2015 Resident Satisfaction - scchousingauthority.org...Beginning in 2010, HACSC transferred responsibility for managing the properties from an in-house affiliate company to third party

2015 Resident Satisfaction Findings of the fourth annual Resident Satisfaction Survey conducted for the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara

Cathy Craig CCraig Consulting June 2015

2015 Resident Satisfaction ii

Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 1

Response Rate ................................................................................................................................. 2

Levels of Satisfaction: All Respondents ......................................................................................... 3

Satisfaction with physical conditions .............................................................................................. 5

Recurring Issues .............................................................................................................................. 5

Follow Up Action Plan ................................................................................................................... 6

ATTACHMENTS ........................................................................................................................... 6

2015 Resident Satisfaction 1

2015 Resident Satisfaction Findings of the fourth annual Resident Satisfaction Survey conducted for the Housing Authority

of the County of Santa Clara

Introduction Since 2012, the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HACSC) annually conducts a Resident Satisfaction survey to give residents an opportunity to express their concerns, and to gauge the performance of the property management and service providers at all of its housing developments. The survey responses also give HACSC insight into the impact of rent increases and property rehabilitation projects, and to identify neighborhood safety issues. The survey asks residents about all aspects of the physical condition of their homes and the quality of the services they receive. Beginning in 2010, HACSC transferred responsibility for managing the properties from an in-house affiliate company to third party management agents. This transfer process was completed in mid-2012. HACSC also increased the use of a third party resident services provider, extending services to almost all of the properties. With the support of its property management and resident services partners, HACSC was able to engage a high percentage of residents in this year's survey, although not as high a percentage as in prior years. Residents generally gave their housing high ratings. The 2015 survey results provide a snapshot of residents’ level of satisfaction at each property and highlight common issues and concerns across properties. HACSC appreciates the residents taking the time to complete the survey.

Methodology The survey questions were the same as in prior years, which allows HACSC to note trends and to flag emerging issues. The survey asks residents sixteen multiple choice questions: three about the physical condition of their apartment, interior common areas and exterior areas; three about the quality of management services; four about maintenance services; four about resident support services and three about overall indicators of satisfaction. The survey concludes with one open-ended request for comments or suggestions. A copy of the survey template is attached (Attachment 1.) After notifying residents of the upcoming survey through resident meetings at the beginning of the year, surveys were mailed to all HACSC households in February. Management companies were also informed about the process and provided with flyers to distribute to encourage


residents to participate. Residents were given two weeks to mail back their completed surveys, though survey responses received after the deadline date were accepted and included in the results. The surveys, along with pre-stamped return envelopes, were provided to all households in English, Spanish, Vietnamese and Chinese. A local mail house distributed and collected the surveys and did the initial data entry of the responses. HACSC Asset Management staff compiled the open-ended comments with the assistance of translators.

Response Rate Thirty-seven percent, 1,014 out of 2,721 households, responded to the Resident Satisfaction Survey, compared to 44% last year. The overall response rate was still a respectable 37%. As in prior years, residents of the senior properties responded at a higher rate (49%) than residents at the family properties (26%.) The response rate from HACSC’s one special needs property dropped from 34% in 2014 down to 16%. Residents from 29 of HACSC's 32 properties responded1. The family property with the highest response rate was Miramar Way; 63% of the residents of this property responded to this year's survey! Lenzen Gardens Senior Apartments once again had the top response rate at 68%. This report will examine the overall level of satisfaction of respondents across the portfolio as a whole. It will also analyze the survey results specific to senior properties and to family properties. Within each of the subsets of properties the report will highlight noteworthy differences – areas in which residents of particular properties expressed significantly higher or lower opinions about one or more aspects of their housing than average for that type of property. Charts summarizing the resident responses by property type and for each of the properties participating in the 2015 Resident Satisfaction Survey are shown in Attachment 2.

1 Unfortunately there were no survey responses from the 16-unit Eklund Gardens, now divided into Halford Way and Poinciana Drive, or the 16-unit Lucretia Gardens. Other properties with response rates of under 20% included: Julian Gardens, Blossom River, Helzer Courts, Klamath Gardens and Pinmore Gardens. The small sample size for San Pedro Gardens (4 out of 20 units), Deborah (1 out of 4 units) and Seifert (1 out of 3 units) also make the results less than reliable.


Levels of Satisfaction: All Respondents Overall, HACSC residents report a high level of satisfaction.

• 90% of respondents strongly agree or agree with the statement: “I am satisfied with the value of my apartment for the rent I pay.”

• 89% of respondents strongly agree or agree: “This housing provides a safe, secure environment.”

• 92% of respondents strongly agree or agree: “I would recommend this housing to a friend or family member.”

These ratings are similar to last year. In 2014, Value was rated at 87%, Safety at 89% and Would Recommend at 93%. Value. In their comments residents state they are aware of how market-rate rents are escalating in their community and that they are thankful to be in a HACSC rent-restricted property. HACSC's residents though have been impacted with increased housing costs. As noted in last year's report, even residents with project-based or tenant-based rent subsidies have had their portion of the rent increase from 30% to 35% of their income. "Please don't increase the rental price. How can we live if our household income does not increase but the rental does?" As usual, most of the comments and concerns about rent increases came from the senior properties. Three senior properties: Avenida, DeRose, and Villa Hermosa had satisfaction ratings of Value more than ten percentage points below the senior portfolio average. Two family properties also reported much lower satisfaction rates than the average family property: Blossom River and Helzer Courts. When responses indicate lower than average satisfaction with Value, this is not always simply a comment about the rent or rent increases. Except for Villa Hermosa, the properties rated lower than average Value in this year's survey also had lower than average satisfaction with quality of the apartment, management responsiveness and other measures. Since the overall satisfaction with value is so high, there were no outliers at the upper end of the scale. In other words no properties exceeded the average by ten percentage points. Two properties that had much lower than average satisfaction with Value last year, Pinmore Gardens and Corde Terra Apartments, showed a great increase this year, from under 70% satisfied to 89% and 97% respectively2.

2 The response rate from Pinmore was too low to be certain that the change in satisfaction level is widely felt; the data from Corde Terra Apartments is more reliable.


Safety. The average level of satisfaction with Safety was 90% in the senior properties, two percentage points lower than last year but higher than previous years. DeRose Gardens was an outlier; only 73% of De Rose residents agreed or strongly agreed that their housing was safe and secure. Residents at John Burns Gardens were grateful for security improvements. "The changes in the entrance system have cut down a lot of traffic. Thanks." The level of satisfaction with Safety at the family properties averaged 86%, down one percentage point from last year. Once again the small family sites reported no concerns with Safety. Two sites, Blossom River and Poco Way, were markedly lower than average. Survey comments from Corde Terra Apartments also indicate concerns about after-hours security, though 91% of respondents still gave the property a positive rating on Safety. Maintenance. Seventy-two percent (666 out of 929) of respondents reported that they had requested maintenance within the past year, a slightly lower percentage than reported in the 2014 survey. Again this year maintenance responsiveness, courtesy and quality of the repair were all rated highly. Resident satisfaction with maintenance at two properties, Corde Terra Village and Huff Gardens, showed significant improvement while satisfaction levels at Pinmore Gardens went down. Variation by Management Company. In past surveys there has been no particular distinction between properties managed by FPI Inc. versus the John Stewart Company in regard to resident satisfaction, except that last year, residents of JSCo-managed properties indicated a higher level of satisfaction with maintenance than at FPI-managed sites. This year, the JSCo-managed portfolio scored higher than the FPI-managed portfolio in most categories. Attachment 4 shows that JSCo's higher resident satisfaction rating stems from higher resident satisfaction at its senior sites. The fact that senior sites are a larger percentage of the JSCo portfolio than FPI's also contributes to making their overall satisfaction ratings higher. Family properties in the FPI portfolio and the JSCo portfolio reported similar levels of satisfaction. The Opportunity Center. The Opportunity Center is HACSC's only special needs housing site. The building also houses a regional homeless services center. In 2012, the first year HACSC conducted its resident satisfaction survey, the property had just transitioned to third party management, and this in combination with a low survey response rate, made it hard to interpret the relatively low satisfaction levels reported by residents in 2012. In


recent months there has been another transition, as Charities Housing chose not to renew its management contract and John Stewart Company took over management of the site. Participation in this year's survey dropped to 16%, down from 34% in the two prior years. On the other hand, those who responded rated their satisfaction higher than in previous years.

Satisfaction with physical conditions The overall level of resident satisfaction with the quality of their apartments has remained relatively unchanged over the past three years at about 82% satisfaction at the family sites (up from 80%) and a steady 90% satisfaction at the senior sites. Among the senior properties, the only site expressing significantly lower levels of satisfaction was DeRose Gardens. Satisfaction with Morrone Gardens rose from at 71% last year to 85% in 2015 after completion of rehab at that property. At the family properties, the sites whose residents had a comparatively low level of satisfaction with the unit quality continued to have a lower than average level of satisfaction in 2015. Blossom River, Helzer Courts, and Pinmore Gardens saw modest improvement though all continued to have resident satisfaction levels at least ten percentage points or more below the portfolio average. San Pedro Garden's level of satisfaction remained unchanged at 50%. On the other hand, residents of Bendorf/Villa San Pedro rated their apartments sixteen percentage points higher than in 2014; Bendorf completed a major rehabilitation last year. Residents at The Willows rated their apartments percentage points higher than in 2014, even though at the Willows, HACSC made the decision to put off unit rehabs pending the buyout transaction and decisions regarding the possible re-syndication of the project

Recurring Issues Parking. The lack of visitor parking at Corde Terra Village and Corde Terra Family Apartments continues to be a major source of dissatisfaction. Security of parking areas is also a concern at Corde Terra Family Apartments and several other properties, including the Cypress, Lenzen and Rincon senior properties. Aging in Place. Especially in a senior property where residents spend most of their time at home and tend to be more aware of safety and security issues, a single incident can draw the attention and concern of an entire community. Two such incidents are noted in resident comments in this year's survey. A number of John Burns Gardens' residents commented on the need for more accessible walkways, citing how one community resident fell and broke her shoulder. At another property, multiple residents cited the theft of the community room TV as an example of the need for greater security measures at the property.


The 2014 survey report highlighted the need for HACSC to proactively address its aging resident population. Several quotes in this year's survey commend the effort, including the following quote from a Rincon Gardens resident: "I am an over-90 year old senior citizen. I very much appreciate that I can live in this quiet beautiful environment with peace and safety. The generous and favorable treatment I have received is really worth the rent. Thank you..." Smoking. Last year there were very few comments and complaints about smoking and we thought that no-smoking policies had become well established. This year the complaints are more numerous, suggesting that a renewed focus on enforcement is needed. Residents cited problems at Bendorf, Clarendon, Morrone, the Opportunity Center and Sunset Gardens.

Follow Up Action Plan HACSC Asset Management staff and the property management agents review all the survey results and follow-up with individual residents about individual requests. All the instances of "outliers", i.e. properties that exceed or fall short of the average response by ten percentage points or more within property type categories, are reviewed by staff to see what is causing that property to stand out from its peers. HACSC and the management companies will collaborate to produce an article reporting on survey results for upcoming resident newsletters. The top priority issues and opportunities that surfaced in the 2014 survey continue to be important in 2015. Follow up action steps include:

• Continue to work on "aging in place" challenges for HACSC communities. Implement plans for management and services to respond to the challenges.

• Continue to implement unit rehabs for long-tenured residents and track overall satisfaction with property-wide rehabs.

• Make full use of the data from the survey to focus attention on areas where residents have expressed concerns.

• Improve the response rate for next year's survey, particularly for the Opportunity Center and the family properties. Response rate for the family properties has been trending downward and so provides less reliable feedback about resident satisfaction at those sites.

ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Survey Template Attachment 2: Property Profiles Attachment 3: Three-Year Trends Attachment 4: Variation by Management Company

(over)

Attachment 1

<PROPERTY NAME> 2015 TENANT SATISFACTION SURVEY

The goal of the Housing Authority of Santa Clara County (HACSC) is to provide exceptional housing to our tenants. Your comments and suggestions are helpful to us. Please assist us by completing the following brief

questionnaire and returning it to us in the stamped envelope provided. A private research company is conducting this survey and your answers will be completely confidential.

How satisfied are you with the following: Very Satisfied Satisfied

Needs Improve-ment

Not At All

Satisfied

Not Applicable

1. The quality and condition of your apartment?

2. The quality and condition of the lobby and other indoor areas?

3. The quality and condition of the outside grounds and parking lot?

How satisfied are you with the following: Very Satisfied Satisfied

Needs Improve-ment

Not At All

Satisfied

Not Applicable

4. Ease of contacting the site manager?

5. Site manager’s responsiveness to your questions and concerns?

6. Adequate written communication from management?

7. Have you requested any repairs to your apartment in the past year? Yes No

If you requested repair(s), how satisfied were you with the following:

Very Satisfied Satisfied

Needs Improve-

ment

Not At All Satisfied

Not Applicable

8. Response time?

9. Courtesy of staff?

10. Quality of the repair?

11. Have you made use of optional resident services in the past year (e.g. afterschool program, referral to education or health services)?

Yes No

If you used resident services, how satisfied were you with the following:

Very Satisfied Satisfied

Needs Improve-

ment

Not At All Satisfied

Not Applicable

12. Response time?

13. Courtesy of staff?

14. Ability to help your situation?

To what extent do you agree with the following statements:

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly

Disagree Not

Applicable

15. I am satisfied with the value of my apartment for the rent I pay.

16. This housing provides a safe, secure environment.

17. I would recommend this housing to a friend or family member.

Comments and Suggestions:

As noted above, this survey is being conducted by a private research company and your responses are completely confidential. However, if you would like a personal follow up, please provide the following information:

Yes, I want a Housing Authority representative to contact me regarding unsatisfactory conditions in my apartment or at my property.

Name ________________________ Address_______________________

Please return your survey by March 9th. Thank you for your assistance!

To contact the Housing Authority about this survey, please call 408-975-4671

Avenida(Espana(Gardens Senior'Property'Managed'by'JSCo Response'Rate:'40%'(34/84)

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'

Very'SaBsfied' SaBsfied' Needs'Imp' Not'At'All'SaBsfied' N/A'

Physical(Condi5ons(

Apartment'

Lobby'&'Common'Area'

Grounds'&'Parking'

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'

14'

16'


Management(Quality(

Ease'of'ContacBng'

Responsiveness'

WriTen'CommunicaBon'

Avenida(Espana(Gardens Senior'Property'Managed'by'JSCo Response'Rate:'40%'(34/84)

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'

14'

16'

18'

20'


Maintenance(Quality(

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Quality'of'Repair'

0'

1'

2'

3'

4'

5'

6'

7'

8'


Services(Quality(

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Ability'to'Help'

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'

14'

16'

18'

20'

Strongly'Agree' Agree' Disagree' Strongly'Disagree'

N/A'

Overall(Assessment(

Good'Value'

Safe'Environment'

Would'Recommend'

Bendorff.Villa(San(Pedro Family'Property'Managed'by'JSCo Response'Rate:'42%'(42/100)

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'


Physical(Condi5ons(

Apartment'


Grounds'&'Parking'

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'


Management(Quality(

Ease'of'ContacBng'

Responsiveness'


Bendorff.Villa(San(Pedro Family'Property'Managed'by'JSCo Response'Rate:'42%'(42/100)

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'

14'

16'



Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Quality'of'Repair'

0'

1'

2'

3'

4'

5'

6'

7'


Services(Quality(

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Ability'to'Help'

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'


N/A'

Overall(Assessment(

Good'Value'

Safe'Environment'

Would'Recommend'

Blossom(River(Apts Family'Property'Managed'by'JSCo Response'Rate:'16%'(23/144)

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'


Physical(Condi5ons(

Apartment'


Grounds'&'Parking'

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'


Management(Quality(

Ease'of'ContacBng'

Responsiveness'


Blossom(River(Apts Family'Property'Managed'by'JSCo Response'Rate:'16%'(23/144)

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'



Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Quality'of'Repair'

0'

0.5'

1'

1.5'

2'

2.5'

3'

3.5'


Services(Quality(

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Ability'to'Help'

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'


N/A'

Overall(Assessment(

Good'Value'

Safe'Environment'

Would'Recommend'

Bracher(Senior(Apts Senior'Property'Managed'by'FPI Response'Rate:'56%'(40/72)

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'

30'


Physical(Condi5ons(

Apartment'


Grounds'&'Parking'

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'

30'


Management(Quality(

Ease'of'ContacBng'

Responsiveness'


Bracher(Senior(Apts Senior'Property'Managed'by'FPI Response'Rate:'56%'(40/72)

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'



Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Quality'of'Repair'

0'

1'

2'

3'

4'

5'

6'

7'

8'

9'

10'


Services(Quality(

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Ability'to'Help'

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'

14'

16'

18'

20'


N/A'

Overall(Assessment(

Good'Value'

Safe'Environment'

Would'Recommend'

Clarendon.Villa(Garcia Family'Property'Managed'by'JSCo Response'Rate:'33%'(26/80)

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'

14'


Physical(Condi5ons(

Apartment'


Grounds'&'Parking'

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'

14'


Management(Quality(

Ease'of'ContacBng'

Responsiveness'


Clarendon.Villa(Garcia Family'Property'Managed'by'JSCo Response'Rate:'33%'(26/80)

0'

1'

2'

3'

4'

5'

6'

7'

8'

9'

10'



Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Quality'of'Repair'

0'

1'

2'

3'

4'

5'

6'

7'


Services(Quality(

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Ability'to'Help'

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'

14'

16'


N/A'

Overall(Assessment(

Good'Value'

Safe'Environment'

Would'Recommend'

Corde(Terra(Apts Family'Property'Managed'by'FPI Response'Rate:'33%'(100/300)

0'

10'

20'

30'

40'

50'

60'


Physical(Condi5ons(

Apartment'


Grounds'&'Parking'

0'

10'

20'

30'

40'

50'

60'


Management(Quality(

Ease'of'ContacBng'

Responsiveness'


Corde(Terra(Apts Family'Property'Managed'by'FPI Response'Rate:'33%'(100/300)

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'

30'

35'

40'

45'



Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Quality'of'Repair'

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'

30'


Services(Quality(

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Ability'to'Help'

0'

10'

20'

30'

40'

50'

60'


N/A'

Overall(Assessment(

Good'Value'

Safe'Environment'

Would'Recommend'

Corde(Terra(Village Senior'Property'Managed'by'FPI Response'Rate:'35%'(70/200)

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'

30'

35'

40'

45'


Physical(Condi5ons(

Apartment'


Grounds'&'Parking'

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'

30'

35'

40'

45'

50'


Management(Quality(

Ease'of'ContacBng'

Responsiveness'


Corde(Terra(Village Senior'Property'Managed'by'FPI Response'Rate:'35%'(70/200)

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'

30'

35'



Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Quality'of'Repair'

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'

30'


Services(Quality(

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Ability'to'Help'

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'

30'

35'

40'

45'


N/A'

Overall(Assessment(

Good'Value'

Safe'Environment'

Would'Recommend'

Cypress'Gardens Senior'Property'Managed'by'JSCo Response'Rate:'55%'(69/125)

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'

30'

35'

40'

Very'SaCsfied' SaCsfied' Needs'Imp' Not'At'All'SaCsfied' N/A'

Physical'Condi2ons'

Apartment'


Grounds'&'Parking'

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'

30'

35'


Management'Quality'

Ease'of'ContacCng'

Responsiveness'

WriTen'CommunicaCon'

Cypress'Gardens Senior'Property'Managed'by'JSCo Response'Rate:'55%'(69/125)

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'

30'

35'


Maintenance'Quality'

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Quality'of'Repair'

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'

14'

16'


Services'Quality'

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Ability'to'Help'

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'

30'

35'

40'


N/A'

Overall'Assessment'

Good'Value'

Safe'Environment'

Would'Recommend'

DeRose'Gardens Senior'Property'Managed'by'FPI Response'Rate:'47%'(36/76)

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'


Physical'Condi2ons'

Apartment'


Grounds'&'Parking'

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'

14'

16'

18'

20'


Management'Quality'

Ease'of'ContacCng'

Responsiveness'


DeRose'Gardens Senior'Property'Managed'by'FPI Response'Rate:'47%'(36/76)

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'

14'

16'

18'

20'



Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Quality'of'Repair'

0'

1'

2'

3'

4'

5'

6'

7'


Services'Quality'

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Ability'to'Help'

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'

14'

16'

18'


N/A'

Overall'Assessment'

Good'Value'

Safe'Environment'

Would'Recommend'

Deborah'Apts Family'Property'Managed'by'JSCo Response'Rate:'28%'(1/4)

0'

0.2'

0.4'

0.6'

0.8'

1'

1.2'


Physical'Condi2ons'

Apartment'


Grounds'&'Parking'

0'

0.2'

0.4'

0.6'

0.8'

1'

1.2'


Management'Quality'

Ease'of'ContacCng'

Responsiveness'


Deborah'Apts Family'Property'Managed'by'JSCo Response'Rate:'28%'(1/4)

0'

0.1'

0.2'

0.3'

0.4'

0.5'

0.6'

0.7'

0.8'

0.9'

1'



Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Quality'of'Repair'

0'

0.1'

0.2'

0.3'

0.4'

0.5'

0.6'

0.7'

0.8'

0.9'

1'


Services'Quality'

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Ability'to'Help'

0'

0.2'

0.4'

0.6'

0.8'

1'

1.2'


N/A'

Overall'Assessment'

Good'Value'

Safe'Environment'

Would'Recommend'

Eklund'Gardens Family'Property'Managed'by'JSCo Response'Rate:'0%'(0/16)

0'

0.1'

0.2'

0.3'

0.4'

0.5'

0.6'

0.7'

0.8'

0.9'

1'


Physical'Condi2ons'

Apartment'


Grounds'&'Parking'

0'

0.1'

0.2'

0.3'

0.4'

0.5'

0.6'

0.7'

0.8'

0.9'

1'


Management'Quality'

Ease'of'ContacCng'

Responsiveness'


Eklund'Gardens Family'Property'Managed'by'JSCo Response'Rate:'0%'(0/16)

0'

0.1'

0.2'

0.3'

0.4'

0.5'

0.6'

0.7'

0.8'

0.9'

1'



Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Quality'of'Repair'

0'

0.1'

0.2'

0.3'

0.4'

0.5'

0.6'

0.7'

0.8'

0.9'

1'


Services'Quality'

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Ability'to'Help'

0'

0.1'

0.2'

0.3'

0.4'

0.5'

0.6'

0.7'

0.8'

0.9'

1'


N/A'

Overall'Assessment'

Good'Value'

Safe'Environment'

Would'Recommend'

El'Parador'Senior Senior'Property'Managed'by'JSCo Response'Rate:'54%'(67/125)

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'

30'

35'

40'


Physical'Condi2ons'

Apartment'


Grounds'&'Parking'

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'

30'

35'

40'

45'


Management'Quality'

Ease'of'ContacCng'

Responsiveness'


El'Parador'Senior Senior'Property'Managed'by'JSCo Response'Rate:'54%'(67/125)

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'

30'

35'

40'



Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Quality'of'Repair'

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'


Services'Quality'

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Ability'to'Help'

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'

30'

35'

40'


N/A'

Overall'Assessment'

Good'Value'

Safe'Environment'

Would'Recommend'

Helzer'Court Family'Property'Managed'by'FPI Response'Rate:'16%'(25/155)

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'

14'


Physical'Condi2ons'

Apartment'


Grounds'&'Parking'

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'


Management'Quality'

Ease'of'ContacCng'

Responsiveness'


Helzer'Court Family'Property'Managed'by'FPI Response'Rate:'16%'(25/155)

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'

14'



Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Quality'of'Repair'

0'

0.5'

1'

1.5'

2'

2.5'

3'

3.5'

4'

4.5'


Services'Quality'

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Ability'to'Help'

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'


N/A'

Overall'Assessment'

Good'Value'

Safe'Environment'

Would'Recommend'

Huff$Gardens Family'Property'Managed'by'FPI Response'Rate:'26%'(19/72)

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'

14'

Very'SaEsfied' SaEsfied' Needs'Imp' Not'At'All'SaEsfied' N/A'

Physical$Condi4ons$

Apartment'


Grounds'&'Parking'

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'


Management$Quality$

Ease'of'ContacEng'

Responsiveness'

WriTen'CommunicaEon'

Huff$Gardens Family'Property'Managed'by'FPI Response'Rate:'26%'(19/72)

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'


Maintenance$Quality$

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Quality'of'Repair'

0'

0.5'

1'

1.5'

2'

2.5'

3'

3.5'


Services$Quality$

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Ability'to'Help'

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'

14'


N/A'

Overall$Assessment$

Good'Value'

Safe'Environment'

Would'Recommend'

John$Burns$Gardens Senior'Property'Managed'by'JSCo Response'Rate:'47%'(47/100)

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'

30'

35'


Physical$Condi4ons$

Apartment'


Grounds'&'Parking'

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'

30'


Management$Quality$

Ease'of'ContacEng'

Responsiveness'


John$Burns$Gardens Senior'Property'Managed'by'JSCo Response'Rate:'47%'(47/100)

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'



Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Quality'of'Repair'

0'

1'

2'

3'

4'

5'

6'

7'

8'

9'


Services$Quality$

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Ability'to'Help'

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'

30'


N/A'

Overall$Assessment$

Good'Value'

Safe'Environment'

Would'Recommend'

Julian$Gardens Family'Property'Managed'byJSCo Response'Rate:'11%'(1/9)

0'

0.2'

0.4'

0.6'

0.8'

1'

1.2'


Physical$Condi4ons$

Apartment'


Grounds'&'Parking'

0'

0.2'

0.4'

0.6'

0.8'

1'

1.2'


Management$Quality$

Ease'of'ContacEng'

Responsiveness'


Julian$Gardens Family'Property'Managed'byJSCo Response'Rate:'11%'(1/9)

0'

0.2'

0.4'

0.6'

0.8'

1'

1.2'



Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Quality'of'Repair'

0'

0.1'

0.2'

0.3'

0.4'

0.5'

0.6'

0.7'

0.8'

0.9'

1'


Services$Quality$

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Ability'to'Help'

0'

0.2'

0.4'

0.6'

0.8'

1'

1.2'


N/A'

Overall$Assessment$

Good'Value'

Safe'Environment'

Would'Recommend'

Klamath$Gardens Family'Property'Managed'by'FPI Response'Rate:'18%'(3/17)

0'

0.5'

1'

1.5'

2'

2.5'


Physical$Condi4ons$

Apartment'


Grounds'&'Parking'

0'

0.5'

1'

1.5'

2'

2.5'


Management$Quality$

Ease'of'ContacEng'

Responsiveness'


Klamath$Gardens Family'Property'Managed'by'FPI Response'Rate:'18%'(3/17)

0'

0.5'

1'

1.5'

2'

2.5'



Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Quality'of'Repair'

0'

0.2'

0.4'

0.6'

0.8'

1'

1.2'


Services$Quality$

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Ability'to'Help'

0'

0.5'

1'

1.5'

2'

2.5'


N/A'

Overall$Assessment$

Good'Value'

Safe'Environment'

Would'Recommend'

Lenzen$Gardens Senior'Property'Managed'by'JSCo Response'Rate:'68%'(64/94)

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'

30'

35'


Physical$Condi4ons$

Apartment'


Grounds'&'Parking'

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'

30'

35'

40'


Management$Quality$

Ease'of'ContacEng'

Responsiveness'


Lenzen$Gardens Senior'Property'Managed'by'JSCo Response'Rate:'68%'(64/94)

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'

30'



Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Quality'of'Repair'

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'


Services$Quality$

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Ability'to'Help'

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'

30'

35'


N/A'

Overall$Assessment$

Good'Value'

Safe'Environment'

Would'Recommend'

Lucretia$Gardens Family'Property'Managed'by'JSCo Response'Rate:'0%'(0/16)

0'

0.1'

0.2'

0.3'

0.4'

0.5'

0.6'

0.7'

0.8'

0.9'

1'


Physical$Condi4ons$

Apartment'


Grounds'&'Parking'

0'

0.1'

0.2'

0.3'

0.4'

0.5'

0.6'

0.7'

0.8'

0.9'

1'


Management$Quality$

Ease'of'ContacEng'

Responsiveness'


Lucretia$Gardens Family'Property'Managed'by'JSCo Response'Rate:'0%'(0/16)

0'

0.1'

0.2'

0.3'

0.4'

0.5'

0.6'

0.7'

0.8'

0.9'

1'



Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Quality'of'Repair'

0'

0.1'

0.2'

0.3'

0.4'

0.5'

0.6'

0.7'

0.8'

0.9'

1'


Services$Quality$

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Ability'to'Help'

0'

0.1'

0.2'

0.3'

0.4'

0.5'

0.6'

0.7'

0.8'

0.9'

1'


N/A'

Overall$Assessment$

Good'Value'

Safe'Environment'

Would'Recommend'

Miramar&Way&Apts Family'Property'Managed'by'JSCo Response'Rate:'63%'(10/16)

0'

1'

2'

3'

4'

5'

6'

7'

8'

Very'SaGsfied' SaGsfied' Needs'Imp' Not'At'All'SaGsfied' N/A'

Physical&Condi5ons&

Apartment'


Grounds'&'Parking'

0'

1'

2'

3'

4'

5'

6'

7'

8'


Management&Quality&

Ease'of'ContacGng'

Responsiveness'

WriVen'CommunicaGon'

Miramar&Way&Apts Family'Property'Managed'by'JSCo Response'Rate:'63%'(10/16)

0'

0.5'

1'

1.5'

2'

2.5'

3'

3.5'

4'

4.5'


Maintenance&Quality&

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Quality'of'Repair'

0'

0.5'

1'

1.5'

2'

2.5'


Services&Quality&

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Ability'to'Help'

0'

1'

2'

3'

4'

5'

6'

7'

8'


N/A'

Overall&Assessment&

Good'Value'

Safe'Environment'

Would'Recommend'

San&Jose&PLaza.Morrone&GardensSenior'Property'Managed'by'FPI Response'Rate:'38%'(39/102)

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'


Physical&Condi5ons&

Apartment'


Grounds'&'Parking'

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'


Management&Quality&

Ease'of'ContacGng'

Responsiveness'

WriVen'CommunicaGon'

San&Jose&PLaza.Morrone&GardensSenior'Property'Managed'by'FPI Response'Rate:'38%'(39/102)

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'



Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Quality'of'Repair'

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'


Services&Quality&

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Ability'to'Help'

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'


N/A'

Overall&Assessment&

Good'Value'

Safe'Environment'

Would'Recommend'

Opportunity*Center Sp#Needs#Property#Managed#by#JSCo Response#Rate:#16%#(14/89)

0#

1#

2#

3#

4#

5#

6#

7#

8#

9#

Very#SaEsfied# SaEsfied# Needs#Imp# Not#At#All#SaEsfied# N/A#

Physical*Condi4ons*

Apartment#

Lobby#&#Common#Area#

Grounds#&#Parking#

0#

1#

2#

3#

4#

5#

6#

7#

8#


Management*Quality*

Ease#of#ContacEng#

Responsiveness#

WriVen#CommunicaEon#

Opportunity*Center Sp#Needs#Property#Managed#by#JSCo Response#Rate:#16%#(14/89)

0#

0.5#

1#

1.5#

2#

2.5#

3#

3.5#

4#

4.5#


Maintenance*Quality*

Response#Time#

Courtesy#

Quality#of#Repair#

0#

0.5#

1#

1.5#

2#

2.5#

3#

3.5#

4#

4.5#


Services*Quality*

Response#Time#

Courtesy#

Ability#to#Help#

0#

1#

2#

3#

4#

5#

6#

7#

8#

Strongly#Agree# Agree# Disagree# Strongly#Disagree#

N/A#

Overall*Assessment*

Good#Value#

Safe#Environment#

Would#Recommend#

Pinmore(Gardens Family'Property'Managed'by'FPI Response'Rate:'18%'(9/51)

0'

1'

2'

3'

4'

5'

6'

Very'SaFsfied' SaFsfied' Needs'Imp' Not'At'All'SaFsfied' N/A'

Physical(Condi2ons(

Apartment'


Grounds'&'Parking'

0'

0.5'

1'

1.5'

2'

2.5'

3'

3.5'

4'

4.5'


Management(Quality(

Ease'of'ContacFng'

Responsiveness'

WriVen'CommunicaFon'

Pinmore(Gardens Family'Property'Managed'by'FPI Response'Rate:'18%'(9/51)

0'

0.5'

1'

1.5'

2'

2.5'

3'

3.5'

4'

4.5'



Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Quality'of'Repair'

0'

0.5'

1'

1.5'

2'

2.5'

3'

3.5'

4'

4.5'


Services(Quality(

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Ability'to'Help'

0'

1'

2'

3'

4'

5'

6'


N/A'

Overall(Assessment(

Good'Value'

Safe'Environment'

Would'Recommend'

Poco(Way(Apts Family'Property'Managed'by'FPI Response'Rate:'27%'(35/129)

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'

14'

16'

18'


Physical(Condi2ons(

Apartment'


Grounds'&'Parking'

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'

14'

16'

18'

20'


Management(Quality(

Ease'of'ContacFng'

Responsiveness'

WriVen'CommunicaFon'

Poco(Way(Apts Family'Property'Managed'by'FPI Response'Rate:'27%'(35/129)

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'

14'



Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Quality'of'Repair'

0'

1'

2'

3'

4'

5'

6'

7'

8'


Services(Quality(

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Ability'to'Help'

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'


N/A'

Overall(Assessment(

Good'Value'

Safe'Environment'

Would'Recommend'

Rincon&Gardens Senior'Property'Managed'by'JSCo Response'Rate:'51%'(101/200)

0'

10'

20'

30'

40'

50'

60'


Physical&Condi2ons&

Apartment'


Grounds'&'Parking'

0'

10'

20'

30'

40'

50'

60'

70'


Management&Quality&

Ease'of'ContacBng'

Responsiveness'


Rincon&Gardens Senior'Property'Managed'by'JSCo Response'Rate:'51%'(101/200)

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'

30'

35'

40'

45'

50'



Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Quality'of'Repair'

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'

30'

35'

40'


Services&Quality&

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Ability'to'Help'

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'

30'

35'

40'

45'

50'


N/A'

Overall&Assessment&

Good'Value'

Safe'Environment'

Would'Recommend'

Rivertown&Apts Family'Property'Managed'by'JSCo Response'Rate:'20%'(20/100)

0'

1'

2'

3'

4'

5'

6'

7'

8'

9'

10'


Physical&Condi2ons&

Apartment'


Grounds'&'Parking'

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'


Management&Quality&

Ease'of'ContacBng'

Responsiveness'


Rivertown&Apts Family'Property'Managed'by'JSCo Response'Rate:'20%'(20/100)

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'



Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Quality'of'Repair'

0'

1'

2'

3'

4'

5'

6'

7'

8'


Services&Quality&

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Ability'to'Help'

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'


N/A'

Overall&Assessment&

Good'Value'

Safe'Environment'

Would'Recommend'

San$Pedro$Gardens Family'Property'Managed'by'FPI Response'Rate:'20%'(4/20)

0'

0.5'

1'

1.5'

2'

2.5'

3'

3.5'

Very'SaDsfied' SaDsfied' Needs'Imp' Not'At'All'SaDsfied' N/A'

Physical$Condi2ons$

Apartment'


Grounds'&'Parking'

0'

0.5'

1'

1.5'

2'

2.5'

3'

3.5'


Management$Quality$

Ease'of'ContacDng'

Responsiveness'

WriSen'CommunicaDon'

San$Pedro$Gardens Family'Property'Managed'by'FPI Response'Rate:'20%'(4/20)

0'

0.5'

1'

1.5'

2'

2.5'



Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Quality'of'Repair'

0'

0.2'

0.4'

0.6'

0.8'

1'

1.2'


Services$Quality$

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Ability'to'Help'

0'

0.5'

1'

1.5'

2'

2.5'


N/A'

Overall$Assessment$

Good'Value'

Safe'Environment'

Would'Recommend'

Siefert'House Family'Property'Managed'by'HACSC Response'Rate:'33%'(1/3)

0'

0.1'

0.2'

0.3'

0.4'

0.5'

0.6'

0.7'

0.8'

0.9'

1'

Very'SaJsfied' SaJsfied' Needs'Imp' Not'At'All'SaJsfied' N/A'

Physical'Condi5ons'

Apartment'


Grounds'&'Parking'

0'

0.2'

0.4'

0.6'

0.8'

1'

1.2'


Management'Quality'

Ease'of'ContacJng'

Responsiveness'

WriXen'CommunicaJon'

Siefert'House Family'Property'Managed'by'HACSC Response'Rate:'33%'(1/3)

0'

0.2'

0.4'

0.6'

0.8'

1'

1.2'



Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Quality'of'Repair'

0'

0.2'

0.4'

0.6'

0.8'

1'

1.2'


Services'Quality'

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Ability'to'Help'

0'

0.2'

0.4'

0.6'

0.8'

1'

1.2'


N/A'

Overall'Assessment'

Good'Value'

Safe'Environment'

Would'Recommend'

Sunset'Gardens Senior'Property'Managed'by'JSCo Response'Rate:'53%'(40/75)

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'

30'


Physical'Condi5ons'

Apartment'


Grounds'&'Parking'

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'


Management'Quality'

Ease'of'ContacJng'

Responsiveness'


Sunset'Gardens Senior'Property'Managed'by'JSCo Response'Rate:'53%'(40/75)

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'

14'

16'

18'



Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Quality'of'Repair'

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'


Services'Quality'

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Ability'to'Help'

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'


N/A'

Overall'Assessment'

Good'Value'

Safe'Environment'

Would'Recommend'

Villa'Hermosa Senior'Property'Managed'by'JSCo Response'Rate:'61%'(61/100)

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'

30'

35'

40'


Physical'Condi5ons'

Apartment'


Grounds'&'Parking'

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'

30'

35'


Management'Quality'

Ease'of'ContacJng'

Responsiveness'


Villa'Hermosa Senior'Property'Managed'by'JSCo Response'Rate:'61%'(61/100)

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'

30'

35'



Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Quality'of'Repair'

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'

14'

16'


Services'Quality'

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Ability'to'Help'

0'

5'

10'

15'

20'

25'

30'

35'

40'


N/A'

Overall'Assessment'

Good'Value'

Safe'Environment'

Would'Recommend'

The'Willows Family'Property'Managed'by'FPI Response'Rate:'28%'(13/47)

0'

1'

2'

3'

4'

5'

6'

7'

8'

9'


Physical'Condi5ons'

Apartment'


Grounds'&'Parking'

0'

2'

4'

6'

8'

10'

12'


Management'Quality'

Ease'of'ContacJng'

Responsiveness'


The'Willows Family'Property'Managed'by'FPI Response'Rate:'28%'(13/47)

0'

1'

2'

3'

4'

5'

6'

7'



Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Quality'of'Repair'

0'

0.5'

1'

1.5'

2'

2.5'

3'

3.5'


Services'Quality'

Response'Time'

Courtesy'

Ability'to'Help'

0'

1'

2'

3'

4'

5'

6'

7'

8'

9'


N/A'

Overall'Assessment'

Good'Value'

Safe'Environment'

Would'Recommend'

ATTACHMENT 3: Three Year Trends

TypeALL SITES

2013 VS/Satisfied/SA/Agree 1008 85% 970 85% 872 77% 1025 88% 988 85% 986 88% 815 86% 879 93% 812 88%2014 VS/Satisfied/SA/Agree 1008 86% 976 85% 922 81% 1021 88% 988 86% 1006 89% 786 85% 860 93% 784 87%2015 VS/Satisfied/SA/Agree 881 87% 863 88% 777 80% 874 88% 844 86% 856 88% 704 88% 752 94% 702 89%

FAMILY2013 VS/Satisfied/SA/Agree 327 76% 320 79% 292 69% 362 84% 350 82% 350 84% 276 77% 307 86% 278 80%2014 VS/Satisfied/SA/Agree 318 80% 305 81% 288 75% 333 86% 316 81% 334 87% 258 77% 289 89% 260 82%2015 VS/Satisfied/SA/Agree 270 82% 253 82% 235 75% 281 87% 269 84% 276 88% 213 83% 228 90% 208 84%

SENIOR2013 VS/Satisfied/SA/Agree 666 91% 636 88% 569 81% 644 89% 624 87% 624 90% 525 90% 559 96% 519 92%2014 VS/Satisfied/SA/Agree 671 90% 655 89% 615 84% 667 90% 654 89% 653 90% 513 89% 556 96% 510 90%2015 VS/Satisfied/SA/Agree 599 90% 599 91% 532 82% 581 89% 564 87% 569 89% 487 90% 518 96% 490 92%

SPECIAL NEEDS2013 VS/Satisfied/SA/Agree 24 80% 24 80% 18 64% 26 90% 22 79% 21 78% 32 94% 21 88% 22 88%2014 VS/Satisfied/SA/Agree 19 66% 16 55% 19 68% 21 78% 18 67% 19 66% 15 71% 15 75% 14 67%2015 VS/Satisfied/SA/Agree 12 86% 11 85% 10 83% 12 86% 11 85% 11 85% 4 57% 6 75% 2 40%

TypeALL SITES

2013 VS/Satisfied/SA/Agree 366 92% 386 93% 355 89% 1008 88% 968 85% 951 89%2014 VS/Satisfied/SA/Agree 387 88% 409 93% 389 88% 976 87% 1012 89% 989 93%2015 VS/Satisfied/SA/Agree 361 94% 335 89% 335 89% 863 90% 848 89% 822 92%

FAMILY2013 VS/Satisfied/SA/Agree 130 90% 135 91% 127 86% 361 87% 335 81% 329 85%2014 VS/Satisfied/SA/Agree 117 86% 122 93% 118 89% 338 87% 330 87% 321 92%2015 VS/Satisfied/SA/Agree 95 89% 107 94% 99 88% 290 92% 318 89% 253 91%

SENIOR2013 VS/Satisfied/SA/Agree 225 93% 239 94% 217 90% 635 90% 618 87% 611 92%2014 VS/Satisfied/SA/Agree 256 90% 272 93% 258 90% 616 87% 664 92% 652 95%2015 VS/Satisfied/SA/Agree 230 91% 248 94% 231 90% 562 89% 571 90% 559 94%

SPECIAL NEEDS2013 VS/Satisfied/SA/Agree 14 93% 14 93% 13 87% 21 75% 24 86% 20 71%2014 VS/Satisfied/SA/Agree 14 70% 15 75% 13 65% 22 73% 18 62% 16 57%2015 VS/Satisfied/SA/Agree 5 83% 6 86% 5 71% 11 85% 9 75% 10 71%

Q17 Would Recommend

Q6 Written Communications

Q8 Maint Response

Q2 Quality of Lobby

Q3 Quality of Grounds/Parking

Q4 Ease of Contact

Q9 Maint Courtesy

Q10 Quality of Repair

Q12 Services Response

Q13 Services Courtesy

Q14 Services Abilty to Help

Q15 Satisfied with Value

Q16 Satisfied with Safety

Q1 Quality of Apt

Q5 Mgmt Response

Attachment 4: Variation by Management Company

% Very Satisfied/ Satisfied Sites Ap

artment Q

uality &

Condition

Lobby Q

uality &

Condition

Grounds &

Parkin

g Lot

Condition

Ease of Contacting

Site Manager

Site Manager's

Responsiveness

Adequate Written

Communications

Main

t Response Time

Main

t Courte

sy

Main

t Quality

Service

s Response

Time

Service

s Courte

sy

Service

s Quality

FPI Senior 4 82% 88% 80% 85% 81% 88% 79% 90% 83% 86% 91% 86%JSCo Senior 8 93% 92% 83% 90% 89% 89% 95% 98% 96% 93% 96% 91%FPI Family 8 83% 81% 74% 86% 86% 90% 85% 91% 84% 91% 93% 90%JSCo Family* 7 81% 83% 77% 88% 81% 85% 80% 88% 83% 84% 97% 85%

% Strongly Agree/ Agree Sites Va

lue of Apt for Rent I

Pay

Safe & Se

cure

Environment

Would Recom

mend to

Family/Friends

FPI Senior 4 90% 85% 90%

JSCo Senior 8 89% 92% 95%

FPI Family 8 93% 86% 90%

JSCo Family 7 91% 87% 92%

* Does not include Eklund or Lucretia (no data)

Documents

2015 Resident Satisfaction - scchousingauthority.org...Beginning in 2010, HACSC transferred responsibility for managing the properties from an in-house affiliate company to third party