I

R:!ZI • IDJD-OOOO797 r ~ r

f)

/

:' .i ..

${t@~O~~D©@~

~[jj)~~Wf9Df9 0RIG I N AL

(Q)~~[M)@

(W] u[Q)@Ql]

[M)(Q)mJl)@~~@@©JOOl)@

cQk~mJU(Q)[[i)~~u@~D(Q)Ql]r------...

volume 2: baseline neighborhood and ~ing data

, '

,"

...-.." ..... -- --.... ":"'" . ":' .. ,.,-

'." .. _." 0" < .... ..

r """1l

Contract #H-2401[ 1 j

,

JJ .

I.t.. )

r STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE

URBAN HOHESTEADING DEMONSTRATION

r (,

VOLUHE II Baseline Neighborhood and Housing Data

[ December 9, 1977

L. Prepared For:

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ~'lashington, D.C. 20410

Prepared By:

Urban Systems Research and Engineering, Inc. 1218 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, t1assachusetts 02138

L,

II

L

l

r TABLE OF CONTENTS r

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . • . . .

( CHAPTER I: URBAN HOMESTEADER BASELINE SURVEY

Sample Size . . . r List of Tables

List of Figures . r Responses to Survey Questions .

Homesteader Baseline Interview

r CHAPTER II: WINDSHIELD SURVEY OF HOUSING & BLOCK [

CONDITIONS

Sample Sizes: Structures . •

Blocks . .

List of Tables

L List of Figures Responses to Survey Questions .

l Housing Checklist • . Block Checklist •

l CHAPTER III: REHABILITATION AUDIT DATA Sample Size . • .

L List of Tables List of Figures

L Responses to Survey Questions . Architectural Audit

CHAPTER IV: NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENT BASELINE SURVEY

Sample Size . .

L List of Tables

L List of Figures .

Responses to Survey Questions •

Residents of Homestead Neighborhoods Baseline Interview . • . . . • . . . . . . . • . . .

L

L

Paae --~-

1

10

11

12

14

15

60

· . III

· 114

· 115

· . 116

· • 117

• 118

• . . 133

· 134

135

• 136

• 137

• 138

139

. . • 164

• • 198

• • 199

200

. • • 203

• 205

288

III

r

INTRODUCTION

1 The evaluation of the Urban Homesteading program is planned

1 as a three year longitudinal study. The work began in July 1976

and data collection commenced in the following November. At the

time of this report, the first year survey activity has been

completed and the results presented here are largely based onr the cross-sectional analysis of these data; time-series analysis, which is a major interest of the study, will be carried out as

the second and third waves of survey data become available.

There are four major sources of survey data for the des

[ criptions presented in this report. These surveys are (1) the Baseline Interview of Urban Homestead Households,

f

(: (2) the Windshield Survey of Housing and Block Conditions in

Urban Homestead Neighborhoods, (3) the Rehabilitation Audit,

and (4) the Baseline Interview of Residents of Urban Home

stead Neighborhoods. In the material which follows, the major

features of these surveys are outlined. Much more detailed

L information, including tabulations of responses and the survey

instruments themselves, are provided in the individual chapters

of this report.

L Sampling The sampling plan for the Windshield Survey and

l Neighborhood Resident Interviews relies on three levels of

L

proximity with respect to the closest homesteading property;

that is, Proximity Category I being all those blocks or neigh

borhood residents located on the same block, adjoining block or

parallel block once removed from a homestead property. Proximity

Category II includes all blocks and neighborhood residents

located 2 or 3 blocks from the nearest homestead property, and

L Proximity Category III contains all those blocks or neighborhood residents located more than three blocks from the nearest

L

L

1

r r homestead property, but within the administratively defined r

neighborhood. For sampling purposes, the boundaries of the

administratively defined neighborhood were expanded to include

I all those block segments that would have fallen in Proximity

Categories I and II had they been in the administrativelY

defined neighborhoods.

To implement the sampling plan, first it is required that

all homestead properties be located on neighborhood maps. This

was done for all homestead properties transferred from HUD to

f the city by November 1, 1976. Next, each block in the neighborhood is categorized by its proximity to the closest homestead

I property. It is then possible to enumerate all of the blocks in the neighborhood by proximity category. The last step is

to apply a sampling rate to each proximity category and randomly

select without replacement the number of blocks dictated by

that sampling rate.

l Since the purpose of this study is directed primarily at

measuring changes in neighborhood conditions in close proximity

to homesteading activity, it was decided that applying the same

sampling rate to each proximity would not allow the capture of

enough information in close proximity to homesteading activity.

It was therefore decided that separate sampling rates would be

L applied to each Proximity Category, and that the sampling rate

l in Proximity Category I would exceed that in Proximity Category

II, which would exceed that in Proximity Category III. It was

l

also felt that the actual number of sampled blocks in each prox

imity category should also decline with proximity category

number. Operating with this dual set of constraints, sampling

rates of 48%, 30%, and 20% were derived for blocks in Proximity

categories I, II, and III respectively. In conjunction with

these sampling rates, a set of decision rules was also used in

l selecting the sample size for each proximity category and neighborhood. These decision rules require that the minimum

L

L

\ 2 L

I I number of blocks sa~pled within each neighborhood be 25, 15, and

5 for Proximity Categories I, II and III respectively. In

I addition, when these minima dictated that more than half the

I applicable blocks be sampled, the number of sampled blocks was

reduced to exactly one-half. Also, because several neighbor

I hoods contained an extremely large number of blocks in Proximity

Category III, it was decided that the sample size in Proximity

Category III would never exceed 3 times the number of homesteading

properties in that neighborhood.

I This definition of proximity category allows comparison across neighborhood irrespective of size of the administratively

I defined neighborhood. This is important, since the neighborhoods in the demonstration program range in size from 60 to over 2,000

I blocks. The distribution of blocks into three proximity cate

I gories therefore depends on three variables: (1) the size of

the neighborhood, (2) the spatial distribution of homestead

I properties within the neighborhood, and (3) the density of

homesteading in terms of number of homestead properties per block

in the neighborhood.

I Windshield Survey The sampling method described above was applied to neigh

I borhood maps, using the location of properties transferred from BUD to the cities by November 1, 1976. No sampling was done in

I neighborhoods which had not had a property transferred by that time. This requirement resulted in the following neighborhoods

I' not being included in this year's sample: all three neighbor

I hoods in Boston, the Arlington-Jackson neighborhood of Jersey

City, the Westside and South Side neighborhoods of Milwaukee,

and the San Antonio neighborhood of Oakland. After enu...terating

all of the blocks by proximity category in each neighborhood,

I the sampling rates and decision rules were applied to arrive at the final sample for the Windshield Survey_

I

I

I, 3

I I Descriptions of these sampled blocks were then keypunched

and computer generated labels were produced for the Windshield

I Survey instrument. These labels contained a random number

I

from 1 to 3, and a randomly selected side of the street,

either even or odd. The house thus identified, for example,

I

the second house on the odd side of the street, was the first

house to be observed by the Windshield Survey team. The con

I

ditions observed from the exterior of the house are recorded on

the housing checklist, the first of two Windshield Survey forms,

and the condition of every third house on that side of the

street also recorded until the end of the block. The second

I part of the Windshield Survey, the Block Checklist, provided

for collection of data on the street as a whole: condition of

I the road surface, street lights, curbs, litter, and an inventory

I

of the retail establishments by type and number. Five two

member teams administered the Windshield Survey in December,

I

1976, after two days of training to ensure consistency and com

parability among groups. The sample size, tabulation of responses

I

and the survey instruments for the Windshield Survey are con

tained in Chapter III.

Neighborhood Residents Household Interview

I From addresses recorded by the Windshield Surveyors on the Housing Checklist, one street address was selected per sampled

I block. The street address was selected at random from those recorded on the block, with the chance of a particular street

I' address being selected being proportional to the number of

I dwelling units in that strucrure. Giving each structure an

equal chance of being selected irrespective of the number of

dwelling units it contained would have biasea the sample towards

people living in single-family houses as opposed to multi

I family dwellings. Again, computer labels were generated containing the street address of the sample households. In addi-

I

I

I.

4

I

I tion, if the selected property was a multi-family dwelling,

interviewers were given instructions for randomly selecting the

I particular dwelling unit to be interviewed, depending on the number of dwelling units in the structure.

I The in-person interview was conducted from January to

I March, 1977, by field services under the supervision of

Cambridge Survey Research, Inc., USR&E's subcontractor for

I household interviews. After receipt of a completed interview

by USR&E, the interview was coded, keypunched, and entered into

I our computer system, where it unde~Nent a series of six data

cleaning and reduction programs to ensure the accuracy and

consistency of the interview data. The sample size, tabula

tions of responses and the survey instrument used in the

I Neighborhood Resident Household Interview are contained in Chapter IV.

I Homesteader Household Interview I The Homesteader Household Interview was administered to

I all homesteaders who by indication of the local homesteading

agency occupied their properties as of November 1, 1976.

Names, addresses and telephone numbers of these homesteaders

were keypunched and labels were generated for the survey instru

I ment. Interviews were administered by Cambridge Survey Re

search, and underwent a data cleaning and reduction process

I similar to that for the Neighborhood Resident Interviews.

I'

Tabulations of the respones to the Baseline Homesteader House

hold Interview are contained in Chapter I along with sample

sizes and the survey instrument.

I Rehabilitation Audit I The Rehabilitation Audit has been administered continuously since December, 1976, to those homesteaders who, by indication I

of the local homesteading agency, have occupied their houses

I

I 5

I

I and have substantially completed the rehabilitation work on the

property. When a sufficient number of homesteaders in a given

I site are ready for the rehabilitation audit, a representative from the firm of Ezra D. Ehrenkrantz and Associates l subcontrac

I tor for administration of the Rehabilitation Audit Survey, con

I ducts the interview and audit. To date, 118 of these Rehabili

tation Audits have been coded, and have undergone data cleaning

I and reduction. The responses to these audits are tabulated in

Chapter II, which also contains the Rehabilitation Audit

instrument.

I Weighting of the Data

Selection process for the neighborhood resident interview

I is hierarchical in fashion. First a particular block is selected.

The probability of a particular block being selected depends on

I its Proximity Category. Next, a particular housing structure on

I

a block is selected for interviewing from among those recorded in

the Windshield Survey. The probability of a particular structure

I

on a previously sampled block being selected for the interview

depends on the total number of structures on the block and the

I

number of dwelling units in each. Therefore, the probability of

a particular structure being selected depends both on its proxi

I:

mity category and on the length of the block. Those houses in

Proximity Category I have a higher chance of being selected than

those in the other two Proximity Categories, as likewise, houses

on shorter blocks have a higher probability of being selected than

houses on longer blocks. Therefore, it is necessary to correct

for this bias before reporting descriptive statistics for a

neighborhood or proximity category. This is done by assigning

weights to each observation. The weights adjust for all of the

sampling bias by multiplying each observation by the inverse of

I:

the probability of it being selected. As a result, these weighted

averages taken either over proximity categories or neighborhoods

as a whole are true representatives either of the proximity

category or of the neighborhood.

6

I I Three sets of weights have been used in compiling the

statistics reported in this report. The first weight represents

I simply the inverse of the sampling rate within each proximity

I category. This weight is applied to the block data contained in

the Windshield Survey_ Although weighting is not required to

I compile block data within a proximity category; it is required

in order to obtain statistics over the neighborhood as a whole.

For example, if a particular neighborhood had an equal number

of blocks in Proximity Category I as in Proximity Category III,

I there would have been more than twice as many observations on blocks in Proximity Category I than in Proximity Category III.

I Therefore, using unweighted data, the descriptive statistics

would be more indicative of Proximity Category I than of the

I neighborhood as a whole. Weighting each of the block observa

I

tions by the inverse of the probability of selection adjusts for

this effect. For this set of weights, the actual sampling rates

I

within a proximity category and neighborhood were used. These

numbers are not necessarily the 48%, 30% and 20% figures quoted

I

previously, because they take into effect whatever adjustments

the decision rules required within a particular proximity cate

gory. The weights ,. therefore, reflect the actual sampling rate,

not the expected sampling rate within a proximity category.

Another way to think about the weight is that each sample block

in Proximity Category I represents just over two actual blocks

I contained in Proximity Category I. Likewise, each sampled block

in Proximity Category II represents just over three actual blocks

in Proximity Category II, and each sampled block in Proximity

Category III ~s representative of five blocks in Proximity

I Category III. The secon~ ~et of weights is used to adjust the data on the external condition of a particular structure from the Housing

I Checklist. This weight is the product of the first weight by the number of observed dwelling units in the structure. This

I

I

I 7

I,

I' weight compensates for the fact that the external conditions

observed on that structure apply to all the dwelling units

I, contained in that structure.

I The third set of ",-eights is applied to the results of the

Household Interview. This weight is the product of the first

I weight times the total number of dwelling units on the block,

since the household bei.ng interviewed represents households

I: in all of the dwelling units on that block and a number of lJ.1l

sampled blocks in that proximity category.

In calculating the mean of a particular variable over an

entire neighborhood each observation for that variable, say,

the number of rooms in a given dwelling unit, is multiplied by

the weight appropriate to that interview type, and the total

I weighted responses are divided by the total weights for those I:,

I~ respondents answering that question. Since the sample size varies

from question to question in the interview, the sum of weights

I: in general is different for each question within a particular

survey.

Presentation of Results

I,

I For continuous variables, the method of presentation will,

in general, be averages taken over neighborhood and by proximity

category overall. Where appropriate, a variable may also be re

ported by proximity category within neighborhood. Categorical

I variables in general will be represented either by percentage

falling within each category or the percentage falling within

I' one category of interest. In the rare case where the average

I: category number may be of interest this is presented in greater

detail than the distribution by category. Histograms and bar

I' gra1:-:1s both for continuous and categorical variables, are used

where appropriate.

For each type of presentation, the sample size for responses

to that particular question will be indicated in the table in as

I: much detail as are the sample results. The only exception to this I I, 8

I I rule is for tables of proximity category within neighborhood,

which would require a table of equal size to present the total

I sample size. In that case the marginal sample sizes both by neighborhood and by proximity category overall are presented.

I In some cases, two or more questions may be presented in one table. In that case the sample size listed will be for

I the first question only_ The sample sizes for the second or third question listed are either approximately the same, for similar type questions, or will be a subset of the original

I sample size where the sample size can be approximated by the percentage response to the first question.

I I I I I I I I' I I I I

9

I

I

I

I Chapter I URBAN HOMESTEADER BASELINE SURVEY

I I A household survey instrument was administered to 264 urban

homesteaders who were occupying their new homes by November 1,

I 1976. The survey was administered in January and February 1977.

A second round of interviews with 268 new homesteader occupants

was conducted in July and August 1977, but these data were not

available for analysis at the time of this report. Each urban

I homesteader will be reinterviewed on one or two subsequent occasions using a survey instrument which has been modified to

t avoid unnecessary repetition of questions. I

The baseline survey instrument administered to homesteaders

includes questions on the demographic and socioeconomic charac

I teristics of homesteaders, on their housing costs and housing

characteristics, on their experience in the program, on their

sources of finance, on their perceptions of the neighborhood and

on their previous housing. The 241 respondents in the initial

I survey wave conducted in January and February 1976 were located in seventeen of the twenty-three urban homestead cities; in the

I remaining six cities there were no urban homesteaders occupying their properties by November 1, 1976. The response rate was

I 91.3%. Table I-i indicates the distribution by city and neighborI- hood of the Homesteader Interviews attempted in January and

IFebruary 1977. The number of respondents to each question is

indicated in the tabular material which follows. The survey

instrument itself can be found beginning on page 60.

I

I

I

10

I

Table I-i

BASELINE INTERVIEW OF URBAN HOMESTEAD HOUSEHOLDS

I

I

I

I:

I,

I

I:

I

I I I I I

CITY

Atlanta

Chicago

Cincinnati

Columbus

Dallas

Gary

Indianapolis

Islip

Kansas City

Milwaukee

Minneapolis

Oakland

Philadelphia

Rockford

South Bend

Tacoma

Wilmington

Total

TOTAL SAMPLE SIZE

NEIGHBORHOOD

Oakland City

Austin

Roseland

Madisonville

Near South Side

Trinity-Lisbon

Horace-Mann

Forest Manor

Brookside

Old Ctl. Islip

Blue Hills·

49-63 Area

Eastside

Northwest Side

Northside

Elmhurst #4

Wynnefield

Westside

Riverside Manor

Rum Village

Lasalle Park

Census Tract 613

Census Tract 617

Census Tract 621

Baynard Boulevard

Homesteaders

6

9

32

1

4

29

22

26

3

13

1

7

3

14

22 I

1

7

32

4

7

6

6

4

4

1

264

11

I

I

I,

I I I I I

I

'I

I

I

I

Table No.

1-1

1-2

1-3

1-4

1-5

1-6

1-7

1-8

1-9

1-10

1-11

1-12

1-13

1-14

I-IS

1-16

1-17

1-18

1-19

Chapter I

LIST 'OF TABLES

Table Name

Household Type Homesteaders

- Percentage by Category . • . • . . . . . . . .

-15

Average Household Size - Homesteaders. 16

Racial Composition - Ho~esteaders · 18

Average Tenure in City - Homesteaders. . . . . 20

Average Age - Head of Household -Homesteaders . . . • . . . 22

Educational Level - Head of Household Homesteaders . • .

-24

Employment - Head of Household Category) - Homesteaders . .

(% by • . . • . . . . 26

Employment - Single Head of Household (% by Category) - Homesteaders . • • . . . . 27

Employment: Harried Spouse Present Homesteaders . . • . .

-• • • • • 28

Number of Jobs - Head of Household (% by Category) - Homesteaders . 29

Workweek: Total Hours Employed at One Job (% by Category) - Homesteaders • 30

Occupation - Homesteaders . . . 31

Travel to Work: Average Travel Time (Mins.) & Travel Mode (% by Categor:,') Homesteaders . . . . . . 34

Tenure in Jobs (Yrs.) - Employed Head of Household - Homesteaders .•.... 35

Median Household Income - Homesteaders . • 36

Percentages - Owning Life Insurance; Stable Income (Employed) Homesteaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Savings Account, Stocks & Bonds Homesteaders . . . . . . .. ....... 39

Percentage Previous Homeowners Homesteaders . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Ratio of Previous l10rtgage Payment/ Income (%}-Homeowners - Ratio of Previous Ren/Income (%)-Renters Homesteaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

12

I

I

I

,'.

I

I

I

I

I'

I

I

I

I

I

Table No.

I-20

I-21

I-22

I-24

1-25

1-26

I-27

I-28

I-29

1-30

I-3l

1-32

1-33

I-34

Chapter I

LIST OF TABLES

Table Name Page

Average Number of Rooms/ Bedrooms/ &

Persons Per Bedroom - Homesteaders . . . . . 42

Average Number of Baths/ Half Baths/

Fireplaces in Previous House Homesteaders . . . • • . • • •• ... • 43

Rating of Homestead House Compared to

Previous House ("House as a Whole") (% by Category) - Homesteaders . • • 44

Neighborhood Rating - Overall (% by

Category) - Homesteaders . . . • • 45

Neighborhood Rating - Ease of Making

Friends (% by Category) - Homesteaders . . . 47

Neighborhood Rating - Place to Raise

Children - Homesteaders • . . 48

Neighborhood Schools vs. Rest of City Homesteaders . • • • • . • . . . • 49

Where Children are Allowed to Play (% by

Category) - Homesteaders . • • • . . • 50

Neighborhood Rating - Friendliness of

Neighbors (% by Category) Homesteaders . . . . . . . . . . • • 51

Neighborhood Rating - Expected Change in

Next Three Years (% by Category) Homesteaders . . . . . • . . . . .. ..• 52

Percentage of Rehabilitation Completed Homesteaders • . . . . . . . . . .. .• 56

Self-Help Skills: Percent of Homesteaders

Possessing Skill - Homesteaders .•.... 57

Positive Homesteader Surprises Percentage Reporting Each Category Homesteaders . . • . • • . • • . . • . 58

Negative Homesteader Surprises:

Percentage Reporting Each Category -

Homesteauers . . . . . . • . . .. .... 59

13

I

I

I· Figure No. t I-I

I-2

I-3

I I'}

I-4

I-S

I; I-6

I-7

'i I-8

I-9

I I-IO

I I-11

I-12

I

I

I

1\'

I , I

I

I

Chapter I

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Name

Homesteaders - Household Size. . .

Homesteaders - Racial Composition. •

Homesteaders Tenure in City (Years) .

Homesteaders - Age of Head of Household.

Homesteaders - Years of Education Head of Household .....•••

Homesteaders -.Reason for Unemployment

Homesteader - Occupation

Homesteaders - Household Income Distribution . . . . • . ..

•

_ ... . .

Homesteaders - General Neighborhood

Rating . . . • . • . . . . . 46

Homesteaders - Expected 3 Year Neighborhood Change- S3

Homesteaders - How First Heard of

Homesteading Program _ _ • _ _ _ _ 54

Homesteaders - Reason for Becoming

• • • • _ • 55Homesteader

17

. • 19

21

. • 23

• 25

32

. 33

37

14

I Table I-I HOUSEHOLD TYPE -PERCENTAGE BY CATEGORY

I HOMESTEADERS I iMarried I~le_ nc Female

SAMPLE no~o.~.::>_e Spouse

I . . -. spouseCITY NEIGHBOPJ!OOD SIZE Pr.esent·Present Present

I Atlanta Oakland City 4 25 0 75 Chicago Austin 8 7"5 0 25 Roseland I 31 52 3 45

Cincinnati HadisonvilleI I 1 10 0 0 COllli"nbus Near South Side

I 3 33 0 67

Dallas Trinity-Lisbon 28 43 39 18

Gary Horace-Hann I 18 67 11 22I Indianapolis Forest Hanor 22 .68 18 14 Brookside '1 0 100 a

I Islip Old Ctl. Islip 13 77 0 23

I

Kansas city 49-63 Area 6 33 33 33

Hihlaukee Eastside 3 33 33 ! 33

Northwest 3ide 14 79 7 , 14

Hinneapolis Northside 22 73 23 4 .'

I Oaklan:1 Elmhurst #4 1. a a 100 Philadelphia \'lynnefield 5 60 0 40

Rockford "les·tside 30

I 30 60 10

South Bend Riverside Hanor 3 100 a a Rum Village 29 297 43

Lasalle Park 6 50 33 17

Tacoma Census Tract 613 I 6 100 a a Census Tract 617 4 50 a 50 Census Tract 621 4 75 a 25

Hilmington Baynard Blvd. 1 100 a a !I I iI !

All Homesteaders 241 60 15 25

I 15

I

I AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE

HOHESTEADERS

I

t SAHPLE CITY NEIGHBORHOOD SIZE t Atlanta Oakland City 4

Chicago Austin 8

I Roseland 32

I

Cincinnati Hadisonville 1

Columbus Near South Side 3

Dallas Trinity-Lisbon 28

I Gary Horace-Hann 18 , Indianapolis Forest Hanor 22 Brookside 1

Islip Old ct1. Islip 13

Kansas City 49-63 .Area 6

I Hilwaukee Eastside 3

Northwest .side 14

I Hinneapolis Northside 22

Oakla:1d Elmhurst #4 1

I Philadelphia \'lynnefield 5

Rockford Westside 30

I South Bend Riverside Hanor 3

I

Rum Village 7

Lasalle Park 6

Tacoma Census Tract 613 6

Census Tract 617 4

Census Tract 621 4

i-lilmington Baynard Blvd. 1 " I

I

All Homesteaders 242

I

I

I

16

AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE

2.0

4.3

4.0

2.0

2.3

2.5

3.4

3.5

1.0

3.8

2.3

3.0

4.5

2.4

3.0

3.2 3.4

3.3

2.7

1.8

3.7

4.3

5.3

7.0

3.3

-~~~-~~~~~---~~-~~~

% of

Sample

40

30

I-' -..J

26%

20

10 12%

1 2

HOMESTEADERS

Household Size

Sample Size;::: 241

Mean = 3.3

Median ;::: 3

\

22% 20%

12%

10%

5 6+3 4

Household Size

>1:j 1-'.Q ~ I-! (D

H I t-'

I TaoJ..e .1.-.:)

RACIAL COMPOSITION

Hot1ESTEADERS

I I SAHPLE % WHITE % BLACK % SPANISHCITY NEIGHBORHOOD SIZE I . , Atlanta Oakland City 4 25 75 0

Chicago Austin 7 14 86 0

I Roseland 31 0 100 0

I Cincinnati r-tadisonville 1 100 0 0

Columbus Near South Side 3 67 33 0

I Dallas Trinity-Lisbon 29 31 62 7

Gary Horace-:Hann 18 0 100 0

I Indianapolis Forest Manor 2'4 67 33 0

Brookside 1 100 0 0

Islip Old ctl. Islip 13 69 15 15

Kansas City 49-63 Area 6 33 67 0

I Mihlaukee Eastside 3 0 100 0 North,'lest .;;ide 14 29 64 7

I Hinneapolis Northside 22 86 5 0 Oakland Elmhurst #4 1 0 100 0

Philadelphia Wynnefield 5 0 100 0I -Rockford Westside 29 24 72 3

I South Bend Ri.verside l1anor 2 100 0 0 Rum Village 7 57 29 14

Lasalle Park 6 83 17 0

Tacoma Census Tract 613 6 83 17 0

Census Tract 617 4 75 25 0

Census Tract 621 4 75 25 0

Wilmington Baynard Blvd. 1 0 100 0

I

I

All Homesteaders 241 39 57 3

I

I

I

18

- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - .- - HOMESTEADERS

Racial Composition

Sample Size ; 241

% of

Sample ,

80

h1..,. .Q

~ 60 - (ll

H 1 IV

57%

I-' 1.0

40

39%

20

L...

3% L 1% -( I

White Black Spanish Other

Table 1-4

I AVERAGE TENURE IN CITY HmtlESTEADERS

I I

SAHPLE AVERAGE TENURE IN CITYCITY NEIGHBOHHOOD SIZE

I (YEARS)

7.0Atlanta Oakland city 4

I I

Chicago Austin 8 23.9

Roseland 32 24.7

Cincinnati Nadisonville 1 3.0

Columbus Near South Side 3 16.0

Dallas . Trinity-Lisbon 28 13.5

Gary Horace-Hann 18 17.0I 12.5Indianapolis Forest Manor 22 I

1.0Brookside 1

12.7Islip Old Ct1. Islip 13

Kansas City 49-63 Area 6 1.0

I Hilwau.~ee Eastside 3 24.3 Northl.vest side 14 21.0·

I Minneapolis Northside 22 11.1 Oakland Elmhurst #4 1 3.0

I Philadelphia liynnefield 5 12.2 -Rockford 'Nestside 30 9.2

I South Bend Riverside Nanor 3 22.7

I R'.LTU Village 7 18.1

Lasalle Park 6 28.8

Tacoma Census Tract 613 6 9.3

Census Tract 617 4 3.5

Census Tract 621 4 25.5

Wilmington Baynard Blvd. 1 37.0

I ')

I 15.3All Ho!t'.esteaders 242 I

I

I

20

-------------------HOMESTEADERS

Tenure in City (Years)

Sample Size = 240

Mean;:: 15.3

Median = 1l.5

% of 40

Sample

35% ,

N

I:-' 30

h.j 1-'

LQ

~ H

I

W

20

13%

11% 11%10

9%

7% . 5% 5%

3%

0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+

Tenure

I AVERAGE AGE - HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD HQ(-1ESTEADERS

I I

SAHPLE AVERAGE AGE (YEARS)

CITY NEIGHBORHOOD SIZE

I 36.0

I

Atlanta Oakland City 4

Chicago Austin 8 36.1

Roseland 32 36.5

I

Cincinnati Nadisonville I 27.0

Columbus Near South Side 3 33.3

Dallas Trinity-Lisbon 28 38.9

Gary Horace-Hann 18 39.1I Indianapolis Forest Hanor 22 35.9 I

28.0Brookside I

30.0Islip Old Ctl. Islip 13

31.3Kansas City 49-63 Area 6

I Mihlau.'-\:ee Eastside 3 38.3 North\Y'est .side 14 36.6

I Minneapolis Northside 22 31.3

I

Oaklan.d Elmhurst #4 1 29.0

Philadelphia lvynnefield 5 41. 2 -

I

Rockford \vestside 30 35.8

South Bend Riverside Hanor 3 23.7

I Rum Village 7 31.9

Lasa,lle Park 6 32.3

Tacoma Census Tract 613 6 29.0

Census Tract 617 4 27.8

Census Tract 621 4 35.5

Wilmington Baynard Blvd. 1 37.0

I I'

All Homesteaders 242 35.1

I

I

I 22

-------------------HOMESTEADERS

Age of Head of Household

% of Sample Size ~ 241

Sample Mean = 35.1

40 Median = 32

30

I\.)

w 27% tlj

, \-I.0

20 ~ 20% m

H

17% I "'"

10

11%

9%

7%

3% ,2% r 2% f 2%

20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 . 40-44 45-49 - 50-54 55-59 60-64 65+

Age

I Table 1-6

EDUCATION LEVEL - HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD

HOMESTEADERS

I

AVERAGE % MORE THAN

I SAHPLE YEARS OF 12 YEARS OF

CITY NEIGHBOPJiOOD SIZE EDUCATION EDUCATION

I Atlanta Oaklimd City 4 12.0 25

Chicago Austin 8

I

12.0 38

Roseland 31 13.2 39

Cincinnati Madisonville 1

I

18.0 100

Colu.wus ·Near South Side 3 14.7 67

Dallas Trinity-Lisbon 28

I

12.5 54

Gary Horace-Mann 18 12.4 28

Indianapolis Forest Hanor 22 12.7 36

Brookside 1

I 16.0 100 Islip Old Ct1. Islip 13 12.1 23

Kansas City 49-63 Area 6 15.2 100

I Hilwaukee Eastside 3 10.7 0

Northwest aide 14 10.9 21

I Minneapolis Northside 22 14.1 73

I

Oakland Elmhurst #4 1 12.0 0

Philadelphia Wynnefield 12.8 40 -

I

Rockford westside 30 11.4 13

South Bend Riverside Hanor 3 13.7 100

Rum Village 7 13.3 71

Lasalle Park 6 13.2 I 33I Tacoma Census Tract 613 6 12.7 17

Census Tract 617 4 12.5 25

Census Tract 621 4 13 .5 50

Wilmington Baynard Blvd. 1 13.0 100

I

I

All Homesteaders 241 12.7 41

I

I

I 24

-------------------HOMESTEADERS

Years of Education

% of

Sample 40

30

I\.)

111 ,

20

10

I 4\3\ 3% 3%1%

6 or 7 8 9 ~

10 less

Head of Household

Sample Size = 241 Mean = 12.7 Median = 12

- 1

I1:j...,

40% ~ (I)

H I

111

-

,-- 12% I

9% 1_

8% 7%6\ -,

5%

I

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 or

more

Years of Education

Table r-7 EMPLOYMENT - HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD

I (% BY CATEGORY)

HOMESTEADERS

I I

SA}1PLS UNCI'rY NEIGll130P.HOOD SIZE ~LOYED RETIRED EMPLOYED

I Atlanta Oakland City 4 75 0 25

I Chicago Austin 8 88 0 12

Roseland 31 97 0 3I Cincinnati Hadisonville 1 100 0 0I ColU:.~'.ls Near South Side 3 100 0 0I Dallas Trinity-Lisbon 28 86 7 7 Gary Horace-!'lann 18 78 0 22I India~apolis Forest Hanor 21 91 0 9

Brookside

I 1 100 0 0

Islip Olel Ctl. Islip 13 85 0 15I Kansas City 49-63 Area 5 80 0 20I Nih';aukee Eastside 3 100 0 0I I

I Uorth\'lest .;ide I 14 86 0 14

r-linne.?-poli s Northside I 22 86 0 13 Oaklan:!. Elmhurst #4 ,I -. 100 0 0I

I Philadelphia l'lynnefield' 80 205 0 Rockford "lestside

I I 29 93 0 7

South Benc1 Riverside Nanor 3 100 0 0I Rum Village 7 86 0 16

II Lasalle Park 5 100 0 O.I I

, Tuco:r.a . Census Tract 613 6 67 0 33

I' Census Tract 617 4 75 0 25 Census Tract 621 4 50 0 50I \'1i lmington Baynard Blvd. 1 100 0 0

I

I

All Homesteaders 237 87 1 I 12 I

I

I 26

http:ColU:.~'.ls

I .t:MJ:ILUy.M..t:;.N'j: - ::LLN13L.t: .tt.t:1U) UJ:' .t1Uuo.t:.t1ULU

Table I-8 (% BY CATEGORY)

HOMESTEADERS

I I CITY NEIGHBOnHOOD

I .I Atlanta Oakland City

I Chicago Austin

Roseland

Cincinnati Hadisonville

Co1Ul'r6U.S Near South Side

I Dallas Trinity-Lisbon Gary Horace-Hann

I Indianapolis Forest Hanor Brookside

I Islip Old Ctl. Islip Kansas City 49-63 Area

I Mih;aukee Eastside

I North,'Iest 3ide

Hinneapolis Northside ,Oakland Elmhurst #4

I Philadelphia \'lynnefield

I Rockford Hestside

South Bend Riverside Nanor

Rum Village

Lasalle Park

Tacoma . Census Tract 613

Census Tract 617

Census Tract 621

\·jilmington Baynard Blvd.

I

I

All HOr.\esteaders

SAMPLE SIZE

3

2

15

a 2

16

6

7

1

3

4

2

3

6

1 «

.2

12

a .5

3

0

2

1

0

96

EMPLOYED

67

100

100

-

100

88

83

100

100

67

75

100

67

83

100

100

83

-

80

100

-

50

100

-

,

88

lJN-RETIRED EMPLOYED

a 33

a a a a

- -a 0 6 6

0 17

a 0 a a a 33 0 25

0 a a 33 0 17

a 0

a 0 0 17

- -0 20

0 0

- -0 50

a 0

- -

1 11

I

I

I

27

I Table 1-9 EMPLOYMENT: MARRIED SPQUSE ~RESENT

I HOMESTEADERS IL'l -.:rUlI 'I t:t:::> . ~ IL'lSAMPLE ~ 00.: ~ 0... ::t:H ::r::: •

H 0...::E: a ::E: 80...CITY NEIGHBORHOOD SIZE Z UlIL'l, !Xl IL'l ~8I .Qr-1 !Xl~ ~ffi Atlant.a Oakland City 1 a 100 a a

I Chicago Austin 6 33 67 a a Roseland 15 67 27 a 7

Cincinnati Hadisonville 1 a 100 a aI I Columbus Near South Side 1 100 a a a

I Dallas Trinity-Lisbon 42 5012 a 8 Gary Horace-Harm 12 4~ 33 a 25

I Indianapolis Forest Hanor 14 36 57 a 7 Brookside I a - - -

I Islip Old Ctl. Islip 10 80 10 a 10 Kansas City 49-63 Area - - a

I Nilwaukee Eastside 0 - - - Northwest aide I

1 0 100 0 0

Ninneapolis Northside 16 38 63 0 0

Oakland Elmhurst #4 a - - - Philadelphia Wynnefield 3 33 67 a .0

I Rockford \iestside 17 12 88 0 0 South Bend Riverside Nanor 3 67 I 33 0 a

I Rum Village 2 0 100 a a Lasalle Park 50 a a

Tacoma Census Tract 613 6 50 17 0 33I' I 2 50

I Census Tract 617 2 100 0 a a Census Tract 621 3 , 33 0 a 67

\'1ilmington Baynard Blvd. 1 a 100 a 0

I

I All Homesteaders 128 42 49 a 9 I I 28

I I I I I I

.. I

I I I I I I I'

I

I

Table 1-10

CI'I'Y

Atlanta

Chicago

Cincinnati

Coluro!:>us

Dallas

Gary

~ndii:!r:apolis

Islip

Kansas City

HihlClukee

Hinne~polis

Oakland.

Philadelphia

Roc},rord

South Bend

Taco;r.a

\'1ilmington

NUMBER OF JOBS - HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD

(% BY CATEGORY)

HOMES'l'EADERS

lSA>lPLE NEIG!IBOmrOOD SIZE 0 1 2

Oa}~land City 4 25' 75 a

Austin 8 a 88 12I

Roseland I 31 973 a l·ladisonville 100 aI 1 a Near South Side I 3 a 67 33I Trinity-Lisbon 28 14 79 71 Horace-Hann I 18 22 78 aI Forest Hanor 22 . 9 77 14

Brookside 1 a 100 a Old Ctl. Islip 13 15 77 8

49-63 Area I 6 17 83 a Eastside 3 a 67 33 Uorth\vest .;;ide 14 14 71 14

northside I 22 14 82 4I Elmhurst #4 ..I 1 a I 100 a l'Jynnefield 5 20 80 aI ~'Iestside I 30 7 90 3I Riverside Hanor I .3 a 100 a

"Rum Village I 7 14 71 14I Lasalle Park 6 a 83 17.I

. Census Tract 613 33 50 17 .I 6 Census Tract 617 4 25 50 25

Census Tract 621 4 50 25 25I Baynard Blvd. 1 a 100 a

All HOr:lestcacers 241 12 80 8

I

I

I 29

I WORKWEEK: TOTAL HOURS E~1PLOYED AT ONE JOBTable I-11

(% BY CATEGORY

HOMESTEADERS

I I (j'\ en 0 0 . M !-I l.t'I . .SMlPLE

UCCU!::'A'.!.'.LUN

Hm1ESTEADERS

I I OCCUPATION CODE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD

cr£'.l NEIGHBORHOODI

I

I

I I I I I I I'

I

I

I

% BY CATEGORY SMIPLE SIZE 7 , 8 1 I2 3 4 5 6 9 10

4 25 25 25 25

8 25 25 37 13

30: 37 ,3 27 17 13 3

1 00

3 33 33 33 I 11 7 11 33 15 4 1':J 27'

18 28 6 17 11 28 11

22 27 18 5 9 18 5 18I 1 00

31 8 31 .1..,13 15

6 50 33 17

3 33 p7

21 714 ~6 7 7 21 22 18 14 5 14 27 4 5 5

1 ,100

5 60 ~O 30 3 3 3 3 ~3 30 a 13

3 33 67

7 4 43 14 14 14

6 17 17 17 17 171 17 6 \50 17 33 4 25f50 T25

4 ~25 25 25 25

1 00 I

23 8 2 12 . 239 2 1 i.:L U \.:> ~1

Mgrs.& Adminsoi 3= Sales Workers;

Atlanta

Chicago

Cincinnati

ColUIT'bus

Dallas

Gary

Indianapolis

Islip

Kansas City

Hihlaukee

Hinn2apolis

Oaklapd

Philadelphia

Rockford

South Bend

Tacoma

l-lilmingtcn

Oakland City

Austin

Roseland

Hadisonville

Near South Side

Trinity-Lisbon

Horace-Hann

Forest Hanor

Brookside

Old Ctl. Islip

49-63 Area

Eastside

North,vest 3ide

Northside

Elmhurst #4

Hynnefield

Westside

Riverside Nemor

Rum Village

Lasalle Park

Census Tract 613

Census Tract. 617

Census 'l'ract 621

Baynard Blvd.

All HOT2stcaders

* Occupation Code: 1= Prof. & Tech.; 2=

I 4= Clerical Workers; 5= Craftsmen; 6= Operative; 7= Laborers; 8=Farm Mgrs.i 9= Farm Laborers; 10= Service Employees.

I 31

---------~---------

HOMESTEADERS

Reason for Unemployment

Sample Size = 29

\ of

Sample

40 38%

35% hj 1-'w

j\..) 30 ~ (l)

28% 'H . I 0'1

20

,

I

Quit Laid Off Health Other or Fired

10

-------------~-----

HOMESTEADER

.Occupation

Sample Size = 239 % of

Sample

40

30 - . t>j 1-'

lQ

R ID

H w Iw

-.,J

I 20 23% 21%

20%

10 12% 11%

'.8%

5%

2% I I I I J I #

Profes. Mgrs. & Sales Clerical Crafts- Operative Laborers Service & Tech. Admins. Workers Workers men Employees

Occupation

I

I Table 1-13 TRAVEL TO WORK: AVERAGE TRAVEL TIME (MINS.)

& TRAVEL MODE (% .BY CATEGORY)

HOMESTEADERS

I -. :z I 5~ >< ril E-< ~ ...::I :z ...::I UH O~ril U .:CQU Ht/lSAMPLE :> H Ilo ril H ...::I ...::IZ ~ril H !l:: ~~!l:: ~o ...::I!l::CITY NEIGHBORHOOD SIZE ~~ .:co §~I ~ ~ If> ril Ullo 1loE-< ~~ E-

--

I I

Table I-14--_.- -. TENURE IN JOBS (YRS.) - EMPLOYED HEAD OF, HOUSEHOLD

HOMESTEADERS

I

I

I,

I

I I I I I I

I

I

CITY

Atlanta

Chicago

Cincinnati

Colu.rn!:>us

Dallas

Gary

Indianapolis

Islip

Kansas City

Mih.aukee

Hinneapolis

Oakland

Philadelphia

Rockford

South Bend

Tacoma

lVilmington

NEIGHBOHHOOD

Oakland city

Austin

Roseland

r4adisonville

Near South Side

Trinity-Lisbon

Horace-Hann

Forest :Hanor

Brookside

Old Ctl. Islip

49-63 Area

Eastside

Northwest .side

Northside

Elmhurst #4

\'lynnefield

l'lestside

Riverside Hanor

Rum Village

Lasalle Park

. Census Tract 613

Census Tract 617

Census ,!,~act 621

Baynard Blvd.

SAMPLE TENURE IN

SIZE JOB (YRS. )

3 6.0

7 5.0

30 8.. 0

1 1.0

3 5.7

24 3.9

14 10.1

19 7.7

1 2.0

11 3.7

4 5.5

3 9.7

12 4.0

19 3.4

I 1 1.0 4 8.8

27 4.8

3 1.7

6 2.5

5 2.4

4 4.3

3 5.0

2 3.5

1 2.0

All Homesteaders 207 5.5

I I 35

Table 1-15

I,

I

I I I I I.

I

I

CITY

Atlanta

Chicago

Cincinnati

Colurnbus

Dallas

Gary

Indianapolis

Islip

Kansas City

Milwau};:ee

Minneapolis

Oakland

Philadelphia

Rockford

South Bend

Tacoma

\'1ilmington

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME

HOHESTEADERS

SAHPLE NEIGHBORHOOD SIZE

Oakland City 4

Austin 8

Roseland 28

Hadisonville 1

Near South Side 3

Trinity-Lisbon 28

Horace-Nann 15

Forest Hanor 20

Brookside 1

Old Ctl. Islip 13

49-63 Area 6

3Eastside

North\V'est .;;ide 14

Northside 21

Elmhurst #4 1

Wynnefield 2I westside 30

Riverside Hanor 3

Rum Villag~ 7

Lasalle Park 6

Census Tract 613 6

Census Tract 617 4

Census Tract 621 4

Baynard Blvd. 0

MEDIAN 1976 HOUSEHOLD INCOME

9,000

10,000

12,000

16,000

14,000

9,000

12,000

14,000

12,000

12 .. 000 ..12,000

16,000

13,000

10,000

8,000

17,000 14,000

18,000

10,000

10,000

8,000

8,000

9,000

All Homesteaders 226 12,000

I

I

I 36

----~~~---~--~~~~~~

HOMESTEADERS

Household Income Distribution

% of

Sample

40

Sample Size = 226 Mean = $12.0!30

W -..J

30

20

h.j 1-'lQ

~ (I)

H I

ro

16% 16% 16% 15%

10

10%

6% 7%

. 7%

4% 4%

less than

$5,000

$5,000 to

$6,999

$7,000 to

$8,999

$9,000 to

$10,999

$11,000 to

$12,999

$13,000 to

$14,999

$15,000 to

$16,999

$17,000 to

$18,999

$19,000 $21,000 to or more

$20,999

Income

PERCENTAGES - OWNING LIFE INSURANCE;

I STABLE INCOME (EMPLOYED) HOMESTEADERS I

% OWNING % WITHSAMPLE

I ,L.IFE INSURANCE STABLE INCOMECITY NEIGHBORHOOD SIZE

I Atlanta Oakland City 4 100 33

l Chicago Austin 8 63 43

Roseland 30 60 86

Cincinnati Madisonville 1 100 0

Colu.n:ms Near South Side

I~ 3 100 67 Dallas Trinity-Lisbon 28 79 75 Gary Horace-Hann 18 94 57

Indianapolis Forest Hanor 22 91 83

Brookside 1 100 100

Islip Old Ctl. Islip 13 77 36

Kansas City 49-63 Area 6 67 100 r Hihraukee Eastside 3 67 33 Northwest aide 14 100 42

I Minneapolis Northside 21 81 26I Oakland Elmhurst #4

I 1 100 100

Philadelphia l'lynnefield 5 100 75 .

Rockford t-lestside 30 93 63

South Bend Riverside Manor 3 100 67I, 7Rum Village 86 50

Lasalle Park 6 100 60

I Tacoma Census Tract 613 6 67 75 Census Tract 617 4 75 100

Census Tract 621 4 100 50I ,

~vilmington Baynard Blvd. 1 100 100

I. I

All Homesteaders 239 83 67

I

I

I

38

Table 1-17

SAVINGS ACCOUNT, STOCKS & BONDS

HOMESTEADERS

% MEDIAN % MEDIAN SA.~LE HAVING SAVINGS HAVING STOCKS

CITY NEIGHBORHOOD SIZE SAVINGS ($000) STOCKS ($000)

I~ Atlanta Oakland City 2 a - a

I Chicago Austin 8 63 .2 25 1.9

Roseland 30 90 .7 10 .4

I, Cincinnati l-1adisonvil1e 1 100 .2 a -Co lu..rnbus Near South Side

-3 100 .2 a

Dallas Trinity-Lisbon 27 82 .2 25 1.5

Gary Horace-Nann 15 100 .2 11 1.2

I Indianapolis Forest Hanor 21 81 .2 23 .3 Brookside 1 100 .2 0 -

Islip Old Ctl. Islip 13 92 .5 23 .5I ! Kansas City 49-63 Area 5 80 .2 a Mih.,raukee Eastside 3 100 .2 67 .5

NorthHest .;:;ide 14 100 .2 7 3.0

I Hinneapolis Northside 21 90 .2 33 .3 Oakland Elmhurst #4 1 100 .2 a

I; Philadelphia Wynnefield 4 100 .5 a -Rockford t'lestside 29 100 .2 10 .4

South Bend Riverside Manor 3 100 .2 67 I .1I, IRum village 7 100 .2 a -Lasalle Park 6 100 .2 40 8.7I Tacoma Census Tract 613 83 .2 a 6

iCensus Tract 617 4 50 .2 a I Census Tract 621 4 75 .2 a I

Wilmington Baynard Blvd. a - - a

I

All Homesteaders 228 89 .2 16 .5

I

I

I

39

PERCENTAGE PREVIOUS HOMEOWNERS

Hm1ESTEADERS ,

I

I

I

-'

I

I

",:

I

I

I

I ,

I

I

I

CITY

Atlanta

Chicago

Cincinnati

Coluinbus

Dallas

Gary

Indianapolis

Islip

Kansas City

Milwaukee

}1inneapolis

Oakland

Philadelphia

Rockford

South Bend

Tacoma

wilmington

NEIGHBORHOOD

Oakland City

Austin

Roseland

bladisonville

Near South Side

Trinity-Lisbon

Horace-Hann

Forest Manor

Brookside

Old Ctl. Islip

49-63 Area

Eastside

Northt,iest aide

Northside

Elmhurst #4

tvynnefield

\vestside

Riverside l-lanor

Rum village

Lasalle Park

Census Tract 613

Census Tract 617

Census Tract 621

Baynard Blvd.

SMlPLE SIZE

3 ,

7 '

30

1

3

19

18

19

1

8

6

3

14

19

1

5

27

2 7

4I 6

3

4

a

% OF HOMESTEADERS WHO WERE PREVIOUSLY HOMEOWNERS

0

14

3

0

0

32

6

16

0

0

a 67

14

0

0

20 19

0

14

0

0

0

a 0

, All Homesteaders 209 11 I I 40

I .... ____ .to.. ..... oJ

---~ ...... -------

RATIO OF PREVIOUS MORTGAGE PAYMENT/INCOME {%)-HOMEOWNERS RATIO OF PREVIOUS RENT/INCOME (%) -RENTERS

HOMESTEADERS

I SAMPLE 1% MORTGAGE

PAYMENT/ SAMPLE % RENT/CITY NEIGHBOrJ-rOOD SIZE INCOME SIZE INCOME

I I Atlanta Oakland city 0 - 1 9 Chicago Austin 1 63 4 19

Roseland 0 - 22 15 Cincinnati 14adisonville 0 - 0 Colui1tbus Near South Side 0 - 3 8 Dallas Trinity-Lisbon 2 20 6 12

Gary Horace-Hann 1 44 13 10

Indianapolis Forest Hanor 1 7 13 15

I

Brookside 0 - 1 11 Islip Old Ctl. Islip 0 - 6 26 Kansas city 49-63 Area 0 - 6 10 Milwaukee Eastside 1 28 1 14

I

North\vest .side 0 - 12 14 Ninneapolis Northside 0< - 17 19 Oakland Elmhurst #4 0 - 0 Philadelphia Wynnefield 2 13I-

AVERAGE NUMBER OF ROOMS, BEDROOMS, & PERSONS PER BEDROOM

I HOMESTEADERS I

S]."}1PLE PERSONS/BEDCI'rY NEIGIlBORBOOD SIZE ROOMS ROOMS BEDROOMt

I Atlanta Oakland City

11 11 t; 1 ..8 1 t;4 Chicago Austin

A I) . 1 2.4 2.15 Roseland I 31 4.3 2.0 2.09

Cincinnati HadisonvilleI I 1 4.0 1.0 2.00 ColU!-n.'!J'..lS Near South Side 3 4.7 2.0 1.11 Dallas Trinity-LisbonI I I I28 4.5 2.1 1.61 Gary Horace-Hann I 18 4.4 I 2.1 1.69I +ndianapolis Forest Hanor 22 5.1 2.4 1.53

Brookside 1 3.0 1.0 1.00

I Islip Old Ctl. Islip 13 4.2 2.1 2.56 Kansas City 49-63 Area 6 5.0 2.2 1.20I

I! Hihlaukee Eastside 3 5.3 2.7 1.25I

I North\Vest .::;ide I 14 6.4 I 2.5 1. 78

l-linneapolis Northside 22 4.8 I 1.8 1.61I Oaklan~ Elmhurst #4 I 1 " 7.0 4.0 1. 75 Philadelphia 'Hynneficld 5 6.0 2.8 1.18I Roc}~fo!'d \'lestside 30 4.9 I 2.3 1. 78 South Bend Riverside Ne1110r 3 7.0 2.7 1.61I I I I Rum village 7 5.1 2.1 1.26

Lasalle Park 6 4.8 2.0 1.53

Taco,na . Census Tract 613 6 4.2 2.2 1.72

Census Tract 617

I I 4 6.0 2.8 1.67I' ICensus Tract 621 4 5.8 3.0 1.82

\·;i1mington Baynard Blvd. 1 9.0 5.0 2.20

I "

All Hom~steac!ers 238 4.9 2.2 1. 73

« I I 42

AVERAGE NUMBER OF BATHS, HALF

I I I I I I I I,«

I , ,

I

I

I'

I

I

CITY

Atlanta

Chicago

Cincinnati

Columbus

Dallas

Gary

Indianapolis

Islip

Kansas City

Milwaukee

Minneapolis

Oakland

Philadelphia

Rockford

South Bend

Tacoma

Wilmington

All Homesteaders

BATHS, FIREPLACES IN PREVIOUS HOUSE

HOMESTEADERS

NE I GHBORliOOD

Oakland City

Austin

Roseland

Madisonville

Near South Side

Trinity-Lisbon

Horace-Hann

Forest Nanor

Brookside

Old Ctl. Islip

49-63 Area

Eastside

Northwest aide

Northside

Elmhurst #4

~'Vynnefield

Westside

Riverside Manor

Rum Village

Lasalle Park

Census Tract 613

Census Tract 617

Census Tract 621

Baynard Blvd.

SAMPLE SIZE Baths

4 1.0

S 1.3

31 1.0

1 1.0

3 1.0

26 1.1

lS .94

22 1.1

1 1.0

13 1.0

6 1.0

3 1.0

14 1.1

22 1.0

1 1.0

5 1.2

30 1.0

3 1.0

7 1.0

6 1.0

6 .S3

4 LO

4 1.3

1 2.0

241 Ll

Half-

Baths

0

.13

.04

0

0

.15

.17

.23

0

0

0

.33

.15

.05

0

.40

.13

.33

0

0

.17

0

.25

0

1.2

Fireplaces

0

.13

.03

0

0

.04

.11

.05

1.0

0

0

0

.OS

.1S

1.0

0

.07

0

.14

.17

.20

0

.75

0

,I

I,

43

t

.09

II _Table I-22

RATING OF HOMESTEAD HOUSE COMPARED TO PREVIOUS HOUSE ("HOUSE AS A WHOLE ") - (% BY CATEGORY)

HOMESTEADERS

I SAMPLE BETTER WORSE

I CITY NEIGHBORHOOD SIZE HERE SAME HERE I Atlanta Oakland City 4 50 50 a

Chicago Austin 8

I 62 12 25

Roseland I 31 .87 6 6 Cincinnati t1adi sonville 1

I a 100 a

Columbus Near South Side 3 100 a a Dallas Trinity-Lisbon 28

I 61 21 18

Gary Horace-Hann 18 61 22 17

Indianapolis Forest Manor 22 73 I 27 a Brookside 1

I 100 a a

Islip Old Ctl. Islip 13 77 23 a Kansas City 49-63 Area 6 100 a a ., Milwaukee Eastside 3 33 33 33

Northwest 3ide 14

I 79 14 7

Minneapolis Northside 22 68 5 27

Oakland Elmhurst #4 1

I a 100 a

Philadelphia ~-1ynnefield 5 60 40 0

Rockford Westside 30

t 80 10 10

67South Bend Riverside Manor 3 33 a Rum village 7 86 a 14 Lasalle Park 6 50 50 a

I Tacoma Census Tract 613 6 67 0 33 Census Tract 617 4

" 100 a a

Census Tract 621 4 100 a a Wilmington Baynard Blvd. 1 100 a 0

I

I All Homesteaders 241 73 16 11 I

I

t 44

I 'Table I-24 NEIGHBORHOOD RATING - OVERALL

(% BY CATEGORY)

HOMESTEADERS

'I Neighborhood Rating Overall '" Extremely Extremely

SAHPLE Bad 4 GoodI Cr£'f NEIGHBORHOOD SIZE 7" 1 2 3 4 5 Atlanta Oakland City 4 0 50 0 50I I 0 Chicago Austin 8 0 13 63 13 0

I Roseland I 30: 3· 3 47 40 7 Cincinnati f1Cl.disomrilIe 1 0 0 100 0 0

I Colum::..us Near South Side 3 100 , 0 0 0 0 Dallas Trinity-Lisbon 28 0 7 46 25 21 Gary Horace-Hann 18 0 0 33 56 11 Indianapolis Forest Hanor 22 5 50 41 5

Brookside 1 00, 0 0 0 0 0 Islip Old CtL Islip 13 62 31 8

I· 0 0

Kansas City 49-63 Area 6 83 170 0 0 Nilvlaukee Eastside 3 67 330 0 0

I 14 43 430 0North~"est 3ide 14

Hinr.eapolis Northside 22 0 9 41 46 !:>

I 100Oakland Elmhurst #4 1 0 0 0 0

Philadelphia "lynnefield 5 0 0 20 60 20

Rockford \'lestside 30

I 3 10 50 23 13

South Bend Riverside Nemor 3 33 33 330 0 Rum Village 7 0 14 43 43 0

I Lasalle Park 6 0 0 50 50 0 Taco;na Census Tract 613 6 33 68

I' 0 0 0 Census Tract 617 4 25 50 250 0 Census 'l'ract 621 4 25 75

I 0 0 0

Hilmington Baynard Blvd. 1 000 0 0 0

I

All Ho~esteaders 240 1 I 7 49 34 10I

I

I 45

~---------------~~-

HOMESTEADERS

General Neighborhood Rating

Sample Size = 240

Mean = 3.4

Median = 3

60% of

Sample

50

49%

i

it1j40 I J:;" I ~

(j\ "'" 34% 17

11.030

I

20

10

10%

7%

1%

1 2 3 4 5

Extremely Bad General Neighborhood Rating Extremely Good

'.I:aoJ.!::: .1..-£.;)

I NEIGHBORHOOD RATING-- - EASE OF MAKING FRIENDS

(% BY CATEGORY)

HOMESTEADERS

I EASE OF MAKING FRIENDS I SJ'..HPLE Easy Hard crfi.' NE:IGHBORHOOD SIZE 1 2 3I I - At1a.!ta OakLand City 4 050 50

Chicaso Austin 8 ,38 50 13

Roseland _3I I~o 47 I I

50

Cinci~nati Ha::1isOlwi11e 1 ! 100 0 .

Colutr'b~5 Nellr South Side 2 0 i 100I I 0

! 0

Dallas Trinity-Lisbon I 28 57 i t 39 Gary Horacc-Hann 18 068 28 Indianapolis Fo::::est Nanor 22 9

I 1 ;

4

27 64I Brookside 1 100 0 0I I

Islil) Old ctl. Islip 13 862 31J Kansas City 49-63 Area 6 0 100 01I Hih;a1.l;-:ee Eastside 3 33 67I 0

I Northl.-7est .3icle 14- 43 I, 50 7 Hinne2.,?olis rIor th~..;ide 22 46 55 0

Oakla~d Elmhurst #'1 1 100 0I 0 Phila~,=lphia l'1ynnefield 5 I 80 ! 20 0I Roc'kford \-lestside 30 63 ! 33 3I I South Bend Riverside Hanor 3 067 I 33

Rum Village 7 t :0

I 57 43I Lasalle Park 6 67 331 0 Taco;-:la Census Tract 613 6 0 I 83 17

"- Census Tract 617 4 75 25 0

.. Ce!1.sus Tract 621 .4 25 50 25

Hill1'.ingto!1. Baynard Blvd. 1 0 1 100I 0 I ., II

. I I ~.11 Ho~esteaders i239 49 47 5I

I

I

47

Table 1-_,,"'.._0___

I NEIGHBORHOOD RATING --PLACE TO RAISE CHILDREN HOMESTEADERS I NEIGHBORHOOD RATING PLACE TO RATSE ,CHILDREN I S1>.HPLE %

GOOD % FAIR % BAD

CITY NEIGHBORHOOD SIZE 1 2 3

I Atlanta Oakland City 4 2550 25 Chicago Austin 8 50 50 ,a

I Roseland 30- 44 47 10 Cincinnati Hadisonville 1 100 :0

I a

ColQ,"!,~us Near South Side 3 3367 a

I Dallas Trinity-Lisbon I 28 61 39 a Gary Horace-Nann 18 72 28 a Indianapolis Forest Hanor 22 50 36

I' 14

Brookside 0 - - ' Islip Old Ctl. Islip 13 54 39 8

Kansas City 49-63 Area 6 17 83 aI I aHihlaukee Eastside 3 100 a North\vest .aide 31 62 ' 8

1 13 !

Hinnaaoolis Northside 5 , ~ 21 52 43 Oakland Elmhurst #4 1 a a 100 Philadelphia '\'1ynnefield a100 ()I I 4 Rockford 't'iestside 30 77 17

South Bend Riverside Hanor 3 67 33 aI 7

Rum village 7 29 57

'I 14

Lasalle Park 6 67 33 0

Tacoma Census Tract 613 6 17 68 17

Census Tract 617 4 75 25 I a Census 'l'ract 621 4 50 50 0-

Hilrr.ington Baynard Blvd. 1 100 0I 0 I

. II I

All Homesteaders 236 56 38 7

I

I

I 48

Table 1-27

I NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS VS. REST OF CITY HOMES'I'E~_DERS

I %

% % % PON'TSAMPLE

I BETTER SAME WORSE fATTENDCITY NEIGHBOPJlOOD SIZE

I Atlanta Oakland City 1 0 100 0 0 Chicago Austin 33 176 50 0

Roseland 20 ·20 65 5 10I - - Cincinnati Madisonville Co1u..llbus Near South Side 2 50 50 0 0I

0

Dallas Trinity-Lisbon 7 0 71 14 14

Gary Horace-Nann 0 11 0I I 9 89 Indianapolis Forest .Hanor 08 25 75 0 Brookside 0 - - - -

Islip Old Ctl. Islip 50 06 50 0

Kansas City 49-63 Area 2 0 100 0 0

I Mih.;aukee Eastside 1 100 0 0 0 I

North~."est .aide 9 33 67 0 0

I lvlinneapolis Northside 3 67 0 33 0

I Oakland Elmhurst #4 1 0 100 0 0

Philadelphia \-lynnefield 100 03 0 0

I Rockford \'lestside 19 16 68 11 5

South Bend Riverside Manor 0 - - - Rum Village 1 0 100 0 0

Lasalle Park 1 0 100 0 0

I Tacoma Census Tract 613 4 50 50 0 0 Census Tract 617 1 0 100 0 0

Census Tract 621 3 0 67 33 0

\Hlmington Baynard Blvd. 0 1001 0 0

I

I

All Homesteaders 108 22 67 7 5

I 'I I 49

I WHERE CHILDREN ARE ALLOWED TO PLAY (% BY CATEGORY)

HOMESTEADERS

I ~~ITHIN

SAMPLE OWN OWN EVERAL ;AS FAR

I CITY NEIGHBORHOOD SIZE YARD BLOCK _\ BLOCKS ~S LIKE

I Atlanta Oakland City 1 100 0 0 0 Chicago Austin

I 4 50 50 0 0

Roseland 11 73 18 0 9 Cincinnati Nadisonville

I I 0 - - -

Columbus Near South Side 2 50 0 50 0

Dallas Trinity-Lisbon 6 83 17 0 0

Gary Horace-Nann 4 75 25 0 0I Indianapolis Forest Hanor 7 43 57 0 0 Brookside 0 - - - -

Islip Old ctl. Islip 4 100 0 0 0I I Kansas City 49-63 Area 1 100 0 0 0

I Mih.,raukee Eastside 1 100 0 0 0 North\vest aide 8 63 25 13 0

Ninneapolis Northside 7 57 I 43 0 0I I

Oakland Elmhurst #4 - 1 0 100 0 i 0

I Philadelphia \'lynnefie Id 2 50 50 0 0Rockford \1estside I

14 21 79 0 0

South Bend Riverside .Hanor 0 - - - Rum Village 3 67 I. 0 33 0

Lasalle Park 1 0 ! 100 a 0I Tacoala Census Tract 613 5 100 I a a a

Census Tract 617 1 67 33 0 a Census Tract 621 3 33 33 33 1

\'1i Iming ton Baynard Blvd. 1 100 a 0 a

I

I

All Homesteaders 89 60 35 5 1

I

I

I 50

I I

NEIGHBORHOOD RATING - FRIENDLINESS OF NEIGHBORS

(% BY CATEGORY) HOMESTEADERS

RATING OF FRIENDLINESS OF SANPLE NEIGHBORS (l=FRIENDLY, 2=UNF)

I CITY NEIGHBOPJ!OOD SIZE 1 2 3 4 I Atlanta OakLand City 4 a 50 50 a

Chicago Austin 8 13 75 13a

I Roseland 30 30. 53 17 a Cincinnati Hadisonville 1 a 100 a a

I Columbus Near South Side 3 a 33 67 a Dallas Trinity-Lisbon 21 30 56 11 4 Gary Horace-Mann 18 33 I 39 2.8 aI Indianapolis Forest Manor 22 18 41 41 a

Brookside 1 a 100 a a Islip Old Ctl. Islip 13I

I

15 85 a a Kansas City 49-63 Area 6 17 50 33 a

I Milwaukee Eastside 3 33 67a a North,qest ,,,;ide 14 14 71 14 a

I Minneapolis Northside 22 36 46 18 a Oakland Elmhurst #4 1 a a 100 a

I Philadelphia ivynnefield 5 60 a 40 a Rockfo:!:"d \vestside 29 28 55 10 7

I South Bend Riverside Manor 3 33 33 33 a Rum Village 7 a 43 57 a Lasalle Park 6 33 67 a

I a Tacoma Census Tract 613 6 a 1100 a a Census Tract 617 4 25 75 a a Census Tract 621 3 33 33 33 O·

. Wilmington Baynard Blvd. 1 00 a 0 a

I

I

All Homesteaders 237 25 54 20 2

I

I

51

I

I NEIGHBORHOOD RATING EXPECTED CHANGE IN NEXT THREE YEARS

1% BY CATEGORY) HOm:STEADERS

Table 1-30

I ..

NEIGHBORHOOD RATING EXPECTED CHANGE IN 3 YR~_RS

'Better --_.

Worse

I S]\..NPLE CITY NEIGHBorG-IOOD SIZS 1 2 3 I Atlanta Oakland City 4 100 a a

Chicago Austin 8 38 63

I a Roseland 30 - 30 53 17 Cincin:1ati Bac1isomlille 1I 100 I a a Colur.';:'us Near South Side 3 100 a Dall

-------------------HOMESTEADERS

Expected 3 Year Neighborhood Change

Sample Size = 239

6 % of

Sample

-5

49%

48% -

4

":l U1 /-'. W I~

(I)

3 H I

I-' a

2

4% "

Better ::>ame Worse i I

10

-------------------HOMESTEADERS

How First Heard of Homesteading Program

Sample Size = 241

% of 42%

Sample 40

34%U1 .J>.

30 I-rj 1-'

-------------------HOMESTEADERS

Reason for Becoming Homesteader

Sample Size = 239

44%

% of

4

Sample

36% U1 U1 hj .....

tQ

3 R ro H I

t-' I'J

,

2

14%

.. 1';

3% 2%

1%

R~tter More Space Investment Move to this Move out of Other I Housing Neighborhood old Neighborhood

1

I

I ..L.~..LC ..1.-..)..1."

PERCENTAGE OF REHABILITATION COMPLETED

, HOMESTEADERS

I More Less JustSMIPLE Fin-

I than than gettingCITY NEIGHBORHOOD SIZE ished half half started I Atlanta Oakland City 4 0 0 25 75

I Chicago Austin 8 0 50 38 13

Roseland 31 3 55 26 16

Cincinrlati Nadisonvi11e

I 1 0 100 0 0

Columbus Near South Side 3 0 67 0 33

Dallas Trinity-Lisbon 28 18 39 39 4 Gary Horace-Hann I 18 6 56 17 22 Indianapolis Forest HanorI I 22 27 32 36' 5

Brookside

I 1 0 100 0 0

Lp 1 15 62 15 0

Kansas City 49-63 Area 6 67 33 0 0

I .Hih·;aukee Eastside 14 0 100 0 0 North\'lest .;:;ide 14 21 43 36 0

Ninneapo1is Northside'I I 22 0 36 14 50 Oak1an:! E1wlmrst #4 0 0I 1 '" Phi1acJe1phia \'lynnefielc1 5 80 20 0 0I I Rockford Nestsic1e

I 30 40 40 17 3

South Bend Riverside i:-Ianor 3 33 67 0 0

Rum village 7 0 100 a D= I Lasalle Park 6 33 I 67 0 0 Tacoma Census Tract 613 33 33 33 0

Census Tract 617 I 6

4 25 50 0 25

Census Tract 621 50 50 0 0

\'1ilmington Ba,l'nard Blvd. I

I 4 1 0 0 0 100

I

I

All Homesteaders I 241 19 47 21 13 I

I

I

56

SELF-HELP SKILLS;

I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I

PERCENT OF HOMESTEADERS POSSESSING SKILL

HOMESTEADERS

SAMPLE

CITY NEIGHBORHOOD SIZE

Atlanta Oakland city 4 100 50 a a 25 50

Chicago Austin 8 88 25 13 25 a 13

Roseland 31 . 74 39 13 13 16 10

cincinnati Madisonville 1 100 100 100 a a 100 Columbus . Near South Side 3 100 33 a a 33 67 Dallas Trinity-Lisbon 28 89 71 61 61 43 25

Gary Horace-l>1ann IS' 94 67 11 33 22 6 Indianapolis Forest .Hanor 22 73 50 41 59 36 14

Brookside 1 100 100 a a a a Islip old Ctl. Islip 13 92 77 69 62 54 46

Kansas City 49-63 Area 6 33 a 17 a 17 a Milwaukee Eastside 3' 100 67 33 33 33 a

Northwest .i>ide 14 100 57 50 43 43 7

Minneapolis Northside 22 91 77 36 41 46 27

Oakland Elmhurst :fI:4 1 a a a a a a Philadelphia \'1ynnefield 5 80 40 60 40 40 100

Rockford Westside 30 73 37 17 20 17 7

South Bend Riverside Manor 3 100 100 67 100 33 a Rum Village 7 100 71 14 71 43 14

Lasalle Park 6 100 83 33 50 17 33

Tacoma Census Tract 613 6 67 50 50 50 50 a Census Tract 617 4 100 75 25 25 75 a Census Tract 621 4 75 50 25 25 a a

Wilmington Baynard Blvd. 1 100 100 a a a a

All Homesteaders 84 56 32 37 31 16

57

- - ----~----~- -. ,----

POSITIVE HOMESTEADER SURPRISES

I PERCENTAGE REPORTING EACH CATEGORY HOMESTEADE?S I

~@ede9.j I I\gencySAHPLE Cost I

fewer Less· Less iMoreCITY NEIGHBORHOOD SIZE Less ~killswork Time elpfu

I Atlanta Oakland City 2 50 a 50 50 a Chicago Austin 3 a a a a a

I Roseland 6 17 I 33 29 29 43 Cincinnati l1adisonville I 1 a a a a a Columbus Near South Side a - - - - I Dallas Trinity-Lisbon I I 1010 a 10 a 10 Gary Horace-Hann 5 40 a 20 40 25I II Indianapolis Forest Hanor 5 20 20 20 20 60

Brookside I a - - - - I Islip Old Ctl. Islip a - - - - I Kansas City 49-63 Area I 4 a a a a a

I HihT2ukee Eastside 1 a a a a a North\-1est side 4 a a 50 25 a

Hinneapolis Northside 6 a 17 17 a 17I I Oakland Elmhurst #4

I a - - - -

Philadelphia lQynnefield I 1 .0 a 100 a -0 Rockford \~lestside

I 11 9 a 9 9 9

South Bend Riverside Hanor 2 a a I a a a Rum village I 4 a 50 a

.. a 50

Lasalle Park 2 a a a a I a Taco:na . Census Tract 613

I' I I 2 50 a .50 50 a

Census Tract 617 1 a a a a 100 Census Tract 621 2 a a 50 50 a

\'1ilrnington Baynard· Blvd. a - I - - - I

I

All Homesteaders 72 10 9 18 14 18

I

I

I

58

,

NEGATIVE HOMESTEADER SURPRISES:

I PERCENTAGE REPORTING EACH CATEGORY HOHESTEADSRS I . r

~gencyt INeeded MoreSA..N1PLE cos MoreMore Less

CITY NEIGHBORHOOD SIZE More I

iSkill!: Work Time ~elpfuJI , 1

Atlanta Oakland City 2 a a a a aI I I

Chicago Austin 3 33 I 67 \100 67 33I Roseland 6 ,·33 I 33 86 71 71I .

Cincinnati l1adisonville 1 100 I a a 100 a Colurnbu:; Near South Side - - I a - Dallas Trinity-Lisbon 20 ! ; 10 20 1010 I a Gary Horace-Hann 5 40

I

I a 40 a 25 Indianapolis Forest Hanor 20I 5 a I 40 60 40

Brookside Ia - ! - - - I Islip old Ctl. Islip a - I - - - Kansas City 49-63 Area

t

4 50 I a 25 75 a Nihraukee Eastside 1 100 a 100 a a

Northwest .:;ide 4 a I a a a a I I I Hinneapolis Northside 6 50 I 33 50 83 17I

Oakland Elmhurst #4 0 i - I

- - I

Philadelphia ~'iynnefield 1 a \100 a 100 100 Rockford \'lestside 11 36 I a 9 27 36 South Bend Riverside Nanor 2 50 I a I a a aI

i

Rwn village 4 50 f

25 25 50 aI

I Lasalle Park 2 a I a 100 50 50 Taco>l'.a Census Tract 613 2 a 0 0 0I a Census Tract. 617 1 a I 0 0 0 0I ICensus Tract 621 2 50 I 0 50 0 0

Wilmington Baynard Blvd. 0 - 1 - - - I I I

All Homesteaders 72 31 I 14 34 37 22 I

I

I 59

I

I

CONTACT SEEETI .~_#_------I RESPONDENT CODER ONLY ,I NAO CHECK ONE: FINISHED 0

NOT EINISHED 0street

I city state EL ATTACHED HERE

I

I Co::::l.plete Refusal

Information Sheet

jI ntTERVIEi-IER arilIE TU1E DATE Appt Time;I

Mo!Day/Yr ,NHICB C R PC APP,]; CommentsI a.I:1 I I#1 p.m -

a.m I I#:2 p.m - - I I

a.In

#'3 p.m - - I

I I

a.m II'i4 p.I!l - - I

a.I:1I I I I#5 p.I:1 a.m

#'6 p.m - I- I-

Supervisor signature:

I RETIRED ... 1- 1_I~~r~~tm

'NH i..:fot Hone R Re=usal

I CB Call Back PC Partial Complete C Complete Appt Appoin~ent

I

I

I 60

IJ

IJ

OHB# 63-R1558II IURD"mOO-DODO E~~ires June 30, 19809-12

I,

I I I I

Check Box Indicating of Current Interview

I 0 Field Edit

I :'io Yes Field

Verification

I o 0 Interview o CSR Edit

~'io Yes CSR VerificationI o 0 Interview

I o Coding

I o Key Punch

I

HOMESTEADER

BASELINE INTERVIEN

Prepared by:

Begin Date Status

BeSin Date

/ / Ko/Day/Yr

/ / Ho/Day/Yr

/ Mo/Day/Yr

/ / ~!o/Day/Yr

/ /

~!o/Day/Yr

Urban Sys~erns Research & Engineering, Inc.

!'iC

:C:nd Date

/ / }fo/Day/Yr

/ / ~::o/Da.y/Yr

/ / Xo/Day/Yr

/ / Ho/Day/Yr

/ / ~~o/~ay/Yr

~o/Day/Yr

61

CODER mILY

F:rlAL S':'ATU'S

Comcleted. . . . • • . • . . . • • • •• 1 Ref~sed ..•....•..•....••• 2 13 Partial Complete •.••••••• 3[ Retired••••..•.•••.•••••• 4

If "2", "3" or "4" coded, code "9" below :or not a9pl':'cable

Interview conple~ed en: 1st at"c2..'1l!?~............ 1 2nc at~empt••.........• 2 1 '+ 3rd atte:::pt............ 3 4t~ att~pt•.......•... 4 5t:l atten~t............ 3 6th att~pt ••.....•.... 6 ~ret a?p:.icable......... 9

I HOUSEHOLD INTERVIEW SURVEY

1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

I 1. ALL WORDS IN CAPITAL LETTERS ARE NOT READ TO THE RESPONDENT.

THESE 'VI0RDS WILL BE EITHER INTERVIEl'iER INSTRUCTIONS OR PRE-CODED

RESPONSES TO OPEN-ENDED OUESTIO~S.

2. ALL WORDS IN LOWER C.Z\SE LETTERS ARE RSAD TO T"rlE RESPO~"'DENT.

3. NO RESPONSES, EITHER. PRE-CODED OR OTHERt'lISE, ARE TO BE" READ OR SUGGESTED TO RESPONDENTS UNLESS:

A. SPECIFICALLY "INCLUDED WITHIN THE QUESTION STEr1 OR AS RESPONSE CATEGORIES WRITTEN IN LOtiER CASE

B. INCLUDED AS SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROBING

4. THE USE OF ALTER..T\fATE 'VI0RDING; ALHAYS IN PARENT'"rlESES, ALLOWS ADMINISTRATION OF THE s&~re BASIC QUESTION TO P£SPOND&~TS IN VARYING S ITUATUATIONS.

5. DO NOT REl'iORD QUESTIONS. QUESTIONS AP..E ALWAYS READ Ex..~CTLY AS WRITTEN AND EXACTLY IN THE ORDER IN ~yHICH THEY APPEAR IN THE SURVEY INSTRUHENT.

o. EVERY QUESTION IS READ UNLESS A SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION DIRECTS YOU TO SKIP A QUESTION OR SERIES OF QUESTIONS.

7. IF T"dE RESPONDENT REFUSES TO ANS~

II I

A. Hello - I'm (NAME) and I'm with Cambridge Survey Research here in

I (SITE NAME). We're doing a study on housing in t.~is area for t.'1.e I}

Department of Housing and Urban Development. I'd like to talk to

the head of the household--are you the head of the household?

FEMALE HEAD,. YES **GO TO Q.B** • • 1

I MALE HEAD, YES **GO TO Q_E** • 3 NO **GO TO Q.B** • • • • • • • • • 3

t I

B. Is there anyone else who lives here who is (also) the head of the

household?

YES. • • •

I · 1

NO **GO TO Q.E** • •

, • 2 C. Who would that be? MALE HEAD ••

I · 1

FEMALE HEAD. • • • 2

I D. Okay, I'd like to talk with (him/her) **GO TO Q.F**

I E. Okay, I'd like to come in and interview you **GO TO Q.F** E' • HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD

I ¥.ALE HEAD. . . 1

NO MALE HEAD, FEMALE HEAD.I' • 2 OTHER, • • • 3 SPECIFY

I ..............................------............................................................--.....-G. Before we start, I just want to verify your address_ IsI this ( RE..~ RES::?O\\'DENT ADDRESS ON CONTACT SR:EET ) ?

I YES ** PROCEED ~'l!TH I~TERVr::;,;v *.,. ** GO TO PRIV.3..CY AC7 STA~lE'NTh~ . . ]

I I EXPL.::l,IN U::-'DER CO:·2·2~·ITS ON

63

HOMESTEADER PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT

t

In compliance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-579)

you are advised that the authority which authorizes the solicitation

of your responses is Title V of the Housing and Urban Development Act

of 1970, as amended, Public Law 91-609, Sections 501 and 502.

,,

The purposes for which this "Household Interview" will be used are to

evaluate the experiences of homesteaders involved in the Urban Homestead

Demonstration in 23 cities in the United States, and to compare the hous

ing experiences of homesteaders to people who are not homesteaders.

The routine uses of data from the "Household Survey" are for statistical

evaluation of the Urban Homestead Demonstration, to date, that will be used

various divisions of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in

their administration of the program.

There will be no use of information from any particular individual,

but the results of the survey will be used to generate summary or

aggregate data.

While you are not required to respond, your cooperation is needed

make the results of this survey comprehensive, accurate and timely.

to

All information will remain strictly confidential and anonymous.

64

DEt.10GRAPHIC

I HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD

I

I I'd like to start by asking a little about you and your background.

I

1. First, when were you born? -- just tell me ~~e year,

IF YEAR BEFORE 1900, ENTER "99".

I 15-1619 I

I 2. How long have you lived here in (SITE)? -- how many years? J I, ITJYEARS

I

I 3 • CIRCLE ONE:

R IS H.9.LE • • • • • . 1I 2R IS FEr-tALE •

I

I'

4. Hhat is the highest grade in school you completed?

I COUNT COLLEGE 1u'\l'D GR.Zl.OUATE SCHOOL YEARS I

GRADE CO;-'lPLETED IT]I

I

I 65

---------------------------

-- --- -- -- --- --

CURRENT EMPLOYHENT

HEAD OF HOflSEHOT.D

5. Right now, are you working for pay either full-time or part-time?

YES **GO TO Q.8**. . . 1 22

NO • • • • • • • 2

6. Which of the following best describes why your last job ended

you quit, you were laid-off, or was there some other reason?

QUIT 1

LAID OFF OR FIRED 2

RETIRED **GO TO Q.19** • • 3 23

HEALTH. • 4 OTHER • 9

SPECIFY

NEVER WORKED **GO TO Q.19** ••••• 6

7. When did your last job end -- what month and year?

---_....:/_MONTH YEAR

CD CD CODERS ONLY

8. When did (this/that) job start -- in what month and year?

--~----~/------MONTH YEAR

OJ ill 28-3 CODERS ONLY

IF R CURRENTLY \VORKING AT HORE THAN ONE JOB 1 ASK ABOUT JOB

ON WHICH R CURRENTLY SPENDS THE MOST HOURS.

IF R CURRENTLY tvORKING AT MORE THAN ONE JOB EQUAL HOURS,

ASK ABOUT JOB HELD THE LONGEST.

66

I I 9. What kind of place (do/did) you work for--what (do/did) they

make or do?

I

I

I

I

I 10. And what (do/did) you do there? -- \ihat (are/were) some of your daily tasks? I RECORD VERBATIH AND PROBE FOR

DETAILS

I

I

I

I

32-3 :

I CODERS ONLY I" 11. How (do/did) you usually get to work on (this/that) job? I CIRCLE ONLY ONE

DRIVE mm AUTONOBILE I TRUCK, VA.."i I HOTORCYCLE ••••••••••••••• 1

,I DRIVES OR RIDES IN CONPA.l\ly-Ot-iNED VEHICLE •••••••••••••••.••• 2 34

PASSENGER IN PRIVATE AUTO OR HE:-!BER CAR POOL ••••••••••••••• 3

I PtJBLIC TRANSPORTATION •••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••• 4

OTHE R •••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••• 9

I I

SPECIFY ________________________~_______________________

I

----------------

12. How long (does/did) it usually take to get there?

OJ MINUTES WORKS AT HOME •••••••99

13. (Thinking about the past four weeks/Thinking about the last 4

weeks you worked on that job), how many hours per week (dol

did) you usually work on (this/that) job, including any

usual overtime?

[TI HOORS/'iiEEK

14. (And thinking about the past four weeks/And thinking about the

last four weeks you worked on that job), counting any regular

overtime pay, how much (do/did) you usually make each week

before taxes and deductions?

$ ~/ WEEK ••• 1

$ ~ I . ~ / HOUR • • 2•

$ CD / YEAR ••• 3 $ [I] / OTHER • • • 9,

SPECIFY PSR

68

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

II

I

I

I

I

15. SEE Q.5 and CIRCLE ONE.

R IS CURRENTLY WORKING •...••.••• 1

R IS NOT CURRENTLY WORKING **GO TO Q.19** •• 2

16. Okay, we've been talking about your current job. In addition

to the job you have which we already talked about, do you do

any other work right now for pay?

YES •• . 1

NO **GO TO Q.19** • . 2

17. In the past four weeks, about how many hours per week have

have you usually worked at this second job, counting any

regular overtime?

~ HOURS/WEEK

18. And in the past four weeks, counting any regular overtime

pay, what have been your usual weekly earnings from this job,

before taxes and other deductions?

$ [[]. IT] PER HOUR . . . 1

"9-53

$ ~ \ I \.00 PER \'lEEK • • • 2

69

46

HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS

AND OTHER SOURCES

OF INCOHE

In these next questions, I'd like to talk a little about the people

you live with.

19. First, including yourself, how many people usually live in this

household, including babies and children.

Do not count people away in school, the military, or other

institutions.

HOUSEHOLD 11EMBERS OJ PROBE: And this includes you?

20. CIRCLE ONE:

R LIVES ALONE **GO TO Q. 27 ~* • . . 1

R LIVES WITH OTHERS .•.••• . • 2

70

54-55

----

---- -------

.. - .. - - .. - .... - - ~.. --- .. - IIS~~WN ~ J\.SK ACROSS 0.' S 22 - 2;>,----

24. 11" U:SS 1'111\11 1'1 n:MSCould you tell rne how 22. 23. lTow old is 26. 1I"d In the paRt II wenkR,OLD,GO TO NEXT Pf:II.SON is. In the past II weckG,ench pf!rsotl in the your about how milch haRhow millly hours each

household is relatf!d CIRCLE OUi: (REr",'TIONSlfIP) 1 (hn/nhe) milit" each week Is YOllr (RELIITIONSIIlP) '.(lclc has your IRI",ii."

to you ? IF I.ESS 1'Il1lN 1 before laxcs anil currE:.ntly employccl TION!':IlIP)YP,1IH 01.0, CODE AS othcr: dednGtlons? either full-time or \

- -- - -

ASK ACROSS Q'S 27 - 29

28.

0)

1•

• 0 9

1· • 0 10

1•

• 0 11

1· • 0 12

· 1 • 0 13

1· • 0 14

1· • 0 1 S

1• , o 16

How many months did 29. you (and the people you live with) receive (SOURCE) in the past 12 months?

CO MONTJlS 17"18

CO MON/ruS 19"20

{ I IMONTIIS 21-22

CO MONTIIS 23-21+

-CD MONTHS

25-26

CO 110NTHS _27 28

, CO MONTUS29

... ,O

Q]MONTliSS 1""2

About how much did you (and the people you live with) receive altogether, ~ month from (SOURCE).

$1 I I I.00/MONTIl **GO TO B** 33-35

$ I I I I.oo/MONTH36 .. 38**GO TO C**

I

$( I I I.OO/t,tONTH I

**GO TO 0** 39-41

$ I I I I.oo/MONTH 42-1+1+"'*GO TO E**

$ Cl I !.OO/NONTIl ~GO TO F** 1+5-47

$1 I I I.OO/MONTH**GO TO G** 48-50

I

$ I 1 I I.OO/MONTH _ *GO TO H** 51 53

$ I I I I .OO/MONTH5'1-56

27. In the past 4 weeks did you (or any of the people you live with)have any income from (SOURCE)?

(SOURCE)

A.Social Security, Railroad Retirement, or Government Employee Pensions

D.Unemploymcnt Compensation

..J'

Co Workmen 18 Compensa'tion

p. Welfare payments or other public assistance

E.Vctcran's Payments

F. Private pensions or annuities

G. Alimony or child support

If. Ne t rental income

YES · 0 · · • · · · NO. • *NEXT SOURCE*.

YES • 0 · · · · · · NO. "'NEXT SOURCE ••0

YES · · 0 · · · · · NO. • *NEXT SOURCE* •

YES 0· · · · · · · NO. • *NEXT SOURCE*.

YES · · · · ·· · ·

NO. • *NEXT SOURCE*.

YES • · · · · · • · NO. • *NEXT SOURCE·.

YES · · · · · · · · NO. • *NEX'l' SOURCE·.

YES • · · · · · · ·

NO •• *GO TO Q. 30 'w.

-'--- -""'- _L -

I

I

I

I 30.

I I I I I

31.

I I I

32.

I

I 33.

I I I I

HAND CARD

Could you look at this card and just tell me the letter of the

range that best fits the amount you have in your savings account

right now?

A. B. C. D. E. F. G. NO

$0 - $499 . . · · 1· · · . $500 - $999 2· .. · · · · · $1,000 - $2,999 $3,000 - $4,999 $5,000 - $6,999 $7,000 - $8,999 MORE THAN $9,000

SAVINGS ACCOUNT

3

· · · · 4 57 · · · · 5 · · · · 6 . . · 7·

· · · 9 And what would you

you might have?

estimate as the value of any stocks or bonds

$ m,l I 1 1.00 · . . . . 1 NO STOCKS OR BONDS • • . . . ~ . 2

58-6

Do you have any life insurance?

YES ••

NO **GO TO Q.35** . . •

·

•

1

2 64

Can you borrow money against it?

YES ••

NO **GO TO Q.35**

DON'T KNOW

· 1

• 2

8

65

73

34. Do you know how much you could borrow against your life insurance

policy?

fF YES:

! I 1 1.00How much $ 1. . . . . .would that be? DON'T KNOW. 8

66-7:

35. Do you regularly send money to anyone not living with you?

YES. • • •

NO **GO TO Q.37**. • •

.

•

1

2 72

36. About how much do you send each month?

$ I I I .00 /MONTH

37. All right, now thinking about your total household income, \.Jould

you say it varies from month to month--sometimes it's higher,

sometimes lower--or would you say it stays pretty much the

same?

VARIES FRON HONTH TO

STAYS THE SAHE • • •

HONTII • . . 1

2 76

I

I

I 38. I "What was the total household income altogether, for all

of last year, 1975, before taxes? Include the income

I of all the people who live here now. Just tell me the letter for the correct range.

A. $ 4,999 or less ..................................... 01I B. 5,000 to 6,999 .. .................................. 02

C. 7,000 to 8,999 .. .................................. 03

D. 9,000 to 10,999 .. ................................ 04

77I E. 11,000 to 12,999 .. ................................ OS

F. 13,000 to 14,999 .. ................................ 06

I G. 15,000 to 16,999 .................................. 07 H. 17,000 to 18,999 .................................. 08

I. 19,000 to 20,999 ................................. 09

J. 21,000 or more .............................