THE PLATTSBURGH-NORTH COUNTRY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

CANADIAN CONNECTION PROJECT

Final Report

October 1997

Yellow Wood Associates, Inc.

Introduction

In 1996, the Plattsburgh-North Country Chamber of Commerce established baseline indicators of the economic impact of Canada and Canadians on the Clinton County economy. The baseline data reflected the 1994 calendar year, and, for certain sectors, included part of 1995. The intention of the Chamber is to replicate this study, in whole or in part, on a regular basis to provide indications of the directions in which Canadian impact is developing. This report represents the first replication with data collected for the 1996 calendar year. A variety of methodologies have been used across seven different sectors and numerous sub-sectors to attempt to capture economic impact data. The major sectors in this study are: Border-Dependent Businesses and Public Agencies, Energy, Financial and Professional Services, Culture and Education, Real Estate, Tourism, and Retail. This report discusses findings, identifies methodological issues, and makes recommendations for replication by sub-sector.

Certain methodological insights apply to every aspect of this study. These include the importance of using a third party to collect data from businesses within Clinton County.

Many respondents raised concerns regarding the confidentiality of the information they were asked to provide. As a third party located outside the County, Yellow Wood Associates (YWA) has been able to assure them their information would only be released to the Chamber in the aggregate for their sector or sub-sector and never associated specifically with their business. This assurance was key to generating responses in many instances. Therefore, although the original intent of this study was to provide the Chamber with a means of replication that would not require a third party, the absence of a third party may significantly lower response rates. The first replication evidenced a significant increase in response rate among certain sectors over the original study, possibly confirming the value of a third party.

To utilize data from this study as an effective baseline, survey responses were tracked for firms that responded to the original study versus firms that were surveyed for the first time as a part of this replication. Where significant discrete comparisons are possible between the original respondents 1994 and 1996 responses, they have been noted in the text. For certain sectors, insufficient numbers of original respondents participated in the replication to make this comparison. Lists of the surveyed population included in the Appendix to this report identify those who responded both to the original study and the replication study (but not the content of their response). Summary data regarding additions, deletions, and substitutions to the original list is provided in the Appendix to this report.

Wherever possible and appropriate the methodology for data collection for the replication is identical to the original study. However, the original study taught us several lessons that allowed us to design more appropriate methodologies for certain sectors. Although the explicit comparison of this replication data and original data may not be possible, the changes in methodology for certain sectors will facilitate more accurate and feasible comparisons between the 1996 data and future replications.

Finally, much of the methodology for this study has been based on lists of Canadian-owned businesses, International border businesses, and Public border-related agencies in Clinton County. Businesses in many sectors have been asked to estimate the amount and value of transactions with these border-dependent businesses and agencies. The accuracy of these lists is critical to the overall accuracy of the results. Additional lists of tourism-related businesses, retail businesses, financial and professional service providers, etc. have been used for conducting surveys. All these lists were supplied to YWA by the Chamber. An effort was made to verify the accuracy and comprehensiveness of these lists with members of the Canadian Connection Committee of the Chamber. We can only speculate on businesses that might have been excluded from the lists. However, a couple of County businesses acknowledged having clients that were Canadian-owned businesses not included in the list. These businesses declined to disclose the names of their Canadian clients and thus the list was not amended. We recommend that the Chamber continue to strive to maintain as comprehensive a list of Canadian-owned businesses in Clinton County as possible.

We realize the lists are, by nature, highly dynamic and maintaining lists of this type is difficult and time consuming. These lists are, however, the cornerstone of the methodology developed by YWA and approved by the Chamber. We recommend that, prior to replication, either the Chamber or a third party make an effort to bring all lists up to date.

The replication study succeeded in increasing the participation of business people representing several sectors of the County’s economy. However, without a consistent group of participants for each replication in each business sector it is more difficult to interpret a change in the size of the indicator. While overall participation increased in most sectors, important individual firms which had participated in the original study chose not to participate in this replication. These few firms sometimes represented a large portion of the Canadian impact reported in the original study. For each sector of the economy, we present comparisons of total figures for 1994 and 1996 and strict comparisons for a sub-group of consistent participants.

All figures reported are in current dollars for the time period represented.