Personal tools
You are here: Home Projects RALLY rallydocs BCM Final Report.pdf

BCM Final Report.pdf

Click here to get the file

Size 7.8 MB - File type application/pdf
Full screen

File contents

background image




















Oct. 13, 2006
Final Report on the
Summer 2006 Survey
of Central City




background image
2
Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ........................................................................4
Executive Summary........................................................................5
Introduction ................................................................................9
Recovery Action Learning Laboratory .............................................9
History of Central City...............................................................9
Crime in Central City .............................................................. 12
Descriptive Statistics .................................................................... 16
Demographics ....................................................................... 16
Special Groups ........................................................................... 24
Crime and Safety ........................................................................ 33
Hoffman Triangle ........................................................................ 42
Limitations and Lessons Learned ...................................................... 45
Limitations .......................................................................... 45
Non response ..................................................................... 45
Female headed households..................................................... 46
Clusters ........................................................................... 47
Lessons Learned .................................................................... 48
Non-response ..................................................................... 48
Female headed households..................................................... 49
Clusters ........................................................................... 49
References ................................................................................ 50
Annex A: Methodology .................................................................. 51
Sampling Scheme ................................................................... 51
Weighting............................................................................ 51
Design weights ................................................................... 51
Non-response weights........................................................... 52
Overall weighting ................................................................ 54
Analysis .............................................................................. 55
Central City Population Estimate ................................................ 55
Annex B: Tables .......................................................................... 57
Descriptive Statistics ................................................................. 57
Female-headed Households ......................................................... 78
Owners/Tenants....................................................................... 86
Employed/Unemployed/Retired .................................................... 94
New/Longtime Residents ............................................................ 99
Presence of School-aged Children .................................................107
Hoffman Triangle ....................................................................111
Annex C: Maps...........................................................................119
Map 1: Central City Survey.......................................................119
Map 2: Occupancy .................................................................120
Map 3: Ownership .................................................................121
background image
3
Map 4: Flooding....................................................................122
Map 5: African American ........................................................123
Map 6: Caucasian .................................................................124
Map 7: Hispanic ...................................................................125
Map 8: New Residents............................................................126
Map 9: Schools ....................................................................127
Map 10: Child Care ...............................................................128
Map 11: Safety ....................................................................129
Map 12: Health Care ..............................................................130
Map 13: Access to Information about Available Resources..................131
Map 14: Community Center .....................................................132









background image
4
Acknowledgements


A special thanks to Baptist Community Ministries for your support of this
study.


Primary Authors:
Jeff Coates, MPH – Recovery Action Learning Laboratory
Maya Matthews-Sterling, MPH – Recovery Action Learning Laboratory
Adam Papendieck, MPH – Recovery Action Learning Laboratory

Co-Author:
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











background image
5
Executive Summary
Increasing violence and slow development during the repopulation of Central
City following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita has directed public focus towards
this historical neighborhood. Recovery Action Learning Laboratory (RALLY) was
solicited to expand its pilot needs assessment. The pilot needs assessment was
initiated for the Department of Justice’s Weed and Seed Project in May and
June of 2006. The assessment was extended on behalf of Baptist Community
Ministries (BCM) in August of 2006, for the purpose of increasing the sample
size of the household survey and developing a more sophisticated
understanding of the area known as the Hoffman Triangle.
An equal probability cluster survey was implemented for this study. Central
City was divided into 131 clusters of approximately equal size, and 33 clusters
were randomly selected. Within selected clusters, every inhabited household
was included. The sampling scheme, along with adjustments for survey non-
response, allows the findings from this survey to be generalized to the overall
population of returned households in Central City.
A population estimate of 9,582 people was calculated using the number of
residences in Central City from the 2000 Census, the occupancy rate within
clusters (stratified by response group and flood depth), and the average
household size (stratified by response group). A total of 218 household surveys
were conducted. Among the respondents surveyed, 84.9% were African
American, 8.7% were Caucasian and 2.8% were Hispanic. Almost half of the
households reported having a pre-Katrina monthly income of less than $2,000,
and a third of the responding households reported having a decline in income
following the hurricanes. With 17% of the households reporting to have no one
employed within their household, jobs and job training were seen as one
priority for rebuilding by the responding households.
background image
6
The repopulation of Central City has, for the most part, been by homeowners,
and it appears that many tenants have not yet returned to the neighborhood.
Pre-Katrina, over 80% of Central City residents were renters. Currently, only
58.4% of the households surveyed are tenants. Many of the tenants in Central
City reported being ill-equipped for another hurricane. Nearly eighty percent
(79.4%) of tenants reported that they did not have renters insurance and 82.6%
stated that they did not have flood insurance.
Health and healthcare services are a great concern for many households in
Central City. Over 50% of households surveyed, reported a disruption in health
care resulting from Hurricane Katrina, and a quarter (25.4%) of the households
indicated they no longer have health insurance following the hurricane. Over
forty-percent of responding households indicate that their household has had
difficulty accessing assistance programs and 36.1% report that opportunities for
social support is a great problem since returning to New Orleans. This lack of
services and insurance has resulted in an increase in the vulnerability of
households surveyed in Central City, from which, 43.5% reported having at
least one member that has a chronic illness or disability. Physical disabilities
were most frequently cited as the type of illness or disability within the
household, at 65.7%.
Another, possible vulnerable group within Central City are female-headed
households. At least fifteen percent (14.7%) of the households surveyed can be
classified as female-headed households. Half of these female-headed
households reported a decrease in income following Katrina and 41.7% of these
households stated a loss of health insurance post-Katrina. More than half of
the households (58.3%) also reported having a disruption in their health care
and over forty percent (41.7%) indicated problems fulfilling regular eating
habits.
background image
7
Central City has embraced many new residents following Hurricane Katrina.
Over twenty-five percent of the households surveyed are new to the
neighborhood. Of the new households, none appear to be homeowners.
However, in some important respects, new households seemed to fair better
than those households that lived in Central City prior to the storm. New
households reported an increase in income post-Katrina and indicated they are
less likely to be deficient in common household amenities. Long-time
residents--defined as those households who lived in Central City prior to the
storm--reported having more issues with health and health care as compared to
the new households. Close to half (47.9%) of longtime households reported
having a chronic illness or disability, whereas, only one third (34.0%) of new
households reported having an ill or disabled member in their household.
Almost thirty percent (29.1%) of longtime households reported lacking
prescription drugs or medicines that they need, while only 17.3% of the new
households reported this being a problem.
Many households expressed anxiety about the increase in crime in Central City,
and overall, people are feeling less safe. 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 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. Responding households indicated that crime prevention
is a high priority for them when it comes to rebuilding their neighborhood.
More than 66% of female-headed households reported that safety is a problem
in Central City after Katrina, compared to 30.8% of male-only households and
59.6% of mixed-sex households. When respondents addressed the question of
how to deal with the crime, the top responses were, educating the youth
(88.5%), improving police techniques (87.2%), and increasing police presence
(86.2%). Overwhelmingly (86.9%), responding households felt that a Safe Haven
should be established in Central City.
background image
8
The Hoffman Triangle was of special interest to many of the partners dedicated
to rebuilding Central City. The demographic breakdown of this area differs
slightly from the rest of Central City. Forty-one percent of the responding
households in the Triangle are homeowners, as compared to 32.4% of
households outside of the Triangle that own homes. Only 24.1% are considered
primary tenants in the Triangle, whereas 49.7% of households outside of the
Triangle are primary tenants. In Hoffman Triangle, a mere 16.7% of the
responding households claimed to have an increase in income post-Katrina in
contrast to outside of the Triangle, where more than a quarter of the
households reported an increase.
Almost two-thirds (65.5%) of the responding households in the Triangle
reported a disruption in health care and 51.7% reported losing a job. Outside
the Triangle, 52.7% of households reported disruption in health care and 40.5%
of the households complained of a job loss.
The main limitation to this study was the high non-response rate, constituted
by both household refusals and unavailability to be surveyed. RALLY took
several steps to minimize this non-response, including visiting the non-response
residences multiple times and giving incentive cards for the completion of a
survey. Despite these measures, only 26.4% of the sampled households
responded to the survey. However, investigations into the non-responding
households were carried out in order to facilitate proper weighing for analysis.

background image
9
Introduction
In August of 2006, RALLY was asked by Baptist Community Ministries (BCM) to
expand its pilot needs assessment conducted for the Department of Justice’s
Weed and Seed project in May and June of 2006. The pilot demonstrated the
viability of household assessments and resulted in validation of a number of
questionnaire items and scales. This expanded needs assessment both
increased the sample size of the household survey conducted earlier in Central
City and fine-tuned a diagnosis of needs in the Hoffman Triangle area by over-
sampling in that part of the neighborhood.
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 focuses in particular on providing information in support of the
nonprofit sector and also emphasizes primary data collection in the post-
Katrina setting.
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 contracted and
collaborated with a number of nonprofit organizations in New Orleans.
History of Central City
Central City is a neighborhood of New Orleans nestled between the core
of downtown New Orleans and the historic Garden District. Because of its
background image
10
location “behind” St. Charles Avenue with respect to the river, it was referred
to in the past as the “back of town.”
Formerly a large swampy area on the outskirts of New Orleans, 3-10 feet
below sea level, what is now referred to as “Central City” New Orleans was
developed early in the 19
th
century. The area directly behind the affluent St.
Charles Avenue was developed first in response to the opening of the New
Orleans & Carrollton Railway (later named the St. Charles Avenue Streetcar.)
Originally, this neighborhood was a center of commerce surrounding the New
Basin Canal and was populated mostly by working class Irish, Italian and
German immigrants. However, with the conclusion of the American Civil War,
many African Americans from rural areas settled in this part of the city
extending the urbanized area all the way back to Claiborne Avenue
1
.
This present day Central City now extends beyond South Claiborne into
what is now known as the Hoffman Triangle. The paradigm of typical New
Orleans architecture, the majority of houses in Central City were built in the
“shotgun” style to optimize space and serve mainly as two-family rental
properties, thus creating one of the most densely populated areas of the city.
According to the 2000 census, the Central City neighborhood contains
approximately 8,147 households
2
. However, the number of households has
significantly dropped after Hurricane Katrina.
Referred to in the past as one of the city’s most racially diverse areas,
Central City's commercial corridor Dryades street (later changed to Oretha
Castle Haley) operated as a racially-mixed and thriving business district that
beginning in the 1830s. Prior to the Civil Rights Movement this area was known
as one of the few areas where African Americans could shop without
discrimination and where people of all races and ethnicities would come from
all over the city to sample over 200 businesses. However at the close of the
1960s and the conclusion of the civil rights movement, business in this area
slowed. Among other factors, it is thought that the of other commercial areas
1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_City%2C_New_Orleans
2
http://www.gnocdc.org/orleans/2/61/index.html
background image
11
around New Orleans, as well as the migration of many of the wealthier people
of this area to the suburbs, may have propagated the economic decline of this
once thriving neighborhood
3
.
By 1990, the majority of the buildings on Dryades street were blighted or
vacant. This steep decline took the attention of the city, and initiatives to
revitalize the neighborhood were put in place beginning with the renaming of
the street to Oretha Castle Haley Boulevard after a local civil rights activist.
By the year 2000 gradual improvements in the vitality of the neighborhood had
become evident, but the positive momentum of this revival has since been
interrupted by Hurricane Katrina. However, due to its location and elevation,
much attention has been given to the post-Katrina redevelopment of this
area
1,3
.
Over the past few decades this neighborhood has been dealing with
poverty, low employment rates and high teen birth rates. The 2000 Census
reflected a 49.8% poverty level; 26.5% the households were single parents and
43.9% had not completed high school
4
. This neighborhood also includes and
borders three New Orleans public housing developments: C.J. Peete
(Magnolia), Guste (Melpomene), and B.W. Cooper (Calliope). However, C.J.
Peete and Guste have been in the process of demolition and redevelopment for
the past decade, a process that has come to a halt post-Katrina. Although
Hurricane Katrina had a profound impact on the neighborhood, many of the
socioeconomic problems persist in Central City and have been exacerbated.
Despite the present social and economic hardships of this area, Central
City is known to be the seat of many of the rich cultural traditions that make
New Orleans unique. Central City is the home to several of the Mardi Gras
Indian tribes which play an integral part in the famous New Orleans Marti Gras
celebration. The Free Southern Theater, a group using the arts to inspire and
support social struggle and fight against racism and exploitation, also
originated in this neighborhood in 1963. Many of the jazz musicians who
3
http://www.gnocdc.org/orleans/2/61/snapshot.html
4
http://www.gnocdc.org/orleans/2/61/income.html
background image
12
played a role in shaping the now famous New Orleans music once called Central
City home, including King Oliver, Kid Ory, Papa Celestin, Pops Foster, the
Dodds and Shields brothers, Tom Zimmerman, Buddy Bolden and more recently
the rapper Terius Grey (Juvenile).
Crime in Central City
New Orleans has a reputation for being a dangerous city. In 2003 the
New Orleans’s murder rate was nearly eight times the national average of 5.5
per 100,000, and since then it has increased. In 2002 and 2003, New Orleans
had the highest per capita city homicide rate in the United States, with 59
people killed per year per 100,000 citizens—compared to New York City’s rate
of seven per 100,000
5
. Following a brief post-Katrina lull in the crime rate,
there has been a sharp increase in overall crime, especially murders which
have risen beyond the pre-Katrina baseline. Despite the halved population,
New Orleans is back at the average of 22 murders a month, and as of July (with
21 murders in July) the numbers seem to be on the rise
6
. With the lull in the
murder rate occurring during August, September has been right back on
average with four murders taking place over Labor Day weekend alone. Sadly,
many New Orleaneans, both pre- and post-Katrina, have come to accept violent
crime as an inevitable part of life. This seems to be especially true in Central
City.
March 21 2006, during a typical New Orleans jazz funeral procession
through Central City held in broad daylight an 18 yr old man opened
fire on the dancing crowd of mourners shooting two men and killing one
before being shot in the leg by a policeman.
7
5
Gelinas, N “Who’s Killing New Orleans”, City Journal, Autumn 2005
6
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/news/pdf/073106_violentjuly.jpg
7
Ripley, A “Crime Returns to the Big Easy” Time Magazine posted March 21,
2006
background image
13
Central City has long been one of the city’s more problematic areas in
terms of crime and crime rates. However, post-Katrina, the neighborhood is
now widely regarded as one of the most dangerous parts of the city in terms of
murder and crime. While this change in perception may be partially related to
the devastation of other historically dangerous areas of the city and the
redistribution of the population around the city, there is an obvious trend of
recent murders in Central City.
There were only 17 murders in the first three months of this year.
However, two-thirds of the 53 murders this year in New Orleans occurred
between April 2006 and the end of August, the one year anniversary of Katrina.
One out of every four of these murders took place in Central City. A map
created by the New Orleans police department depicts the location of these
murders with numbered circles in the location. Of the murders listed on this
map all of the victims were men ages 16-27, all deaths were the result of
gunshot wounds
8
.
Perhaps the most startling of the recent murders was the quintuple
homicide that took place in Central City on June 17
th
on the corner of
Josephine and Danneel. Five victims--three of whom were 19 years old, along
with a 16- and 17-year-old—were shot multiple times as reported by local
papers while riding in a Ford Explorer around 4 a.m. They were the apparent
targets of a retaliatory strike by rival gang members. Some place this as the
worst single incident of crime in New Orleans since March 1995 when five
people were murdered in a Ninth Ward home
9
. The incident prompted Mayor
Nagin and Governor Blanco to request National Guard presence to help the
understaffed police department of New Orleans concentrate more on the crime
“hot spots” of New Orleans such as Central City. Governor Blanco recently
8
http://www.nola.com/news/pdf/062006_murderchart.pdf
9
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1205340,00.html
background image
14
announced that these troops would be staying until the end of the year
10
.
It is difficult to pinpoint the exact cause of the increase of murders in
this particular neighborhood. Some believe that most of these crimes are drug-
related and are acts of retaliation or quarrels over turf. Police officials have
stated that they believe the landscape of abandoned houses, stretching block
after block, after Hurricane Katrina is being incorporated into a revived drug
trade, with the empty dwellings offering an unexpected convenience to dealers
returning from places like Houston and Atlanta
11
. Others point to a high level
of desperation amongst those returning to New Orleans.
Although the number of murders continues to rise there is hope on the
horizon. The quintuple murder in June not only gained the attention of the city
and country but it also caused a call to action within the community.
Recently, the people of Central City have started to take a stand against the
violence. On October 6
th
, 2006 a group of local ministers led by Raphael of the
New Hope Baptist Church all dressed in black suits, white shirts and red ties
marched from a the New Hope Baptist Church to the corner of S. Claiborne and
Martin Luther King Blvd. carrying a sign that simply said “Enough.” There, at
the monument to the slain civil rights leader, they discussed the problems with
the current violence, prayed and declared their mission to bystanders and
passing traffic
12
.
Furthermore, the New Orleans branch of the National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) met on the corner of Josephine
and Danneel, the same corner where the five murders occurred in June to
announce an interagency collaboration to combat violent crime. This NAACP
anti-violence committee will include police, community members, church
officials and members of the NAACP. The mission of this committee is to
10
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2006/Sep/20060917News027.asp
11
Nossiter, A. “As Life Returns to New Orleans So Does Crime” NY Times, March 30, 2006
12
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-
17/1160205003253020.xml&coll=1
background image
15
provide a unified voice and leadership to mobilize collective action to address
violence in the Greater New Orleans Area
13
.
13
www.nolaagainstcrime.com
background image
16
Descriptive Statistics
Demographics

Based on survey data collected in summer 2006, RALLY estimates that the
current population of Central City is probably between 9,100 and 10,000
people, the best estimate being 9,582 (Table A) The current occupancy rate is
estimated at 32.9%.
Table A: Estimated population and occupancy rate in Central City.
Estimate
Range (95% conf.)
2006*
Central City Population
9582
9,156 - 10,008
Occupancy Rate
32.9%
2000** Central City Population
19072
Occupancy Rate
78.8%
*Figures calculated from RALLY's summer 2006 survey of Central City
**Figures from the 2000 US Census
Surveys were completed with 218 households. Demographics of the
respondents are presented in Annex B, Table 1. The 218 household
respondents reported on the experiences of 630 household members, including
themselves. The number of family members per household ranged from one to
nine; the mean household size was 3.04. Among the respondents surveyed,
84.9% were African American, 8.7% were Caucasian and 2.8% were Hispanic.
These findings do not deviate considerably from the data collected from the
2000 Census. Of the household members reported upon, 7.45% were four years
old or younger. Additionally, 10.46% of household members were 65 years old
or older (Annex B, Table 1). The majority of households (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 (Annex B, Table 3). Almost half of the
responding households (48.8%) report having a pre-Katrina household income of
less than $2000 per month (Annex B, Table 1).
background image
17
Chart A: Percentage of Central City residents by ethnicity and year
reported.
Central City Ethnicity: 2000 Census
84.9
2.7
8.7
African American
Hispanic
Caucasian
Central City Ethnicity 2006
88%
3%
9%
African American
Hispanic
Caucasian
background image
18
Livelihoods
Hurricane Katrina dramatically affected the livelihoods of many gulf-coast
residents. While the damage all but wiped out some industries it also created
other means by which to make a living. While 33.3% of households surveyed in
Central City reported a decrease in income post-Katrina, 24.1% reported an
increase in their household income. The remainder of the responding
households (39.4%) reported no change in income. When asked if they had any
new sources of income since the hurricane, 42.5% of households reported
receiving money from FEMA, 33.0% stated that they got money from the Red
Cross and 7.9% of the households said that construction work supplied them
with a new source of income (Annex B, Table 4). Only 62.2% of households
reported having at least one member that is employed full time. Seventeen
percent of the remaining households contain no employed members. And,
17.1% report that all members of the household are retired (Annex B, Table 6).
Jobs and job training is seen by the responding households as a priority in
rebuilding Central City (Chart B).
Housing
The households interviewed reported a relatively low percentage of
homeownership (33.6%). However, it should be noted that this percentage has
increased dramatically post-Katrina. The 2000 Census found the percentage of
homeownership in Central City to be 16.3%. These results suggest that
homeowners are more prevalent among the current population of Central City.
Conversely, the percentage of tenants in the neighborhood has dropped. The
2000 Census reported that 83.7% of the Central City population rented their
background image
19
residences. After hurricane Katrina, only 58.4% of the households stated that
they rented or leased their residence (Annex B, Table 1).
The housing issue is a great concern for many households in Central City.
Thirty-six percent of respondents indicate that since returning to New Orleans
their household has had difficulties accessing information about housing issues.
Many see a connection between renovating homes destroyed by the storm and
the productivity of their neighborhood. One focus group participant, a white
male in his late 30’s, expressed the need for housing in this manner, following
a lengthy discussion on the lack of stores,
But you see, a lot of the problems are the housing. You see a lot of the
housing ain’t here for the people that need them to live here and have
a store to run. They got to have some where to live, to work at that
store. And a lot of these house and stuff….I mean look at them, look at
the neighborhoods, nobody’s in them. They’re not livable, they’re not
getting worked on, there just sitting there.
Housing that is adequate in both quality and quantity is essential for the
revitalization of any community.
Most of the respondents (65.2%) said that the head of household lived at their
current residence prior to Katrina. Eleven percent claimed the head of
household lived in Central City before the hurricane but at a different
residence. And, 19.1% of respondents report that the head of household lived
in New Orleans before the hurricane but in a different neighborhood.
Household size has fluctuated since the storm. Twenty-four percent of
responding households claim to have new members. A slightly higher
percentage of households, 27.9%, report having fewer members after Katrina.
When asked if the missing members plan on returning to live in the household,
56.9% of responding households said no. While, 20.7% of the households said,
yes, their missing members were planning on returning (Annex B, Table 5).
background image
20
Many primary tenants in Central City are ill-equipped for another hurricane.
Almost eighty percent (79.4%) of the tenants do not have renters insurance and
82.6% of them do not have flood insurance. Homeowners are considerably
better off. Only 23.6% of them are without homeowners insurance and 40.3%
of homeowners do not have flood insurance (Table B).
Table B. Percent of households without insurance by
homeowners and primary tenants.
Households with insurance
Homeowners
w/o homeowners insurance
%
23.6
N
17
Con. Int. (15.0, 35.1)
w/o flood insurance
%
40.3
N
29
Con. Int. (31.9, 49.3)
Primary Tenants
w/o renters insurance
%
79.4
N
77
Con. Int. (69.0, 87.0)
w/o flood insurance
%
82.6
N
76
Con. Int. (73.8, 88.9)
* Confidence Interval (Con. Int.) at 95%
Multiple households reported the absence of common household/neighborhood
amenities such as a working kitchen (19.4%), heat (15.5%), air conditioning
(13.0), smoke detector (34.0%), garbage pick up at least once a week (11.7%)
and adequate neighborhood lighting (25.6%). Many households reported having
problems with mold (17.2%), pests (40.5%) and roof leaks (20.6%) (Annex B,
background image
21
Table 7). More than eleven percent (11.7%) of responding households report
having a trailer installed on their property (Annex B, Table 5).
Nearly forty percent (37.6%) of the households report that they cannot afford
rent and 42.1% state increased rent as a problem for them since Katrina (Annex
B, Table l2). This was also reflected in a focus group where one individual, an
African American female in her mid-50’s, expressed that a major problem she
faced was finding affordable housing in the neighborhood.
Health
It is quite clear that Hurricane Katrina damaged health related infrastructure
and
disrupted
routine
health
services for the residents of Central
City. Provision of health care
services is currently in a transition
phase, as the temporary post-
emergency clinics have closed and
many pre-Katrina doctor offices, clinics and hospitals remain unopened. Many
focus group participants expressed worry about the declining health care
available for the uninsured. Charity hospital, the main source of health care
for many residents before the storm, is currently not planning on re-opening its
doors.
A number of health related problems were attributed to the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina. Of the households surveyed, 54.4% reported that disruption
of health care was a main impact of the hurricane. A quarter (25.4%) of the
responding households, indicated that they no longer have health insurance
after Katrina. Another quarter of the households (25.4%) indicated that they
“We had a lot of problems with
health care before the storm but
now it’s just worse.”
- White male, mid-30’s
background image
22
still do not have the prescription drugs/medicines that they need. The need
for available and affordable prescriptions was expressed by an African
American male in his late 50’s who can no longer receive his prescriptions for
free from the clinic. He said, “I can’t get my medications I used to get, and I
used to get them free of charge. Now if you ain’t able to pay for it you got to
live with out it.” (Annex B, Table 13)
Among households surveyed, 36.1% reported health problems as being one of
the greatest problems that the household continues to have since returning to
New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, and 36.6% of the households report that
fulfilling regular eating habits is a problem following Hurricane Katrina. Being
able to find the necessary care for health problems was reported to be another
big problem by 36.6% of respondents. Indeed, the population surveyed was
inundated with chronic illnesses; 43.5% reported having at least one member
with a chronic illness or disability. Common chronic medical conditions
included physical disability (65.7%), mental disability (43.5%), cancer (15.0%),
cardiovascular disease (37.0%) and diabetes (45.1%). Of those households that
contain one or more members with a chronic illness or disability, 20.9% were
unable to access the care that they needed. Twenty-four percent were able to
access care for only some services, and 53.8% were able to access needed care
for all services (Annex B, Table 11). Respondents in a focus group expressed
the need for a health clinic in Central City that would provide basic services to
residents, such as preventative and primary care. One respondent, an African
American female in her early 60’s, said:
One thing for myself, would be my weight, we need someone to teach
us what to do about weight. We have chest pain, shortness of breath,
tingling in the legs. And eye doctors to help us with our vision.
The enormous burden of ill-health on Central City would be eased by providing
low-cost health care services in a location easily accessible for most residents.
Distributing appropriate information about social services and opportunities for
support would benefit households within Central City. The responding
background image
23
households indicated that they have had difficulties since returning to New
Orleans accessing assistance programs (40.3%) and finding opportunities for
social support (36.1%). (Annex B, Table 12)
Education
An educated population is essential for the socio-economic development of a
community. As compared to the 2000 Census, Central City has demonstrated
an increase in populations with higher levels of education. During the Census it
was determined that 34.1% of the population had less than a high school level
of education. After hurricane Katrina, the percentage of the households
surveyed that had members with less than a high school degree or GED dropped
to 24.3%. The percentage of responding households that have at least one
member with a high school diploma or GED has risen from 26.2% in 2000 to
37.8% after Katrina. Also, the percentage of responding households that have
at least one member with some college or higher degree rose from 29.9% to
36.5%. This trend suggests that either the population of Central City is
becoming more educated or that the more educated residents were the ones
that returned to Central City after the storm (Annex B, Table 2).
One major concern of many households in Central City is finding schooling for
their children. Of the households with school-aged children, 32.9% stated that
finding schooling was a problem after the hurricane (Annex B, Table 37).
Education is clearly important to households with school-age children which,
despite the obstacle, made every effort to enroll their children in one school or
another this past spring. Over ninety percent (91.1%) of those households with
at least one school-aged child had enrolled them in school last spring, and an
additional 8.1% were planning to enroll their children in the fall (Annex B,
Table 2). As one focus group participant, an African American male in his mid-
60’s, explained, “Education is the key.”
background image
24
Special Groups
Female-headed Households
Female-headed households tend to constitute a vulnerable population
worldwide and especially in post-disaster settings. As such, it is important to
look at the particular problems facing households such as these. Nearly fifteen
percent (14.7%) of the households surveyed in Central City can be classified as
female-headed households being that the only adults in the household are
female. The total percentage of female headed households is likely higher than
this, as adult male dependents may often be present. The percentage of
households in which all adults are male is 15.9%, and 69.5% of the households
surveyed which have a combination of female and male adults. Every
respondent that claimed to be from a female-headed household self-reported
being African American (Annex B, Table 17).
The socio-economic status of female-headed households tends to be lower than
that of their counterparts. Therefore, these households are more vulnerable to
economic downturns and breakdown of services such as those experienced
after a disaster. The fluctuation in assets held and incomes earned can have a
disproportionately severe impact on the viability of the household. The
percentage of female-headed households that own their home (36.4%) was
comparable to the percentage of mixed-sex and male-headed households that
also own their residences (36.8% and 27.3% respectively). However, no female-
headed households reported having a pre-Katrina income higher than $3000 per
month. While, 7.7% of male-headed households and 12.8% of mixed-sex
households reported having an income higher than this pre-Katrina (Annex B,
Table 17). Exactly half (50.0%) of female-headed households experienced a
background image
25
decrease in their income post-Katrina, while only 26.3% of households with
adults of both sexes experienced an income decrease. Of the male-headed
households surveyed, 38.5% reported that their income has increased since
Hurricane Katrina. Only 16.7% of female-headed households reported an
increase in income post-Katrina (Annex B, Table 18).

Female-headed households appear to have been especially vulnerable to many
of the negative impacts of Hurricane Katrina. As compared to mixed-sex
households, a higher percentage of female-headed households reported having
a number of hurricane related impacts including, loss of health insurance
(41.7%), loss of contact with family and friends (75%), disruption of health care
(58.3%), lack of utility services (50.0%), problems fulfilling regular eating
habits (41.7%) and problems with transportation (58.3%) (Annex B, Table 19,
Table 20). More female-headed households stated that they lack selected
household amenities than did mixed-sex households. These wanting amenities
include a working kitchen (25%), heat (12.3%), air-conditioning (8.3%), the
internet (91.7%) and ample lighting in the neighborhood (41.7%). A higher
percentage of female-headed households also reported the presence of
household deficiencies such as mold (16.7%), pests (41.7%) and roof leaks
(16.7%) than did mixed-sex households (Annex B, Table 18).
Security is always a concern for female-headed households and is particularly
relevant among those surveyed in Central City. Two thirds (66.7%) of female-
headed households feel that safety is a problem in the post-Katrina
environment. Nearly sixty percent (58.3%) also feel that Central City suffers
from problems with crime (Annex B, Table 20). Before Katrina, 75.0% of
female-headed households felt safe in Central City during the day. Now, only
41.7% of these households report feeling safe out alone in their neighborhood
during the day. This percentage drops to zero when they are asked if they feel
safe out alone in Central City during the night (Table C).

background image
26





Table C. Percent of households that feel safe in Central City by household
composition by sex.
Feel Safe Out Alone
in Central City
Male Only
Households
Female
Only
Households
Mixed Sex
Households
Before Katrina
During the day
%
69.2
75.0
89.5
N
9
9
51
Con. Int.
(46.4, 85.4)
(49.0, 90.3)
(76.0, 95.8)
At night
%
69.2
50.0
73.7
N
9
6
42
Con. Int.
(46.8, 85.2)
(26.2, 73.8)
(57.6, 85.2)
After Katrina
During the day
%
69.2
41.7
61.4
N
9
5
35
Con. Int.
(46.4, 85.4)
(20.3, 66.7)
(48.8, 72.7)
At night
%
61.5
0.0
35.1
N
8
20
Con. Int.
(39.2, 79.9)
(24.8, 47.0)
* Confidence Interval (Con. Int.) at 95%


Owners and Tenants
The percentage of homeowners 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 percentages for both
homeowners and tenants.) Conversely, the percentage of renters has
decreased from 83.7% to 63.5% (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
background image
27
habitable neighborhoods in the New Orleans area. As such, it is predicted that
more tenants will become part of the Central City population. This is
evidenced by the fact that out of all of the new residents surveyed in Central
City (new, meaning that they did not live in the neighborhood prior to Katrina),
81.1% of them are the primary tenants of their residence; while none of them
reported owning their residence (Annex B, Table 30).
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 D).
background image
28
Table D: 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
background image
29
N
19
10
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 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).
Employed/Unemployed/Retired
The majority of households surveyed (65%) have at least one member that is
employed either full or part time. The percentage of households that contain
all unemployed residents is the same as the percentage of households whose
members are all retired (17.5%). The majority of residents of all employment
background image
30
status groups were African American. One hundred percent of the unemployed
households categorized themselves as African American (Annex B, Table 27).
Not surprisingly, the households 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
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 28).
Hurricane Katrina adversely affected households from all three employment
status groups. 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.) 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 28)
New/Longtime Residents
Length of residency was determined by reviewing the reported date of home
purchase or lease signing. Over twenty-five percent of those surveyed are
reported to be new to the neighborhood. New residents, overwhelmingly, are
background image
31
primary tenants at 81.1% with no homeowners among them. Longtime
residents, defined as residents that lived in Central City prior to Katrina, are
typically homeowners, at 43.9%. Only 38.1% of longtime residents are primary
tenants (Annex B, Table 30).
More new residents reported an increase in income post Katrina than did
longtime residents, 30.8% and 23.4%, respectively. New residents were less
likely to lack household amenities than longtime residents. Only 7.4% of new
residents lack a working kitchen, 9.4% lack heat, 7.4% lack air conditioning,
20.4% lack a smoke detector, and only 20.4% believe there is a lack of ample
lighting in the neighborhood. (Table E).
Table E: Percent of households that report specific characteristics of
vulnerability by characteristic and by duration of residing in Central City.
Characteristics of Households
Longtime
Residents New Residents
Lacks Household Amenities
Garbage pick-up
%
11.5
13.5
N
16
7
Con. Int.
(7.1, 18.1)
(5.7, 28.5)
Internet
%
70.7
74.1
N
99
40
Con. Int. (60.9, 78.9)
(60.3, 84.3)
Working kitchen
%
23.6
7.4
N
33
4
Con. Int. (15.2, 34.7)
(2.5, 19.9)
Heat
%
18.0
9.4
N
25
5
Con. Int. (10.9, 28.3)
(4.5, 18.6)
Air conditioning
%
15.0
7.4
N
21
4
Con. Int.
(8.6, 24.9)
(3.0, 17.0)
Smoke detector
%
37.9
20.4
N
53
11
Con. Int. (29.9, 46.5)
(10.9, 34.8)
Ample lighting in neigh.
%
26.6
20.4
N
37
11
Con. Int. (19.5, 35.2)
(11.8, 32.7)
* Confidence Interval (Con. Int.) at 95%
background image
32
There is also quite a difference in the problems experience by households that
are new to the neighborhood and those that lived in the community prior to the
hurricane. New residents, being strictly tenants, expressed problems with not
having enough money for rent (48.1%). Only 34.8% of longtime residents
reported this as a problem. New residents also reported having problems with
increasing rent (67.3%) (Annex B, Table 33). On the other hand, longtime
residents reported more health-related problems. Close to half (47.9%) of
longtime residents report having a chronic illness or disability, whereas, one
third (34.0%) of new residents reported having an ill or disabled member of the
household (Annex B, Table 31). Nearly thirty percent (29.1%) of longtime
residents reported lacking prescription drugs or medicines that they need,
while only, 17.3% of the new residents report this being a problem for them
(Annex B, Table 33). Both longtime and new residents reported that the main
impact of Hurricane Katrina on their household was losing touch with family
and friends (64.7% of the longtime residents and 73.6% of new residents)
(Annex B, Table 32).
background image
33
“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
Crime and Safety
Crime and Safety has become a major source of anxiety for Central City
residents following Hurricane Katrina. One resident, 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 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
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 14). 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
14
. The results from this survey also show that 80% of Central City
households are afraid of crime in their neighborhood.
Responding households indicated that crime prevention is the most important
priority for them when it comes to rebuilding their community (Chart B).
Those surveyed also expressed that a low crime rate (at a mean of 4.82) and
good street lighting at night (at a mean of 4.85) are important neighborhood
features (Chart C). Good street lighting can be a valuable source for deterring
14
Metropolitan Crime Commission, Preliminary Results. “Central City Community Survey.”
August 2006.
background image
34
crime. These features were also expressed as being important during a city
wide survey of households conducted by the Prevention Research Center of
Tulane University. This study’s results produced a mean of 4.72 for the
importance of low crime rate and a mean of 4.68 for the importance of good
street lighting
15
. The main crime concerns of Central City residents were
solicited by the Metropolitan Crime Commission’s survey, from which they
determined that 86% of the residents feel as if killings/murders are the main
problem in Central City. Independently, another 86% feel as if drug dealing is a
main problem in Central City
16
.


Chart B: Perceived priorities for rebuilding Central City by
importance.
Perceived Priorities for Rebuilding Central City
4.79
4.77
4.76
4.63
4.56
4.35
4.33
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
4.80
5.00
Establishing child care
services
Providing loans for
small community
businesses
Assuring the availability
of elder care services
Providing youth and
recreational services
Providing access to
health care services
Providing jobs and job
training
* Range is from 1 to 5 where 1 is not important and 5 extremely important.
15
Prevention Research Center of Tulane. “What Do New Orleans Residents Want in Their
Neighborhoods?” 2006.
16
Metropolitan Crime Commission, Preliminary Results. “Central City Community Survey.”
August 2006.
background image
35
Chart C: Top twelve neighborhood features by importance.
Neighborhood Features of Importance to
Respondents
4.85
4.82
4.77
4.76
4.66
4.55
4.48
4.47
4.47
4.40
4.23
4.23
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
4.80
5.00
Parking is easily available
Good access to the interstate
highway
Park or playground within
walking distance
Grocery stores and shops within
walking distance
Children in neighborhood can
walk to school
Bus or streetcar lines close by
Quiet
Neighborhood has sidewalks
and crosswalks
Houses are affordable
neat and without litter
Low crime rate
Good street lighting at night
* Range is from 1 to 5 where 1 is not important and 5 extremely important.
background image
36
Chart D: Lowest twelve neighborhood features by importance.
Neighborhood Features of Importance to
Respondents
4.05
4.02
3.96
3.92
3.66
3.65
3.60
3.33
3.12
3.01
2.98
2.33
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Neighbors who are of the same
race
Neighbors who are different
from me in race
Neighbors who are different
from me in income
Houses have big lawns
No liquor stores or stores that
sell alcohol in neighborhood
Many trees and greenery
Not much traffic
Close to work
Neighborhood has a common
area
Houses have porches
Can get to most places without
a car
Neighbors who are like me
* Range is from 1 to 5 where 1 is not important and 5 extremely important.
Several sub-populations within the neighborhood also reflect this downward
trend in the perception of feeling safe in Central City following Hurricane
Katrina. One such sup-population consists of new households to Central City as
compared to those households that lived in the neighborhood prior to the
hurricane. Half (50.0%) of new households reported feeling safe alone in
Central City after Katrina during the day, and only 25.0% feel safe in the
neighborhood at night. Of the households that lived in Central City prior to
background image
37
Katrina, 65.6% feel safe alone during the day and 37.9% during the night. More
than 84% of the households that lived in Central City prior to Katrina felt safe
during the day alone, and 70.7% felt safe at night (Annex B, Table 34)
As would be expected, households with school age children also report feeling
unsafe in Central City after hurricane Katrina more so than households without
school aged children (52.6% as compared to 66.7%, respectively). During the
night only 26.7% of households with school aged children feel safe in Central
City while 39.2% of household without school aged children feel safe in the
neighborhood at night (Table F).
Table F: Percent of households that feel safe in Central City by
households with and without school age children.
Feel Safe Out Alone
in Central City
Households
with school
age children
Households
without
school age
children
After Katrina
During the day
%
52.6
66.7
N
20
34
Con. Int.* (35.8, 68.9)
(56.9, 75.2)
At night
%
28.9
39.2
N
11
20
Con. Int.* (18.0, 43.0)
(26.9, 53.1)
* Confidence Interval (Con. Int.) at 95%
More than 66% of female-headed households report that safety is a problem in
Central City after Katrina as compared to only 30.8% of male only households
and 59.6% of mixed sex households (Annex B, Table 20). Only 41.7% of these
female-headed households report feeling safe out alone in their neighborhood
during the day. This percentage drops to zero when they are asked if they feel
safe out alone in Central City during the night (Annex B, Table 21). One
concerned female resident expressed her feelings with regards to the
relationship between the abandoned homes and crime by saying:
background image
38
They should really tear down the houses that can’t be fixed, and some
houses are real nice, but the old abandoned houses are for the drug
dealers to sell their dope in and they can pull in us old ladies off the
street and do what they want. So they need to tear them down.
There is a wide spectrum of ideas from 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 G). This opinion was also reinforced in
the focus groups and expanded upon, with ideas of how to improve the policing
techniques. An African American female in her mid-60’s 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.
One
respondent
in
a
focus
group, an African American
female in her late 50’s,
expressed
the
fear
of
retaliation by those that
report on, “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.” This
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-60’s, exclaimed. Only 45% of the households in

And sometime the police will tell them
that your neighbor called and that puts
you in trouble!
- African American female in her late 60’s
background image
39
Central City feel the NOPD are trustworthy and only 51% feel they act
professionally
17
.
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 G: 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%
17
Metropolitan Crime Commission, Preliminary Results. “Central City Community Survey.”
August 2006.
background image
40
Community Center/Safe Haven
An overwhelming 86.9% of the responding households felt that a Safe Haven
should be established in Central City (Annex B, Table 15). A Safe Haven, as
defined by Operation Weed and Seed is a multi-service center for youth and
adults free of drug and violence. Preferred locations for the Safe Haven, but
no prevailing, definitive location, included the YMCA, schools, churches, and
abandoned buildings in Central City. The services that respondents indicated
they wished would be offered at the Safe Haven included organized sports,
tutoring/homework assistance, and adult social activities. Similar to the desire
for a neighborhood Safe Haven, 87.0% of the responding households felt the
neighborhood needed an organization to help facilitate the recovery process
(Annex B, Table 16).
Table H: Percentage of respondents and their agreement with
the utilization of a neighborhood community center.
I would use a community center if it was in my
neighborhood.
%
N
Con. Int.
Strongly Disagree
2.8
6
(1.4, 5.5)
Disagree
7.5
16
(5.1, 11.0)
Agree
38.2
81
(32.0, 44.9)
Strongly Agree
47.6
101
(41.4, 54.0)
Uncertain
3.8
8
(1.9, 7.5)
* Confidence Interval (Con. Int.) at 95%
background image
41
A great majority of households (85.8%) also indicated that they agreed (strongly
or otherwise) with the statement that they would use a community center if it
was in their neighborhood.
background image
42
Hoffman Triangle
A special focus was paid to an area of Central City designated as the Hoffman
Triangle in the second round of surveying. This area represents the north point
of the Central City neighborhood. It begins at Claiborne Avenue and extends
north (lake side) to the tip of Central City, forming a triangle. There was
extensive flooding in the Hoffman Triangle after the breech of the levees in
2005, and flood depths as high as 6 feet were seen in the worst areas (Map 4 in
Annex C).
The demographic makeup of the Hoffman Triangle is slightly different from the
rest of Central City following Hurricane Katrina. Over forty percent (41.4%) of
the responding households in the Triangle are homeowners, as compared to
32.4% of responding households outside of the Triangle that own homes. And,
in sharp contrast, only 24.1% are considered primary tenants in the Triangle,
whereas 49.7% of households outside of the Triangle are primary tenants
(Annex B, Table 38). The general trend for higher home-ownership in the
Hoffman Triangle is illustrated in Map 3 in Annex C.
The post-Katrina change in income also varied between these two groups. One
quarter (25.3%) of the responding households outside the Triangle expressed an
increase in income, while only 16.7% of households within the Triangle
reported and income increase. Half of the responding households in the
Triangle claimed to have had a decrease in income post-Katrina, but only 30.6%
of households surveyed outside of the Triangle reported an income decrease.
(Annex B, Table 39)
There was also an overwhelming disparity in household amenities available to
these two groups. Twenty-three percent of the responding households in the
background image
43
Triangle stated that they lack weekly garbage pick up, 90% do not have
internet and 40% do not have a working kitchen (Table I).
Table I: Percent of households that report specific characteristics of vulnerability
by residential area (inside Hoffman Triangle and Outside of Hoffman Triangle).
Characteristics of Households
Hoffman
Triangle
Outside of
Hoffman
Triangle
Lacks Household Amenities
Garbage pick-up
%
23.3
9.8
N
7
18
Con. Int.
(18.5, 29.0)
(6.1, 15.4)
Internet
%
90.0
68.6
N
27
127
Con. Int.
(84.9, 93.5)
(61.3, 75.1)
Working kitchen
%
40.0
16.1
N
12
30
Con. Int.
(33.7, 46.7)
(11.9, 21.5)
Heat
%
36.7
12.0
N
11
22
Con. Int.
(30.8, 43.0)
(7.8, 18.0)
Air conditioning
%
30.0
10.3
N
9
19
Con. Int.
(24.3, 36.4)
(7.0, 14.9)
Smoke detector
%
36.7
33.5
N
11
62
Con. Int.
(30.5, 43.3)
(26.0, 42.0)
Ample lighting in neigh.
%
41.4
23.1
N
12
43
Con. Int.
(34.9, 48.1)
(17.5, 30.0)
* Confidence Interval (Con. Int.) at 95%
The impact of Hurricane Katrina on the household also seemed to be more
extensive in the Hoffman Triangle than in the rest of Central City. Almost
two-thirds (65.5%) of the responding households in the Triangle reported a
disruption in health care and 51.7% reported losing a job. In contrast, 52.7% of
households outside of the Triangle reported disruption in health care and 40.5%
background image
44
of the households complained of a job loss. The number of respondents
reporting loss of health insurance and loss of benefits--both a reflection of job
loss--differs between those households that reside in the Hoffman Triangle and
those outside of the Triangle. Of households in Hoffman Triangle, more than
41% reported losing their health insurance and 37.9% losing their benefits.
Outside of the Triangle, 22.8% claim to have lost their health insurance and
28.5% lost their benefits. Considerably, the greatest reported impact from the
hurricane in the Hoffman Triangle is losing touch with family and friends
(72.4%) (Annex B, Table 40).
The widespread devastation in the Hoffman Triangle is reflected in the
continuing problems faced by those who have returned and are trying rebuild
their lives and their community. Over one-third (36.7%) of households in the
Triangle expressed that finding a job is a problem due to the Hurricane. Sixty
percent of these households stated that they lack utility services, compared to
only 26.9% of households outside of the Triangle who reported lacking utilities.
Difficulties accessing assistance programs and a lack of opportunities for social
support were also reported hurricane related problems for many households
(46.7% and 40.0%, respectively) living in the Hoffman Triangle. Outside of the
Triangle, 39.2% of the responding households said they have difficulty accessing
assistance and 35.5% stated that they had problems locating opportunities for
social support. The sense of a lack of social support could stem from the high
number of community members that have still not returned to Central City. In
the Hoffman Triangle, 70.0% of the responding households felt a loss of sense
of community. Just over half (51.1%) of households surveyed outside of the
Triangle reported a lost sense of community. The greatest disparity between
the responding households living in the Hoffman Triangle and those living
elsewhere in Central City, is the availability of local supermarkets. In the
Triangle, 70.0% report this as a problem and outside the Triangle only 40.5%
report this as being a problem (Annex B, Table 41).
background image
45
Limitations and Lessons Learned
Limitations
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
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.
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.
Therefore, several steps were taken in the RALLY survey of Central City 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).
background image
46
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%
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.
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 survey instrument did not specifically collect the gender of heads
background image
47
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, the vulnerable group identified in this report 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 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.
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 made east of Felicity St. must be
regarded with significantly reduced confidence due to the low sampling in the
area.
background image
48
Lessons Learned
Non-response
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.
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.
When little is known about the non-response group, or when proxy data is
incomplete, more sophisticated imputation techniques should 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.
background image
49
Female headed households
Specific information on the head of household should be collected,
including gender.
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 ensuring
relatively good coverage of the entire neighborhood.
background image
50
References
1. Gelinas, N “Who’s Killing New Orleans”, City Journal, Autumn 2005.
2. Metropolitan Crime Commission, Preliminary Results. “Central City
Community Survey.” August 2006.
3. Nossiter, A. “As Life Returns to New Orleans So Does Crime” NY Times,
March 30, 2006
4. Prevention Research Center of Tulane. “What Do New Orleans Residents
Want in Their Neighborhoods?” 2006.
5. Ripley, A “Crime Returns to the Big Easy” Time Magazine posted March
21, 2006
6. http://www.columbiatribune.com/2006/Sep/20060917News027.asp
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_City%2C_New_Orleans
8. http://www.gnocdc.org/orleans/2/61/index.html
9. http://www.gnocdc.org/orleans/2/61/snapshot.html
10. http://www.gnocdc.org/orleans/2/61/income.html
11. http://www.nola.com/news/t-
p/frontpage/index.ssf?/news/pdf/073106_violentjuly.jpg
12. http://www.nola.com/news/pdf/062006_murderchart.pdf
13. http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-
17/1160205003253020.xml&coll=1
14. www.nolaagainstcrime.com
15. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1205340,00.html

background image
51
Annex A: Methodology
Sampling Scheme

The RALLY survey of Central City incorporated a classic random cluster sample.
Central City was divided into 131 clusters of approximately equal size, and a
random (equal probability) selection of 33 clusters was made using a sampling
interval and a random number sheet. Within each cluster all inhabited
households were included in the sample.
After adjusting for non-response weighting (discussed below), the survey can
be generalized to the population of returned households in Central City.
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.
As all households had an equal probability of being selected for the survey, no
design weights are needed.
background image
52
In the Central City survey, 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 the Central City survey (73.6%).
Proxy data on a random sub-sample of non-responding households 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, including small
household size, high Katrina flood depth and household ethnicity which seemed
to be significantly associated with non-response. Model building revealed that
being African American was significantly associated with non-response (Table
K). Model 1 indicates that the odds of response decrease by a factor 0.431
among African Americans.
Household size and depth of flooding were also significant factors in some
models, but were found to be associated with being African American, not with
non-response. Thus, the decision was made to use African American ethnicity
to distinguish two non-response classes.
background image
53

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, it was necessary to
estimate n
i
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 number of responses in each
class. The probabilities of response are presented in Table M.
Table K. Logistic Regression Models: Variables potentially associated with survey response.
Variable
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
African American
coeff:
-0.841
coeff:
-2.034
p:
0.093*
p:
0.0484*
Odds ratio: 0.431
Odds ratio:
0.131
Household Size < 2
coeff:
-0.573
coeff:
-0.027
p:
0.064*
p:
0.945
Odds ratio: 0.564
Odds ratio:
0.973
Flooded > 3ft
coeff:
-1.372 coeff:
0.649
p:
0.000* p:
0.311
Odds ratio: 0.254
Odds ratio:
1.913
Intercept
coeff:
-1.046
coeff:
-0.670
coeff:
2.062
coeff:
-1.913
p:
0.000
p:
0.011
p:
0.000
p:
0.005
*significant at p < 0.1
background image
54
Table L: Estimated response totals based on proxy data.
Response
Sample
size
Estimated
Percent African
American*
Estimated
Number African
American
Estimated non-
African American
Non-response
607
92.86%
564
43
Response
218
84.86%
185
33
total
825
749
76
*Percentage in the non-response class is based on proxy data collected from a random
subsample.

Table M: Estimated probabilities of response.
Non-response class
Probability of response
African American
0.25
Non-African American
0.43

Overall weighting

Sample weights are thus based on the overall probability of selection for each
household in Central City.
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
background image
55
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. It is important to
note that this package does not automatically account for variance in the
estimation of the response probability itself, and thus the confidence intervals
reported here are probably slightly tighter than they otherwise would be. With
this in mind, a strict 95% confidence interval is reported throughout this
analysis.
Central City Population Estimate

The general formula for estimating the summer 2006 total population of
Central City can be expressed:
Total population = Total number of residences in Central city * Occupancy rate *
Average household size
Specifically, the RALLY population estimate was calculated utilizing three
critical pieces of information:
1. Total number of residences in central city (source: 2000 US census).
2. Occupancy rate within surveyed clusters, stratified by response group
and flood depth (source: this survey)
3. Average household size of surveyed residences, stratified by response
group (source: this survey).
The RALLY survey of Central City was 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
background image
56
households was calculated. 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” section of this
report. The occupancy rate among non-responding residences was further
stratified by flood depth (above/below one foot of Katrina flooding). These
separate occupancy rates were applied proportionally to the 2000 US census
estimate of the total number of residences in Central City, 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 respective stratum, yielding a stratified
population estimate. The strata totals were summed to give the total
population estimate for Central City, summer 2006.
background image
57
Annex B: Tables
Descriptive Statistics
Table 1: Percent of households interviewed with selected demographic
characteristics by year interviewed.
Characteristics of
Households
2006
2000 Census
Race
African American
%
84.9
87.1
N
185
C.I.
(78.7, 89.5)
Hispanic
%
2.8
1.6
N
6
(1.4, 5.3)
White
%
8.7
9.9
N
19
Con. Int.
(4.8, 15.3)
American-Indian
%
0.5
0.1
N
1
Con. Int.
(0.1, 2.2)
Other
%
3.2
1.3
N
7
Con. Int.
(1.7, 6.1)
Age Distribution of Household
<4
%
7.45
(<5) 9.2
N
47
Con. Int.
5 – 13
%
12.04
(6-17) 20.7
N
76
Con. Int.
14 – 17
%
8.08
N
51
Con. Int.
18 – 24
%
11.73
(18-34) 23.9
N
74
Con. Int.
25 – 34
%
13.63
N
86
Con. Int.
35 – 44
%
12.04
(35-64) 33.6
N
76
background image
58
Con. Int.
45 – 54
%
14.74
N
93
Con. Int.
55 – 64
%
9.83
N
62
Con. Int.
65+
%
10.46
(65+) 12.6
N
66
Con. Int.
Gender
Male
%
49.3
45.7
N
135
Con. Int.
Female
%
50.7
54.3
N
139
Con. Int.
Residential Status
Owner
%
33.6
16.3
N
72
Con. Int.
(27.6, 40.2)
Primary Tenant
%
46.3
83.7
N
99
Con. Int.
(37.3, 55.4)
Other Tenant
%
12.1
N
26
Con. Int.
(8.6, 16.9)
Relative/Friend
%
7.9
N
17
Con. Int.
(5.1, 12.1)
Pre-Katrina Monthly Income
0 - $1,000
%
23
N
49
Con. Int.
(17.5, 29.7)
$1,001 - $2,000
%
25.8
N
55
Con. Int.
(20.7, 31.6)
$2,001 - $3,000
%
11.7
N
25
Con. Int.
(8.1, 16.7)
$3,001 - $5,000
%
9.4
N
20
Con. Int.
(6.0, 14.4)
$5,001+
%
10.3
N
22
Con. Int.
(7.1, 14.8)
Avg. Household Size
background image
59
%
3.04
N
207
Con. Int.
(2.78, 3.31)
*Confidence Intervals at 95%



Table 2: Percent of households interviewed with selected educational characteristics by year
interviewed.
Characteristics of Households
2006
2000
Census
Educational Status of Household
No Schooling
%
1.4
N
1
Con. Int.
(0.2, 9.3)
Less than high school
%
24.3
31.4
N
18
Con. Int.
(16.3, 34.6)
At least one member has high school or GED
%
37.8
26.2
N
28
Con. Int.
(26.7, 50.4)
At least one member has some college or higher degree
%
36.5
29.9
N
27
Con. Int.
(26.8, 47.4)
Households with at least one school-aged child
Enrolled last spring
%
91.9
N
34
Con. Int.
(82.0, 96.6)
Planning to enroll this fall
%
8.1
N
3
Con. Int.
(3.4, 18.0)
Not enrolled or not planning to enroll
%
0
N
Con. Int.
Confidence Intervals at 95%











background image
60





Table 3: Percent of households with selected composition characteristics.
Characteristics of Household
2006
Households with children <4 years old
%
45.7
N
37
Con. Int. (9.6, 25.1)
Households with only adult males
%
15.9
N
13
Con. Int. (8.5, 24.1)
Households with only adult females
%
14.6
N
12
Cont. Int. (8.5, 24.1)
Households with mix male and females adults
%
69.5
N
57
Con. Int. (59.4, 78.1)
Population <18 years of age
Children living with only adult male
%
0
N
Con.Int.
Children living with only adult female
%
10.8
N
4
Con. Int. (3.9, 26.4)
Children living with both adult male and female
%
89.2
N
33
Con. Int. (73.6, 96.1)
*Confidence Intervals at 95%













background image
61





Table 4: Percent of households interviewed with selected income
characteristics.
Characteristics of Household
2006
Post-Katrina Change in Income
Increased
%
24.1
N
52
Con. Int. (18.6, 30.5)
Decreased
%
33.3
N
72
Con. Int. (26.0, 41.6)
Stayed the Same
%
39.4
N
85
Con. Int. (32.2, 47.0)
Don't Know
%
2.8
N
6
C
(1.3, 5.7)
New Sources of Income since Katrina
FEMA assistance
%
42.5
N
91
Con. Int. (34.2, 51.3)
Red Cross or other non-profit
%
33
N
71
Con. Int. (25.6, 41.5)
Construction work
%
7.9
N
17
Con. Int. (4.8, 12.9)
Rental income
%
4.2
N
9
C
(2.2, 7.9)
*Confidence Intervals at 95%









background image
62





Table 5: Percent of households interviewed with selected residential
characteristics.
Characteristics of Household
2006
Head of Household's Living Situation Prior to Katrina
Lived at current residence
%
65.2
N
58
Con. Int. (55.2, 74.0)
In Central City, but not at current residence
%
11.2
N
10
Con. Int. (6.4, 18.9)
In NOLA, but not in Central City
%
19.1
N
17
Con. Int. (13.3, 26.6)
Outside NOLA, but in USA
%
4.5
N
4
Con. Int. (2.0, 10.0)
Households with New Members Post-Katrina
%
24.1
N
51
Con. Int. (18.5, 30.7)
Households with Fewer Members Post-Katrina
%
27.9
N
60
Con. Int. (22.0, 34.7)
Will they be returning?
Yes
%
20.7
N
12
Con. Int. (11.7, 33.8)
No
%
56.9
N
33
Con. Int. (37.2, 74.6)
Don't Know
%
22.4
N
13
Con. Int. (13.2, 35.4)
Trailer on Property
%
11.7
N
25
Con. Int. (6.2, 21.0)
*Confidence Intervals at 95%



background image
63




Table 6: Percent of households interviewed with selected
employment characteristics.
Characteristics of Household
2006
Employment Status within Household
At least 1 employed member of household
%
62.2
N
51
Con. Int. (53.0, 70.6)
All members of household are retired
%
17.1
N
14
Con. Int. (12.1, 23.6)
No members are employed and they are not
seeking employment
%
6.1
N
5
Con. Int. (2.5, 14.1)
Have no one employed or retired but are
seeking employment
%
11
N
9
Con. Int. (6.5, 18.0)
Mixed retirees and members of the
household that are seeking employment
%
2.4
N
2
Con. Int. (0.6, 9.4)
Only part-time employed
%
1.2
N
1
Con. Int. (0.2, 8.1)
*Confidence Intervals at 95%













background image
64




Table 7: Percent of households that report specific characteristics of
vulnerability.
Characteristics of Households
2006
Lacks Household Amenities
Garbage pick-up
%
11.7
N
25
Con. Int. (7.7, 17.6)
Internet
%
71.6
N
154
Con. Int. (63.5, 78.6)
Working kitchen
%
19.4
N
42
Con. Int. (13.6, 27)
Heat
%
15.5
N
33
Con. Int. (9.7, 23.9)
Air conditioning
%
13.0
N
28
Con. Int. (8.4, 19.7)
Smoke detector
%
34.0
N
73
Con. Int. (27.3, 41.3)
Ample lighting in neigh.
%
25.6
N
55
Con. Int. (19.5, 32.7)
Household deficiencies
Pests
%
40.5
N
87
Con. Int. (34.4, 46.8)
Roof leaks
%
20.6
N
44
Con. Int.
(16, 26)
Mold
%
17.2
N
37
Con. Int. (12.6, 23.1)
* Confidence Intervals at 95%
Con. Int. (12.6, 23.1)



background image
65




Table 8: Percentage of households with specific characteristics.
Characteristics of Household Members
2006
Homeowners
Move in; currently live in address
%
80.5
N
62
Con. Int. (70.8, 87.6)
Plan to sell the residence
%
3.9
N
3
Con. Int.
(1.6, 9.1)
Plan to rent the residence
%
2.6
N
2
Con. Int.
(.7, 9.6)
Plan to bulldoze the property and sell it
%
6.5
N
5
Con. Int. (2.8, 14.4)
Undecided
%
0.1
N
5
Con. Int. (2.6, 15.2)
Tenant
Temporarily staying at this address while
permanent house is being repaired
%
18.5
N
27
Con. Int. (13.4, 25.0)
Plans to stay at this residence; has no
other residence
%
62.3
N
91
Con. Int. (55.5, 68.7)
Plans to move to residence in New
Orleans
%
10.3
N
15
Con. Int. (6.9, 15.0)
Plans to move to a residence outside of
New Orleans
%
2.1
N
3
Con. Int.
.(.8,5.1)
Undecided
%
5.5
N
8
Con. Int. (2.9,10.0)
Tenants interested in purchasing a home
%
67.6
N
96
Con. Int. (59.4,74.9)
background image
66
Tenants are currently trying to purchase a
home
%
25.0
N
26
Con. Int. (19.1, 32.1)
Reasons for not trying to purchase home
Cannot afford it
%
72.6
N
53
Con. Int. (63.8, 79.9)
No home available to buy
%
4.1
N
3
Conf. Int. (1.4, 11.6)
Unstable/Unpredictable real estate
environment
%
2.7
N
2
Con. Int.
(0.7, 9.8)
Other
%
20.5
N
15
Con. Int. (13.4, 30.3)
* Confidence Intervals at 95%


























background image
67



Table 9: Percentage of households that used selected services by time services
were used (post-Katrina or pre-Katrina).
Selected Services
Post-Katrina Pre-Katrina
TANF
%
7.9
5.1
N
17
11
Conf. Int.
(4.9, 12.6)
(2.7, 9.5)
WIC
%
7.0
9.3
N
15
20
Conf. Int.
(4.4, 11.1)
(6.5,13.3)
Medicare/Medicaid
%
54.4
52.6
N
117
113
Conf. Int.
(48.1, 60.6) (46.0, 59.0)
Food stamps
%
53.0
30.2
N
114
55
Conf. Int.
(47.0, 59.0) (24.2, 37.2)
Unemployment insurance
%
35.0
6.0
N
77
13
Conf. Int.
(28.8, 43.1)
(3.7, 9.7)
Public assistance
%
14.0
10.7
N
30
23
Conf. Int.
(9.4, 20.3)
(6.6, 16.8)
Community centers
%
8.3
7.9
N
18
17
Conf. Int.
(5.5, 12.3)
(5.0, 12.2)
Mental health counseling resources
%
7.9
10.2
N
17
22
Conf. Int.
(4.5, 13.4)
(6.4, 15.7)
Food distribution
%
35.2
7.4
N
76
16
Conf. Int.
(28.3, 42.7)
(4.5, 12)
Employment services
%
10.8
5.6
N
23
12
Conf. Int.
(7.1, 16)
(3.4, 9)
Financial support
%
9.3
2.8
N
20
6
Conf. Int.
(6.8, 12.8)
(1.3, 5.8)
Child care services
%
5.2
6.6
N
11
14
Conf. Int.
(2.6, 10.2)
(3.9,10.8)
* Confidence Intervals at 95%

background image
68


Table 10: Percentage of households that utilized specific services
post-Katrina and percentage of households that are members of
specific associations.
Characteristics of Households
2006
Utilized following service post-Katrina
Red cross
%
77.8
N
168
Conf. Int. (71.7, 82.8)
FEMA
%
79.5
N
171
Conf. Int. (75.1, 83.4)
Recovery center
%
32.1
N
69
Conf. Int. (26.7, 38)
Housing services
%
21.5
N
46
Conf. Int. (16, 28.2)
Active member of:
Trade association
%
5.6
N
12
Conf. Int. (3.6, 8.7)
Neighborhood Association
%
11.2
N
24
Conf. Int. (7.4, 16.6)
NGO/Non Profit
%
13.1
N
28
Conf. Int. (8.9, 18.7)
Religious
%
52.3
N
112
Conf. Int. (46.8, 57.8)
Cultural
%
14.6
N
31
Conf. Int. (10.5, 19.8)
* Confidence Intervals at 95%








background image
69

Table 11: Percentage of households with chronic illnesses or
disabilities.
Illnesses and Disabilities
2006
Chronic Illnesses or Disabilities
%
43.5%
N
91
Conf. Int. (36.7, 50.6)
Illness/Disability
Physical
%
65.7
N
44
Conf. Int. (53.5, 76.1)
Mental
%
43.5
N
20
Conf. Int. (31.2, 56.6)
Cancer
%
15.0
N
6
Conf. Int. (7.4, 28.1)
Diabetes
%
45.1
N
24
Conf. Int. (34.2, 56.5)
Heart disease
%
37.0
N
17
Conf. Int. (23.7, 52.5)
Blindness, Deafness, or severe
vision or hearing impairment
%
16.0
N
4
Conf. Int. (6.7, 33.6)
Substantially limited to perform one
or more basic physical activity
%
44.0
N
11
Conf. Int. (27.3, 62.2)
Problems learning, remembering
and/or concentrating
%
36.0
N
9
Conf. Int. (18.0, 59.0)
Problems dressing, bathing and/or
getting around inside the home
%
32.0
N
8
Conf. Int. (14.5, 56.7)
Problems going outside the home
alone to shop or visit a doctor’s
office.
%
43.5
N
10
Conf. Int. (28.5, 59.7)
Problems working at a job or
business.
%
34.8
background image
70
N
8
Conf. Int. (20.8, 52.0)
Ability to Access Care Needed for
Chronic Illness or Disability
For all services
%
53.8
N
49
Conf. Int. (42.3, 65.0)
For some services
%
24.2
N
22
Conf. Int. (16.8, 33.5)
Not at all
%
20.9
N
19
Conf. Int. (11.8, 34.2)
Sought Mental Health Service
%
15.3
N
33
Conf. Int. (12.0, 19.3)
Require Assisted Living/Elderly Care
%
10.7
N
23
Conf. Int. (7.7, 14.6)
* Confidence Intervals at 95%


























background image
71

Table 12: Percent of households that report hurricane related
problems.
Identified Household
Problems
2006
Labor for fixing house
%
41.2
N
89
Conf. Int.
(34.9, 47.8)
Can't afford rental
%
37.6
N
79
Conf. Int.
(30.9, 44.8)
Increased Rent
%
42.1
N
90
Conf. Int.
(36.1, 48.30
Health problems
%
36.1
N
78
Conf. Int.
(29.5, 43.3)
Finding health care
%
36.6
N
79
Conf. Int.
(32.8, 40.60
Finding a job
%
25.9
N
55
Conf. Int.
(20.3, 32.6)
Taking care of elderly
%
8.9
N
19
Conf. Int.
(6.0, 12.9)
Schooling for children
%
17.2
N
37
Conf. Int.
(13.3, 22.0)
Day care
%
13.10%
N
28
Conf. Int.
(9.5, 18)
Lack of utilities
%
31.5
N
68
Conf. Int.
(23.2, 41.2)
Crime
%
62.0
N
134
Conf. Int.
(55.2, 68.4)
Safety
%
52.3
N
113
Conf. Int.
(45.9, 58.7)
Feeling bad
%
50.9
N
110
Conf. Int.
(44.9, 56.9)
Fulfilling regular eating habits
%
36.6
background image
72
N
79
Conf. Int.
(29.4, 44.4)
Community infrastructure
%
59.9
N
128
Conf. Int.
(51.5, 67.1)
Opportunities for social support
%
36.1
N
78
Conf. Int.
(29.7, 43.1)
Difficulties accessing
assistance programs
%
40.3
N
87
Conf. Int.
(34.7, 46.2)
Difficulties accessing
information about housing
issues
%
36.0
N
77
Conf. Int.
(31.4, 40.8)
Transportation
%
34.7
N
75
Conf. Int.
(29.2, 40.7)
Loss of a sense of community
%
53.7
N
115
Conf. Int.
(45.2%, 62.1)
Available supermarkets
%
44.7
N
96
Conf. Int.
(35.8, 53.8)
Don't have needed prescription
meds
%
25.5
N
55
Conf. Int.
(20.4, 31.3)
Loss or problem with private
insurance
%
30.2
N
65
Conf. Int.
(25.8, 35.1)
* Confidence Intervals at 95%











background image
73

Table 13: Percent of households that report selected
hurricane impacts.
Identified Household/
Neighborhood Hurricane
Impacts
2006
Disruption of health care
%
54.4
N
117
Con. Int.
(47.9, 60.8)
Loss of Job
%
42.1
N
90
Con. Int.
(35.8, 48.5)
Loss of health insurance
%
25.4
N
54
Con. Int.
(19.8, 31.9)
Loss of benefits
%
29.8
N
64
Con. Int.
(24.8, 35.3)
Loss touch with family
and friends
%
65.6
N
141
Con. Int.
(58.9, 71.7)
Overcrowding in neighborhood
or community
%
22.8
N
49
Con. Int.
(18.3, 28.1)
Displaced relatives/ friends
living in household
%
40.0
N
86
Con. Int.
(32.9, 47.5)
Death of family member
%
29.0
N
62
Con. Int.
(23.7, 34.9)
*Confidence Intervals at 95%












background image
74
Table 14: 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%























background image
75
Table 15: Percentage of households the want a Safe
Haven and the preferred location and provided services.
Safe Haven Characteristics
2006
Believed a Safe Haven should
be established
%
86.9
N
172
Conf. Int. (77.1, 92.8)
Preferred Location for Safe
Havens
YMCA
%
22.8
N
31
Conf. Int. (15.0, 33.1)
Community center
%
8.8
N
12
Conf. Int. (5.2, 14.6)
School
%
12.5%
N
17
Conf. Int. (7.4, 20.4)
Church
%
12.5
N
17
Conf. Int. (6.8, 21.9)
Abandoned
building
%
11.0%
N
15
Conf. Int. (5.6, 20.6)
Other
%
32.4
N
44
Conf. Int. (18.4, 50.3)
Preferred Services for Safe
Havens
Organized Sports
%
31.1
N
47
Conf. Int. (20.7, 43.8)
Tutoring/homework
assistance
%
16.6
N
25
Conf. Int. (9.3, 27.8)
Skills/job training
%
10.6
N
16
Conf. Int. (5.8, 18.6)
After school activities
%
2.6
N
4
Conf. Int.
(1.1, 6.0)
Performing arts/cultural
events
%
4.0
N
6
background image
76
Conf. Int.
(1.5, 9.9)
Adult social activities
%
11.9
N
18
Conf. Int. (5.0, 25.8)
Adult literacy programs
%
4.6
N
7
Conf. Int. (1.4, 14.0)
Police/crime prevention
classes
%
3.3
N
5
Conf. Int.
(1.4, 7.5)
Other
%
15.2
N
23
Conf. Int. (8.9, 24.9)
*Confidence Interval at 95%






























background image
77

Table 16: Percentage of households with selected opinions on
neighborhood associations.
2006
Central City needs an organization to help get
housing and facilitate the recovery process.
Yes
%
8.7
N
40
C.I. * (75.4, 93.6)
No
%
4.3
N
2
C.I. * (1.1, 15.9)
Don't know
%
8.7
N
4
C.I. * (4.0, 17.9)
Aware of a neighborhood association, but not
involved
%
8.6
N
6
C.I. * (4.3, 16.3)
Aware of a neighborhood association, and
involved
%
7.1
N
5
C.I. * (3.0, 16.3)
Aware of a neighborhood association, and
would like to be involved
%
30.0
N
21
C.I. * (20.9, 41.0)
Not aware of a neighborhood association, but
would like to be involved
%
40.0
N
28
C.I. * (28.2, 53.1)
Not aware of a neighborhood association, and
would not like to be involved
%
11.4
N
8
C.I. * (5.6, 21.8)
* Confidence Intervals (C.I.) at 95%










background image
78

Female-headed Households
Table 17: Percent of households interviewed with selected demographic characteristics and
household composition by sex.
Characteristics of Households
Male Only
Households
Female Only
Households
Mixed Sex
Households
Central City Residences
%
15.9
14.6
69.5
N
13
12
57
Con. Int.
(9.6, 25.1)
(8.5, 24.1)
(53.9, 78.1)
Race
African American
%
53.8
100.0
93.0
N
7
12
53
Con. Int.
(35.5, 71.2)
(84.4, 97.0)
Hispanic
%
7.7
0.0
1.8
N
1
1
Con. Int.
(2.2, 23.3)
(0.3, 10.4)
American Indian
%
0.0
0.0
1.8
N
1
Con. Int.
(0.4, 7.6)
Caucasian
%
15.4
0.0
3.5
N
2
2
Con. Int.
(3.6, 36.9)
(0.9, 12.6)
Other
%
23.1
0.0
0.0
N
3
Con. Int.
(1.4, 5.7)
Residential Status
Owner
%
27.3
36.4
36.8
N
3
4
21
Con. Int.
(11.4, 52.3)
(15.1, 64.7)
(25.0, 50.5)
Primary Tenant
%
45.5
54.5
47.4
N
5
6
27
Con. Int.
(18.1, 75.8)
(27.5, 79.2)
(32.0, 63.3)
Other Tenant
%
9.1
9.1
8.8
N
1
1
5
Con. Int.
(2.9, 24.9)
(1.2, 44.3)
(4.6, 16.0)
Relative/Friend
%
18.2
0.0
7.0
N
2
4
Con. Int.
(6.3, 42.2)
(3.4, 14.1)
Pre-Katrina Monthly Income
0-$1000
%
30.8
33.3
21.8
N
4
4
12
Con. Int.
(14.6, 53.6)
(10.8, 67.3)
(11.9, 36.5)
background image
79
$1001-$2000
%
53.8
33.3
21.8
N
7
4
12
Con. Int.
(35.2, 71.5)
(9.9, 69.4)
(14.9, 30.7)
$2001-$3000
%
7.7
16.7
14.5
N
1
2
8
Con. Int.
(1.1, 38.1)
(4.2, 47.8)
(7.6, 26.2)
$3001-$5000
%
0.0
0.0
5.5
N
3
Con. Int.
(1.7, 16.5)
$5001 or more
%
7.7
0.0
7.3
N
1
4
Con. Int.
(1.0, 41.4)
(2.7, 18.3)
Refused
%
0.0
8.3
14.5
N
1
8
Con. Int.
(1.1, 41.9)
(7.4, 26.6)
Don't know
%
0.0
8.3
14.5
N
1
8
Con. Int.
(1.1, 41.9)
(8.2, 24.5)
*Confidence Intervals at 95%


























background image
80


Table18. Percent of households that report specific characteristics of vulnerability by
characteristic and household composition by sex.
Characteristics of Households
Male Only
Households
Female Only
Households
Mixed Sex
Households
Central City Residences
%
15.9
14.6
69.5
N
13
12
57
Con. Int.
(9.6, 25.1)
(8.5, 24.1)
(53.9, 78.1)
Chronic Illness or Disability
%
30.8
41.7
45.6
N
4
5
26
Con. Int.
(16.1, 50.8)
(23.1, 63.0)
(35.2, 56.4)
Ability to Access Care
Needed for Chronic Illness or
Disability
For all services
%
50.0
40.0
62.5
N
2
2
15
Con. Int.
(18.2, 81.8)
(9.7, 80.5)
(41.5, 79.6)
For some services
%
50.0
40.0
20.8
N
2
2
5
Con. Int.
(18.2, 81.8)
(9.7, 80.5)
(10.3, 37.6)
Not at all
%
0.0
20.0
16.7
N
1
4
Con. Int.
(2.6, 69.9)
(6.9, 35.1)
Post-Katrina Change in
Income
Increased
%
38.5
16.7
28.1
N
5
2
16
Con. Int.
(19.4, 61.9)
(4.5, 45.9)
19.3, 38.9)
Decreased
%
38.5
50.0
26.3
N
5
6
15
Con. Int.
(17.5, 64.8)
(29.9, 70.1)
(18.1, 36.6)
Stayed the same
%
23.1
33.3
42.1
N
3
4
24
Con. Int.
(10.9, 42.3)
(14.8, 59.0)
(31.2, 53.9)
Lacks Household Amenities
Garbage pick-up
%
7.7
8.3
7.1
N
1
1
4
Con. Int.
(2.2, 23.3)
(1.3, 38.2)
(2.9, 16.4)
Internet
%
61.5
91.7
68.4
N
8
11
39
Con. Int.
(37.8, 80.8)
(61.8, 98.7)
(57.7, 77.5)
Working kitchen
%
15.4
25.0
10.5
N
2
3
6
Con. Int.
(3.9, 45.0)
(9.9, 50.3)
(5.2, 20.2)
background image
81
Heat
%
38.5
16.7
12.3
N
5
2
7
Con. Int.
(13.8, 71.0)
(4.2, 47.8)
(6.1, 23.1)
Air conditioning
%
23.1
8.3
5.3
N
3
1
3
Con. Int.
(9.0. 47.6)
(1.3, 38.4)
(1.7, 15.2)
Smoke detector
%
30.8
16.7
31.6
N
4
2
18
Con. Int.
(15.0, 52.7)
(4.5, 45.8)
(20.7, 44.9)
Ample lighting in neigh.
%
15.4
41.7
28.6
N
2
5
16
Con. Int.
(5.6, 36.0)
(17.4, 70.8)
(19.8, 39.3)
Household Deficiencies
Pests
%
30.8
41.7
37.5
N
4
5
21
Con. Int.
(13.5, 55.9)
(20.5, 66.5)
(25.7, 51.0)
Roof leaks
%
23.1
16.7
15.8
N
3
2
9
Con. Int.
(6.4, 56.8)
(4.0, 49.0)
(6.8, 32.6)
Mold
%
0.0
16.7
8.8
N
2
5
Con. Int.
(4.5, 45.9)
(3.9, 18.5)
*Confidence Intervals at 95%























background image
82


Table 19: Percent of households that report selected hurricane related impacts by impacts
and household composition by sex.
Identified Household/
Neighborhood Problems
Male Only
Households
Female Only
Households
Mixed Sex
Households
Main impacts the household
experienced from the
hurricanes
Disruption of health care
%
46.2
58.3
42.1
N
6
7
24
Con. Int.
(19.1, 75.7)
(37.0, 76.9)
(33.1, 51.7)
Loss of Job
%
46.2
41.7
42.1
N
6
5
24
Con. Int.
(20.6, 73.9)
(20.5, 66.5)
(30.4, 54.8)
Loss of health insurance
%
23.1
41.7
21.1
N
3
5
12
Con. Int.
(9.0, 47.6)
(20.5, 66.5)
(11.3, 35.9)
Loss of benefits
%
7.7
50.0
26.3
N
1
6
15
Con. Int.
(1.8, 27.3)
(26.2, 73.8)
(16.2, 39.7)
Loss touch with family
and friends
%
38.5
75.0
68.4
N
5
9
39
Con. Int.
(22.8, 57.0)
(49.1, 90.3)
(54.6, 79.6)
Overcrowding in neighborhood
or community
%
7.7
33.3
15.8
N
1
4
9
Con. Int.
(1.3, 34.5)
(14.8, 59.0)
(9.5, 25.0)
Displaced relatives/ friends
living in household
%
30.8
33.3
36.8
N
4
4
21
Con. Int.
(11.9, 59.5)
(11.9, 64.8)
(24.9, 50.6)
Death of family member
%
15.4
16.7
29.8
N
2
2
17
Con. Int.
(5.2, 37.4)
(5.1, 42.5)
(20.9, 40.7)
*Confidence Intervals at 95%






background image
83

Table 20: Percent of households interviewed with hurricane related problems by problems and
household composition by sex.
Identified Household/
Neighborhood Problems
Male Only
Households
Female Only
Households
Mixed Sex
Households
Labor for fixing house
%
46.2
41.7
35.1
N
6
5
20
Con. Int.
(24.3, 69.6)
(23.1, 63.0)
(22.9, 49.5)
Not enough money for rental
housing
%
38.5
36.4
38.6
N
5
4
22
Con. Int.
(22.8, 56.9)
(12.2, 70.2)
(28.2, 50.2)
Increasing rents
%
38.5
36.4
49.1
N
5
4
28
Con. Int.
(19.4, 61.9)
(17.2, 61.2)
(38.0, 60.3)
Health problems
%
23.1
33.3
22.8
N
3
4
13
Con. Int.
(9.0, 47.6)
(10.9, 67.1)
(14.2, 34.5)
Finding health are
%
38.5
41.7
29.8
N
5
5
17
Con. Int.
(17.6, 64.7)
(20.4, 66.6)
(20.4, 41.3)
Finding a job
%
38.5
36.4
28.1
N
5
4
16
Con. Int.
(20.1, 60.8)
(13.4, 67.9)
(16.4, 43.7)
Taking care of the elderly
%
0.0
0.0
8.8
N
5
Con. Int.
(3.7, 19.4)
Schooling for children
%
0.0
25.0
21.1
N
3
12
Con. Int.
(9.7, 51.0)
(11.9, 34.5)
Day care/child care
%
0.0
27.3
15.8
N
3
9
Con. Int.
(11.1, 52.9)
(8.5, 27.3)
Lack of utility services
%
38.5
50.0
38.6
N
5
6
22
Con. Int.
(17.6, 64.6)
(23.3, 76.7)
(27.2, 51.4)
Crime
%
61.5
58.3
77.2
N
8
7
44
Con. Int.
(43.3, 77.0)
(33.4, 79.6)
(65.3, 85.9)
Safety
%
30.8
66.7
59.6
N
4
8
34
Con. Int.
(13.3, 56.3)
(37.8, 86.8)
(46.6, 71.5)
Feeling bad/worried
%
38.5
66.7
52.6
N
5
8
30
Con. Int.
(17.7, 64.4)
(41.0, 85.2)
(40.0, 65.0)
Fulfilling regular eating habits
%
23.1
41.7
24.6
background image
84
N
3
5
14
Con. Int.
(8.8, 48.3)
(19.4, 67.9)
(15.9, 36.0)
Community infrastructure
%
61.5
66.7
56.1
N
8
8
32
Con. Int.
(33.4, 83.6)
(37.8, 86.8)
(45.3, 66.4)
Opportunities for social support
%
30.8
25.0
24.6
N
4
3
14
Con. Int.
(11.2, 61.0)
(9.7, 50.9)
(16.0, 35.7)
Difficulties accessing assistance
programs
%
15.4
50.0
47.4
N
2
6
27
Con. Int.
(4.0, 43.9)
(23.3, 76.7)
(37.1, 57.9)
Difficulties accessing information
about housing issues
%
23.1
33.3
43.9
N
3
4
25
Con. Int.
(9.0, 47.6)
(17.0, 55.0)
(33.0, 55.3)
Transportation
%
30.8
58.3
19.3
N
4
7
11
Con. Int.
(11.3, 60.9)
(33.4, 79.7)
(11.4, 30.8)
Loss of a sense of community
%
46.2
63.6
54.4
N
6
7
31
Con. Int.
(27.3, 66.1)
(37.3, 83.7)
(42.4, 65.9)
Available supermarkets
%
53.8
41.7
35.1
N
7
5
20
Con. Int.
(29.1, 76.8)
(15.2, 74.1)
(21.9, 51.0)
Don't have prescription drugs or
medicine you need
%
23.1
50.0
17.5
N
3
6
10
Con. Int.
(9.0,47.6)
(29.9, 70.1)
(9.7, 29.5)
Loss of, or problems with, your
private insurance
%
23.1
33.3
21.1
N
3
4
12
Con. Int.
(10.9, 42.4)
(11.9, 64.9)
13.9, 30.6)
*Confidence Intervals at 95%













background image
85
Table 21: Percent of households that feel safe in Central City by household
composition by sex.
Feel Safe Out Alone
in Central City
Male Only
Households
Female Only
Households
Mixed Sex
Households
Before Katrina
During the day
%
69.2
75.0
89.5
N
9
9
51
Con. Int.
(46.4, 85.4)
(49.0, 90.3)
(76.0, 95.8)
At night
%
69.2
50.0
73.7
N
9
6
42
Con. Int.
(46.8, 85.2)
(26.2, 73.8)
(57.6, 85.2)
After Katrina
During the day
%
69.2
41.7
61.4
N
9
5
35
Con. Int.
(46.4, 85.4)
(20.3, 66.7)
(48.8, 72.7)
At night
%
61.5
0.0
35.1
N
8
20
Con. Int.
(39.2, 79.9)
(24.8, 47.0)
*Confidence Intervals at 95%























background image
86
Owners/Tenants
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
background image
87
Con. Int.
(8.0, 23.0)
(6.1, 15.9)
Don't know
%
12.5
8.3
N
9
10
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.






































background image
88


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)
background image
89
Heat
%
26.8
8.2
N
19
10
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.





















background image
90

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.





background image
91

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
background image
92
N
23
45
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.











background image
93
Table 26: Percent of households that feel safe in Central City by
residential status.
Feel Safe Out Alone
in Central City
Owners of
Residence
Tenants of
Residence
Before Katrina
During the day
%
90.6
77.1
N
29
37
Con. Int.
(71.8, 97.3)
(64.7, 86.0)
At night
%
71.9
64.6
N
23
31
Con. Int.
(56.0, 83.7)
(49.8, 77.1)
After Katrina
During the day
%
68.8
54.2
N
22
26
Con. Int.
(7.1, 53.0)
(6.0, 42.0)
At night
%
28.1
35.4
N
9
17
Con. Int.
(14.5, 47.4)
(24.0, 48.8)
*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.





















background image
94
Employed/Unemployed/Retired

Table 27: 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)
background image
95
$1001-$2000
%
29.4
14.3
53.8
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%


























background image
96

Table 28: 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
N
5
2
5
Con. Int.
(3.8, 22.1)
(3.3, 44.6)
(17.0, 60.1)
background image
97
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%























background image
98

Table 29: 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%






background image
99


New/Longtime Residents
Table 30: Percent of Households with selected demographics and by
duration of residing in Central City.
Characteristics of Households
Longtime
Residents
New
Residents
Central City Residences
%
72.3
27.7
N
141
54
Con. Int.
(66.4, 77.5)
(22.5, 33.6)
Race
African American
%
87.2
81.5
N
123
44
Con. Int.
(81.0, 91.6)
(70.5, 89.0)
Hispanic
%
0.7
9.3
N
1
5
Con. Int.
(0.1, 3.9)
(4.2, 19.2)
American Indian
%
0.7
0.0
N
1
Con. Int.
(.01, 3.3)
Caucasian
%
8.5
7.4
N
12
4
Con. Int.
(4.5, 15.4)
(2.5, 19.8)
Other
%
2.8
1.9
N
4
1
Con. Int.
(1.4, 5.7)
(0.3, 10.3)
Residential Status
Owner
%
43.9
0.0
N
61
Con. Int.
(36.1, 52.0)
Primary Tenant
%
38.1
81.1
N
53
43
Con. Int.
(27.9, 49.5)
(68.3, 89.6)
Other Tenant
%
10.1
13.2
N
14
7
Con. Int.
(6.4, 15.4)
(6.9, 23.9)
Relative/Friend
%
7.9
5.7
N
11
3
Con. Int.
(4.6, 13.2)
(1.6, 18.2)
Pre-Katrina Monthly Income
0-$1000
%
25.0
21.6
background image
100
N
35
11
Con. Int.
(18.4, 33.1)
(14.0, 31.7)
$1001-$2000
%
22.1
37.3
N
31
19
Con. Int.
(15.7, 30.3)
(27.3, 48.4)
$2001-$3000
%
14.3
7.8
N
20
4
Con. Int.
(9.7, 20.5)
(3.3, 17.5)
$3001-$5000
%
10.0
7.8
N
14
4
Con. Int.
(5.6, 17.2)
(2.6, 21.0
$5001 or more
%
8.6
13.7
N
12
7
Con. Int.
(5.5, 13.0)
(6.9, 25.5)
Refused
%
11.4
5.9
N
16.0
3.0
Con. Int.
(7.7, 16.6)
(2.0, 16.2)
Don't know
%
8.6
5.9
N
12
3
Con. Int.
(4.9, 14.5)
(2.0, 16.3)
*Confidence Intervals at 95%
**Length of residency determined by date of home purchase or lease signing.
























background image
101



Table 31: Percent of households that report specific characteristics of
vulnerability by characteristic and by duration of residing in Central City.
Characteristics of Households
Longtime
Residents New Residents
Chronic Illness or Disability
%
47.9
34.0
N
67
18
Con. Int. (40.7, 55.1)
(20.9, 50.0)
Ability to Access Care
Needed for Chronic Illness or
Disability
For all services
%
57.6
50.0
N
38
8
Con. Int. (15.6, 35.6)
(25.1, 74.9)
For some services
%
24.2
37.5
N
16
6
Con. Int. (15.6, 35.6)
(18.8, 60.9)
Not at all
%
16.7
12.5
N
11
2
Con. Int.
(9.5, 27.6)
(3.1, 38.6)
Post-Katrina Change in
Income
Increased
%
23.4
30.8
N
33
16
Con. Int. (17.1, 31.1)
(21.0, 42.6)
Decreased
%
31.9
30.8
N
45
16
Con. Int. (23.0, 42.3)
(20.9, 42.7)
Stayed the same
%
42.6
34.6
N
60
18
Con. Int. (35.3, 50.2)
(21.8, 50.2)
Lacks Household Amenities
Garbage pick-up
%
11.5
13.5
N
16
7
Con. Int.
(7.1, 18.1)
(5.7, 28.5)
Internet
%
70.7
74.1
N
99
40
Con. Int. (60.9, 78.9)
(60.3, 84.3)
Working kitchen
%
23.6
7.4
N
33
4
Con. Int. (15.2, 34.7)
(2.5, 19.9)
Heat
%
18.0
9.4
N
25
5
background image
102
Con. Int. (10.9, 28.3)
(4.5, 18.6)
Air conditioning
%
15.0
7.4
N
21
4
Con. Int.
(8.6, 24.9)
(3.0, 17.0)
Smoke detector
%
37.9
20.4
N
53
11
Con. Int. (29.9, 46.5)
(10.9, 34.8)
Ample lighting in neigh.
%
26.6
20.4
N
37
11
Con. Int. (19.5, 35.2)
(11.8, 32.7)
Household Deficiencies
Pests
%
38.6
47.2
N
54
25
Con. Int. (30.5, 47.3)
(34.8, 59.9)
Roof leaks
%
23.7
15.1
N
33
8
Con. Int. (18.4, 30.1)
(7.3, 28.5)
Mold
%
18.7
7.4
N
26
4
Con. Int. (13.4, 25.6)
(2.3, 21.5)
*Confidence Intervals at 95%
**Length of residency determined by date of home purchase or lease signing.
























background image
103



Table 32: Percent of households that report selected hurricane related
impacts by impacts and duration of residing in Central City.
Identified Household/
Neighborhood Problems
Longtime
Residents
New
Residents
Main impacts the household
experienced from the
hurricanes:
Disruption of health care
%
55.4
47.2
N
77
25
Con. Int.
(48.3, 62.2)
(34.4, 60.3)
Loss of Job
%
35.5
54.7
N
49
29
Con. Int.
(28.0, 43.8)
(40.0, 68.7)
Loss of health insurance
%
24.8
28.3
N
34
15
Con. Int.
(17.8, 33.5)
(19.4, 39.3)
Loss of benefits
%
28.1
34.0
N
39
18
Con. Int.
(22.2, 34.8)
(22.8, 47.3)
Loss touch with family
and friends
%
64.7
73.6
N
90
39
Con. Int.
(57.6, 71.3)
(60.1, 83.8)
Overcrowding in neighborhood or
community
%
20.1
28.3
N
28
15
Con. Int.
(15.3, 26.1)
(17.8, 41.9)
Displaced relatives/ friends living
in household
%
39.6
43.4
N
55
23
Con. Int.
(31.6, 48.1)
(29.8, 58.1)
Death of family member
%
31.2
22.6
N
43
12
Con. Int.
(24.8, 38.3)
(13.6, 35.3)
*Confidence Intervals at 95%
**Length of residency determined by date of home purchase or lease signing.





background image
104


Table 33: Percent of households that report hurricane related problems
by problems and duration of residing in Central City.
Identified Household Problems
Longtime
Residents
New
Residents
Labor for fixing house
%
44.0
32.7
N
62
17
Con. Int. (36.9, 51.3) (21.3, 32.7)
Not enough money for rental
housing
%
34.8
48.1
N
47
25
Con. Int. (26.8, 43.7) (35.1, 61.4)
Increasing rents
%
33.8
67.3
N
47
35
Con. Int. (27.0, 41.4) (52.2, 79.5)
Health Problems
%
37.6
26.9
N
53
14
Con. Int. (30.4, 45.4) (15.5, 42.5)
Finding Health Care
%
38.3
38.5
N
54
20
Con. Int. (31.9, 45.1) (26.4, 52.2)
Finding a job
%
23.4
32.7
N
32
17
Con. Int. (17.1, 31.0) (18.1, 51.6)
Taking care of the elderly
%
7.9
7.7
N
11
4
Con. Int.
(4.4, 13.9)
(3.1, 17.8)
Schooling for children
%
16.4
19.2
N
23
10
Con. Int. (11.5, 23.0)
(9.7, 34.5)
Day care/child care
%
11.5
15.7
N
16
8
Con. Int.
(7.6, 17.0)
(7.1, 31.2)
Lack of utility services
%
31.9
30.8
N
45
16
Con. Int. (23.1, 42.3) (18.5, 46.6)
Crime
%
59.6
67.3
N
84
35
Con. Int. (52.0, 66.7) (52.9, 79.1)
Safety
%
51.8
50.0
N
73
26
Con. Int. (44.1, 55.9) (35.7, 64.3)
Feeling bad/worried
%
49.6
55.8
N
70
29
Con. Int. (41.9, 57.4) (42.3, 68.4)
background image
105
Fulfilling your regular eating
habits
%
33.3
46.2
N
47
24
Con. Int. (26.4, 41.1) (31.8, 61.2)
Community infrastructure
%
58.2
62.7
N
82
32
Con. Int. (48.8, 66.9) (47.6, 75.7)
Opportunities for social support
%
36.2
38.5
N
51
20
Con. Int. (28.4, 44.8) (25.8, 53.0)
Difficulties accessing assistance
programs
%
39.0
40.4
N
55
21
Con. Int. (31.9, 46.6) (27.4, 54.8)
Difficulties accessing information
about housing issues
%
34.5
36.5
N
48
19
Con. Int. (28.5, 41.1) (24.4, 50.6)
Transportation
%
36.2
30.8
N
51
16
Con. Int. (29.9, 43.0) (19.7, 44.5)
Loss of a sense of community
%
53.9
54.9
N
76
28
Con. Int. (43.2, 64.2) (42.8, 66.4)
Available supermarkets
%
45.0
46.2
N
63
24
Con. Int. (35.7, 54.7) (30.0, 63.2)
Don't have prescription drugs or
medicine you need
%
29.1
17.3
N
41
9
Con. Int. (22.2, 37.1)
(9.7, 29.1)
Loss of, or problems with you
private insurance
%
33.3
25.5
N
47
13
Con. Int. (27.6, 39.6) (15.4, 39.1)
*Confidence Intervals at 95%
**Length of residency determined by date of home purchase or lease signing.










background image
106

Table 34. Percent of households that feel safe in Central City
by duration of residing in Central City.
Feel Safe Out Alone
in Central City
Longtime
Residents
New
Residents
Before Katrina
During the day
%
84.5
83.3
N
49
20
Con. Int. (73.6, 91.4)
(65.9, 92.8)
At night
%
70.7
62.5
N
41
15
Con. Int. (58.0, 80.8)
(43.9, 78.0)
After Katrina
During the day
%
65.5
50.0
N
38
12
Con. Int. (54.1, 75.4)
(32.8, 67.2)
At night
%
37.9
25.0
N
22
6
Con. Int. (25.5, 52.2)
(13.1, 42.4)
*Confidence Intervals at 95%
**Length of residency determined by date of home purchase or lease signing.





















background image
107


Presence of School-aged Children
Table 35: Percent of households that report selected hurricane related
impacts by impacts and households with and without school age children.
Identified Household/
Neighborhood Problems
Households
with school
age children
Households
without
school age
children
Central City Residences
%
34.9
65.1
Con. Int.
(28.7, 41.6)
(58.4, 71.3)
Main impacts the household
experienced from the
hurricanes:
Disruption of health care
%
45.3
59.3
N
34
83
Con. Int.
(35.7, 55.3)
(50.1, 67.9)
Loss of Job
%
45.3
40.3
N
34
56
Con. Int.
(34.3, 56.8)
(32.7, 48.4)
Loss of health insurance
%
28.4
23.7
N
21
33
Con. Int.
(20.0, 38.6)
(18.2, 30.4)
Loss of benefits
%
33.3
27.9
N
25
39
Con. Int.
(22.5, 46.2)
(21.8, 34.9)
Loss touch with family
and friends
%
65.3
65.7
N
49
92
Con. Int.
(53.9, 75.3)
(57.8, 72.9)
Overcrowding in neighborhood or
community
%
18.7
25.0
N
14
35
Con. Int.
(12.6, 26.8)
(19.5, 31.4)
Displaced relatives/ friends living
in household
%
41.3
39.3
N
31
55
Con. Int.
(31.3, 52.1)
(31.8, 47.3)
Death of family member
%
34.7
25.9
N
26
36
Con. Int.
(24.6, 46.4)
(19.1, 34.1)
*Confidence Interval at 95%
background image
108


Table 36: Percent of households that feel safe in Central City
by households with and without school age children.
Feel Safe Out Alone
in Central City
Households
with school
age children
Households
without
school age
children
Before Katrina
During the day
%
84.2
82.4
N
32
42
Con. Int. (70.6, 92.2)
(70.4, 90.2)
At night
%
76.3
62.7
N
29
32
Con. Int. (63.5, 85.7)
(50.2, 73.8)
After Katrina
During the day
%
52.6
66.7
N
20
34
Con. Int. (35.8, 68.9)
(56.9, 75.2)
At night
%
28.9
39.2
N
11
20
Con. Int. (18.0, 43.0)
(26.9, 53.1)
*Confidence Interval at 95%




















background image
109

Table 37: Percent of households that report hurricane related problems by
problems and households with and without school age children.
Identified Household Problems
Households
with school
age children
Households
without
school age
children
Labor for fixing house
%
38.2
42.9
N
29
60
Con. Int.
(28.8, 48.5)
(35.4, 50.6)
Not enough money for rental
housing
%
38.4
37.2
N
28
51
Con. Int.
(30.1, 47.4)
(28.8, 46.5)
Increasing rents
%
44.6
40.7
N
33
57
Con. Int.
(35.3, 54.3)
(32.7, 49.3)
Health Problems
%
31.6
38.6
N
24
54
Con. Int.
(21.7, 43.4)
(31.5, 46.2)
Finding Health Care
%
32.9
38.6
N
25
54
Con. Int.
(24.6, 42.4)
(32.3, 45.2)
Finding a job
%
28.0
24.8
N
55
34
Con. Int.
(18.9, 39.4)
(18.8, 32.0)
Taking care of the elderly
%
5.3
10.9
N
4
15
Con. Int.
(2.3, 11.4)
(7.1, 16.3)
Schooling for children
%
32.9
8.6
N
25
12
Con. Int.
(24.3, 42.8)
(5.0, 14.6)
Day care/child care
%
22.7
8.0
N
17
11
Con. Int.
(15.8, 31.4)
(4.4, 14.1)
Lack of utility services
%
35.5
29.3
N
27
41
Con. Int.
(23.8, 49.4)
(21.6, 38.4)
Crime
%
57.9
64.3
N
44
90
Con. Int.
(47.2, 67.9)
(56.2, 71.6)
Safety
%
48.7
54.3
N
37
76
Con. Int.
(39.0, 58.4)
(45.7, 62.6)
Feeling bad/worried
%
52.6
50.0
N
40
70
Con. Int.
(41.6, 63.4)
(44.1, 55.9)
background image
110
Fulfilling your regular eating
habits
%
40.8
34.3
N
31
48
Con. Int.
(30.2, 52.3)
(26.6, 42.9)
Community infrastructure
%
58.7
60.0
N
44
84
Con. Int.
(48.1, 68.5)
(51.1, 68.3)
Opportunities for social support
%
36.8
35.7
N
28
50
Con. Int.
(28.0, 46.6)
(27.6, 44.7)
Difficulties accessing assistance
programs
%
42.1
39.3
N
32
55
Con. Int.
(33.8, 50.8)
(32.3, 46.7)
Difficulties accessing information
about housing issues
%
39.5
34.1
N
30
47
Con. Int.
(30.7, 49.0)
(27.8, 41.0)
Transportation
%
22.4
41.4
N
17
58
Con. Int.
(15.7, 30.9)
(34.2, 49.1)
Loss of a sense of community
%
46.1
58.0
N
35
80
Con. Int.
(31.1, 61.8)
(50.1, 65.4)
Available supermarkets
%
35.5
49.6
N
27
69
Con. Int.
(21.8, 52.1)
(40.4, 58.9)
Don't have prescription drugs or
medicine you need
%
22.4
27.1
N
17
38
Con. Int.
(15.1, 31.8)
(21.3, 33.9)
Loss of, or problems with you
private insurance
%
32.9
28.8
N
25
40
Con. Int.
(24.6, 42.4)
(23.9, 34.2)
*Confidence Intervals at 95%










background image
111

Hoffman Triangle
Table 38: Percent of households interviewed with selected demographic
characteristics by residential area (inside and outside of Hoffman
Triangle).
Characteristics of Households
Hoffman
Triangle
Outside of
Hoffman
Triangle
Race
African American
%
83.3
85.1
N
25
160
C.I. * (83.3, 83.3)
(77.9, 90.3)
Hispanic
%
6.7
2.1
N
2
4
C.I. *
(6.7, 6.7)
(.9, 4.8)
White
%
3.3
9.6
N
1
18
C.I. *
(3.3, 3.3)
(5.2, 17.0)
American-Indian
%
3.3
0.0
N
1
0
C.I. *
(3.3, 3.3)
Other
%
3.3
3.2
N
1
6
C.I. *
(3.3, 3.3)
(1.5, 6.7)
Residential Status
Owner
%
41.4
32.4
N
12
60
C.I. * (35.1, 47.9)
(26.0, 39.6)
Primary Tenant
%
24.1
49.7
N
7
92
C.I. * (18.9, 30.3)
(41.5, 58.0)
Other Tenant
%
20.7
10.8
N
6
20
C.I. * (15.8, 26.6)
(7.4, 15.5)
Relative/Friend
%
13.8
7.0
N
4
13
C.I. *
(9.5, 19.5)
(4.2, 11.5)
Pre-Katrina Monthly Income
0 - $1,000
%
20.0
23.5
N
6
43
C.I. * (15.3, 25.8)
(17.2, 31.2)
$1,001 - $2,000
%
33.3
24.6
N
10
45
C.I. * (27.5, 39.7)
(19.2, 30.9)
background image
112
$2,001 - $3,000
%
13.3
11.5
N
4
21
C.I. *
(9.6, 18.2)
(7.4, 17.4)
$3,001 - $5,000
%
6.7
9.8
N
2
18
C.I. *
(3.9, 11.2)
(6.0, 15.6)
$5,001+
%
6.7
10.9
N
2
20
C.I. *
(4.5, 9.7)
(7.3, 16.0)
* Confidence Intervals (C.I.) at 95%



































background image
113




Table 39: Percent of households that report specific characteristics of
vulnerability by residential area (inside and outside of Hoffman Triangle).
Characteristics of Households
Hoffman
Triangle
Outside of
Hoffman
Triangle
Chronic Illness or Disability
%
36.7
44.6
N
11
83
C.I.
(30.5, 43.3)
(37.0, 52.5)
Ability to Access Care
Needed for Chronic Illness or
Disability
For all services
%
50.0
54.3
N
5
44
C.I.
(39.1, 60.9)
(41.5, 66.6)
For some services
%
40.0
22.2
N
4
18
C.I.
(30.1, 50.8)
(14.9, 31.9)
Not at all
%
10.0
22.2
N
1
18
C.I.
(4.9, 19.5)
(12.3, 36.7)
Post-Katrina Change in
Income
Increased
%
16.7
25.3
N
5
47
C.I.
(12.1, 22.6)
(19.3, 32.3)
Decreased
%
50.0
30.6
N
15
57
C.I.
(43.5, 56.5)
(23.7, 38.6)
Stayed the same
%
26.7
41.4
N
8
77
C.I.
(21.4, 32.6)
(34.0, 49.2)
Lacks Household Amenities
Garbage pick-up
%
23.3
9.8
N
7
18
C.I.
(18.5, 29.0)
(6.1, 15.4)
Internet
%
90.0
68.6
N
27
127
C.I.
(84.9, 93.5)
(61.3, 75.1)
Working kitchen
%
40.0
16.1
N
12
30
C.I.
(33.7, 46.7)
(11.9, 21.5)
Heat
%
36.7
12.0
background image
114
N
11
22
C.I.
(30.8, 43.0)
(7.8, 18.0)
Air conditioning
%
30.0
10.3
N
9
19
C.I.
(24.3, 36.4)
(7.0, 14.9)
Smoke detector
%
36.7
33.5
N
11
62
C.I.
(30.5, 43.3)
(26.0, 42.0)
Ample lighting in neigh.
%
41.4
23.1
N
12
43
C.I.
(34.9, 48.1)
(17.5, 30.0)
Household Deficiencies
Pests
%
30.0
57.8
N
9
107
C.I.
(24.7, 35.9)
(51.2, 64.2)
Roof leaks
%
16.7
21.2
N
5
39
C.I.
(12.4, 22.0)
(16.1, 27.4)
Mold
%
23.3
16.2
N
7
30
C.I.
(18.2, 29.4)
(11.3, 22.7)
* Confidence Intervals (C.I.) at 95%
























background image
115




Table 40: Percent of households that report selected hurricane related
impacts by residential area (inside and outside of Hoffman Triangle).
Identified Household/
Neighborhood Problems
Hoffman
Triangle
Outside of
Hoffman
Triangle
Main impacts the household
experienced from the
hurricanes:
Disruption of health care
%
65.5
52.7
N
19
98
C.I.
(59.2, 71.3)
(46.1, 59.2)
Loss of Job
%
51.7
40.5
N
15
75
C.I.
(45.2, 58.2)
(34.0, 47.4)
Loss of health insurance
%
41.4
22.8
N
12
42
C.I.
(34.9, 48.1)
(18.2, 28.3)
Loss of benefits
%
37.9
28.5
N
11
53
C.I.
(31.6, 44.7)
(23.3, 34.3)
Loss touch with family
and friends
%
72.4
64.5
N
21
120
C.I.
(66.3, 77.8)
(57.2, 71.3)
Overcrowding in neighborhood
or community
%
13.8
24.2
N
4
45
C.I.
(9.5, 19.5)
(19.4, 29.7)
Displaced relatives/ friends living
in household
%
37.9
40.3
N
11
75
C.I.
(31.6, 44.7)
(32.3, 48.9)
Death of family member
%
27.6
29.2
N
8
54
C.I.
(22.2, 33.7)
(23.2, 36.1)
* Confidence Intervals (C.I.) at 95%




background image
116


Table 41: Percent of households that report hurricane related problems by
residential area (inside and outside of Hoffman Triangle).
Identified Household Problems
Hoffman
Triangle
Outside of
Hoffman
Triangle
Labor for fixing house
%
40.0
41.4
N
12
77
C.I.
(33.8, 46.6)
(34.2, 49.0)
Not enough money for rental
housing
%
44.8
36.5
N
13
66
C.I.
(38.3, 51.5)
(29.1, 44.6)
Increasing rents
%
37.9
42.7
N
11
79
C.I.
(31.6, 44.7)
(36.0, 49.7)
Health Problems
%
30.0
37.1
N
9
69
C.I.
(24.1, 36.6)
(29.6, 45.2)
Finding Health Care
%
36.7
36.6
N
11
68
C.I.
(30.5, 43.3)
(32.2, 41.1)
Finding a job
%
36.7
24.2
N
11
44
C.I.
(30.6, 43.2)
(18.4, 31.0)
Taking care of the elderly
%
10.0
8.7
N
3
16
C.I.
(6.5, 15.1)
(5.6, 13.4)
Schooling for children
%
20.0
16.8
N
6
31
C.I.
(15.0, 26.2)
(12.4, 22.2)
Day care/child care
%
13.3
13.1
N
4
24
C.I.
(9.2, 18.9)
(9.0, 18.7)
Lack of utility services
%
60.0
26.9
N
18
50
C.I.
(53.6, 66.1)
(20.9, 33.8)
Crime
%
60.0
62.4
N
18
116
C.I.
(53.4, 66.2)
(54.5, 69.7)
Safety
%
50.0
52.7
N
15
98
C.I.
(43.5, 56.5)
(45.3, 59.9)
Feeling bad/worried
%
56.7
50.0
N
17
93
background image
117
C.I.
(50.1, 63.0)
(43.3, 56.7)
Fulfilling your regular eating habits
%
36.7
36.6
N
11
68
C.I.
(30.4, 43.4)
(28.4, 45.6)
Community infrastructure
%
60.0
59.5
N
18
110
C.I.
(53.4, 66.2)
(50.2, 68.1)
Opportunities for social support
%
40.0
35.5
N
12
66
C.I.
(33.7, 46.7)
(28.3, 43.4)
Difficulties accessing assistance
programs
%
46.7
39.2
N
14
73
C.I.
(40.2, 53.2)
(33.1, 45.7)
Difficulties accessing information
about housing issues
%
36.7
35.9
N
11
66
C.I.
(30.5, 43.3)
(30.7, 41.4
Transportation
%
36.7
34.4
N
11
64
C.I.
(30.5, 43.3)
(28.1, 41.3)
Loss of a sense of community
%
70.0
51.1
N
21
94
C.I.
(65.0, 74.6)
(42.7, 51.1)
Available supermarkets
%
70.0
40.5
N
21
75
C.I.
(63.8, 75.5)
(33.5, 48.0)
Don't have prescription drugs or
medicine you need
%
30.0
24.7
N
9
46
C.I.
(24.3, 36.4)
(19.1, 31.4)
Loss of, or problems with you
private insurance
%
33.3
29.7
N
10
55
C.I.
(27.4, 39.9)
(24.8, 35.2)
* Confidence Intervals (C.I.) at 95%










background image
118


Table 42. Percent of households that feel safe in Central City
by residing in Hoffman Triangle and Outside of Hoffman
Triangle.
Feel Safe Out Alone
in Central City
Hoffman
Triangle
Outside of
Hoffman
Triangle
Before Katrina
During the day
%
81.8
83.6
N
18
56
C.I.
(75.5, 86.8)
(91.3, 71.1)
At night
%
77.3
65.7
N
17
44
C.I.
(71.1, 82.4)
(52.6, 76.7)
After Katrina
During the day
%
68.2
58.2
N
15
39
C.I.
(60.6, 74.9)
(48.3, 67.5)
At night
%
45.5
31.3
N
10
21
C.I.
(38.0, 53.1)
(21.3, 43.5)
* Confidence Intervals (C.I.) at 95%










background image
119
Annex C: Maps
Map 1: Central City Survey
background image
120
Map 2: Occupancy
18
18
Estimates to the east of Felicity St. are of relatively low confidence due to sparse sampling.
background image
121
Map 3: Ownership
19
19
Estimates to the east of Felicity St. are of relatively low confidence due to sparse sampling.
background image
122
Map 4: Flooding
background image
123
Map 5: African American
20
20
Estimates to the east of Felicity St. are of relatively low confidence due to sparse sampling.
background image
124
Map 6: Caucasian
21
21
Estimates to the east of Felicity St. are of relatively low confidence due to sparse sampling.
background image
125
Map 7: Hispanic
22
22
Estimates to the east of Felicity St. are of relatively low confidence due to sparse sampling.
background image
126
Map 8: New Residents
23
23
Estimates to the east of Felicity St. are of relatively low confidence due to sparse sampling.
background image
127
Map 9: Schools
background image
128
Map 10: Child Care
background image
129
Map 11: Safety
24
24
Estimates to the east of Felicity St. are of relatively low confidence due to sparse sampling.
background image
130
Map 12: Health Care
25
25
Estimates to the east of Felicity St. are of relatively low confidence due to sparse sampling.
background image
131
Map 13: Access to Information about Available Resources
26
26
Estimates to the east of Felicity St. are of relatively low confidence due to sparse sampling.
background image
132
Map 14: Community Center
27
27
Estimates to the east of Felicity St. are of relatively low confidence due to sparse sampling.
background image
Document Actions