5%4.4% 6.5% 9.8% 4.0% 3.4% 5.4%Col %Quality of theEnvironmentBetterSameWorseDon't KnowStatistically Significant Relationships: IncomeStatistically Significant Trend: “Worse” has risen significantly since 2005Table 18 - Local Government 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Better 16.8% 10.4% 12.0% 13.7% 13.2% 11.8% 9.1% 11.6% 20.8%Same 48.4% 47.4% 53.8% 41.3% 48.7% 53.4% 45.9% 47.4% 41.5%Worse 22.7% 33.8% 27.8% 31.4% 23.5% 18.8% 28.6% 24.3% 26.3%Don’t Know 12.1% 8.4% 6.4% 13.6% 14.7% 16.0% 16.4% 16.7% 11.4%Col %LocalGovernmentBetterSameWorseDon't KnowGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total22.1% 19.3% 23.6% 14.8% 33.1% 20.8%41.8% 41.3% 34.3% 49.3% 30.3% 41.5%25.9% 26.7% 23.6% 26.7% 28.7% 26.3%10.1% 12.8% 18.5% 9.2% 7.9% 11.4%Col %LocalGovernmentBetterSameWorseDon't KnowEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00028.0% 27.2% 21.6% 27.9% 31.5% 13.2% 30.5%37.8% 39.9% 50.7% 44.7% 27.3% 52.6% 49.1%28.4% 28.3% 24.7% 24.0% 31.5% 30.1% 17.4%5.9% 4.6% 3.0% 3.5% 9.7% 4.2% 3.0%EducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00024.3% 19.1% 16.5% 25.4% 25.2% 11.5% 12.7%39.8% 40.3% 56.8% 36.8% 40.3% 54.0% 51.9%29.5% 28.1% 12.2% 27.8% 19.9% 23.7% 24.2%6.4% 12.6% 14.5% 10.0% 14.6% 10.9% 11.2%Statistically Significant Relationships: Age, IncomeStatistically Significant Trend: “Better” has risen significantly since 2006Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 26

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeTable 19 - Real Estate Taxes 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Better 11.6% 5.4% 4.6% 6.1% 5.2% 6.2% 5.5% 4.2% 6.6%Same 30.5% 24.3% 22.9% 16.7% 24.7% 28.6% 20.3% 13.5% 17.6%Worse 40.6% 54.6% 51.0% 54.8% 47.4% 38.8% 58.4% 62.9% 61.2%Don’t Know 17.3% 15.7% 21.6% 22.5% 22.6% 26.4% 15.8% 19.3% 14.6%Col %RealEstateTaxesBetterSameWorseDon't KnowGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total5.7% 7.6% 5.1% 6.1% 10.2% 6.6%22.6% 12.1% 22.1% 18.1% 10.1% 17.6%58.1% 64.6% 47.7% 65.4% 67.8% 61.2%13.5% 15.7% 25.1% 10.4% 11.9% 14.6%Col %RealEstateTaxesBetterSameWorseDon't KnowStatistically Significant Relationships: Age, IncomeStatistically Significant Trend: “Worse” has risen significantly since 2005Table 20 - DowntownWatertown2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Better 33.0% 24.5% 22.1% 24.7% 15.6% 22.2% 26.7% 26.1% 29.7%Same 25.2% 26.4% 26.1% 29.9% 31.1% 29.1% 28.6% 23.8% 23.1%Worse 38.8% 45.2% 47.4% 37.9% 45.4% 41.8% 37.6% 42.4% 42.2%Don’t Know 3.0% 3.9% 4.4% 7.5% 7.9% 6.9% 7.1% 7.6% 4.9%Col %The Downtownof WatertownBetterSameWorseDon't KnowGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total26.4% 33.2% 37.5% 28.9% 21.6% 29.7%27.2% 18.7% 25.6% 26.0% 12.1% 23.1%42.8% 41.6% 33.9% 40.2% 58.8% 42.2%3.5% 6.5% 3.0% 4.9% 7.6% 4.9%Col %The Downtownof WatertownBetterSameWorseDon't KnowEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,0005.1% 7.2% 8.4% 4.1% 7.2% 8.4% 6.3%16.8% 14.8% 20.7% 13.4% 21.0% 18.6% 12.6%63.6% 62.7% 59.8% 65.6% 57.6% 57.6% 76.4%14.4% 15.2% 11.0% 16.9% 14.2% 15.4% 4.6%EducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00038.1% 28.0% 18.1% 37.1% 32.5% 31.6% 13.7%22.7% 18.6% 36.0% 16.6% 17.7% 28.7% 36.0%35.8% 47.8% 40.3% 42.2% 44.4% 38.5% 41.6%3.4% 5.5% 5.6% 4.2% 5.4% 1.1% 8.7%Statistically Significant Relationships: Education, IncomeStatistically Significant Trend: “Better” has risen significantly since 2004Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 27

Table 21 - Policing and CrimeControlThe Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Better 34.8% 39.1% 31.0% 38.9% 32.7% 18.9% 36.2% 29.7% 43.8%Same 47.6% 40.6% 51.8% 42.2% 51.1% 53.9% 40.5% 42.1% 32.6%Worse 13.8% 14.4% 10.4% 11.0% 8.3% 18.1% 17.7% 19.9% 15.8%Don’t Know 3.9% 5.9% 6.8% 7.8% 8.0% 9.2% 5.7% 8.3% 7.9%Col %Policingand CrimeControlBetterSameWorseDon't KnowGenderMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total45.8% 41.6% 50.8% 39.9% 44.8% 43.8%33.1% 31.9% 31.3% 34.9% 28.0% 32.6%13.0% 18.8% 8.1% 20.3% 13.9% 15.8%Age8.1% 7.7% 9.8% 4.9% 13.3% 7.9%Col %Policingand CrimeControlBetterSameWorseDon't KnowStatistically Significant Relationships: Education, IncomeStatistically Significant Trend: “Better” has risen significantly since 2005 … to the highest level ever!Table 22 - Availability of GoodJobs2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Better 16.6% 4.5% 6.7% 9.2% 7.7% 9.9% 21.6% 31.4% 22.6%Same 27.0% 10.9% 18.2% 16.4% 23.7% 35.5% 29.5% 29.0% 26.7%Worse 52.1% 80.8% 69.6% 69.2% 62.8% 49.3% 41.1% 31.4% 45.4%Don’t Know 4.3% 3.8% 5.5% 5.2% 5.8% 5.4% 7.8% 8.1% 5.2%Col %Availabilityof GoodJobsBetterSameWorseDon't KnowGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total24.7% 20.4% 19.8% 26.0% 17.4% 22.6%28.3% 25.0% 30.6% 26.9% 21.0% 26.7%43.4% 47.6% 46.6% 42.3% 52.4% 45.4%3.6% 7.0% 3.1% 4.8% 9.2% 5.2%Col %Availabilityof GoodJobsBetterSameWorseDon't KnowEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00052.1% 41.7% 28.3% 53.2% 45.7% 34.4% 36.2%24.5% 34.2% 48.8% 22.5% 27.9% 42.1% 40.1%14.7% 18.6% 14.2% 16.4% 13.7% 20.2% 20.2%8.7% 5.6% 8.7% 7.9% 12.7% 3.3% 3.5%EducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00023.3% 23.6% 23.5% 23.7% 22.7% 25.1% 23.3%27.9% 26.8% 25.1% 22.1% 28.6% 28.9% 29.4%46.0% 44.0% 40.5% 50.8% 40.5% 41.8% 41.7%2.7% 5.5% 10.8% 3.3% 8.2% 4.2% 5.6%Statistically Significant Relationships: NoneStatistically Significant Trend: “Better” has decreased significantly in the past 12 months (therefore, “Worse” hasincreased, of course)Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 28

Table 23 - ShoppingOpportunitiesThe Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Better 51.0% 40.2% 30.1% 38.5% 37.6% 46.2% 80.9% 85.5% 84.5%Same 34.1% 40.2% 46.0% 36.2% 46.3% 43.7% 11.7% 6.8% 10.0%Worse 13.2% 18.6% 21.7% 24.6% 10.0% 6.1% 5.3% 5.4% 4.1%Don’t Know 1.6% 0.9% 2.2% 0.7% 6.2% 4.0% 2.1% 2.4% 1.4%Col %ShoppingOpportunitiesBetterSameWorseDon't KnowGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total83.2% 85.9% 85.1% 86.1% 79.4% 84.5%10.8% 9.1% 8.8% 9.9% 11.8% 10.0%5.0% 3.1% 6.2% 3.7% 2.4% 4.1%1.0% 1.9% .0% .3% 6.4% 1.4%Col %ShoppingOpportunitiesBetterSameWorseDon't KnowStatistically Significant Relationships: NoneStatistically Significant Trend: “Better” has increased significantly since 2005Table 24 - K-12 Education 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Better 49.6% 30.8% 32.8% 36.6% 30.9% 30.7% 37.8% 40.8% 46.2%Same 25.1% 39.5% 43.8% 27.6% 40.2% 42.2% 29.0% 30.2% 31.8%Worse 9.3% 15.3% 8.5% 15.0% 5.4% 7.5% 12.7% 10.3% 7.9%Don’t Know 16.1% 14.4% 15.0% 20.8% 23.5% 19.6% 20.5% 18.7% 14.0%Col %Quality ofK-12EducationBetterSameWorseDon't KnowGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total47.8% 44.5% 46.7% 45.8% 46.8% 46.2%34.1% 29.4% 25.2% 36.9% 26.8% 31.8%7.0% 8.9% 12.8% 5.8% 7.1% 7.9%11.1% 17.3% 15.3% 11.5% 19.2% 14.0%Col %Quality ofK-12EducationBetterSameWorseDon't KnowEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00081.5% 91.2% 81.2% 84.7% 86.6% 86.6% 81.8%11.9% 4.4% 14.9% 8.8% 5.9% 11.1% 15.1%4.8% 4.0% 1.8% 4.6% 6.2% 1.5% 3.1%1.8% .5% 2.1% 1.9% 1.3% .8% .0%EducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00048.6% 49.7% 31.3% 42.6% 54.0% 44.7% 35.4%34.7% 25.1% 44.2% 34.0% 23.5% 40.5% 40.8%6.9% 9.4% 4.4% 9.8% 10.6% 5.9% 5.0%9.8% 15.7% 20.1% 13.7% 11.9% 9.0% 18.8%Statistically Significant Relationships: EducationStatistically Significant Trend: “Better” has increased significantly since 2005Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 29

Table 25 - Overall State of theLocal EconomyThe Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Better 27.6% 9.2% 12.0% 12.7% 12.3% 15.1% 34.7% 39.3% 26.6%Same 37.1% 18.6% 26.2% 23.4% 32.1% 45.5% 28.2% 30.5% 23.7%Worse 31.5% 69.3% 58.5% 60.6% 48.7% 32.1% 32.6% 25.2% 45.0%Don’t Know 3.7% 3.0% 3.4% 3.3% 6.9% 7.3% 4.5% 5.0% 4.7%Col %Overall Stateof LocalEconomyBetterSameWorseDon't KnowGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total28.0% 25.1% 34.9% 26.5% 16.1% 26.6%22.6% 24.8% 26.7% 22.3% 23.3% 23.7%44.0% 46.0% 33.3% 47.9% 52.8% 45.0%5.4% 4.0% 5.2% 3.3% 7.8% 4.7%Col %Overall Stateof LocalEconomyBetterSameWorseDon't KnowStatistically Significant Relationships: AgeStatistically Significant Trend: “Better” has decreased significantly in the past 12 months, “Worse” increased from25% in 2007 to 45% in 2008Table 26 - Overall Quality ofLife in Jefferson County2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Better 40.9% 20.7% 23.0% 25.5% 15.6% 18.6% 34.9% 46.8% 43.6%Same 46.9% 46.4% 57.7% 52.7% 62.6% 67.0% 46.7% 37.3% 37.6%Worse 10.8% 29.9% 16.2% 18.9% 16.5% 10.6% 15.7% 12.5% 14.3%Don’t Know 1.4% 3.0% 3.1% 2.9% 5.3% 3.8% 2.6% 3.4% 4.5%Col %OverallQuality ofLife inAreaBetterSameWorseDon't KnowGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total45.9% 41.1% 44.1% 40.6% 50.8% 43.6%36.8% 38.5% 42.1% 38.4% 29.6% 37.6%11.7% 17.0% 7.7% 17.9% 13.5% 14.3%5.6% 3.4% 6.2% 3.1% 6.1% 4.5%Col %OverallQuality ofLife inAreaBetterSameWorseDon't KnowEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00021.1% 28.8% 32.8% 22.7% 25.7% 28.3% 33.1%25.4% 20.8% 23.0% 18.0% 31.1% 19.4% 23.8%47.5% 46.0% 40.3% 51.5% 40.8% 48.4% 41.1%5.9% 4.3% 3.9% 7.8% 2.3% 3.9% 2.0%EducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00044.5% 45.9% 38.6% 41.6% 46.9% 39.9% 44.8%40.2% 31.4% 43.3% 38.1% 34.4% 39.9% 39.6%12.3% 18.2% 12.7% 15.0% 13.6% 14.5% 13.5%3.0% 4.4% 5.4% 5.3% 5.0% 5.7% 2.0%Statistically Significant Relationships: NoneStatistically Significant Trend: “Better” has increased significantly since 2005Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 30

Table 27 - Availability ofGoods and ServicesThe Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Better 27.8% 36.9% 28.4% 24.1% 51.2% 70.2% 69.9%Same 54.6% 48.8% 59.3% 67.1% 37.9% 24.1% 22.2%Worse 15.9% 12.7% 8.6% 5.2% 6.0% 4.0% 5.4%Don’t Know 1.8% 1.6% 3.7% 3.7% 4.9% 1.7% 2.6%Col %Availability ofGoods/ServicesBetterSameWorseDon't KnowGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total78.6% 60.5% 74.0% 68.8% 67.3% 69.9%15.9% 28.9% 20.9% 24.0% 18.9% 22.2%3.8% 7.2% 3.0% 5.5% 8.3% 5.4%1.8% 3.4% 2.0% 1.7% 5.5% 2.6%Col %Availability ofGoods/ServicesBetterSameWorseDon't KnowStatistically Significant Relationships: GenderStatistically Significant Trend: “Better” has almost tripled since 2005 – from 24% to 70%Table 28 - Care for theElderly2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Better 14.7% 15.2% 27.5% 19.1% 24.4%Same 37.3% 41.0% 32.4% 35.3% 31.6%Worse 14.6% 16.0% 16.9% 20.6% 18.3%Don’t Know 33.4% 27.9% 23.2% 25.1% 25.7%Col %Availabilityof Care forthe ElderlyBetterSameWorseDon't KnowGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total19.3% 29.9% 16.8% 23.2% 37.8% 24.4%37.2% 25.5% 39.1% 32.0% 20.5% 31.6%17.2% 19.6% 11.8% 20.8% 20.3% 18.3%26.3% 25.0% 32.3% 24.0% 21.4% 25.7%Col %Availabilityof Care forthe ElderlyBetterSameWorseDon't KnowEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00066.3% 72.8% 69.3% 65.8% 68.7% 71.9% 77.0%25.3% 20.8% 19.9% 24.3% 25.2% 20.9% 17.2%5.3% 4.0% 9.6% 6.6% 4.4% 4.4% 5.8%3.1% 2.4% 1.1% 3.2% 1.7% 2.8% .0%EducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00031.1% 22.8% 14.4% 33.6% 28.6% 14.6% 12.9%33.5% 32.3% 30.1% 31.5% 27.1% 30.4% 47.3%18.3% 15.8% 21.2% 14.8% 18.2% 26.0% 13.6%17.1% 29.2% 34.3% 20.1% 26.0% 29.0% 26.2%Statistically Significant Relationships:Statistically Significant Trend: NoneGender, Age, Education, IncomePresentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 31

Table 29 - Availability ofHousingThe Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Better 11.8% 20.3% 28.9% 33.0%Same 27.6% 15.2% 16.7% 17.6%Worse 54.1% 57.3% 47.8% 43.0%Don’t Know 6.5% 7.2% 6.5% 6.4%Col %Availabilityof HousingBetterSameWorseDon't KnowGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total34.9% 30.9% 38.5% 28.8% 37.1% 33.0%20.8% 14.1% 23.2% 16.5% 13.0% 17.6%37.9% 48.5% 35.3% 48.9% 37.4% 43.0%6.4% 6.4% 3.0% 5.9% 12.5% 6.4%Col %Availabilityof HousingBetterSameWorseDon't KnowEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00037.4% 31.5% 32.1% 41.2% 20.6% 34.9% 38.9%17.5% 16.7% 16.5% 8.6% 22.7% 17.5% 16.4%39.4% 46.0% 42.9% 42.6% 48.5% 44.4% 39.0%5.7% 5.8% 8.4% 7.6% 8.3% 3.1% 5.7%Statistically Significant Relationships: IncomeStatistically Significant Trend: “Better” has increased significantly since 2005Section 3.4 - Internet Access and UtilizationTables 30-45 show the results (both as trends over time as well as detailed cross-tabs with the 2008 data)for survey questions regarding Internet access and utilization.Table 30 - Do you have Internet access – at either home or work or both?Internet Access 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Home only 35.4% 30.9%Work only 72.4% 77.1% 71.1% 78.6% 81.7% 3.2% 4.6%Both at Home and Work40.4% 40.3%Neither 27.6% 22.9% 28.9% 21.4% 18.3% 21.0% 24.1%Col %Accessto theInternetHomeWorkBothNeitherGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total25.7% 36.6% 32.2% 32.0% 26.4% 30.9%5.8% 3.3% 8.2% 3.7% 2.0% 4.6%45.3% 35.0% 46.2% 47.3% 13.9% 40.3%23.2% 25.1% 13.4% 17.0% 57.8% 24.1%Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 32

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeCol %Accessto theInternetHomeWorkBothNeitherStatistically Significant Relationships:Statistically Significant Trend: NoneAge, Education, IncomeTable 31 – How do you get access to the Internet at home? (choose the most commonsource)Type of Internet Access 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Phone (dial-up) 88.2% 74.3% 66.0% 38.1% 44.4% 34.8% -- 22.7%Cable (Roadrunner) 9.7% 22.3% 25.9% 38.1% 41.2% 39.4% -- 62.5%DSL 0.0% 1.8% 7.4% 20.0% 11.1% 19.9% -- 12.4%WiFi 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -- 0.4%Television 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -- 0.2%Via Cell Phone 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -- 0.0%Satellite Dish 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 1.3% -- 1.7%Other 2.1% 1.6% 0.7% 3.8% 2.4% 4.7% -- 0.0%Col %How doyou getInternetaccess athome?Phone (dial-up)Cable (Roadrunner)DSLWiFiTelevisionSatellite DishGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total20.0% 25.5% 13.5% 23.8% 39.8% 22.7%62.7% 62.4% 77.0% 57.9% 51.0% 62.5%15.3% 9.4% 9.5% 14.8% 7.0% 12.4%.8% .0% .0% .7% .0% .4%.0% .5% .0% .4% .0% .2%1.3% 2.2% .0% 2.5% 2.1% 1.7%Col %How doyou getInternetaccess athome?Phone (dial-up)Cable (Roadrunner)DSLWiFiTelevisionSatellite DishEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00038.5% 32.1% 15.3% 36.8% 37.4% 24.6% 19.9%6.0% 4.0% 3.3% 7.5% 8.4% .0% .0%17.8% 50.1% 66.3% 15.9% 31.1% 67.7% 71.6%37.8% 13.7% 15.1% 39.8% 23.0% 7.7% 8.5%EducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00024.1% 21.4% 23.9% 28.0% 24.8% 20.3% 20.3%54.3% 69.4% 56.8% 55.3% 64.5% 60.0% 65.5%19.6% 7.4% 14.6% 16.7% 7.2% 16.0% 11.8%1.3% .0% .0% .0% 1.5% .0% .0%.7% .0% .0% .0% .8% .0% .0%.0% 1.8% 4.7% .0% 1.1% 3.7% 2.5%Statistically Significant Relationships: AgeStatistically Significant Trend: Cable significantly increased, while both Dial-up and DSL both decreasingPresentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 33

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeTable 32 – How many hours in a typical week do you spend using the Internet (includeboth at work and for personal use)Hours/week of Internet Use 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008None 27.5%1-3 hours 20.4%4-7 hours 15.6%8-10 hours 11.7%11-20 hours 10.4%21-40 hours 10.2%>40 hours 4.2%Mean10.3 hrsMedian5.0 hrsStandard Deviation16.8 hrsRange0-120 hrsInternet Use - Hours Per WeekMeanMedianStd DeviationMinimumMaximumMale Female9.5 11.14.0 5.015.3 18.4.0 .0100.0 120.0Internet Use - Hours Per WeekMeanMedianStd DeviationMinimumMaximum18-29 30-59 60+12.4 11.7 3.37.0 5.0 .016.4 18.8 6.9.0 .0 .0100.0 120.0 35.0Internet Use - Hours Per WeekMeanMedianStd DeviationMinimumMaximumSome 4+ YearNo College College Degree7.8 11.2 13.51.0 6.0 9.216.8 16.7 16.9.0 .0 .0120.0 100.0 75.0Internet Use - Hours Per WeekUnder$25,000$25,001-$50,000$50,001-$75,000 Over $75,000Mean7.8 9.9 13.9 12.9Median1.6 3.0 10.0 6.3Std Deviation 14.7 18.7 17.5 16.8Minimum.0 .0 .0 .0Maximum 120.0 100.0 100.0 80.0Statistically Significant Relationships:Age, EducationTable 33 – SUMMARY: Which of the following uses of the Internet have you participated inat least once in the past 30 days?Type of Internet UseUsed in the past 30 days?% Yes % No % Don’t Know1. email 63.0% 36.3% 0.7%2. Use Internet for LOCAL News 57.1% 42.9% 0.0%3. Use Internet for NATIONAL News 44.7% 55.3% 0.0%4. Use Internet to Plan Travel 42.4% 57.6% 0.0%5. Use Internet for Medical/Health Information 42.0% 58.0% 0.0%6. Instant Messaging (IM) 27.3% 72.5% 0.2%7. Use YouTube 26.2% 73.6% 0.2%8. Visit MySpace 25.3% 74.7% 0.0%9. Blogs 12.3% 87.7% 0.0%10. Visit Facebook 8.0% 91.4% 0.7%11. Chat Rooms 5.4% 94.6% 0.0%Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 34

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeTable 34 – Use of email – further correlational analysis.Col %emailYesNoDon't KnowGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total57.1% 69.3% 65.6% 73.1% 31.3% 63.0%41.5% 30.7% 31.7% 26.9% 68.7% 36.3%1.3% .0% 2.7% .0% .0% .7%Col %emailYesNoDon't KnowStatistically Significant Relationships:Gender, Age, Education, IncomeTable 35 – Use of Internet for LOCAL News – further correlational analysis.Col %Used a Website forLOCAL NewsYesNoGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total54.7% 59.7% 67.3% 63.0% 26.9% 57.1%45.3% 40.3% 32.7% 37.0% 73.1% 42.9%Col %Used a Website forLOCAL NewsYesNoStatistically Significant Relationships:Age, Education, IncomeTable 36 – Use of Internet for NATIONAL News – further correlational analysis.Col %Used a Website forNATIONAL NewsYesNoGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total45.1% 44.2% 55.3% 47.8% 21.8% 44.7%54.9% 55.8% 44.7% 52.2% 78.2% 55.3%Col %Used a Website forNATIONAL NewsYesNoEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00044.5% 72.8% 83.9% 42.7% 65.9% 82.8% 84.3%55.5% 25.5% 16.1% 54.8% 34.1% 17.2% 15.7%.0% 1.7% .0% 2.4% .0% .0% .0%EducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00042.4% 68.0% 69.8% 43.0% 52.1% 82.3% 67.9%57.6% 32.0% 30.2% 57.0% 47.9% 17.7% 32.1%EducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00029.7% 51.6% 63.6% 32.5% 36.1% 65.4% 61.5%70.3% 48.4% 36.4% 67.5% 63.9% 34.6% 38.5%Statistically Significant Relationships:Age, Education, IncomePresentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 35

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeTable 37 – Use of Internet to Plan Travel – further correlational analysis.Col %Used a Websiteto Plan TravelYesNoGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total41.9% 42.9% 49.7% 47.7% 18.0% 42.4%58.1% 57.1% 50.3% 52.3% 82.0% 57.6%Col %Used a Websiteto Plan TravelYesNoStatistically Significant Relationships:Age, Education, IncomeTable 38 – Use of Internet for MEDICAL/HEALTH information – further correlational analysis.Col %Used a Website forMedical/Health Info.YesNoGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total36.0% 48.5% 42.5% 48.0% 25.0% 42.0%64.0% 51.5% 57.5% 52.0% 75.0% 58.0%Col %Used a Website forMedical/Health Info.YesNoStatistically Significant Relationships:Gender, Age, Education, IncomeTable 39 – Instant Messaging – further correlational analysis.Col %Instant Messaging(IM)YesNoDon't KnowGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total24.3% 30.6% 47.3% 24.0% 9.7% 27.3%75.4% 69.4% 52.7% 76.0% 89.5% 72.5%.3% .0% .0% .0% .9% .2%Col %Instant Messaging(IM)YesNoDon't KnowEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00025.8% 51.3% 57.8% 25.1% 35.3% 65.8% 64.7%74.2% 48.7% 42.2% 74.9% 64.7% 34.2% 35.3%EducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00029.9% 49.4% 55.4% 23.5% 43.8% 61.2% 57.3%70.1% 50.6% 44.6% 76.5% 56.2% 38.8% 42.7%EducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00023.2% 33.5% 26.4% 26.7% 27.5% 33.6% 20.7%76.8% 66.5% 72.6% 73.3% 72.5% 66.4% 78.2%.0% .0% 1.1% .0% .0% .0% 1.2%Statistically Significant Relationships:AgePresentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 36

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeTable 40 – Use of YouTube – further correlational analysis.Col %Watched a Videoon YouTubeYesNoDon't KnowGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total28.3% 23.9% 36.4% 29.5% 3.4% 26.2%71.7% 75.7% 63.6% 70.1% 96.6% 73.6%.0% .5% .0% .4% .0% .2%Col %Watched a Videoon YouTubeYesNoDon't KnowStatistically Significant Relationships:Age, Education, IncomeTable 41 – Use of MySpace – further correlational analysis.Col %Visit a MySpaceSiteYesNoGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total24.7% 26.0% 57.9% 17.0% 4.8% 25.3%75.3% 74.0% 42.1% 83.0% 95.2% 74.7%Col %Visit a MySpaceSiteYesNoStatistically Significant Relationships:Age, EducationTable 42 – Use of Blogs – further correlational analysis.Col %BlogsYesNoGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total12.5% 12.0% 20.5% 10.5% 6.2% 12.3%87.5% 88.0% 79.5% 89.5% 93.8% 87.7%Col %BlogsYesNoEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00017.3% 29.9% 38.1% 18.8% 25.3% 35.4% 30.2%82.7% 70.1% 60.5% 81.2% 73.9% 64.6% 69.8%.0% .0% 1.4% .0% .8% .0% .0%EducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00026.8% 29.8% 7.8% 27.7% 29.4% 31.5% 16.2%73.2% 70.2% 92.2% 72.3% 70.6% 68.5% 83.8%EducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,0007.2% 17.7% 13.2% 8.6% 11.3% 17.4% 9.3%92.8% 82.3% 86.8% 91.4% 88.7% 82.6% 90.7%Statistically Significant Relationships:Age, EducationPresentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 37

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeTable 43 – Use of Facebook – further correlational analysis.Col %Visit a FacebookSiteYesNoDon't KnowGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total7.5% 8.4% 17.9% 5.0% 2.8% 8.0%92.5% 90.2% 81.1% 94.3% 97.2% 91.4%.0% 1.4% 1.0% .7% .0% .7%Col %Visit a FacebookSiteYesNoDon't KnowStatistically Significant Relationships:AgeTable 44 – Chat Room Use – further correlational analysis.Col %Chat RoomsYesNoGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total8.1% 2.6% 8.0% 4.7% 4.3% 5.4%91.9% 97.4% 92.0% 95.3% 95.7% 94.6%Col %Chat RoomsYesNoEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00010.1% 6.7% 5.0% 11.4% 6.2% 12.7% 1.5%89.5% 92.7% 93.7% 87.6% 93.1% 86.5% 98.5%.4% .7% 1.4% 1.0% .8% .8% .0%EducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,0006.2% 6.3% 2.4% 7.3% 6.3% 3.7% .0%93.8% 93.7% 97.6% 92.7% 93.7% 96.3% 100.0%Statistically Significant Relationships:GenderTable 45 – Have you made an online Internet purchase within the past year?Internet Access 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Yes 52.9% 48.8% 45.4% 58.5% 54.6% 59.3% 58.2% -- 55.2%No 47.1% 51.2% 54.6% 41.5% 45.4% 40.7% 41.8% -- 44.6%Don’t Know 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -- 0.2%Col %Made an OnlinePurchase WithinPast YearYesNoDon't KnowGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total55.7% 54.7% 65.2% 60.6% 26.6% 55.2%44.3% 44.9% 34.8% 39.0% 73.4% 44.6%.0% .5% .0% .4% .0% .2%Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 38

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeCol %Made an OnlinePurchase WithinPast YearYesNoDon't KnowStatistically Significant Relationships:Statistically Significant Trend: NoneAge, Education, IncomeSection 3.5 - Cell Phone PrevalenceTables 46-48 show the results (both as trends over time when possible, as well as detailed cross-tabs withthe 2008 data) for survey questions regarding Cellular Phones.Table 46 - Do you personally have a cell phone?Personally have a cellphone?2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Yes 65.9% 71.2% 77.1% 75.9%No 34.1% 28.8% 22.9% 24.1%Col %Personally havea cell phone?YesNoGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total77.2% 74.4% 74.7% 83.2% 57.6% 75.9%22.8% 25.6% 25.3% 16.8% 42.4% 24.1%Col %Personally havea cell phone?YesNoEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00036.4% 67.7% 70.2% 34.2% 54.6% 73.3% 78.6%63.6% 32.3% 28.4% 65.8% 45.4% 25.6% 21.4%.0% .0% 1.4% .0% .0% 1.1% .0%EducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00064.7% 82.2% 90.2% 59.2% 79.9% 87.1% 94.7%35.3% 17.8% 9.8% 40.8% 20.1% 12.9% 5.3%Statistically Significant Relationships: Age, Education, IncomeStatistically Significant Trend: Increased significantly since 2005, but no significant increase in the past 12 monthsTable 47 – How many cell phones are used by members of your household?# Cell Phones 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008None 24.3% 18.0% -- 14.6%1 29.8% 28.3% -- 23.6%2 29.7% 35.7% -- 30.1%3 8.8% 8.6% -- 17.9%4 4.0% 7.0% -- 7.7%5 3.2% 1.8% -- 3.5%>5 0.1% 0.6% -- 2.6%Mean 1.49 1.66 -- 2.04Median 1 2 -- 2Standard Deviation 1.25 1.23 -- 1.53Range 0-6 0-6 -- 0-10Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 39

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeNumber of Cell Phones in HouseholdMale FemaleMean2.2 1.9Median2.0 2.0Std Deviation 1.5 1.5Minimum.0 .0Maximum10.0 10.0Number of Cell Phones in Household18-29 30-59 60+Mean2.1 2.3 1.3Median2.0 2.0 1.0Std Deviation 1.6 1.4 1.6Minimum.0 .0 .0Maximum7.0 7.0 10.0Number of Cell Phones in HouseholdNo CollegeSomeCollege4+ YearDegreeMean2.0 2.1 2.2Median2.0 2.0 2.0Std Deviation 1.7 1.4 1.4Minimum.0 .0 .0Maximum10.0 10.0 6.0Number of Cell Phones in HouseholdUnder$25,000$25,001-$50,000$50,001-$75,000 Over $75,000Mean1.6 2.0 2.5 2.9Median1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0Std Deviation 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.6Minimum.0 .0 .0 .0Maximum10.0 7.0 6.0 7.0Statistically Significant Relationships: Age, IncomeStatistically Significant Trend: Number of Cells per Household is significantly increasing each yearTable 48 - Do you know anyone who lives in Jefferson County who has only a cell phone,they have no landline in their home?2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Yes 44.3% 52.6% -- 55.4%No 55.7% 47.4% -- 41.2%Not Sure 0.0% 0.0% -- 3.4%Col %Know Anyone inJefferson County WhoOnly Uses a Cell PhoneYesNoNot SureGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total57.7% 52.9% 61.1% 60.4% 34.4% 55.4%39.8% 42.6% 36.3% 36.8% 59.5% 41.2%2.4% 4.5% 2.7% 2.8% 6.1% 3.4%Col %Know Anyone inJefferson County WhoOnly Uses a Cell PhoneYesNoNot SureKnow someone who is cellphone-only?EducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00050.3% 61.5% 52.9% 46.3% 57.7% 65.3% 63.7%45.5% 35.9% 45.4% 49.5% 38.1% 32.7% 35.6%4.2% 2.5% 1.8% 4.1% 4.1% 2.0% .7%Statistically Significant Relationships: Age, IncomeStatistically Significant Trend: Since 2005 the incidence of knowing “no-landline” Jefferson County residents hasincreasedPresentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 40

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeSection 3.6 - Passports and Cross-border TravelTable 49 – Do you currently have a valid passport?Canada Visits 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Yes 22.0%No 77.7%Not Sure 0.2%Col %Have aPassport?YesNoNot SureGenderFemaleAge18-29 30-59 60+MaleTotal23.7% 20.2% 25.3% 20.5% 21.8% 22.0%76.3% 79.3% 74.7% 79.1% 78.2% 77.7%.0% .5% .0% .4% .0% .2%Col %Have aPassport?YesNoNot SureStatistically Significant Relationships:Education, IncomeTable 50 - How many times have you crossed the border to eastern Ontario in the pastyear?Canada Visits 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20080 38.7% 33.0% 49.5% 49.3% 48.2% 56.2% 65.6% 64.0% 74.3%1-2 times 26.6% 36.2% 24.9% 23.6% 25.0% 21.7% 20.6% 17.8% 12.8%3-5 times 15.4% 11.7% 12.6% 13.1% 13.3% 9.3% 5.6% 8.8% 5.0%6+ times 19.4% 19.1% 12.9% 14.0% 13.5% 12.9% 8.2% 9.3% 7.9%Col %Crossing Borderto Eastern Ontarioin Past YearNone1-2 times3-5 timesMore than 5 timesGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total75.0% 73.6% 83.2% 69.1% 76.7% 74.3%12.1% 13.5% 12.0% 14.5% 9.4% 12.8%4.5% 5.5% 1.0% 6.8% 5.2% 5.0%8.3% 7.5% 3.7% 9.6% 8.7% 7.9%Col %Crossing Borderto Eastern Ontarioin Past YearNone1-2 times3-5 timesMore than 5 timesEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00010.1% 24.0% 46.0% 15.1% 17.2% 24.7% 36.5%89.9% 75.4% 54.0% 84.9% 82.8% 75.3% 61.8%.0% .6% .0% .0% .0% .0% 1.6%EducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00080.0% 78.1% 47.7% 84.3% 79.5% 61.7% 58.3%11.5% 10.1% 24.2% 7.6% 10.2% 22.1% 17.6%3.5% 4.2% 11.3% 2.1% 5.8% 6.0% 9.5%4.9% 7.6% 16.8% 5.9% 4.6% 10.2% 14.6%Statistically Significant Relationships: Age, Education, IncomeStatistically Significant Trend: Continued significant trend of less border-crossingPresentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 41

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeSection 3.7 - Volunteerism and Community InvolvementTable 51 - Estimate how many hours per month you volunteer for community serviceactivities such as church, school and youth activities, charitable organizations, localgovernment, boards, etc.Volunteer Hours per Month 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Mean 7.1 9.4 9.4 6.8 6.6 10.2 7.0 6.2Median 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0Standard Deviation 16.7 22.1 19.3 12.2 13.3 18.9 16.9 14.2Range 0-120 0-250 0-150 0-80 0-100 0-160 0-170 0-100Volunteering - Hours Per MonthMale FemaleMean6.1 6.2Median.0 .0Std Deviation 15.1 13.2Minimum.0 .0Maximum96.0 100.0Volunteering - Hours Per MonthMeanMedianStd DeviationMinimumMaximum18-29 30-59 60+4.9 6.6 6.5.0 1.0 .016.5 12.8 14.4.0 .0 .096.0 80.0 100.0Volunteering - Hours Per MonthMeanMedianStd DeviationMinimumMaximumSome 4+ YearNo College College Degree5.4 5.4 10.4.0 .0 4.915.8 11.4 16.2.0 .0 .096.0 100.0 80.0Volunteering - Hours Per MonthUnder$25,000$25,001-$50,000$50,001-$75,000 Over $75,000Mean5.6 5.3 4.5 10.2Median.0 .0 .0 2.0Std Deviation 16.3 13.1 7.6 17.0Minimum.0 .0 .0 .0Maximum96.0 100.0 40.0 80.0Statistically Significant Relationships: EducationStatistically Significant Trend: Decreased since 2006Table 52 - How often have you gone to a community-based meeting in the past year? (i.e.school board, town board, public or church committee, town hall/fire hall meetings, etc.)Gone to communitybasedmeetings?2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Never 63.1% 62.1% 64.3%Once 9.9% 7.8% 9.0%2-5 times 13.3% 17.9% 16.0%6+ times 13.7% 12.1% 10.7%Col %AttendingCommunity-basedMeetings in Past YearNeverOnce2-5 times6 or more timesGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total66.6% 61.9% 82.1% 56.7% 61.3% 64.3%11.8% 6.0% 5.3% 12.5% 4.3% 9.0%13.8% 18.4% 7.4% 18.7% 20.3% 16.0%7.9% 13.6% 5.2% 12.1% 14.1% 10.7%Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 42

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeCol %AttendingCommunity-basedMeetings in Past YearNeverOnce2-5 times6 or more timesStatistically Significant Relationships:Statistically Significant Trend: NoneAge, Education, IncomeSection 3.8 - Sources for Local InformationTable 53 - What is your primary source of information about LOCAL EVENTS?Source for Local EventsInformation2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Watertown Daily Times 49.4% 40.5% 46.5% 35.7% 39.9% 34.5% 34.3% NA 22.5%Watertown TV Station 26.4% 40.0% 35.4% 35.5% 34.7% 34.3% 34.7% NA 42.3%Internet (Newzjunky, TV7, …) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.1% 13.6% NA 17.4%Syracuse TV Station 1.6% 0.6% 1.7% 1.1% 0.3% 1.2% 0.5% NA 0.7%Syracuse Newspaper 11.4% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% NA 0.0%Radio 3.1% 7.9% 5.5% 9.0% 8.8% 9.9% 7.5% NA 9.1%Friends and Acquaintances 3.7% 4.7% 3.3% 5.8% 6.4% 5.6% 5.2% NA 2.9%Weekly Newspaper 4.4% 3.3% 1.9% 9.8% 5.0% 5.2% 0.8% NA 3.8%Other 0.0% 3.1% 5.2% 3.1% 4.6% 2.8% 3.4% NA 1.3%Col %PrimarySource forInformation -LOCALEVENTSWatertown Daily TimesWatertown TV StationInternetSyracuse TV StationRadioFriends/AcquaintancesWeekly NewspaperOtherGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total20.8% 24.3% 12.5% 23.0% 33.9% 22.5%41.8% 42.9% 29.7% 46.1% 48.6% 42.3%18.9% 15.8% 34.0% 15.3% 1.6% 17.4%1.1% .3% .0% 1.0% .9% .7%11.0% 7.1% 15.2% 7.8% 4.7% 9.1%1.4% 4.6% 2.1% 3.7% 1.8% 2.9%4.8% 2.7% 5.4% 1.9% 6.6% 3.8%.3% 2.3% 1.1% 1.2% 1.9% 1.3%Col %PrimarySource forInformation -LOCALEVENTSWatertown Daily TimesWatertown TV StationInternetSyracuse TV StationRadioFriends/AcquaintancesWeekly NewspaperOtherEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00071.5% 63.0% 47.2% 73.3% 58.5% 61.4% 54.4%5.2% 10.5% 15.4% 5.2% 10.6% 13.8% 10.8%15.6% 17.1% 15.7% 14.4% 19.3% 12.8% 16.6%7.7% 9.5% 21.7% 7.1% 11.6% 11.9% 18.2%EducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00023.5% 23.4% 18.5% 23.2% 22.6% 21.9% 22.6%45.5% 39.9% 36.6% 44.8% 43.6% 36.6% 38.7%12.3% 20.0% 24.9% 10.9% 18.6% 22.3% 23.0%.4% 1.0% 1.1% .0% .0% 3.8% .0%8.4% 11.6% 5.4% 13.5% 3.7% 8.9% 9.5%4.1% 3.1% .0% 2.7% 4.1% 2.5% 3.1%4.4% .6% 10.5% 3.7% 5.7% 2.9% 2.0%1.3% .6% 3.1% 1.3% 1.8% 1.2% 1.2%Statistically Significant Relationships: Age, Education, IncomeStatistically Significant Trend: Use of the Internet for information about local events has increased consistently since2004, however the rate of increase has slowed since 2006Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 43

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeOther Sources of Informationabout Local Events:# ParticipantsCiting this SourceFort Drum email 2Chamber of Commerce 1College 1Flyers 1Limelite 1Work 1Table 54 - What is your primary source of information about LOCAL NEWS?Source for Local NewsInformation2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Watertown Daily Times 18.9% 16.7%Watertown TV Station 54.8% 57.4%Internet (Newzjunky, TV7, …) 17.4% 16.6%Syracuse TV Station 2.2% 2.4%Syracuse Newspaper 0.0% 0.0%Radio 3.5% 4.7%Friends and Acquaintances 1.9% 1.3%Weekly Newspaper 1.1% 0.4%Other 0.3% 0.5%Col %PrimarySource forInformation -LOCAL NEWSWatertown Daily TimesWatertown TV StationInternetSyracuse TV StationRadioFriends/AcquaintancesWeekly NewspaperOtherGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total16.2% 17.2% 10.9% 15.9% 26.4% 16.7%57.7% 57.0% 48.1% 59.9% 62.4% 57.4%16.9% 16.3% 28.4% 16.5% 1.6% 16.6%3.9% .9% 5.5% 1.3% 1.4% 2.4%4.1% 5.3% 6.0% 4.4% 3.9% 4.7%.8% 1.8% 1.1% 1.2% 1.9% 1.3%.0% .7% .0% .3% 1.0% .4%.3% .7% .0% .4% 1.4% .5%Col %PrimarySource forInformation -LOCAL NEWSWatertown Daily TimesWatertown TV StationInternetSyracuse TV StationRadioFriends/AcquaintancesWeekly NewspaperOtherEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00014.8% 18.5% 17.3% 17.5% 18.5% 14.7% 17.5%64.7% 51.5% 54.0% 60.4% 56.4% 53.2% 58.7%10.8% 19.6% 22.3% 13.2% 14.9% 21.6% 21.8%4.6% 1.0% 1.1% 3.1% 2.8% 3.7% .0%2.2% 7.7% 3.5% 3.0% 3.3% 6.0% 2.0%2.5% .7% .0% 2.5% 2.0% .0% .0%.4% .0% 1.2% .0% .7% .8% .0%.0% 1.0% .6% .4% 1.4% .0% .0%Statistically Significant Relationships: Age, EducationStatistically Significant Trend: No significant trend/change in source of information about local news since 2007Other Sources of Informationabout Local News:# ParticipantsCiting this SourceCollege 1Limelite 1Newsletter 1Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 44

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeSection 3.9 - Alternative Energy Sources in the NorthCountryTable 55 - Do you support or oppose the development of windfarms as an energy sourcein the North Country in the future?Windfarms 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Strongly Support 47.6% 48.3%Somewhat Support 32.8% 28.4%No Opinion/Not Sure 11.2% 15.6%Somewhat Oppose 5.4% 4.9%Strongly Oppose 3.0% 2.8%Col %WindfarmDevelopmentin the NorthCountryStrongly SupportSomewhat SupportNo OpinionSomewhat OpposeStrongly OpposeGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total53.2% 43.0% 47.0% 50.5% 43.9% 48.3%28.6% 28.2% 25.3% 28.3% 33.1% 28.4%11.1% 20.4% 20.9% 12.3% 17.5% 15.6%3.7% 6.2% 4.2% 5.8% 3.5% 4.9%3.4% 2.1% 2.7% 3.2% 2.0% 2.8%Col %WindfarmDevelopmentin the NorthCountryStrongly SupportSomewhat SupportNo OpinionSomewhat OpposeStrongly OpposeEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00046.2% 49.3% 46.9% 41.5% 56.2% 44.6% 54.9%30.2% 26.9% 29.9% 37.0% 24.6% 21.7% 27.9%14.8% 17.1% 15.0% 15.9% 12.7% 21.9% 8.0%6.0% 4.8% 3.0% 5.1% 4.8% 7.8% 2.0%2.8% 1.9% 5.2% .6% 1.6% 4.0% 7.3%Statistically Significant Relationships:Statistically Significant Trend: NoneGenderTable 56 - Do you support or oppose the development of hydroelectric generators as anenergy source in the North Country in the future?Hydroelectric Generators 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Strongly Support 37.6%Somewhat Support 31.2%No Opinion/Not Sure 25.4%Somewhat Oppose 4.7%Strongly Oppose 1.0%Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 45

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeCol %Hydroelectric GeneratorDevelopment in theNorth CountryStrongly SupportSomewhat SupportNo OpinionSomewhat OpposeStrongly OpposeGenderFemaleAge18-29 30-59 60+MaleTotal48.4% 26.1% 29.5% 41.5% 37.8% 37.6%32.5% 29.9% 40.1% 30.6% 21.1% 31.2%11.8% 40.0% 23.0% 20.9% 41.1% 25.4%6.0% 3.3% 4.7% 6.4% .0% 4.7%1.4% .7% 2.7% .6% .0% 1.0%Col %Hydroelectric GeneratorDevelopment in theNorth CountryStrongly SupportSomewhat SupportNo OpinionSomewhat OpposeStrongly OpposeStatistically Significant Relationships:GenderTable 57 - Do you support or oppose the development of nuclear power plants as anenergy source in the North Country in the future?Nuclear Power Plants 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Strongly Support 9.7%Somewhat Support 21.9%No Opinion/Not Sure 16.3%Somewhat Oppose 25.3%Strongly Oppose 26.8%Col %Nuclear PowerPlant Developmentin the NorthCountryStrongly SupportSomewhat SupportNo OpinionSomewhat OpposeStrongly OpposeGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total14.7% 4.3% 11.6% 9.1% 8.7% 9.7%26.5% 17.0% 22.2% 19.5% 28.0% 21.9%9.6% 23.5% 11.5% 15.2% 26.0% 16.3%24.1% 26.5% 32.7% 24.1% 18.3% 25.3%25.1% 28.6% 22.1% 32.1% 18.9% 26.8%Col %Nuclear PowerPlant Developmentin the NorthCountryStrongly SupportSomewhat SupportNo OpinionSomewhat OpposeStrongly OpposeEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00037.3% 35.0% 45.2% 28.1% 39.4% 44.2% 51.5%28.3% 37.4% 25.7% 41.1% 24.0% 25.0% 29.0%26.5% 23.7% 27.7% 25.1% 30.5% 22.9% 15.5%7.1% 3.8% 1.4% 5.6% 2.5% 7.9% 4.0%.8% .0% .0% .0% 3.5% .0% .0%EducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,0006.2% 8.9% 20.7% 3.4% 7.2% 11.7% 22.8%19.1% 20.8% 25.5% 27.2% 21.3% 18.2% 14.8%18.8% 13.9% 17.4% 16.3% 16.9% 14.7% 14.5%29.3% 23.4% 21.6% 24.4% 28.1% 26.7% 20.3%26.5% 32.9% 14.8% 28.7% 26.5% 28.7% 27.5%Statistically Significant Relationships:Gender, EducationPresentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 46

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeSection 3.10 - Personal/Household FinancesTable 58 - Do you rent or own your home?Rent or own? 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Rent 30.5% 30.5% 33.3% 34.8%Own 65.6% 64.7% 58.9% 61.0%Neither 3.9% 4.8% 7.8% 4.2%Col %Rent or OwnHome?RentOwnNeitherGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total38.9% 30.5% 58.5% 28.5% 20.4% 34.8%55.6% 66.7% 31.4% 69.1% 78.5% 61.0%5.4% 2.8% 10.0% 2.4% 1.1% 4.2%Col %Rent or OwnHome?RentOwnNeitherStatistically Significant Relationships:Statistically Significant Trend: NoneGender, Age, Education, IncomeTable 59 - If you rent, has your rent increased in the past six months? If so, has it causedyou to move?Rent increased? 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Yes-caused me to move 8.2% 4.9% 8.0% 5.0%Yes-but I haven't moved 13.3% 28.1% 19.0% 19.3%No-hasn't gone up 78.5% 67.0% 73.0% 74.9%Not Sure 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8%Col %Rent Increasein Past SixMonths?Yes-caused me to moveYes-but haven't movedNoNot SureGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total6.5% 3.0% 6.3% 4.9% .0% 5.0%17.5% 21.8% 18.0% 21.4% 16.4% 19.3%76.1% 73.3% 73.9% 73.6% 83.6% 74.9%.0% 1.9% 1.8% .0% .0% .8%Col %Rent Increasein Past SixMonths?Yes-caused me to moveYes-but haven't movedNoNot SureEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00040.6% 33.0% 24.0% 58.3% 30.2% 18.4% 13.4%55.7% 61.5% 76.0% 34.5% 66.7% 76.4% 85.5%3.7% 5.5% .0% 7.2% 3.1% 5.1% 1.1%EducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,0007.8% 3.2% .0% 8.5% 3.1% .0% .0%16.8% 22.5% 22.6% 19.0% 16.9% 32.5% 22.7%73.8% 74.3% 77.4% 72.4% 76.9% 67.5% 77.3%1.7% .0% .0% .0% 3.1% .0% .0%Statistically Significant Relationships: NoneStatistically Significant Trend: Significant decrease in “Rent went up.” Since 2006Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 47

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeTable 60 - Do you currently have health insurance? (includes Medicare, Medicaid, Private,Military, etc.)Health Insurance? 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Yes 84.1%No 15.9%Col %Health InsuranceCoverageYesNoGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total80.2% 88.4% 73.6% 84.6% 97.0% 84.1%19.8% 11.6% 26.4% 15.4% 3.0% 15.9%Col %Health InsuranceCoverageYesNoStatistically Significant Relationships:Gender, Age, Education, IncomeTable 61 – Has a lack of transportation kept you from securing employment or meetingyour daily needs at any time in the past year?Lack of Transportation? 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Yes 14.1%No 85.9%Col %Lack of TransportationKept From MeetingDaily Needs?YesNoGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total17.4% 10.5% 24.8% 9.6% 11.9% 14.1%82.6% 89.5% 75.2% 90.4% 88.1% 85.9%Col %Lack of TransportationKept From MeetingDaily Needs?YesNoEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00075.8% 86.9% 96.6% 78.6% 79.7% 92.5% 87.5%24.2% 13.1% 3.4% 21.4% 20.3% 7.5% 12.5%EducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00016.7% 14.8% 6.8% 29.3% 7.2% 7.9% 2.6%83.3% 85.2% 93.2% 70.7% 92.8% 92.1% 97.4%Statistically Significant Relationships:Gender, Age, IncomePresentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 48

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeTable 62 – When considering you or your family’s personal financial situation – has itgotten better, stayed about the same, or gotten worse in the past 12 months?Change in PersonalFinancial Situation?2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Better 32.9%Same 42.8%Worse 23.8%Don’t Know 0.6%Col %Family's PersonalFinancial Situation- Change in Past12 Months?BetterSameWorseDon't KnowGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total30.1% 35.9% 41.5% 34.0% 18.4% 32.9%46.4% 38.9% 40.1% 38.6% 57.8% 42.8%23.5% 24.1% 18.5% 26.4% 23.8% 23.8%.0% 1.1% .0% 1.0% .0% .6%Col %Family's PersonalFinancial Situation- Change in Past12 Months?BetterSameWorseDon't KnowEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00029.5% 34.7% 38.5% 18.6% 31.4% 34.8% 57.4%46.7% 39.9% 36.8% 42.4% 48.0% 45.2% 32.6%23.8% 24.6% 23.3% 39.0% 20.6% 18.9% 8.9%.0% .8% 1.4% .0% .0% 1.1% 1.1%Statistically Significant Relationships:Age, IncomeSection 3.11 - Familiarity with The Center for CommunityStudiesTable 63 - Have you ever heard of The Center for Community Studies at JCC before thissurvey?Heard of The Center? 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Yes 40.0% 32.5% 34.3% 33.4% 37.2%No 60.0% 67.5% 65.7% 66.6% 61.6%Not Sure 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2%Col %Heard of The Centerfor CommunityStudiesYesNoNot SureGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total31.3% 43.6% 18.8% 45.9% 37.8% 37.2%67.8% 54.9% 80.1% 52.9% 60.6% 61.6%.9% 1.5% 1.0% 1.2% 1.5% 1.2%Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 49

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeCol %Heard of The Centerfor CommunityStudiesYesNoNot SureStatistically Significant Relationships:Statistically Significant Trend: NoneGender, Age, Education, IncomeTable 64 - Have you ever heard of this annual survey before the call this evening?Heard of this survey? 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Yes 33.9% 27.8% 20.1% 22.2% 24.4% 23.7% 26.3% 30.0% 28.9%No 66.1% 72.2% 79.9% 77.8% 75.6% 76.3% 73.7% 70.0% 69.2%Don’t Know 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9%Col %Heard of This AnnualSurvey of the CommunityYesNoNot SureGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total24.0% 34.2% 14.2% 35.2% 31.4% 28.9%74.0% 64.0% 83.1% 64.0% 64.6% 69.2%2.1% 1.8% 2.7% .8% 3.9% 1.9%Col %Heard of This AnnualSurvey of the CommunityYesNoNot SureEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00028.7% 39.9% 51.6% 28.3% 44.3% 36.8% 45.6%69.5% 59.6% 47.0% 70.3% 55.2% 60.1% 54.4%1.8% .6% 1.4% 1.5% .5% 3.1% .0%EducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00025.0% 31.2% 34.7% 27.4% 31.4% 20.7% 42.9%72.5% 68.2% 65.3% 69.5% 65.4% 78.8% 57.1%2.4% .6% .0% 3.0% 3.2% .5% .0%Statistically Significant Relationships:Statistically Significant Trend: NoneGender, Age, IncomeSection 3.12 - Fort Drum Expansion Impact UponJefferson CountyTable 65 - “The presence of the 10 th Mountain Division at Fort Drum since 1985 hasimproved the overall quality of life of Jefferson County citizens.”Fort Drum since 1985has (+) Quality of Life 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008in Jeff. Co.Strongly Agree 36.6% 40.4% 35.9% 38.2% 39.0% 31.7%Agree 44.8% 42.4% 41.3% 37.9% 36.3% 42.4%No Opinion/Neutral 11.4% 8.3% 8.0% 8.1% 9.5% 12.9%Disagree 6.2% 8.3% 11.5% 12.0% 9.6% 11.1%Strongly Disagree 0.9% 0.6% 3.3% 3.9% 5.6% 2.0%Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 50

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeCol %Presence of 10thMountain DivisionSince 1985 HasImproved Qualityof LifeStrongly AgreeAgreeNeutralDisagreeStrongly DisagreeGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total35.3% 27.8% 32.2% 30.7% 33.7% 31.7%36.0% 49.3% 40.4% 46.2% 34.5% 42.4%15.0% 10.5% 10.5% 11.6% 19.6% 12.9%11.9% 10.3% 13.2% 9.9% 11.7% 11.1%1.8% 2.1% 3.7% 1.6% .5% 2.0%Col %Presence of 10thMountain DivisionSince 1985 HasImproved Qualityof LifeStrongly AgreeAgreeNeutralDisagreeStrongly DisagreeStatistically Significant Relationships:Statistically Significant Trend: NoneEducation, IncomeTable 66 - How has the recent growth from 2003-2008 of Fort Drum impacted the overalleconomy and job/financial health of Jefferson County residents?Fort Drum impact since2003 on Overall Jeff. 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Co. Economy:Very Positively 34.3% 29.5% 31.2%Positively 43.8% 48.2% 47.2%No Opinion/Neutral 11.8% 12.7% 12.6%Negatively 8.2% 7.2% 6.9%Very Negatively 1.9% 2.4% 2.0%Col %2003-2008 FortDrum Growth -Impact OverallLocal EconomyVery PositivelyPositivelyNo OpinionNegativelyVery NegativelyGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total36.0% 26.1% 33.8% 28.7% 34.8% 31.2%45.2% 49.4% 41.5% 52.7% 39.6% 47.2%10.9% 14.4% 10.5% 11.8% 17.6% 12.6%5.5% 8.4% 9.5% 5.5% 7.5% 6.9%2.4% 1.7% 4.7% 1.3% .5% 2.0%Col %2003-2008 FortDrum Growth -Impact OverallLocal EconomyVery PositivelyPositivelyNo OpinionNegativelyVery NegativelyEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00026.7% 30.4% 45.1% 20.8% 31.8% 32.3% 54.7%39.7% 46.0% 40.4% 45.1% 43.9% 47.9% 29.5%18.8% 10.5% 5.1% 14.3% 14.4% 9.4% 6.1%13.4% 10.4% 8.0% 15.4% 9.8% 7.9% 8.6%1.5% 2.7% 1.4% 4.4% .0% 2.6% 1.1%EducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00027.8% 33.1% 34.9% 26.0% 30.5% 30.6% 40.2%42.2% 49.5% 52.5% 41.8% 54.4% 53.3% 45.3%19.9% 8.2% 6.3% 14.8% 10.5% 9.1% 8.3%8.4% 7.1% 3.2% 13.7% 3.1% 4.5% 6.1%1.7% 2.1% 3.1% 3.8% 1.5% 2.6% .0%Statistically Significant Relationships:Statistically Significant Trend: NoneEducation, IncomePresentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 51

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeTable 67 - How has the recent growth from 2003-2008 of Fort Drum impacted yourpersonal job/financial health?Fort Drum Recent Growth- Impact on Your Personal 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Job/Financial Health?Very Positively 20.7% 12.8% 14.8%Positively 27.2% 27.9% 25.6%No Opinion/Neutral 43.0% 52.2% 51.5%Negatively 7.0% 5.0% 7.2%Very Negatively 2.1% 2.1% 1.0%Col %2003-2008 Fort DrumGrowth - Impact YourPersonal Job/FinancesVery PositivelyPositivelyNo OpinionNegativelyVery NegativelyGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total15.2% 14.3% 13.7% 16.7% 10.7% 14.8%21.7% 29.8% 23.6% 28.9% 19.1% 25.6%54.7% 48.0% 58.0% 44.5% 62.0% 51.5%7.7% 6.7% 4.7% 8.4% 7.2% 7.2%.8% 1.2% .0% 1.4% 1.1% 1.0%Col %2003-2008 Fort DrumGrowth - Impact YourPersonal Job/FinancesVery PositivelyPositivelyNo OpinionNegativelyVery NegativelyEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00012.8% 15.4% 19.0% 7.7% 15.5% 13.4% 29.5%21.9% 26.6% 33.7% 13.0% 31.3% 28.0% 37.5%55.5% 49.0% 44.5% 66.9% 46.1% 54.3% 25.7%8.6% 7.8% 2.8% 10.8% 5.4% 4.3% 7.3%1.2% 1.2% .0% 1.7% 1.7% .0% .0%Statistically Significant Relationships:Statistically Significant Trend: NoneAge, Education, IncomeTable 68 - How has the recent growth from 2003-2008 of Fort Drum impacted the overallquality of life of Jefferson County residents?Fort Drum Recent Growth- Impact on Overall 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Quality of Life in Jeff. Co.Very Positively 25.5% 15.6% 21.0%Positively 47.0% 51.2% 46.8%No Opinion/Neutral 12.2% 20.0% 21.3%Negatively 11.7% 10.8% 10.0%Very Negatively 3.6% 2.4% 0.9%Col %2003-2008 FortDrum Growth -Impact OverallQuality of LifeVery PositivelyPositivelyNo OpinionNegativelyVery NegativelyGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total22.2% 19.8% 21.1% 19.7% 24.6% 21.0%45.7% 47.9% 41.0% 50.4% 44.6% 46.8%20.0% 22.7% 25.8% 18.7% 22.4% 21.3%11.6% 8.3% 10.0% 10.8% 7.9% 10.0%.5% 1.4% 2.1% .4% .5% .9%Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 52

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeCol %2003-2008 FortDrum Growth -Impact OverallQuality of LifeVery PositivelyPositivelyNo OpinionNegativelyVery NegativelyStatistically Significant Relationships:Statistically Significant Trend: NoneEducation, IncomeTable 69 - Is your residence in Jefferson County related to either civilian or militaryemployment at Fort Drum, either by you or a family member?Residence related toFort Drum?2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Yes 17.7% 24.8% 25.0% 26.3% 25.3% 21.7% 23.8% 26.7% 24.5%No 82.3% 75.2% 75.0% 73.7% 74.7% 78.3% 76.2% 73.3% 75.5%Col %Residence Relatedto Fort DrumYesNoGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total24.1% 24.9% 37.0% 24.0% 9.1% 24.5%75.9% 75.1% 63.0% 76.0% 90.9% 75.5%Col %Residence Relatedto Fort DrumYesNoEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00013.9% 26.3% 26.8% 17.8% 19.5% 26.4% 27.4%44.2% 45.7% 52.1% 37.1% 54.1% 48.2% 49.2%30.3% 16.7% 11.7% 29.8% 18.4% 14.5% 14.0%10.9% 11.0% 6.2% 15.0% 7.1% 8.4% 9.3%.7% .3% 3.1% .4% .9% 2.6% .0%EducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00015.4% 32.2% 22.8% 11.7% 29.7% 33.5% 24.3%84.6% 67.8% 77.2% 88.3% 70.3% 66.5% 75.7%Statistically Significant Relationships:Statistically Significant Trend: NoneAge, Education, IncomeTable 70 - Is anyone living in your household Active Military?Active Military inhousehold?2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Yes – me 10.2% 3.9% 7.7% 8.1%Yes – but not me 11.5% 10.1% 14.7% 8.7%No active military 78.3% 86.0% 77.5% 83.2%Col %Active Militaryin HouseholdYes (you)Yes (but not you)NoGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total12.5% 3.5% 19.0% 5.7% .0% 8.1%4.1% 13.6% 16.8% 7.1% 2.0% 8.7%83.5% 82.9% 64.2% 87.1% 98.0% 83.2%Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 53

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeCol %Active Militaryin HouseholdYes (you)Yes (but not you)NoStatistically Significant Relationships:Statistically Significant Trend: NoneGender, Age, Education, IncomeSection 3.13 - Political Questions – Involvement,Ideology, Voting PreferenceTable 71 - How would you classify your political beliefs?Political beliefs: 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Very Conservative 6.3% 8.4% 8.5% 3.3%Moderately Conservative 29.1% 29.8% 26.7% 18.3%Middle of the Road 43.2% 40.4% 46.5% 39.2%Moderately Liberal 17.8% 14.7% 13.1% 13.5%Very Liberal 3.7% 6.7% 5.2% 2.1%Don’t Know 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 23.5%Col %PoliticalIdeologyVery ConservativeConservativeMiddle of the RoadLiberalVery LiberalDon't KnowGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total3.5% 3.1% 1.0% 2.9% 7.5% 3.3%21.1% 15.4% 16.9% 17.1% 23.6% 18.3%36.7% 41.8% 26.8% 46.4% 35.9% 39.2%14.1% 12.9% 19.5% 11.9% 10.0% 13.5%1.8% 2.5% 4.7% 1.5% .5% 2.1%22.8% 24.3% 31.1% 20.3% 22.4% 23.5%Col %PoliticalIdeologyVery ConservativeConservativeMiddle of the RoadLiberalVery LiberalDon't KnowEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,0001.7% 10.3% 12.5% .0% 5.5% 17.7% 8.6%5.8% 12.8% 6.2% 7.5% 13.2% 9.2% 3.7%92.5% 76.9% 81.3% 92.5% 81.3% 73.1% 87.7%EducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,0003.2% 2.4% 5.2% 5.1% 1.2% 2.1% 5.9%14.1% 18.9% 24.7% 16.9% 17.9% 20.8% 23.1%38.3% 39.2% 42.2% 28.8% 49.7% 39.2% 44.4%10.2% 15.6% 17.3% 12.0% 9.1% 21.7% 12.1%3.6% 1.0% 1.6% 1.9% 3.2% 1.3% 2.7%30.7% 23.0% 9.0% 35.4% 18.9% 14.9% 11.8%Statistically Significant Relationships: AgeStatistically Significant Trend: Phrasing of the question changed in 2008, caused a much greater “Don’t Know”Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 54

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeTable 72 – Did you vote in the last Presidential election?Vote in ’04 Election? 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Yes 70.3% 68.8% -- 60.7%No 29.7% 31.2% -- 39.3%Not Sure 0.0% 0.0% -- 0.0%Col %Vote in 2004 PresidentialElection?YesNoGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total56.4% 65.3% 33.5% 70.2% 70.7% 60.7%43.6% 34.7% 66.5% 29.8% 29.3% 39.3%Col %Vote in 2004 PresidentialElection?YesNoStatistically Significant Relationships: Gender, Age, Education, IncomeStatistically Significant Trend: Significantly fewer 2008 participants voted in the most recent Presidential electionTable 73 – Are you currently registered to vote?Currently registered? 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Yes 78.2%No 19.6%Not Sure 2.3%Col %CurrentlyRegisteredto VoteYesNoNot SureGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total76.7% 79.8% 65.8% 82.9% 81.8% 78.2%20.2% 18.9% 30.5% 15.1% 17.1% 19.6%3.1% 1.3% 3.7% 2.0% 1.0% 2.3%Col %CurrentlyRegisteredto VoteYesNoNot SureEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00044.8% 63.3% 90.3% 42.3% 64.9% 68.1% 80.7%55.2% 36.7% 9.7% 57.7% 35.1% 31.9% 19.3%EducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00063.3% 86.6% 92.0% 58.5% 86.1% 86.4% 88.2%34.0% 10.6% 8.0% 37.4% 12.1% 12.8% 9.2%2.7% 2.8% .0% 4.1% 1.7% .8% 2.6%Statistically Significant Relationships:Gender, Age, IncomePresentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 55

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeTable 74– AMONG REGISTERED VOTERS: In which party are you currently registered?Political Party ID: 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Republican 35.4%Democratic 36.0%Independence 13.8%Not Sure 8.7%Prefer Not to Answer 6.0%Col %CurrentPoliticalPartyRepublicanDemocraticIndependenceNot SurePrefer Not to AnswerGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total40.6% 30.1% 30.5% 33.0% 47.4% 35.4%29.9% 42.4% 22.3% 42.2% 33.8% 36.0%16.2% 11.2% 16.8% 14.2% 9.2% 13.8%7.2% 10.3% 23.2% 5.0% 3.6% 8.7%6.1% 5.9% 7.2% 5.6% 6.0% 6.0%Col %CurrentPoliticalPartyRepublicanDemocraticIndependenceNot SurePrefer Not to AnswerEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00037.8% 29.2% 40.7% 27.0% 33.2% 40.9% 43.6%31.7% 42.7% 30.5% 39.4% 34.8% 37.8% 38.5%10.7% 15.7% 15.9% 14.6% 18.4% 10.0% 7.1%13.2% 6.7% 6.8% 14.4% 8.7% 5.9% 7.7%6.6% 5.8% 6.1% 4.5% 5.0% 5.4% 3.0%Statistically Significant Relationships:Gender, AgeTable 75–Do you plan to vote in the next Presidential election in November 2008?(identifying the “likely voters”)Plant to vote inNovember ’08?2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Yes 73.5%No 17.0%Not Sure 9.5%Col %Likely Voter? - Planto Vote in 2008Presidential ElectionYesNoNot SureGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total72.6% 74.5% 59.5% 79.1% 76.9% 73.5%19.2% 14.6% 25.3% 14.5% 12.5% 17.0%8.2% 11.0% 15.2% 6.3% 10.6% 9.5%Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 56

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeCol %Likely Voter? - Planto Vote in 2008Presidential ElectionYesNoNot SureEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00056.1% 81.7% 93.9% 63.6% 77.0% 81.1% 86.1%29.9% 10.0% 3.7% 23.1% 17.4% 15.7% 10.3%14.0% 8.2% 2.3% 13.3% 5.5% 3.2% 3.7%Statistically Significant Relationships:Age, Education, IncomeThe following sample sizes were collected within the two political screening and partitioningvariables – “Voting Likelihood” and “Political Party”:Sample Sizes (raw) Within Each Political SubgroupVoting Likelihood nPolitical Party(among Likely voters)n“Likely Voters” 294 Republican 103NOT Likely Voters 127 Democratic 121TOTAL 421 Independence 36Not Sure 34TOTAL 294Standard political surveying methodology includes weighting by political party affiliation of “likely voters”in addition to weighting by Age and Gender.Final three questions only collected from “likely voters.”Table 76– What is the largest factor that is influencing your vote for the 2008 Presidentialelection?Factors Influencing Vote: 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Healthcare 9.0%War in Iraq 23.7%The Economy 34.1%Honesty/Integrity of the Candidate 17.2%Will Vote for My Party’s Candidate 3.0%All of the Above 5.3%Other Reasons 7.8%Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 57

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeCol %LargestFactorInfluencing2008PresidentialVoteHealthcareWar in IraqThe EconomyHonesty/Integrityof CandidateWill Vote for MyParty's CandidateAll of the AboveOther ReasonsGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total8.4% 9.6% 11.2% 9.7% 5.0% 9.0%18.2% 29.5% 29.5% 22.7% 21.0% 23.7%43.6% 23.9% 36.6% 33.3% 33.8% 34.1%13.3% 21.2% 3.4% 19.8% 22.4% 17.2%2.6% 3.5% 8.4% .9% 3.7% 3.0%5.2% 5.4% 5.1% 4.8% 6.9% 5.3%8.8% 6.9% 5.7% 8.8% 7.3% 7.8%Col %LargestFactorInfluencing2008PresidentialVoteHealthcareWar in IraqThe EconomyHonesty/Integrityof CandidateWill Vote for MyParty's CandidateAll of the AboveOther ReasonsEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00010.9% 6.9% 11.5% 10.7% 5.5% 13.1% 7.9%28.4% 26.0% 13.2% 28.3% 26.4% 27.9% 9.3%35.8% 32.5% 35.5% 21.1% 34.1% 36.9% 45.5%10.7% 18.2% 26.4% 19.9% 19.8% 10.6% 19.8%1.1% 2.4% 1.1% 4.8% 4.5% .0% 2.6%7.6% 3.8% 5.6% 7.5% 3.8% 2.7% 4.5%5.5% 10.2% 6.7% 7.7% 6.0% 8.9% 10.3%Col %LargestFactorInfluencing2008PresidentialVoteHealthcareWar in IraqThe EconomyHonesty/Integrityof CandidateWill Vote for MyParty's CandidateAll of the AboveOther ReasonsCurrent Political PartyIndependPrefer NotRepublican Democratic ence Not Sure to Answer11.3% 7.9% 7.5% .0% 11.8%12.7% 34.9% 9.1% 47.3% 15.1%40.9% 24.6% 37.9% 37.9% 51.3%19.6% 19.0% 19.8% 12.2% 5.7%4.9% 2.5% .0% .0% .0%3.7% 3.1% 7.9% 2.5% 9.3%6.9% 7.9% 17.9% .0% 6.8%Statistically Significant Relationships:Gender, Education, Income, Political PartyOther factors cited:Other Factors Influencing Vote:# ParticipantsCiting this FactorChange – just want change! 6Experience 2Foreign Policy 2Woman President 2Believes in all her (Hillary’s) ideas 1Can't decide yet. 1Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 58

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeDefense 1Education 1Energy 1Housing 1Knowledge of candidate 1Most qualified candidate 1Just Not Hillary! 1Own opinions 1Stop the madness in Washington 1Which ever one is pro-life 1Table 77– If the Presidential election were today, and the candidates were Hillary Clintonand John McCain, who would you be most likely to vote for?Clinton vs. McCain? 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Clinton 44.8%McCain 37.6%Not Sure 12.5%Would Not Vote 5.2%After removing the 5.2% who indicated that if these were the two candidates then they “Would Not Vote”:Clinton vs. McCain? 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Clinton 47.2%McCain 39.6%Not Sure 13.2%Col %Clinton vs.McCainClintonMcCainNot SureGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total40.1% 54.7% 56.6% 48.9% 33.2% 47.2%48.0% 30.8% 32.4% 41.4% 42.3% 39.6%11.9% 14.5% 11.0% 9.7% 24.4% 13.2%Col %Clinton vs.McCainClintonMcCainNot SureEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00053.6% 47.9% 41.5% 69.2% 35.2% 50.7% 41.8%31.5% 40.8% 43.8% 23.0% 45.4% 36.5% 50.8%14.9% 11.3% 14.7% 7.8% 19.4% 12.8% 7.5%Col %Clinton vs.McCainClintonMcCainNot SureCurrent Political PartyIndependPrefer NotRepublican Democratic ence Not Sure to Answer19.5% 72.6% 53.0% 84.0% 38.7%67.2% 17.1% 40.4% 3.6% 15.1%13.3% 10.3% 6.5% 12.4% 46.2%Statistically Significant Relationships:Gender, Age, Education, Income, Political PartyPresentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 59

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeTable 78– If the Presidential election were today, and the candidates were Barack Obamaand John McCain, who would you be most likely to vote for?Obama vs. McCain? 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Obama 38.2%McCain 43.9%Not Sure 14.5%Would Not Vote 3.4%After removing the 5.2% who indicated that if these were the two candidates then they “Would Not Vote”:Obama vs. McCain? 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Obama 39.6%McCain 45.4%Not Sure 15.0%Col %Obama vs.McCainObamaMcCainNot SureGenderAgeMale Female 18-29 30-59 60+ Total40.1% 38.9% 55.0% 38.7% 26.3% 39.6%47.0% 43.7% 35.8% 47.8% 48.9% 45.4%12.9% 17.4% 9.3% 13.5% 24.9% 15.0%Col %Obama vs.McCainObamaMcCainNot SureEducationIncomeSome 4+ Year Under $25,001- $50,001-No College College Degree $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 Over $75,00043.6% 42.0% 32.5% 55.4% 31.2% 37.7% 37.9%41.3% 45.0% 46.6% 30.6% 46.5% 50.6% 53.6%15.1% 13.0% 20.9% 14.1% 22.3% 11.7% 8.4%Col %Obama vs.McCainObamaMcCainNot SureCurrent Political PartyIndependPrefer NotRepublican Democratic ence Not Sure to Answer17.6% 60.5% 63.5% 57.1% 15.4%70.6% 26.2% 28.4% 20.1% 24.5%11.8% 13.3% 8.1% 22.7% 60.1%Statistically Significant Relationships:Age, Income, Political PartyPresentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 60

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeSection 4 – Final CommentsThis report is a presentation of the information collected from 421 telephone interviews conducted duringthe evenings of March 31 – April 2, 2008 with comparisons to similar annual surveys completed in 2000-2007. TheCenter for Community Studies exists to engage in a variety of community-based research activities, and to promotethe productive discussion of ideas and issues of significance to our community. As such, the results of this surveyare available for use by any citizen or organization in the community. If you use information from this survey, wesimply ask that you acknowledge the source.These interviews produced a large volume of data, which can be analyzed and assessed in a number ofdifferent ways. Please contact The Center for Community Studies for specific analyses. Additionally, we areavailable to make presentations of these survey findings to community groups and organizations upon request.Please contact:The Center for Community StudiesRoom 1-1061220 Coffeen StreetWatertown, NY 13601Telephone: (315) 786-2488 or (315) 786-2489Joel LaLone, Research CoordinatorRichard LeClerc, Directorjlalone@sunyjefferson.edurleclerc@sunyjefferson.eduhttp://www.sunyjefferson.edu/ccs/index.htmlThe Tenth Annual Survey of the Community is tentatively scheduled for the first week of April 2009.Presentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 61

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeAppendix I - Technical Comments – Assistancein Interpretation of these Results(For the Statistically Interested)In a typical year, over 200 hard copies of this report are produced and disseminated for free to citizens ofNorthern New York by The Center for Community Studies. This wide distribution, coupled with the report beingfreely available as a pdf file at the Jefferson Community College website, result with a very wide array of readers –who, no doubt, have a very wide array of statistical backgrounds, training, and experiences. The followingcomments are provided to give guidance for interpretation of the presented findings so that readers with less-thancurrentstatistical training might maximize the use of the information contained in the Ninth Annual Jefferson CountySurvey of the Community.Recall that the margin of error for this survey has been stated as approximately ±4 to ±5 percentage points.Therefore, when a percentage is observed in one of the tables of statistics included in this study, the appropriateinterpretation is that we are 95% confident that if all Jefferson County adult residents were surveyed (rather than justthe 421 that were actually surveyed), the percentage that would result for all residents would be within ±4 to ±5percentage points of the sample percentage that we calculated in this study. For example, in Table 33, one mayobserve that 42.0% of our sample in 2008 reported that they have used the Internet to obtain medical/healthinformation within the past 30 days. With this sample result we can infer with 95% confidence (only a 5% chancethat it will not be true) that if all Jefferson County adults were asked – somewhere between 37.5% and 46.5% of thepopulation of approximately 80,000 adults in Jefferson County have used the Internet to obtain medical/healthinformation within the past 30 days. (used a margin of error of ±4.5%). This resulting interval (37.5%-46.5%) isknown as a 95% Confidence Interval. The consumer of this report should use this pattern when attempting togeneralize any of these survey findings to the entire adult population of Jefferson County. For more detail regardingwhen, and for which statistics, the margin of error will be closer to ±4.0% or ±5.0%, please contact the professionalstaff at The Center for Community Studies.As has been previously mentioned, the 9 th Annual Survey report investigates for significant factors that maybe correlated with various quality-of-life indicators. The statistical techniques that will be applied to identifystatistically significant relationships or differences will depend upon the structure of each variable (survey question)and will include Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient r, the Independent Two Sample t-Test, Analysis ofVariance (ANOVA), a z-test for Binomial Proportions, a Poisson Test, and the χ 2 Test for Independence. A test orcorrelation that results with p

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community Collegeuse the Internet to obtain medical/health information than males, and further, if every adult were interviewed, we areconfident that the population “use the Internet to obtain medical/health information” rate among females would behigher than the rate among males. One can never be 100% certain (or confident) that the result of a sample willindicate appropriately whether the population percentages are, in fact, statistically significantly different from oneanother or not. However, the standard confidence level is 95% (as it is with the previously described ConfidenceInterval) - meaning that the observed sample difference would also be found in 95 out of 100 random samples ofsimilar size n. The interpretation of a “statistically significant” difference is that it is so large that there is a probabilityof less than 5% that this difference occurred simply due to the random chance of sampling – instead, it isconsidered a “real” difference. In statistical vocabulary and notation this would be represented as a p-value of lessthan 5% (p

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeAppendix II – The Survey InstrumentPresentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityPage 64

9th Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community1. IntroductionGood evening. My name is (first name), I am a student at Jefferson Community College, how are you doing thisevening (afternoon)? Tonight I am calling for the Center for Community Studies at JCC. We are conducting the ninthannual survey of the community; we are interested in your opinions about the quality of life in Northern New York.Do you have a few minutes to do a survey for us (or, “help us out”)?If NO . . . Might there be another adult in the home who might wish to participate or is there a more convenient timeto call?If YES . . . (First verify that the person is 18 years old.) Great, well, let's begin.Our first few questions are about the choice to live in Jefferson County:Q1: How long have you lived in Jefferson County?nmlkjnmlkjnmlkjnmlkj7 yearsQ2: Do you expect you will still be living in Jefferson County in 5 years?nmlkjnmlkjnmlkjYesNoNot sure2. Quality of Life IndicatorsPage 1

9th Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityNext, I’m going to read you a list of issues facing the county. Please tell us whetherin your opinion in the past year, the TREND has gotten Better, stayed about theSame, or gotten Worse.Q3. Opportunities foryouthQ4.Cultural/entertainmentopportunitiesBetter Same Worse Don't Knownmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjnmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjQ5. Cost of energy nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjQ6. Health care access nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjQ7. Health care quality nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjQ8. Access to highereducationnmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjQ9. Internet access nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjQ10. RecreationalopportunitiesQ11. Quality of theenvironmentnmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjnmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjQ12. Local government nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjQ13. Real estate taxes nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjQ14. The downtown ofWatertownQ15. Policing and crimecontrolQ16. Availability of goodjobsQ17. ShoppingopportunitiesQ18. Quality of k-12educationQ19. The overall state ofthe local economyQ20. The overall qualityof life in the areaQ21. Availability ofgoods/services in areaQ22. Availability of carefor the elderly.Q23. Availability ofhousingnmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjnmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjnmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjnmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjnmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjnmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjnmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjnmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjnmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjnmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj3. Internet AccessThe next questions are related to your use of technology.Q24. Do you have access to the Internet at either home or work?nmlkjnmlkjnmlkjnmlkjHomeWorkBothNeitherPage 2

9th Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community4. Type of Internet Access at HomeQ25. How do you get access to the Internet at home? (choose most commonsource)nmlkjnmlkjnmlkjnmlkjnmlkjnmlkjnmlkjPhone (dial-up)Cable (Roadrunner)DSLWiFi (i.e. Specific provider names here?)Televisionvia Cell PhoneSatellite Dish5. Further Technology - EVERYONE ASKED (even if no Internet Access atHome and...Q26. How many hours in a TYPICAL WEEK do you spend using the Internet (includeboth at work and for personal use)?Hours per WEEK (be sureto type in the Zero if theanswer is "none")Which of the following uses of the Internet have you participated in at least once inthe past 30 days?Yes No Don't KnowQ27. email nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjQ28. Instant Messaging(IM)nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjQ29. Chat Rooms nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjQ30. Blogs nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjQ31. Visit a MySpace site nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjQ32. Visit a FacebooksiteQ33. Used YouTube towatch a videoQ34. Used a website forLOCAL newsQ35. Used a website forNATIONAL newsQ36. Used a website formedical/healthinformationQ37. Used a website toplan travelnmlkj nmlkj nmlkjnmlkj nmlkj nmlkjnmlkj nmlkj nmlkjnmlkj nmlkj nmlkjnmlkj nmlkj nmlkjnmlkj nmlkj nmlkjOther (please specify)Page 3

9th Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityQ38. Have you made an online Internet purchase within the past year?nmlkjnmlkjnmlkjYesNoDon't Know6. Cell PhoneQ39. Do you personally have a cell phone?nmlkjnmlkjYesNoQ40. How many cell phones are used by members of your household?Q41. Do you know anyone who lives in Jefferson County who has only a cell phone,they have no land line in their home?nmlkjnmlkjnmlkjYesNoNot Sure7. Miscellaneous "Life in Jefferson County" QuestionsWe now have some questions involving a variety of aspects of living in our county.Q42. How many times have you crossed the border to eastern Ontario during thepast year?nmlkjnmlkjnmlkjnmlkjNone1-2 times3-5 timesMore than 5 timesQ43. Do you currently have a valid passport?nmlkjnmlkjnmlkjYesNoNot SurePage 4

9th Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityQ44. Please estimate how many HOURS PER MONTH that you volunteer forcommunity service activities such as church, school and youth activities, charitableorganizations, local government boards, and so forth.Volunteer hours: (if"None", type in the ZERO)Q45. What is your PRIMARY (only one!) source of information about LOCALEVENTS?nmlkjWatertown Daily TimesnmlkjA Syracuse newspapernmlkjA Watertown television stationnmlkjRadionmlkjInternet (Newzjunky, TV7…)nmlkjFriends and acquaintancesnmlkjA Syracuse television stationnmlkjA weekly newspaperOther (please specify)Q46. What is your PRIMARY (only one!) source of information about LOCAL NEWS?nmlkjWatertown Daily TimesnmlkjA Syracuse newspapernmlkjA Watertown television stationnmlkjRadionmlkjInternet (Newzjunky, TV7…)nmlkjFriends and acquaintancesnmlkjA Syracuse television stationnmlkjA weekly newspaperOther (please specify)Do you support or oppose the development of each of the following energy sourcesin the North Country in the future?Strongly Support Somewhat Support No Opinion/Not Sure Somewhat Oppose Strongly OpposeQ47. Windfarms nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjQ48. HydroelectricGeneratorsnmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjQ49. Nuclear Power Plants nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjQ50. How often have you gone to a community-based meeting in the past year? (i.e.school board, town board, public or church committee, town hall/fire hall meetingetc.)nmlkjNevernmlkj2-5 timesnmlkjOncenmlkj6 or more timesPage 5

9th Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityQ51. Do you rent or own your home?nmlkjnmlkjnmlkjnmlkjRentOwnNeitherNot Sure8. RENTERS - rent increased?Q52. Has your rent increased in the past 6 months?nmlkjnmlkjnmlkjnmlkjYes - caused me to moveYes - but I have not movedNoNot Sure9. Miscellaneous Life in Jefferson County (cont.)Q53. Do you currently have health insurance? (includes Medicare, Medicaid, Private,Military, etc.)nmlkjnmlkjYesNoQ54. When considering you or your family's personal financial situation - has itgotten BETTER, stayed about the SAME, or gotten WORSE in the past 12 months?nmlkjnmlkjnmlkjnmlkjBetterSameWorseDon't KnowQ55. Has a LACK OF TRANSPORTATION kept you from securing employment ormeeting your daily needs at any time in the past year?nmlkjnmlkjYesNo10. Poltical Awareness and Interest QuestionsPage 6

9th Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityQ56. Did you vote in the last Presidential election? (Bush vs. Kerry in 2004)nmlkjnmlkjnmlkjYesNoNot SureQ57. Are you currently registered to vote?nmlkjnmlkjnmlkjYesNoNot Sure11. Among the Registered Voters...Q58. In which party are you currently registered?nmlkjnmlkjnmlkjnmlkjnmlkjRepublicanDemocraticIndependenceNot SurePrefer Not to AnswerOther (please specify)12. Intention to VoteQ59. Do you plan to vote in the next Presidential election in November 2008? (Clintonor Obama, vs. McCain)nmlkjnmlkjnmlkjYesNoNot Sure13. Among the Likely Voters ...Page 7

9th Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityQ60. What is the largest factor that is influencing your vote for the 2008 Presidentialelection?nmlkjnmlkjnmlkjnmlkjnmlkjThe EconomyHonesty/Integrity of CandidateWar in IraqWill vote for my Party's CandidateHealthcareOther (please specify)Q61. If the next Presidential election were today, and the candidates were HillaryClinton and John McCain, who would you be most likely to vote for? (be sure to readthe choices)nmlkjnmlkjnmlkjnmlkjClintonMcCainNot SureWould not voteQ62. If the next Presidential election were today, and the candidates were BarackObama and John McCain, who would you be most likely to vote for? (be sure to readthe choices)nmlkjnmlkjnmlkjnmlkjObamaMcCainNot SureWould not vote14. Political IdeologyQ63. How would you classify your political beliefs? (read the list of choices)nmlkjnmlkjnmlkjnmlkjnmlkjnmlkjVery conservativeConservativeMiddle of the RoadLiberalVery LiberalDon't Know15. Familiarity with The Center for Community StudiesPage 8

9th Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityQ64. Have you ever heard of The Center for Community Studies at JCC before thissurvey?nmlkjnmlkjnmlkjYesNoNot SureQ65. Have you ever heard of this annual survey before this evening?nmlkjnmlkjnmlkjYesNoNot Sure16. Fort Drum RelatedQ66. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “The presence of the10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum since 1985 has improved the overall quality oflife of Jefferson County citizens.” (Read choices.)nmlkjnmlkjnmlkjnmlkjnmlkjStrongly AgreeAgreeNeutralDisagreeStrongly DisagreeHow has the recent growth from 2003-2008 of Fort Drum impacted …Q67. the OVERALLECONOMY andJOB/FINANCIAL HEALTH ofJefferson County citizens?Q68. YOUR PERSONALJOB/FINANCIAL HEALTH?Q69. THE OVERALLQUALITY OF LIFE ofJefferson County citizens?Very Positively Positively Neutral/No Opinion Negatively Very Negativelynmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjnmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkjnmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj17. DemographicsWe are almost finished. The last few demographic questions will help us get a better sense of the general nature ofthe people who have helped us with this project.Page 9

9th Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community*Q70. Age: I am going to read some categories of age classification. Please stop mewhen I get to the category in which your age falls.nmlkjTeensnmlkjTwentiesnmlkjThirtiesnmlkjFortiesnmlkjFiftiesnmlkjSixtiesnmlkjSeventiesnmlkjEighty or olderQ71. Education: I am going to read some categories relating to education. Pleasestop me when I get to the category in which your highest level of formal educationfalls.nmlkjLess than a high school graduatenmlkjHigh school graduate (include GED)nmlkjSome college, no degree (include technical school)nmlkjAssociate DegreenmlkjBachelor's DegreenmlkjGraduate DegreeQ72. Which of the following best describes your occupation?nmlkjRetirednmlkjManagerialnmlkjServicenmlkjNot currently employed (but notnmlkjMedicalnmlkjBlue-collar/Productionretired)nmlkjnmlkjnmlkjHomemakerStudentMilitarynmlkjnmlkjnmlkjProfessional/TechnicalSalesClericalnmlkjnmlkjTeacher/EducationNot SureOther (please specify)Page 10

9th Annual Jefferson County Survey of the CommunityQ73. Household income range: I am going to read some categories relating toincome. Please stop me when I get to the category in which your yearly householdincome falls:nmlkjnmlkjnmlkjnmlkjnmlkjnmlkjUp to $10,000$10,001-$25,000$25,001-$50,000$50,001-$75,000$75,001-$100,000Over $100,000Q74. Is anyone living in your household active military?nmlkjnmlkjnmlkjYes (you!)Yes (someone else in the household)NoQ75. Is your residence in Jefferson County related to either civilian or militaryemployment at Fort Drum, by either you or a family member?nmlkjnmlkjYesNoQ76. How would you describe yourself in regard to your race or ethnicity?nmlkjnmlkjnmlkjnmlkjnmlkjnmlkjBlack/African AmericanWhiteHispanicAsian/Pacific IslanderNative AmericanMultiracialOther (please specify)Q77. What is your marital status?nmlkjnmlkjnmlkjSingleMarriedOtherQ78. How many persons UNDER THE AGE OF 18 live in your household?Page 11

9th Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Community*Q79. If you don't mind me asking ... what is your gender?nmlkjnmlkjMaleFemaleQ80. Finally ... in what Jefferson County township do you reside?18. Final CommentsThank you very much for helping us out this evening. The results will be released during the first week of June. Ifyou have any questions, please contact Mr. Richard LeClerc, Director of The Center for Community Studies, 786-2488. Have a great evening.19. After You Hang Up - Book-keepingYou must complete the following four items.*Zip Code of Participant (from Call Sheet)*Town of Residence (from Call Sheet)*Phone Number of Participant (from Call Sheet, in format xxx-xxx-xxxx)*Interviewer (click on Your Name)Any important observations or comments about this interview that Mr. LaLone or Mr.White should know, enter here. (Complaints? Comments? Compliments? Interestingparticipants? Difficulties?)Page 12

The Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community CollegeAcknowledgementsThe Center is grateful for the expertise and assistance from the following students, facultyadvisor and Advisory Committee members.Participating students included the following:Amanda Barker Ryan Hollenbeck Kelly OlsenAndrew Bognaski Aaron Horeth Andrew PopeAlisha Brown Alekzandra Huttemann-Kall Liz RobbinsBenjamin Call Misti Hymas Branden SmithCasey Chavoustie Lloyd Little Adrienne TeachoutJerica Douglas Michelle McElroy Brittany TrahanDavid Elmer Rachael McIllroy Brittany WalkerBrittany Foltz Nathan Mitchell Bobby WarnockAmber Harra Patricia Mochel-Ray Laura WrightAja HillsKatherine NavarraThe faculty supervisor was:Joel LaLone ................................................................... Professor of Mathematics andResearch Coordinator for The Center for Community StudiesThe Advisory Committee of the Center for Community Studies includes the following:Donald Alexander Joel LaLone Theresa QuintinBruce D Armstrong Richard LeClerc Rebecca Small KelloggPaul Barton Kenneth McAuliffe Lynn SprottJohn W. Deans Carole McCoy Daniel SternRev. Fred Garry Carl McLaughlin Norman WayteJudith Gentner Cathy Pircsuk Joseph WeaverRichard Halpin Lisa Porter David ZembiecPlease contact The Center for Community Studiesat (315) 786-2489for additional information.This report is available online at http://www.sunyjefferson.edu/ccs/index.htmlThe Center for Community Studiesat Jefferson Community College1220 Coffeen StreetWatertown, New York 13601Telephone: (315) 786-2489 or 786-2488E-mail : commstudies@sunyjefferson.eduPresentation of Results—Ninth Annual Jefferson County Survey of the Communityi