
February 20, 2004 |
2004-R-0191 | |
HOUSING SURVEY FOLLOW UP | ||
| ||
By: Sarah Black, Legislative Fellow Patricia O’Rourke, Legislative Fellow Kristina Sadlak, Legislative Fellow Joseph Holstead, Research Analyst | ||
You asked us to contact the housing authorities (HAs) that did not respond to a December 2003 survey by the Connecticut chapter of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Authorities (CONN-NAHRO). Specifically, you wanted to know if these HAs have experienced (1) tensions between young disabled and elderly people living in their senior housing projects and (2) an increase in the number of young disabled residents in their state-assisted senior housing units over the past five years.
SUMMARY
CONN-NAHRO surveyed 90 of the 108 state HAs. It concluded that there was a problem based on answers from 35 of the 40 responding HAs surveyed. We contacted 40 of the HAs that did not respond.
Of the 16 additional HAs that completed the OLR survey, nine reported some trouble between elderly and nonelderly tenants, with five of those reporting significant problems (either ongoing or specific incidents).
Six of the 16 have seen increases in the number of nonelderly people with disabilities living there over the past five years, five had no data on increases, three saw no changes, one saw a decrease, and one has no state units. By law, people certified as totally disabled by any federal agency qualify to live in state-assisted senior (by law, age 62 or older) housing, regardless of age (CGS § 8-113a (c)).
CONN-NAHRO SURVEY
In December 2003, CONN-NAHRO completed a survey of HAs to determine, among other things, how many nonelderly people with disabilities are living in state-assisted senior housing developments in each town. It contacted 90 HAs, 40 of which responded, according to the CONN-NAHRO survey. Five of those HAs had only federally-assisted senior housing units. The survey accounted for 3,538 state elderly units. The state has a total of 7,224 elderly units.
Of the 35 HAs with state-assisted senior housing responding to CONN-NAHRO, regarding the number of nonelderly people with disabilities, over the past five years (1) 31 reported increases, (2) three reported a decrease, and (3) one had no information available. A copy of the survey is attached.
OLR SURVEY
We contacted housing authorities between January 22 and January 27, 2004, that did not respond to CONN-NAHRO survey, and asked: (1) how many state-assisted senior housing units do you have, (2) how many nonelderly people with disabilities live in those units, (3) has the number of nonelderly people with disabilities increased in the past five years, and (4) have there been any recent problems or difficulties between the two groups.
In answering the questions, some HAs did not have specifics, but provided approximate numbers or anecdotal responses. For example, several HAs reported that there are general difficulties between elderly people and nonelderly people with disabilities (e. g. , hours kept and noise). Six of the 16 HAs reported an increase in the number of nonelderly people with disabilities in the past five years, five had no data (for comparison purposes), three saw no change, and one saw a decrease (from three to two), and one has no state units.
Table one (below) describes the results of the telephone survey completed by OLR.
Table 1: Number of Nonelderly People with Disabilities in
State- Assisted Senior Housing for 16 Housing Authorities
Housing Authority |
# Of State Elderly Housing Units |
# Of Nonelderly (N. E. ) people with disabilities |
Change in # of N. E. people with disabilities compared to 5 years ago |
Any difficulties or problems between the two groups |
Berlin |
70 |
8 |
No data |
Alcohol use by and mental illness in the disabled population pose significant problems. |
Brookfield |
35 |
4 |
No increase |
None |
Cheshire |
48 |
12 |
Doubled (approximately) |
No specific incidents, but some tension |
Coventry |
80 |
18 |
No data |
Many problems, mainly with psychological issues and damage to the apts. |
Greenwich |
251 |
50 |
10% increase |
None |
Ledyard |
30 |
2 |
No data |
None |
Manchester |
350 |
No data |
No data |
Intermittent problems |
North Branford |
60 |
11 (approx. ) |
Tripled |
1 incident |
Plainfield |
72 |
4 |
Doubled |
None |
Plymouth |
60 |
11 |
Double (at least) |
More problems recently, but no specific incidents |
Seymour |
0 |
— |
— |
— |
Stonington |
60 |
1 |
No data |
None |
Thomaston |
62 |
1 |
No data |
None |
Vernon |
321 |
10 (approx. ) |
Tripled |
5 incidents |
Westport |
50 |
6 |
No increase |
Frequent problems between two communities |
Winchester |
119 |
20 |
No increase |
Mostly general conflicts stemming from lifestyle choices |
SB/PO/KS/JH: ts