Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986 Final Report Survey of Rental Housing for Low Income HouseholdsDocument: 1986 Final Report Survey of Rental Housing for Low Income Households In Lansing Michigan: Tenants, Landlords/Managers and The Homeless Document Category: Reports Correct Title: 1986 Survery of Rental Housing Low -Income Households Expiration Date: PERMANENT Date of Removal: PERMANENT Type of Document: Misc. Studies/Assessments FINAL REPORT SURVEY OF RENTAL HOUSING FOR LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN LANSING, MICHIGAN: TENANTS, LANDLORD/MANAGERS AND THE HOMELESS Prepared - for The Affordable Housing Task Force ;. And The Housing Action Clearinghouse By r The Urban Affairs Programs Michigan State University Bonnie Maas -Morrison, Project Director Bonnie J. Knutson, Project Consultant Project Research Assistants Edward Altenritter Joshua Bagakas Angela Braithweite Leo Carey Helen Delling Jeanine Lavelanet Rosa Moss Joyce Pargas Judy Pfaff Hildegard Selig Susan Yeick Michigan State University is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Institution August 1986 /.1 klv'�_dol __ • 1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The study presented here was conducted by Michigan State University's Urban Affairs Programs for the Housing Assist- ance Foundation. 'This study was funded by a grant from the i Michigan Department of Social Services to the Housing Assistance Foundation for $22,000; Urban Affairs Programs received $11,000 in a competitive subcontract. The research • was conducted between the first part of March and the middle of July, 1986. The findings from three independent .surveys and the data from the 1980 Census cover a wide variety -of i attitudinal and descriptive information about low-income households and their housing in the greater Lansing area. These findings include attitudes and perceptions about • housing from tenants, landlord/managers and the homeless. Major Findings from the Tenants' Survey 1. The sample of 208 tenants, who responded to the survey, is representative of the low-income tenants in Lansing, • Michigan. According to information provided by Susan Christianson (Housing Action Clearinghouse), one-half of the median income for the city of Lansing in 1985 was $11,525. • This was considered the criteria income figure for the selection of the sample of low-income tenants in Lansing. u Pq L-A P% The sample, when the study was completed, yielded a mean income of $11,583 in 1986. Thirty-three percent of the tenants were on public assistance, whereas, 67% of the tenants were not on assistance. 2. The mean gross monthly rent (which includes utility costs) for all rental housing in Lansing in 1980 (Census of Housing, 1983) was $256.00, whereas, the sample studied in 1986 yielded a mean monthly rent of $274.00 (including utility costs for 40.4% of the sample). 3. In 1980, the mean number of persons per family (for those with incomes below 125% of poverty level -or approximately $11,250) was 3.47 persons in the city of Lansing (Census of Population, 1983). The mean number of persons per household in the sample studied was 3.0. 4. Some of the major perceptions related to housing as reported by the tenants sampled are: Housing is reasonably • easy to find (77.3% of the respondents found it "very easy" or "easy"); 74.5% of the tenants sampled have never been turned down for housing; 31.9% of the tenants reported hav- ing "major repair problems", of which 71.1% reported land- lords fixed the problems. :7 0 3 • 5. When tenants were asked to grade their• housing, they gave the housing a grade of C. The assistance programs, (GA/ADC), also graded by the tenants, were given a C. Major Findings from the Landlord/Manager Survey 1. The landlord/managers surveyed represent 1,484 units of • rental housing in Lansing, Michigan. Ninety percent of the housing rented was privately owned, and 10% was public hous- ing. 2. The mean rent charged for rental housing by landlords/ managers was $241.00 per month, with a range from $70.00 for • efficiency apartments to $375.00 for three bedroom units. 3. When the landlord/managers were asked if they would con- tinue to rent to low-income households, nearly 80% said yes. This was in spite of the fact that nearly 89% of the landlord/managers considered renting to low income tenant only "somewhat profitable" or "not profitable." 4. When landlord/managers were asked to grade the housing • they provide (comparable to the tenants survey), the land- lords gave the housing they rent or manage a C+. The assistance providers (GA/ADC) were not graded by the • landlord/ managers. However, when they were asked .if they could change one thing about providing housing to low income 4 tenants, what would it be?, nearly 48% of the landlord/ i managers mentioned that they would change the assistance system to both landlords and tenants. Major Findings for the Homeless Survey • 1. Most of the homeless found looking for a place to rent either "Difficult" or "Very Difficult." 2. Nearly two-thirds of the homeless have been turned down in the past in their attempts to find rented housing. The reasons that they gave for having been turned down were: because they had children, because they were on assistance, or did not have cash or all the necessary papers. 3. The homeless gave the shelters where they were residing a grade of A, indicating the people in the shelter treated them well and took care of their needs, including helping them find housing. 4. Most of the homeless knew of agencies or social services that could help them find housing. Ten agencies or services were named by the homeless surveyed. 5. Of the 12 homeless surveyed, five had found housing. All the others indicated that they would find housing, but it would take time, money, and knowing how the system works. •. 5 • ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS • The following persons were involved in making this study possible. In several cases, their dedication and long hours of unselfish devotion as, researchers, interviewers, coders, • typists (word processors) and staff made this effort not only possible but a very unique learning experience for all • involved. Interdepartmental Urban Studies Graduate Students, Urban Affairs Programs: Hildegarde Selig and Joyce Pargas, Jeanine Lavelanet, Steve Bass, and Angela Braithweite Graduate Students and Students from other Departments: • Edward Altenritter, Susan Yeick, and Helen Delling. Computer Programmers: •. Judy Pfaff, Leo Carey and Joshua Bagakas. Interviewers: Edward Altenritter, Joyce Pargas and Hildegarde Selig,' -Jeanine Lavelanet, Christina Rohatynskyj, Peter Orhen, Pat Erhardt, Roger and Josephine Barrientes, Jean Stewart, Rose Dent, Mary • Boudreau, Sandy Altenritter, Barbara Campbell, Estelle LaBranch, Theresa Agyekum, Robert •. • 0 Waterhouse, Matthew Williams, Susan Yeich, Helen • Delling, Cindy Snyder, Mark Pargas, Jeffrey Moss, Janet Linquidi, Cynthia Jones, Mary Ann Bukowski, Carol Brown, Charles Brown, Tony Nichols. Support Staff in Urban Affairs Programs: Barbara Gaffield, Shirley Hoksbergen, Rosa Moss, Laura Mack, Wanda Sanders, Steve McLeod and Maxie Jackson III. Final Report Manuscript Word Processor: Cindy Jennings Community Organizations: • The Greater Lansing Urban League, Inc. The Foster Community Center • •, u 7 C TABLE OF CONTENTS • 1.0 Executive Summary ................................... 1 2.0 Background and Methodology.......... ................. 8 3.0 Lansing Tenant Survey ............................... 14 4.0 Landlord Survey ..................................... 50 5.0 Homeless Survey ..................................... 62 6.0 Census Data ......................................... 65 Appendix A...................Tenant Survey Questionnaire 75 Appendix B....... Tenants Survey: Additional Information 89 Appendix C ............................Map of Trade Zones 101 Appendix D.................Landlord Survey Questionnaire 103 Appendix E...................Homeless Survey Information 114 Appendix F..... ...................... Definition of Terms 133 • • • 0 • 8 • 2.0 INTRODUCTION • 2.1 Background The Housing Action Clearinghouse (HAC), a group of 66 individuals from a number of community and governmental • agencies was founded to look seriously at the housing needs of low-income households in the Lansing• metropolitan area. Each of the agencies represented deal on a daily basis with • some aspect of housing related concerns and issues of low income households. Their interest led to a proposal to the Michigan Department of Social Services in response to a call • for proposals to study the situations of housing for low- income households in thirteen Michigan cities. The Housing Assistance Foundation was the recipient of a $22,000 grant, • $11,000 of which was allocated to the Urban Affairs Program at Michigan State University in a competitive subcontract. • The subcontract was awarded in March, 1986 with the under- standing that a preliminary report would be ready in early July, 1986. • The study as designed by the Urban Affairs Program was to focus on: • 1. The Cost of Housing for low-income tenants as measured by the percentage of income paid by low-income • 71 households for rent, and by the reported cost of rental housing given by both the tenants and the landlord/ managers. 2. The Availability of Housing for low-income tenants was measured as the housing stock (the vacancy rate, the number of low income tenants and the number of • units available for -.rent) as well as the opinions of the tenants about the experience in finding housing and being turned down for housing. 3. The Quality of Housing available to ,low-income tenants was measured by the opinions of both tenants and landlords. 4. A study of the homeless in the Lansing area. • 5. A presentation of the housing and household data from the 1980 Census for the Lansing S.M.S.A., Lansing City and the three contiguous counties surrounding Lansing (Ingham, Eaton and Clinton). • These research goals were met through the use of a four phase study. The areas of investigation included: :7 Fi • i 10 Phase I: A survey of low-income tenants living in • rental units (public and private) in the City of Lans- • • ing, Michigan. Phase II: A survey of landlord/managers who rent hous- ing to low-income households in Lansing, Michigan. Phase III: A survey of area homeless living in area shelters. Phase IV: A presentation of the data from the 1980 Census of Population and Census of Housing. This data was compiled at the request of the Housing Assistance Foundation -as background information only. 2.2 Methodology Phase I: For the survey of low-income tenants, low-income was defined as those households who had a total annual • income, before taxes, of $11,525, or half the median income for the Lansing S.M.S.A. Using the 1980 Census tract data, areas of the city of Lansing were identified as fitting that • definition. Further, using the Bresser's Index (1985-86) and the R. L. Polk Directory (1984), the lowest income census tracts were designated. There were 16 census tracts • for the city of Lansing where the average annual income per household was $10,900. • • 11 • • A random sample of 332 addresses was drawn from the 16 census tracts, with each random selection proportional to the number of residential addresses in the tract. A stratified random sample of 178 households was defined as necessary to yield a 95 percent Confidence Interval (i.e., no more than a 5 percent error rate in the selection of a • representative sample). A second address was selected randomly for each primary address for replacement purposes (i.e., for cases where housing was vacant, abandoned, or • demolished, or where people were never at home, refused to • participate or were homeowners). The actual response rate of 64.2% was considered acceptable. Personal interviews were conducted with an adult member of each household. All interviews were conducted in the res- pondents housing unit by a team of two trained interviewers. These interviewers were Michigan State University faculty and graduate students, and volunteers from the organizations within the Housing Action Clearinghouse and other community organizations. Interviews were conducted between May 12, 1986 and June 15, 1986. The majority of the interviews were conducted between four and eight p.m. weekdays. The small portion of the interviews not conducted during these hours were conducted during the day, Monday through Saturday. • Each interview lasted approximately 20 minutes.- In all 213 • 12 interviews were completed. Of these, 208 were used in the analysis presented (yielding a 95.7% Confidence Interval). Phase II: The survey of Landlords/managers was conducted by telephone interview between the middle of June and the middle of July, 1986, with a random sample of 49 landlords (a sample of 42, however, was considered sufficient to yield a 95 percent Confidence Interval). Two telephone numbers were selected at random for each case for replacement purposes (i.e., in cases, where landlord/managers did not • rent to low-income households, where they could not be contacted by phone or where they refused to answer the survey). The sample was drawn from a list of landlords/management firms provided by the City of Lansing. The interviews were conducted by four trained interviewers.. The telephone interviews took approximately 20 minutes each. • Phase III: The study of the homeless in the Lansing Area was not a random sample. The personal interviews were conducted in area shelters, from among those persons willing to give an interview. Three trained interviewers personally interviewed 12 homeless individuals. • Phase IV: For this study, the 1980 Census of Population and Housing Characteristics- was used. Tables 6.1 through 6.7 J are provided as the descriptive context for this study. 41 The Questionnaires The questionnaires for each of the three surveys contained both open and closed -ended questions and allowed collection of data related to the cost of housing, attitudes and opinions related to housing, plus descriptive characteristics of the samples surveyed. Copies of the three questionnaires, (along with some findings, reported as • means or percentages) are appended to this report. All data presented were coded, verified and processed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Version 9) on the Control Data Cyber 750 at Michigan State University. • • • • 13 • 14 3.0 RESULTS OF THE TENANTS' SURVEY 3.1 An Overview of the Survey The survey of low income tenants measured the cost, 46 availability and quality of housing as perceived by the tenants; however, when appropriate other sources of information were also used. The cost of housing was measured by the amount the tenants -reported paying each month for rent, including any help received in paying the rent. The percentage of'the monthly income paid for rent was also calculated. Utility costs were not measured directly; however, tenants did report r whether or not utilities were included in the rent. Since the study was designed to sample low income tenants, it was anticipated that some of the tenants would be recipients of public assistance for help in paying their r rent. Therefore, for tenants receiving assistance (either General Assistance or Aid to Dependent Children) a grade (from A to F, like in school) was used to measure the tenants' opinion about the assistance providers, including 40 their reasons for giving the grade. 0 u The availability of housing was measured three ways: (1) A measure of housing stock,•(2) vacancy rates, and (3) tenants opinions. An update of the 1980 Census of Housing was done from information recorded by the Lansing Building Department • from building permits for housing demolitions (1984 to 1986), and for conversions and new construction (from 1980 to April, 1986). Vacancy rates were calculated using the • 1985-86 Bresser's Index, including the number of tenants, • 15 the number of rental housing units (minus demolition), and the number of vacancies. Tenants, opinions about the experience of finding housing (from "very easy" to "very difficult") were gathered, and tenants were also asked "if they have ever been -turned down in trying to rent.housing-in Lansing." These questions were also used as measures of housing availability. The quality of housing was measured by tenant attitudes and opinions about their rented housing. Interviewers also measured the quality of housing from excellent to poor. The results are presented in the following order: Section 3.2 The Cost of Housing f Section 3.3 The Availability of Housing Section 3.4 The Quality of Housing Section 3.5 The Sample Characteristics: Tenant and Housing 0 6 C] 6. 16 3.2 The Cost of Housing Overall, the mean monthly rent paid by the entire sample was $274.00 (utilities were included in the rent for 40.4% of the sample). There was a $4.00 difference in the mean monthly rent paid by tenants receiving public assistance, compared to tenants not receiving assistance. The mean monthly rent paid by those tenants on assistance was $276.00; whereas, tenants not on assistance paid a mean of $272.00 per month for rent. As a whole the sample spent an average of 42.3% of their monthly income for rent. Respondents on assistance, however, on the average spent 52.7% of their monthly income on housing, compared to -an average of 31.9% spent by the tenants not on assistance. Table 3.1 indicates the findings. Table 3.1 Housing Costs Overall On Assistance (GA/ADC) Categories (N = 208) Yes (N=69) No (N=139) Monthly Rent (mean) $274.00 $276.00 $272.00 % of Monthly Income (mean) 42.3% 52.7% 31.9% Monthly Income (mean) $886.48 $571.79 $1,161.17 P9 17 Therefore, the respondents on public assistance have i approximately half the monthly income of the other low income tenants, yet paid on the average $4.00 more for their rent each month, than those respondents not on assistance. i The respondents on assistance also paid 20.8% more of their monthly income on housing, than those tenants not on assistance. - IN u u 3.2.1 Payment of Utilities The cost of utilities and what the cost added to the cost of housing for low income tenants (i.e., a measure of the gross rent), was not directly measured in this study. Gaining utility costs from respondents has been found in many studies to be an unreliable measure (i.e., respondents generally overestimate what utilities cost them). Gaining utility data from the utilities themselves was not possible due to time and budgetary constraints. Obtaining utility data would have been a separate study (requiring tenants to sign written permission forms, and requiring payment to the utilities to prepare the data). Therefore, tenants were only asked to indicate if they paid their utilities them- selves. Table 3.2 indicates the findings for all tenants and for those on assistance. W 1s Table 3.2 Summary of Utilities Paid by Tenants Paid by All Tenants Utilities Yes No Total Heat (N = 201) 56.7% 43.3% 100.0% Electricity (N = 132) 26.5% 73.5% 100.0% Paid by Tenants on Assistance • Heat (N = 69) 58.0% 42.0% 100.0% • Electricity (N = 69) 61.2% 38.8% 100.0% When the tenants reported not paying their own utilities, it was assumed that the cost of the utilities was included in 0 the rent (a measure of gross rent). • 3.2.2 Tenant Attitudes about General Assistance and Aid to Dependent Children Tenants receiving financial aid from General Assistance (GA) and Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) to pay their rent were asked to grade the programs. The results are tabulated in Table 3.3. • 19 Table 3.3 Grades Given Assistance Providers (GA/ADC) by Tenants on Assistance (N = 69 ) C Grade Percent of Responses A 16.0% B 22.7% r C 25.3% D 18.7% F 17.3% 100.0% Mean grade 2.0 (C) (Percentages may not sum to 100.0% due to rounding, this is true for all the following tables.) 16 6 • The average grade received by the Assistance Providers (GA/ADC) was 2.0, or a grade of c. Table 3.4 below is an indication of the influence the number of children in the household had on the grades given to the assistance providers. • 20 Table 3.4 Assistance Provider* Grades by Number of Children** (N = 68) Number of Children Grade 0 1 2 3 4 A (11) 27.3% 17.6% 17.4% 8.3% --- B (16) --- 11.8% 21.7% 50.0% 60.0% C (17) 27.3% 23.5% 30.4% 16.7% 20.0% D (12) 27.3% 17.6% 17.4% 16.7% --- F (12) 18.2%- 29.4% 13.0% 18.3% 20.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% * Providers of General Assistance and Aid of Dependent Chil- dren only. j **Statistically significant at .0884 level, 1 missing case. The grade given the assistance providers appears to be • somewhat influenced by the number of children in the household: the more children in the tenant household, the higher the grade given the assistant provider, especially i - for the grade of B. Whereas, tenants with no children or only one or two children gave the assistance providers a higher percentage of Cs, Ds, and Fs. The reasons tenants assigned the grades given to the assistance providers -are summarized in Table 3.5 below. 0 21 Table 3.5 Reasons for Grades Given Assistant Provider (GA/ADC) by Tenants (N = 69) Reasons Percent of Responses Economic (+) 6.9% Economic (-) 15.3% Quality of Service (+) 23.6% Quality of Service (-) .18.1% Too Many Rules and Regulations 20.8% Other 12.5% .Don't know 2.8% 100.0% Positive quality of service is mentioned by 23.6% of the r tenants receiving assistance. However, when negative (-) economic reasons, and negative (-) quality of service reasons are added to "too many rules and regulations," over + half of the tenants (54.2%) appear to feel that the system of assistance is not working as well as it could. 3.3 Availability of Rental Housing In order to assess the availability of housing for low income tenants in Lansing, Michigan, two separate substudies were conducted, in addition to the tenants surveyed about their perceptions of the availability of housing. �7 I 22 3.3.1 Housing Stock The first substudy assessed the housing stock in the 16 census tracts used in the tenant study. From building per- mit information provided by the Lansing Building Department, which included demolitions of housing units (1984-86 only), new housing construction, and conversions (1980-86 inclu- sive), a measure of the housing stock was- possible. Table 3.6 on the following page presents the outcome of that substudy. From Table 3.6, it is evident that there has been a gain of 372 housing units both by new constructions and by conver- sion in the 16 census tracts studied. There -was an increase of•310 units in one census tract alone. It is not clear from.this data that the low income tenants benefited in any • way, as most of the new housing (Capitol Commons in particu- lar) was built to meet the needs of higher income tenants. • • Table 3.6 Housing Stock as of April 1986 Housing Census Update (1981-1984) New Census Demolitions* Construction Conversions Conversions (# Tracks (# of units) (# of units)' (# of additions) of subtractions) Balance 1 - 4 + 8 --- --- + 4 2 - 3 +104 --- --- +104 3 - 1 + 4 + 1 --- + 4 5 --- --- --- --- --- 6 - 3 + 4 + 4 --- + 5 7 - 6 + 1 + 3 - 2 - 5 8 -10 + 14 --- --- + 3 10 - 4 --- --- --- - 4 11 -10 + 2 --- --- - 8 12 --- + 2 --- --- + 2 13 -11 + 1 --- --- - 10 14 - 1 --- --- --- - 1 15 -34 +346 + 1 - 3 +310 N W (Continued) i i i � i if � ! •�i' •'Lp► (1981-1984) New Census Demolitions* Construction Conversions Conversions (# Tracks (# of units) (# of units) (# of additions) of subtractions) Balance 20 -28 + 1 + 1 - 4 - 30 21 - 5 + 1 --- --- - 4 32 - 2 + 5 --- --- + 3 16 -122 +493 +10 *See definitions for all categories on pp. 134-135. - 9 +372 N �P 3.3.2 Housing Vacancy Rates The second substudy conducted was of the vacancy -'rates in the same 16 census tracts used as the sampling frame for the tenants' survey. The vacancy rate was calculated using the 1985-86 Bresser's Index. Table 3.7 is a measure of the number -of tenants, the number of housing units and the number of vacancies, plus the calculated vacancy rate for each of the 16-census tracts. While an overall vacancy rate of 10.3% was found for the 16 census tracts, the vacancy rate ranged from 5.3% to 17.8% depending on the census track. It should be noted that the vacancy .rates were for all rented housing units, not just for units rented to low income tenants. Therefore, a check was made to determine the vacancy rate for the low income • tenants. The rate quoted by Cynthia Wheatley, Lansing City Planner, from The Housing Assistance Plan. City of Lansing, October 1985 was an overall vacancy rate of 5.0% for low • income housing. Therefore, a vacancy rate of somewhat less than 10.3% is probably close to reality in the time frame of the study. • • 25 u 6 u • 46• 0- • 26 Table 3.7 Number of Tenants: Total Number of Rental Units, Number of Vacancies and Vacancy Rate by Census Tracts Used in the Study ' Total Census # of # of # of Vacancy Tract Tenants Units Vacancies Rate 1 834 897 .63 7. 2 % 2 670 763 93 12.2% 3 1,067 1,175 108 9.2% 5 697 776 79 10.2% 6 1,249 1,382 133 9.6% 7 1,491 1,680 189 11.3% 8 1,301 1,436 135 9.4% 10 1,163 1,228 65 . , -- 5. 3% 11 1,883 2,092 209 10.0% 12 1,026 1,123 97 8.6% 13 800 892 92 10.3% 14 120 146 26 17.8% 15 1,192 1,343 151 11.2% 20 1,767 2,126 359 16.9% 21 990 1,088 98 9.0% 32 900 972 72 7.4% 16 17,150 19,119 1,969 10.3% Source: Bresser's Index (19-85-86). These figures reflect the number of housing demolitions for the same period. 0 27 3 3 3 Availability of Housing: Experience of Tenants The low income tenants responded to a question related to their experience of finding housing. Table 3.8 indicates the findings: Table 3.8 Experience of FindingHousinct (N = 207) * Experience Percent of Responses Very easy 19.3% Easy 58.0% Difficult 19.3% Very difficult 3.4 100.0% • *1 missing case. More than three quarters (77.3%) of the tenants reported r that finding housing was either "very easy" or "easy." How- ever, another 22.7% found it "difficult" or "very difficult." Tables 3..9, 3.10 and 3.11 show more detailed analyses by race, income and amount of rent. • • • 28 • Table 3.9 Experience of Finding Housing by Race* (N = 203) • Race Experience of White Black Hispanic Other Finding Housing (N=145) (N=35) (N=21) (N=2) Very Easy 20.7% 11.4% 23.8-% --- Easy -.57.9% 68.6% 42.9% --- Difficult 17.2% 17.1% 33.3% 100.0% Very Difficult 4.1% 2.9% --- --- Total % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% • *Not statistically significant, 5 missing cases. Hispanics reported the most difficulty in finding housing (33.3%) compared with white or black tenants (21.3% and 20% f respectively). Approximately equal percentages of white and black tenants found it either "very easy" or "easy" to find housing (78.6% of whites and 80% of blacks); however, only • 11% of the black tenants reported it "very easy." Race does not appear to be an important factor in the experience of finding housing. • 40 29 Table 3.10 Experience of Finding Housing by Income* (N = 206) . Monthly Income Experience $1,000 More of Less than $500 to to than Finding $500 $999 $1,599 $1,600 Housing (N=71) (N=67) (N=35) (N=33) Very Easy 19.7% 17.9% 25.7% 12.1% Easy 54.9% 56.7% 51.4% 75.8% Difficult 22.5% 20.9% 17.1% 12.1% Very Difficult 2.8% 4.5% 5.7% --- Total % 100.0% 160.0% 100.0% 100.0% *Not statistically significant, 2 missing cases. The majority of tenants from all income groups reported finding housing either "very easy" or "easy." The highest income tenants, however, reported "very easy" in only 12.1% of the cases. The three lowest income groups reported f finding housing either "difficult" or "very difficult" in approximately 25% of the cases. This data indicates that income is not an important factor in the experience of finding housing. W 4 Table 3.11 Experience Finding Housing by Amount of Rent Paid* (N = 196) Monthly Rent Experience Less of than $150- $200- $250- $300- $350- Over Finding $149 $199 $249 $299 $349 $499 $500 Housing (N=8) (N=26) (N=36) (N=50) (N=30) (N=32) (14) Very Easy 12.5% 26.9% 16.7% 18.0% 13.3% 15.6% 35.7% Easy 62.5% 26.9% 66.7% 60.0% 63.3% 68.8% 50.0% Difficult 25.0% 42.3% 11.1% 16.0% 20.0% 15.6% 14.3% 6' Very Difficult --- 3.8% 5.6% 6.0% 3.3% --- --- Total % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% *Not statistically significant, 12 missing cases. Table 3.11 suggests that the lower the rent paid, the more difficulty in finding housing and visa versa. However, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups by the amount of rent paid. 3.3.4 Housinct Availability: Tenants Turned Down for Rented Housing Tenants were asked if they had ever been turned down for rental housing? Nearly three-quarters (74.6%) of the tenants said no. The reasons given for being turned down for housing if the response was "yes" are found in Table 3.12. M • Table 3.12 Responses Given for Having Been Turned7Down for Housing ip (N = 52 ) Categories Percent of Responses On assistance 28.3% Economic (did not have security deposit) 17.0% Because of children 13.2% Race or ethnicty 11.3% Age (too young) 7.5% Handicapped 1.9% Sexual orientation 1.9% Other 11.3% Don't know 5.7% 100.0% Tables 3.13, 3.14, and 3.15 explore having been turned down for housing by race, by being on assistance and by income. Table 3.13 Turned Down for Housing by Race* (N = 200) 0 Race Turned White Black Hispanic Other Down (N=143) (N=36) .(N=20) (N=1) Yes 23.8% 30.6% 30.0% 100.0% No .76.2% 69.4% 70.0% --- Total % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% *Not statistically significant, 8 missing cases 31 • +r 32 • 0 Findings indicate that race does not appear to make a difference in being turned down for housing. Tenants of all races reported similar responses to being turned down, and to not being turned down. The majority (69% or more) of responses for each race was that they had not experienced being turned down for housing. Table 3.14 Turned Down for Housing by Beinq on Assistance (GA/ADC)* (N = 204) On Assistance Yes No Turned Down (N = 69) (N = 135) Yes 34.8% 20.7% No 65.2% 79.31 100.0% .100.0% • *Statistically significant, .0447 level, 4 missing cases. Tenants on assistance were turned down for housing more fre- quently than those tenants not on assistance. In other words, being on assistance was an important factor in being refused housing. 6 • C] Table 3.15 Turned Down for Housing by Income* (N = 204) Monthly Income w Less than $500- $1,000- More than Turned $500 $999 $1,599 $1,600 Down (71) (66) (35) (32) Yes 26.8% 34.8% 20.0% 9.4% No 73.2% 65.2% 80.0% 90.6% Total % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%. *Statistically significant at .0453 level, 4 missing cases. Table 3.15 indicates that tenants with lower monthly incomes have been turned down more frequently for housing than tenants with higher monthly incomes. Therefore income is an important factor in being refused housing. However, the highest percentage of tenants in all income categories have not been refused housing. 3.4 The Quality of Housing The quality of housing for low income tenants was measured in this study by the attitudes and opinions given by the sampled tenants on a number of questions. Interviewers were also asked to rate the quality of the housing from excellent to poor. 33 P, • 34 3.4.1. Housing Grade Tenants were asked to assign a letter grade to their housing (from A to F, like in school) as a measure of the quality of their housing. Table 3.16 below indicates the findings. Table 3.16 Housing Grades Given by Tenants (N = 205) Grade Percentage of Responses A 18.0% B 26.8% C 37.6% D 7.8% F 9.3% 100.0% Mean grade 2.3 (C) 3 missing cases. On the average, the tenants gave their housing a grade of C. r However, 82.4% of the grades given by the tenants were C or above, which. seems to indicate that the tenants studied found their housing reasonably acceptable. Tables 3.17, 3.18, 3.19 and 3.20 indicate the housing grade given: by the tenants on assistance, by housing type, by income, and by experience of finding rental housing. F, ! 35 Table 3.17 Housing Grade Given by Tenants On Assistance (GA/ADC) (N = 205) On Assistance (GA or ADC) Yes No Housing Grade (N = 69) (N = 136) A 11.6% 21.2% B 23.2% 27.7% C 40.6% 35.8% D 4.3% 9.5% F 20.3% 5.1% 100.0% 100.0% *Statistically significant at the .0087 level, 3 missing cases. There is a significant difference between the grades assigned to housing by the tenants on assistance and those not on assistance. 'Those on assistance graded their housing quality lower, than those not on assistance. Table 3.17 indicates that one fifth (20.3%) of the tenants on. assistance gave their housing a grade of F. However, it : should also be noted that three quarters (75.4%) of the r tenants on assistance gave the housing a C or above. Only 5.1% of the tenants not on assistance gave their housing the grade of F, and 84.7% gave it a C or above. • • M. • Table 3.18 Housing Grade Given by Tenants by Tenant Income (N = 205) • Monthly Income Housing Less than $500 to $1,000 to More than Grade $500 $999 $1,599 $1,600 (N = 71) (N = 66) (N = 35) (N = 33) A 22.2% 12.1% 14.3% 24.2% B 20.8% 28.8% 28.6% 30.3% C 32.0% 43.9% 40.0% 36.4% D 12.5% 3.0% 11.4% 3.0% F 12.5% 12.1% 5.7% 6.1% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% *Not statistically significant, 3 missing cases. • The incomes of the tenants surveyed does not appear to make a difference in the grade given the housing. However, it should be noted that the lowest two income groups gave their • housing a higher percentage of Fs, than the two higher income groups. Grades of C or above were given by the majority of all income groups. i • • Table 3.19 House Grades Given by Tenants/Type of Housing* (N = 198) Type of Housing Single Family Town- Apart - Grade House Duplex house ment A (37) 15.5% 25.4% 50.0% 10.3% B (51) 25.5% 20.0% 50.0% 34.5% C (76) 41.8% 36.4% --- 34.5% D (15) 6.4% 10.9% --- 6.9% F (19) 10.9% 7.3 --- 10.3% Total % 100.0% .100.0% 100.0% 100.0% *Not statistically significant, 1G missing cases. There are no important differences when housing type is analyzed by the housing grade given by the tenants. i C 37 • ,-A Table 3.20 House Grades Given by Tenants by Experience of Finding Housing* (N = 202) Housing Grade Very Easy Easy Difficult Very Difficult A (37) 18.4% 19.7% 15.0% 14.3% B (53) 18.4% 27.4% 27.5% 42.9% C (77) 44.7% 37.6% 35.0% 28.6% D (16) 13.2% 6.8% 5.0% 14.3% F (19) 5.3% 8.5% 17.5% --- 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% *Not statistically significant, 6 missing cases. The findings show no important differences between the grade given the housing and the experience of finding the housing. Tenants were asked to give the reasons why the grades were given in an open ended question. The most important set of • • • 38 reasons given for the housing grades was related to the unit itself (60.7%). The second most important set of reasons was the tenants expressions of "liking" or "disliking" the housing (31.6%). All other factors (including safety and privacy) accounted for only 7.8% of the responses. Table 3.21 indicates the overall reasons for the grades given. See the listing of verbatim responses in Appendix B (pp. 94- 40 0 95) for the way the tenants expressed their responses for each grade given. Table 3.21 Reasons for Grades Given Housing by Tenants (N = 203) Reasons Percentage of Responses Unit related 60.7% Safety 3.9%' Privacy .5% Liked/disliked housing 31.6% Economic --- Other 1.9% Don't know 1.5% 100.0% Table 3.22 is an indication of the analysis of the reasons given for the housing grade by the grade given by the tenants. i 39 9 40 Table 3.22 The Reasons for House Grade Given by Tenant/House Grade* (N = 203 ) Liked/ I Unit Disliked Don't Housing Privacy Safety Related Housing Other Know Grade (N=1) (N=8) (N=123) (N=64) (N=4) (N=3) A --- 12.5% 12.2% 29.7% 50.0% --- B --- 25.0% 26.0% 31.3% --- --- C 100% 37.5%• 40.7% 29.7% 25.0% 100% D --- 12.5% 9.8% 4.7% --- --- F --- 12.5% 11.4% 4.7% 25.0% --- 100% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100% *Not statistically significant, 5 missing cases. There is no statistically significant difference between grades given and the reasons for the grade. In other words, the grades and the reasons for the grades are compatible. However, it should be noted that safety concerns, problems with the unit itself, and statements related to disliking the housing are results of grades D and F. Again, see verbatim responses listed in Appendix B, pp. 94-95. i 3.4.2 Housing Repair Problems Tenants were asked if they had had major repair problems with their housing. Table 3.23 indicates the findings. 0" C • • • C Table 3.23 Have You Had Any Major Repair Problems With this House? (N = 208) Catecrory Major Repair Problems Yes 31.9% (67) No 67.6% (141) 100.0% Did the Problem Get Fixed?* (N = 67) Yes 56.1% (38) No 43.9% (29) 100.0% Who Fixed the Problem?* (N = 38) Tenant, family, friends 18.4% (7) Landlords 71.1% (27) Other 0.5% (4) 100.0% *Answered by only those tenants who reported repair prob- lems. Approximately, two-thirds (67.6%) of the tenants indicated that they had not had any major repair problem. Of the nearly one-third that did report a major repair problem, over half (56.1%) reported that the problem was fixed. In 41 • 42 71.1% of the cases, the person that repaired the problem was 0 the landlord. No questions were specifically asked as to what the major repair problems were; however, some of the interviewers recorded some of the problems the tenants discussed. Those problems are listed verbatim in Appendix B, pp. 90-91. 3.4.3 Housing Quality Tenants were asked what they like most about their housing. Table 3.24 indicates that the condition of the unit was what they like most, while the convenience of the location was also important. Table 3.24 Housing Quality What Do You Like Most About This Housing? (N = 207) Category Percent of Responses Unit Condition 26.6% Convenience/location 24.6% Neighborhood/environment 11.1% Rent 11.1% Fits needs 4.8% Other 19.8% Don't know 1.9% 100.0% 1 missing case. Tenants were also asked to indicate what they would change about their housing unit, if they could change one thing. Table 3.25 displays the findings. Table 3.25 Housing Ouality If You Could Change On Things About Your Housing, What Would It Be? (N = 206) Category Percent of Responses Something About Structure Kitchen, space, appearance, extras 57.3% Something About Neighborhood Surroundings, location, convenience 17.5% Everything 3.9% Nothing 6.3% other 11.7% Don't Know 3.3% 100.0% 2 missing cases. ip 4 Table 3.25 suggests that the most important changes would be to some aspect of the housing unit itself (57.3%). This included such things as painting to more space (see listing of verbatim responses to this open ended question - Appendix B, p 96. 43 44 El 0 :7 L7 7 3.4.4 Quality of Housing Evaluated by the Interviewers The following tables are presented as examples of another opinion on the quality of housing in which low income tenants live in the city of Lansing. The interviewers were asked to evaluate the tenants housing (apartment, or place), the condition of the tenants housing, in general (including the yard), and the neighborhood in which the house existed. Tables 3.26, 3.27 and 3.28 are all presented as a validity check on the quality of the housing for low income house- holds. This is done by analyzing the grade given by the tenants and the evaluation given by the interviewers. Table 3.26 Conditions of the Housing Unit as Evaluated By the Interviewer/Housing Grade Given by Tenant* (N = 188) condition Housing Excellent Good Fair Poor Grade (N = 26) (N = 95) (N = 57)- (N = 10) A 19.2% 21.1% 12.3% --- B 50.0% 26.3% 17.5% --- C 26.9% 38.9% 47.4% 20.0% D 3.8% 47.4% 7.0% 20.0% F -- 20.0% 14.0% 60.0% Total % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%* 100.0% *Statistically significant at the .0000 level, 20 missing cases. • 45 The statistical significance found in this table and the two • other tables relating housing condition and housing grade that follow, indicates a relationships between the grade given the housing unit by the tenants and the evaluation • given the housing by the interviewers in independent observations. In most cases when the tenant gave a grade of F for example, the interview evaluated the housing as fair • or poor, and vice versa, when the tenant gave the housing a grade of A, the interviewer usually gave the housing an excellent or good evaluation. c Table 3.27 Condition of the Housing Exterior and Yard as Evaluated by the Interviewer/Housing Grade Given by Tenants* (N = 201) Condition Housing Excellent Good Fair Poor Grade (N = 26) (N = 74) (N = 74) (N = 12) A 23.1% 21.3% 13.5% --- �• B 46.2% 28.1% 20.3% --- C 26.9% 38.2% 43.2% 25.0% D --- 6.7% 10.8% 16.7% F 3.8% 5.6% 10.8% 58.3% Total % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% *Statistically significant at the .0000 level, 7 missing • cases. • 46 The relationships described for Table 3.26 also hold for the • evaluation of the exterior of the housing as well. Table 3.28 Condition of Neighborhood as Evaluated By the Interviewer/Housing Grade Given by Tenants* (N = 203) Condition Housing Excellent Good Fair Poor Grade (N = 12) (N = 106) (N = 71) (N : 14) A 33.3% 21.7% 9.9% 21.4% B 58.3% 29.2% 18.3% 7.1% C 8.3% 38.7% 38.0% 50.0% D --- 6.6% 11.3% 7.1% F --- 3.8% 21.1% 14.3% Total % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% *Statistically significant at .0023 level, 5 missing cases. Although, not as strong a relationship is apparent for the independent assignment of the housing grade by the tenants when compared to the evaluation by the interviewer of the neighborhood, Table 3.28 does indicate that in most cases the tenants and the interviewers were giving compatible evaluations. • 0 • 3.5 Tenant and Housing Characteristics 3.5.1 Tenant Demographics • The following data are demographic information reported either by the respondents or the interviewers. 0 Table 3.29 Race (N = 206) 47 Race Percent of Responses White 71.4% Black 17.5% Hispanic 10.5% Other 1.0% 100.0% 2 missing cases • W Table 3.30 Gender (N = 207) Gender Percent of Responses Female 65.7% Male 34.3 % • 100.0% 1 missing case •. •• Table 3.31 Acre (N = 205) Acre __ _ Percent of Responses Under 20 6.7% 20 to 24 15.9% 25 to 29 24.0% 30 to 34 17.3% 35 to 50 22.6% Over 50 13.5% 100.0% Mean Age = 34.6 3 missing cases. Table 3.32 Monthly Income (N = 180) 0 Monthly Income Percent of Responses Less than $500 39.9% $500 to $999.99 30.3% $1,000 to $1,599.99 14.9% More than $1,600 14.9 100.0% Mean Income = $866.48 28 missing cases. • 48 0 3.5.2 Housincr Data • Table 3.33 ' Housing Types (N = 203) Housincr Type Percent of Responses Single Family 55.1% Duplex 27.1% Townhouse 1.9% Apartment 14.0% Other 1.9% 100.0% 5 missing cases. Table 3.34 Occupants/House (N = 205) • Number of Occupants Percent of Responses 1 21 8% 2 22.8% 3 18.4% 4 19.4% 5 11.2% 6 4.9% 7 1.0% 8 0.5% 100.0% 3 missing cases. 0 49 • 4.0 RESULTS OF THE LANSING LANDLORD/MANAGERS SURVEY 4.1 An Overview of the Survey The survey of landlords and managers was conducted to w investigate the costs, availability and quality of housing rented to low income tenants in Lansing, Michigan as • reported by the landlords and managers. The cost of housing was measured by the amount the landlord/ managers reported charging for rented units by the number of bedrooms in the units, and by the responses to questions related to the profitability of renting housing to low income tenants. The availability of housing was measured by the number of various housing types rented to low income tenants and by questions posed to the landlord/managers related to continu- ing to rent housing to low income tenants and why? 50 r The quality of housing was measured by landlord/manager attitudes and opinion about the housing they rent. The results of the survey are therefore presented in the following order: • w r • r • Section 4.2 The Cost of Housing Section 4.3 The Availability of Housing Section 4.4 The Quality of Housing 4.2 The Cost of Housing The mean monthly rent charged by the landlord/managers surveyed was $241.00. Utilities such as heat and electri- city were included in 54.6%,of the rents charged. Table 4.1 indicates the mean rent charged by the number of bedrooms, the range of rents charged and the number of landlords that reported renting the units by number of bedrooms. Table 4.1 Mean Monthly Rent Charged/Number of Bedrooms Number of Monthly Rent Bedrooms (mean) Range # of LL** Efficiency $168.81 $ 70-250 11 1 Bedroom $213.52 $100-320 25 2 Bedrooms $288.27 $225-350 30 3 Bedrooms $313.08 $235-375 13 4 Bedrooms --- --- 4 5 Bedrooms $352.00 only $352.00 1 Rooming House Rooms $113.00 only $113.00 1 85* Mean rent 241.45 per month *Categories are not mutually exclusive; some landlords rent/ manage a variety of units with various rental prices per number of bedrooms. **Landlord/managers. 51 E 52 The monthly rent charged ranged from $70.0 for efficiency apartments to $375.00 for units with three bedrooms. The largest proportion of housing rented to low income tenants by the landlord/managers was in the one and two bedroom categories. « 4.2:1 Housing Profitability When.asked if renting housing to low income tenants was con- sidered profitable, 88.7% responded "somewhat" or "not pro- fitable". Table 4.2 below indicates findings. Table 4.2 Profitability of Renting to Low Income Tenants (N = 44) Category Percent of Responses Very Profitable 2.3% Somewhat Profitable 45.5% Not Profitable 43.2% Don't Know/No Response 9.0% 100.0% The reasons given for why renting to low income- tenants was considered very profitable, somewhat profitable or not profitable are given in Table 4.3. • • 53 • Table 4.3 Why Renting to Low Income Tenants is Profitable. Somewhat Profitable or Not Profitable (N = 44) Category Percent of Responses Cost/rent imbalance (somewhat or not profitable) 45.5% Good investment/Tax Shelter 11.4% Repair Skills 4.5% Management Skills 2.3% Others 22.7% Don't Know/No Response 13.7% 100.0% Nearly 46% of the landlord/managers indicated that there was a rent/cost imbalance which generally did not make renting to low income tenants profitable, especially in the short run. 6 4.3 The Availability of Housing 4.3.1 Number and Types of Housing Rented by Landlord/ Managers Of the landlord/managers surveyed, 86% presently rent housing to low income tenants and 6% formerly rented to low income tenants. The other 8% had never rented to low income tenants and, therefore, were not respondents to the ques- tionnaire designed for those renting to low income tenants only. Ninety percent of the housing rented is privately owned and 10% publically owned. • 54 There were approximately 1,484 units represented by the 44 landlord/managers interviewed. Of those interviewed, 2.3% were the owners only, 11.4% were managers only, and the rest (86.4%) were both owners and managers. Table 4.4 is a listing of the types of housing units rented to low income tenants, indicating the percent of each type represented and number of landlord/managers involved in each type of rental unit. Table 4.4 Types of Housing Rented to Low-income Households Types of Housing Percent of Responses # of LL** r Rooming Houses 1.3% (1) Single Family 24.0% (18) Mobile Homes -- (00) Duplexes (2 units) 18.7% (14) Triplexes (3 units) 9.3% (7) Fourplexes (4 units) 22.7% (17) r Apartments 5-6 units 6.7% (5) 7-8 units 5.3% (4) 9-10 units 1.3% (1) 10 or more units 10.7% (8) 100.0% (75)* *Categories are not mutually exclusive; some landlords rent/ manage a variety of housing types. **Landlord/managers. Table 4.5 indicates the number of bedrooms in the units rented by the percent of units, plus the number of units and the number of landlord/managers involved. 0 '0 55 Table 4.5 Number Bedrooms in Units Rented to Low-income Households/Number of Units Number of Bedrooms % of Units # of Units # of LL Efficiency 8.4% (124) (12) 1 Bedroom 31.8% (472) (27) 2 Bedrooms 51.4% (763) (31) 3 Bedrooms 6.9% (102) (14) `r 4 Bedrooms 1.1% (16) (4) 5 Bedrooms .5% (7) (1) 100.0% 1,484 (89)* *Categories are not mutually exclusive; some landlords/ managers, rent a variety of units with various number of bedrooms. 4.3.2 Landlord/Managers Opinions About Continuing to Rent Housing to Low Income Tenants When asked if they as landlord/managers would continue to rent housing to low income tenants, nearly 80% said yes. Table 4.6 indicates this finding. Table 4.6 Housing Availability Will You Continue to Rent to Low Income Tenants (N = 43) Category Present of Responses Yes 79.5% No Don't Know 18.2% 2.3% 100.0% 0 A indication of the reasons given for continuing to rent f housing to low income tenants is reported in Table 4.7. Table 4.7 • Reasons for Renting to Low Income Tenants (N = 44) Reasons Percent of Responses Altruism (care about welfare of tenants) 22.7% Housing Quality (Not great) 22.7% Profit/Investment 20.5% Background/Skills 4.5% Retirement Income 2.3% Others 25.0% No response 2.3% 100.0% Nearly 23% of the landlord/managers indicated altruistic reasons (i.e., caring about the welfare of the tenants) for continuing to rent to low income tenants; while another 22.7% suggested that the housing they rent could only be rented to low income tenants because it was not "great housing." Another 21% of the landlord/managers indicated that profit or investment in the long run was the motivation for renting housing to low income tenants. a r, 56 L-7 • 4.4 The Ouality of Housing 4.4.1 Housing Grade The results of the landlord/manager survey provides a number of measures of housing quality which are comparable to the measures found'in the tenants' survey. Grading the housing rented with grades from A to F, landlords/managers gave the housing that they rent or manage a mean grade of C+. Over • 90% of the grades given were C or above. Table 4.8 summarizes the results. Table 4.8 Housing Grade Given by Landlord Managers (N = 44) Grade Percent of Responses • A 20.5% B 47.7% C 25.0% D 4.5% F 2.3% i 100.0% Mean Grade 2.7 (C+) See Table 3.16 for a comparison with Grades Given Housing by the Tenants (p. 34). • The reasons given by the landlord/managers for the grades given the housing appear in Table 4.9. 57 0 C 58 Table 4.9 Reasons for Grades Given Housing by Landlords/Managers* (N = 44) Reasons Housing Unit Related 79.5% Safety --- LL/Tenant Relationships 2.3% Economic --- Other/No Response 18.2% 100.0% *See Table 3.21 for a Comparison with Reasons for Grade Given by Tenants (p. 39). The landlord/managers basically reported -one major reason for giving the housing they rent/manage the grade they did. That reason was related to the unit itself (79.5%). This generally meant the landlord/managers felt that the housing they were renting to low income tenants was average or above in quality. Responses indicated a desire to keep the place • up, to make it livable and reasonably home like. 4.4.2 What the Landlord Managers like Most about Renting to Low Income Tenant • The landlords/managers reported several different things they liked most about renting housing to low income tenants. • • Table 4.10 Hous inct Quality What Landlord/Managers Like Most About Providing Housing to Low Income Tenants* (N = 44) Cateaory Percent of Resbonses Nothing 20.5% Help People 15.9% The Tenants 11.4% Improve the Housing Stock 2.3% Profit/Money 2.3% Other 29.5% Don't Know 13.6% No Response 4.5% 100.0% *See Table 3.24 for a comparison of responses given by the tenants (p. 42). Over 25% of the landlords mentioned something about helping people, or their tenants themselves, that they liked most about renting to low income tenants. Only 2.3% of the landlord/managers mention profit or money as the most liked aspect of renting to low income tenants. However, nearly 21% of the landlords/managers indicated that there was nothing they liked most about renting housing to low income tenants. M • F, .• 4.4.3 If Landlord/Managers Could Change "One Thing", What Would It Be? Landlord/managers were asked to indicate the one thing they would change about renting. housing to low income tenants. Table 4.11 indicates the responses. Table 4.11 Housing Ouality If You Could Change One Thing About Providing Housing to Low Income Tenants, What Would It Be?* (N = 42) Category Percent of Responses System of Assistance (to tenants or landlords) 47.7% Slum landlords 4.5% Tenants 2.3% Unit/function 4.6% Other 27.3% Don't Know 9.1% No Response 4.5% 100.0% *See Table 3.25 for a comparison of responses given by the tenants (p. 43). Nearly 50% of the responses given by the landlord/managers had to do with changing the system of assistance to themselves or to the tenants. This suggests that some ♦ aspect of renting housing to low income tenants is affected by the assistance system. 40 • 61 Other findings indicate (see Appendix D, questions 10 and 11 • pp. 107 and 108) that this group of landlord/managers has had a fair amount of experience with the assistance system. This is suggested by the 88.6% indicating that they have at • some point in time rented to tenants on public assistance, and also that 41.0% of the tenants that the landlord/ managers presently rent to are recipients of public assistance. Further, that 72% of the landlord/managers who rent to households on assistance require vendored payments always or sometimes. • • • • r • • • 5.0 THE HOMELESS The study of the homeless was very much an impressionistic study. It was conducted in two shelters in the Lansing area, and only twelve persons were interviewed. Among the findings of some interest is the report that none of the homeless had ever owned housing. Most reported living in • rented housing, some as recently as ten days prior to the interview. However, one person reported last living in rented housing 13 years prior to the interview. Several reported not being able to pay rent as a reason for not having rented housing, while others reported problems with living mates or evictions. Most of those interviewed had • never lived in a shelter before. The majority of respondents, when asked to grade the shelter, gave it an A. • Half of the sample had lived out-of-doors or in an abandoned building. The time spent in that situation ranged from 3 days to 5 years. Most of the homeless found looking for a • house either difficult or very difficult. Seven of the 12 respondents had been turned down for rental housing, four because they had children, two because they were on assist- ance, one because they could not afford it, one because he/she -did not have cash or all the necessary papers. 62 • • • All 12'reported that the people in the shelter were helping them to find housing. Most of the homeless knew agencies or social services that could help them find housing. Of the 12 sheltered, five had already found housing. r • 40 0 63 11 • • 64 6.0 CENSUS DATA FOR BACKGROUND The 1980 Census data reported in Tables 6.1 through 6.7 are presented here for several purposes. 1. To illustrate the general context in which the three independent surveys exist, given the most recent and comprehensive national Census -- 1980. 2. To illustrate characteristics of the Lansing i S.M.S.A., the City of Lansing, and the counties of Clinton, Eaton and Ingham. This is not a comparison and cannot be treated as such because the geographic areas used in the reporting are not mutually exclusive. The 1980 Census of Housing and the 1980 Characteristics of Population are comprehensive with regard to descriptive characteristics; however, they are completely devoid of any attitudinal information which would give a sense of what tenants and landlords feel about their housing (its cost availability and quality). Therefore, the three independent surveys were done to more completely understand the housing • situation for low income tenants. • C� 65 • The following Tables are presented without discussion as background information only. Table 6.1 General Characteristics All Total White Black Others* LANSING CITY 130,414 80.4% 13.9% 6.3% LANSING, urban 254,704 86.9% 8-.5% 4.2% CLINTON COUNTY 55,893 97.9% .3% 1.8% EATON COUNTY 88,337 96.0% 2.2% 1.8% INGHAM COUNTY 275,520 88.5% 7.7% 3.8% • Median Persons/ Age Male Female Household LANSING CITY 26.8 47.8% 52.2% 2.61 LANSING, urban 25.2 48.2% 51.8% 2.60- f CLINTON COUNTY 27.6 49.9% 50.1% 3.14 EATON COUNTY 28.3 47.5% 50.9% 2.89 INGHAM COUNTY 25.3 4.85% 51.5% 2.67 Sources: • Characteristics of the Population: General Population Characteristics. Michigan (PC80-1-B24). August 1982. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. *Includes all other groups found in the city of Lansing, including those of Spanish origin, American Indians and • others. • • 66 Table 6.2 Housing Characteristics Lansing Lansing SMSA City YEAR-ROUND HOUSING UNITS: 166,484 51,938 • Year structure built: 1970 to March/1980 24.0% 18.6% 1939 or earlier 29.1% 31.1% Percent with: 1 or more bathrooms 98.2% 98.2% 3 or more bedrooms 54.5% 46.2% OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS: Total units 159,301 49,516. Median Gross Rent* --$253-.00 $243.00 Clinton Eaton Ingham YEAR-ROUND HOUSING UNITS: 18,427 31,429 99,453 Year structure built: 1970 to March/1980 28.1% 36.9% 23.5% 1939 or earlier 35.7% 28.3% 24.9% Percent with: 1 or more bathrooms 98.2% 98.2% 98.4% 3 or more bedrooms 68.8% 60.3% 48.7% OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS: Total units 17,755 301137 95,179 Median Gross Rent* $244.00 $262.00 $255.00 *Specified renter occupied. See definition of Gross Rent, p. 137. 0 • • • LANSING SMSA: Urban Rural LANSING CITY CLINTON COUNTY EATON COUNTY INGHAM COUNTY RENTER -OCCUPIED Table 6.3 Social Characteristics Persons 25 Years Old and Over High Total School College Persons Grads Grads_ 471,565 76.2% 20.2% 309,443 77.8% 24.4% 162,122 73.4% 12.4% 130,414 72.6% 17.3% 55,893 73.0% 11.3% 88,337 78.1% 18.0% 275,520 78.0% 26.0% Table 6.4 Structural Characteristics of Renter -Occupied Housing Units Lansing Urban Lansing City HOUSING UNITS: 40,317 21,555 BEDROOMS None 3.4% 4.0% 1 35.5% 33.8% 2 44.4% 42.8% 3 12.4% 15.1% 4 3.2% 3.7% 5 or more 1.1% .6% 67 u 68 UNITS IN STRUCTURE 1, detached 1, attached 2 3 and 4 5 to 9 10 to 49 50 or more Mobile home GROSS RENT One unit, mobile home etc. Two or more units to Lansina Urban Lansing Cit 18.4% 25.3% 7.9% 9.7 % 9.8% 13.1% 7.5% 10.5% 10.3% 10.1% 37.2% 22.9% 7.9% 7.6% 1.0% .8% $295.00 $248.00 $284.00 $228.00 Clinton Eaton Ingham RENTER -OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS: 2,760 7,969 39,438 BEDROOMS j None 2.3% 2.0% 3.7% 1 19.4% 33.2% 34.3% 2 44.9% 46.4% 43.8% 3 22.4% 14.7% 13.3% 4 8.0% 2.8% 3.6% 5 or more 3.3% .8% 1.4% UNITS IN STRUCTURE 1, detached 46.4% 23.6% 21.3% 1, attached 2.3% 4.6% 7.6% 2 13 . 0 % 9.7% 10 .'8 % 3 and 4 10.1% 8.7% 7.7% 5 to 9 7.1% 8.4% 10.2% 10 to 49 12.2% 37.8% 33.7% 50 or more .6% 5.4% 7.4% Mobile home 8.6% 1.7% 1.3% GROSS RENT One unit, mobile home etc. $269.00 $288.00 $295.00 Two or more units $227.00 $258.00 $244.00 Sources: 1980 Census of Housing. Volume 1. Characteris- tics of Housing Units. Chapter B. Part 24 Michigan (H#80- 1-B24). August 1983. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. M • Lm W rm Table 6.5 Income Characteristics Lansing, urban Lansing City MEDIAN INCOME* Workers in family: No worker $ 8,322 $ 7,770 1 worker $17,809 $16,019 2 worker $25,724 $24,090 3 or more workers $35,818 $33,985 INCOME TYPE Households: 90,290 49,502 With earnings 85.3% 81.9% Mean earnings $21,241 $19,598 With wage or salary 83.9% 80.6% Mean wage or salary $20,637 $19,222 With nonfarm self- employment income 7.5% 6.3% Mean income* $10,430 $ 8,464 With farm self- employment income .7% .5% Mean income $ 3,448 $ 4,082 With interest, dividend or net rental income 46.9% 40.4% Mean income $ 2,022 $ 1,857 With Social Security 18.8% 21.0% Mean income $ 4,235 $ 4,299 With public assistance 8.4% 12.1% Mean income $ 3,424 $ 3,491 With all other income 27.2% 30.1% Mean income $ 3,219 $ 2,971 *See definition on p. 137. .• 70 Clinton Eaton Ingham MEDIAN INCOME Workers in family: No worker $ 8,856 $ 8,929 $ 8,329 1 worker $19,687 $19,990 $17,700 2 worker $26,632 $26,962 $25,483 3 or more workers $35,524 $36,343 $35,253 INCOME TYPE Households: 17,747 30,166 95,436 With earnings 87.4% 87.7% 85.1% Mean earnings $15,481 $23,828 $21,245 • Clinton Eaton Ingham With wage or salary 83.2% 84.7% 83.3% Mean wage or salary $22,580 $23,407 $20,524 With nonfarm self- employment income 9.8% 9.0% 8.1% Mean income $11,504 $10,126 $11,232 With farm self- employment income 10.0% 5.9% 2.1% Mean income $ 4,670 $ 1,785 $ 3,275 With interest, dividend or net rental income 48.1% 48.2% 47.0% Mean income $ 1,782 $ 1,855 $ 2,111 With Social Security 20.8% 19.3% 19.6% Mean Income $ 4,232 $ 4,241 $ 4,259 With public assistance 5.2% 5.2% 8.7% Mean Income $ 2,890 $ 2,598 $ 3,399 �. With all other income 30.1% 27.7% 27.7% Mean income $ 2,900 $ 2,890 $ 3,177 Sources: Characteristics of the Population: General Social and Economics Characteristics. Michigan (P#809-1-C24). August 1983 U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. • • • • Table 6.6 Poverty Status of Families and Persons Lansing, urban Lansing City INCOME BELOW 125% OF POVERTY LEVEL FAMILIES 6,447 4,462 % below poverty level 11.1% 13.7% Mean income deficit $3,296 $3,334 Persons per family 3.33 3.47 With Social Security income 12.7% 12.8% With public assistance 45.9% 55.3% Householder worked in 1979 52.0% 49.6% With related children under 18 years 80.9% 85.8% With related children 5 to 17 years 57.0% 61.0% Female householder, no husband present 53.5% 61.1% Householder worked in 1979 -46.0% 44.5% With related children under 18 years 95.5% 96.6% With related children under 6 years 56.9% 61.0% Householder 65 years and over 6.5% 6.4% UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 19,239 7,438 % below poverty level 37.8% 30.6% Mean income deficit $ 2,304 $ 2,165 With Social Security 16.6% 27.6% With public assistance 8.3% 17.0% 71 • 46 oil. • PERSONS % below poverty level Related children under 18 years Related children 5 to 17 years 65 years and over INCOME BELOW POVERTY LEVEL* Percent of persons Below 75% Below 150% Below 200% INCOME BELOW 125% OF POVERTY LEVEL Families % below poverty level Mean income deficit Persons per family With Social Security income With public assistance Householder worked in 1979 With related children under 18 years With related children 5 to 17 years Female householder, no husband present Householder in 1979 With related children under 18 years With related children under 6 years Householder 65 years and over *See definition p. 138. Lansing, urban Lansing City 40,737 22,938 17.3% '17.7% 27.2% 37.2% 17.8% 24.3% 7.4% 9.8% 8.2% 21.1% 29.5% 12.7% 29.4% 39.7% Clinton Eaton Inctham 652 1,575 7,215 4.4% 6.7% 11.4% $2,687 $3,318 $3,359 3.53 3.24 3.37 19.2% 23.7% 13.5% 23.6% 23.9% 44.9% 65.2% 59.6% 53.0% 67.2% 65.1%. 80.5% 49.7% 47.7% 57.6% 27.5% 33.1% 51.2% 49.7% 60.7% 46.0% 91.6% 89.8% 95.1% 14.6% 42.3% 55.5% 17.0% 20.6% 6.6% 72 • • •" 4 • E UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS % below poverty level Mean income deficit With Social Security With public assistance PERSONS % below poverty level Related children under 18 years Related children 5 to 17 years 65 years and over INCOME BELOW POVERTY LEVEL Percent of persons Below 75% Below 150% Below 200% Clinton Eaton Ingham 879 1,971 19,934 22.2% 22.5% 39.3% $ 1,629 $ 2,139 - $ 3,211 36.3% 38.9% 17.4% 10.2% 12.9% 8.8% 3,180 7,079 44,267 5.7% 8.1% 17.4% 33.8% 32.2% 28.1% 24.4% 22.6% 18.7% 15.7% 18.3% 7.6% 3.3% 3.5% 8.3% 11.5% 11.2% 21.2% 19.3% 18.2% 29.8% Sources: Characteristics of the Population: General Social and Economics Characteristics. Michigan (P#80-1-C24). August 1983. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. 73 • 74 Table 6.7 Economic Characteristics . Lansing, urban Lansing City CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE % unemployed 7.8% 9.2% FAMILIES % with no workers 10.5% 13.5% MEDIAN INCOME Households $19,231 $16,975 S Families $22,387 $20,148 Per capita income $ 7,443 $ 7,280 BELOW POVERTY LEVEL % of persons 10.4%. 13.1% % of families "" 7.1%-- 10.3 % Clinton Eaton Ingham CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE % unemployed 6.9% 7.2% 7.7% FAMILIES % with no workers 8.6% 8.7% 11.3% MEDIAN INCOME Households $21,573 $21,778 $18,090 Families $23,368 $24,574 $21,9.21 Per capital income $ 7,362 $ 8,076 $ 7,509 BELOW POVERTY LEVEL % of persons 5.7% 5.9% 13.2% % of families 4.4% 4.9% 8.4% Sources: Characteristics of the Population. General Social and Economic Characteristics. Michigan (P#80-1-C24). U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. APPENDIX A Tenants Survey Questionnaire 0- •. 75 •` • 76 40 6-- 9 • MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY URBAN AFFAIRS PROGRAMS OWEN GRADUATE CENTER May 1986 EAST LANSING • MICMGAN • 48824-1109 Dear Renter: Urban Affairs Programs at Michigan State University wants to learn about housing needs in the City of Lansing. The inter- view will take about 15 minutes. There are no right or wrong answers to the questions, and your willingness to answer the questions is purely voluntary. The answers you give us are strictly confidential. Your name or address will never by attached to your answers. Thank you. ` Bonnie Maas Morrison Project Director • HSUis an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 77 0 46 0 r 46 • f 714 OOGOOOOCG� NOTE: A11 data reported as percentages _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C G :: ' except when means are given OOC00000G" First, We are interested in knowing something about O O O O C O C C O ®. your housing experience. 1. How long have you lived in Lansing, Michigan? OOOOCOOGC., 5.0 Months[1,2] 17.4 Years [3,4] OOOOOOCC.::� a 2. _ mean mean In the past ( 5, 17.4 Months/years) , in about r �. 000000O0Z,1C how many different houses in the Lansing area have you 0 GOJGOGC..v lived? Van2.4 Number of- Houses (5] OOOOCOOG O 3. mean How long have you lived at this address. 0000000G ;0 3.9 Months ears [6,7] 0000000C �10 4. mean How did you find this housing? ( DO NOT READ: ) OOOOOOOG;G check [ v/] only ) ( first mentioned) 0000000000 a 00 0000000000 31.3 (60) Newspaper ad. [8] 00(D0000000 3.6 ( 7) Referred by community agency [ 9 ] 0000000000 � Name: o000G0(D0"D0 _ 2.1 ( 4) Referred by state agency [ 10 ] ,� OLOOOOOOGO � Name:' 0000000000 30.2 (58) Referred by friends [ 11] 0000000000 16.7 (32) Referred by family [ 12 ] o000000co _ 16.1 (31) other? (13] 0000000000 0000000000 _ 5. 17 missing cases Would you say your experi� nce finding this housing �O 000000000 was (Read each: Check [Y] only one) 0000000000I (T�) � s (40) 19.3 Very easy [ 14 ] 0000000000 (120) 58.0 Easy [ 15 ] 0000000000 (40) 19.3 Difficult[16] OOOOOOOGOO (7) 3.4 Very difficult. [17] OOOOOOOGOO 2 missing cases 0000000000 -, UU ViV1 lip i1 - iiV I h15 -- -AK-ER 6. Why did you say that? ® Not analyzed at this time � 18 19 a A LI a� 46 --- [ ] 7. Why did you move into this housing? � Nnr anal�»arl at rhic rims ' a� ® (20/21] 8. How long do you plan to stay at this address? Months [22,23) Years. [24,25] s Why do you plan to stay ( _� Months/years) 42.7 Family or household reasons (73) 27.5 Housing or neighborhood reasons (47) ' .6 99.7 Other reasons ( 1) nnnit knnv (�Rl _[26J27) 38 missing cases �9. Have you had any major repair problems with this house? (N) No 67.6% [ 28 ] � (I a =(6 f" 0 CC 00 ,C 0000C;G - 00000O C 000C'.CC OOC;CC C-` 00000C,C-C � C: 00000 0000 C ^=0 _ OOOCCC'G: 0C.- (-,� 00^CC`�-C': 00000000I0 OOCCCCCC�ID, 00CCCC0C 000CCC0. _ i I - • r, THE NEXT FEW QUESTIONS DEAL WITH WHAT IT COSTS TO LIVE HERE. 10. Do you get any help to pay your rent? No 59.6% (124) (32] . Yes 39,9(7 i2) [32] --> Who (Or what agency) helps you pay your rent? GA 34.2% (27 ) ADC 53.2% (42) ® Family 1.3% (1). [33,34]--> >, Other 11.4% (9) --> About how much help per month? Mean 271.05 $ (35,36) I 11. How much money do you yourself pay to live here per month, not counting any government money? • $ 750.00 mean per month. [ 37, 38 ] I 12. Did you pay a security deposit? _ No 77 49_ [39] (5) Yeses [39 ] -->HOW much was it? $ 236.77 (40, 41, 42 ] mean Did you pay for it all at once? Yes 81.4% (43] (114) I I I No 18.6% (26) [43] --> How did you pay for the security deposit? (N) l Monthly installments 20.0% (5) Other plans 60.0% (15) I. Other 12.0% (3) I Don't know 8.0% (2) [44,45] I l I I 000 • _ _ _ i O0C•C = _ 00G0.G Oo0O(DI 0c=__ 00000CCC = C •000CCC•CC C 0000GC C_)1: 0000GO0 %�_ 0000L00C_ 0O 00001u�L- _ _• • - I OOvCV.�•. _ 0000000C_•c 00000000: • 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 CC 0000 GOCC OOCC•00GC OOC.C•^TCC n � n (7� �. ,-" /- , .- _ UV 80 When renting this housing, did you pay any additional fees for: (Read each separately) Application? No 97.5% (46] (195) yes 2.5% (5)[46] Hoy* Much? $ 15.50 [47,48,49] mean Carpet cleaning? No 93.5 [50] (88) Yes 6.5% (13)[50] How Much? $ 37.09 (51,52,53] mean Pets? No (54] Yes [54] How Much? $ Other? (Specify) No 98.0% [60] (195) 75.00 mean Yes 2.0% (4) (60] How Much? $ 34.65 mean Do you pay for the heat? No 43. 3% [ 64 ] [55,56,57] [58,59] [61,62,63] Yes 56.7% (114164] --> Is any part of it paid for by an agency or utility? Yes 31.9% [65] No 68.1% [ 65 ] . Do you pay for the electricity? No 73.5% (66] Yes 26.5% [66] --> Is any part of it paid for by an agency or utility? Yes (67] No [67] Do you pay for the garbage pickup? (N) (N) Yes 71.9% (143) [ 68 ] No 28.1% (56) [ 68 ] 81 17. e� 18. (N) (137) s (64) 19. s 20. 21. 22. i 23. i i I 1 Do you pay for the water? (N) Yes 53.8% (112)[ 69 ] No 46.2% (96) [69] Do you presently have a lease with your landlord? No 68.2% [70] Yes 31.8% (70] --> How long is the lease? 8.6 (71,72] onths years) mean How many total rooms do you have here? (Not including bathrooms) 4.75 (73,74] Number of rooms. mean How many bedrooms do you have here? # 2.2 (75] mean How many bathrooms do you have here? # 1.1 [76] mean Is this place rented (Read each;check all that apply) Yes 83.67 [ 77 ] No 16. 4% [ 77 ] Yes 76.9% [78] No 23,17 [78] Yes 7.37, [ 79 ] No 92.77, [ 79 ] Yes 11 .67 (80 ] No 87.9% (80 ] With Stove With Refrigerator Fully Furnished Partially Furnished Do you have a washer and dryer in your home? Yes 49.5% (81 ] No 50.57. (81] --> Where do you wash and dry your clothes? - 9. 7% . In the building [ 82 ] 90.32 Elsewhere. [82] o, j\i V 1 i OGCOGOCC�� 000011-1111GCC:. • ® 24. in your opinion is it easy for you to get to: (Read 000 00 ® each; rotate list. If doesn't apply, leave blank.) • COOOC'CGC�•� Work 88.82 Yes [83] 11.22 No (83J COCC.OGvC):r ® s Grocery Stores 89.37. Yes [ 84 ] 10.7% No [ 84 ] C O C O 0 C 0 C `. C Drug store 89.4% Yes [ 85 ] 10.67. No [ 85 ] C C C O C C C� C C Schools 90.1% Yes [86] 9.97 No (86] 0000C °0 C Church 87.6% Yes [87] 12.4% No [87] COCOCCCC.0 s Bus Service 91.72 Yes [88] 7.8% No (88] 0000000C', . �• ® Coin laundry 82.8% Yes [89] 17.2% No [89] 0000 00 CCM ra Doctor's Office 73.8% Yes [90] 25.7% No [90] 0000 00C C s shopping 81.3% Yes [91] 18.72 No [91] 0000000CC•O 76.9% Yes [92] 23.1% No [92] OOCOOOOCCO 0000000000 �. THE NEXT FEW QUESTIONS HAVE TO. DO -WITH YOU AND � YOUR OOOOOOOOCO .�DL,O�, o. ,,. • 25. In your opinion, what is your landlord's single 00000000C.0 most important responsibility to you in this place? OOOOOOOOCO Not discussed in the final report OOOOOOOOCO ® OOOOGOOC^O 0000000000 _ .. 26. In your opinion, what is your landlord's single 0000 0 0 0 C C 0 most important right? VM Not discussed in the final report. 00Q000OCCO ® oa000OOOCo� A. (94,95] 0000000000 0000000000 OOGOOOOOCO . OOOOGOOOCO 0000000000 -rZ-�2 zA 11 LL i-x 8-4 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 C/'-� 27. As a tenant, what is your single most important 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C, responsibility in renting this place? Not discussed in the final report. OOCOGOOC(DO 00000001C'�:/O 0000000\-/*,�1 (96,97) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C-'I C, "C" 28. As a tenant, what is your single most important 0 () 0 0 C, 0 C. IC-1 C C" right in renting this place? 0 0 C, C 0 0 C) 113, C' Not discussed in the final report. 000000000O 0000000000 [98,99] 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 C 29. Using grades, like in school, how would you grade OCOOOOOC 31 this housing? Would you give it an A, B, C, D or F? C) 0 0 (D 0 0 0 0 0 (D % A [100] 0000000000 26.8% B [100] Reported elsewhere in report 0000000000 p. 3 4 ' 37.6% C EIOOI 0000000000 7.8% D E1001 0000000000 or 9.3% F E1001 , 0000000000' 29a. Why did you give the housing that grade? 0000000000 Reported elsewhere in this report page 41. 0000 O-(D(DCO(D 0000000000 0000000000 1101,102) OOOOCOOOGO 0000000000 OOOOOOOOvO n. P- ►1 .0 i i r, 0 a� i i am on an am an Mo r i i i i i i i U L) i 4 U I v V h t i t i iV i r-i 10' ;-A i-A L)A 84 Again using grades, like in school, how would you grade your landlord? A, B, C, D or F? A [103] B [103] C [103] D [103] or F [103] Not discussed in the final report. 30a. Why did you give your landlord that grade? Not discussed in the final report. [104,105] Again using grades, like in school, how would you grade you yourself as a tenant? A, B, C, D or F? A [106] B [106] C [106] D [106] or F [10.6] Not discussed in the final report. 31a. Why did you give yourself that grade as a tenant? Not discussed in the final report. [107,108] OGGOGOGC. OOOOGOOGC.0 OOOOGOOCS:� OOOGGOOOC 0000000G C:C OOOC-GOCC C, 00C IOC-L,-OC..— 00000000—:1 00000000CCD OG•O�0(D0C C000c0-00 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 OO000C)00 0G 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 OOQOGOOOOG 0000000000 000000©000 0000000000 000000000E 0000000000 9 LA - 85 32. What do you like most about this housing? Reported elsewhere in this report D. 42. �s [108,109]_ 33. If'you could change any one thing about your a housing, what would you change? Reported elsewhere in this report A. 43. (110,111] a 34. Have you ever been turned down in trying to rent s housing here in Lansing? • No 74.6% [112] i- GGGOOGG�,�:, OOCOOG'.�C 0001000CIO.. GGGCOOCC GC0000Gc: OGCO'�-�. GOC• OOC -C)'OGC_;C �C 000000OC� C O 00C,000 'G 0 C-. � r. C r. 00000GOC 000000CGCO 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 OGCOOOOC-1CO 0000000000 0000000000 OOG00000^0 00000000c0 OOOOOOOO�C 0000000000 OOG000GOOG 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 r�!nr�nr�nnrn^.n r, • 46 0 0 .. L) i lJ 1 �i n i i i iV I ii s.;A 86 = 0C�;co, 00C-1 = 0000000000 _ TENANT'S DEMOGRAPHIC DATA 000004 O C C O O 000000000C _ Finally, a few last questions to help us _ better understand your housing needs. C 0 0 0 O C C C 0 C 00000000CC' _ _ 1. What -was the last year of school you completed? 000oco0CC1 _ 12.2 years . [115, 116] _ mean 000000001C' ' _ 2. What was your age at your last birthday? 00000ooccC _ 34.6 years . [ 117 ,118 ] _ mean 000000000C s 3. How many people living here have a full time job? _ _ COCO'C0000C 1.5 mean [119,120] � COOOOCOCCD, C ® How many people living here have a part time job? 0000000000 s 1.2 mean (121,122] i 0000000000 4. Including yourself, how many people live here most of the time? 0000000000 _ 3.0 mean [123,124.] 000000000C' 5. How many of these people, including yourself are 00000-00000 over 18 years old? 0000000000 1.8 mean [125,126] _ O O O O O O O O O C% 6. what is your total monthly take home income from all sources. ooc0000CoIC� _ $ 886.48 mean [127, 128, 129, 130] mean OOOOOOOCvC $ 11,583 yearly mean 00000000001 _ 0000000001 vf _ 0000000000! _ 0000000000 _ OOOOOOOOOG _ 0000000000 _ 000000000C 0000000000 0000000000 _ UU s7. Do you receive any form of assistance? No (131] (Skip to #8, next page) Yes (131] --> What form of assistance do v you receive? (Read each: Check all that apply). • Type Amount - - - i- - - — i - - I — I — Social Security. [ 132 ] $ 411.82 Refugee Relief. [136] $ 000.00 Unemployment Benefits.[140] $ 999.00 Other? (Specify) c zaA A 87 0000000c00 00000000G0 0000000000 0000000-000 0000000000 0000000000 00000000v0 0000000000 _[133-135] mean 0000000000 _[137-139] 0000000000 0000000000 _[141-143] mean 000 00000 00 _(144,145] 0000000000 [146-148] mean General Assistance [149]_$ 199.22 [150-152] mean Aid to Dependent Children.[153] $ 389.00 [154-156] mean Food Stamps.[157] $ 103.69 [158-160] mean (IF CLIENT RECEIVES AID FROM ONE OF THE SOURCES IN f — THE BOX, ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTION) — Again using grades, like in school, how would you — grade the provider of ? A, B, C, D or F? (Fill in either GA, ADC, or Food Stamps, — depending of the answer above.) M - - - - 16.0% A [161,162) 22.7% B [161,162] 25.3% C (161,162] 18.7% D [161,162] or 17.3% F (161,162) Reported elsewhere in report p . 19. •0000000000 000.0000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 000000000.0 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 000000000E 0000000000 88 Why did you give the provider of r.A_ �T)(, 000000,0000 that orade? (Fill in as above) 0000000000 Reported elsewhere in this report p. 21. —0 000 100000C 000000000C 0000000000 (163,164) 0 0 O"C"', G 0 0 C C) G 00000 0 0 0 0— VC, 8. Is there anything else you would like to tell us 0000000000 0 about your housing? Not analyzed at this time 000000 000e 000000 1C. 0 0 (1-D 0000000000 0000000000 [165,166] 0000000000 Thank you very much for your time and your help!] 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 000000000.0 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 M. APPENDIX B Tenants Survey: Additional Information all 4 a 0 SURVEY OF HOUSING FOR LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS: LANSING, MICHIGAN MAJOR'REPAIR PROBLEMS* Fixed? Who fixed it? 1 Yes - Roof (brother). 2 Yes - Flooding basement (landlord fixed after 1- 1/2 weeks). 3 Yes - Back porch (landlord). 4 Yes - Landlord did after the city got after him. 5 No - Storm windows. 6 No - Basement leaks, stuff.has to be stored up on pallets. Smell is a problem. 7 Yes - Water pipe (landlord). 8 Yes - Sewer backed up into the basement, winter 1986 (landlord). 9 Yes - The city inspector had to come. Electrician fixed it. Plumbing: foundation problems. Fumigated. 10 Yes - (by tenant "because it was my fault") 11 Yes - Electricity, light, plumbing (landlord). 12 No - Stairway needs fixing but landlord hasn't gotten around to it yet. _ 13 No - Sump pump needs repair work, basement leaks every rain. 14 Yes - Ceiling that leaks (landlord). 15 No - Toilet still needs fixing. 16 Yes - Sump pump broke and was replaced by the housing commission --public housing. i. 91 :0 6 0 0 40 FJ 17 Yes - (a plumber). 18 Yes - (a plumber) 19 Yes - Plumbing problems (I fixed). 20 No - Waste water from upstairs drips down onto her apartment. Back door needs to be shut properly. 21 -No - Water in the basement ruined stored possessions. Cockroaches require extermination. *These were answers written by interviewer not in response to a specific question about major repairs. 0 92 ip` SURVEY OF HOUSING FOR LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS: LANSING, MICHIGAN Random Sample of Answers to Open Ended Questions (N = 30) Hildegarde Selig (Verbatim responses recorded by the interviewers) HOUSING AVAILABILITY Question 5. Would you say your experience finding this housing was: very easy, easy, difficult, very difficult? - Very easy - easy: • Economic reasons (+) (4) 1.9% 1. I pay the bills and have a good record. Did not take much time (43) 20.8% 1. Read ad, called landlord, interested right away, rented it on spot. 2. Picked up paper, found it and moved in the same day. 3. It was accidental, we were going out for a ride and we say the sign. 4. We say this place second or third and we liked it. 5. Saw ad, called and got it. 6. First one I looked at. 7. Landlord answered on first call. S. I needed an apartment but I wasn't looking when found this. .I Help from friends (65) 31.4% 1. I was working with"the person that owned the house at that time. 2. I knew the guy, my niece is his granddaughter. 3. A friend needed a roommate. 4. Knew people. 0 ON 5. Knew owner. 6. My daughter told me about the house. 7. Because we told Pete we were looking for a house so he brought us here. Help from an agency (2) 1.0% Other 1. I had experience with harder times finding.jobs. 2. Just easy. 0 - difficult - very difficult Economic reasons (-) (13) 6.3% 1. It was hard to find one in the price range we were looking for. 2. Wanted outrageous deposits, poor selection of houses and ridiculous rent. 3. Because low income. Discrimination (6) 2.9% 1. Because we are hispanic. Excess time (16) 7.7% 1. Long waiting list. 2. Looked for -over 1 and 1/2 months. Specific unit requirements (4) 1.9% 1. I looked at a lot of places before I found one suitable. 2. Because sometimes it is hard to find housing you want to live in. Specific personal requirements (9) 4.3% 1. I needed a roommate and closeness to LCC. U • •1 94 HOUSING GRADES Question 29A. Why did you give the housing that grade? A: (37) 18% Safety related 1. It is safe 'in case of tornado. Unit related 1. Well kept up. 2. They keep it up. Emotional i 1. It's the type of house I like. Privacy related 1. It like it, no one bothers me. B: (37) 18.0% Unit related �. 1. Maintenance has been kept up, no roof leaks or any needs of that type, well built. 2. Well kept up. 3. Housing is in good shape. 4. Not too good but not that bad. 5. Very spacious house. 6. It_isn't brand new, it does squeak now and then.- C: (77) 36.8% Unit related 1. It's a good value but poorly insulated. 2. Could be better. 3. Could use some fixing up, basement is not that good. 4. Not as good as it should be, but I've seen worse. Parking lot inadequate. 5. Repairs that have never been taken care of. 6. Crookedness (the floor). 7. Condition of the house. 95 Emotional 1. Everything works nice and warm --new carpet. 2. I don't like it. It's ugly and noisy. D• (16) 7.8% Unit related 1. Heating, plumbing and -heating 2. Sewers need cleaning, roofing needs repairs, painting should be done. 3. Lots of things'to be done. 4. Needs painting and a new carpet. 5. Leaky ceilings. Other 1. Because of other people that live here. F: (19) 9.3% Unit related 1. Take a look around. 2. Nothing works, refrigerator cuts off, stove doesn't work, no control over the heat, we have mice. Question '32. What do you like most about this housing? Location --convenient (51) 24.6% 1. The area, centrally located. 2. Close to everything. 3. Closeness to bus and church. 4. Location. Neighborhood --environment (23) 11.0% 1. Neighborhood. 2. It's in a nice neighborhood. 3. Quiet, near the park, recreational area in front. �. 4. It's quiet. Unit conditions (55) 26.6% 1. Two floors, having a yard. 2. The whole apartment. 3. It's big. 4. Wooden floor and big windows. 5. Lots of rooms 6. This house is bigger than our last home. 7. The porch and the big back yard. Pits family needs•(10) 4.8% 1. They don't mind renting with children. Economic reasons (23) 11.1% 1. The rent, everything is included. - - 2. Price. 3. Good condition for the price. 4. Cheap. Other (41) 19.8% i 1. I like the privacy. 2. The ability to buy the house. 3. Nothing. 4. I can stay in one place. 5. Having my own place. Question 33. If you could change any one thing about your housing, what would you change? Structural kitchen (6) 2.9% 1. Make the kitchen bigger. Structural bathroom (4) 1.9% 1. A modern bathroom. 2. The bathroom. Structural other (39) 18.9% 1. The stairs. 2. Level the floor. 3. Basement improvements. 4. Plumbing. • ♦ .97 5. Remodeling. • 6. Repairs. 7. Use better -materials of construction such as insulation. Cosmetic (24) 11.7% 1. Would add carpeting. 2. Color of the outside of the house. Amenities (10 ) 4 .9 % 1*. A jacuzzi in the basement. Surroundings --environment (17) 8.1% 1. The neighborhood. 2. Other occupants. 3. That noisy plant, the train tracks. Location --convenience (19) 9.2% • 1. Its location. Added space (35) 17.0% • 1. I wish it was bigger and fenced. 2. I'd like a place a little bigger. 3. I would like to have use of the basement and attic, they are both closed. •• Nothing (13) 6.3% Everything (8) 3.9% Other (24) 11.7% 1. Change to ownership instead of renting. 2. That the junk in the backroom will be moved away. 3. Roaches. • p i Question 34. Have you ever been turned down in trying to • rent in Lansing? Yes (52) 25.4% Economic (on assistance) (15) 28.3% 1. Because he wouldn't wait for the money from wel- fare. 2. Housing is hard to find on GA. 3. Because of ADC, most landlords don't want them. 46 Economic (9) 17.0% 1. Because of no credit history. Children (7) 13.2% 1. Because I have boys. Race of ethnic origin (6) 11.3 % r 1. Because I'm Indian. 2. I was racially discriminated. Aae (too young) (4) 7.5% Handicapped (1) 1.9% Pets (1) 1.9% Sexual Orientation (1) 1.9% Other (6) 11.3% 1. Didn't want unmarried couple living together. 2. Two years on waiting list. Question 7. Why did you give the provider of (GA, ADC)• that ♦ grade. A: (12) 16.0% 0 �M Quality of service (+) 1. They help in the way they can (ADC). B: (17) 22.7% • Quality of service 1. I wish they'd be a lot faster. They were there when we had nothing else (ADC). • Rules and regulations 1. They run your life (ADC). C: (19) 25.3% Economic adequacy (-) 1. I could say it is just enough to sustain to next month. 2. They don't give you enough money to live on. If my job wasn't exempted from considerations, rent would be too much. 3. They haven't straightened out the income change since my layoff, when my parents died. • Rules and regulations (15) 20.8% 1. A lot of rules. Can't live with the father of your child. 2. Rough starting and not sure from month to month if you will continue to be on it. Other 1. Its their fault that I'm on ADC. • D: (4) 18.7% Economic adequacy (-) 1. I could have had a better home to live in if my rent allowance were higher. • i� 100 F: (13) 17.3% • Economic adequacy (-) 1. Not enough money. ri D n u 101 APPENDIX C Map of Trade Zones (Census Tracts) W 102 TRADE ZO14ES 1985-86 Bresser's Index (Census Tracts) 71 n u 103 APPENDIX D Landlord Survey Questionnaire 104 RENTAL HOUSING - PROVIDERS Urban Affairs Programs at Michigan State University wants to learn about housing needs in the city of Lansing. The interview will take about 15 minutes: There are no right or wrong answers to the questions, and your willingness to answer the questions is purely voluntary. The answers you give us are strictly confidential. Your name or address will never be attached to your answers. Thank you. Bonnie Maas Morrison Project Director 353-95D6 0.. :] IA 105 First, we would like to know about the housing you rent. 1. Since 19eO, have you or do you presently rent housing to low income households? % N 85.7 (42) Yes. presently rent to low income households 6.1 (3) Yes, formerly rented to low income households r` If yes, formerly rented, indicate why you no longer rent to low income househol ds____mj_sus�_ZyQ-7.-_Sl) ________ --------------------------- otheLL2_Q - U1-------------- S-------------=------------------------------------------ 8. 2 _(. +!1 No, never rented to low income households If no, never rented to low income households, indicate why. ------- f ears z 2_ 0 7 LZ------------------ ------------- other , 6 19 _ ( 3)----------------------------- ------------------------7------------------------------- NOTE: TERMINATE INTERVIEW AFTER ANSWERED; IF YES FORMERLY OR NEVER RENTED TO LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLD. 2. How many years have you been involved in renting housing to low income households? N 9.1 (4) Less than one (1 ) year 13.6 (6) 1-3 years 15.9 (7) 4-6 years 44 cases 61.4 (27) 7 or more years 3. How many of each of the following types of housing units do you rent to low income households? (Check I ✓3 all that apply) N Range Mean 1.3 # (11) Rooming houses 1 only 24.0 # (18) Single family 1-83 units 10.2 --- # (0) Mobile homes --- --- 18.7 # (14) Duplexes (2 units) 1-25 units 4.1 9.3 # (7)_ Triplexes (3 units) 1-7 units 2.4 22.7 # (17) Fourplexes (4 units) 1-7 units 1.9 NOTE: Question #3 will be continued on next page) 106 3. How many of each of the following types of housing units do you rent to low income households? (Continued from previous page) %Aeartments Range Mean 6.7 # (5) 5-6 units 1 - 400 81.6 . 5.3 # (4) 7-8 units 1 - 8 5.5 1.3 # (1) 9-10 units 1 - 2 2.0 10.7 # (8) 10 + units 1 - 600 115.7 4. Of the total number of housing units you rent to low income households, approximately how many are: Range Mean # _(12)_ Efficiency/studio 0 - 56 10.3 # (27) 1 bedroom' 1 - 300 18.4 # (31) 2 bedroom 1 - 300 24.7 # (14) 3 bedroom 1 - 35 7.3 # (4) 4 bedroom 0 - 14 4.0 # (1) 5 bedroom 0 - 7 7.0 5. What is the average monthly rent you charge for: With or Without Utilities N -------------------------------- ----------- (11) S _168_82 -- Efficiency/studio 90_9 Yes _9_1 No (25) S _213_52-__ 1 bedroom 844.6 Yes 11_5 No (30) S 288.27 -- ------- 2 bedroom 71.0 ---- Yes 29.0 ---- No (13) ' S 313.08 --- ------ 3 bedroom 21.4 ---- Yes. 78.6 ---- No (2) $ ______ 4 bedroom 50_0 Yes 50_0 No (1) S 353.00 5 bedroom 100.0 Yes --- No (1) S 113.00 a room in 100.0 Yes No rooming house • 107 6. Do you require a written lease? N • (32) Yes 13.,] : 1_1j47 Month -to -month (5) 6 months (2) 12 months • _ 2_3__ Other. Specify _�152 week lease (11) No _25_074 If no, what kind of agreement do you require? .9.3 Month -to -month (4) • 10.2 Other. Specify_' ecif (5) oral (1) 2 3% ajLreements________________ • 7. Did you require a security deposit? 7 N 97.7 Yes (43) 2.3 No (1) 8. If yes, are the tenants required to pay it all at once? 7 N 77.3 No (34) 20.5 Yes (9) • 9. If yes, how much is it 101.89 70.5_ First month in advance (31) • __ 9.1_ First and last months in advance (4) 11.4 Other. Specify. ____________(5)_ 10. Do you rent to tenants on public assistance? 7 N 11_4 No (5) 88_6 Yes (39) • If yes, do you require vendored payments?___________ N ------------- ---------- (3)------------------- 39.5 yes (17) 20.9 no (9) • 32.6 sometimes (14) 0 108 11. To your knowledge, approximately what percent of your tenants are on some form of assistance? 41.0 iC of tenants (43) 12. In general, have you used government assistance as a landlord? % N ' f 25 _p_ Yes. If yes, what? (11) _ --- Construction --- 11.6 Weatherization (5) _2.3 Rent Subsidies (1) ____ Home Improvements --- 4.7 Rehabilitation (2) 7.0 ---- Other. Specify. ----------------------------------- (3) --------------------------------------------------------- N ja,,,:L No. If no, why not?-_-__C30).................. .... 13. Which of the following do you provide as a part of the rent? (Check E /3 all that apply). N 95.5 Stove (42) 95.5 _ Refrigerator (42) 25.0 Washer (11) 25_0 - Dryer (11) 11.6 Dishwasher (5) 63_6- Garbage Disposal (28) 39_5- Garbage Removel (Light payments) (17) 65.9 Heat (29) 43_2- Light (Electricity) (19) 75.0 Hot Water (33) 31.8 Other. Specify __________________ () W a• _W o 14. In general, what percent of the low income housing units you rent are": % N -9_0 Fully furnished (4) -6_8 Partly furnished (3) 84.1 Not furnished at all (37) . • ("Furnished" means sofas, tables, beds, dressers -- not stove, etc., as in question 11). Only for landlords or managers with large complexes, public or private. 15. Do you provide a community room or clubhouse for tenants' use �. as a part of the housing you rent N to low income households? % 9.1 Yes (4) 90.9 No (40) W: If'yes, what is it used for N (Check t'✓ 3 all that apply) 1,Q0._0 Meetings (4) LQQj0 Part es (4) Children's programs (2) 7J_00ther. Specify ---- (3_1___________________________- Now we would like to know your opinion on responsibilities and rights. �.. 16. In your opinion, what is your most important reseonsibility as a landlord? -------See tables ----------- ----------------------- ---------- 40. • 110 17. In your opinion, what is your most important right as a landlord? -----See tables. --------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- 18. In your opinion,.what is the most important responsibility of any tenant? • See tables. --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- • 19. In your opinion, what is the most important right of any tenant? • ----See_-tahles------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- �jm This time we would like to know how you would grade aspects of housing. �. 20. Like in school, grade all of your low income tenants as a group. % N 18.2 A (8) C 20.5 B (9) • 43.2 C (19) 9.1 D or (4) 9.1 F (4) • Why did you give this grade? -------------------------------- See -------------------------------------------------------------- tables. �M 6" 111 • 40 0 21. In general, grade the overall 1housing you rent. 20.5 A (9) 47.7 B (21) 25.0 C (11) Mean 2.7 C+ 4.5 D or (2) 2.3 F (1) Why did you give this grade? -__ See -tables ------ -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- 22. Once again, grade yourself as a landlor . 43.2 A (19) 43.2-B (19) 11.4 C (5) Mean 3.2 B --- D --- 2.3 F or (1) Why did you give yourself this grade? ------ -Sep--tah1e_q----------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- 23. Why do you provide housing to low income tenants? ------------- -------------------------------------------- �. ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ 0. C 112 24. How profitable do you thihk it is to provide housing to low income households? 7 2. Very profitable (4) 45.5 Somewhat profitable (20) 43.2 Not profitable (19) 24A. Why did you say that providing housing to low income tenants was See tables. --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- 25. What do you like most about providing housing to low income tenants? • See tables. ------------------ 26. If you could change one thing about providing housing to low M'. income tenants, what would it be? ---------See tables-------------------------------- --------- • Why? ........................................................ -------------------------------------------------------------- LIN 0 0 113 27. Will you continue to provide housing for low income households? N 79_5 Yes. Why? _ (35) --------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- 18.2 No. Why not? (8) --- ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- 29. Are you the mental housing 7 2.3 Owner (1) 11_4 Manager (5) 86_4 Both owner and manager (38) 29. Is the housing you rent % N No reponse 4.1 2 Privately owned Privately 79.6 39 Public 6.1 3 Public housing Blank 10.2 5 U 0 �, J •, 114 APPENDIX E Homeless Survey and Information ;�1ICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY URBAN AFFAIRS PROGRAMS OWEN GRADUATE CENTER June 1986 115 EAST LkNSI.NG • MICHIGAN • 48824-1100 Urban Affairs Programs at Michigan State University wants to learn about housing needs in the city of Lansing. The interview will take about 15 minutes. There are no right or wrong answers to the questions, and your willingness to answer the questions is purely voluntary. There is no penalty for not answering. In other words, your willingness to cooperate does not have ahy- f thing to do with you being able to stay in this shelter. The answers you give us are strictly confidential. Your name or address will never be attached to your answers. • Thank you. Bonnie Maas Morrison Project Director 353-9506 • AISV u an Affirmative .4ction!Equal OpportunitY Institution • 116 First of all, we are interested in knowing about your housing situation. 46 1. How lons; have you lived in Lansing, Michigan? 6-1R Number of days (1) 1-6 Number of months (2). 22_7 Number of years (3) (mean) 5.2 years 2. Where did you come here from? i (4) How long did you live there? # months (5) # 1, all life years (6) 3. In the past days, months, years, in about how many • places in Lansing have you lived? 1-20 Number of places (7) 4.4 places (mean) • 4. In the past, have you ever owned a house? (N=12) 100% No (If no, go to question 5) (8) Yes (9) • If yes, how long ago was that? months (10, 11) years (12, 13) • If yes, where was the house located? In Lansing (14) Other. Where? (15) • 1171 If yes, why do you no longer own a house? 5. In the past, have you ever rented a house or apartment? (Circle which one) No (17). If no, go to question S. inn-- Yes (18) (N = 12) I If yes, how long ago was that? 10 Number of days (19, 20) Number of months (21, 22) 13 Number of years (23, 24) If yes, did you rent it on your own or with others? on own (25) 33.3% with others (26) how many (27) If yes, what was the main reason you no longer rent a house or apartment? See reasons page 127. (28) 118 6. How long have you lived in this place (Name of �. shelter: )? I Number of days (29, 30 ) 1 'Number of months (31, 32 ) If appropriate, number of years (33, 34) 7. Have you lived in any other shelter(s)? i 66.6% No (35) 33.3% Yes (36) If yes, which one(s) (37), (38), (39) S. How much longer can you live in this place? Number of days (40, 41) see answers page 127. Number of months (42, 43) 9. Have you ever lived in this shelter before? ..Z,--- No ( 44 ) 25% Yes (45) If yes, how many times # (46) 10. Have you ever been refused by a shelter? j 00% No (47) Yes (48) • • 119 11. How did you learn about this place? Word of mouth (49) Referred by a community agency (50) Other? what or by who - (51) 12. Like in school, what grade would you give this shelter? 66.6% A (52) 25.0$ 3 (52) C (52) D (52) or F (52) 13. Why did you give it this grade? see page 128 (53) f 14. Have you ever lived out of doors? (In the street?) 50% No (54). If no, go on to question 15. 50% Yea (55) If yes, have you ever lived in an abandoned building or place without heat or running water? No (56) see page 128 Yes (57) • 71 120 If yes, how long? days (58) 5 years (59) If yes, why was it necessary for you to live -out of doors (in the street)? (60) 15. Have you ever baen taken in by a friend or someone not in your family? No 41.7%(61) Yes 58.3%(62) 16. Where are you going to go after you leave this shelter? see answers page 130. 46 (63) 17. At this time, are you looking for a house or apartment to rent? 41% No (64) found place already j- If no, why not? • (65) u 46 0 0 58.3%Yes (66) If yes, where do you get information about houses or apartments for rent? see page 129 (67) 18.' At the present time, are you alone or with someone else (friend, companion, husband/wife or child(ren)? 58.3%No (68) 41.7%Yes (69) If yes, who? (70) see page 129 19. Have you actually gone to look at houses or apartments to rent in Lansing? 0% No (71) If not, why not? 100% Yes (73) If yes, would you say the experience of looking for houses or apartments to rent was 0% Very easy (74) 250 Easy (75) 25% Difficult (76) 50% Very difficult (77) (72) 121 C 122 20. Why did you say that? see nacre 130, 419. (78) qW 21. Have you ever wanted to rent a house or apartment, but were turned down by a landlord or rental agent? • 41.7%No (79) 58.3%Yes (80) If yes, why do you think you were turned down? i (81) 22. Have you ever had anyone help you find a place to rent (act as your representative)? 58.3%No (82) 41.7% Yes (83) If yes, did they succeed? _20% No (84) 80% Yes (85) 23. Do you have transportation to go see places that are for rent? 33.3%No (86) 66.6%yes (87). If yes, what kinds of transportation? Buses Friends'car Family • 123 24. Do the people in the shelter try to help you find housing? 0% No (88) 100% Yes (89) 25. Do you know of any agencies or social services that can help you locate housing? 16.6% No (90) 83.4%Yes (91) If yes, what are they? see page 131 (92) (93) (94) 26. In the future, do you think that you will find rented housing? 0 No (95) It no, why not? (96) 100% Yes (97) If yes, why do you think you will find rented housing? see page 131 (98) • 124 If yes, how long do you think it will take you to find rented housing? see page 131 (99) 27. What do you think would improve your chances of finding housing? see page 131 (10 0 ) 28. Is there anything else you would like to tell us about your housing situation? see page 132 (101) Finally, a few questions to help us better understand your housing needs. 1. What was the last grade of school you completed? 10.5 (Mean) (102) rl 2. What was your age at your last birthday? 31 (Mean)-- (103 ) rl • 0 125 3. Do you have an income? 62.5% No (104) 37.5% yes (105) If yes, is it... 100% Regular (106) 0% Irregular (107) If regular, is your income from (Check all that apply) 33.3% Employment/job (108) Unemployment benefits (109) 33.3% Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) (110) General Assistance (GA) -(III) Social Security (112) Supplemental Social Security (113) Disability (114) 33.3% Veterans benefits (VA) (115) Other (116) If yes, what is the amount of your monthly income?. $307.00 (mean) (117, 118, 119, 120) If irregular, is your income from (Check all that apply) Day labor (121) Handouts (122) Other (123) 7 LM • 126 • • L 1. How long have you lived in Lansing, MI? Responses vary from 6 days to 27 years. The mean is 5.2 years. Days range from 6 to 18 days Months range from 1 to 6 months Years range from 2 to 27 years 2. Where did you come here from? RESPONSES 2 5 5 5 came from out-of-state (Florida, Indiana, Arkansas, Illinois, Mississippi) 4 came from the Detroit metropolitan area • 2 came from other parts of Michigan (Alma and Kalamazoo) How long did you live there? They lived from where they came anywhere from 1 years to their entire lives. 3. Since you have been in the Lansing area, in about how many places have you lived? The range varies from 1 place to 20. - 3 have only stayed in a shelter - 3 in one place 2 in two places 1 in three places 1 in eight places • - 1 in twelve places - 1 in twenty places The mean is 4.4 places. 4. In the past, have you ever owned a house? All twelve responses were "No." 5. In the past, have you ever rented a house or apartment? • All. twelve responses had rented in the past. Most of them had rented apartments. The time since they had last rented ranged from 10 days ago to 13 years ago. • 5. In the past, have you ever rented a house or apartment? (Continued) Distribution 1 - 10 days ago .� 3 - 1 to 3 months ago 3 - 1 to 2 years ago 2 - 3 to 4 years ago 1 - 13 years ago 2 - Did not answer 0. Did you rent it alone or with others? 8 rented on their own 4 rented with anywhere from 1 to 4 others The main reasons for no longer renting a house or apartment? 3 - Could no longer afford to rent 3 - Moved from another state or city 2 - Threats of violence or disagreement with other living mates 2 - Eviction 0 1 - Water shut off 1 - No reason given b. How long have you lived in this shelter? The responses varied from 1 day to 1 month. The mean length a person had been in a shelter was 11 days. 7. Have you lived in any other shelter? • 8 people had never lived in any other shelter. 3 had stayed in a shelter before. 1 - Had stayed in one in Florida 1 - Had stayed in one in Detroit 1 - Had stayed in three shelters in this area • (Salvation Army, Volunteers of America, and Loaves and Fishes) 8. How much longer can you live in this place? • People were confused with the rules at the shelters and did not know for sure how long they could stay. Many answered, "As soon as I can find somewhere else to go." There are policies at the shelter for the length of stays. These are flexible and extensions are given, but the average length is about 2 1/2 weeks. 127 . • 9. Have you ever lived in this shelter before? 9 answered, "No." 3 answered, "Yes." (1 had stayed twice, 1 had stayed three times, and 1 once) 10. Have you ever been refused by a shelter? None had been refused by a shelter before: (All twelve answered, "No.") 11. How did you learn about this place? 5 had been referred by a community agency, either DSS, Red Cross, Salvation Army, Emergency Referral, or Legal Aid. 7 had been told about the shelters from either posters (2), another shelter (1) , a family member (1) , or the mayor's office (1). 12. Like in school, what grade would you give this shelter? 8 gave the shelter an "A" 3 gave the shelter a "B" 1 did not answer 13. Why this grade? Reasons given were that the people at the shelters treated them well, and took care of their needs. 14. Have you ever lived out of doors? 6 answered "No." 6 had lived out of doors or in abandoned buildings. Reasons given: 5 - No place to go because of being kicked out of home or evicted or simply no place to go 1 - Lived in a condemned building for 1 year The time spent out of doors ranged from 3 days to 5 years. 15. Have you ever been taken in by a friend or someone not in your family? 5 - No 7 - Yes 128 r, 129 16. Where are you going to go after you leave this shelter? 5 - Found a place (2 with the help of ECC; 1 with the help of DSS) 4 - Hope to find a place 1 - Probably found a place 1 - Get a place 1 - Don't know 17. At this time, are you looking for a house or apartment to rent? 5 - No Why not? 5 - Found a place already 7 - Yes Where do you get information? 1 - Blank 4 - Paper 1 - Go out and look 1 - Friend 1 - Someone tells me 1 - Housing Assistance Foundation 1 - Housing lists in ECC 1B. Are you alone or with someone? 7 - Alone 5 - With someone Who? 2 - With spouse/lover and kids 3 - With kids 19. Have you actually gone to look at houses or apartments for rent? O - No 12 - Yes How was the experience of looking? Very easy O Easy 3 Difficult 3 Very difficult 6 0 F7 130 19. Have you actually gone to look at houses or apartments for rent? (Continued) Why did you say that? Those saying "Very Difficult": 2 - Large family, kids 1 - No transportation 1 - Hard to find a place DSS will pay for 1 - Hard to find a good location 1 - Fees for -security deposit and application are hard to pay for Those saying "Difficult": 2 - Takes a long time to find an affordable place 1 - Landlords sometimes want references 1 - Emergency assistance may not accept you r Those saying "Easy": 2 - Good transportation 1 - People in shelter are helping r 21. Have you ever been turned down by a landlord or rental agent?- 5 - No 7 - Yes Why were you turned down? 4 - Kids 2 - Don't accept people on assistance 1 - They didn't think I could afford it 1 - Didn't have cash or all the necessary papers 22. Have you ever had anyone help you find a place to rent? 7 - No 5 - Yes Did they succeed? 1 - No 4 - Yes 235. Do you have transportation to see places? 4 - No 8 - Yes • What kinds: 5 - Buses 1 - Bike 2 - Own car 1 - Shelter's car 7 131 24. Do the people in the shelter help you find housing? 0 - No 12 - Yes 25. Do you know of any agencies or social services that can help you find housing? 2 - No 10 - Yes What ones? 1 - ECC 2 - DSS 2 - CADA 2 - Housing Assistance Foundation 1 - Franklin Realty (Have housing lists) 1 - Red Cross 1 - Rescue Mission 1 - Legal Aid 1 - Community Service and Referral Center 1 - Urban League 1 - Rehabilitation Services 1 - Loaves and -Fishes 26. In the future, do you think you will find housing? 0 - No 12 - Yes Why? 4 - Already found 3 - Just have to get out and look 1 - Making some money soon 1 - Am working with a real estate agency 1 - Not sure 1 - Because resources are available -- just have to know how system works How long til find housing? :c = 18 days Range = 1 day to 1.5 months 27. What would improve your chances of finding housing? 2 - More money r 2 - Don't know 2 - Spending more time out there 1 - Revamp the whole system 1 - Finding landlords at the property I - Transportation 1 - Someone to assist me 1 - Smaller family E 132 28. Anything else you'd like to tell us? 1 - Need a place fast 1 - Hard because you get cut from assistance sometimes for no reason and it takes a while to get back on 1 - I would like to have a nice house 1 - Right now it's very expensive 1 - More places, more vacancy in Lansing than other places 3 - ECC volunteers (formerly homeless): Only emergency housing they have are burnt outs. The only thing wrong with some empty houses and apartments is broken windows; should fix these up. Not enough low-income housing through DSS. Lansing has a lot of boarded -up houses -- should make houses available to private non-profit agencies to fix up. Need public aid to help with fixing wiring and plumbing in low-cost housing (because it's too expensive for the people to afford). Have landlords coordinate with temporary shelters. Last grade completed in school? x = 10.5 range = 3 to 14 Age: x = 31 range = 20 to 53 Do you have an income? 5 - No 3 - Yes 3 - Regular 0 - Irregular Where is your income from? 1 - Employment 1 - ADC 1 - VA Amount of monthly income? x = $307 range = $216-$400 r Sex: 8 F 4 - M Race: 5 - Black 7 - White • 133 • C • • APPENDIX F Definitions of Terms •4 • • 0. 134 • DEFINITIONS OF TERMS • _ The following are a set of terms that have been used either in the text of this report or have been used in the process of the research itself. • Ninetv-Five Percent Confidence Interval: A standard error of estimation of 5% was set prior to selecting the samples for both the tenants and the landlord/ managers surveys. This was done to determine the size of each sample (independently), and further to insure • that the two samples would be representative .of the total population of the low income renters, and the landlord/managers surveyed in Lansing, Michigan. The 95% confidence interval was also set to insure that in no more than 5% of the time would differences found in the data be due to sampling error. Construction, Demolition, and Conversions. These terms were used in the heading of Table 3.6, pp. 24-25. Each of these changes require a building permit from the City of Lansing's Building Department. • Construction is to build. In this study the addi- tion of "new housing" units to the housing stock. WI U, 135 Demolition is to raze, to tear down. In this study to remove housing units from the housing stock. Conversion is to, transform, to change form, func- tion and/or type of use. In this study: • Conversions (+) is to change single family dwelling or other buildings (i.e., school house, etc.) into 2• or • more dwelling units, thus addincr housing units to the housing stock. • Conversions (-) is changing a multi- dwelling (2 or more units) into a single family dwelling, or a housing unit becomes converted to offices or other uses, thus subtracting housing units from the housing stock. Utilities are defined in both the tenant and the landlord studies as services such as electricity (lights), heat and • water provided by a public or private company. The cost of utilities are sometimes included in the rent paid or :7 • 136 • charged. In this report the only utilities discussed were heat and light (electricity). Assistance or Public Assistance is financial aid provided by • a state or federal government agency. In this study Assist- ance or Public Assistance is only: • • • General Assistance (GA) Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) Trade Zones. In the Bresser's Index. 1985-86 used (along with the 1980 Census tract information) to develop the sampling frame for selecting low income tenants, Census Tract are called "Trade Zones." Bresser's Index is used in business and industry to develop the sampling frames for market studies of populations of differing characteristics, so that advertising campaigns and product promotion can be specifically aimed at particular income groups with particu- lar consumer characteristics. The Bresser's Index catego- rizes Census Tracks in terms of what they call "wealth and income rationale." In this study the Bresser's Index categorization of $E Value Trade Zones were selected. These $E Value Trade Zones were the lowest properity value and annual income areas in the city of Lansing, with average properity values of between $18,100 and $30,200, and average • annual incomes of between $3,800 and $18,000. There were a total of -16 $E Value Trade Zones in the City of Lansing. • 46 137 All 16 $E Trade Zones (census tracks) were used as the • sampling frame for the study. r • 0. • Definitions of Census Categories Gross Rent is the contract (verbal or lease) rent plus estimated cost of utilities and fuels. Median Income is the amount which divides the dis- tribution into two equal groups, one-half having income below the median and the other half having income above the median (50% below, 50% above). Mean Income is the amount obtained when a particu- lar statistical universe is divided by the number in the universe, thus mean .household income is obtained by dividing the total (all incomes in the statistical universe) by the total number of households. u • 138 • • 7 • F] u Income Below the Poverty Level If the poverty level is $10,000 Income below: 75% is $7,500 150% is $15,000 200% is $20,000