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


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


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


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.


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


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,


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


8/51

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


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


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/


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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%


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%


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%


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,


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


36/51

34


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


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


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/


40/51

38


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##


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


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


44/51

Appendix B (continued). Cover letters

(2) First reminder

Subject: Survey of Housing Authority priorities and community gardening

Sent: March 26, 2007


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


45/51

Appendix B (continued). Cover letters

(3) Final reminder

Subject: Final days for survey of HA priorities and gardening

Sent: March 29, 2007


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


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


47/51

Appendix D. Correlation of potential variables for regression model.

45


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


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


High Count 21 35 33 89


Total Count 63 60 66 189


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


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


High Count 31 33 32 96


Total Count 57 68 69 194


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.


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).

provence community gardening in public housing mpa

Documents