Projects
Final Report on the Summer 2006 Survey for the Department of Justice’s Weed and Seed Project.
Size 10.0 MB - File type application/pdf
Full screen
Final Report on the
Summer 2006 Survey
for the Department of
Justice’s Weed and Seed
Project.
November 2, 2006
2
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ........................................................................ 4
Introduction ................................................................................. 5
Background on Neighborhoods...................................................... 6
Tremé/Lafitte ......................................................................... 6
Central City............................................................................ 6
Bywater ................................................................................ 7
Algiers District ........................................................................ 7
Descriptive Statistics ...................................................................... 9
Demographics ......................................................................... 9
Housing ................................................................................12
Vulnerability..........................................................................12
Crime and Safety ....................................................................13
Employment ..........................................................................16
Owners and Tenants.................................................................19
Algiers .................................................................................22
Limitations and Lessons Learned .......................................................24
Limitations for Central City ........................................................24
Non response ......................................................................24
Central City........................................................................25
Bywater.............................................................................26
Algiers ..............................................................................27
Tremé...............................................................................27
Population estimates .............................................................27
Female headed households......................................................28
Clusters .............................................................................29
Lessons Learned......................................................................29
Non-response and population estimation .....................................29
Female headed households......................................................30
Clusters .............................................................................31
References .................................................................................32
Annex A: Methodology....................................................................33
Sampling Scheme ....................................................................33
Central City weighting and analysis ..............................................35
Weighting .............................................................................35
Design weights.....................................................................35
Non-response weights ............................................................35
Overall weighting .................................................................37
Analysis................................................................................37
Central City Population Estimate .................................................38
Annex B: Tables ...........................................................................40
Descriptive Statistics................................................................40
Employment ..........................................................................57
Owners versus Renters..............................................................66
Head of Household Characteristics in Tremé ...................................77
3
Male versus Female in Tremé......................................................80
Algiers .................................................................................83
Annex C: Maps .............................................................................91
Map 1: Central City Survey .........................................................91
Map 2: Central City Occupancy....................................................92
Map 3: Central City Ownership ....................................................93
Map 4: Central City Flooding.......................................................94
Map 5: Central City African American ...........................................95
Map 6: Central City Caucasian ....................................................96
Map 7: Central City Hispanic ......................................................97
Map 8: Central City New Residents ..............................................98
Map 9: Central City Schools .......................................................99
Map 10: Central City Child Care ................................................ 100
Map 11: Central City Safety ..................................................... 101
Map 12: Central City Health Care ............................................... 102
Map 13: Central City Access to Information about Available Resources .. 103
Map 14: Central City Community Center...................................... 104
Map 15: Bywater Flooding ........................................................ 105
Map 16: Bywater Safety.......................................................... 106
Map 17: Bywater Crime .......................................................... 107
Map 18: Bywater Job Loss ........................................................ 108
Map 19: Tremé Flooding .......................................................... 109
Map 20: Tremé Safety............................................................ 110
Map 21: Tremé Crime ............................................................. 111
Map 22: Tremé Job Loss ......................................................... 112
4
Acknowledgements
A special thanks to New Orleans Police and Justice Foundation for your support of this
study.
Authors:
Jeff Coates, MPH – Recovery Action Learning Laboratory
Maya Matthews-Sterling, MPH – Recovery Action Learning Laboratory
Adam Papendieck, MPH – Recovery Action Learning Laboratory
Megan Dieterich
Assistance with Data Analysis and Editing By:
Todd Noletto
Aaron Wise
Jennifer Weiss
Technical Assistance Provided By:
Dr. Nancy Mock, Tulane University School of Public Health
Joshua Rodd, MPH – The Payson Center for International Development and Technology
Transfer
5
Introduction
Operation Weed and Seed
Weed and Seed is a community based strategy sponsored by the Department of
Justice (DOJ), which aims to prevent, control and reduce violent crime, drug
abuse, and gang activity in designated high-crime neighborhoods. Weed and
Seed is a multi-agency approach to crime prevention and community
development
1
.
Recovery Action Learning Laboratory
The Recovery Action Learning Laboratory (RALLY) is a not-for-profit corporation
created to support evidence-based decision making in disaster and recovery
settings. RALLY particularly focuses on providing information in support of the
nonprofit sector and also emphasizes primary data collection in the post-
Katrina settings.
RALLY was born from early efforts by Tulane faculty and students to respond to
recovery planning and intervention needs. Several Tulane graduates form the
core team of RALLY. RALLY began conducting neighborhood assessments in
New Orleans in early October of 2005. Since then, RALLY has contracts and
collaborations with a number of nonprofit organizations in New Orleans.
The New Orleans Police Foundation has contracted RALLY to undertake
household level assessments in the three designated Weed and Seed
neighborhoods of Bywater/Algiers, Central City and Tremé/Lafitte. The
following information is intended to aid the Weed and Seed operation with
their mandate to prevent, control and reduce crime through law enforcement
and community involvement and to help create sustainable programs for
1
There are actually four distinct neighborhoods
6
developing neighborhoods. The primary objectives of the RALLY assessments
were:
•
To provide basic demographic information for targeted neighborhoods
•
To determine normative and expressed needs related to the Seed
element of the Weed and Seed program
Background on Neighborhoods
Tremé/Lafitte
Throughout the city’s history, the neighborhood of Tremé has been known for
its rich cultural and economic value. Tremé’s cultural diversity and various
ethnic groups provided the foundation for the birthplace of Jazz music and
Second Lines, of which many of its musicians called Tremé home. Over the
years, projects that were to benefit the greater good of the city inadvertently
affected the unity of one of New Orleans most well established communities.
In the 1960s, nine blocks of historic homes and gathering places were torn
down to make way for Armstrong Park. The 1960s saw the leveling of the open
space and live oak trees along Claiborne Avenue for the I-10 project. Today,
Tremé’s glory days continue to fade into history as locals attest to the
existence of crack houses, violence, and lack of safety on their streets. The
2000 Census indicates there were 8853 residents in 3429 households. This
figure includes the Lafitte housing project (which was excluded from this
study).
Central City
Dating back to the 1830’s, Central City has been the home to many immigrants
and working class people of New Orleans. According to the 2000 Census, there
7
were 8147 households with a total of 19072 people, of which 87% were African-
American, residing in the neighborhood. With the closures of parts of the C.J.
Peete and Guste housing projects prior to the hurricane, the neighborhood was
most likely smaller than in 2000 even before Katrina affected the area. Once
an important hub for the healthcare industry for African-Americans, Central
City is now marked with crime and poverty with over 49% of its residents living
in poverty.
Bywater
Most of what is now the Bywater neighborhood was plantation land until the
early 1800’s. Development of the area saw a large influx of free people of
color and numerous immigrants from Ireland, Germany, and Haiti. Today, the
Bywater neighborhood has an interesting mix of residential, commercial and
industrial activity, along the riverbank. The neighborhood has become a
residential hotspot for artists,
and as a result, many galleries
can be found throughout the
neighborhood. The 2000 Census
indicates that there were 5096
residents occupying 2263
households. Poverty rate in
Bywater was 38.6% in 2000.
Algiers District
Located on the west bank of the Mississippi, Algiers is composed of 8
neighborhoods. For most of its history Algiers was a village sandwiched
between the commercial activity on the River and the agricultural activity of
the vast majority of its 13,000 acres. With the opening of the Greater New
Orleans Mississippi River Bridge in 1958, the Right Bank of New Orleans began
to take on the appearance of a modern suburb, with new brick houses built on
8
slab foundations and its population rapidly increasing. A total of 49076
residents in 18467 households occupy the district. Like some neighborhoods in
the East Bank, Algiers is a checkerboard of income levels. Some neighborhoods
have poverty rates as high as 48.3% and some as low as 9.9%. The district is
home to a country club, a housing project, and a naval support area.
9
Descriptive Statistics
Demographics
The results are based on 114 completed surveys in Tremé, 132 in the Bywater
neighborhood, and 134 in Central City as well as eighteen completed surveys in
public housing units and low income areas in the Algiers district
2
.
Table A shows Rally’s summer 2006 population estimates for Central City,
Bywater and Tremé, along with estimated occupancy rates.
Table A: Estimated populations and occupancy rates.
Central City
Estimate
Range (95% conf.)
2006*
Central City Population
9,582
9,156 - 10,008
Occupancy Rate
32.90%
nc
2000**
Central City Population
19,072
Occupancy Rate
78.80%
Bywater
Estimate
Range (95% conf.)
2006*
Bywater Population
3,283
2,238 - 4,328
Occupancy rate
47%
34% - 60%
2000**
Bywater Population
5,096
Occupancy rate
83.0%
Tremé
Estimate
Range (95% conf.)
2006*
Tremé Population
6,574
5,200 - 7,948
Occupancy Rate
64%
54% - 74%
2000**
Tremé Population
8,853
Occupancy Rate
80.6%
*Figures calculated from RALLY's summer 2006 surveys. Figures are based upon an estimated 80%
occupancy rate among non-responding residences which was observed in Central City. The error from
this estimated rate is not accounted for in the confidence intervals.
**Figures from the 2000 US Census
nc = not calculated
Tremé and Central City are similar with regards to ethnicity makeup, with the
majority of the respondents being self-identified as Black or African American
(83.0% and 84.9% respectively) (Chart 1). In the Bywater neighborhood, the
2 low income clusters were identified based upon the 2000 census-based poverty maps
10
majority of respondents interviewed are White or Caucasian (62.2%), while only
31.5% of the respondents are considered Black or African American (Chart 1).
The majority of households in Central City (69.5%) contain adults of both sexes.
While 15.9% of households have only male adults and 14.6% of households have
only female adults. The respondents in Tremé report that 46.6% of the
households are headed up by males and 53.4% are female headed households.
Almost half of the responding households from Central City (48.8%), Tremé
(46.1%) and Bywater (45.2%) report having a pre-Katrina household income of
less than $2000 per month. (Annex B, Table 1).
Chart 1: Percentage of population with self-identified ethnicities in the neighborhoods
of Bywater, Central City and Tremé during the 2000 Census and the 2006
Neighborhood Survey.
Bywater Ethnicity: 2000 Census
62%
5%
33%
African
Americans
Hispanic
Caucasions
Bywater Ethnicity: 2006
33%
3%
64%
African
American
Hispanic
Caucasion
11
Central City Ethnicity: 2000 Census
88%
2%
10%
African
Americans
Hispanic
Caucasions
Central City Ethnicity 2006
88%
3%
9%
African
American
Hispanic
Caucasian
Treme Ethnicity: 2000 Census
93%
2% 5%
African
Americans
Hispanic
Caucasions
Treme Ethnicity 2006
87%
2%
11%
African
American
Hispanic
Caucasion
12
Housing
The households interviewed in Central City reported a relatively low
percentage of homeownership (33.6%). However, this is an increase from the
pre-Katrina 2000 Census percentage of homeownership in Central City (16.3%).
These results suggest that homeowners are more prevalent among the current
population of Central City. These results are also seen in the reporting
households in Tremé and Bywater, where 53.9% and 50.8% (respectively) of
residents stated that they owned their homes. The 2000 Census illustrated that
21.8% of residents in Tremé and 38.1% of residents in Bywater were
homeowners (Annex B, Table 2). The 2000 Census reported that 83.7% of the
Central City population rented their residences. After hurricane Katrina, only
58.4% of the households surveyed in Central City stated that they rented or
leased their residence. The percentage of respondents who rent their
residence was 44.5% in Tremé and 45.4% in Bywater. The average household
size was 2.72 people in Tremé, 2.6 people in Bywater and 3.04 people in
Central City (Annex B, Table 1).
Vulnerability
Several indications of vulnerability were assessed by the survey, including
chronic disability and adequacy of housing/neighborhood amenities. Reported
chronic disabilities were common among returned households in all three
neighborhoods, although they were highest in Central City and Tremé where
43.5% and 40.2% of respondents, respectively, reported that there was one or
more disabled person in the household. Only about half (43.1% in Bywater,
53.8% in Central City and 46.0% in Tremé) of the sampled respondents that
reported disability among one or more household member indicated that they
were able to access needed services (Annex B, Table 11).
Respondents of all neighborhoods reported the absence of common
household/neighborhood amenities. The most poignant for all three
13
“Crime is doubling and tripling because
everyone is pushing uptown since downtown
is destroyed. Its like jail when the jails get
overcrowded that is when the tension comes.
It’s turf wars.”
- African American male late 50’s
neighborhoods were the lack of garbage pick up at least once a week (11.0% of
respondents in Bywater reported not having this service, 11.7% in Central City
and 17.6% in Tremé), the absence of air-conditioning in the home (15.5% for
Bywater, 13.0% for Central City and 13.7% for Tremé) and a lack of adequate
neighborhood lighting (12.5% in Bywater, 25.6% in Central City and 25.6% in
Tremé). In addition to these problems, 45.0% of the reporting households in
Bywater, 40.5% of the responding household in Central City and 33.5% of the
reporting household in Tremé reported signs of serious pest infestations. Roof
leaks were also reported as a problem in over 20% of the households in all
neighborhoods. Mold due to Katrina was reported by 17.1% of the respondents
interviewed in Bywater, by 17.2% of respondents in Central City and by 23.6%
of respondents in Tremé (Annex B, Table 4).
Crime and Safety
Crime and Safety has become a major source of anxiety for all three
neighborhoods following Hurricane Katrina. Almost fifty percent (47.8%) of
responding households in Tremé report crime as a current post-Katrina
problem. In Bywater, 38.8% of surveyed households claim that crime is a post-
Katrina problem. The percentage of respondents who reported crime as a post-
Katrina problem was extremely high in Central City at 62.0%. (Annex B, Table
12). One resident from Central City, an African American female in her mid-
60’s, expressed the common
concern that the crime situation is
bigger now following the storm
and that the killing is out of hand.
An African American female from
Central City in her late 50’s
responded, “It’s gonna take 7 to 8 years to get better.” There has been a stark
change in the overall perception of safety among the households surveyed in
Central City. Prior to Katrina 83.1% of the responding households expressed
feeling safe in their neighborhood out alone during the day and 68.5% felt safe
14
alone at night. Following Katrina, only 60.7% felt safe during the day and mere
34.8% felt safe out alone in Central City during the night (Annex B, Table 14a).
This trend is accentuated by the Metropolitan Crime Commission’s preliminary
results from their Central City Community Survey conducted in August of 2006.
They found that 42% of households felt somewhat or very safe prior to Katrina
and that only 28% felt somewhat or very safe following the Hurricane
3
. The
results from this survey also show that 80% of Central City households are
afraid of crime in their neighborhood.
A number of suggestions were made by respondents in focus groups and the
survey with regards to dealing with crime and safety in Central City. Most
responding households felt that educating youth would deter crime (88.5%).
Eighty-seven percent of the households surveyed felt that improving policing
techniques would reduce crime (Table B). This opinion was reinforced in the
focus groups and ideas of how to improve the policing techniques were
discussed. An African American female in her mid-60’s from Central City said,
“police should walk the street like they used to.”
A concern that must be addressed is the prevailing inconsistency of
respondents wanting a higher police presence (86.2%) but their unwillingness
to report crimes in Central City. One respondent in a focus group, an African
American female in her late 50’s, expressed a fear of retaliation by those
reported upon. She said, “to tell you the truth, a lot of people see what’s
going on but they are afraid to talk. Their friends will kill you if they looking at
you talking to the police.” Others suggested that the inconsistency between
not being willing to report a crime but still wanting more police in the
neighborhood is not rooted in a fear of retaliation but rather stems from the
relationship between police in the community and the residents. “They (police)
pass you like they don’t even see you,” an African American female in her mid-
3
Metropolitan Crime Commission, Preliminary Results. “Central City Community Survey.” August 2006.
15
60’s, exclaimed. Only 45% of the households in Central City feel the NOPD are
trustworthy and only 51% feel they act professionally
4
.
Residents of Central City discussed solutions to these issues in the focus group.
One resident, an African American female in her mid-60’s, replied to the notion
that holding a community meeting with the police would help. She said, “Yes,
not just one time but once a month, and maybe bring in different officers. We
get familiar with each other, they get familiar with us.”
Table B: Households’ opinions on managing crime and
safety in Central City.
What should be done about
crime and safety
Increased Police Presence
% 86.2
N
75
Con. Int.
(80.5, 90.5)
Supervise youth
%
81.6
N
71
Con. Int.
(73.4, 87.7)
Educate youth
% 88.5
N
77
Con. Int.
(80.6, 93.4)
Establish Neighborhood Watch
%
78.2
N
68
Con. Int.
(70.8, 84.1)
Establish rehab programs
% 76.7
N
66
Con. Int.
(68.3, 83.5)
Improve policing techniques
%
87.2
N
75
Con. Int.
(80.8, 91.7)
Improve street lighting
% 69.8
N
60
Con. Int.
(60.7, 77.5)
* Confidence Interval (Con. Int.) at 95%
4
Metropolitan Crime Commission, Preliminary Results. “Central City Community Survey.” August 2006.
16
Community Center/Safe Haven
An overwhelming 86.9% of the responding households in Central City felt that a
Safe Haven should be established in their neighborhood. In Bywater, 82.1% of
respondents agreed that there should be a Safe Haven in their neighborhood as
well (Annex B, Table 13). A Safe Haven, as defined by Operation Weed and
Seed is a multi-service center for youth and adults free of drug and violence.
Similar to the desire for a neighborhood Safe Haven, 87.0% of the responding
households in Central City felt their neighborhood needed an organization to
help facilitate the recovery process. This feeling was also echoed in the other
two neighborhoods where 70.5% of Bywater respondents and 81.5% of Tremé
respondents agreed (Annex B, Table 14).
Employment
A significant percentage of residents surveyed in all three neighborhoods
reported loosing a job due to Hurricane Katrina (39.3% in Tremé, 35.8% in
Bywater and 42.1% in Central City). Around 20% of those surveyed in all
neighborhoods reported that finding a job was a current problem for their
household. There was a dramatic increase in the percentage of households, in
all three neighborhoods, that reported being enrolled in an unemployment
insurance program after Katrina as compared to those that reported utilizing
this benefit prior to Katrina. The usage of employment services also
dramatically increased among the households surveyed. When asked if they
had any new sources of income since the hurricane, 44.4% of households in
Tremé, 33.8% in Bywater and 42.5% in Central City reported receiving money
from FEMA, 39.2% of households in Tremé, 22.2% in Bywater and 33.0% in
Central City stated that they got money from the Red Cross and 8.2% of
households in Tremé, 10.9% in Bywater and 7.9% Central City said that
construction work supplied them with a new source of income (Annex B, Table
8). Over seventy-seven percent (77.9%) of the heads of households in Tremé
17
report being employed prior to Katrina. The percentage of employed heads of
households drops to 60.5% post Katrina (Annex B, Table 28). Of female-headed
households in Tremé only 53.0% report being employed currently, as compared
to 68.9% or male headed households (Annex B, Table 30).
Almost forty percent (39.3%) of households surveyed in Tremé reported loosing
a job due to Hurricane Katrina. A large majority (91.1%) of the respondents
who reported a job loss, self-identified as being African American. It is no
surprise that nearly seventy percent (69.4%) of respondents who reported
loosing a job post-Katrina also reported a decrease in their household income.
Of those who reported not loosing a job due to Katrina, 54.8% stated that there
was no change in their household’s income, implying that those who did not
loose a job due to Katrina experienced a much more staple post-hurricane
environment. It is also the case, that 57.4% of households that testified that
they did not loose a job due to Katrina own their residences, while 50.8% of
household that lost a job are tenants of their residences (Annex B, Table 16).
Of the households surveyed in Bywater, 35.8% reported loosing a job due to
Hurricane Katrina. The majority (55.8%) of these people self-identified as
being Caucasian. The other 44.2% self-identified as being African American.
The majority of households who stated that they did not loose a job are
homeowners (58.1%), while the majority of households that reported a Katrina-
related job loss are tenants (57.1%). Of the households that reported a job
loss, 59.1% claimed to have a pre-Katrina monthly household income of less
than $2000. And, 43.8% of them reported a decrease in their income post-
Katrina. Only 39.9% of households that reported no Katrina-related loss of a
job, testified that they had a monthly household income of less than $2000.
However, 46.6% of this same population reported a post-Katrina household
income decrease (Annex B, Table 15).
18
The majority of households surveyed in Central City (65%) have at least one
member that is employed either full or part time. The percentage of
households in Central City that contain all unemployed residents is the same as
the percentage of households whose members are all retired (17.5%). The
majority of residents in Central City of all employment status groups were
African American. One hundred percent of the unemployed households
categorized themselves as African American (Annex B, Table 17).
Not surprisingly, the households in Central City that contain at least one
employed member are less vulnerable with regards to a number of variables
than those households that do not have an employed member. Compared to
employed households, both unemployed and retired households were more
likely to report having a chronic illness or disability. Over thirty percent of
employed household in Central City reported an increase in their income since
the hurricane. Only 21.4% of both unemployed and retired households reported
an increase in income. Half of all retired households reported that their
income has stayed the same since Hurricane Katrina (Annex B, Table 18).
Hurricane Katrina adversely affected households from all three employment
status groups in Central City. However, it is possible to report on some of the
more striking findings. Not unexpectedly, 64.3% of the unemployed households
reported that loosing their job was one adverse impact of Hurricane Katrina. It
is interesting to note that 50.0% of employed households also reported loosing
their job. A large percentage of both groups also reported loosing their
benefits (34.6% of employed households and 28.6% of unemployed households)
(Annex B, Table 18). Generally, retired and unemployed households are less
likely to have common household amenities, such as a working kitchen, air
conditioner, and internet, than employed households. And, they are more
likely to report being beset with pests. (Annex B, Table 17).
19
Owners and Tenants
A slight majority of the population surveyed in Tremé own their homes as
compared to renting or leasing (55.1% and 44.9%, respectively). Nearly ninety
percent (88.6%) of the tenants surveyed in Tremé are African American. The
majority (78.2%) of homeowners also self-identified as being African American.
A larger percentage of homeowners self-identified as being Caucasian than did
those interviewed that rented their residences (12.9% and 7.2% respectively).
Many more homeowners than renters reported having a pre-Katrina household
monthly income of $3000 or more (44.1% as compared to 19.6%). However, a
higher percentage of homeowners reported an income decrease post-Katrina
than did their leasing counterparts (44.5% and 37.5%, respectively) (Annex B,
Table 20).
In the neighborhood of Tremé, 44.5% of the homeowners surveyed reported
that at least one member of their household had a chronic illness or disability.
Only 33% of people who rent their residence reported a chronically ill or
disability member in their household. However, a larger percentage of renters
reported having problems accessing the care necessary for the illness or
disability than did homeowners. While 22.0% of homeowners claimed that they
could not access any needed care, 45.4% of renters reported not being able to
access necessary care at all. Generally, homeowners tended to report lacking
more household amenities and having more household deficiencies than did
those that rent their residences (Annex B, Table 21).
The percentage of homeowners in Central City has increased as compared to
the 2000 census data, from 16.3% to 36.5%. (In order to more accurately
quantify the percentage of owners versus tenants, the response of
“relative/friend of householder” was filtered out, resulting in an increase of
20
percentages for both homeowners and tenants.) Conversely, the percentage of
renters has decreased from 83.7% to 63.5% in Central City (Annex B, Table 1,
Table 22). One explanation is that homeowners had more incentive to return
after the storm. Katrina left Central City relatively unscathed structurally and
it is now one of the few habitable neighborhoods in the New Orleans area. As
such, it is predicted that more tenants will become part of the Central City
population.
If it is predicted that more and more tenants will reside in Central City, it
would be worthwhile to look at differences in the characteristics and needs of
people who rent the residences in which they live and people who own their
residences. We can see in Annex B, Table 22 that tenants are more likely to be
from a “minority” race (African American or Hispanic). The tenants surveyed
reported having lower pre-Katrina monthly household incomes than did the
homeowners that were surveyed: 53.4% of the tenants had a household income
less than $2000 per month, whereas, only 37.5% of homeowners reported a
household income below $2000 per month (Annex B, Table 22). However, after
the storm 32.5% of surveyed tenants reported an increase in their income.
Only 13.9% of home owners reported an increase in their income post-Katrina
(Annex B, Table 23).
Tenants also seemed to have fewer complaints about the state of their
residences than did homeowners. A higher percentage of owners than tenants
report lacking heat, air-conditioning and a working kitchen, and having leaky
roofs and mold in their homes. These findings are, perhaps, illustrative of an
improvement in post-Katrina living conditions, as most of the neighborhood’s
new residents are renters (Table C).
21
Table C: Percent of households that report specific characteristics of
vulnerability by characteristic and residential status.
Characteristics of
Households
Owners of
Residence
Tenants of
Residence
Central City Residences
%
36.5
63.5
N
72
125
Con. Int.
(29.8, 43.8)
(56.2, 70.2)
Chronic Illness or Disability
%
41.7
40.8
N
30
51
Con. Int.
(32.9, 51.0)
(30.9, 51.5)
Ability to Access Care
Needed for Chronic Illness
or Disability
For all services
% 43.3 59.2
N
13
29
Con. Int.
(27.4, 60.8)
(43.0, 73.6)
For some services
% 26.7 22.4
N
8
11
Con. Int.
(13.7, 45.3)
(13.6, 34.7)
Not at all
% 30.0 16.3
N
9
8
Con. Int.
(15.9, 49.3)
(7.4, 32.1)
Post-Katrina Change in
Income
Increased
%
13.9
32.5
N
10
40
Con. Int.
(8.8, 21.3)
(24.6, 41.6)
Decreased
%
36.1
26.8
N
26
33
Con. Int.
(26.9, 46.5)
(18.5, 37.2)
Stayed the same
%
45.8
38.2
N
33
47
Con. Int.
(36.2, 55.7)
(27.6,50.1)
Lacks Household
Amenities
Garbage pick-up
% 9.9 13.1
N
7
16
Con. Int.
(4.9, 19.0)
(8.3, 20.1)
Internet
% 70.4 71.0
N
50
88
Con. Int.
(57.8, 80.6)
(63.6, 77.4)
Working kitchen
% 30.6 12.1
N
22
15
Con. Int.
(19.6, 44.3)
(7.6, 18.7)
Heat
% 26.8 8.2
N
19
10
Con. Int.
(15.8, 41.5)
(4.4, 14.7)
22
Air conditioning
% 20.8 7.3
N
15
9
Con. Int.
(11.6, 34.5)
(4.2, 12.5)
Smoke detector
% 37.5 30.9
N
27
38
Con. Int.
(26.1, 50.5)
(22.8, 40.4)
Ample lighting in neigh.
% 27.8 25.2
N
20
31
Con. Int.
(18.1, 40.0)
(18.5, 33.3)
Household Deficiencies
Pests
%
37.5
43.1
N
27
53
Con. Int.
(27.5, 48.7)
36.1, 50.4)
Roof leaks
%
29.2
16.3
N
21
20
Con. Int.
(20.2, 40.1)
(10.2, 24.9)
Mold
%
23.9
15.3
N
17
19
Con. Int.
(15.9, 34.5)
(9.9, 23.0)
* Confidence Interval (Con. Int.) at 95%
It was reported that most other hurricane related impacts were encountered
equally by tenants and homeowners (Annex B, Table 24, Table 25). It was,
however, the case that the renters and homeowners surveyed differed in
opinions on the issue of safety in Central City. Before Katrina, a higher
percentage of homeowners than tenants felt safe out alone in Central City both
during the day and at night. In the post-Katrina environment, tenants now feel
safer than homeowners in Central City at night (28.1 % as compared to 35.4%,
respectively, Annex B, Table 26).
Algiers
Among those surveyed in Algiers, 77.8% report being African American and
16.7% report being Caucasian. Over sixty-six percent (66.7%) the responding
households report being tenants, this is an increase from the 2000 Census of
56.5%. Homeowners make up a third (33.3%) of the responding households.
Over fifty percent (50.1%) of these households report a pre-Katrina monthly
23
income of less than $2,000 (Annex B, Table 32). Thirty-five percent of the
responding households claim to have a decrease in income following Hurricane
Katrina and only 11.8% report an increase in their household income (Annex B,
Table 33).
Several indicators of vulnerability among these low-income households in
Algiers were also asked in the survey, including chronic illness and disabilities,
accessing health care and household deficiencies. Nearly fifty percent (47.1%)
of the responding households report having at least one member in their
household with a chronic illness or disability and 12.5% of the households that
reported this have not been able to access the care they need (Annex B, Table
33). Forty-one percent of the responding households report not having ample
lighting in their neighborhood and 16.7% of the responding households indicate
they have serious pests’ infestations and leaky roofs (Annex B, Table 34).
Twenty percent of the reporting households claim the loss of a job as a main
impact from Katrina (Annex B, Table 35). Twelve and a half percent have
sought employment services post Katrina (Annex B, Table 37).
Crime and safety are also major concerns in the Algiers district. Of the
households surveyed 37.5% report that crime and safety are the greatest
household problems they have experienced and continue to experience since
Hurricane Katrina (Annex B, Table 35). Table D indicated the top neighborhood
features important to the respondents. Low crime rate is the top priority. All
the households surveyed believe a safe haven should be established in Algiers
and 75% of the responding households indicate the need for an organization to
help facilitate the recovery process and housing issues (Annex B, Table 38).
24
Table D. NEIGHBORHOOD FEATURES OF IMPORTANCE TO RESPONDENTS
NEIGHBORHOOD
PRIORITY RANK
Algiers
Top Priority
Low Crime Rate
Second Priority
Neat, No Litter
Third Priority
Good Street Lighting
Fourth Priority
Affordable Housing
Fifth Priority
Sidewalks & Cross-Walks (streets safe for walking)
Limitations and Lessons Learned
Limitations for Central City
Non response
Non-response becomes a serious problem when the population which refuses or
is unavailable for survey is dissimilar in some important way from the
population which is successfully surveyed. If unaccounted for, non-response
25
can lead to conclusions being drawn from the surveyed population which do not
necessarily reflect the population as a whole. Thus, non-response weights are
often employed to remove such potential bias.
Central City
While the population of people who do not respond can be investigated and
adjusted for in the analysis, it is always best to minimized non-response to
begin with. A complete survey will always be the most accurate and precise.
In the Central City survey, several steps were taken to minimize non-response:
Every non-responding residence was visited multiple times.
Incentives of $5 gift cards to Save-a-Center were offered in completion of
the survey.
Door hangers were placed on every door visited with a toll free number to
RALLY. This allowed residents to set up a convenient time to be surveyed.
Proxies were used to verify if the residence was inhabited or uninhabited.
Despite these measures, only 26.4% of the sampled households responded to
the survey (Table J).
Table J: Sampled residences by response group
Response group
Number
Percent of Sample
Successfully Surveyed
218
26.4%
Refused to be
surveyed
175
21.2%
Non-Response
No response/
unavailable
432
52.4%
Total
825
100%
26
Therefore, an investigation into the ways that this non-responding population
differed from those successfully surveyed was carried out. Proxy information
about non-responders, collected from their neighbors, revealed that non-
response was significantly associated with being African American. Thus, these
households weighed more heavily in the analysis than non-African American
households. The “Methodology” section of this report (Annex A) details the
analysis of non-response and construction of the non-response weights.
Due to the lack of a pre-existing sampling frame for Central City, there was no
pre-existing data on non-responding households, and the limited
demographic/socioeconomic data that was collected by proxy (from neighbors)
was not collected for all non-responding residences. Therefore, the ethnic
composition of the non-response group is an estimate, and the weights
constructed with respect to this estimate constitute a potential source of error
which is currently unaccounted for in the survey analysis.
Bywater
The non-response levels were similar in the Bywater (around 70%), but RALLY
did not collect proxy data on non-responders. Without proxy demographic or
socioeconomic information on the non-response group, the investigation into
non-response focused mainly on the variation in the achieved response rate (1)
between surveyors, and (2) between flooded and non-flooded areas (spatial
variation). Logistic regression revealed that “surveyor ID” was significantly
associated with rate of response.
Unlike in the other surveys, Bywater surveyors were not randomly assigned
clusters. Rather, the neighborhood was effectively divided into several areas,
and each surveyor was assigned to the clusters falling within an area. The
27
association between surveyor ID and response rate suggests that either some
surveyors were inherently more successful at eliciting responses from sampled
households, or that respondents living within the geographic areas to which
these surveyors were assigned were simply more willing to respond to the
survey. Either way, surveyor ID was significantly and non-trivially associated
with non-response, and the survey was thus weighted to account for this.
Algiers
The sampling methodology for the Algiers district was to sample among the low
income and public housing developments. Many problems were encountered by
the field surveyors in the selected areas. The surveyors expressed worry about
their physical safety on several occasions. Residence of these areas asked the
field surveyors to leave and that their safety was at risk. The team tried many
different methods to survey within Algiers but was unsuccessful. Only 18
surveys were completed in the 10 sampled clusters. No sampling weight was
used in the analysis of Algiers; these findings can not be generalized beyond
the population interviewed.
Tremé
The non-response level was again around 70% in the Tremé. Here RALLY did
not collect proxy data on non-responders. Surveyor ID information was also
unavailable. Through logistic regression, Katrina flooding was found to be
significantly (negatively) associated with response, and was thus used for post-
stratification and weighting.
Population estimates
Non-response, residence occupancy and household size are closely related, and
a full understanding of this relationship was not achieved through these three
28
surveys. In analyses presented here, the occupancy rate and average
household size among non-responding households was estimated based on a
partial set of proxy data collected on Central City non-responders. The
occupancy rate was also applied in Tremé and Bywater.
The error in these proxy estimates is probably relatively large. As non-
responding households also comprise the majority of the sample (around 70% in
each neighborhood) any error in occupancy rate among this group will have a
large impact on the accuracy of the overall population estimation. This error is
currently not accounted for in the population estimates presented in this
report.
The population Estimate also relies on the 200 US census figure for the total
number of residences in each neighborhood. There is some question as to the
accuracy of this number. The error associated with it is not accounted for in
the total population estimates made by RALLY.
Female headed households
Female headed households are commonly targeted as a beneficiary group in
post-disaster settings due to their higher vulnerability. However, the RALLY
Central City and Bywater survey instruments did not specifically collect the
gender of heads of household. Rather, the gender of all adults in the
household was collected with no designation for the head of household. It is
therefore impossible to classify any given household as female-headed unless
every adult in the household happened to be female.
Thus, for Central City and Bywater, the vulnerable group identified as “female-
headed households” are technically households in which all adults are female.
The set of households which are female-headed but have at least one adult
29
male are not included in this vulnerable group as they could not be
distinguished. It is assumed that they are similarly vulnerable, as the adult
males will often be dependants.
A head of household designation was collected for in the Tremé survey, and it
is thus not limited in this manner.
Clusters
In the design of this survey, clusters were formed based on rough estimates of
their population size. The cluster boundaries were drawn without respect to
census blocks and block groups. This lack of agreement between sampling
units means that a more detailed comparison to the 2000 census aggregated at
the block group level is not possible.
Furthermore, despite clusters being chosen at random, a large section of
Central City east of Felicity St. was not sampled. Though the gap was due only
to chance, it impacts the confidence this report can have in applying it’s
estimates to this part of the neighborhood, particularly with regard to the Maps
in Annex C. In these maps, estimates in Central City made east of Felicity St.
must be regarded with significantly reduced confidence due to the low
sampling in the area.
Lessons Learned
Non-response and population estimation
Incentives can potentially be used to decrease refusals.
A good sampling frame should be used if available. Reliable sampling
frames are probably not available for most areas of New Orleans right now.
30
Instead of sampling all households within each cluster, surveyors could focus
more intensely on a sub-sample. Visiting fewer houses more often and at
varying times of the day could reduce non-response.
Using community members as guides and/or data collectors may improve
response rates.
When working without a sampling frame, every effort should be made to
collect a complete set of proxy demographic/socioeconomic data on non-
responding households. This will help minimize the error in estimating
probabilities response within demographic/socioeconomic response classes.
A complete and high-quality set of non-response occupancy and household
size data is also critical for an accurate estimation of total neighborhood
population.
In order to help distinguish surveyor bias from real geographic variation in
response rates and in variables of interest, surveyors should be assigned
clusters randomly to ensure that they are not grouped geographically.
When little is known about the non-response group, or when proxy data is
incomplete, more sophisticated imputation techniques could be explored in
order to estimate the error in calculating the probability of response, and
incorporate this error into confidence intervals for statistics.
Ultimately, non-response can be very high in New Orleans neighborhood
assessments like this. When it is, non-response weighting should be
considered in order to account for varying response probabilities.
Household characteristics for weighting must be (a) associated with non-
response, and (b) associated with variables of interest in the overall
analysis.
Female headed households
Specific information on the head of household should be collected,
including gender.
31
Clusters
Cluster boundaries should be created with respect to US census block
groups.
Selection of clusters should be stratified in such a way to ensure sufficient
sampling within each census block group, thus allowing for comparison to
census figures at both the neighborhood and block-group level, and also
ensuring relatively good coverage of the entire neighborhood.
32
References
1. Metropolitan Crime Commission, Preliminary Results. “Central City
Community Survey.” August 2006.
2. The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program. Katrina and Rita
Impacts on Gulf Coast Populations: First Census Findings. William H. Frey and
Audrey Singer. June 2006.
3. Emergency Operations Center, City of New Orleans. Rapid Population
Estimate Project. January 28-29, 2660 Survey Report. Greg Stone, Tim Grant,
and Nathaniel Weaver.
4. Poverty Maps.
http://www.gnocdc.org/mapping/docs/Poverty.pdf
5. U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Sample Characteristics.. From a
compilation by the GNO Community Data Center.
http://www.gnocdc.org
.
33
Annex A: Methodology
Sampling Scheme
The primary methodology used was probability household surveys. In all three
neighborhoods, a sample of all residential units in that neighborhood was
selected. Two distinct sampling strategies were utilized because of Rally’s
historical involvement in the Tremé neighborhood. Prior to the hurricane,
Tremé/Lafitte had a population estimated at 8,853 with 3,429 total
households
5
. RALLY had previously conducted a rapid assessment in December
confirming that approximately 10% of the residences were being occupied.
RALLY has a longer term program in the Tremé neighborhood, so a more in-
depth survey instrument and a 50% sample of all residences in the Tremé
neighborhood were selected. Using the address list constructed during the
previous rapid assessment, six pairs of maps with designated streets were
produced. Each pair had listings of even or odd addresses with in the
neighborhood, making a combined total of 12 maps. Each pair of maps was
given to a team of two surveyors, one taking the even numbered addresses and
the other odd. To begin surveying each member of the survey team selected a
random start at the beginning of each designated street and then proceeded to
survey every other residence. Each surveyor was responsible for three separate
attempts to interview each selected residence at least 4 hour intervals, if no
one answered the door. If homes were selected that were uninhabitable or
uninhabited (given by proxy reporters), the surveyor marked the appropriate
box on the address sheet.
The second strategy, used for Central City and Bywater/Algiers, was a one-
stage cluster sampling design. The advantage of this strategy is its logistic
efficiency. Though the confidence intervals associated with this design are
5
U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Sample Characteristics.. From a compilation by the GNO Community Data Center.
http://www.gnocdc.org
,
This number is reflective of the Tremé/Lafitte neighborhood.
34
typically wider, the ability to rapidly enumerate households is greatly
increased at a reduced cost. The boundaries for each neighborhood were
defined as by the Greater New Orleans Community Data Center (GNOCDC).
Using satellite imagery and “quick count” each neighborhood was divided into
clusters based on the average of 20 residences per cluster. Needing to sample
low-income portions of these neighborhoods, a poverty map, supplied by the
GNOCDC was used to determine these areas. In Central City, because of a
relatively uniform poverty distribution, all clusters were included in the
sampling frame. A random numbers table was used to select the designated
clusters. Using simple random selection 40 clusters were chosen throughout
Central City for the first round. The second round, with continued funding
from Baptist Community Ministries, RALLY, conducted a full census of the
Hoffman Triangle, and returned to 32 clusters the were previously selected
during the first round. Maps with the designated clusters defined were
created. Each surveyor was then assigned 4 clusters and was responsible for
attempting to survey all residents in their clusters.
Upon closer inspection of the Bywater/Algiers “neighborhood”, a more
complicated sampling universe was constructed and ultimately the team
determined that separate samples were required for these two neighborhoods.
Ultimately, 40 clusters in Bywater will be included in the final sample. Algiers
is a large heterogeneous district. A small sample of 10 clusters was selected
from the lowest income sections of the district to gain some insights in to the
needs of this community.
35
Central City weighting and analysis
Weighting
Two major factors influence probability of any particular residence being
included in the survey: probability of selection and probability of response.
Design weights and non-response weights, respectively, can be calculated to
adjust for differences in these probabilities among residences.
Design weights
Sampled households are weighted according to probability of selection. In the
case of the Central City survey, the neighborhood was divided into 131 clusters,
and 31 were selected at random. Within each cluster, all residences were
selected for participation in the survey, and thus each household in Central
City had an equal probability of selection. The procedure was in the Bywater
survey. In the Tremé, a half census was performed.
As all three surveys were designed such that each household in the
neighborhood had an equal probability of being selected for the survey, no
design weights are needed.
For the RALLY summer 2006 surveys, variability in the probability of being
included in the survey was influence mainly by the probability of responding to
the survey.
Non-response weights
The non-response rate (due to both low availability and refusal to respond) was
quite high in all three neighborhood surveys (around 70%).
36
Proxy data on a random sub-sample of non-responding households in Central
City were collected through ad hoc interviews with neighbors. Variables
collected by proxy included the number of residents in the non-responding
household, ethnicity, income class and gender.
Logistic regression was used to investigate a number of factors potentially
correlated with non-response, including small household size, high Katrina
flood depth, household ethnicity and surveyor ID. Model building revealed that
being African American was significantly associated with non-response in the
Central City. In the Tremé and Bywater surveys the proxy demographic and
socioeconomic data was not collected. However, Katrina flood depth and
surveyor ID were found to be significantly associated with non-response,
respectively.
In each neighborhood survey, the significant non-response correlate was found
to also have an effect on variables of interest, thus qualifying them for use as
non-response classes.
Post-stratification by distinct response class (in this case, African American vs.
non-African American) is a common way to apply non-response weights.
Probability of response for these classes is generally calculated:
R
i
= s
j
/n
j
where
R
j
=
Probability of responding to the survey
s
j
=
Number of households responding in the j
th
response class
n
j
=
Number of households sampled within the j
th
response class
As the ethnicity data was not available for non-responders in Central City, it
was necessary to estimate ni among African Americans and non-African
Americans based on the rate observed in the proxy data. The ethnic make-up
of the proxy data was applied to the total number of non-responders sampled
(Table L), and response probability was calculated based on the estimated
37
number of responses in each class. The probabilities of response are presented
in Table M.
Overall weighting
Sample weights are thus based on the overall probability of selection for each
household in the neighborhood.
P
ij
= (m/M) * (n
i
/N
i
) * R
j
where
P
ij
= Probability
of
selection for households in the i
th
cluster and the j
th
response
class.
m
=
Number of sample clusters chosen
M
=
Total number of sample clusters
n
i
=
Number of sampled households within the i
th
cluster
N
i
=
Total number of households in the i
th
cluster
R
i
=
Probability of response for households in the j
th
response
The sample weight is the inverse of the probability of being selected.
W
ij
= 1/P
ij
where
W
ij
=
Overall weight for households in the i
th
cluster and j
th
response class
P
ij
=
Overall probability of selection for households in the i
th
cluster and j
th
response class
Analysis
The analysis was done with SPSS 15 using the Complex Samples module, which
takes non-SRS survey designs and unequal selection probabilities into account
when calculating statistics and estimating standard error.
38
Central City Population Estimate
The general formula for estimating the summer 2006 total population of each
surveyed neighborhood can be stated:
Total population = Total residences in neighborhood * Occupancy rate * Average household size
Specifically, the RALLY population estimate was calculated utilizing three
critical pieces of information:
Total number of residences in the neighborhood (source: 2000 US census).
Occupancy rate within surveyed clusters, stratified by response group and
Katrina flood depth (source: RALLY survey)
Average household size of surveyed residences, stratified by response group
and Katrina flood depth (source: RALLY survey).
The RALLY surveys were designed to collect the occupancy status and
household size for all residences in each survey cluster. Using this data, the
occupancy rate and average household size among successfully surveyed
households was calculated for the sample responding to the survey, stratified
by flood depth. Separate occupancy rates and average household sizes were
estimated for non-responding residences based on proxy data discussed under
“Non-response weights” in the “Methodology” annex. The stratified occupancy
rates were applied proportionally to the 2000 US census estimate of the total
number of residences for the neighborhood, yielding an estimate of the total
number of occupied residences within each stratum. The number of occupied
residences within each stratum was subsequently multiplied by the average
household size for the stratum, yielding a stratified population estimate. The
strata totals were summed to give the total population estimate for the
neighborhood.
39
Confidence intervals reflect the combined error of constituent estimates, but
do not reflect error associated with the US census figures or the non-response
occupancy and household size estimates.
40
Annex B: Tables
Descriptive Statistics
Table 1: Percent of households interviewed with selected demographic characteristics by
neighborhood
Characteristics of Household
Tremé
Bywater
Central City
Race
African American
%
83
31.5
84.9
N
89
40
185
C.I.
(74.8, 88.9)
(21.8, 43.2)
(78.7, 89.5)
Hispanic
%
2.2
3.2
2.8
N
2
3
6
C.I.
(0.5, 8.1)
(1.0, 9.6)
(1.4, 5.3)
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
%
0.5
N
1
C.I.
(0.1, 2.9)
American-Indian
%
0.5
N
1
C.I.
(0.1,
2.2)
White
%
10.3
62.2
8.7
N
12
82
19
C.I.
(5.9, 17.1)
(49.9, 73.2)
(4.8, 15.3)
Other
%
4.5
2.5
3.2
N
5
4
7
C.I.
(1.9, 10.5)
(0.9, 6.9)
(1.7, 6.1)
Age Distribution of Household
<4
%
4.7
5.5
7.45
5_13
%
11.6
5.9
12.04
14-17
%
2.6
5.9
8.08
18-24
%
10.3
12.3
11.73
25-34
%
6.9
14.1
13.63
35-44
%
19.3
19.5
12.04
45-54
%
16.3
19.1
14.74
55-64
%
11.6
11.4
9.83
65+
%
16.7
6.4
10.46
Gender
Male
%
46.6
49.3
N
50
135
C.I.
(37.5, 55.9)
Female
%
53.4
50.7
41
N
60
139
C.I.
(44.1, 62.5)
Residential Status
Owner
%
53.9
50.8
33.6
N
58
65
72
C.I.
(44.6, 63.0)
(40.8, 60.7)
(27.6, 40.2)
Landlord of Residence
%
0.8
2.2
N
1
2
C.I.
(0.1, 5.2)
(0.5, 8.6)
Primary Tenant
%
40.2
43.8
46.3
N
45
58
99
C.I.
(31.6, 49.5)
(33.6, 54.4)
(37.3, 55.4)
Other Tenant
%
4.3
1.6
12.1
N
5
2
26
C.I.
(1.8, 10.0
(0.4, 6.3)
(8.6, 16.9)
Relative/Friend
0.8
1.6
7.9
N
1
2
17
C.I.
(0.1, 5.2)
(0.4, 6.3)
(5.1, 12.1)
Pre-Katrina Monthly Income
0-$1,000
%
21.8
25.3
23
N
23
20
49
C.I.
(14.9, 30.7)
(15.3, 38.7)
(17.5, 29.7)
$1,001-$2,000
%
24.3 19.9 25.8
N
25
22
55
C.I.
(17.0,
33.5)
(13.9, 27.7)
(20.7, 31.6)
$2,001-$3,000
%
6.9
11.8
11.7
N 12
13
25
C.I.
(6.9, 20.0)
(6.8, 19.6)
(8.1, 16.7)
$3,001-$5,000
%
21.8
20.1
9.4
N
23
21
20
C.I.
(14.9, 30.6)
(13.2, 29.3)
(6.0, 14.4)
$5,001+
%
9.1
23
10.3
N
10
22
22
C.I. (5.0, 16.0)
(15.5, 32.7)
(7.1, 14.8)
Don't Know
% 11.1
N
11
C.I.
(6.3, 18.8)
Avg. Household size
mean 2.72
2.6
3.04
N
103
122
207
C.I.
(2.39, 3.05)
(2.2, 2.9)
(2.78, 3.31)
Confidence Intervals at 95%
42
Table 2: Percent of households interviewed with selected demographic characteristics by
neighborhood for the 2000 Census.
Characteristics of Household
2000 Census
Tremé
Bywater Central City
Race
African American
%
92.4
61.0
87.1
Hispanic
%
1.5
4.8
1.6
White
%
4.9
32.4
9.9
Age Distribution of Household
>5
%
11.6
6.8
9.2
6 thru 17
%
22.7
15.8
20.7
18 thru 34
%
23.2
26.6
23.9
35 thru 64
%
32.8
40.4
33.6
65+
%
9.7
10.3
12.6
Residential Status
Owner
%
21.8
38.1
16.3
Renters
%
78.2
61.9
83.7
Population in Poverty
People Living in Poverty
%
56.9
38.6
49.8
U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Sample Characteristics). From a compilation by the GNO Community Data Center.
<http://www.gnocdc.org>
43
Table 3: Percent of Households interviewed with selected income characteristics
Characteristics of Household
Tremé Bywater
Central
City
Post-Katrina Change in Income
Increased
%
16.5
23.4
24.1
N
19
28
52
C.I. (10.7, 24.5) (16.9, 31.4) (18.6, 30.5)
Decreased
%
40.4
44.3
33.3
N
45
58
72
C.I. ( 31.8, 49.6) (34.2, 54.9) (26.0, 41.6)
Stayed the Same
%
43.1
32.2
39.4
N
50
39
85
C.I. (34.4. 52.2) (24.2, 41.5) (32.2, 47.0)
Don't Know
%
2.8
N
6
C.I.
(1.3, 5.7)
New Sources of Income since Katrina
Fema assistance
%
44.4
33.8
42.5
N
50
39
91
C.I. (35.5, 53.7) (25.2, 43.8) (34.2, 51.3)
Red Cross or other non-profit
%
39.2
22.2
33
N
43
25
71
C.I. (30.8, 48.2) (15.9, 30.2) (25.6, 41.5)
Construction work
%
8.2
6.3
7.9
N
10
14
17
C.I. (4.5, 14.5) (6.3, 18.1) (4.8, 12.9)
Rental income
%
6.1
8.9
4.2
N
7
10
9
C.I. (2.9, 12.2) (4.9, 15.6)
(2.2, 7.9)
Confidence Intervals at 95%
44
Table 4: Percent of households that report specific characteristics of vulnerability
Characteristics of Household
Tremé
Bywater
Central City
Lacks Household Amenities
Garbage pick-up
%
17.6
11
11.7
N
20
16 25
C.I. (11.6,
25.7)
(5.7, 20.2)
(7.7. 17.6)
Internet
%
67.2
43.3
71.6
N
73
55
154
C.I. (58.0, 75.2)
(33.1, 54.1)
(63.5, 78.6)
Heat
%
12.6
15
15.5
N
14
20 33
C.I. (0.9,
8.6)
(9.3, 23.1)
(9.7, 23.9)
Air conditioning
%
13.7
15.5
13
N
14
20
28
C.I. (8.4, 21.6)
(10.0, 23.1)
(8.4, 19.7)
Smoke detector
%
29.6
27.6
34
N
32
36 73
C.I. (21.7,
38.9)
(19.8, 37.2)
(27.3, 41.3)
Ample lighting in neigh.
%
25.6
12.5
25.6
N
29
15
55
C.I. (18.5, 34.4)
(7.2, 21.0)
(19.5, 32.7)
Household deficiencies
Pests
%
33.5
45
40.5
N
36
59 87
C.I. (25.2, 42.9)
(35.8, 54.5)
(34.4, 46.8)
Roof Leaks
%
23
28.3
20.6
N
25
34
44
C.I. (16.0, 31.9)
(20.6, 37.4)
(16.0, 26.0)
Mold
%
23.9
17.1
17.2
N
26
22 37
C.I. (16.9,
32.8)
(11.0, 25.5)
(12.6, 23.1)
Confidence Intervals at 95%
45
Table 5: Percent of households with specific characteristics
Characteristics of Household Members
Tremé
Bywater
Central City
Homeowners
Move in; current
%
77.7
79.1
80.5
N
48 53 62
C.I.
(65.4, 86.4)
(67.2, 87.6)
(70.8, 87.6)
Plan to sell the residence
%
5.8
2.6
N
5
2
C.I.
(2.4, 13.3)
(2.8. 14.4)
Plan to rent the residence
%
16.8
2
2.6
N
10 1 2
C.I.
(9.3, 28.4)
(0.3, 13.2)
(0.7, 9.6)
Plan to bulldoze the property and sell it
%
6.5
N
5
C.I.
(2.8, 14.4)
Undecided
%
7.1
0.1
N
4 5
C.I.
(2.4, 19.6)
(2.6, 15.2)
Other
%
5.6
5.9
N
3
5
C.I.
(1.9, 15.7)
(2.4, 13.8)
Tenant
Temporarily staying at this address
while permanent house is being repaired %
20.6
23.5
18.5
N
10
13
27
C.I.
(11.4, 34.1)
(13.6, 37.5)
(13.4, 25.0)
Plans to stay at this residence; has no
other residence
%
59.5
64.8
62.3
N
30 36 91
C.I.
(45.5, 72.1)
(50.6, 76.9)
(55.5, 68.7)
Plans to move to residence in New
Orleans
%
5.9
3.6
10.3
N
3
2
15
C.I.
(1.9, 16.7)
(0.8, 14.9)
(6.9, 15.0)
Plans to move to a residence outside of
New Orleans
%
3.5
3.6
2.1
N
2 3 3
C.I.
(0.9, 12.6)
(1.4, 8.9)
(0.8. 5.1)
Undecided
%
3.5
2.2
5.5
N
2
2
8
C.I.
(0.9, 12.6)
(0.7, 7.3)
(2.9, 10.0)
Other
%
7.1
2.3
25
N
3 2 26
C.I.
(2.4, 19.3)
0.7, 7.3)
46
Tenants interested in purchasing a
home
%
49.5
64.6
67.6
N
24
36
96
C.I.
(35.8, 63.4)
(52.4, 75.1)
(59.4, 74.9)
Tenants are currently trying to
purchase a home
%
30 25
N
13 26
C.I.
(16.2, 48.6)
(19.1. 32.1)
Reasons for not trying to purchase
home
Cannot afford it
%
72.2
72.6
N
16
53
C.I.
(50.8, 86.7)
(63.8, 79.9)
No home available to buy
%
4.1
N
3
C.I.
(1.4,
11.6)
Unstable/Unpredictable real estate
%
24.8
2.7
N
4
2
C.I.
(11.0, 46.8)
(0.7, 9.8)
Other
%
3 20.5
N
1 15
C.I.
(0.4, 18.0)
(13.4, 30.3)
Confidence Intervals at 95%
47
Table 6: Percentage of households that utilized specific services post-Katrina and percentage of
households that are members of specific associations.
Characteristics of Household
Bywater Tremé
Central
City
Utilized following service post-Katrina
Red Cross
%
65.9
82.7
77.8
N
86
94
168
C.I.
(56.6, 74.2)
(74.7, 88.6)
(71.7, 82.8)
FEMA
%
80.1
86.9
79.5
N
100
98
171
C.I.
(72.4, 86.1)
(79.8, 91.8)
(75.1, 83.4)
Recovery Centers
%
27.8
29.4
32.1
N
35
34
69
C.I.
(18.8, 39.1)
(21.7, 38.4)
(26.7, 38)
Housing Services
%
7.1
18.2
21.5
N
9
21
46
C.I.
(3.6, 13.5)
(12.1, 26.3)
(16, 28.2)
Active member of:
Trade Association
%
8.3
9.6
5.6
N
12
11
12
C.I.
(4.5, 14.8)
(5.4, 16.5)
(3.6, 8.7)
Neighborhood Association
%
16.3
12.9
11.2
N
23
15
24
C.I.
(10.5, 24.4)
(7.9, 20.2)
(7.4, 16.6)
NGO/Non Profit
%
15.2
10.1
13.1
N
20
12
28
C.I.
(9.7, 23.0)
(5.8, 16.9)
(8.9, 18.7)
Religious
%
24.5
47.1
52.3
N
32
53
112
C.I.
(17.3, 33.4)
(38.0, 56.3)
(46.8, 57.8)
Cultural
%
13
10.9
14.6
N
17
13
31
C.I.
(7.7, 21.1)
(6.4, 18.0)
(10.5, 19.8)
Confidence Intervals at 95%
48
Table 7: Percentage of households that used selected services by time services were used (post-Katrina or pre-Katrina)
Selected Services
Bywater Tremé
Central
City
Post-Katrina Pre-Katrina Post-Katrina Pre-Katrina Post-Katrina Pre-Katrina
TANF
%
3.7
1.1
7.7
2.1
7.9
5.1
N
4
1
8
2
17
11
C.I.
(1.3, 9.6)
(0.2, 7.0)
(3.9, 14.5)
(0.5, 7.7)
(4.9, 12.6)
(2.7, 9.5)
WIC
%
3.1
4.6
7.7
7.5
7
9.3
N
4
6
8
8
15
20
C.I.
(1.1, 8.3)
(1.9, 10.6)
(3.9, 14.5)
(3.8, 14.3)
(4.4, 11.1)
(6.5,13.3)
Medicare/Medicaid
%
16.9 19.6 42.3 39.5 54.4 52.6
N
24
26
48
45
117
113
C.I.
(11.6, 24.1)
(13.5, 27.7)
(33.5, 51.6)
(30.9, 48.8)
(48.1, 60.6)
(46.0, 59.0)
Food Stamps
%
36
15.1
55.9
23.1
53
30.2
N
48
18
62
25
114
55
C.I. (26.8, 46.4)
(9.1, 24.0)
(46.9, 64.6)
(16.2, 31.8)
(47.0, 59.0)
(24.2, 37.2)
Unemployment Insurance
%
20.3 3.2 20.4 2.8 35 6
N
27
3
23
3
77
13
C.I.
(13.6, 29.3)
(0.9, 11.2)
(14.0, 28.8)
(0.9, 8.3)
(28.8, 43.1)
(3.7, 9.7)
Public Assistance
%
6.1
0.5
12.1
4
14
10.7
N
10
1
14
5
30
23
C.I.
(3.2, 11.1)
(0.1, 3.3)
(7.3, 19.4)
(1.7, 9.2)
(9.4, 20.3)
(6.6, 16.8)
Community Centers
%
3.6
2.1
12.6
10.1
8.3
7.9
N
6
2
15
12
18
17
C.I.
(1.7, 7.4)
(0.6, 7.7)
(7.7, 19.8)
(5.8, 16.9)
(5.5, 12.3)
(5.0, 12.2)
Mental Health/Counseling Resources
%
14.7
7.4
8.3
6.1
7.9
10.2
N
17
9
10
7
17
22
C.I. (9.3, 22.6)
(3.9, 13.5)
(4.5, 14.7)
(2.9, 12.2)
(4.5, 13.4)
(6.4, 15.7)
Food Distribution Centers
%
29.6 4.2 28.5 8.9 35.2 7.4
N
40
5
33
10
76
16
49
C.I.
(21.5, 39.2)
(1.6, 10.5)
(21.1, 37.3)
(4.8, 15.8)
(28.3, 42.7)
(4.5, 12)
Employment Services
%
9.1
1.1
13.1
1
10.8
5.6
N
10
1
15
1
23
12
C.I. (4.7, 16.8)
(0.1, 7.3)
(8.1, 20.6)
(0.1, 6.8)
(7.1, 16)
(3.4, 9)
Financial Support
%
14.6
2.1
19.2
1
9.3
2.8
N
19 3 21 1 20 6
C.I.
(9.4, 21.9)
(0.6, 6.6)
(12.9, 27.5)
(0.1, 6.8)
(6.8, 12.8)
(1.3, 5.8)
Child Care Services
%
3.8
3.3
5.6
5
5.2
6.6
N
5
3
6
6
11
14
C.I.
(1.6, 9.0)
(1.1, 10.0)
(2.5, 11.8)
(2.3, 10.8)
(2.6, 10.2)
(3.9,10.8)
Confidence Intervals at 95%
Table 8: Percent of households that report employment related characteristics by
neighborhood and characteristic.
Characteristics
Tremé
Bywater Central City
Main Impacts Experienced from Hurricane
Katrina
Loss of Job
%
39.3 35.8 42.1
N
44 46 90
C.I. (30.6, 48.7) (25.7, 47.4) (47.9, 60.8)
Loss of Benefits
%
29.8 20.4 29.8
N
33 26 64
C.I. (22.0, 39.1) (13.8. 29.3) (24.8, 35.3)
Finding a Job as a Current Post-Katrina
Problem
%
19.4
22.3
25.9
N
23
27
55
C.I. (13.3, 27.5) (15.5, 30.8) (20.3, 32.6)
Receive Unemployment Insurance
Pre-Katrina
%
2.8
3.2
6
N
3
3
13
C.I.
(0.9, 8.3)
(0.9, 11.2)
(3.7, 9.7)
Post-Katrina
%
20.4
20.3
35
N
23 27 77
C.I. (14.0, 28.8) (13.6, 29.3) (28.2, 43.1)
Receive Unemployment Services
Pre-Katrina
%
1
1.1
5.6
N
1
1
12
C.I.
(0.1, 6.8)
(0.1, 7.3)
(3.4, 9.0)
Post-Katrina
%
13.1
9.1
10.8
N
15
10
23
C.I. (8.1, 20.6)
(4.7, 16.8)
(7.1, 16.0)
New Sources of Income Since Katrina
Fema
%
44.4 33.8 42.5
N
50 39 91
C.I. (35.5, 53.7) (25.2, 43.8) (34.2, 51.3)
Red Cross
% 39.2
22.2
33
N
43 25 71
C.I. (30.8, 48.2) (15.9, 30.2) (25.6, 41.5)
Construction
% 8.2
10.9
7.9
N
10 14 17
C.I. (4.5, 14.5)
(6.3, 18.1)
(4.8, 12.9)
Rental
%
6.1 8.9 4.2
N
7
10
9
C.I. (2.9, 12.2)
(4.9, 15.6)
(2.2, 7.9)
Confidence Intervals at 95%
51
Table 9:Percentage of households that reported specific impacts experienced since
Hurricane Katrina
Main Impacts Experienced Since Katrina
Tremé
Bywater Central City
Disruption of Health Care
%
53.9
47.7
54.5
N
59
59
117
C.I.
(44.5, 63) (36.9, 58.7) (47.9, 60.8)
Loss of Job
%
39.3
35.8
42.1
N
44
46
90
C.I. (30.6, 48.7) (25.5,47.7) (35.8, 48.5)
Loss of Health Insurance
%
24.6
21.1
25.4
N
27
25
54
C.I. (17,5, 33.4) (13.6, 31.2) (19.8, 31.9)
Loss of Benefits
%
29.8
20.4
29.8
N
33
26
64
C.I. (22, 39.1) (13.6, 29.6) (24.8, 35.3))
Loss Touch with Family and Friends
%
65.8
54.9
65.6
N
74
69
141
C.I. (56.8, 73.8) (44.8, 64.6) (58.9, 71.7)
Overcrowding in Neighborhood or Community
%
25
22.8
22.8
N
27
29
49
C.I.
(17.8, 34) (15.5, 32.3) (18.3, 28.1)
Displaced Relatives or Friends
%
40.5
46
40
N
45
60
86
C.I. (31.8, 49.8) (37.4, 54.8) (32.9, 47.5)
Death of a Family Member
%
21.5
17
29
N
24
21
62
C.I. (14.9, 30.1) (11.5, 24.4) (23.7, 34.9)
Confidence Intervals at 95%
52
Table 10: Percentage of households that report specific problems since Hurricane Katrina.
Identified Household Problems
Tremé Bywater
Central
City
Labor For Fixing House
%
55.7
46.7
41.2
N
62
61
89
C.I. (46.6, 64.4) (38.4, 55.2) (34.9, 47.8)
Not Enough Money For Rental Housing
%
29.9
23
37.6
N
34
31
79
C.I. (22.1, 39) (14.6, 34.4) (30.9, 44.8)
Increased Rent
%
27.9
28.5
42.1
N
32
38
90
C.I. (20.4, 36.8) (19.4, 39.9) (36.1, 48.3)
Health Problems
%
33.5
33.4
36.1
N
39
39
78
C.I. (25.6, 42.5) (25.6, 42.2) (29.5, 43.3)
Finding Health Care
%
30.5
38
36.6
N
35
47
79
C.I. (22.8, 39.5) (29.4, 47.4) (32.8, 40.6)
Finding a Job
%
19.4
22.3
25.9
N
23
27
55
C.I. (13.3, 27.5) (15.6, 30.8) (20.3, 32.6)
Taking Care of Elderly
%
11.5
7
8.9
N
13 8 19
C.I. (6.7, 18.8) (3.3, 14.2) (6, 12.9)
Schooling for Children
%
17.9
10.6
17.2
N
20
15
37
C.I. (11.9, 26.1) (6.0, 17.9) (13.3, 22)
Day Care/ Child Care
%
10.7
8.6
13.1
N
12
11
28
C.I. (6.2, 18) (4.5, 15.8) (9.5, 18)
Lack of Utility Services
%
42.3
59.5
31.5
N
48
75
68
C.I. (33.5, 51.6) (51.0, 67.5) (23.2, 41.2)
Crime
%
47.8
38.8
62
N
55
50
134
C.I. (38.7, 57) (29.8, 48.6) (55.2, 68.4)
Safety
%
43.2
36
52.3
N
50
47
113
CI (34.4, 52.5) (26.0, 47.4) (45.9, 58.7)
Feeling Bad
%
47.2
54.3
50.9
N
54
71
110
C.I. (38.3, 56.2) (45.4, 63.0) (44.9, 56.9)
Fulfilling Regular Eating Habits
%
32.1
42.5
36.6
53
N
36
54
79
C.I. (24.2, 41.1) (33.5, 51.9) (29.4, 44.4)
Community Infrastructure
%
60.6
61.3
59.9
N
70
81
128
C.I. (51.3, 69.1) (51.3, 70.5) (51.5, 67.1)
Opportunities for Social Support
%
33.6
29.4
36.1
N
38
36
78
C.I. (25.5, 42.7) (22.3, 37.5) (29.7, 43.1)
Difficulties Accessing Assistance Programs
%
45.6
25.3
40.3
N
53
33
87
C.I. (36.9, 54.7) (18.1, 34.0) (34.7, 46.2)
Difficulties Accessing Information About Housing Issues %
33
31.6
36
N
38
40
77
C.I. (25.1, 42.1) (24.1, 40.3) (31.4, 40.8)
Transportation
%
36.1
34.2
34.7
N
41
42
75
C.I. (27.8, 45.2) (26.4, 43.1) (29.2, 40.7)
Loss of a Sense of Community
%
65.3
49.1
53.7
N
74
65
115
C.I. (56.1, 73.5) (39.1, 59.1) (45.2, 62.1)
Available Supermarkets
%
68.8
70
44.7
N
79
91
96
C.I. (59.7, 76.7) (59.5, 78.7) (35.8, 53.8)
Needed Prescription Drugs or Medicines
%
24.5
25.5
25.5
N
27
33
55
C.I. (17.5, 33.2) (18.1, 34.5) (25.9, 35.1)
Loss of, or Problems with Private Insurance
%
30.8
20.2
30.2
N
34
26
65
C.I. (23, 39.9) (14.1, 28.0) (25.8, 35.1)
Confidence Intervals at 95%
54
Table 11: Percentage of households that report chronic illnesses and disabilities and the
ability to access health care.
Health Care
Tremé
Bywater Central City
Chronic Illnesses and Disabilities
%
40.2
27.6
43.5
N
46
35
91
C.I. (31.6, 49.5) (19.9, 36.9) (36.7, 50.6)
Illness/Disability
Physical
%
47.9
33
65.7
N
17
14
44
C.I. (32.1, 64.2) (17.6, 53.0) (53.5, 76.1)
Mental
%
20.7
13.4
43.5
N
7
6
20
C.I. (10.2, 37.5) (5.6,28.5)
(31.2, 56.6)
Cancer
%
11.7
3.7
15
N
4
2
6
C.I. (4.4, 27.3) (1.0, 13.1)
7.4, 28.1)
Diabetes
%
39.4
27.5
45.1
N
13
9
24
C.I. (8.2, 24.8) (14.8, 45.2) (34.2, 56.5)
Heart
%
11.1
14
37
N
4
4
17
C.I. (4.2, 26.0) (5.1, 33.0) (23.7, 52.5)
Able to access health care for Chronic
Illness or Disability
16
Yes, for all
%
46
43.1
53.8
N
19
16
49
C.I. (31.5, 61.2) (27.3, 60.3)
(42.3, 65)
Yes, for some
%
18.7
20
24.2
N
8
6
22
C.I. (9.6, 33.2) (9.8, 36.6) (16.8, 33.5)
Not at all
%
32.6
36.9
20.9
N
13
13
19
C.I. (20, 48.3)
(22, 54.8)
(11.8, 34.2)
Sought mental health counseling
%
18
33.1
15.3
N
21
12
33
C.I. (12.1, 26.1) (19.4, 50.6)
(12, 19.3)
Requires assisted living
%
9.3
23.8
10.7
N
10
7
23
C.I. (5.1, 16.4) (11.0, 44.1
(7.7, 14.6)
Confidence Intervals at 95%
55
Table 12: Percentage of households who report on safety related characteristics by
neighborhood and characteristics.
Household Characteristics
Tremé
Bywater Central City
Current Post-Katrina Problem
Crime
%
47.8
38.8
62
N
55
50
134
C.I. (38.7, 57.0) (29.8, 48.6) (55.2, 68.4)
Safety
%
43.2
36
52.3
n
50
47
113
C.I. (34.4, 52.5) (26.2, 47.2) (45.9, 58.7)
Low Crime Rate as an Extremely Important
Neighborhood Feature
%
90.3
86.4
90.1
n
103
104
192
C.I. (83.2, 94.6) (79.3, 91.3)
…
Confidence Intervals at 95%
Table 13: Percentage of households that want a Safe Haven
Bywater CC
2006
2006
Believe a Safe Haven should be
established
%
82.1
86.9
N
80
172
C.I. (64.9, 91.9) (77.1, 92.8)
Confidence Intervals at 95%
Table 14: Percentage of households with selected opinion on neighborhood associations
Bywater Tremé CC
Area needs an organization to help get
housing and facilitate the recovery
process.
Yes
%
70.5
81.5
87
N
42
58
40
C.I.
(54.2, 82.9) (71.7, 88.7) (75.4, 93.6)
No
%
29.5
9.7
4.3
N
15
7
2
C.I.
(17.1, 45.8)
(4.7, 19.0)
(1.1, 15.9)
Don't Know
%
0
8.89
8.7
N
0
7
4
C.I.
(4.3, 17.3)
(4.0, 17.9)
Confidence Intervals at 95%
56
Table 14a: Percentage of households that feel safe in
the neighborhood.
Feel Safe Out Alone in
Central City
2006
Before Katrina
During the day
% 83.1
N
74
Con. Int.
(74.1, 89.5)
At night
%
68.5
N
61
Con. Int.
(57.7, 77.7)
After Katrina
During the day
% 60.7
N
54
Con. Int.
(52.1, 68.6)
At night
%
34.8
N
31
Con. Int.
(25.6, 45.3)
*Confidence Interval at 95%
57
Employment
Table 15. Percent of Bywater households interviewed with selected
demographic characteristics and the loss of employment as an impact from
Hurricane Katrina.
Characteristics of Bywater
Households
No Job Loss
Due to
Katrina
Loss of Job
Due to
Katrina
Bywater Residences
%
64.2
35.8
N
77
46
Con. Int.
(52.6, 74.3)
(25.7, 47.4)
Race
African American
%
24.4
44.2
N
17
20
Con. Int.
(15.4, 36.4)
(26.5, 63.4)
Hispanic
%
5.3
0.0
N
3
Con. Int.
(1.8, 14.8)
Native Hawaiian
%
0.8
0.0
N
1
Con. Int.
(0.1, 4.7)
Caucasian
%
64.5
55.8
N
51
26
Con. Int.
(51.0, 76.1)
(36.6, 73.5)
Other
%
4.1
0.0
N
4
Con. Int.
(1.5, 10.8)
Residential Status
Owner
%
58.1
36.7
N
43
17
Con. Int.
(47.0, 68.5)
(21.3, 55.3)
Primary Tenant
%
36.4
57.1
N
29
26
Con. Int.
(26.2, 48.0)
(38.8, 73.6)
Other Tenant
%
0.0
4.7
N
2
Con. Int.
(1.2, 17.1)
Relative/Friend
%
1.8
1.5
N
1
1
Con. Int.
(0.3, 11.8)
(0.3, 8.0)
Pre-Katrina Monthly Income
0-$1000
%
21.7
35.3
58
N
11
9
Con. Int.
(12.7, 34.6)
(16.9, 59.4)
$1001-$2000
%
18.2
23.8
N
11
10
Con. Int.
(10.6, 29.4)
(12.9, 39.8)
$2001-$3000
%
12.6
12.0
N
8
5
Con. Int.
(6.1, 24.2)
(4.6, 27.8)
$3001-$5000
%
24.8
12.4
N
16
4
Con. Int.
(15.5, 37.3)
(4.5, 30.0)
$5001 or more
%
22.8
16.4
N
13
6
Con. Int.
(13.5, 35.8)
(7.0, 33.9)
Post-Katrina Change in
Income
Increased
%
15.9
39.1
N
12
16
Con. Int.
(8.3, 28.2)
(24.9, 55.5)
Decreased
%
46.6
43.8
N
33
23
Con. Int.
(33.0, 60.8)
(28.2, 60.6)
Stayed the Same
%
37.5
17.1
N
27
7
Con. Int.
(26.8, 49.5)
(8.9, 30.3)
Confidence Interval at 95%
59
Table 16. Percent of Tremé households interviewed with selected
demographic characteristics and the loss of employment as an impact from
Hurricane Katrina.
Characteristics of Tremé
Households
No Job Loss
Due to
Katrina
Loss of Job
Due to
Katrina
Tremé Residences
%
60.7
39.3
N
68
44
Con. Int.
(51.3, 69.4)
(30.6, 48.7)
Race
African American
%
78.6
91.1
N
50
38
Con. Int.
(66.9, 87.0)
(78.6, 96.6)
Hispanic
%
1.8
2.8
N
1
1
Con. Int.
(0.3, 11.6)
(0.4, 16.9)
Caucasian
%
11.9
6.1
N
8
3
Con. Int.
(6.0, 22.1)
(2.0, 17.0)
Other
%
7.7
0.0
N
5
Con. Int.
(3.2, 17.1)
Residential Status
Owner
%
57.4
46.8
N
36
20
Con. Int.
(45.6, 68.5)
(32.6, 61.7)
Primary Tenant
%
34.2
50.8
N
23
22
Con. Int.
(23.9, 46.2)
(36.2, 65.3)
Other Tenant
%
5.8
2.3
N
4
1
Con. Int.
(2.2, 14.30
(0.3, 14.2)
Relative/Friend
%
1.3
0.0
N
1
Con. Int.
(0.2, 8.5)
Pre-Katrina Monthly Income
0-$1000
%
23.0
20.9
N
14
9
Con. Int.
(14.1, 35.2)
(11.2, 35.5)
$1001-$2000
%
24.9
24.4
N
15
10
Con. Int.
(15.6, 37.3)
(13.6, 39.8)
60
$2001-$3000
%
10.4
12.9
N
6
5
Con. Int.
(4.7, 21.1)
(5.5, 27.3)
$3001-$5000
%
18.7
25.1
N
12
10
Con. Int.
(11.2, 29.6)
(14.1, 40.7)
$5001 or more
%
12.7
4.2
N
8
2
Con. Int.
(6.4, 23.4)
(1.1, 14.8)
Post-Katrina Change in
Income
Increased
%
22.6
7.8
N
15
4
Con. Int.
(14.1, 34.2)
(3.0, 18.5)
Decreased
%
22.6
69.4
N
15
30
Con. Int.
(14.1, 34.2)
(54.7, 81.0)
Stayed the Same
%
54.8
22.8
N
38
10
Con. Int.
(43.0, 66.1)
(12.7, 37.5)
Confidence Interval at 95%
61
Table 17: Percent of households interviewed with selected demographic characteristics and
employment status.
Characteristics of Households
Employed
Full or Part
Time Unemployed
Retired
Central City Residences
%
65.0
17.5
17.5
N
52
14
14
Con. Int.
(55.4, 73.5)
(10.8, 27.1)
(12.4, 24.1)
Race
African American
% 84.6 100.0
85.7
N
44
14
12
Con. Int.
(76.5, 90.3)
(67.1, 94.6)
Hispanic
% 3.8 0.0 0.0
N
2
Con. Int.
(1.3, 10.7)
American Indian
% 1.9 0.0 0.0
N
1
Con. Int.
(0.5, 7.7)
Caucasian
% 7.7 0.0 0.0
N
4
Con. Int.
(3.2, 17.5)
Other
% 1.9 0.0 14.3
N
1
2
Con. Int.
(0.3, 10.7)
(5.4, 32.9)
Residential Status
Owner
%
42.0
0.0
50.0
N
21
7
Con. Int.
(30.7, 54.3)
(29.0, 71.0)
Primary Tenant
%
38.0
76.9
50.0
N
19
10
7
Con. Int.
(25.5, 52.3)
(47.0, 92.6)
(29.0, 71.0)
Other Tenant
%
12.0
7.7
0.0
N
6
1
Con. Int.
(6.9, 20.2)
(1.5, 30.7)
Relative/Friend
%
8.0
15.4
0.0
N
4
2
Con. Int.
(3.8, 16.0)
(4.7, 40.0)
Pre-Katrina Monthly Income
0-$1000
% 21.6 57.1 7.7
N
11
8
1
Con. Int.
(10.4, 39.6)
(32.0, 79.1)
(1.7, 29.1)
$1001-$2000
% 29.4 14.3 53.8
62
N
15
2
7
Con. Int.
(21.6, 38.6)
(3.3, 44.6)
(29.0, 76.9)
$2001-$3000
% 19.6 0.0 7.7
N
10
1
Con. Int.
(12.2, 29.9)
(1.0, 39.8)
$3001-$5000
% 7.8 0.0 0.0
N
4
Con. Int.
(3.4, 17.0)
$5001 or more
% 3.9 7.1 15.4
N
2
1
2
Con. Int.
(1.0, 14.5)
(1.0, 36.6)
(3.7, 46.5)
Refused
% 7.8 7.1 15.4
N
4
1
2
Con. Int.
(3.2, 17.8)
(1.6, 27.0)
(3.7, 46.5)
Don't know
% 9.8 14.3 0.0
N
5
2
Con. Int.
(4.2, 21.2)
(3.7, 42.2)
*Confidence Interval at 95%
63
Table 18: Percent of households that report specific characteristics of vulnerability by
characteristic and employment status.
Characteristics of Households
Employed
Full or Part
Time
Unemployed Retired
Central City Residences
%
65.0
17.5
17.5
52 14 14
Con. Int.
(55.4, 73.5)
(10.8, 27.1)
(12.4, 24.1)
Chronic Illness or Disability
%
35.3
57.1
57.1
18
8
8
Con. Int.
(25.4, 46.7)
(37.7, 74.6)
(32.0, 79.1)
Ability to Access Care
Needed for Chronic Illness or
Disability
For all services
% 58.8 71.4 50.0
N
10
5
4
Con. Int.
(38.2, 76.8)
(31.1, 93.3)
(22.5, 77.5)
For some services
% 29.4 14.3 37.5
N
5
1
3
Con. Int.
(13.7, 52.2)
(1.6, 63.0)
(14.4, 68.1)
Not at all
% 11.8 14.3 12.5
N
2
1
1
Con. Int.
(2.8, 38.6)
(2.2, 55.7)
(1.6, 55.4)
Post-Katrina Change in
Income
Increased
%
32.7
21.4
21.4
N
17
3
3
Con. Int.
(23.5, 43.4)
(7.5, 47.9)
(7.4, 48.2)
Decreased
%
25.0
57.1
28.6
N
13
8
4
Con. Int.
(14.9, 38.8)
(35.6, 76.3)
(12.2, 53.6)
Stayed the same
%
38.5
21.4
50.0
N
20
3
7
Con. Int.
(27.8, 50.3)
(9.9, 40.4)
(29.0, 71.0)
Lacks Household Amenities
Garbage pick-up
% 7.8 7.1 14.3
N
4
1
2
Con. Int.
(2.5, 22.0)
(1.0, 36.6)
(4.5, 37.3)
Internet
% 63.5 78.6 78.6
N
33
11
11
Con. Int.
(47.1, 77.2)
(59.7, 90.1)
(57.3, 90.9)
Working kitchen
% 9.6 14.3
35.7
64
N
5
2
5
Con. Int.
(3.8, 22.1)
(3.3, 44.6)
(17.0, 60.1)
Heat
% 17.3 7.1 21.4
9
1
3
Con. Int.
(8.5, 32.0)
(1.6, 27.0)
(6.4, 52.1)
Air conditioning
% 3.8 14.3
14.3
N
2
2
2
Con. Int.
(0.8, 16.3)
(5.2, 33.7)
(5.0, 34.3)
Smoke detector
% 26.9 35.7 28.6
N
14
5
4
Con. Int.
(17.0, 39.8)
(17.2, 59.8)
(13.6, 50.4)
Ample lighting in neigh.
% 35.3 28.6 14.3
N
18
4
2
Con. Int.
(24.2, 48.3)
(14.7, 48.2)
(3.4, 43.8)
Household Deficiencies
Pests
%
30.8
35.7
61.5
N
16
5
8
Con. Int.
(20.0 44.1)
(19.7, 55.7)
(39.3, 79.8)
Roof leaks
%
21.2
21.4
14.3
N
11
3
2
Con. Int.
(12.6, 33.4)
(6.1, 53.3)
(4.2, 38.6)
Mold
%
11.5
7.1
7.1
N
6
1
1
Con. Int.
(5.9, 21.4)
(1.6, 27.0)
(1.1, 34.5)
*Confidence Intervals at 95%
65
Table 19: Percent of households that report selected hurricane related impacts by impacts
and employment status.
Identified Household/
Neighborhood Problems
Employed
Full or Part
Time
Unemployed Retired
Main impacts the household
experienced from the
hurricanes:
Disruption of health care
% 46.2 42.9 57.1
N
24
6
8
Con. Int.
(37.4, 55.1)
(21.6, 67.2)
(35.5, 76.3)
Loss of Job
%
50.0
64.3
0.0
N
26
9
Con. Int.
(39.5, 60.5)
(45.0, 79.8)
Loss of health insurance
% 26.9 14.3 21.4
N
14
2
3
Con. Int.
(15.9, 41.9)
(5.2, 33.7)
(8.0, 46.2)
Loss of benefits
%
34.6
28.6
0.0
N
18
4
Con. Int.
(22.2, 49.6)
(13.9, 49.8)
Loss touch with family
and friends
% 71.3 57.1 57.1
N
38
8
8
Con. Int.
(57.3, 84.6)
(41.6, 71.4)
(31.2, 79.7)
Overcrowding in neighborhood
or community
%
21.2
28.6
0.0
N
11
4
Con. Int.
(12.1, 34.3)
(14.7, 48.2)
Displaced relatives/ friends
living in household
% 50.0 21.4 28.6
N
26
3
4
Con. Int.
(36.8, 63.2)
(8.8, 43.4)
(12.2, 53.6)
Death of family member
%
25.0
28.6
35.7
N
13
4
5
Con. Int.
(17.1, 35.0)
(13.9, 49.8)
(16.7, 60.6)
*Confidence Intervals at 95%
66
Owners versus Renters
Table 20: Percent of households surveyed in Tremé that report specific
characteristics of vulnerability by characteristic and residential status
Characteristics of Households
Owners of
Residence
Tenants of
Residence
Tremé Residences
%
55.1
44.9
N
59
50
Con. Int.
(45.8, 64.2)
(35.8, 54.2)
Chronic Illness or Disability
%
44.5
33.0
N
26
17
Con. Int.
(32.3, 57.4)
(21.6, 46.9)
Ability to Access Care
Needed for Chronic Illness or
Disability
For all services
%
50.3
43.4
N
12
7
Con. Int.
(31.2, 69.3)
(22.2, 67.3)
For some services
%
23.0
5.6
N
6
1
Con. Int.
(10.7, 42.8)
(0.8, 30.5)
Not at all
%
22.0
45.4
N
5
7
Con. Int.
(9.6, 43.0)
(23.6. 69.0)
Lacks Household Amenities
Garbage pick-up
%
18.3
17.1
N
11
9
Con. Int.
(10.4, 30.1)
(9.1, 29.7)
Internet
%
67.1
66.7
N
39
33
Con. Int.
(54.3, 77.8)
(52.8, 78.2)
Working kitchen
%
21.2
20.7
N
12
10
Con. Int.
(12.5, 33.6)
(11.5, 34.3)
Heat
%
15.9
8.8
N
9
5
Con. Int.
(8.5, 27.7)
(3.8, 19.1
Air conditioning
%
18.8
7.7
N
10
4
Con. Int.
(10.7, 31.0)
(2.9, 18.7)
67
Smoke detector
%
26.7
33.6
N
15
17
Con. Int.
(16.9, 39.6)
(22.0, 47.6)
Ample lighting in neigh.
%
28.5
20.9
N
17
11
Con. Int.
(18.4, 41.3)
(12.0, 33.8)
Household Deficiencies
Pests
%
32.2
35.7
N
19
17
Con. Int.
(21.7, 44.8)
(23.6, 50.0)
Roof leaks
%
26.7
17.2
N
16
8
Con. Int.
(16.9, 39.3)
(8.9, 30.5)
Mold
%
26.0
21.8
N
15
11
Con. Int.
(16.5, 38.3)
(12.5, 35.3)
*Confidence Intervals at 95%
**In order to more accurately quantify the percentage of owners versus tenants, the response of
“relative/friend of householder” was filtered out, resulting in an increase of percentages for both
homeowners and tenants.
68
Table 21. Percent of households interviewed in Tremé with selected
demographic characteristics and residential status
Characteristics of Households
Owners of
Residence
Tenants of
Residence
Tremé Residences
%
55.1
44.9
N
59
50
Con. Int.
(45.8, 64.2)
(35.8, 54.2)
Race
African American
%
78.2
88.6
N
45
43
Con. Int.
(65.9, 87.0)
(70.0, 94.8)
Hispanic
%
2.0
2.4
N
1
1
Con. Int.
(0.3, 12.5)
(0.3, 15.0)
Caucasian
%
12.9
7.2
N
8
4
Con. Int.
(6.6, 23.9)
(2.8, 17.2)
Other
%
6.9
1.8
N
4
1
Con. Int.
(2.6, 17.0)
(0.3, 11.3)
Pre-Katrina Monthly Income
0-$1000
%
11.0
27.1
N
6
13
Con. Int.
(5.0, 22.4)
(16.4, 41.3)
$1001-$2000
%
19.9
32.0
N
10
15
Con. Int.
(11.1, 33.2)
(20.4, 46.5)
$2001-$3000
%
14.4
10.8
N
7
5
Con. Int.
(7.1, 27.2)
(4.6, 23.30
$3001-$5000
%
30.9
14.1
N
16
7
Con. Int.
(20.0, 44.4)
(6.9, 26.8)
$5001 or more
%
13.2
5.5
N
7
3
Con. Int.
(6.4, 25.3)
(1.8, 15.4)
Don't know
%
10.5
10.5
N
5
5
69
Con. Int.
(4.5, 22.8)
(4.4, 22.8)
Post-Katrina Change in
Income
Increased
%
17.1
15.3
N
10
8
Con. Int.
(9.4, 29.0)
(7.8, 27.8)
Decreased
%
44.5
37.5
N
26
18
Con. Int.
(32.3, 57.4)
(25.3, 51..6)
Stayed the Same
%
38.4
47.2
N
23
24
Con. Int.
(27.0, 51.3)
(33.9, 60.9)
*Confidence Intervals at 95%
**In order to more accurately quantify the percentage of owners versus tenants, the response of
“relative/friend of householder” was filtered out, resulting in an increase of percentages for both
homeowners and tenants.
70
Table 22: Percent of households interviewed with selected demographic
characteristics and residential status.
Characteristics of Households
Owners of
Residence
Tenants of
Residence
Central City Residences
%
36.5
63.5
N
72
125
Con. Int.
(29.8, 43.8)
(56.2, 70.2)
Race
African American
%
34.7
65.3
N
58
109
Con. Int.
(28.0, 42.2)
(57.8, 72.0)
Hispanic
%
0.0
100.0
N
6
Con. Int.
American Indian
%
100.0
0.0
N
1
Con. Int.
Caucasian
%
52.9
47.1
N
9
8
Con. Int.
(30.9, 73.9)
(26.1, 69.1)
Other
%
66.7
33.3
N
4
2
Con. Int.
(29.8, 90.4)
(9.6, 70.2)
Pre-Katrina Monthly Income
0-$1000
% 16.7 24.2
N
12
29
Con. Int.
(10.1, 26.3)
(17.2, 32.8)
$1001-$2000
% 20.8 29.2
N
15
35
Con. Int.
(13.9, 30.0)
(22.6, 36.8)
$2001-$3000
% 11.1 12.5
N
8
15
Con. Int.
(6.4, 18.7)
(7.2, 20.8)
$3001-$5000
% 12.5 5.8
N
9
7
Con. Int.
(6.6, 22.4)
(3.2, 10.4)
$5001 or more
% 12.5 10.0
N
9
12
Con. Int.
(7.2, 20.8)
(5.6, 17.2)
Refused
% 13.9 10.0
N
10
12
Con. Int.
(8.0, 23.0)
(6.1, 15.9)
Don't know
% 12.5 8.3
N
9
10
71
Con. Int.
(6.4, 23.0)
(4.9, 17.3)
*Confidence Intervals at 95%
**In order to more accurately quantify the percentage of owners versus tenants, the response of
“relative/friend of householder” was filtered out, resulting in an increase of percentages for both
homeowners and tenants.
72
Table 23: Percent of households that report specific characteristics of
vulnerability by characteristic and residential status.
Characteristics of Households
Owners of
Residence
Tenants of
Residence
Central City Residences
%
36.5
63.5
N
72
125
Con. Int.
(29.8, 43.8)
(56.2, 70.2)
Chronic Illness or Disability
%
41.7
40.8
N
30
51
Con. Int.
(32.9, 51.0)
(30.9, 51.5)
Ability to Access Care
Needed for Chronic Illness or
Disability
For all services
% 43.3 59.2
N
13
29
Con. Int.
(27.4, 60.8)
(43.0, 73.6)
For some services
% 26.7 22.4
N
8
11
Con. Int.
(13.7, 45.3)
(13.6, 34.7)
Not at all
% 30.0 16.3
N
9
8
Con. Int.
(15.9, 49.3)
(7.4, 32.1)
Post-Katrina Change in
Income
Increased
%
13.9
32.5
N
10
40
Con. Int.
(8.8, 21.3)
(24.6, 41.6)
Decreased
%
36.1
26.8
N
26
33
Con. Int.
(26.9, 46.5)
(18.5, 37.2)
Stayed the same
%
45.8
38.2
N
33
47
Con. Int.
(36.2, 55.7)
(27.6,50.1)
Lacks Household Amenities
Garbage pick-up
% 9.9 13.1
N
7
16
Con. Int.
(4.9, 19.0)
(8.3, 20.1)
Internet
% 70.4 71.0
N
50
88
Con. Int.
(57.8, 80.6)
(63.6, 77.4)
Working kitchen
% 30.6 12.1
N
22
15
Con. Int.
(19.6, 44.3)
(7.6, 18.7)
Heat
% 26.8 8.2
N
19
10
73
Con. Int.
(15.8, 41.5)
(4.4, 14.7)
Air conditioning
% 20.8 7.3
N
15
9
Con. Int.
(11.6, 34.5)
(4.2, 12.5)
Smoke detector
% 37.5 30.9
N
27
38
Con. Int.
(26.1, 50.5)
(22.8, 40.4)
Ample lighting in neigh.
% 27.8 25.2
N
20
31
Con. Int.
(18.1, 40.0)
(18.5, 33.3)
Household Deficiencies
Pests
%
37.5
43.1
N
27
53
Con. Int.
(27.5, 48.7)
36.1, 50.4)
Roof leaks
%
29.2
16.3
N
21
20
Con. Int.
(20.2, 40.1)
(10.2, 24.9)
Mold
%
23.9
15.3
N
17
19
Con. Int.
(15.9, 34.5)
(9.9, 23.0)
*Confidence Intervals at 95%
**In order to more accurately quantify the percentage of owners versus tenants, the response of
“relative/friend of householder” was filtered out, resulting in an increase of percentages for both
homeowners and tenants.
74
Table 24: Percent of households that report selected hurricane related
impacts by impacts and residential status.
Identified Household/
Neighborhood Problems
Owners of
Residence
Tenants of
Residence
Main impacts the household
experienced from the
hurricanes
Disruption of health care
% 51.4 55.3
N
37
68
Con. Int.
(42.2, 60.5)
(43.7, 66.3)
Loss of Job
%
33.8
43.9
N
24
54
Con. Int.
(24.7, 44.3)
(35.0, 53.2)
Loss of health insurance
% 30.0 22.8
N
21
28
Con. Int.
(21.7, 39.9)
(16.2, 31.0)
Loss of benefits
%
34.7
28.5
N
25
35
Con. Int.
(26.4, 44.1)
(21.8, 36.3)
Loss touch with family
and friends
% 59.7 70.7
N 43 87
Con. Int.
(50.4, 68.3)
(60.4, 79.3)
Overcrowding in neighborhood
or community
%
26.4
22.8
N
19
28
Con. Int.
(17.6, 37.5)
(16.3, 30.9)
Displaced relatives/ friends
living in household
% 36.1 41.5
N 26 51
Con. Int.
(25.7, 48.0)
(32.1, 51.5)
Death of family member
%
33.3
27.9
N
24
34
Con. Int.
(23.9, 44.3)
(20.8, 36.3)
*Confidence Intervals at 95%
**In order to more accurately quantify the percentage of owners versus tenants, the response of
“relative/friend of householder” was filtered out, resulting in an increase of percentages for both
homeowners and tenants.
75
Table 25: Percent of households interviewed with hurricane related problems
by problems and residential status.
Identified Household/
Neighborhood Problems
Owners of
Residence
Tenants of
Residence
Labor for fixing house
% 56.9 29.3
N 41
36
Con. Int.
(47.4, 66.0)
(21.8, 38.0)
Not enough money for rental
housing
%
13.2
48.8
N
9
60
Con. Int.
(7.3, 22.7)
(39.7, 57.9)
Increasing rents
% 12.7 56.9
N
9
70
Con. Int.
(7.2, 21.2)
(49.2, 64.3)
Health problems
%
40.3
31.7
N
29
39
Con. Int.
(31.3, 50.0)
(23.3, 41.5)
Finding health are
% 37.5 35.0
N
27
43
Con. Int.
(28.3, 47.6)
(28.8, 41.7)
Finding a job
%
24.3
27.3
N
17
33
Con. Int.
(16.8, 33.8)
(18.6, 38.1)
Taking care of the elderly
% 8.5 9.0
N
6
11
Con. Int.
(3.7, 18.2)
(5.4, 14.7)
Schooling for children
%
15.5
18.7
N
11
23
Con. Int.
(8.4, 26.8)
(13.1, 26.0)
Day care/child care
% 11.4 14.8
N
8
18
Con. Int.
(5.3, 22.9)
(9.3, 22.6)
Lack of utility services
%
31.9
28.5
N
23
35
Con. Int.
(22.6, 43.1)
(20.1, 38.6)
Crime
% 56.9 64.2
N
41
79
Con. Int.
(46.7, 66.6)
(55.1, 72.4)
Safety
%
48.6
52.0
N
35
64
Con. Int.
(38.2, 59.1)
(43.2, 60.7)
Feeling bad/worried
% 52.8 46.3
N
38
57
Con. Int.
(44.5, 60.9)
(37.8, 55.1)
Fulfilling regular eating habits
%
31.9
36.6
N
23
45
76
Con. Int.
(23.8, 41.3)
(27.5, 46.7)
Community infrastructure
% 61.1 56.6
N
44
69
Con. Int.
(49.6, 71.5)
(45.7, 66.8)
Opportunities for social support
%
33.3
35.0
N
24
43
Con. Int.
(24.5, 43.6)
(27.1, 43.8)
Difficulties accessing assistance
programs
% 38.9 38.2
N
28
47
Con. Int.
(30.8, 47.6)
(30.8, 46.2)
Difficulties accessing information
about housing issues
%
31.9
36.4
N
23
44
Con. Int.
(24.2, 40.9)
(30.0, 43.2)
Transportation
% 33.3 35.0
N
24
43
Con. Int.
(24.1, 44.1)
(27.6, 43.1)
Loss of a sense of community
%
47.2
53.7
N
34
65
Con. Int.
(36.6, 58.1)
(44.5, 62.7)
Available supermarkets
% 44.4 43.4
N
32
54
Con. Int.
(32.4, 57.2)
(33.7, 53.7)
Don't have prescription drugs or
medicine you need
%
25.0
23.6
N
18
29
Con. Int.
(17.3, 34.7)
(17.3, 31.2)
Loss of, or problems with, your
private insurance
% 37.5 27.0
N
27
33
Con. Int.
(29.9, 45.7)
(20.6, 34.7)
*Confidence Intervals at 95%
**In order to more accurately quantify the percentage of owners versus tenants, the response of
“relative/friend of householder” was filtered out, resulting in an increase of percentages for both
homeowners and tenants.
77
Head of Household Characteristics in Tremé
Table 26: Percentage of the heads of households with selected
demographic characteristics in Tremé.
Characteristics of Head of Household
Tremé
Sex
Male
%
46.6
N
50
C.I.
(37.5,
55.9)
Female
%
53.4
N
60
C.I. (44.1, 62.5)
Marital Status
Married
%
37.8
N
41
C.I.
(29.1,
47.3)
Separated
%
6.8
N
7
C.I.
(3.2, 13.5)
Divorced
%
15.1
N
17
C.I.
(9.6,
22.9)
Widowed
%
6.6
N
8
C.I.
(3.4, 12.4)
Never Married
%
33.0
N
35
C.I.
(24.8,
42.4)
Average age of Head of household
mean
50.82
N
106
C.I. (48.08, 53.56
Confidence Intervals at 95%
78
Table 27: Percentage of the heads of households with selected
demographic characteristics.
Characteristics of Head of Household
Tremé
Highest Level of Education
Less than High School
%
16.9
N
19
C.I. (11.1,
25.0)
High School
%
30.0
N
32
C.I. (22.1, 39.2)
GED
%
3.4
N
4
C.I.
(1.3,
8.8)
Some College
%
19.5
N
21
C.I. (13.0, 28.1)
Associate’s Degree
%
5.6
N
6
C.I. (2.5,
11.9)
Bachelor's Degree
%
16.7
N
18
C.I. (10.8, 24.8)
Post-Graduate Degree
%
7.9
N
9
C.I. (4.2,
14.5)
Confidence Intervals at 95%
79
Table 28: Percentage of the heads of households with selected
demographic characteristics.
Characteristics of Head of Household
Tremé
Employed Pre-Katrina
Yes
%
77.9
N
83
C.I. (69.4,
84.5)
No, and not seeking
%
17.9
N
20
C.I. (11.8, 26.1)
No, and seeking
%
4.3
N
5
C.I.
(1.8,
9.8)
Currently Employed
Yes
%
60.5
N
65
C.I. (51.1, 69.2)
No, and not seeking
%
28.9
N
31
C.I. (21.1,
38.1)
No, and seeking
%
10.7
N
12
C.I. (6.2, 17.8)
Confidence Intervals at 95%
80
Male versus Female in Tremé
Table 29: Percentage of selected demographic characteristics by sex of the
head of household for Tremé.
Characteristics of the Head of Household
by sex
Male
Female
Highest level of Education
Less than High School
%
14.1
19.4
N
7
12
C.I. (6.9, 26.8) (11.4, 31.1)
High School Grad
%
28.3
31.5
N
14
18
C.I. (17.5, 42.2) (20.9, 44.4)
GED
%
5.6
1.5
N
3
1
C.I. (1.8, 16.1)
(0.2, 9.5)
Some College
%
16.4
22.2
N
8
13
C.I. (8.4, 29.5) (13.3, 34.6)
Associate’s Degree
%
4.0
7.0
N
2
4
C.I. (1.0, 14.5) (2.6, 17.2)
Bachelor's Degree
%
24.3
10.0
N
12
6
C.I. (14.6, 37.6) (4.5, 20.5)
Post-Graduate Degree
%
7.3
8.5
N
4
5
C.I. (2.8, 17.9) (3.6, 18.9)
Confidence Intervals at 95%
81
Table 30: Percentage of selected demographic characteristics by sex of the
head of household for Tremé.
Characteristics of the Head of Household
by sex
Male
Female
Employed Pre-Katrina
Yes
%
78.0
77.8
N
39
44
C.I. (64.4, 87.4) (66.2, 86.3)
No, and not seeking
%
20.4
15.6
N
10
10
C.I. (11.3, 33.8) (8.7, 26.4)
No, and seeking
%
1.7
6.6
N
1
4
C.I. (0.2, 10.6) (2.5, 16.2)
Currently Employed
Yes
%
68.9
53.0
N
35
30
C.I. (54.8, 80.1) (40.3, 65.3)
No, and not seeking
%
27.2
30.4
N
13
18
C.I. (16.6, 41.1) (20.0, 43.2)
No, and seeking
%
4.0
16.7
N
2
10
C.I. (1.0, 14.5) (9.2, 28.3)
Confidence Intervals at 95%
82
Table 31: Percentage of households that reported pre-Katrina income and
change in income by sex of the head of household for Tremé.
Characteristics of the Head of Household
by sex and pre-Katrina income.
Male
Female
Pre-Katrina Income
0-$1,000
%
11.9
25.7
N
5
15
C.I. (5.1, 25.4) (16.1, 38.2)
$1,001-$2,000
%
26.9
24.2
N
12
13
C.I. (16.0, 41.6) (14.6, 37.3)
$2,001-$3,000
%
8.7
15.9
N
4
8
C.I. (3.3, 21.2) (8.3, 28.3)
$3,001-$5,000
%
26.2
19.8
N
12
11
C.I. (15.8, 40.3) (11.3, 32.4)
$5,001 or more
%
10.0
9.1
N
5
5
C.I. (4.2, 21.6) (3.8, 20.1)
Post-Katrina Change in Income
Increase
%
27.4
6.4
N
14
4
C.I. (16.8, 41.3) (2.4, 15.8)
Decrease
%
35.4
46.0
N
17
27
C.I. (23.3, 49.6) (33.9, 58.6)
Stayed the same
%
37.3
47.6
N
19
29
C.I. (25.2, 51.2) (35.4, 60.2)
Confidence Intervals at 95%
83
Algiers
Table 32: Percentage of households that report specific demographic
characteristics.
Characteristics of Household
Algiers
2006
2000
Census
Race
African American
% 77.8
82.9
N
14
Hispanic
%
5.6
2.4
N
1
Caucasian
% 16.7
14.8
N
3
Residential Status
Homeowner
%
33.3
43.5
N
6
Landlord
% 0
N
0
Primary Tenant
%
66.7
56.5
N
12
Age Distribution
>4
% 11.8
5 thru 13
%
11.8
14 thru 17
% 0.0
18 thru 24
%
11.8
25 thru 34
% 19.6
35 thru 44
%
19.6
45 thru 54
% 13.7
55 thru 64
%
2.0
65+
% 11.8
Pre-Katrina Income
0-$1,000
%
18.8
N
3
$1,001-$2,000
% 31.3
N
5
$2,001-$3,000
%
N
$3,001-$5,000
% 6.3
N
1
$5,001+
%
12.5
N
2
Don't Know
% 18.8
N
3
84
Table 33: Percentage of households that report specific
vulnerability characteristics.
Characteristics of Household
Algiers
2006
Post-Katrina Change in Income
Increased
% 11.8
N
2
Decreased
%
35.3
N
6
Stayed the Same
% 52.9
N
9
Chronic Illness or Disability
%
47.1
N
17
Ability to Access Care
For all services
%
87.5
N
7
For some services
%
N
Not at all
%
12.5
N
1
85
Table 34: Percentage of households that report specific
vulnerability characteristics.
Characteristics of Household
Algiers
2006
Homeowners
w/o homeowner's insurance
%
0.0
N
6
w/o flood insurance
% 0.0
N
6
Tenants
w/o renters insurance
%
100.0
N
12
w/o flood insurance
% 80.0
N
10
Lacks Household Amenities
Garbage Pick Up
%
0.0
N
18
Internet
% 44.4
N
8
Working Kitchen
%
5.6
N
1
Heat
% 0.0
N
18
Air Conditioning
%
0.0
N
18
Smoke Detector
% 35.3
N
6
Ample Lighting in Neighborhood
%
41.2
N
7
Household Deficiencies
Pests
% 16.7
N
3
Roof Leaks
%
16.7
N
3
Mold
% 11.1
N
2
86
Table 35: Percentage of households that report specific impacts
and problems.
Characteristics of Household
Algiers
2006
Greatest Household Problems
Labor to fix house
%
29.4
N
5
Crime
% 37.5
N
6
Health Problems
%
37.5
N
6
Safety
% 37.5
N
6
Accessing assistance
%
18.8
N
3
Increased Rent
% 36.4
N
6
Main Impacts from Katrina
Loss of job
%
20.0
N
3
Displaced People living in house
% 53.3
N
8
Disruption of Health Care
%
26.7
N
4
Loss touch w/ family and friends
% 53.3
N
8
87
Table 36: Percentage of households that utilized specific services post-
Katrina and percentage of households that are members of specific
associations.
Characteristics of Household
Algiers
2006
Utilized following service post-Katrina
Red Cross
%
68.8
N
11
FEMA
%
75
N
12
Recovery Centers
%
25
N
4
C.I.
Housing Services
%
18.8
N
3
Active member of:
Trade Association
%
18.8
N
3
Neighborhood Association
%
18.8
N
3
NGO/Non Profit
%
12.5
N
2
Religious
%
37.5
N
6
Cultural
%
12.5
N
2
88
Table 37: Percentage of households that used selected services by time services were
used (post-Katrina or pre-Katrina)
Selected Services
Algiers
Post-Katrina Pre-Katrina
TANF
% 12.5
0
N
2
0
WIC
%
0
12.5
N
0
2
Medicare/Medicaid
% 43.8
37.5
N
7
6
Food Stamps
%
50
31.3
N
8
5
Unemployment Insurance
% 31.3
6.3
N
5
1
Public Assistance
%
6.3
6.3
N
1
1
Community Centers
% 6.3
6.3
N
1
1
Mental Health/Counseling Resources
%
12.5
6.3
N
2
1
Food Distribution Centers
% 43.8
18.8
N
7
3
Employment Services
%
12.5
0
N
2
0
Financial Support
% 18.8
11.1
N
3
2
Child Care Services
%
12.5
6.3
N
2
1
89
Table 38: Percentage of households with selected opinions on
neighborhood associations
Algiers
2006
Area needs an organization to help get housing and
facilitate the recovery process.
Yes
% 75
N
9
No
%
25
N
3
Don't Know
% 0
N
0
90
91
Annex C: Maps
Map 1: Central City Survey
92
Map 2: Central City Occupancy
6
6
Estimates to the east of Felicity St. are of relatively low confidence due to sparse sampling.
93
Map 3: Central City Ownership
7
7
94
Map 4: Central City Flooding
95
Map 5: Central City African American
8
8
Estimates to the east of Felicity St. are of relatively low confidence due to sparse sampling.
96
Map 6: Central City Caucasian
9
9
Estimates to the east of Felicity St. are of relatively low confidence due to sparse sampling.
97
Map 7: Central City Hispanic
10
10
Estimates to the east of Felicity St. are of relatively low confidence due to sparse sampling.
98
Map 8: Central City New Residents
11
11
Estimates to the east of Felicity St. are of relatively low confidence due to sparse sampling.
99
Map 9: Central City Schools
100
Map 10: Central City Child Care
101
Map 11: Central City Safety
12
12
Estimates to the east of Felicity St. are of relatively low confidence due to sparse sampling.
102
Map 12: Central City Health Care
13
13
Estimates to the east of Felicity St. are of relatively low confidence due to sparse sampling.
103
Map 13: Central City Access to Information about Available Resources
14
14
Estimates to the east of Felicity St. are of relatively low confidence due to sparse sampling.
104
Map 14: Central City Community Center
15
15
Estimates to the east of Felicity St. are of relatively low confidence due to sparse sampling.
105
Map 15: Bywater Flooding
106
Map 16: Bywater Safety
107
Map 17: Bywater Crime
108
Map 18: Bywater Job Loss
109
Map 19: Tremé Flooding
110
Map 20: Tremé Safety
111
Map 21: Tremé Crime
112
Map 22: Tremé Job Loss
File contents
for the Department of
Justice’s Weed and Seed
Project.
Introduction ................................................................................. 5
Bywater ................................................................................ 7
Algiers District ........................................................................ 7
Housing ................................................................................12
Crime and Safety ....................................................................13
Employment ..........................................................................16
Owners and Tenants.................................................................19
Central City........................................................................25
Bywater.............................................................................26
Algiers ..............................................................................27
Tremé...............................................................................27
Population estimates .............................................................27
Clusters .............................................................................29
Female headed households......................................................30
Clusters .............................................................................31
Annex A: Methodology....................................................................33
Central City weighting and analysis ..............................................35
Weighting .............................................................................35
Non-response weights ............................................................35
Central City Population Estimate .................................................38
Owners versus Renters..............................................................66
Map 3: Central City Ownership ....................................................93
Map 5: Central City African American ...........................................95
Map 10: Central City Child Care ................................................ 100
Map 12: Central City Health Care ............................................... 102
Map 14: Central City Community Center...................................... 104
Map 15: Bywater Flooding ........................................................ 105
Map 17: Bywater Crime .......................................................... 107
Map 18: Bywater Job Loss ........................................................ 108
Map 19: Tremé Flooding .......................................................... 109
Map 20: Tremé Safety............................................................ 110
Map 21: Tremé Crime ............................................................. 111
Map 22: Tremé Job Loss ......................................................... 112
A special thanks to New Orleans Police and Justice Foundation for your support of this
study.
Authors:
Jeff Coates, MPH – Recovery Action Learning Laboratory
Maya Matthews-Sterling, MPH – Recovery Action Learning Laboratory
Adam Papendieck, MPH – Recovery Action Learning Laboratory
Megan Dieterich
Assistance with Data Analysis and Editing By:
Todd Noletto
Aaron Wise
Jennifer Weiss
Technical Assistance Provided By:
Dr. Nancy Mock, Tulane University School of Public Health
Joshua Rodd, MPH – The Payson Center for International Development and Technology
Justice (DOJ), which aims to prevent, control and reduce violent crime, drug
The Recovery Action Learning Laboratory (RALLY) is a not-for-profit corporation
created to support evidence-based decision making in disaster and recovery
RALLY was born from early efforts by Tulane faculty and students to respond to
following information is intended to aid the Weed and Seed operation with
and community involvement and to help create sustainable programs for
were:
ethnic groups provided the foundation for the birthplace of Jazz music and
years, projects that were to benefit the greater good of the city inadvertently
In the 1960s, nine blocks of historic homes and gathering places were torn
down to make way for Armstrong Park. The 1960s saw the leveling of the open
Tremé’s glory days continue to fade into history as locals attest to the
figure includes the Lafitte housing project (which was excluded from this
study).
and working class people of New Orleans. According to the 2000 Census, there
American, residing in the neighborhood. With the closures of parts of the C.J.
most likely smaller than in 2000 even before Katrina affected the area. Once
an important hub for the healthcare industry for African-Americans, Central
industrial activity, along the riverbank. The neighborhood has become a
can be found throughout the
residents occupying 2263
between the commercial activity on the River and the agricultural activity of
to take on the appearance of a modern suburb, with new brick houses built on
residents in 18467 households occupy the district. Like some neighborhoods in
have poverty rates as high as 48.3% and some as low as 9.9%. The district is
Central City
occupancy rate among non-responding residences which was observed in Central City. The error from
this estimated rate is not accounted for in the confidence intervals.
**Figures from the 2000 US Census
nc = not calculated
(83.0% and 84.9% respectively) (Chart 1). In the Bywater neighborhood, the
31.5% of the respondents are considered Black or African American (Chart 1).
The majority of households in Central City (69.5%) contain adults of both sexes.
While 15.9% of households have only male adults and 14.6% of households have
Americans
Hispanic
American
Americans
Hispanic
American
Hispanic
Americans
Hispanic
American
Hispanic
pre-Katrina 2000 Census percentage of homeownership in Central City (16.3%).
58.4% of the households surveyed in Central City stated that they rented or
Central City (Annex B, Table 1).
43.5% and 40.2% of respondents, respectively, reported that there was one or
53.8% in Central City and 46.0% in Tremé) of the sampled respondents that
everyone is pushing uptown since downtown
is destroyed. Its like jail when the jails get
overcrowded that is when the tension comes.
It’s turf wars.”
- African American male late 50’s
respondents in Bywater reported not having this service, 11.7% in Central City
Bywater, 13.0% for Central City and 13.7% for Tremé) and a lack of adequate
neighborhood lighting (12.5% in Bywater, 25.6% in Central City and 25.6% in
Bywater, 40.5% of the responding household in Central City and 33.5% of the
interviewed in Bywater, by 17.2% of respondents in Central City and by 23.6%
responding households in Tremé report crime as a current post-Katrina
12). One resident from Central City, an African American female in her mid-
Central City. Prior to Katrina 83.1% of the responding households expressed
34.8% felt safe out alone in Central City during the night (Annex B, Table 14a).
results from their Central City Community Survey conducted in August of 2006.
They found that 42% of households felt somewhat or very safe prior to Katrina
survey with regards to dealing with crime and safety in Central City. Most
techniques would reduce crime (Table B). This opinion was reinforced in the
discussed. An African American female in her mid-60’s from Central City said,
respondents wanting a higher police presence (86.2%) but their unwillingness
reported upon. She said, “to tell you the truth, a lot of people see what’s
relationship between police in the community and the residents. “They (police)
trustworthy and only 51% feel they act professionally
Residents of Central City discussed solutions to these issues in the focus group.
One resident, an African American female in her mid-60’s, replied to the notion
safety in Central City.
What should be done about
crime and safety
Safe Haven should be established in their neighborhood. In Bywater, 82.1% of
respondents agreed that there should be a Safe Haven in their neighborhood as
reported loosing a job due to Hurricane Katrina (39.3% in Tremé, 35.8% in
neighborhoods reported that finding a job was a current problem for their
household. There was a dramatic increase in the percentage of households, in
insurance program after Katrina as compared to those that reported utilizing
this benefit prior to Katrina. The usage of employment services also
Tremé, 33.8% in Bywater and 42.5% in Central City reported receiving money
households in Tremé, 10.9% in Bywater and 7.9% Central City said that
households drops to 60.5% post Katrina (Annex B, Table 28). Of female-headed
to 68.9% or male headed households (Annex B, Table 30).
loose a job due to Katrina experienced a much more staple post-hurricane
Hurricane Katrina. The majority (55.8%) of these people self-identified as
being Caucasian. The other 44.2% self-identified as being African American.
homeowners (58.1%), while the majority of households that reported a Katrina-
than $2000. And, 43.8% of them reported a decrease in their income post-
However, 46.6% of this same population reported a post-Katrina household
member that is employed either full or part time. The percentage of
the percentage of households whose members are all retired (17.5%). The
likely to report having a chronic illness or disability. Over thirty percent of
employed household in Central City reported an increase in their income since
income has stayed the same since Hurricane Katrina (Annex B, Table 18).
Hurricane Katrina adversely affected households from all three employment
status groups in Central City. However, it is possible to report on some of the
reported that loosing their job was one adverse impact of Hurricane Katrina. It
benefits (34.6% of employed households and 28.6% of unemployed households)
conditioner, and internet, than employed households. And, they are more
compared to renting or leasing (55.1% and 44.9%, respectively). Nearly ninety
monthly income of $3000 or more (44.1% as compared to 19.6%). However, a
Table 20).
Only 33% of people who rent their residence reported a chronically ill or
The percentage of homeowners in Central City has increased as compared to
quantify the percentage of owners versus tenants, the response of
renters has decreased from 83.7% to 63.5% in Central City (Annex B, Table 1,
after the storm. Katrina left Central City relatively unscathed structurally and
it is now one of the few habitable neighborhoods in the New Orleans area. As
from a “minority” race (African American or Hispanic). The tenants surveyed
reported having lower pre-Katrina monthly household incomes than did the
less than $2000 per month, whereas, only 37.5% of homeowners reported a
household income below $2000 per month (Annex B, Table 22). However, after
Only 13.9% of home owners reported an increase in their income post-Katrina
(Annex B, Table 23).
Tenants also seemed to have fewer complaints about the state of their
roofs and mold in their homes. These findings are, perhaps, illustrative of an
vulnerability by characteristic and residential status.
Characteristics of
Households
Needed for Chronic Illness
or Disability
Income
Amenities
It was reported that most other hurricane related impacts were encountered
however, the case that the renters and homeowners surveyed differed in
during the day and at night. In the post-Katrina environment, tenants now feel
respectively, Annex B, Table 26).
Among those surveyed in Algiers, 77.8% report being African American and
Over fifty percent (50.1%) of these households report a pre-Katrina monthly
responding households claim to have a decrease in income following Hurricane
Table 33).
lighting in their neighborhood and 16.7% of the responding households indicate
they have serious pests’ infestations and leaky roofs (Annex B, Table 34).
impact from Katrina (Annex B, Table 35). Twelve and a half percent have
sought employment services post Katrina (Annex B, Table 37).
Crime and safety are also major concerns in the Algiers district. Of the
households surveyed 37.5% report that crime and safety are the greatest
Hurricane Katrina (Annex B, Table 35). Table D indicated the top neighborhood
and 75% of the responding households indicate the need for an organization to
is unavailable for survey is dissimilar in some important way from the
necessarily reflect the population as a whole. Thus, non-response weights are
the survey (Table J).
surveyed
Therefore, an investigation into the ways that this non-responding population
about non-responders, collected from their neighbors, revealed that non-
response was significantly associated with being African American. Thus, these
was not collected for all non-responding residences. Therefore, the ethnic
composition of the non-response group is an estimate, and the weights
The non-response levels were similar in the Bywater (around 70%), but RALLY
associated with rate of response.
Unlike in the other surveys, Bywater surveyors were not randomly assigned
surveyors were inherently more successful at eliciting responses from sampled
these surveyors were assigned were simply more willing to respond to the
income and public housing developments. Many problems were encountered by
the field surveyors in the selected areas. The surveyors expressed worry about
field surveyors to leave and that their safety was at risk. The team tried many
the population interviewed.
significantly (negatively) associated with response, and was thus used for post-
a full understanding of this relationship was not achieved through these three
household size among non-responding households was estimated based on a
occupancy rate was also applied in Tremé and Bywater.
The population Estimate also relies on the 200 US census figure for the total
number of residences in each neighborhood. There is some question as to the
the total population estimates made by RALLY.
Female headed households are commonly targeted as a beneficiary group in
every adult in the household happened to be female.
Thus, for Central City and Bywater, the vulnerable group identified as “female-
distinguished. It is assumed that they are similarly vulnerable, as the adult
In the design of this survey, clusters were formed based on rough estimates of
their population size. The cluster boundaries were drawn without respect to
Furthermore, despite clusters being chosen at random, a large section of
in Annex C. In these maps, estimates in Central City made east of Felicity St.
more intensely on a sub-sample. Visiting fewer houses more often and at
response rates.
response rates and in variables of interest, surveyors should be assigned
incorporate this error into confidence intervals for statistics.
groups.
Community Survey.” August 2006.
Audrey Singer. June 2006.
3. Emergency Operations Center, City of New Orleans. Rapid Population
and Nathaniel Weaver.
5. U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Sample Characteristics.. From a
compilation by the GNO Community Data Center.
neighborhood were selected. Using the address list constructed during the
produced. Each pair had listings of even or odd addresses with in the
neighborhood, making a combined total of 12 maps. Each pair of maps was
the other odd. To begin surveying each member of the survey team selected a
attempts to interview each selected residence at least 4 hour intervals, if no
box on the address sheet.
stage cluster sampling design. The advantage of this strategy is its logistic
increased at a reduced cost. The boundaries for each neighborhood were
Using satellite imagery and “quick count” each neighborhood was divided into
clusters based on the average of 20 residences per cluster. Needing to sample
Hoffman Triangle, and returned to 32 clusters the were previously selected
complicated sampling universe was constructed and ultimately the team
determined that separate samples were required for these two neighborhoods.
is a large heterogeneous district. A small sample of 10 clusters was selected
included in the survey: probability of selection and probability of response.
case of the Central City survey, the neighborhood was divided into 131 clusters,
survey. In the Tremé, a half census was performed.
neighborhood had an equal probability of being selected for the survey, no
For the RALLY summer 2006 surveys, variability in the probability of being
The non-response rate (due to both low availability and refusal to respond) was
City were collected through ad hoc interviews with neighbors. Variables
household, ethnicity, income class and gender.
respectively.
non-African American) is a common way to apply non-response weights.
Probability of response for these classes is generally calculated:
R
where
R
was necessary to estimate ni among African Americans and non-African
(Table L), and response probability was calculated based on the estimated
in Table M.
where
P
m
The sample weight is the inverse of the probability of being selected.
W
W
when calculating statistics and estimating standard error.
surveyed neighborhood can be stated:
Specifically, the RALLY population estimate was calculated utilizing three
Katrina flood depth (source: RALLY survey)
and Katrina flood depth (source: RALLY survey).
household size for all residences in each survey cluster. Using this data, the
by flood depth. Separate occupancy rates and average household sizes were
number of residences for the neighborhood, yielding an estimate of the total
neighborhood.
Confidence intervals reflect the combined error of constituent estimates, but
occupancy and household size estimates.
neighborhood
Characteristics of Household
neighborhood for the 2000 Census.
Characteristics of Household
<http://www.gnocdc.org>
Characteristics of Household
Characteristics of Household
Characteristics of Household Members
while permanent house is being repaired %
other residence
Orleans
New Orleans
home
purchase a home
home
households that are members of specific associations.
Characteristics of Household
Selected Services
neighborhood and characteristic.
Characteristics
Katrina
Problem
Hurricane Katrina
Main Impacts Experienced Since Katrina
Identified Household Problems
ability to access health care.
Health Care
Illness or Disability
neighborhood and characteristics.
Household Characteristics
Neighborhood Feature
established
housing and facilitate the recovery
process.
the neighborhood.
Feel Safe Out Alone in
Central City
demographic characteristics and the loss of employment as an impact from
Hurricane Katrina.
Characteristics of Bywater
Households
Income
demographic characteristics and the loss of employment as an impact from
Hurricane Katrina.
Characteristics of Tremé
Households
Income
employment status.
Characteristics of Households
characteristic and employment status.
Characteristics of Households
Needed for Chronic Illness or
Disability
Income
and employment status.
Identified Household/
Neighborhood Problems
experienced from the
hurricanes:
and friends
or community
living in household
characteristics of vulnerability by characteristic and residential status
Characteristics of Households
Residence
Needed for Chronic Illness or
Disability
**In order to more accurately quantify the percentage of owners versus tenants, the response of
“relative/friend of householder” was filtered out, resulting in an increase of percentages for both
homeowners and tenants.
demographic characteristics and residential status
Characteristics of Households
Residence
Income
**In order to more accurately quantify the percentage of owners versus tenants, the response of
“relative/friend of householder” was filtered out, resulting in an increase of percentages for both
homeowners and tenants.
characteristics and residential status.
Characteristics of Households
Residence
**In order to more accurately quantify the percentage of owners versus tenants, the response of
“relative/friend of householder” was filtered out, resulting in an increase of percentages for both
homeowners and tenants.
vulnerability by characteristic and residential status.
Characteristics of Households
Residence
Needed for Chronic Illness or
Disability
Income
**In order to more accurately quantify the percentage of owners versus tenants, the response of
“relative/friend of householder” was filtered out, resulting in an increase of percentages for both
homeowners and tenants.
impacts by impacts and residential status.
Identified Household/
Neighborhood Problems
Residence
experienced from the
hurricanes
and friends
or community
living in household
**In order to more accurately quantify the percentage of owners versus tenants, the response of
“relative/friend of householder” was filtered out, resulting in an increase of percentages for both
homeowners and tenants.
by problems and residential status.
Identified Household/
Neighborhood Problems
housing
programs
about housing issues
medicine you need
private insurance
**In order to more accurately quantify the percentage of owners versus tenants, the response of
“relative/friend of householder” was filtered out, resulting in an increase of percentages for both
homeowners and tenants.
demographic characteristics in Tremé.
Characteristics of Head of Household
demographic characteristics.
Characteristics of Head of Household
demographic characteristics.
Characteristics of Head of Household
head of household for Tremé.
Characteristics of the Head of Household
by sex
head of household for Tremé.
Characteristics of the Head of Household
by sex
change in income by sex of the head of household for Tremé.
by sex and pre-Katrina income.
characteristics.
Characteristics of Household
vulnerability characteristics.
Characteristics of Household
vulnerability characteristics.
Characteristics of Household
and problems.
Characteristics of Household
Katrina and percentage of households that are members of specific
associations.
Characteristics of Household
used (post-Katrina or pre-Katrina)
Selected Services
neighborhood associations
facilitate the recovery process.
