My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1993 Housing Survey Results
PORTAL
>
CITIZEN and EMPLOYEE SURVEYS (40.340A)
>
1993 Housing Survey Results
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/12/2023 10:28:23 AM
Creation date
7/12/2023 10:26:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITYWIDE
Also Known As (aka)
Determining the need for affordable housing for employees within the community
Doc Type
Survey Compilations
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
HOUSING COMPLICATIONS <br />Employees were asked to choose among seven complications that frequently arise within a <br />family. they were asked to rank these in order of importance, denoting number one as the most <br />important. Some employees spread their responses to include all seven problems, and the tabulation <br />below for this and the following question make it difficult to show overall priorities. People with <br />multiple problems usually give their first attention to those that they regard as most severe. It is <br />doubtful that one would immediately try to solve his seventh, or even his fourth priority. <br />Accordingly, these responses were scaled as one would score a track meet, allotting five points to <br />each number one, three points to each number two, and one point to each number three. This "win, <br />place, and show" arrangement shows a definite list of priorities as seen by the entire group. <br />Affordable housing comes in a clear first, followed by commuting time to work, and (way back) <br />need for child care. When these problems are scored to include all votes, allotting 7 for the most <br />important, down to one for the least important, the scores are larger, but the priorities of the <br />employees remain the same. <br />The problems of finding affordable housing and the annoyance of commuting time to work <br />seems to be linked in minds of most respondents. No one objected to Louisville as a place in which <br />to live, only the time it took to get there. These two together dominate the problems, no matter what <br />method of classification is used. <br />TABLE X <br />Are your housing needs complicated by any of the <br />following? Please rate in order of importance, number <br />one as the most important (Designated by score). <br />Need for child care 37 164 <br />Need for provision for elderly dependent 9 66 <br />Need for provision for handicapped person (yourself or 12 71 <br />dependent) <br />Responsibilities of single parent 44 44 <br />Commuting time to work 136 399 <br />Difficulty in finding affordable housing 166 454 <br />Other (please specify) 3 17 <br />Win, Place, Score <br />Scale <br />HOUSING AUTHORITY SERVICES <br />7-6-5-4-3-2-1 <br />Scale <br />In the final short -answer question those in the sample were asked which of 11 Housing Authority services they <br />could utilize, again ranking in importance, with number one as the most important. Again, the responses were spread <br />across the entire spectrum. It is doubtful if employees could utilize or believe that they could utilize more than a few <br />services. In later responses to the open-ended question it is clear that many workers are unaware of the functions or, in <br />some cases, of even the existence, of the Housing Authority. Faced with a long list of unexpected and previously <br />unknown choices, they scattered their answers as though they were throwing darts. <br />13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.