1. Overview and Highlights of Results June 12, 2018

2. The Center for Community Studies at JCC
Completed over 150 community-based studies in NNY since 1999, employ over 100 students each year, experiential learning
Research for all types of community desired studies for agencies
Annual Surveys of the Community
Regional Economic Tracking Survey
Additional Contracted Studies
Utilized many methodologies:
Telephone (cell & landline)
Online linked at websites
Online via and list management
Mail
Intercept
Focus groups
Secondary data analysis
Observation

3. Thank you for welcoming us to your meeting today.
Mr. Joel LaLone Research Director, Center for Community Studies
Mr. Larry Danforth Research Coordinator, Center for Community Studies
In the past two slides you have observed the four groups that win in the win-win-win-win!

4. Thank you to our Sponsors
The Center for Community Studies would like to thank Jefferson Community College and Car-Freshner Corporation for the direct funding and sponsorship.
The Center for Community Studies would also like to thank following two local organizations for their generous financial support of this survey.

5. Today’s Agenda: What was this study? How was the survey completed?
Why was this survey completed?
How to best use survey results.
What are the findings for this survey?

6. WHAT was investigated in this Study?
The interviews included the following five sections of community- related survey questions:
Survey Sections:
Quality-of-Life Indicators (21)
Community Issues – Perceived Severity, Personal Impact, Services Available Locally
Other Long-term Tracked Items (K-12, PFS, …)
End-of-Life Preferences, Planning, Services
Future of Thompson Park

7. HOW is this study completed?
Methodology
Survey instrument developed in Spring of 2000 by Center Staff and JCC Faculty members
21 “core” Quality-of-Life indictors tracked each year, the remaining 30 questions vary each year
Interviews completed April 10-13, 2018 (4:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.)
Landline and Cell Phone telephone numbers, randomly selected (≈44% on cells, 30% on LL, 26% intercepts; 45% “cell-only”).
Student callers, trained in HSR laws as well as effective interview techniques, faculty and Center staff supervising interviews
575 adults participated (18+ years of age), (33% response rate among landlines and cell phones) resulting with an approximate margin of error of ±3.3%
Call backs to each no answer/busy, no call backs to refusals, no rewards/gifts offered
Telephone interviewing historically selected as the sampling protocol since it is far less susceptible to bias, and often-times less expensive, than:
Mail surveys  Focus groups
Intercept (face-to-face) surveys  Online surveying

8. WHY is this study completed
WHY is this study completed? “The Ate’s” - why we complete survey research … what are the benefits?
How the client, or community leaders may use the data:
Formulate (Use the data to plan, to make data-driven decisions about future goals, objectives, programs, services, initiatives, interventions, promotions, and/or potential policies in the region.)
Advocate (or, educate leadership) (Provide current measurements of public opinion and behavior to help educate local leaders, decision-makers, and elected officials make informed policy decisions in the future.)
Evaluate (Evaluation of the impact of past initiatives and activities, attempt to identify which initiatives have been most effective, most successful, identify that which has changed.)
Additional potential positive outcomes among participants:
Educate (inform the public regarding issues, initiatives, options, expected impacts, etc.)
Activate (engage the public in community activities, alter behaviors)

9. Best uses?
28%
Rate the “Availability of Good Jobs” in Jefferson County as either Excellent or Good

10. Best uses? ”Framing a Statistic”
The standard professional survey research analyses:
Within response scale interpretation.
Trend Analyses Comparison to past studies.
Comparison to the current regional comparative results for each question.
Relative standing among like-variables measured on common scale.
Comparison to some target or benchmark.
Correlation Analyses – potential demographic key drivers (independent variables).

11. Framing a Statistic – Availability of Good Jobs (Table 23)
Frame #1
Remember … ±3.3% ….

12. Framing a Statistic – Availability of Good Jobs (Table 23)
Frames #2 & #3

13. Framing a Statistic – Availability of Good Jobs (Table 23)
PLEASE – notice the subscript letters – different letters mean results are statistically significantly different
Frame #3 – interpretation?

14. Framing a Statistic – Availability of Good Jobs (Table 23)
Frame #4

15. Framing a Statistic – Availability of Good Jobs (Table 23)
It is up to you to develop a Frame #5, but here’s Frame #6
AGAIN, PLEASE – notice the subscript letters – different letters mean results are statistically significantly different

16. HIGHLIGHTED FINDINGS of this study
Looking Deeper into the Core tracked indicators

17. Top 6 Positively Rated Community Indicators

18. Bottom 5 Negatively Rated Community Indicators

19. Availability of Good Jobs (Table 23, this is review)

20. Overall State of the Local Economy (Table 26)

21. Healthcare Access (Table 13)

22. Healthcare Quality (Table 14)

23. Access to Higher Education (Table 15)

24. Meta-Analysis – “Largest Issue Facing the Nation” (Table 32)
This is a challenge to show on a slide!

25. Meta-Analysis – “Largest Issue Facing the Nation” (Table 32)
Zoom in on last 3 years!

26. Meta-Analysis – “Largest Issue Facing the Nation” (Table 32)
Only measured in J&SL Cos.

27. HIGHLIGHTED FINDINGS of this study
Community characteristics not necessarily measured every year

28. Community Issues – Perceived Severity (Tables 35-39)

29. Community Issues – Perceived Severity (Tables 35-39)

30. Community Issues – Perceived Severity (Tables 35-39)

31. Community Issues – Personally Impacted?(Tables 40-44)

32. Community Issues – Personally Impacted?(Tables 40-44)

33. Personal Financial Situation (Table 51)

34. Personal Financial Situation – Deeper (Table 51)

35. Political Ideology (Table 54)

36. Cuomo Approval Rating (Table 55)
Cuomo Rating:
Siena Research Institute (among upstaters, 4/18)
Center CS (among Jeff Co who are not unsure, 4/18)
Excellent 5% 4%
Good
26%
24%
Fair
30%
34%
Poor
39%
38%

37. HIGHLIGHTED FINDINGS of this study
ALMOST THERE …. THESE ARE ON BEHALF OF COMMUNITY GROUPS!

38. End-of-Life Preferences, Planning, Services (Hospice of Jefferson County) (Tables 56-60)

39. End-of-Life Preferences, Planning, Services (Hospice of Jefferson County) (Tables 56-60)
44% signed at least one

40. End-of-Life Preferences, Planning, Services (Hospice of Jefferson County) (Tables 56-60)
However, among those who have used:

41. The Future of Thompson Park (Friends of Thompson Park) (Tables 61-72)
Everybody loves good bathrooms … but if forced to choose the most important factor …

42. The Future of Thompson Park (Friends of Thompson Park) (Tables 61-72)
Two clear leaders.
89% indicate at least one!

43. Thank You for Welcoming Us and Working With Us
Additional Questions for Us?
For additional questions and requests please feel free to contact us.
Joel LaLone:
Larry Danforth:
Additional Request for You:
20th Annual Survey of the Community in Jefferson County Scheduled for April 2019! Wow, 20 years, thank you John Deans.
If you have specific survey questions that you would like included in next year’s survey please send them to us.