Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
-
Upload
leslie-provence -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
1/51
Community Gardening on Public Housing Properties:
Where, Who, How, Why and Why Not?
By
Leslie Provence
B.A. Natural Sciences (Geology major, Botany minor)
The University of Texas at Austin, 1974
Exit Paper
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirementsfor the Degree of
Master of Public Administration
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
2/51
Table of Contents
Abstract................................................................................................................................1
Introduction..........................................................................................................................2
Community Gardening.........................................................................................................3
Public Housing.....................................................................................................................4
Research Questions..............................................................................................................5
Literature Review.................................................................................................................6
Methodology......................................................................................................................11
Variables ............................................................................................................................12
Analysis..............................................................................................................................13
Findings..............................................................................................................................14
Characteristics of the Organizations Responding..............................................................14
Priorities.............................................................................................................................17
Degree of Involvement ......................................................................................................19
Perceived Likelihood of Positive or Negative Outcomes ..................................................25
Multivariate Regression Analysis......................................................................................26
Encouragements or Barriers for Community Gardens in Public Housing ........................27
Specific Findings of Interest to HA Administration..........................................................28
Implications of the Study for Policy Change.....................................................................29
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
3/51
Tables
1. Frequencies for variables from the HUD database for responders in the sample..15
2. Frequencies for demographic variables asked on the survey.................................16
3. Frequencies for top three priorities, reclassified into major categories of concern(listed alphabetically).............................................................................................17
4. Degree of involvement of HA in community gardening .......................................20
5. a-d. Frequencies for follow-up questions for those with active gardening programs(How long? How many projects? Who runs them? How well are theyworking for you?)...........................................................................................21, 22
6. Regression model seeking to explain degree of involvement in communitygardening in terms of HA characteristics and correlated survey responses...........26
Appendices
A. Text of online survey .............................................................................................37
B. Cover e-mail and reminder e-mails........................................................................40
C. Variables derived from the survey and their levels of measurement.....................43
D. Correlation of potential variables for regression model ........................................44
E. Graph of total scores for likelihood of positive outcomes.....................................45
F. Graph of total scores for likelihood of negative outcomes....................................45
G. Cross-tab of trichotomized directional involvement by positive indextrichotomized, with Pearson Chi-Square and Kendall's tau-c................................46
H. Cross-tab of trichotomized directional involvement by negative index
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
4/51
Community Gardening on Public Housing Properties:
Where, Who, How, Why and Why Not?
Abstract
This study examines the degree to which community gardening is sponsored or permittedon public housing properties in the United States. Relevant literature centers oncommunity capital and urban studies. The principal hypothesis of this study is thatcompeting priorities at the Housing Authority level would place community gardening inthe background of concerns and discourage its use. To test this, an online survey wasconducted in the spring of 2007 to a stratified sample of Housing Authorities in theUnited States, selected from a database provided by HUD.
Regression analysis explained only 22% of the variation in involvement at the HousingAuthority level. The commitment to gardening exists at the individual level (theresidents), and thus HA characteristics do not explain its presence or absence. While
more urgent priorities exist at all HAs, gardening is done anyway, if the residents want it.
For policies that would promote community gardening on HA properties, advocatesshould connect the benefits of gardening to HUD strategic goals and HA priorities suchas tenant empowerment and building community. Connecting HA staff and residentswith broader community resources could supplement slim resources and buildcommunity capital both on and off the properties.
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
5/51
2
Introduction
In the 1990s, an Anglo corporate mentor walked through a bleak San Antonio
housing project to visit her mentee, the second-youngest daughter of a large Hispanic
family. Mentoring sessions took place at school, but this time the mentor had been invited
to the home. As she looked for the familys apartment, a patrol car pulled up beside her
and an officer inside the car advised that she really should not be there because it was a
very dangerous place. The mentor was shocked at the degree of disconnection between
the officers and the neighborhood and people they were charged with protecting. Of
course she would go in; her young friend lived there and was waiting for her.
Perhaps the officers concern was not entirely misplaced. While the girl lived
there, one afternoon a visiting youth was shot to death on the basketball court, and
another time, a non-resident was shot by police on the property following an attempted
robbery at a nearby convenience store. Nevertheless, the mentor never felt threatened by
any residents she encountered, and walking through the barren, beaten-down grounds to
go to and from the apartment, she only wondered how anyone could live there without
becoming chronically discouraged about life. She imagined how different the place could
look with flowerbeds and perhaps even a vegetable garden, as the homes in her
neighborhood commonly featured.
The mentor later became aware of the growing movement of community
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
6/51
3
and a sense of connection and engagement with the larger community. Lowered crime
rates, environmental benefits, and many other benefits are also claimed by advocates.
Rarely is criticism heard, or any list of drawbacks.
This study examines the degree to which community gardening is sponsored or
permitted on public housing properties in the United States. The effects of community
gardening as described in the social science literature are considered, as well as issues of
housing and community capital described in that literature.
With that information as a basis, public housing authority directors were surveyed
regarding their organizations priorities, the degree to which gardening is being done on
their properties, their opinions of its purported benefits or drawbacks, and their thoughts
as to what might prevent or encourage its wider use.
Community Gardening
Community gardening can be described as the practice of growing vegetables,
flowers, or other plants on land owned publicly or leased by a community group. It takes
many forms and attracts a diversity of gardeners. Many community gardens are in urban
areas where residents lack ground space of their own, but they exist also in suburban
neighborhoods as a form of community activity, on school grounds for educational use,
and as community aesthetic features. In the United States, most community gardens are
run by non-profit groups, or are administered by the city parks department, a university,
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
7/51
4
excellent account of the history of community gardening in the U.S., including its
sometime association with public housing. She says, In the 1950s and 1960s public
housing authorities in Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia promoted garden clubs
among tenants for purposes of beautification (xiii). At other times, apparently, gardening
has been dropped as a priority. This study will assess the current state of association
between community gardening and public housing properties.
Public Housing
Information about public housing was obtained from the Public Housing
Authority Directors Association (PHADA). The current system of public housing in the
United States began during Franklin D. Roosevelts New Deal in the 1930s. Blighted
properties in communities were acquired and rebuilt. The federal government subsidized
capital expenditures, so that the properties could be rented at rates that only had to cover
the operating costs. After this action was held by the Supreme Court to exceed federal
authority, legislation was passed in all 50 states, at FDRs urging, establishing a
mechanism for public housing authorities to operate in localities.
These Housing Authorities (HAs) have their own political boundaries and are not
part of local government, although the local government can appoint the board of
directors. HAs are independent of the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), and can participate in other corporations. They have power of eminent domain
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
8/51
5
contracts with HUD were at the HA level; since the 1990s, however, HUD has moved to
a project-based system of oversight, making HA managers resemble private sector
property managers. This change mirrors the increasing levels of privatization that have
prevailed in the federal government toward state and local services since the 1980s.
Each HAs share of funds is determined by a formula: the difference between the
communitys average rent and the cost of operation should be the subsidy. For FY 2007,
HUD estimated a need of $4.6 to $4.7 billion, but the House of Representatives passed
appropriations of only $3.6 billion. This amount represents a shortfall of $1.1 billion, or
23% of the needed subsidy. In most federal programs, if the federal government does not
provide the level of funding that a program should have, the program no longer has to
meet federal standards. The public housing contract, however, has no relief in the event
of a shortfall (James Armstrong, personal communication, 2007).
This information is given to emphasize the degree to which HA administrators are
pressed with competing priorities and conflicting demands. The effect of these pressures
will be considered in relation to the research questions.
Research Questions
The questions to be investigated are:
1. To what degree is community gardening encouraged, sponsored, orpermitted by public HAs in the United States?
2. Are there common characteristics of organizations where it is or is not
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
9/51
6
For the purposes of this study, community gardening in public housing is
defined as any gardening activity in which public housing property or public housing
residents are involved, with the knowledge of HA officials.
The public housing examined here is that administered by Public Housing
Authorities in the United States with Low-Rent properties. The sample selection does not
include HAs whose sole program type is Section 8 (housing vouchers).
Literature Review
Literature linking community gardening to public housing is sparse, compared to
the extensive literatures found on each topic separately. Where they intersect, the
perspective is mainly from advocacy of gardening as a means of developing community
capital to improve the lives of residents and the housing property. There seems to be none
that examines the likelihood of gardening in relation to competing priorities in the
housing authority administration.
The American Community Gardening Association issued a monograph in 1992
titled A Research Agenda for the Impact of Community Greening. This work is a
listing of critical research areas aimed at researchers, practitioners, and public officials.
It is organized around individual, group, and economic effects, seeking to quantify
benefits in order to persuade policymakers more convincingly through data than through
anecdote. Some of the potential benefits of community gardening that could relate to
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
10/51
7
suggests that a preponderance of anecdotal evidence on the benefits of gardening might
persuade public officials as well as empirical data would.
Cornell University oversees a collaborative education program called Garden
Mosaics. Studies listed on their website (www.gardenmosaics.cornell.edu) about benefits
of garden projects measured in terms of educational gains, behavior, and engagement
could be marshaled to demonstrate to housing policymakers the likelihood of reducing
juvenile crime on housing properties.
This dimension is examined by Blomley (2004), in his study of crime prevention
programs undertaken by residents acting in a proprietary way toward public spaces. He
asserts that action taken on a property denotes a sense of ownership, and that the
appearance of being cared for gives a property some immunity against abuses such as
vandalism or dumping of trash. He studies attitudes of inclusion and exclusion among
those observed or interviewed. The issue of felt ownership by gardeners versus legal
title is alluded to. This issue has caused controversy in cities such as New York and Los
Angeles when improved plots gain in value, also increasing the value of surrounding
properties, and are then slated for sale or commercial development by their legal owners.
One benefit of gardening on public housing property, for example, might be secure
ownership, even though the participants might change with greater frequency. While
political and theoretical in nature, Blomleys study is of interest regarding actions
undertaken in communal spaces as a potential influence on crime prevention.
http://www.gardenmosaics.cornell.edu/http://www.gardenmosaics.cornell.edu/ -
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
11/51
8
connection measured by dimensions including voting, newspaper readership, and
association membership. Numerous writers seeking to quantify the benefits of
community gardening have applied this theory in their work.
One such study is by Glaeser and Sacerdote (2000). In a much-cited paper, they
explore a link between housing structure and social connection. Variables include the
type of housing, including house, apartment, and big apartment building; dimensions of
citizenship, including whether the subject participates in gardening or yard work;
employment; and crime (distinguishing street crime from on-property crime) in relation
to the type of housing. They find that residents of large apartment buildings are more
likely to be socially connected with their neighbors, but are less involved in local politics
and less connected with public infrastructure and public space. Additionally, they find
that street crime is more common around big apartment buildings because of a lower
connection between people in apartments and the streets that surround them.
DeFilippis (2001) takes issue with Putnam and the strand of community capital,
saying that low-income communities have networks; what they lack, he says, is economic
capital and political power.
Various other authors see community gardens as a means of connecting with
those resources through organizing as advocates for the garden. For example, Twiss et al.
(2003) presents a field action report, a compact survey of California community
gardens. The hypothesis is that community gardens enhance nutrition and physical
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
12/51
9
measures were number of gardens, number of participants, and self-reported change of
eating habits and physical activity. Elements found to be critical to success of
community gardening projects in a city included commitment of local leadership and
staffing, involvement of volunteers and community partners, and availability of skill-
building opportunities for participants (p. 1436).
In a Canadian study testing the hypothesis that community gardens in housing
projects are among ways of building community capital, Hancock (2001) proposes a
four capitals model. This concept is diagrammed as three partially overlapping circles
representing social, ecological, and economic capital, with human capital as a fourth
circle at the center, extending into all of the intersections. The study recommends a long-
term commitment to multiple small steps with a margin for failure, and asserts that
failures will provide opportunities for learning and should not be penalized. By keeping
the steps incremental, he says, any such failures will have small impact, and the
accumulation of small successes with some small setbacks will result in net positive
change.
In addition to these sources, numerous non-academic accounts have been
published that describe particular community gardening projects. Most are not connected
with public housing, but the projects listed can be a good source of information about
public policy, practices, and benefits connected with community gardening. These
accounts provide evidence of the existence of community gardening in particular
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
13/51
10
In the area of housing, challenges posed to administrators of public housing by
legislative changes were forecast by Quercia and Galster (1997). The mandate for public
HAs to function more like private property managers introduces conflicting goals: while
providing for the neediest, they must cross-subsidize by attracting non-subsidized tenants
and attracting private capital.
Housing as part of the new urbanism is treated by Talen (2002) and by Basolo
and Strong (2002). These articles mention gardening in passing, as a good development
where it exists, but do not specifically promote it. This level of treatment seems to be the
norm in journals and websites dealing with public housing. There might be the occasional
how-to-start-one (HUD 2002) or profiles of an existing garden (CDC 2005), but
gardening as a recognized solution to the challenges of managing public housing property
(e.g. empowerment, community building, health promotion, crime reduction, property
improvement) is not evident in the housing literature. Compared to the priorities of legal
compliance and property management in an environment of insufficient funding, the role
of gardening seems to be an insignificant speck on the radar, if it is not missing entirely.
Might housing authorities today be too busy with these responsibilities to give attention
to amenities such as gardening?
This study seeks to fill the gap noted in the literature by examining the extent of
gardening projects on public housing properties, and whether the presence or absence of
such projects can be explained by characteristics of the HA or its administrators. It will
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
14/51
11
community gardening. Finally, it will present implications of the findings for those
wishing to foster more gardening on public housing properties.
Methodology
The hypotheses being tested are (1) that community gardening on public housing
properties is relatively rare, (2) that it is more common in the urban northeast and among
larger HAs, (3) that competing priorities at the Housing Authority level would place
community gardening in the background of concerns, and discourage its use, (4) that
because of HAs higher priorities, existing gardens are mostly sponsored by third-party
groups and not by HAs, and (5) that where community gardening exists on public
housing properties, it is found to be beneficial in a variety of ways.
To test these hypotheses, an online survey exploring the degree of interest in or
involvement with community gardening on the part of HAs was conducted in the spring
of 2007. The survey sought information about HA priorities, and about perceived benefits
or drawbacks to sponsoring or permitting community gardening on HA properties
(Appendix A).
The initial section asked demographic questions of the administrator responding
(position in HA, time in position, sex, age, and ethnicity). On the next page were three
short open-ended spaces for listing the first, second, and third current priorities of the
HA. Then the question of degree of involvement in community gardening on the HA
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
15/51
12
regardless of reported involvement. A final section allowed longer open-ended comments
about what would encourage or discourage community gardening in public housing. The
last question, on a thank you page, was a scale rating the experience of taking the
survey.
A list was obtained from HUD containing contact information and characteristics
of housing authorities and their programs for 4,144 HAs in the United States. Of these,
1,275 were removed if they had No Units or Blank under the Low-Rent size
category, if they had only Section 8 programs, or if they had a blank e-mail address field
(285 were lost for this reason). The remaining 2,869 were sorted by Low-Rent size
category to obtain a stratified sample of one-third, or 975. This list was formatted for
Survey Monkeys list management utility. A cover letter (Appendix B1) was drafted to
accompany the survey and was e-mailed to the list March 9, 2007, with the survey link.
Reminders were sent to non-responders March 26 and 29 (Appendices B2 and B3), and
the survey was closed March 31, 2007. In this process, fifty addresses were removed as
undeliverable (including those with insurmountable spam filters), leaving a final sample
size of 925. The survey received a 28% response rate (257 of final sample).
Variables
The dependent variable in this study is the degree of involvement in community
gardening in public housing authorities. Independent variables include HA and program
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
16/51
13
questions sought additional information about existing garden projects and about factors
that would encourage or discourage future garden projects.
One item in the list of scale questions asked whether the responder believes that
residents involvement in community gardening would provide incentive to home
ownership. Because promotion of home ownership is a strategic goal for HUD (HUD,
2006), the HAs perception of community gardenings influence on or lack of connection
to this desired behavior could be instructive in assessing why community gardening may
or may not be a current priority for HAs.
Variables taken from the HA dataset and from the survey are listed and described
in Appendix C.
Analysis
Descriptive statistics (frequencies and cross-tabs) were obtained for several
variables coming from the HUD database and from the survey. Correlations were
performed on all relevant variables, to explore possible significance and suitability for a
regression model, and to assess multicollinearity issues (Appendix D).
Content analysis was performed on the priorities expressed, on the follow-up
responses to the degrees of involvement question, and on the other open-ended
responses. Indices were constructed for categories derived from the open-ended questions
about HA priorities, perceived positive effects, and perceived negative effects.
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
17/51
14
Findings
The research questions stated above guided the analysis of the survey data, and
are answered in the order encountered on the survey. First, patterns relating to
characteristics of the HAs and responders are looked at. Next, the degree of their
involvement with community gardening is examined in quantitative and qualitative
terms. Information gathered on the perceived positive and negative effects of gardening
in public housing properties is categorized in positive and negative indices and compared
to the level of involvement of those holding the opinions. Finally, open-ended responses
to what would encourage gardening and what the barriers are to its wider adoption in
public housing are summarized. Policy implications for those wishing to foster the use of
community gardening in public housing are discussed.
Characteristics of the Organizations Responding
Demographic and other categories of information gathered on the HAs include
some that were on the HUD database (Region, Performance Designation, Low Rent Size
Category, Program Type, and Fiscal Year End) and others that were asked on the survey
(Time in Position, Sex, Age, and Ethnicity). Frequencies of the first set of variables,
those from the HUD database, are given in Table 1 (following page).
Various exploratory cross-tabs revealed the following associations: (1) The HAs
in the Northeast or Rocky Mountain regions were slightly more likely than average to
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
18/51
15
Table 1. Frequencies for variables from the HUD database for responders in the sample.
Region Name Frequency Percent
Great Plains 32 13%Mid-Atlantic 14 5%
Midwest 44 17%
New England 23 9%
New York/New Jersey 11 4%
Northwest/Alaska 8 3%
Pacific/Hawaii 8 3%
Rocky Mountains 13 5%
Southeast/Caribbean 56 22%Southwest 46 18%
255 100%
Performance Designation Frequency Percent
High Performer 121 48%
Standard Performer 108 43%
Substandard Financial 10 4%
Substandard Physical 7 3%Troubled Performer 4 2%
250 100%
HA Low Rent SizeCategory Frequency Percent
Very Small (1-49) 53 21%
Small (50-249) 138 54%
Medium Low (250-499) 27 11%
Medium High (500-1,249) 15 6%
Large (1,250-9,999) 21 8%
Extra Large (10,000+) 1 0%
255 100%
HA Program Type Frequency Percent
Low-Rent Only 109 43%
Combined 146 57%
255 100%
Fiscal Year End Frequency Percent
03/31 62 24%
06/30 77 30%
09/30 50 20%
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
19/51
16
Year End in June are less likely than average to be involved or experienced in gardening,
and those with September or December FYE are more likely than average to be involved
or experienced. This might reflect the reality that HA administrators and staff working on
a budget deadline in late spring and early summer are not available to help sponsor
gardening on the properties.
Demographic questions asked on the survey are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Frequencies for demographic variables asked on the survey.
Time in Position Frequency Percent
0 to 3 years 58 23%
3 to 5 years 32 13%
5 to 10 years 57 23%
More than 10 years 106 42%253 100%
Sex Frequency Percent
Male 102 41%
Female 147 59%
249 100%
Age Frequency Percent
20 to 29 years 3 1%
30 to 39 years 26 11%
40 to 49 years 56 23%
50 to 59 years 109 44%
60 or more years 52 21%
246 100%
Ethnicity Frequency Percent
African American 32 13%
Latino/a 7 3%
Asian 1 0%
Caucasian 203 83%
Other 2 1%
245 100%
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
20/51
17
more than ten years were less likely than average to be have had community gardening
projects on their HA properties. (2) Sex of the administrator showed no variation from
average. (3) HAs with the administrator in their forties were more likely than average to
be engaged in community gardening projects on their HA properties, while sixty or older
are less likely than average to be so. (4) HAs with the administrator being Anglo were
more likely, African Americans slightly less likely, and Latino/Latina less likely than
average to be engaged in community gardening projects. Whether these differences are
significant will be examined in discussion of regression model.
Priorities
After demographics and before any questions about gardening involvement,
responders were asked to briefly list the top three current priorities of their HA. The
open-ended responses were classified into fifteen broad categories (Table 3).
Table 3. Frequencies for top three priorities, reclassified into major categories of concern (listed
alphabetically).
Category of ConcernPriority
1 %
Priority
2 %
Priority
3 %
Aesthetics 6 3% 14 7%
Community involvement 1 0% 7 3% 12 6%
Disaster recovery 2 1%
Elder housing 7 3% 7 3%
Expand 2 1% 11 5% 4 2%Fiscal 30 14% 32 15% 28 14%
Governance 1 0% 2 1%
HUD agenda items 15 7% 15 7% 14 7%
Manage efficiently 7 3% 13 6%
Modernize/maintain 35 16% 50 23% 23 11%
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
21/51
18
Categorizing open-ended responses required some judgment calls, as some
concepts blurred into one another. The objective was to describe the underlying intention.
First priorities cluster around three areas: (1) the mission to provide housing, (2)
fiscal solvency, and (3) property upkeep. Second and third priorities also mentioned
helping tenants better their lives, improving the aesthetics of the properties, and
community awareness. Comments placed in the last category spoke of an awareness of
the need to build a constituency in the community and political arenas as well as to
market the housing to eligible tenants.
Disaster recovery was mentioned by only two, but in each case it was the top
priority. On the other hand, priorities of achieving good governance as well as optimal
management practices were expressed as second or third priorities, but not first. This was
also true of aesthetic appeal of the properties.
Provide Housing includes some responses that emphasize concepts of safe, clean
and other terms, if the main idea seemed to be the mission of providing housing for those
in need of it, or expanding housing in order to better provide. Mission-oriented priorities
often mentioned low income, elderly and disabled populations. Quality, safety, and
cleanliness often were mentioned in this context as well.
Fiscal includes monetary concerns from collect the rent to acquire more
funding from HUD. This often was emphasized as the means to achieving the mission,
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
22/51
19
Tenant satisfaction (TenSat) spills over to Occupancy, and can include customer
satisfaction as well as providing educational programs for residents. This in turn can
overlap with HUD agenda. Again, boundaries were subjective in some cases, but the
attempt was made to interpret the sense of the priority described. Someone mentioning
maintenance as a priority can have in mind the soundness of the buildings or the overall
aesthetic appeal of the property. The Aesthetics category was applied only when that
meaning was clearly intended. Curb appeal was a term employed by more than one
responder.
Tenant self-improvement (TenImprv) can overlap with HUD agenda; SafeClean
can overlap with Modernize/maintain. Modernization can extend to policies as well as
properties.
Disparate goals of 0% turnover and numerous ways of saying move up and
out of public housing emerged in the responses; the vast majority of responders
expressed alignment with HUD priorities of promoting self-sufficiency.
Even in the face of funding shortfalls and property maintenance and management
needs, the overwhelming concerns expressed in the priorities of the HAs responding to
the survey centered on providing good housing and good opportunities for tenants, for
listening to their concerns, and for supporting them in improving their lives. Fiscal
concerns were often expressed as a priority in relation to their impact on the HAs
continuing ability to provide adequate housing and services to tenants.
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
23/51
20
gardening by the HA. Of 257 responders (response rate of 28% against the final sample
size of 925), 237 answered the question about involvement (Table 4).
Table 4. Degree of involvement of HA in community gardening.
Frequency Percent
1. Had one or more projects in the past 41 17%
2. Have an active project or projects 69 29%
3. Beginning or considering 12 5%
4. Not involved but would consider 74 31%
5. Not involved and would not consider 39 16%
6. Other (please specify). 2 1%Total 237 100%
Of these, 51% (122) report current or past involvement (first three lines of table)
in community gardening by their HAs. The level of involvement reported by the
responders was higher than expected, but it cannot be generalized to the population, or
extended to the non-responding members of the sample. It is highly probable that those
with current or past involvement with community gardening were more likely to answer
the survey, so it cannot be concluded that 51% of all HAs have had community gardens.
For regression analysis, these categories were reorganized into an ordinal variable, with
Have an active project given the highest value, Had one or more projects in the past
next in order, and the others following in order as given above.
Depending on the answer chosen, a follow-up question was presented to learn
more about the situation.1
Following are summaries of the comments given.
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
24/51
21
This usually was expanded to include comments about the unkempt appearance that
resulted.2
Next most common (5 instances each: 2% of total, 12% of question 1 responses)
were Lack of cooperation among residents, Loss of staff or funding, and Resident
health. The last usually was explained as aging residents no longer being able to access
the garden.
2. Have an active project or projects in community gardening.
This question had four follow-up questions.
Table 5a. How long?
Number of years HAs reporting Percent
0 to 5 years 25 44%
5 to 10 years 15 26%
10 to 20 years 4 7%
20 to 30 years 9 16%
30+ years 4 7%
Total 57 100%
The large number reporting five years or less longevity for their garden projects
might indicate a surge of interest in community gardens in the past few years.
Alternately, it might reflect the difficulty of sustaining a garden project on public housing
property. This interpretation is supported by the number of responders who report past
projects no longer operating.
It might be expected that public housing properties with the longest experience
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
25/51
22
Plains, and Rocky Mountain regions. Those with 20-30 years are mainly in the Southeast
and Midwest. All but two of these are in the Small to Medium categories of Low-Rent
Program Size. One of those in the Large category reports that even with such long
involvement, apathy still is a barrier to gardening on some of their properties.
5b. How many projects?
Number of projects HA s reporting Percent
1 33 59%2 10 28%
3 5 9%
4+ 8 14%
Total 56 100%
5c. Who runs them?
Leadership HAs reporting Percent
Residents 33 54%Residents and staff 17 28%
Residents and community partners 11 18%
Total 61 100%
5d. How well are they working for you?
Number of years HAs reporting Percent
Very well 25 45%Well 22 39%
Fair 4 7%
Not so well 4 7%
Poorly 1 2%
Total 56 100%
Of those with current projects, most had only one (33, or 59% of HAs reporting a
current project). On the next question, it was not clear precisely how much staff
involvement or support there might be, even in those projects said to be run by residents.
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
26/51
23
tenants move in and out of housing. Community partners include eight non-profit
organizations (among them a food bank and a 4-H club), two Parks Departments, and one
State Extension Office.
The preponderance of experience is quite positive. Many of the answers in this
open-ended spot included the word, Great! At the same time, the open-ended
comments by all categories of responders are candid about the challenges of keeping
interest high so that the gardens are well maintained.
One responder reporting positive experiences with gardening among the HAs
elderly population (and describing a plan to install raised-bed gardens) nonetheless
commented, gardening is extremely therapeutic but it is a luxury.
3. Beginning or considering community gardening at this time.
The follow-up question was Please describe what has led to your Housing
Authoritys beginning community gardening. Ten responders reported this stage of
involvement, and half (5, or 50%) cited resident requests as the reason. Four (40%)
reported it was a way to create missing social opportunities or community involvement
for residents, even if they were not clamoring for a garden. In two cases, an outside
university or neighborhood association is involved, but only one of those projects (10%)
was reported to have been initiated by the outside partner.
Some of the most optimistic opinions were expressed by those HAs just beginning
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
27/51
24
4. Not involved but would consider allowing community gardening.
To the follow-up question Please describe what conditions might lead to your
Housing Authoritys involvement in community gardening,the most frequent reply was
tenant request, or resident interest. Space, funding, guidance, information, and outside
partners were also mentioned by multiple responders. One said, Interestingly enough, a
gentleman came into our office this morning to say he would have extra plants from his
farm and would be willing to help us set the garden up and would help us maintain and
work with the residents who participate.
5. Not involved and would not consider allowing community gardening.
The follow-up question was, Please describe the main reasons why your Housing
Authority would not consider community gardening. Most cited a lack of space or
suitable site, followed by lack of interest, and lack of cooperation (perhaps in past
attempts). Cost was also mentioned as a barrier by several who responded to this
question. Anticipated behavior of tenants was a concern, not only in terms of keeping up
with the work required and cooperating, as mentioned, but also in the expectation of
vandalism. We have teenagers destroying brick retaining walls, said one responder.
6. Other (please specify).
These comments tended to echo what has already been said; there was a mixture
of positive and negative views expressed. Resident interest and commitment were again
25
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
28/51
25
Perceived Likelihood of Positive or Negative Outcomes
The survey asked, In your opinion, how likely is each of these outcomes to result
from community gardening in public housing? Two sets of outcomes followed, one for
positive effects and one for negative. These questions were offered regardless of the
degree of involvement indicated.
The scale questions on the likelihood of various positive and negative outcomes
associated with community gardening are summarized in Appendices E and F. To
construct these graphs, the scale value of each question (reversed from survey order so
that 1 is not at all likely and 6 is highly likely for positive and negative outcomes
alike) was added for all valid responses in the dataset, and the resulting frequencies are
displayed in bar graph form. The graphs show the relative strength of expectations for
each proposed outcome.
The perceived positive outcomes have a Cronbachs Alpha of .924; the perceived
negative outcomes have a Cronbachs Alpha of .856. These values show extremely high
reliability and inter-item correlation.
To test the association between involvement and perceptions of gardening
outcomes, the directional involvement variable and the positive and negative indices were
trichotomized. Low to high values were crossed in symmetrical tables (Appendices G and
H), and Kendalls tau-c was examined as the measure of association. The positive index
has a statistically significant positive association with degree of involvement, as would be
26
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
29/51
26
Multivariate Regression Analysis
Multivariate regression analysis was then performed with directional Involvement
as the dependent variable, and the characteristics with significant correlation as
independent variables. Not all of these proved to be significant in the model.
Table 6 displays the unstandardized regression coefficients, standard error,
standardized regression coefficients and associated probabilities of the regression model.
From the Adjusted R Square, we see that the model explains 22% of the variation in
involvement in community gardening by public housing authorities.
Table 6. Regression model seeking to explain degree of involvement in community gardening in
terms of HA characteristics and correlated survey responses.
UnstandardizedCoefficients
StandardizedCoefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 0.421 0.637
Northeast or not 0.494 0.276 0.131
HA Low Rent Size Category 0.335 0.104 0.256 *
HA Program Type 0.317 0.248 0.101
Positive Index 0.030 0.007 0.306 *
Negative Index -0.019 0.012 -0.116
Time in Position 0.226 0.090 0.177 *
Ethnicity -0.793 0.280 -0.203 *
Dependent Variable: Involvement, Directional
* Significant at
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
30/51
27
Variables that were kept in the model but did not prove to be significant are
Region dichotomized (Northeast or not), HA program type, and Negative Index.
From the results of the cross-tab given earlier, it was expected that Fiscal Year
End would be significant; however, it weakened the model, which improved when it was
taken out of the independent variable list. The variables that are not shown to be
significant here nevertheless weakened the model slightly when each was removed in
turn.
Even so, the model explains only 22% of the variation in public housings
involvement with community gardens. This could be due to the fact that gardening is
engaged in, or not, at the individual level, and the unit of analysis for this study is
Housing Authorities. Resident desire was one of the chief reasons given for a garden
project starting or succeeding. At the HA level, the existence of policies promoting
community gardening as a tool for achieving HA goals seems to be rare. Where
community gardens exist, they are not described as official policy, but more often as an
accommodation which has been found to be beneficial where they have survived.
Encouragements or Barriers for Community Gardens in Public Housing
To the question, In your opinion, what would most strongly encourage
community gardening in public housing? these answers were given: (1) Benefits (55, or
35%); residents might have to be educated about these; those mentioned include free food
28
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
31/51
28
either from tenant council, HA, or community (18, or 11%); (5) Community partner (12,
or 8%).
Answers to the question, In your opinion, what are the major barriers, if any, to
widespread use of community gardening in public housing? the replies can be
summarized in these terms: (1) Apathy (49, or 29%) reflects a belief on the part of HA
administration about residents not caring to either start or maintain a garden; (2)
Behavior (30, or 18%) This can include produce poaching or vandalism, or the fear of
these; (3) Site (28, or 17%) This includes lack of space, lack of a suitable site, or the site
not being convenient or accessible. Some housing projects were not designed with
sufficient communal areas, or have big buildings on small lots casting big shadows; (4)
Cost (17, or 10%); (5) [Lack of] HA support (15, or 9%); (6) [Lack of] Leadership (14, or
8%); (7) [Lack of] Abilities (7, or 4%) This includes physical disability of the very
elderly, and Alzheimers patients over-watering the plants; (8) Other (9, or 5%) This
includes lack of time for busy families, need for community support, and individualism.
Individualism could be considered a factor in other categories such as apathy or behavior,
if it is taken as the opposite of the sense of belonging to a community. The desire of
individuals to garden next to their own units was cited several times as a barrier to
community-style gardening. Some of these individual efforts are actively encouraged by
HA administration, and it is unclear how much of that results from resident desire and
how much from lack of administration desire to deal with a community garden.
29
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
32/51
29
ownership for residents drew a fairly low expectation, in fact the second lowest of all the
positive benefits mentioned. HA administrators do not see a direct connection between
gardening and wanting to own a home.
Another area of emphasis is programs to assist resident empowerment. The
questions about Educational value for youth, Increased skills and learning for adults,
Increased sense of ownership by residents, and Increased care taken of the property by
residents are perceived to be more likely.
These are some open-ended comments relating to intergenerational interaction
and knowledge transfer:
Our tenants [are] mostly elderly people. The family have other things theywant to do. Community gardening wouldnt work with our tenants.
Our after school youth club does a garden for one of our elderly housingsites. They plant, weed, feed and pick the vegetables and pass them out doorto door to the elderly.
Another reports fewest problems between the residents [when] the youthand adults work together.
Some elderly have great gardening knowledge but cannot physically do
themselves. Sharing of knowledge and a youth to do the planting works well.
These comments reflect the divergence of expectation and actual experience that
was evident in a number of responses. Some properties apparently are segregated as elder
housing; in some cases this might be appropriate, but in others, the wisdom of this policy
might be worth reexamining.
Finally, the desire expressed by many responders for more community awareness
and involvement is an urgent need in light of Quercia and Galsters descriptions of the
30
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
33/51
populations into areas dominated by middle class housing. The disinterest of the
unsubsidized population in sharing quarters with public housing residents must represent
a significant impediment toward realizing the new goal. Building community capital by
showing that residents are becoming more empowered and valuable to the market
economy could go some way toward alleviating this kind of barrier to the achievement
of the new mandates.
Implications of the Study for Policy Change
Opportunities abound for HA administrators to connect community gardenings
benefits to their own and HUDs goals. These include (1) skill building, self
improvement, pride in property ownership, and strengthening the sense of community,
both on and off the properties, (2) benefiting both the youth and elderly populations, as
well as busy working families, by integrating their energies, experience, and financial
resources in gardening projects, (3) securing community support to supplement HUD and
HA resources, thereby stretching human and financial capital farther and building
community ties (another form of capital).
Housing Authorities desiring to incorporate garden projects to assist residents
with empowerment and community-building skills, among other oft-cited effects of
community gardening, might look to the community for help in setting up and running
the programs. Possible resources can be universities and nearby secondary schools, city
31
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
34/51
in preparing an approach to the local HA administration. Knowledge of HA concerns and
needs can help them in designing cooperative arrangements and helping to form the
sought-after community connections.
Groups with successful long-term programsboth in the public housing arena
and community garden associations in generalcan be consulted for best practices in
keeping interest high, fostering cooperation among gardeners, and discouraging
vandalism and other problems shown to arise in community gardens. While each garden
and its gardeners comprise a unique set of circumstances and desires, these common
concerns have been worked out in many places, and transfers of knowledge from
successful programs can be another form of strengthening community connections and
increasing social capital.
For large-scale changes in policy, strategies should be developed for obtaining
visibility for the connections between HUD and HA priorities and the benefits of
gardening for their important constituencies. Support from the top will result only when
community gardening is seen as an obvious means to achieving important goals. Policy
advocates should work to connect the dots for administrators who clearly are dedicated to
the mission of providing good places to live and improving lives for those needing the
services.
In terms of ensuring suitable sites as units are rebuilt or expanded, the architects
and design firms being engaged for the workand those drawing up specifications and
32
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
35/51
Conclusions
Responses to this survey on community gardening in public housing properties
ran counter to some preconceptions. Community gardening is not only an inner-city
phenomenon, though it can have a powerful presence in those settings. Gardens have
existed on public housing properties in diverse regions of the country for decades, and
there may be a resurgence of interest in recent years; the most frequent time category
reported was from 0 to 5 years. That could suggest either an increase in interest, but most
likely reflects the difficulty of keeping the programs going longer than that.
In the view of some HA responders, age is a barrier to the feasibility of gardening
projects; many others report the greatest enthusiasm and engagement by elderly residents,
provided the gardens are made accessible to them. Some with severe vandalism problems
view the youth as a barrier, while those who have been able to engage the youth find that
involvement with the garden serves as a constructive outlet for their considerable energy
and a powerful education and service opportunity. Intergenerational involvement is
reported to enhance social capital and the quality of the gardening experience for all
involved.
While HA priorities did not present a significant contribution to the regression
model, the workload surely impacts the ability of administrators and their staff to give
attention to a gardening project. The data show that despite larger and more pressing
priorities, HAs are sponsoring gardens on their properties where there is sufficient
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
36/51
34
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
37/51
Acknowledgments
I wish to thank my advisor, Dr. Dianne Rahm, and my research supervisor, Dr. ArturoVega, for their guidance in the design and implementation of this study. Their knowledgeand expertise helped me to make the work vastly stronger than it would have beenwithout their input. Any errors or omissions, however, are strictly my own. I also thankDr. Jerrell Coggburn for his support and encouragement during my career in the PAdepartment.
Without the information provided by Jim Armstrong at PHADA, and Elizabeth Hanson atHUD, the survey would not have been possible. I thank them both for their kindness andsupport of this educational venture.
I express much gratitude to my daughter and to friends and comadres for supporting myefforts in working toward the MPA degree. I thank my employer, USAA, for theircontribution toward my expenses.
35
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
38/51
References
American Community Gardening Association. 1992. A Research Agenda for the Impactof Community Greening. Columbus, OH: ACGA Monograph.
Basolo, Victoria, and Strong, Denise, 2002. Understanding the Neighborhood: FromResidents Perceptions and Needs to Action,Housing Policy Debate 13:1, p. 83.
Blomley, Nicholas, 2004. Un-real Estate: Proprietary Space and Public Gardening.Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, Editorial Board ofAntipode. p. 614.
CDC. See U.S. Centers for Disease Control.
Cornell Univ, Garden Mosaics research programhttp://www.gardenmosaics.cornell.edu/pgs/aboutus/aboutus4.htm
DeFilippis, James, 2001. The Myth of Social Capital in Community Development,Housing Policy Debate 12:4, p. 781.
Glaeser, Edward L. and Sacerdote, Bruce, 2000. The Social Consequences of Housing.Journal of Housing Economics 9:1-23.
Hancock, Trevor, 2001. People, partnerships and human progress: building communitycapital.Health Promotion International 16:3.
HUD. See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Hynes, Patricia, 1996.A Patch of Eden, White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea GreenPublishing Company. 185 p.
Jacobs, Jane, 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities, New York:Random House, 624 p.
Malakoff, David, undated. What Good is Community Greening? ACGA website.
http://www.communitygarden.org/whatgood.php
Putnam, R. D., 2000.Bowling Alone. The collapse and revival of American community,New York: Simon and Schuster. 540 p.
36
http://www.gardenmosaics.cornell.edu/pgs/aboutus/aboutus4.htmhttp://www.communitygarden.org/whatgood.phphttp://www.communitygarden.org/whatgood.phphttp://www.gardenmosaics.cornell.edu/pgs/aboutus/aboutus4.htm -
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
39/51
Liz Rilveria, 2003. Community Gardens: Lessons Learned From California HealthyCities and Communities.American Journal of Public Health 93:9.
U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 2005, Nutrition and Physical Activity,Chronic Disease Prevention, Exemplary State Programs. Link to pdf. p. 59.http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/publications/exemplary/
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 2002. Growing a Gardenand a Community, 12 p.http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/mfh/nnw/resourcesforcenters/nnwgarden.pdf
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2006. HUD Strategic Plan, FY2006-2011 March 31, 2006. 78 p.http://www.hud.gov/offices/cfo/reports/hud_strat_plan_2006-2011.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/publications/exemplary/http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/mfh/nnw/resourcesforcenters/nnwgarden.pdfhttp://www.hud.gov/offices/cfo/reports/hud_strat_plan_2006-2011.pdfhttp://www.hud.gov/offices/cfo/reports/hud_strat_plan_2006-2011.pdfhttp://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/mfh/nnw/resourcesforcenters/nnwgarden.pdfhttp://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/publications/exemplary/ -
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
40/51
38
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
41/51
Briefly list the top three priorities of your Housing Authority currently.
1.2.
3.
To what extent is your authority involved in or supportive of community gardening?
(Follow-up questions shown here; they were presented separately and the responder only saw therelevant one after selecting the response to this question.)
__
Had one or more projects in the past but they are no longer active(Please describe what factors caused your Housing Authority to stop community gardening.)
__
Have an active project or projects in community gardening(Please describe your Housing Authority's community gardening involvement.How many projects? How long? Who runs them? How well are they working for you?)
__Beginning or considering community gardening at this time(Please describe what has led to your Housing Authority's beginning community gardening)
__
Not involved but would consider allowing community gardening(Please describe what conditions might lead to your Housing Authority's involvement incommunity gardening)
__
Not involved and would not consider allowing community gardening
(Please describe the main reasons why your Housing Authority would not considercommunity gardening)
__ Other (please specify)
A variety of benefits are sometimes claimed to result from community gardening in varioussettings. At the same time, challenges are experienced by those who operate gardens.In your opinion, how likely is each of these outcomes to result from community gardening inpublic housing?
Please select the likelihood of each positive outcome, in your opinion1 Notat alllikely
2 3 4 5 Highlylikely
Dontknow
Increased physical activity for participants
Improved nutrition for participants
Educational value for youth
Increased skills and learning for adultsIncreased incentive for home ownership forresidents
Intergenerational interaction
Cross-cultural interaction
39
http://www.surveymonkey.com/SurveySummary.asp?SID=3243180&Rnd=0.8077054##http://www.surveymonkey.com/SurveySummary.asp?SID=3243180&Rnd=0.8077054##http://www.surveymonkey.com/SurveySummary.asp?SID=3243180&Rnd=0.8077054##http://www.surveymonkey.com/SurveySummary.asp?SID=3243180&Rnd=0.8077054##http://www.surveymonkey.com/SurveySummary.asp?SID=3243180&Rnd=0.8077054##http://www.surveymonkey.com/SurveySummary.asp?SID=3243180&Rnd=0.8077054##http://www.surveymonkey.com/SurveySummary.asp?SID=3243180&Rnd=0.8077054##http://www.surveymonkey.com/SurveySummary.asp?SID=3243180&Rnd=0.8077054##http://www.surveymonkey.com/SurveySummary.asp?SID=3243180&Rnd=0.8077054##http://www.surveymonkey.com/SurveySummary.asp?SID=3243180&Rnd=0.8077054##http://www.surveymonkey.com/SurveySummary.asp?SID=3243180&Rnd=0.8077054##http://www.surveymonkey.com/SurveySummary.asp?SID=3243180&Rnd=0.8077054##http://www.surveymonkey.com/SurveySummary.asp?SID=3243180&Rnd=0.8077054## -
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
42/51
Please select the likelihood of each negative outcome, in your opinion
1 Notat all
likely
2 3 4 5Highly
likely
Dontknow
The garden would attract vandals
Vandalism would discourage gardenersfrom investing time and energy
There would be disputes about prioritiesin the garden
There would be disputes among residents
about the division of work or produceTurnover in housing units would lead toloss of connection to garden
There would be a loss of interest byresidents over time
An untended garden would detract fromthe appearance of the property
An untended garden would lower
property values
In your opinion, what would most strongly encourage community gardening in
public housing? ___________________________________________________
In your opinion, what are the major barriers, if any, to widespread use of
community gardening in public housing? ______________________________
Please comment on any other issues associated with gardening on public housingproperties that you consider important. ________________________________
40
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
43/51
Appendix B. Cover letters
(1) Initial e-mail message
Sent: March 9, 2007Subject: Survey to study Housing Authority priorities and community gardening
Dear [FirstName] [LastName]:
I am a graduate student in Public Administration at The University of Texas at SanAntonio. As my independent research project, I am conducting a survey to learn about theextent of involvement in community gardening by public housing authorities, in relationto current HA priorities.
By participating, you will be adding valuable knowledge to this area of research. Thisproject has been approved by the Institutional Review Board at The University of Texasat San Antonio.
All responses will be confidential, and will be reported only in the aggregate.
To take the survey, click here. [SurveyLink] If there is a line break in the link, you willneed to paste both parts into your web browser's address line.
To decline and be removed from future reminders, click here. [RemoveLink]
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,Leslie [email protected] studentThe University of Texas at San Antonio
41
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
44/51
Appendix B (continued). Cover letters
(2) First reminder
Subject: Survey of Housing Authority priorities and community gardening
Sent: March 26, 2007
Dear [FirstName] [LastName]:
This is a second opportunity to respond to my survey, which will close this Saturday,March 31. Your participation in this brief online survey is essential to achieve a responserate that will increase the validity of the findings.
As I mentioned in my March 9 e-mail, I am a graduate student at UT San Antonio,studying the extent of involvement in community gardening by Public HousingAuthorities, in relation to current HA priorities.
If there is no community gardening in your properties, that still is valuable information,and you can share any thoughts and opinions you have on the topic. It doesn't take long togo through the few screens. You can also exit and go back to it later if you need to.
Your responses will be confidential, and will be reported only in the aggregate. Thisproject has been approved by the Institutional Review Board at The University of Texasat San Antonio.
To take the survey, click this link.[SurveyLink]
To decline and be removed from future reminders, click the next link.[RemoveLink]
Thank you so much for your help!
Sincerely,Leslie [email protected] student
42
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
45/51
Appendix B (continued). Cover letters
(3) Final reminder
Subject: Final days for survey of HA priorities and gardening
Sent: March 29, 2007
Dear [FirstName] [LastName]:
This is the final reminder for the survey, which will close this Saturday, March 31. Allresponders will be offered a free copy of the findings when they are available.
Of all responders so far, 96% have reported a smooth and easy experience (4 or 5 on ascale of 1 to 5). It doesn't take long, and you can exit and return to it later if you need to.Your participation in this brief online survey is essential to increase the validity of thefindings.
If there is no community gardening in your properties, that still is valuable information,and you can share any thoughts and opinions you have on the topic.
All responses will be confidential, and will be reported only in the aggregate. Noresponder will be identifiable in the results. This project has been approved by theInstitutional Review Board at The University of Texas at San Antonio.
To take the survey, click this link.[SurveyLink]
To decline, click the next link.[RemoveLink]
Thank you very much for your help!
Sincerely,Leslie [email protected] student
43
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
46/51
Appendix C. Variables derived from the survey and their levels of
measurement.
Dependent Variable Level of MeasurementDegrees of involvement:
Currently involvedInvolved in the pastConsidering or beginningNot involved but would consider
Not involved and would not considerOpen-ended reasons for each
Ordinal
Content analysis
Independent Variables Levels of MeasurementDemographic variablesPositionYears in positionAge rangeSexEthnicity
HA CharacteristicsRegionProgram type
Low Rent Size CategoryPerformance designation
NominalOrdinalOrdinalNominal, treated as ordinalDichotomized, Anglo or not
Dichotomized, NE or notNominal, treated as ordinal
OrdinalOrdinal
Perceived positive effectsPhysicalNutritionYouth educationAdult learningHome ownershipIntergenerational interaction
Cross cultural interactionIncreased recyclingImproved aestheticsPride in propertyIncreased property valueReduced crime
Interval, 1-5 plus dont knowReversed from survey order0=Dont know1=Not at all likely5=Highly likelyScores were summed and graphed
Perceived negative effectsAttract vandalsVandalism discouraging
Disputes about prioritiesDisputes about work, foodLoss of connection, turnoverLoss of interest over time
Interval, 1-5 plus dont knowReversed from survey order0=Dont know
1=Not at all likely5=Highly likelyScores were summed and graphed
What would encourage Content analysis, organized into topics: Benefits, Communitypartner, HA or HUD support, Leadership, Resident desire,Si
44
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
47/51
Appendix D. Correlation of potential variables for regression model.
45
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
48/51
Appendix E. Graph of total scores for likelihood of positive outcomes.
996
827
736
834
526
747715
596
888 897 865
679
600
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Phys
Act
Nutri
tion
EdYo
uth
AdltL
rn
H
omeO
wn
IntG
en
IntC
ult
Recy
c
Appe
arnc
Ownr
shp
Car
eTak
en
Value
Up
Crim
edow
n
TotalScores
Appendix F. Graph of total scores for likelihood of negative outcomes.
996
827
736
834
526
747715
596
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Tota
lScores
46
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
49/51
Appendix G. Cross-tab of trichotomized directional involvement by trichotomized
positive index, with Pearson Chi-Square and Kendall's tau-c.
Positive Index Trichotomized
Low Medium HighTotal
TrichotomizedDirectionalInvolvement Low Count 21 2 8 31
% within PositiveIndex Trichotomized 33.3 3.3 12.1 16.4
Medium Count 21 23 25 69
% within PositiveIndex Trichotomized 33.3 38.3 37.9 36.5
High Count 21 35 33 89
% within PositiveIndex Trichotomized 33.3 58.3 50.0 47.1
Total Count 63 60 66 189
% within PositiveIndex Trichotomized 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Pearson Chi-Square: 22.5
SymmetricMeasures
Value
Asymp.Std.
Error(a)Approx.
T(b)Approx.
Sig.
Ordinal byOrdinal
Kendall'stau-c 0.166 0.066 2.515 0.012
N of Valid Cases 189
a Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
47
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
50/51
Appendix H. Cross-tab of trichotomized directional involvement by trichotomized
negative index, with Pearson Chi-Square and Kendall's tau-c.
Negative Index TrichotomizedLow Medium High
Total
TrichotomizedDirectionalInvolvement Low Count 9 8 14 31
% within NegativeIndex Trichotomized 15.8 11.8 20.3 16.0
Medium Count 17 27 23 67
% within NegativeIndex Trichotomized 29.8 39.7 33.3 34.5
High Count 31 33 32 96
% within NegativeIndex Trichotomized 54.4 48.5 46.4 49.5
Total Count 57 68 69 194
% within NegativeIndex Trichotomized 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Pearson Chi-Square: 2.905
SymmetricMeasures
Value
Asymp.Std.
Error(a)Approx.
T(b)Approx.
Sig.
Ordinal by
Ordinal
Kendall's
tau-c -0.061 0.064 -0.953 0.340
N of Valid Cases 194
a Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
-
8/6/2019 Provence Community Gardening in Public Housing MPA
51/51
Northeast
or not
PHAS
Designation
HA Low
Rent Size
Category
HA
Program
Type PosIndex NegIndex PosHATm Sex Age Ethnicity
Priority 1
Numeric
Priority 2
Numeric
Involve-
ment
Directional
Northeast or not Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N 255
PHAS Designation Pearson Correlation -0.136
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.032
N 250 250
HA Low Rent Size Category Pearson Correlation 0.210 -0.155Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001 0.014
N 255 250 255
HA Program Type Pearson Correlation 0.274 -0.169 0.459
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.007 0.000
N 255 250 255 255
PosIndex Pearson Correlation 0.006 -0.065 0.001 0.039
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.938 0.379 0.994 0.590
N 189 186 189 189 189
NegIndex Pearson Correlation -0.003 0.065 -0.030 0.021 0.198
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.965 0.372 0.674 0.767 0.009
N 194 191 194 194 173 194
PosHATm Pearson Correlation 0.064 0.129 -0.089 -0.109 -0.097 0.069Sig. (2-tailed) 0.308 0.042 0.160 0.083 0.183 0.336
N 252 248 252 252 189 194 253
Sex Pearson Correlation -0.130 0.158 -0.222 -0.258 0.151 0.079 -0.001
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.041 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.039 0.275 0.982
N 248 244 248 248 186 191 249 249
Age Pearson Correlation 0.040 0.099 -0.154 -0.103 -0.149 0.045 0.345 -0.097
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.533 0.125 0.016 0.109 0.043 0.542 0.000 0.130
N 245 241 245 245 185 190 246 243 246
Ethnicity Pearson Correlation 0.101 -0.286 0.239 0.141 0.019 -0.108 -0.078 -0.018 -0.154
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.114 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.797 0.139 0.226 0.779 0.016
N 244 240 244 244 185 189 245 242 244 245Priority 1 Numeric Pearson Correlation -0.040 0.088 0.036 -0.116 0.127 -0.075 0.175 -0.007 -0.059 -0.004
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.573 0.217 0.608 0.101 0.101 0.325 0.013 0.926 0.407 0.955
N 202 199 202 202 169 174 202 199 200 199 202
Priority 2 Numeric Pearson Correlation -0.040 -0.060 0.118 0.071 0.037 -0.019 0.044 0.035 0.038 0.027 0.303
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.587 0.416 0.107 0.335 0.644 0.807 0.548 0.642 0.606 0.716 0.000
N 186 184 186 186 156 163 186 183 185 184 174 186
Involvement, Directional Pearson Correlation 0.159 0.022 0.230 0.229 0.283 -0.052 0.071 0.017 -0.095 -0.110 0.058 -0.006
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.014 0.745 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.475 0.278 0.802 0.154 0.097 0.416 0.931
N 236 231 236 236 189 194 234 231 228 228 200 185 237
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).