February 28, 2002 |
2002-R-0153 | |
SURVEY REGARDING NON-ELDERLY DISABLED RESIDENTS OF STATE-FUNDED ELDELRY HOUSING | ||
By: John Moran, Associate Analyst and Jason K. Matthews, Research Fellow | ||
You asked for a survey of all the housing authorities operating state-funded senior housing to determine (1) the number of units occupied by non-elderly people with disabilities and (2) the number of non-elderly people with disabilities on the senior housing waiting lists. You also asked for the same information regarding federal senior housing in the state.
SUMMARY
We contacted 94 municipal housing authorities and obtained responses from 48 that operate state-funded elderly housing. (Elderly is considered anyone over the age of 62. ) The summary results are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Summary Results: Non-Elderly Disabled in State Elderly Housing
Municipal Housing Authorities (respondents) |
Number of Elderly Units |
Number of Non-Elderly Disabled Units |
% of Non-Elderly Disabled |
48 |
3,674 |
518 |
14. 1% |
We obtained responses from 38 authorities on our questions regarding the number of non-elderly people with disabilities on waiting lists for senior housing. Some authorities could not respond to this question because they do not track, nor could they readily determine, the number of non-elderly disabled on their waiting lists. The summary results for waiting lists are shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Summary Results: Non-Elderly Disabled on State Elderly Waiting Lists
Municipal Housing Authorities (respondents) |
Total Number on Waiting Lists |
Number of Non-Elderly Disabled on Lists |
% of Non-Elderly Disabled |
38 |
1801 |
642 |
35. 6% |
RESULTS IN DETAIL
Current Occupants
Table 3 shows the town-by-town results of the survey for non-elderly people with disabilities in both state and federal public housing. Most municipal housing authorities operate state-funded housing, but some operate (1) both state and federal or (2) just federal. (Figures do not include congregate or housing subsidized via a Section 8 certificate. )
Non-elderly people with disabilities currently occupy 11. 9% of the federal senior housing units in Connecticut, based on the 16 authorities with federal senior housing that responded to the survey.
We also asked authority officials to check their records of five years ago to determine the growth in their non-senior populations in state-funded senior housing. The responses reflect a 231% increase over that time. While this is clearly a tremendous percentage increase, the actual numerical increase is not as dramatic. For example, the North Canaan Housing Authority saw a 400% increase in its non-elderly disabled population in the last five years, but in real numbers it rose from one non-elderly disabled person to five in its 40 units. Some respondents could not provide a number for five years ago because the information either was not readily available or such records are not kept. Thirty-six of the 48 responding state-funded providers could answer this portion.
Three of the authorities we contacted have recently designated a section of their federal senior housing exclusively for seniors. Federal regulations allow this. But in each case this is a recent designation, and many non-elderly disabled people still live and can remain in those areas; the authority will not assign any more non-elderly to that building or section.
Table 3: Non-Elderly Disabled in Elderly Housing
STATE-FUNDED UNITS |
FEDERAL UNITS | ||||||||||
MUNICIPALHOUSING AUTHORITY |
Number of State Elderly Units |
Number of Non-Elderly Disabled |
% of Non-Elderly Disabled |
Number of Non-Elderly Disabled 5 Years Ago |
% of Non-Elderly Disabled 5 Years Ago |
% Increase (Decrease) Over 5 Years |
Number of Federal Elderly Units |
Number of Non-Elderly Disabled |
% of Non-Elderly Disabled |
Number Exclusively Elderly |
Number Exclusively Disabled |
Ansonia HA (also has federal) |
40 |
4 |
10. 0% |
4 |
10. 0% |
0. 0% |
380 |
13 |
3. 4% |
NA |
|
Bethel HA (also has federal) |
40 |
1 |
2. 5% |
0 |
0. 0% |
|
40 |
0 |
0. 0% |
NA |
|
Bridgeport HA (federal only) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
512 |
0 |
0. 0% |
512 |
0 |
Brookfield HA |
35 |
5 |
14. 3% |
3 |
8. 6% |
66. 7% |
|
|
|
|
|
Cheshire HA (also has federal) |
48 |
12 |
25. 0% |
0 |
0. 0% |
|
48 |
3 |
6. 3% |
|
|
Clinton HA |
30 |
0 |
0. 0% |
0 |
0. 0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coventry HA (also has federal) |
40 |
6 |
15. 0% |
6 |
15. 0% |
0. 0% |
40 |
5 |
12. 5% |
NA |
|
Danbury HA (also has federal) |
150 |
27 |
18. 0% |
5 |
3. 3% |
440. 0% |
250 |
30 |
12. 0% |
250 |
|
Darien HA |
30 |
0 |
0. 0% |
0 |
0. 0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derby HA |
106 |
4 |
3. 8% |
2 |
1. 9% |
100. 0% |
|
|
|
|
|
East Hampton HA |
70 |
5 |
7. 1% |
1 |
1. 4% |
400. 0% |
|
|
|
|
|
E. Hartford HA (also has federal) |
30 |
19 |
63. 3% |
|
|
|
490 |
98 |
20. 0% |
335 |
|
E. Windsor HA |
84 |
8 |
9. 5% |
0 |
0. 0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ellington HA |
42 |
11 |
26. 2% |
1 |
2. 4% |
1000. 0% |
|
|
|
|
|
Enfield HA |
200 |
19 |
9. 5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Farmington HA |
40 |
4 |
10. 0% |
2 |
5. 0% |
100. 0% |
|
|
|
|
|
Glastonbury HA |
140 |
17 |
12. 1% |
8 |
5. 7% |
112. 5% |
|
|
|
|
|
Groton HA |
175 |
30 |
17. 1% |
20 |
11. 4% |
50. 0% |
|
|
|
|
|
Guilford HA |
90 |
19 |
21. 1% |
12 |
13. 3% |
58. 3% |
|
|
|
|
|
Killingly HA |
120 |
18 |
15. 0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mansfield HA |
40 |
8 |
20. 0% |
8 |
20. 0% |
0. 0% |
|
|
|
|
|
Meriden HA (also has federal) |
40 |
0 |
0. 0% |
|
|
|
221 |
|
0. 0% |
144 |
77 |
Middletown HA (also has federal) |
40 |
3 |
7. 5% |
|
|
|
126 |
0 |
0. 0% |
126 |
0 |
Monroe HA |
30 |
6 |
20. 0% |
2 |
6. 7% |
200. 0% |
|
|
|
|
|
Montville HA |
80 |
13 |
16. 3% |
3 |
3. 8% |
333. 3% |
|
|
|
|
|
Naugatuck HA (also has federal) |
194 |
53 |
27. 3% |
|
0. 0% |
|
104 |
3 |
2. 9% |
|
|
North Branford HA |
60 |
4 |
6. 7% |
1 |
1. 7% |
300% |
|
| |||
North Canaan HA |
40 |
5 |
12. 5% |
1 |
2. 5% |
400. 0% |
|
|
|
|
|
North Haven HA |
70 |
2 |
2. 9% |
1 |
1. 4% |
100. 0% |
|
|
|
|
|
Norwich HA (also has federal) |
30 |
4 |
13. 3% |
|
|
|
263 |
92 |
35. 0% |
NA |
|
Plainfield HA (also has federal) |
72 |
8 |
11. 1% |
|
|
|
550 |
50 |
9. 1% |
NA |
|
Preston HA |
40 |
3 |
7. 5% |
2 |
5. 0% |
50. 0% |
|
|
|
|
|
Putnam HA (also has federal) |
40 |
20 |
50. 0% |
|
|
|
27 |
0 |
0. 0% |
NA |
|
Rocky Hill HA |
70 |
11 |
15. 7% |
11 |
15. 7% |
0. 0% |
|
|
|
|
|
Shelton HA |
120 |
6 |
5. 0% |
4 |
3. 3% |
50. 0% |
|
|
|
|
|
Simsbury HA |
70 |
9 |
12. 9% |
9 |
12. 9% |
0. 0% |
|
|
|
|
|
Somers HA |
54 |
2 |
3. 7% |
2 |
3. 7% |
0. 0% |
|
|
|
|
|
South Windsor HA |
70 |
6 |
8. 6% |
5 |
7. 1% |
20. 0% |
|
|
|
|
|
Southington HA |
180 |
10 |
5. 6% |
5 |
2. 8% |
100. 0% |
|
|
|
|
|
Stafford HA |
110 |
20 |
18. 2% |
5 |
4. 5% |
300. 0% |
|
|
|
|
|
Stonington HA |
60 |
5 |
8. 3% |
5 |
8. 3% |
0. 0% |
|
|
|
|
|
Thomaston HA |
62 |
3 |
4. 8% |
5 |
8. 1% |
-40. 0% |
|
|
|
|
|
Torrington HA (also has federal) |
130 |
18 |
13. 8% |
|
|
|
298 |
68 |
22. 8% |
198 |
|
Watertown HA |
120 |
14 |
11. 7% |
14 |
11. 7% |
0. 0% |
|
|
|
|
|
West Hartford HA (also has federal) |
40 |
8 |
20. 0% |
5 |
12. 5% |
60. 0% |
92 |
12 |
13. 0% |
NA |
|
West Haven HA (federal only) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
517 |
102 |
19. 7% |
NA |
|
Westport HA |
50 |
6 |
12. 0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wethersfield HA |
116 |
52 |
44. 8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Windsor HA |
112 |
10 |
8. 9% |
6 |
5. 4% |
66. 7% |
|
|
|
|
|
Woodstock HA |
24 |
0 |
0. 0% |
2 |
8. 3% |
-100. 0% |
|
|
|
|
|
TOTALS |
3674 |
518 |
14. 1% |
160 |
4. 4% |
223. 8% |
3958 |
476 |
12. 0% |
|
|
Waiting Lists
Table 4 contains the town-by-town waiting list data, which shows a huge range in the percentage of non-elderly disabled people seeking public housing. Eleven of the 38 respondents report their waiting lists are at or over 50% non-elderly disabled. This appears to indicate that the number of non-elderly disabled people in elderly public housing is likely to continue growing in future years as more tenants are selected from the waiting lists.
Table 4: Non-Elderly Disabled on State Waiting Lists
MUNICIPAL HOUSING AUTHORITY |
Numberon Waiting List |
Number of Non-Elderly Disabled on List |
% of Non-Elderly Disabled |
List is Combined State/Federal |
Ansonia HA (also has federal) |
35 |
7 |
20. 0% |
Yes |
Bethel HA (also has federal) |
81 |
5 |
6. 2% |
Yes |
Brookfield HA |
38 |
3 |
7. 9% |
No |
Cheshire HA (also has federal) |
30 |
6 |
20. 0% |
Yes |
Clinton HA |
25 |
1 |
4. 0% |
No |
Coventry HA (also has federal) |
48 |
24 |
50. 0% |
Yes |
Danbury HA (also has federal) |
150 |
93 |
62. 0% |
No |
Darien HA |
45 |
2 |
4. 4% |
No |
Derby HA |
44 |
10 |
22. 7% |
No |
East Hampton HA |
12 |
4 |
33. 3% |
No |
E. Hartford HA (also has federal) |
110 |
55 |
50. 0% |
Yes |
E. Windsor HA |
34 |
20 |
58. 8% |
No |
Ellington HA |
8 |
4 |
50. 0% |
No |
Enfield HA |
153 |
69 |
45. 1% |
No |
Farmington HA |
22 |
8 |
36. 4% |
No |
Glastonbury HA |
35 |
7 |
20. 0% |
No |
Groton HA |
7 |
0 |
0. 0% |
No |
Guilford HA |
39 |
8 |
20. 5% |
No |
Killingly HA |
47 |
23 |
48. 9% |
No |
Mansfield HA |
12 |
2 |
16. 7% |
No |
Middletown HA |
13 |
0 |
0. 0% |
No |
Monroe HA |
50 |
12 |
24. 0% |
No |
North Branford HA |
11 |
0 |
0. 0% |
No |
North Canaan HA |
12 |
11 |
91. 7% |
No |
North Haven HA |
200 |
35 |
17. 5% |
No |
Putnam HA (also has federal) |
20 |
20 |
100. 0% |
No |
Simsbury HA |
4 |
2 |
50. 0% |
No |
Somers HA |
18 |
6 |
33. 3% |
No |
Southington HA |
100 |
25 |
25. 0% |
No |
Stafford HA |
2 |
0 |
0. 0% |
No |
Stonington HA |
10 |
3 |
30. 0% |
No |
Thomaston HA |
31 |
5 |
16. 1% |
No |
Torrington HA |
27 |
16 |
59. 3% |
Yes |
Watertown HA |
75 |
60 |
80. 0% |
No |
West Haven HA (federal only) |
150 |
40 |
26. 7% |
No |
Wethersfield HA |
61 |
40 |
65. 6% |
No |
Windsor HA |
38 |
15 |
39. 5% |
No |
Woodstock HA |
4 |
1 |
25. 0% |
No |
TOTALS |
1801 |
642 |
35. 6% |
JM/JKM: ro/eh