Technical Report # 2€¦ · (FHEA) & Housing and Transportation Analysis [Task 2 Technical Report] 2015 Acknowledgements This document was produced by the Adirondack Gateway Council,

Technic

al R

eport

# 2

Fair Housing and Equity Assessment (FHEA) and Housing and Transportation Analysis

AGC Technical Report No. 2

The Adirondack Gateway Regional

Fair Housing and Equity Assessment (FHEA) And

Housing and Transportation Analysis

Final Report 2015

The Adirondack Gateway Regional Fair Housing and Equity Assessment (FHEA) & Housing and Transportation Analysis [Task 2 Technical Report] 2015

The Adirondack Gateway Regional

Fair Housing and Equity Assessment (FHEA) and

Housing and Transportation Analysis

Final Report 2015

For more information contact:

Edward Bartholomew, CEO

Adirondack Gateway Council Inc. Glens Falls, New York 12801 [email protected]

Ph.: (518) 761‐6007

www.AGCNY.org

Prepared by: Ann Ruzow Holland, Ph.D.

Lead Consultant: Task 2 Housing and Transportation‐FHEA

135 Sabousin Drive Willsboro New York 12996 Ph. 518‐963‐7096 Cell 518‐569‐7115

[email protected] Web: www.grantplanact.com


Acknowledgements This document was produced by the Adirondack Gateway Council, Glens Falls, New York in association with Ann Ruzow Holland, Ph.D. Community Planning Advisor, Willsboro, New York. It could not be completed without the help of many community leaders and agency personnel who shared their ideas and loaned their voices to the development of this report. We want to thank the dozens of agencies, programs, and community leaders who contributed their knowledge to this planning project. We want to especially acknowledge the critical role played by the staff of the Warren County Planning Department who contributed their expert skill at data collection, analysis, and GIS mapping. The following is just a partial list of the 40 or more organizations that cooperated with the Adirondack Gateway Council to make this happen. Warren, Washington, and Saratoga County Social Services Washington County Public Health Warren, Washington, and Saratoga County Planning Offices Towns of Chester, Corinth, Hadley, Moreau, and Queensbury The Conkling Center Calogero Associates

Warren‐Hamilton Counties Community Action Agency Brant Lake Taxi Washington County Office for the Aging and Disabilities Resource Center Greater Glens Falls Senior Citizens Center, Inc. Warren/Washington/Hamilton Housing Committee (part of the Saratoga‐North Country Continuum of Care) Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council (AGFTC)

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Glens Falls Division Adirondack Emergency Community Chaplains Warren‐Hamilton Community Action Glens Falls Housing Authority Housing Assistance Council Washington County Economic Opportunity Council Moreau Community Center

Family Services Association of Glens Falls, Inc. Greater Glens Falls Transit System

Tri‐County United Way The Glens Falls Home, Inc. Wait House

Southern Adirondack Independent Living Cente

Support for this work is made possible through a grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development FY11 Sustainable Communities Planning Grant.

“The work that provided the basis for this publication was supported by funding under an award with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The substance and findings of the work are dedicated to the public. The author and publisher are solely responsible for the accuracy of the statements and interpretations contained in this publication. Such interpretations do not necessarily reflect the views of the Government."


1


Table of Contents

Section 1. Regional Profile and FHEA Data Chapter 1. Introduction to Section 1 & Section 1 Methods ............................................ 1 Chapter 2. Demographics & Socio‐Economic Background .............................................. 6 Chapter 3. Racial Composition, Segregated Areas, & Areas of Increasing Diversity

and/or Racial/Ethnic Integration. Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty ..................................................................................................... 24

Chapter 4. Access to Existing Areas of High Opportunity ............................................... 44 Chapter 5. Fair Housing Issues, Services, & Activities .................................................... 92 Chapter 6. Major Public Investments, Land Use Change, & Brownfields ...................... 96

Section 2: Civic Engagement and FHEA Deliberation Chapter 7 Introduction to Section 2 ........................................................................... 110 Chapter 8 Overall Engagement Strategy ..................................................................... 112 Chapter 9 Stakeholder and Consortium Participation ................................................ 122 Chapter 10 Results: Highlights from the Face‐to‐Face Engagement Events ................ 131 Chapter 11 Results: Highlights from the Housing‐Transportation Provider Survey ..... 139 Chapter 12 Results: Highlights from the Citizen Survey ............................................... 149

Section 3: Findings and Recommendations FHEA Decision‐Making and Bridge

Chapter 13 Introduction to Section 3 ........................................................................... 165 Chapter 14 Methods ...................................................................................................... 168 Chapter 15 Findings ...................................................................................................... 169 Chapter 16 Recommendations, Suggested Capital Actions, and Next‐Step Initiatives 183 Chapter 17 Monitoring & Evaluating Achievements .................................................... 210 Chapter 18 Show Me the Money: Financial Capital and Resources ............................. 211 Chapter 19 Implementation Plan .................................................................................. 214 Bibliography Electronic Links to Appendices


110

Section 2: Civic Engagement and FHEA Deliberation Chapter 7. Introduction to Section 2 Section 2 presents the design of the civic engagement process and the results of more than 18 months of public participation. During this time, local people articulated, and collaboratively analyzed locally important issues surrounding housing, “mobility,” and equity. The experts were the community members who live, work, and commute “through” the region. They drove the inquiry process into issues, concerns, and solutions. Their insightful comments demonstrate a clear understanding of the complexities and nuances that contribute to both the successes and challenges of life in the Adirondack Region. We have worked very hard to recognize and emphasize that our region is one of contrasts and not uniformity. Distinctive places and geographic variability are the norm in the Adirondack Gateway Region. The region is a study in contrasts between human and natural environments, particularly within the Adirondack Park.

Concentrations of people in the urban sense of the word don’t really exist in the AGC Region. One neighborhood in the Bronx or Brooklyn can contain the entire population of the AGC Region. Even within the urbanized core, dense occupations in expansive, deteriorating neighborhoods, slums, or ghettos, are hard to find. The AGC Region of 1,800 square miles is vast with a mix of rural, suburban, and urban environments.

The diversity of geography, demographics, economics, and needs in different parts of the region require us to avoid the trap that one size fits all. Instead, appropriateness becomes an important principle. While needs in one part of the AGC area may be the same as in others, the appropriate solutions will vary.

What do we know? How do we know it? Who knows it?

How will knowing it change our understanding and actions?

The development of the Adirondack Gateway Regional Combined Housing, Transportation, and

Fair Housing Equity Assessment brought people together, encouraged them to speak with each

other and reach consensus about actions that will move the region forward. In the process, we

hope that the exchange of knowledge results in a more informed and actively engaged

community.

What is known about residential housing and transportation issues such as equity and access to

opportunity, convenience, accessibility, weather, health, and affordability? With the guidance

of HUD and its partners, AGC collected and analyzed a comprehensive database of publically

sourced information. The Section 1 analysis included more than 100 pages of assessment, a

GIS‐based Atlas, and a map/table workbook of statistics relevant to housing, transportation, fair

housing, and equity. In addition to collecting information through traditional channels, we


111

decided to ask—and listen to the folks in the trenches and on the front lines. These include the

institutional and local government providers who create and facilitate Access to Opportunity

and the marginalized citizens who confront the challenges in everyday life.

Through a substantial and varied series of guided activities

and events, AGC involved people in learning, discussing,

and working out solutions for the region’s housing,

transportation, and equity concerns. Directly asking‐‐ and

getting some direct answers from Adirondack Gateway

Region’s stakeholders‐‐ leads to a better understanding of

how attitudes, values, and experiences‐‐ and obstacles and

opportunities‐‐ differ across the diverse region.

Section 3 summarizes the feedback received from multiple

sources into an action agenda. The Findings of Section 3

represent a synthesis of all the feedback and knowledge

collected from individual outreach methods. We believe

that the combination of traditional research (Section 1)

and the information collected through a deliberative public

engagement process (Section 2) provides a solidly‐built

foundation for establishing priorities for action (Section 3)

(National Consumer Council, UK, 2008). Scholarly and professional literature suggests that

successful community efforts at “follow‐through” are built upon a committed, enthusiastic,

motivated, and engaged citizenry. It is hoped that the regional stakeholders will monitor and

help implement the plan to turn “words” into actions.

Figure 66: Goals of Dialogue & Deliberation Courtesy of the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation, undated


112

Chapter 8. Overall Engagement Strategy The HUD FY11 Sustainable Communities Planning Grant awarded to the Adirondack Gateway Council HUD, created a special cohort with 40 other FY11 grantees across the United States. HUD encouraged the group to engage in a deep, two‐way public process populated by a broad variety of events and activities‐‐virtual online, in central and remote locations (see Table . HUD also recognizes that improving our situation begins with the local community. We chose a Bottom‐Up, Participatory Action process to design our engagement strategy, frame discussions, and focus decisions. This approach is supported by the HUD Sustainable Communities Initiative that is based upon a learning community approach.

Table 59: Community Engagement Activities Source: Author, 2015

Our community engagement work was

about dialogue, discussion, and

discovery. Individuals who live, work,

and commute “through” the region

served as the community experts for

this planning process. These

stakeholders served as a permeable

and inclusive advisory group studying

housing, including fair housing,

transportation, and access to

opportunity in the AGC region.

They identified community problems

and in most cases found possible

solutions for their concerns. They also

identified barriers and opportunities

shared across the region, as well as

those that are unique to specific

communities. Through this planning process, the Adirondack Gateway Council (acting as The

Consortia) collected their observations, suggestions, ideas, and concerns. During face‐to‐face

events, a consulting expert helped contributing individuals articulate their issues and concerns.

The organic and emergent processes used in meetings and interviews generated a wealth of

interests and issues. Dialogue and data from more than thirty community and stakeholder‐

focused activities and events provided the themes and framework for Section 3 Findings and

Recommendations. Their insightful comments demonstrate a clear understanding of the

complexities and nuances that contribute to both the successes and challenges of their

community.

Engagement Activity‐Event Description Number Held

Stakeholder Analysis and Organized Recruitment Key Informants & Constituency Marginal Populations Proxies Participating Outreach Provider Recruitment Living List‐Serv (107+)

2

Key Informant‐Focus Groups 6

Pop‐Up Outreach Events 4

Listening Sessions with Existing Groups 2

Newsletters distributed via listserv & website 3

Area‐Specific Roundtables 5

Marginalized Populations‐Provider Survey On‐line digital 51‐item

1

Marginalized Population Citizen Survey Paper copy, 36‐item survey instrument.

1

360○ 1:1 Phone Interview‐Key Informants 6

Ongoing Website Access & Updates 1

External Review of Straw man‐Recommendations 1

Public Review of Final Draft 1

Release of Final Technical Report/FHEA 1


113

After identifying and recruiting more than one hundred interested stakeholders to be our ears

on the ground, we worked with them and other interested citizens, singly, in groups, and in

public meetings. We designed our engagement strategy using:

Direct and Sno‐ball purposeful recruitment of representative stakeholders

Organized area‐specific and focus group meetings at centralized and dispersed locations

throughout the AGC Region, including town and county meeting rooms.

Attending other organization’s periodic meetings wherever they were held in the AGC

Region

Holding Pop‐up outreach at convening points, including regional food pantry, public

housing authority, department of social services offices

Conducting Phone Interviews

Direct polling through targeted surveys to vulnerable populations and service providers

Soliciting comments through an External Review of documents

Sharing information through website and newsletters

Promoting direct access from any stakeholder to key project staff

Figure 67: Citizen Participation and Table 60: Deliberative Data Collection and Engagement

Strategy 2013‐2015 on the following pages summarizes the overall engagement strategy that

was employed throughout the planning process for developing the Housing, Transportation,

and Fair Housing Equity Assessment. Exposure and distribution of engagement events and

activities covered a significant geographic and demographic portion of the AGC Region. Areas

noted in white had access to engagement events in neighboring communities.


114

Figure 67: Citizen Participation Source: Warren County GIS. To view a full‐sized version of this map go to: https://agcmaps.wordpress.com/project‐type/housing‐transportation‐equity/


115

Table 60: Deliberative Data Collection and Engagement Strategy 2013‐2015 Source: Author

Adirondack Gateway Council Inc.‐‐‐HUD SCPG FY11 Housing, Transportation and Fair Housing Equity Deliberative Data Collection and Engagement Strategy 2013‐2015

Prepared by Ann Ruzow Holland, Ph.D. Lead Consultant Housing, Transportation and Fair Housing Equity

# Activity‐Event Date(s) # Participants

Value‐Added Documents Analysis Method

1 Housing‐Fair Housing and Transportation Stakeholder Analysis and Organized Recruitment

11/12‐2013‐9/30/2014 Ongoing

107 Organized Electronic Database and List serve of Key AGC‐Regional Stakeholders

Database Stakeholder Analysis using FHEA Criteria

2 Housing‐Fair Housing and Transportation Marginal Populations‐Participating Outreach Providers

1/14/2014‐Ongoing

16 Institutions

Ongoing participation by traditionally marginalized groups

List Stakeholder Analysis using FHEA Criteria

3 Housing, Transportation, & Fair Housing Equity Map‐Table Atlas & Workbook 58+ Maps and Tables addressing FHEA Data Criteria and subject areas of local interest recommended by stakeholders.

9/2012‐Ongoing

N/A A thorough and comprehensive statistical and spatial assessment of existing conditions and trends (see Atlas and Workbook for Bibliography)

Map and Table Atlas & Workbook

GIS and Quantitative Stats. Topics selected using FHEA, Livability, Flagship Indicators

4 Key Informant‐Focus Group Meeting #1 Glens Falls, CD Director City of Glens Falls, GGFT Transportation Dir.; Director Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council

3/10/2014 1:30‐3:00 PM

3 Focused Questions generated Rich data. Identified key transportation issues.

Minutes Generative Theme Coding used for Transcripts

5 Key Informant‐Focus Group Meetings #2 Glens Falls United Way, Housing & Housing Authority, Local, City, and County Government, Agencies representing Homeless Youth, Elderly, Transportation, Community Services, and NAACP

4/22/2014 1:30‐3:00 PM

5 Focused Questions generated Rich conversation about needs and ways to improve coordination and delivery of services.


6 Key Informant‐Focus Group Meetings #3 Glens Falls United Way, Housing & Housing Authority, Local, City, and County Government, Agencies representing Homeless Youth, Elderly,

4/24/2014 1:00‐2:30 PM

7 Focused Questions generated Rich conversation about needs and ways to improve coordination and delivery of services.



116





Transportation, Community Services, and NAACP

7 Key Informant‐Focus Group Meeting #4 Glens Falls Social Service Commissioners & Staff from three AGC counties

5/20/2014 1:00PM‐2:30PM

5 Landmark face‐to‐face, high level meeting on housing & transportation. Focused Questions generated Rich data.


8 Key Informant‐Focus Group Meeting # 5 Glens Falls Marginal Populations‐Participating Outreach Providers Meeting: Executive Director, Glens Falls Housing Authority, President, NAACP Glens Falls Division, Executive Director, United Way of Warren/Washington/Northern Saratoga County ,Co‐Chair, Affordable Housing Coalition of the AGC Region, Executive Director, Washington County Economic Opportunity Council, Executive Director, Warren‐Hamilton Counties Community Action Agency, City of Glens Falls CD Director.

6/19/2014 1:00 PM

7 A collaborative outreach/engagement schedule of events and activities was drafted. A housing‐transportation provider and citizen survey and a distribution strategy were conceived.

Minutes‐Schedule

N/A

9 Key Informant‐Focus Group Conference Call #6 with Follow‐up Memo to Participating Outreach Providers

7/30/2014 Noon

3 Follow up and planning for citizen survey distribution and collection during August and September 2014.

Minutes/ Schedule

N/A

10 Pop‐Up Outreach Event With the help of RSVP and United Way, pop‐up outreach was conducted during fair week at the Washington County Fair.

8/18‐24/2014 *Saturday

Unavailable

Limited distribution of citizen surveys and public conversations.

Surveys See Citizen Survey

11 Listening Sessions with Existing Groups #1

9/2/2014Noon

18 Focused questions generated Rich data from Listening

Minutes Generative Theme Coding


117





Meeting of the Saratoga‐North Country Continuum of Care & Warren/Washington/Hamilton Housing Committee: Office of Community Services, Family Services, Washington County DSS, Community Action, WAIT House, WWAMH, Domestic Violence Project, Health Care for Homeless Veterans, Soldier On, Adirondack Vets House, Office for the Aging, Community Representative, & SAIL.

Session. Opportunity to hear from representatives of marginal groups, advocates, and providers. Distribute Provider & Citizen surveys.

used for Transcripts

12 Listening Sessions with Existing Groups #2 Meeting of the Glens Falls Division of the NAACP.

9/4/20147:00 PM

12 Focused questions generated Rich data from Listening Session. Opportunity to hear from citizens and agency representatives, and distribute Provider and Citizen surveys.


13 Pop Up Outreach Event Glens Falls Housing Authority, Stichman Towers. Executive Director of the PHA invited residents to attend a meeting.

9/2/20141:30 PM

28 Opportunity to distribute 28 citizen surveys, answer questions, help with survey completion.


14 Pop Up Outreach Event Maple Street Food Pantry, Glens Falls. Hosted By: Warren‐Hamilton Counties Community Action Agency (Food Pantry)

9/4/2014 9‐11 AM

106 106 pantry users stopped by. 36 took or completed and handed back citizen surveys. 34% response rate for a two‐hour event. Assistance provided with survey completion.



118





15 Pop Up Outreach Event At the Washington County DSS Lobby, Fort Edward. Hosted by: Wash County EOC

9/4/141‐3PM

46 46 individuals stopped by. 11 took or completed and handed back citizen surveys. 24% response rate for the two‐hour event. Assistance provided with survey completion.


16 H&T‐FHEA Newsletter V1#1 10‐2014

10/14 107+ Distributed Newsletter Update to stakeholders and general public

Newsletter N/A

17 Area‐Specific Roundtables Northwest Saratoga‐Southwest Warren Counties, Hadley Co‐Hosted by the T. Hadley, Saratoga County

9/15/143‐4:30PM

16 Rich data from Listening Session to obtain area‐specific issues, interests, and concerns.


18 Area‐Specific Roundtables Northern Warren County, Chestertown Co‐Hosted by the T. Chester

9/15/147:00 PM



19 Area‐Specific Roundtables Washington County Offices, Fort Edward Co‐Hosted by the Washington County EOC

9/16/1410:30 AM



20 Area‐Specific Roundtables South Glens Falls, Town of Moreau, Saratoga County Co‐Hosted by the T. Moreau and the Moreau Community Center.

9/17/148:30 AM



21 Provider Survey On‐line digital 51‐item survey instrument hosted by Survey Monkey

8/5/14‐9/10/14

47 Distributed 107+ stakeholder organizations.

Provider Survey Results (Excel Workbook/PDF)

Survey Monkey Basic Statistical Analysis.


119





Intended to reach stakeholder groups advocating for marginalized populations.

47 were completed for a 43.9% response rate. Provider Survey Results Report available online at AGC website.

Generative Theme Coding and Frequency Analysis for Qualitative Data

22 Citizen Survey Paper copy, 36‐item survey instrument. Snowball, purposeful sample intended to reach out to marginalized groups. 16 Participating Agencies representing marginalized populations assisted in distribution and collection of surveys. Many also assisted citizens to complete questionnaire.

8/15/14‐9/15/14

437 Distributed 1674 surveys. 452 were completed for a 27% response rate. Citizen Survey Results Report available online at AGC website.

Citizen Survey Results (Excel Workbook/PDF)

Survey Monkey Basic Statistical Analysis. Generative Theme Coding and Frequency Analysis for Qualitative Data

23 360○ 1:1 Phone Interview Owner: Brant Lake Taxi

9/29/149:00 AM

1 Focused questions generated Rich data from Listening Session to obtain area‐specific issues, interests, and concerns.

Interview Notes

Generative Theme Coding used for Transcripts

24 360○ 1:1 Phone Interview Washington County Public Health Director

10/02/1410:15AM


Interview Notes


25 360○ 1:1 Phone Interview Warrensburg Town Council Member/Owner Adirondack Real Estate

10/9/142:00 PM


Interview Notes


26 360○ 1:1 Phone Interview‐Sweep

12/12/14 1 Focused questions generated Rich

Interview Notes

Generative Theme


120





Adirondack Housing Trust data from Listening Session to obtain area‐specific issues, interests, and concerns.

Coding used for Transcripts

27 360○ 1:1 Phone Interview‐Sweep Washington County Planner

12/15/14 1 Focused questionsgenerated Rich data from Listening Session to obtain area‐specific issues, interests, and concerns.

Interview Notes



12/2014 107+ Distributed Newsletter Update to stakeholders and through our partners to the general public

Newsletter N/A

29 Website Access Identify opportunities for public involvement. Point of contact information provided for questions or comments. Downloads available of data, reports, and plans.

12/2014 TBD TBD URL Monitoring of Use and Feedback

30 360○ 1:1 Phone Interview‐Sweep Private Developer/Resident/Former NYS Commissioner of Housing

12/30/14 1 Rich data from Listening Session to obtain area‐specific issues, interests, and concerns.

Interview Notes

Generative Theme Coding Contribution Incorporation into Recommendations

31 H&T‐FHEA Straw man Findings & Recommendations‐Reviewer Reaction‐Commentary

02/15 15 Stakeholder –Consortium Commentary from 15 reviewers, reacting to recommendations.

Commentary Summary

Invited 35 Representative Stakeholders, including Consortium, to


121





Review/Comment. Direct input into revisions made on Section 3 Final Draft Recommendations


04/15 107+ Update to Stakeholders

Newsletter N/A

33 Area‐Specific Roundtables for Overall Sustainability Plan Chestertown NY

4/6/15 Update to Stakeholders

Meeting Notes

Direct Observation

34 Public Review of Final Draft Technical Report/FHEA Emphasize Review by Participating Partners and Stakeholder List‐Serve

5/14/15, 5/26/15 Com‐ments Due

23 at PIM

Public Comments Summary of Comments

Critical & Comparative Analysis

35 Release of Final Technical Report/FHEA

06/15 TBD Residual Public Comment

Final Planning Document

Mixed Methods


122

Chapter 9. Stakeholder and Consortium Participation What is a Stakeholder? “A stakeholder can be defined broadly as one who: (a) is affected by or affects a particular problem or issue and/or (b) is responsible for problems or issues and/or (c) has perspectives or knowledge needed to develop good solutions or strategies, and/or (d) has the power and resources to block or implement solutions or strategies”(Welp, 2001). The Adirondack Gateway Council recruited and supported stakeholder participation by using a “Bottom Up” Participatory Action Research process (Ruzow‐Holland, 2010) to select stakeholders and create both a formal and informal participation pathway. A preliminary list of stakeholders and constituents was prepared by the Adirondack Gateway Council staff and the consulting planner based upon Welp’s definition (2001) and the following characteristics: Functional groups, such as planners, housing, transportation, and social/human service

providers.

Groups or individuals customarily voiceless or traditionally uninvited to the table. These include senior citizens, very low‐income persons, and protected classes such as the disabled, racial, and ethnic groups.

Informal community leaders and knowledge “brokers” that are part of the social network, or sub‐groups dispersed throughout the region. These individuals can move information along and across social networks.

Local Government Leaders.

Stakeholders who:

Represent the diverse and multiple interests of the region.

Listen well to the voices of the entire community.

Are big‐picture thinkers.

Are well respected or rather unknown.

Believe in moving forward through achieving consensus.

Have some form of jurisdiction over the outcomes.

Possess overlapping geographies.

Represent the Decision‐Making Institutions

Are outside organizations with inside‐the‐region interests.

Have very specific areas of interest or concern.

Are knowledgeable or experienced in a particular topic.

Show eagerness to participate.


123

Three rounds of recruitment were conducted in 2014. Recruitment efforts were rewarded with a growing representative and comprehensive stakeholder list. Error! Not a valid bookmark self‐reference. provides a summary profile of the kinds of stakeholders included on the Listserv. A full listing of the 106+ stakeholders can be found in Appendix 2‐1.

Table 61: Stakeholder Involvement Source: Author, 2015

Of particular note is the involvement of the Saratoga‐North Country Continuum of Care Warren/Washington/Hamilton Housing Committee. This is an “organization of organizations.” Current member groups are noted in the Stakeholder analysis and in the Listserv. The current co‐chairs are senior staff at Office of Community Services and Community Action. Other members include: representatives of the Family Services Association, DSS, Wait House, Mental Health, Domestic Violence Project, Health Care for Homeless Veterans, Soldier On, AGC, Adirondack Vets House, Office for the Aging, and Southern Adirondack Independent Living. There were a few institutions that were invited to participate that indicated they could not. These included: Adirondack Trust Company (bank), Baldwin Real Estate Company, Children’s Committee of Warren County, Inc., City of Glens Falls Building & Codes Dept., North Country Ministry, NYSDOT, Region One, Salvation Army, TD Bank North, The Feeder Canal Alliance, Washington ‐ Saratoga ‐ Warren ‐ Hamilton ‐ Essex (WSWHE) BOCES. We analyzed representation in two ways. The first way was to compare each stakeholder’s area of interest to the subject areas of the Housing, Transportation, and Fair Housing Equity Assessment. The second way was to compare the stakeholder list to the HUD FHEA. Table 62 shows a simple tally. Generally, higher numbers show greater representation. Of the eleven subject areas in the pink/center section, ten are well balanced with a score of 50 and above. Catholic Charities and Adirondack Emergency Community Chaplains represent organized religion in the region. In the right‐hand, yellow section, three of the five FHEA criteria are met by almost the entire group. A significant number of stakeholders (43) have influence over resources and investments. It would be impractical to expect 100% participation in the

Stakeholder Involvement

Local Government Blind‐Disabled‐Literacy Advocates‐Legal Aid

State & Federal Housing Interests/Affiliates United Way‐Family Services

Public/Private/Non‐Profit Housing Providers Banks‐Real Estate‐Developers

Chamber of Commerce Community Action Agencies

NAACP Senior Centers

Workforce Development Board Health Care, Mental Health

Public‐Private Transportation Service Providers Religious Organizations

YMCA and Youth Organizations, Education, Cooperative Extension

County‐City‐Town Planning Offices and Community Development Departments

County‐City Departments and Agencies: Health, Social Services, Veterans, Police, Water‐Sewer, Aging & Disabilities


124

implementation process. However, a hefty level of interested stakeholders (46) is an important indicator of momentum going forward.

Table 62: Stakeholder Representation Analysis Source: Author, 2015

The Stakeholder List was mapped (see Figure ) using the limited data that zip codes provide. The ListServ includes countywide agencies and organizations with jurisdiction over the “white spaces.” Direct representation is well distributed in the shaded areas and the remaining areas are represented by agencies and organizations with offices in the shaded areas.

Recruitment‐Involvement of Interests Representing Marginal Populations

HUD’s program places significant emphasis on participation by traditionally marginalized groups as part of the vision of a sustainable community. Engagement activities should prioritize ways to involve communities traditionally marginalized from planning processes, such as low‐income individuals and families, limited English speakers, persons with disabilities, and the elderly (Docket No. FR‐5396‐N‐03). AGC encouraged participation of

Figure 68: Citizen Participation: Stakeholder List Source: Warren County GIS, 2014. To view a full‐sized map go to: https://agcmaps.wordpress.com/project‐type/housing‐transportation‐equity/


125

stakeholders in the planning process, particularly those who are protected classes, marginalized constituencies, and minorities. A three‐pronged strategy was implemented early and often in the planning process in order to achieve meaningful, two‐way exchange of knowledge about ways to reduce social and economic disparities. Some of the ways we found to do this are:

We recruited institutions who serve a client‐constituency that includes marginal

populations to participate in the ListServ.

We designed and distributed a Citizen Survey directly (and purposefully) to marginalized

populations and groups.

We set aside a portion of the HUD Budget to reimburse a subset of organizations who

serve marginalized constituencies and represent their interests. Funds were used to

subsidize expenses associated with public engagement and outreach, including

subsidized travel to attend events, staff time at meetings, hosting meetings, reading

materials, and helping with direct outreach. We selected the most experienced, most

suitable agency partners to encourage participation of marginalized populations in the

planning process. The list included:

Washington County United Way‐RSVP NAACP Glens Falls Division Washington County Eco. Opportunity Council Washington County DSS Southern Adirondack Independent Living (SAIL) Waite House Adirondack Emergency Community Chaplains Glens Falls Housing Authority Family Service Assoc. of Glens Falls, Inc. Greater Glens Falls Senior Center Greater Glens Falls Transportation Authority Town of Hadley Glens Falls Home Town of Corinth Warren‐Hamilton Counties Community Action Agency (Food Pantry) Washington County Office for the Aging and Disabilities Resource Center

There are at least 51‐stakeholder organization plugged into the FHEA that represent the needs of Hispanic residents, migrant and tourism workers:

Warren‐Hamilton Counties Community Action Agency

Warren County Health Services Family YMCA of the Glens Falls Area National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Glens Falls Division Washington County Office for the Aging and Disabilities Resource Center Greater Glens Falls Senior Citizens Center, Inc. NYS Homes and Community Renewal Glens Falls Area Youth Center Warren/Washington/Hamilton Housing Committee (part of the Saratoga‐North Country Continuum of Care)

Washington County Social Services


126

Warren County Veterans' Services Warren County Headstart, Inc. at Queensbury Catholic Charities of Saratoga, Warren, & Washington Counties Cornell University Cooperative Extension Washington County Creating Healthy Places to Live, Work and Play ‐ Warren and Washington Counties Glens Falls Hospital

Washington County Veterans Service Agency Adirondack Emergency Community Chaplains Washington County Public Health Glens Falls Association for the Blind, Inc. Literacy NY Warren County Health Services Warren‐Hamilton Community Action Glens Falls Housing Authority Medical Answering Services RPC of Saratoga County The Senior Center of the Kingsbury & Fort Edward Area, Inc. Washington County Economic Opportunity Council Moreau Community Center Saratoga County Social Services Saratoga County Medicaid Department Saratoga, Warren, Washington Counties Workforce Development Board NYS Rural Housing Coalition Cornell University Cooperative Extension Warren County Literacy NY New York State Department of Health Glens Falls Hospital Family Services Association of Glens Falls, Inc. Tri‐County United Way The Conkling Center Wait House Warren County Social Services Shelters of Saratoga Inc. Legal Aid Society of Northeastern New York, Saratoga Springs Office Southern Adirondack Independent Living Center Office of Community Services for Warren and Washington Counties New York State Homes & Community Renewal Office of the Aging The Open Door

Warren‐Hamilton Counties Office for the Aging

NYS Department of Education

Nutrition Outreach and Education Program, Washington County


127

Consortium and Stakeholder Engagement in Housing, Transportation, and FHEA Content, Findings and Recommendations Bridge

As mentioned in Section 1, Chapter 1, it is important to note the distinction between Adirondack Gateway Council Membership, the AGC Consortium, and the HUD study area because they are not one and the same. There are geographic and representational overlaps, but each group is rather distinctive. Council Membership is formal and official, granting members certain rights, conditions, and duties associated as per the bylaws of AGC, Inc. The Consortium is an informal, ad hoc, mixture of various interests, including some AGC Members and other regional stakeholders who have come together to help out on the HUD planning Grant. The HUD study area (see Section 1; Chapter 1) was defined in 2011 as part of the HUD grant application.

Consortium Membership and Meetings during the planning process Who is the Adirondack Gateway Council Consortium? Members were originally recruited when

the AGC was established in 2011. Chief Elected Officials and senior staff represent many

regional and local interests across a broad spectrum of issues. Membership is open and

evolving. Local governments can also opt‐in as they choose.

Table 63: AGC Consortium Members Source: Author, 2015

AGC Consortium Members

CEO of AGC Town of Chester Supervisor

ADK/GF Transportation Council Town of Corinth Supervisor

Warren County EDCF Town of Warrensburg

City of Glens Falls Village of Hudson Falls Supervisor

GF Local Development Corp Chairman of Warren County Board

Village of Fort Edward Supervisor Town of Bolton Supervisor

Town of Moreau Supervisor Town of Thurman Supervisor

Chairman of Town of Kingsbury Village of Lake George

Ward 1 Supervisor‐GF Town of Day Supervisor

Chairman of Washington County Board Town of Horicon Supervisor

Glens Falls Housing Authority Director Town of Stony Creek

Town of Fort Edward Town of Johnsburg Supervisor

Ward 3 Supervisor‐GF Saratoga County

Town of Lake George Town of Hague

Town of Queensbury Supervisor & Deputy Town of Lake Luzerne

Director Warren County Planning & Comm Dev Town of Granville Supervisor

Ward 5 Supervisor‐GF Village of South Glens Falls

Greater Glens Falls Transit Town of Hadley Supervisor


128

The AGC Membership, including the Consortium, formally met 12 times (2/2013‐5/2015) during

the Housing, Transportation, and FHEA planning process. The AGC Membership, as the

oversight board for the HUD SCPG, was routinely updated by the AGC staff on the status of all

HUD SCPG tasks. Invitations were issued to formal AGC Members and ad hoc Consortium

members to participate directly in their respective interest areas, including serving as

stakeholders for housing, transportation, and Fair Housing Equity issues.

Relationship between Consortium and Housing/Transportation Stakeholder Engagement AGC Members and Consortium members were recruited to join the Stakeholder Listserv and

many did. The illustration below compares the consortium representation with the Housing‐

Transportation‐FHEA Stakeholder Listserv. It is evident from Figure 69 below that a significant

majority of the AGC Consortium were represented in the housing, transportation, and FHEA

“go‐to” list (center

overlapping column). In

order to fulfill the spirit of

the planning effort, the AGC

Consortium helped recruit

additional stakeholders to

the process (far right

column). Additionally,

engaged stakeholders

suggested other key

interests who were

contacted and agreed to

participate (far right

column).

Process for Consortium/Stakeholder Engagement: Content, Findings & Recommendations We used several methods to engage stakeholders, including consortium members, in the

development of content, and ultimately in the findings and recommendations. These are

detailed in Section 2 and 3 summarized below:

1. Engaged stakeholders, including consortium members to shape the substance of data

Figure 69: AGC Consortium Comparative Analysis‐Engagement Source: Author, 2015


129

a. Throughout the planning process, stakeholders, including consortium members,

contributed suggestions on what kinds of information should be collected and

analyzed as part of the development of Section 1 Regional Profile. They did this

during exchange events (see listing in Section 2) and by directly contacting the

principal investigator.

b. Stakeholders, including consortium members, played a direct role in the design

and deployment of two grassroots surveys—one for providers and one for

citizens. They did this during events and through a survey subcommittee.

2. Targeted External Review for Draft Findings and Recommendations Bridge

a. In February/March, 2015 the draft FHEA Findings and Recommendations Bridge

were presented to a key subset of stakeholders, including AGC Consortium

Partners to conduct an external review. Thirty‐three were solicited to conduct a

close review. Fifteen stakeholders, including consortium members, provided

approximately 225 written comments. These comments demonstrated serious

consideration of the findings and recommendations and emphasized the topics

and positions of importance to them. As mentioned in Section 2 and 3, the

findings and recommendations were revised to reflect the comments provided

by this external review.

The agencies noted below with ** are directly affiliated with Consortium

Members and include county or local government agencies and departments.

1. Warren County Planning Office**

2. Town of Chester**

3. Calogero Associates

4. Town of Queensbury Community Development Department**

5. Greater Glens Falls Senior Citizens Center, Inc.

6. Warren/Washington/Hamilton Housing Committee (part of the

Saratoga‐North Country Continuum of Care)

7. Warren/Washington/Hamilton Housing Committee (part of the

Saratoga‐North Country Continuum of Care) [Two different members]

8. Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council (AGFTC)**

9. Adirondack Emergency Community Chaplains

10. Washington County Public Health**

11. Glens Falls Housing Authority** 12. Housing Assistance Council 13. Family Services Association of Glens Falls, Inc.


130

14. Greater Glens Falls Transit System**

15. The Glens Falls Home, Inc.

3. Invited a full public review and second external review of Draft Findings and

Recommendations Bridge.

a. Advertised opportunities to comment through various broadcast, print, and

website outlets through May 26, 2015.

b. Hosted a public informational meeting on May 14, 2015. More than 23 people

attended, many of whom were consortium and stakeholder members.

c. Invited stakeholders, including consortium member through direct email to

comment on the draft report, including the findings, recommendations, and

implementation plan.


131

Chapter 10. Results: Highlights from the Face‐to‐Face Engagement Events This chapter summarizes and highlights the face‐to‐face engagement activities and provides a qualitative analysis of the knowledge gained from the dialogue and discussions that occurred.

Face‐to‐Face Event List The following table and map recaps the engagement events considered for this chapter.

Table 64: Highlights from Face‐To‐Face Engagement Events Source: Author, 2015

Selected Face‐To‐Face Activity‐Event Date(s) # Participants

Key Informant‐Focus Group Meeting #1 Glens Falls, CD Director City of Glens Falls, GGFT Transportation Director; Director Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council

3/10/2014 1:30‐3:00

PM 3

Key Informant‐Focus Group Meetings #2 Glens Falls United Way, Housing & Housing Authority, Local, City, and County Government, Agencies representing Homeless Youth, Elderly, Transportation, Community Services, and NAACP.

4/22/14 1:30‐3:00

PM 5

Key Informant‐Focus Group Meetings #3 Glens Falls United Way, Housing & Housing Authority, Local, City, and County Government, Agencies representing Homeless Youth, Elderly, Transportation, Community Services, and NAACP

4/24/14 1:00‐2:30

PM 7

Key Informant‐Focus Group Meeting #4 Glens Falls Social Service Commissioners & Staff from three AGC counties

5/20/14 1:00 PM‐2:30 PM

5

Key Informant‐Focus Group Meeting # 5 Glens Falls Marginal Populations‐Participating Outreach Providers Meeting: Executive Director, Glens Falls Housing Authority, President, NAACP Glens Falls Division, Executive Director, United Way of Warren/Washington/Northern Saratoga County ,Co‐Chair, Affordable Housing Coalition of the AGC Region, Executive Director, Washington County Economic Opportunity Council, Executive Director, Warren‐Hamilton Counties Community Action Agency, City of Glens Falls CD Director.

6/19/14 1:00 PM

7

Key Informant‐Focus Group Conference Call #6 with Follow‐up Memo to Participating Outreach Providers.

7/30/14 Noon

3

Listening Sessions with Existing Groups #1 Meeting of the Saratoga‐North Country Continuum of Care & Warren/Washington/Hamilton Housing Committee: Office of Community Services, Family Services, Washington County DSS, Community Action, WAIT House, WWAMH, Domestic Violence Project, Health Care for Homeless Veterans, Soldier On, Adirondack Vets House, Office for the Aging, Community Representative, & SAIL.

9/2/14 Noon

18

Listening Sessions with Existing Groups #2 Meeting of the Glens Falls Division of the NAACP.

9/4/14 7:00 PM

12


132

Selected Face‐To‐Face Activity‐Event Date(s) # Participants

Area‐Specific Roundtables Northwest Saratoga‐Southwest Warren Counties, Hadley Co‐Hosted by the Town of Hadley, Saratoga County

9/15/14 3‐4:30 PM

16

Area‐Specific Roundtables Northern Warren County, Chestertown Co‐Hosted by the Town of Chester

9/15/14 7:00 PM

30

Area‐Specific Roundtables Washington County Offices, Fort Edward Co‐Hosted by the Washington County EOC

9/16/14 10:30 AM

20

Area‐Specific Roundtables South Glens Falls, Town of Moreau, Saratoga County Co‐Hosted by the Town of Moreau and the Moreau Community Center

9/17/14 8:30 AM

15

360° 1:1 Phone Interview Owner: Brant Lake Taxi 9/29/14 9:00 AM

1

360° 1:1 Phone Interview Washington County Public Health Director 10/02/14 10:15AM

1

360° 1:1 Phone Interview Warrensburg Town Council Member Owner Adirondack Real Estate

10/9/14 2:00 PM

1

360° 1:1 Phone Interview‐Sweep Adirondack Housing Trust 12/12/14 1

360° 1:1 Phone Interview‐Sweep Washington County Planner 12/15/14 1

360° 1:1 Phone Interview‐Sweep Private Developer/Resident/Former NYS Commissioner of Housing

12/30/14 1


133

Figure 70: Citizen Participation: Group Events Source: Warren County GIs, 2014


134

Event Engagement Methods Six Key Informant, Focus Group meetings, two listening sessions hosted by existing groups, four area public roundtables, and six 360 Degree, 1:1 Phone Interviews generated a substantial discussion record. The timing and date of the events were purposefully scheduled to encourage participation by a variety of audiences. Multiple meetings in various locations were also offered so that optimal attendance might occur. Meeting invitations, suitable to the kind of event/activity, were distributed and follow up was conducted. Agendas were circulated and included a list of discussion questions that incorporated suggestions from the HUD FHEA Guidance documents. The table below lists the discussion questions used for focus groups, listening sessions, and interview.

Table 65 Face‐to‐Face Event Discussion Questions Source: Author, 2015

Face‐to‐Face Event Discussion Questions: Focus Groups, Listening Sessions, Interviews

What public transportation investment decisions are contemplated or on the drawing board and how will they affect opportunity for residents? To what extent do real‐time (now) transportation system decisions in the AGC Region consider these Federal policies across all demographic segments. HUD considers these key decision points (e.g., scenario plan adoption, housing plan completion, transportation alignment adoption, complete streets plans, transportation route and schedule plan adoptions, priority development area selection, housing subsidy criteria adoption, workforce development plans, school capital improvement plans, etc.).

What are the barriers to action that need to be overcome in order to improve mobility and livability in: Greater Glens Falls Larger Villages and Hamlets Back Country and the Countryside (including in the Adirondack Park)

Where are the gaps in AGC Regional housing and transportation infrastructure or services?

Are there other barriers to action (besides economic feasibility‐‐cost/benefit) that exist? How deep an economic subsidy is needed to provide public transportation to the most remote and rural areas of the AGC region?

Who are the boards, commissions, and councils that need to be brought up to speed and align their strategies in order to achieve a more comprehensive impact in reducing barriers to action and fostering investments?

Do we acknowledge ‐‐and how do we plan for rural quality of life preferences for independent mobility via single auto/truck use? How well used are existing incentives that link people to jobs (i.e. the carpool/commuter parking lots (park and ride) and others)?

In what ways can “Access to Opportunity” be expanded in the AGC Region? (Access to Opportunity is defined by HUD as, “jobs, transit, affordable housing, good schools and other infrastructure”)

Is there a crossover point in the cost/gallon of gas where residents will more seriously consider public transportation options?


135

Face‐to‐Face Event Discussion Questions: Focus Groups, Listening Sessions, Interviews

Is there something better than the transportation system status quo?

How can organizations and agencies help AGC community leaders make informed and sustainable infrastructure and service decisions that meet Federal Policy?

What are the future housing needs throughout the AGC region, including northern Warren and Washington Counties?

Are there ways to improve housing affordability, particularly for marginalized populations?

What are the planned infrastructure improvements and how might they affect or link to low/moderate income neighborhoods?

To what extent do real‐time (now) housing and transportation decisions in the AGC Region access to opportunity across all demographic segments?

How deep an economic subsidy is needed to provide affordable housing and transportation choice to the most remote and rural areas of the AGC region?

How well used are existing incentives that link people to jobs?

For the public, area roundtables, the questions were simplified:

Community Discussion Questions to Assist in the Development of an ACTION PLAN

1) Local governments make many important decisions. They need to gather information

and make good decisions quickly.

a. What needs to be done to help them in their jobs?

b. What organizations need to be "up to speed" on local and regional issues so they

can pitch in and assist local decision makers?

c. Who are the boards, commissions, and organizations that can assist in this

process?

2) The Adirondack Gateway Council region includes rural and country living choices, small

towns, hamlets, and the City of Glens Falls. Sometimes it is hard for people to live

where they want to because they cannot get where they need to go: job, shopping,

school, appointments, etc.

a. What could make everyone's life better?

b. In what ways can “Access to Opportunity” be expanded in the AGC Region?

(Access to Opportunity is defined as jobs, transit, affordable housing, good


136

schools, fresh food, telecommunication (cell/broadband) and other services and

facilities.)

c. What should be done to make it easier for people to live where they want to live

and still get where they need to go?

d. What is the single most important thing that could happen in your community

that would help everyone? It could be a new company coming to town with

jobs, internet and cable service, sewer and water, a farm market or other

shopping, a new school, new housing opportunities.

i. How would this help your community? Be as specific as you can.

ii. What are any barriers –barriers (if any) to any action that you have

recommended before these improvements in your community and

region can be undertaken?

Meetings were facilitated, and while the discussion questions provided a boundary for the discussion, conversation was flexible and allowed to flow freely, directed by the participants. Notes were taken. For five focus group meetings, the notes were scribed and projected onto a screen so that all participants could view the construction of the discussion on “paper.” Post‐event follow up was also conducted. Meeting notes were circulated from the focus group and phone interviews to the participant so that they could validate content. A sampling of meeting notes is attached in Appendix 2‐2.

Methods to Analyze the Spoken Word One method of summarizing the conversation uses a social science method called Generative Themes Coding (Ruzow Holland, 2010). Commentary from events was transcribed as raw data to a master transcript comprised for more than 400 comments within an Excel spreadsheet. Generative Themes Coding was applied to distill major themes for focused HUD themes of mobility, access, equity, and shelter (see Table 66). This analysis produced 12 descriptive themes and summarized topics (driven by 400+ comments (see Appendix 2‐3). Tabulated results were quantified by frequency and ranking of theme and topics. A consistency analysis with Livability Principles was conducted.

Table 66: Developing Generative Themes from Participant Commentary Source: Ann Ruzow Holland, Ph.D., 2015

AGC Task 2 Housing, Transportation, & Fair Housing Equity Assessment. Developing Generative Themes from Participant Commentary.

Prepared by Social Scientist, Ann Ruzow Holland, Ph.D. March, 2015

Dialogue‐Sourced Generative Topics Events, 125 Voices, 420 Comments.

Frequency Noted

Thematic Rankings

Better Partnerships, Case Management and Integrated Planning 209 1

Policy Changes & New Thinking 102 2

Real Time Coordinated Human Services Regional Transportation System 100 3


137

AGC Task 2 Housing, Transportation, & Fair Housing Equity Assessment. Developing Generative Themes from Participant Commentary.

Prepared by Social Scientist, Ann Ruzow Holland, Ph.D. March, 2015

Dialogue‐Sourced Generative Topics Events, 125 Voices, 420 Comments.

Frequency Noted

Thematic Rankings

Attend to Diverse Regional Transport Concerns 97 4

Boost Housing Supply‐Quantity, Type and Quality 93 5

Improve and Expand Affordable Housing 76 6

Cost of Living is outpacing Income, and Benefits 73 7

Plan ahead for a rapidly changing region 45 8

Grow proactive wrap around Housing intervention services. 37 9

Communicate with Residents about existing and expanded services. 34 10

More and better paying Jobs‐‐Job Training, Education, Transport 33 11

The People of the AGC Region are special. 16 12

Result Highlights from the Face‐to‐Face Engagement Events Not every community is uniform, nor does it want to –or need to be. However, stakeholders tell us that demand for all types and sizes of subsidized housing are pervasive throughout the AGC Region. They emphasize that improved mobility is essential to employment in several areas.

The 12 descriptive themes were then used to develop Straw man Recommendations Working Document. Through an iterative process of comparison, the 12 themes were also compared to the Section 1 Data Profile, the results of the Provider and Citizen Surveys, and the Section 3 Findings and Recommendations. Figure 71: Data Analysis: Deliberative Engagement Results issues and Concerns with Mobility, Shelter, Equity, and Access to Opportunity in the AGC Region shows the percentage of comments supporting these themes.


138

Figure 71: Data Analysis: Deliberative Engagement Results issues and Concerns with Mobility, Shelter, Equity, and Access to Opportunity in the AGC Region Source: Author, 2015


139

Chapter 11. Results: Highlights from the Housing‐Transportation Provider Survey

Service providers include all levels of government, organizations, departments and agencies,

and stakeholder groups. Together they provide significant direct and indirect services that

affect “Access to Opportunity.” As noted in earlier chapters of this section, More than 100 key

stakeholders, many of whom provide housing and “mobility”‐related services, were “plugged

in” to this planning process. It was determined that direct inquiry to providers and citizens,

would be very beneficial and add great value to our knowledge of barriers, opportunities, and

conditions.

The Provider Survey Method Survey design considered appropriate kinds of Likert scales and places for comments and closed

answers. The FHEA guidance from HUD served as the framework for the kinds of questions

included. In addition to a literature search, including the National Household Travel Survey,

focus groups discussed potential questions for a citizen and an institutional survey/interview.

Volunteers, including the Housing Assistance Council (HAC) and AGC staff, agreed to review the

surveys and contribute suggestions as it developed from April through its launch in August of

2014. Early in August 2014, an on‐line digital survey instrument, hosted by Survey Monkey was

launched. We gave respondents several weeks to complete the survey. The original survey

closeout date of August 22 was extended through September 10, 2014 to accommodate

latecomers. Several rounds of notification were distributed to the stakeholder listserv and

expanded to refer organizations. Referrals continued throughout the open survey period to

encourage any service provider, local government, or agency that was interested and willing to

complete the survey. These were added to the listserv. We emphasized during our survey

correspondence that it was important for providers to contribute to the content of the plan and

communicate issues, interests, and concerns relevant to the topics.

Provider Survey Results The Provider Survey was an on‐line digital 51‐item survey instrument hosted by Survey Monkey.

Intending to reach stakeholder groups advocating for marginalized populations, it was

distributed to 107+ stakeholder organizations. Total surveys completed totaled 47 for a 43.9%

response rate. The results are very helpful and representative of the sample with close to a

50% response rate. The 47 responders provide services that saturate the AGC Region, including

the white areas on the opposite map, and represent the various subject areas related to

housing, “mobility,” equity, and access.

Data review and analysis were conducted by social scientist, Dr. Ann Ruzow Holland. Most of

the questions use Survey Monkey’s basic quantitative analysis presentations. Dr. Holland

conducted further qualitative and quantitative analysis of specific sets of questions that

included descriptive data using Open Coding/Generative Themes analysis methods.


140

Analyzing qualitative (words) data

involves development and assignment of

themes and categories and looking for

patterns and contrasts. The full data sets

reported are attached as Appendix 2‐4.

They include the quantitative tables and

charts summarizing the 51 questions and

qualitative analysis of specific questions.

Provider comments are unedited and are

presented in the format they were

received for each of the questions that

allowed comments. Each question is

analyzed separately. The results for most

questions include a summary table,

chart/graphic, and response rate.

Further analysis conducted on several

linked and related questions are noted as

“analyses.”

The Provider Survey offered another way

to ask stakeholders about their issues,

interests, and concerns. A high‐level

characterization of the responses to the

provider survey show:

Most of the providers indicate that

collaboration is already standard

operating procedure and that the

networks are fairly expansive across diverse agency types.

Providers are successful at sharing programs, referrals, ideas, advocacy, education, and

conducting cross‐agency planning.

Seven out of ten providers are planning investments and need to be working together to

in order to achieve a more comprehensive impact in reducing barriers to action and

fostering investments.

Providers often mention three challenges to residents of the region: Housing Choice,

Transportation Options, and Employment.

Challenges are most often faced by the most vulnerable populations: the homeless, low

income, elderly, veterans, and mentally/physically impaired households.

Results for some key questions are presented in the following pages. They are NOT in question‐

sequence. We begin with the barriers, follow with the challenges, and then move to needs,

opportunities, and investments.

Figure 72: Citizen Participation‐Provider Survey Source: Warren County GIS, 2014


141

Barriers to Mobility and Housing Choice Questions 17, 18, and 19 were analyzed together and the results are reported in the following

table. In their own words, providers express the causes and places where barriers exist.

(Q17) What do you think the barriers are to mobility and housing choice for people in the AGC region? (Q18) Where do these barriers exist? (Q19) Why do you think these barriers exist? Most frequently mentioned are limited transit service hours, limited housing choices, affordable “mobility” options, and affordable, clean, and safe housing.

Region Wide

Northern/Outlying Rural Areas of

Washington and Warren Counties

Limited transit service hours and area and affordable transportation options. Inadequate marketing of public transportation and active transportation options Bus lines do not run to the hotels on outskirts of the county therfore making it difficult for those staying in them to get to services.

Financial costs. Auto dominated culture. Heavy auto advertising. Cheap gas. Lack of awareness of pollution implications on health and community quality of living.

YES YES

Limited Choices and availablity of Affordable Housing Clean, safe and affordable housing. Skyrocketing rental prices in this area create an extreme housing choice for low income families or any young people trying to get a start. Low income families have to reside where they can afford to pay rent - affordable housing is often sub-standard and not in proximity to where jobs are available

We are finding that the remaining stock of both lots and existing homes are more marginal and complicated than they were ten years ago. This means that each project requires substantially more funding and time to complete. There are some communities where there may be only one or two homes within an affordable price range, and if so, it's probably because they require abnormally large investments to become habitable. Housing options in rural areas may be a little more affordable, but then the transportation issue arise. s

YES YES

Me

nti

on

ed

O

fte

n

High unemployment, low self esteem, bad choices in life, unable to find a positive meaning and purpose in life Mental health, substance abuse, inadequate education and an inability to manage money. Mental illness and self treatment with drugs/alcohol is also quite prevalent and that population is ignored or avoided by the majority of people who could have a positive influence on the region.

Customers' must overcome their own internal barriers to have sustained housing and employment. Households failing to prioritize education.Poor work ethic/Lack of education due to parents who do not value academics/ family history of dependence on social services. people have become self focused and absorbed - angry/confused - no idea of our past, where we need to be and where and how to move forward in a positive way

YES YES

Current rules and regulations for Subsidy Programs are too restrictive in inflexible

Income thresholds are set too strictly. There is no room for monetary variance on a case by case scenerio. To maintain consistancy, however, I still believe a panel should work each claim on a case by case scenerio and limits should be set on how many times one person can apply for each available benefit.

YES YES

Homeless shelter no facility YES YES

Elderly Unable to remain in their homes and maintain independence Inadequate planning for safely "aging in place" YES YES

Limited area within walkable distance of services and supplies. YES

Health issues can prohibit some people from making a comfortable income or from working at all. People who decide to apply for SSI/SSD will be living on a limited income. That is a barrier to affordable housing and transportation.

Gas prices for those with cars; transporation options for those without. YES YES

Poverty. Cost of Living High combined housing & transportation costs.

Low income speaks for itself. It takes a regular comfortable income to afford safe housing, utilities, transportation and food. Living on SSI/SSD or working for minimum wage is not a comfortable income. To some degree the poverty is due to many jobs being seasonal and/or low-paying.

YES YES

Rural Nature of AGC Region cost of living YES YES

lack of knowledge regarding how to navigate the "system". lack of sufficent options and lack of knowledge about what options are available

lack of development, absentee landlords and degraded properties, poverty, lack of transport

YES YES

lack of jobs offering sustainable wages. Predominance of service sector and retail employment.

Federal, state and local government fails to fund the programs and services needed to creation of employment opportunities leading to sustainable wages

YES YES

Me

nti

on

ed

Le

ss

Fre

qu

en

tly

Me

nti

on

ed

Le

ss

F

req

ue

ntl

y

Questions 17, 18 & 19 Combined Analysis: Generative Themes

Mobility and Housing Choice Barriers/Impediments

Why Barriers Exist

Where Barriers Exist

Fre

qu

en

tly

Me

nti

on

ed

Table 67: Questions 17, 18 & 19 Combined Analysis ‐ Generative Themes Appendix 2‐4. To view a full‐sized copy of the survey results go to: http://www.agcny.org/files/public/005_agc_t2‐h‐t‐fhea_app_2‐4_provider_survey_results_v5f011115‐public_review_copy.pdf


142

Segregation Question 28 asked respondents to identify how the AGC region is segregated. Eleven percent

(11%) responded “Other”. The five “other” respondents noted:

“Opportunities to obtain or acquire suitable housing and transportation hinge much

more greatly on income than race or ethnicity.”

“n/a”

“Geographically”

“Culturally. I do think people tend to identify with the more rural areas or more

cosmopolitan communities within the AGC region.”

“For better or for worse, non‐white population is not high enough to create

segregated communities.”

Figure 73: Question 28 of Provider Survey “How is the AGC Region Segregated?”Source: Appendix 2‐4. To view a full‐sized copy of the survey results go to: http://www.agcny.org/files/public/005_agc_t2‐h‐t‐fhea_app_2‐4_provider_survey_results_v5f011115‐public_review_copy.pdf


143

Question 29 asked respondents to “List up to three factors driving this segregation.” Most

indicated that segregation was predominantly economic in nature. One respondent noted, “…

it is apparent that opportunities to obtain or acquire suitable housing and transportation hinge

much more greatly on income than race or ethnicity.” The most often cited drivers of

segregation were housing adequacy and mobility. Figure 74 identifies the various factors that

respondents believe influence segregation.

Figure 74: Analysis of Question 29 ‐ Provider Survey, “List up to Three Factors Driving this Segregation.”Source: Appendix 2‐4. To view a full‐sized copy of the provider survey results go to: http://www.agcny.org/files/public/005_agc_t2‐h‐t‐fhea_app_2‐4_provider_survey_results_v5f011115‐public_review_copy.pdf

Question 29: List up to three factors driving this segregation.


144

Challenges to Access Eleven questions (Q32a‐k) on access to various components of Opportunity were included in

the Provider Survey. The most frequently noted disparities in access exist for homeless and

low‐income households. However, the elderly, veterans, and the mentally/physically

impaired are also faced with the greatest challenges obtaining Access to Opportunity.

Table 68: Analysis of Questions 32a‐k ‐ Provider SurveySource: Appendix 2‐4. To view a full‐sized copy of the provider survey results go to: http://www.agcny.org/files/public/005_agc_t2‐h‐t‐fhea_app_2‐4_provider_survey_results_v5f011115‐public_review_copy.pdf


145

Access to Rental Housing Supply Providers noted that the three most critical problems facing the rental housing supply in the

AGC Region were cost (Affordability), safety & health, and availability type & location.

Across all

vulnerable groups,

the major

challenges to

Access continue to

be:

Housing choice,

Employment,

economic mobility,

and

Transportation

Figure 75: Rental Housing Challenges Source: Appendix 2‐4. To view a full‐sized copy of the provider survey results go to: http://www.agcny.org/files/public/005_agc_t2‐h‐t‐fhea_app_2‐4_provider_survey_results_v5f011115‐public_review_copy.pdf

Figure 76: Critical Problems of Rental Housing Supply Source: Appendix 2‐4. To view a full‐sized copy of the provider survey results go to: http://www.agcny.org/files/public/005_agc_t2‐h‐t‐fhea_app_2‐4_provider_survey_results_v5f011115‐public_review_copy.pdf


146

Housing and Transportation Services and Facilities Needed Questions 14, 15, and 16 were analyzed together and the results are reported in the Table 69

and following two tables.

(Q14) What housing services and facilities do you feel are needed in the AGC Region and where

are they needed?

(Q15) What transportation services and facilities do you feel are needed in the AGC Region and

where are they needed?

(Q16) What other services and infrastructure are needed in the AGC Region and where are they

needed?

Respondents identified 18 kinds of housing needs. The Number 1, most frequently mentioned

housing needs were workforce, emergency, and rent regulated housing. While most

Table 69: Questions 14 & 16 Combined Analysis: Geography Mentioned and Frequency of Comments Source: Appendix 2‐4. To view a full‐sized copy of the provider survey results go to: http://www.agcny.org/files/public/005_agc_t2‐h‐t‐fhea_app_2‐4_provider_survey_results_v5f011115‐public_review_copy.pdf


147

respondents did not mention a specific place, Greater Glens Falls, Washington and Warren

Counties were ranked second, third, and fourth in frequency as identified sites.

Eleven (11) types of transportation needs were identified. The highest rank need was for

public transportation services, including expansion of routes and services for work hours. The

second highest priority was for better and inexpensive rural transportation services to

improve access to opportunity. While most respondents did not mention a specific place,

Upcountry Warren County, Washington County, and South Glens Falls were ranked second,

third, and fourth in frequency as identified sites.

Transportation Need Identified in Q15 &16

Non Specified

Place-AGC Region

Washington County (north south

central)

South Bound Transit

West Glens Falls

Greater Glens Falls

Up County Warren

Northern Saratoga County

Warrenburg

Moreau (south)

S. Glens Falls

Frequency Total

Need Ranking

Public Transportation Services and expansion of routes and services for work hours

7 3 1 1 6 1 2 1 22 1

More effective public transit in city 1 1 4

Better and inexpensive Rural Transporation services to improve access to health, social services and shopping

3 1 2 2 8 2

See AGFTC Long Range Plan 2035 1 1 4

Wheel Chair and Stretcher services 1 1 4

More Complete Streets for increased safety and mobility for all users.

2 2 3

More enforcement 1 1 4

Demand-Responsive Transportation for the Elderly and Handicapped.

1 1 4

Providing a positive resource for what transportation is available and when it is available is a service needed in rural areas.

1 1 4

Road Repair 1 1 4

Bike parking racks at government and commercial establishments

1 1 4

Total 19 4 1 1 1 8 1 2 3 40

Geography Frequency Rating 1 3 6 6 6 2 6 5 4

Questions 15 & 16 Combined Analysis: Geography Mentioned and Frequency of Comments

Table 70: Questions 15 & 16 Combined Analysis: Geography Mentioned and Frequency of Comments Source: Appendix 2‐4. To view a full‐sized copy of the provider survey results go to: http://www.agcny.org/files/public/005_agc_t2‐h‐t‐fhea_app_2‐4_provider_survey_results_v5f011115‐public_review_copy.pdf


148

Investments for Success Question 25 asked respondents to describe up to three regional investments that would help their clients succeed. See

Bubbling to the top were housing and transportation. A second “grouping” of investment surrounded better paying jobs, improved infrastructure, and improved health.

Figure 77: Question 25 Analysis: Three Regional Investments that Would Help Clients Succeed Source: Appendix 2‐4. To view a full‐sized copy of the provider survey results go to: http://www.agcny.org/files/public/005_agc_t2‐h‐t‐fhea_app_2‐4_provider_survey_results_v5f011115‐public_review_copy.pdf


149

Chapter 12 Results: Highlights from the Citizen Survey Rationale, Design, and Deployment Government uses terms such as vulnerable populations, marginal groups, and protected classes

to focus attention on the people having the hardest time and who are forced by circumstances

or choice to be living on the edge of crisis. These folks are our neighbors, our friends, and part

of each and every community. AGC wanted to know what they were thinking about their

situation at home. Their “lived experience” (of finding and maintaining shelter, getting from

here to there, and accessing education, local food, medical care, and support services) can tell

us a lot about housing, transportation, and equity.

A Citizen Survey was chosen to reach out to low‐income individuals and families, limited English

speakers, persons with disabilities, communities of color, and the elderly. In addition to a

literature search, including the National Household Travel Survey, three Key Informant Focus

Groups discussed potential questions for a citizen and an institutional survey/interview. The

straw‐man survey was then reviewed by AGC and shared with the three focus group agency‐

organization participants.

The citizen survey approach is considered a “Purposeful, Sno‐ball Sample”‐‐ where you are

purposefully seeking citizens in these groups to complete and return a survey. A multi‐tiered

distribution/collection system was designed to solicit a solid response from targeted groups

(see Table ). Participating Agency Partners who serve vulnerable populations distributed

surveys to volunteer clients in their offices or at their meetings. Town Supervisors and the AGC

Council Members distributed them in their communities. The Public Housing Authority hosted

meetings at each of their facilities and assisted residents to complete surveys. Dr. Holland was

embedded at a regional food pantry and DSS lobby to assist customers to complete surveys.

Surveys were distributed and collected between August 15 and September 15, 2014.


150

Region‐W

ide

Greater

Glens Falls

Warren

County

Wash

ington

Count y

Town

Town of Corinth 33 33

Wash Cty Dept. Social Services 35 18

Town of Hadley 20 7

Greater Glens Falls Transit Authority 300 115

Glens Falls Home

Greater Glens Falls Senior Center

104 26

Wait House 12 2

Glens Falls Housing Authority 306 83

United Way‐Involved agencies, including 100 7

NAACP

Adirondack Emergency Community

Chaplains

20 5

Washington County Economic Opportunity

Council ‐ Head Start

83 40

Washington County Office for the Aging

and Disabilities Resource Center

342 58

Southern Adirondack Independent Living

(SAIL)

16 3

General Distribution via AGC, Consultant,

Moreau 9 17 14 meeting

136 16

Family Service Assoc. of Glens Falls, Inc. 15 9

Warren‐Hamilton Counties Community

Action Agency

106 20

Washington County Economic Opportunity

Council (Ann)

46 10

Total (Response Rate 27%) 1,674 452

Participating Agency Partner (Survey

Distribution Network)

Distributed

Collected

AGC Housing & Transportation Citizen Survey 2014

Geography

Table 71: Citizen Survey Distribution Network Source: Author, 2015


151

All data has

limitations. While

surveys may have

been distributed

region wide, zip code

responses included

the areas identified in

Figure 78. We found

it challenging to

decipher, read, and

interpret open‐ended

questions. Paper

surveys had to be

inputted by hand into

Survey Monkey,

which was time

consuming. We also

found conflicting

answers in linked

questions. For this

purposeful sample,

the survey grew to be

too long, too many

questions, and too

many literacy issues.

While a structured

interview might have

worked better 1:1, it

may not have been a

feasible alternative.

Despite these

limitations, we have

more than 450 sets of

voices from our

targeted audience

that share their

perspectives on mobility, shelter, equity, convenience, and access to opportunity. Appendix 2‐5

presents the results by item/question of the citizen survey.

Figure 78: Citizen Participation: Citizen Survey Source: Warren County GIS, 2014


152

Who responded? More than one out of every four people asked completed the survey. Here is what we know

about them:

Three‐quarters (3/4) of responding households were composed of single adults or multiple adults with no kids.

Most households were one or two people.

The balance of households were single or multiple adults with kids

36% were employed (see Table 72)

The majority were retired and receiving benefits or other forms of govt. assistance

75% earned less than $25,000 per year in 2013

Less than one third owned their home

7% lived in mobile homes either rented or owned

Almost two percent were homeless

68% have never received housing assistance

Table 72: Occupations of Citizen Survey Respondents Source: Author, 2015

AGC Housing and Transportation Citizen Survey, 2014

6. Please list the job title of each employed person in

your household.

# Reporting

(N=138)

Employment Sector

31 Government (Including Corrections)

19 Health Care

17 Business Administration

14 Food Service

10 Retail‐Sales

9 Education

8 Technical

7 Maintenance‐Gardening‐Housekeeping

7 Construction

5 Manufacturing/Industry

4 Family Care (Various age groups)

4 Transportation

2 Professional

1 Agriculture


153

82% of respondents reported at least a basic high school education and a troubling 17% reported very limited schooling (see Error! Reference source not found.)

Nine out of ten respondents use cellphones and more than 24% use smartphones.

Computer ownership is relatively high and 53% have reliable internet services.

Figure 80: Citizen Survey Participants‐Households with ElectronicsSource: Appendix 2‐5. To view a full‐sized copy of the survey results go to: https://www.dropbox.com/s/34kqpdjhyfqdebx/006%20AGC%20T2‐H‐T‐FHEA%20App%202‐5%20Citizen%20Survey%20Results%20pdf%20v1FD%20PDF%2004%2029%2015.pdf?dl=0

Figure 79: Education Level of Citizen Survey ParticipantsSource: Appendix 2‐5. To view a full‐sized copy of the survey results go to: https://www.dropbox.com/s/34kqpdjhyfqdebx/006%20AGC%20T2‐H‐T‐FHEA%20App%202‐5%20Citizen%20Survey%20Results%20pdf%20v1FD%20PDF%2004%2029%2015.pdf?dl=0


154

Citizen Viewpoints on Access to Opportunity There are multiple questions that address Access to Opportunity. This chapter highlights

Question 38 that asked, “Do you face any of these challenges? If yes, in what areas do you face

these challenges? Check all that apply.” The challenges were listed as:

Access to rental, ownership, or temporary housing that those with low incomes can

afford.

Access to affordable and workforce housing that is livable and visitable by disabled

visitors.

Access to reliable public and/or private “mobility” options

Access to education (primary, secondary, higher and alternative schools, including web‐

based options)

Access to healthcare

Access to jobs or employment training centers

Access to shopping and services

Access to cell phone service

Access to the Internet

Access to parks and recreational facilities

The responses serve

as a fair indicator of

Access to

Opportunity, the

following series of

graphs show and

compare the

responses by

geographic region.

The top challenge in

Greater Glens Falls

was affordable and

workforce housing

with access to fresh

food a close second.

The least frequent

challenges were

access to education

and housing for the “less abled” (see Figure 81).

Figure 81: Challenges Facing Residents of Greater Glens Falls Source: Appendix 2‐5. To view a full‐sized copy of the survey results go to: https://www.dropbox.com/s/34kqpdjhyfqdebx/006%20AGC%20T2‐H‐T‐FHEA%20App%202‐5%20Citizen%20Survey%20Results%20pdf%20v1FD%20PDF%2004%2029%2015.pdf?dl=0


155

The outlying areas

of Warren County

share with Greater

Glens Falls the top

challenge of

affordable and

workforce housing,

but instead of fresh

food, the second

greatest challenge is

reliable “mobility,”

followed by access

to jobs, parks,

recreation, and cell

phone service (see

Figure 82). Greater

Glens Falls shared

the same least

frequent challenges

of access to education and housing for the “less abled.”

Washington County’s

outlying areas report the

greatest challenge as

access to public

“mobility” options (see

Figure 83). All three

regions: Greater Glens

Falls and outlying

Warren and Washington

Counties, shared the

same least frequent

challenges of access to

education and housing

for the “less abled.”

Figure 82: Challenges facing Residents of Warren CountySource: Appendix 2‐5. To view a full‐sized copy of the survey results go to: https://www.dropbox.com/s/34kqpdjhyfqdebx/006%20AGC%20T2‐H‐T‐FHEA%20App%202‐5%20Citizen%20Survey%20Results%20pdf%20v1FD%20PDF%2004%2029%2015.pdf?dl=0

Figure 83: Challenges facing Residents of Washington CountySource: Appendix 2‐5. To view a full‐sized copy of the survey results go to: https://www.dropbox.com/s/34kqpdjhyfqdebx/006%20AGC%20T2‐H‐T‐FHEA%20App%202‐5%20Citizen%20Survey%20Results%20pdf%20v1FD%20PDF%2004%2029%2015.pdf?dl=0


156

Northern Saratoga

County

communities

ranked access to

cell phone service

as their greatest

challenge,

followed by access

to food. Access to

Education was

considered to be

the least

challenging factor

throughout all four

sections of the

AGC Region.

The results of this analysis series remind us that it is very important to bear in mind that the

needs and priorities of the places within in the Adirondack Gateway Region face different

challenges. As recommendations move forward, their priority for action and degree of concern

and interest, will also vary from place‐to‐place.

In the last question of the citizen survey, we asked respondents to also tell us, in their own

words, how life could be better. Below is a brief collection of quotes that demonstrate that the

themes of Access to Opportunity, Transportation, and Housing Choice resonate with members

of marginal groups.

Citizen Viewpoints on Transportation Several questions were compiled to present a high‐level “mobility” profile of the respondents:

Figure 84: Challenges facing Residents of Saratoga CountySource: Appendix 2‐5. To view a full‐sized copy of the survey results go to: https://www.dropbox.com/s/34kqpdjhyfqdebx/006%20AGC%20T2‐H‐T‐FHEA%20App%202‐5%20Citizen%20Survey%20Results%20pdf%20v1FD%20PDF%2004%2029%2015.pdf?dl=0


157

(Please note: 452 surveys are a small sampling. Results are NOT generalizable to the AGC Region as a

whole. They simply represent information from 452 people. The sampling technique purposefully

surveyed marginalized populations, and do not present a randomized, generalizable sample applicable to

the region as a whole.)

83% pay for their transportation costs out of their own pockets.

80% have a driver’s license.

57% have access to a vehicle; 43% do not.

87% rarely or never miss a health care appointment.

83% report not having any problems getting transportation when they need it.

82% have safe places to ride or bike near their homes.

50% have at least one bicycle.

91% live within 15 miles of a grocery store.

The survey indicates

that 43% of the 452

respondents do not

have access to personal

vehicles. A significant

percent (80%) of

respondents identified

themselves as disabled

and elderly (see Figure

85). An equally large

percent (83%) do not

have trouble getting

transportation when

they need it.

Almost a third of the

452 respondents noted

that they reside within

the 12801 zip code that includes the City of Glens Falls. One conclusion from this target group

data is that a lack of a vehicle may not necessarily limit mobility IF one resides where

transportation options are available.

Figure 85: Citizen Survey Participant Grouping Source: Appendix 2‐5. To view a full‐sized copy of the survey results go to: https://www.dropbox.com/s/34kqpdjhyfqdebx/006%20AGC%20T2‐H‐T‐FHEA%20App%202‐5%20Citizen%20Survey%20Results%20pdf%20v1FD%20PDF%2004%2029%2015.pdf?dl=0 :


158

Getting where they need to go To get to work, school, shopping, and medical appointments, most people drive their own vehicle. Many take the bus and rely on Greater Glens Falls Transit (see Figure 86).

Figure 86: Types of Transportation Used Source: Appendix 2‐5. To view a full‐sized copy of the survey results go to: https://www.dropbox.com/s/34kqpdjhyfqdebx/006%20AGC%20T2‐H‐T‐FHEA%20App%202‐5%20Citizen%20Survey%20Results%20pdf%20v1FD%20PDF%2004%2029%2015.pdf?dl=0 They also tell us that they take advantage of existing transportation services including non‐

profit and government services, town sponsored senior shuttles, Medical Answering Service (a

transport vendor), and private services, such as the Price Chopper Bus. Children, friends and

family members, church volunteers drive them. One respondent noted they skate to work.

If they are going to miss a health care appointment, the most common reasons are lack of

transportation, the cost of gas and other money considerations, and living “too far away.”

Other reasons suggested include lack of a driver’s license, health issues, and time constraints.

Getting to Work Although only 36% of respondents were employed, they traveled widely throughout the

Greater Glens Falls and Capital District Regions to get to work, averaging a 10‐mile (one‐way)

commute to work. However, the range is between 1 and 60 miles one‐way to work. More than

25% drive more than 25 miles one way to get to work (see

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

AGC Housing & Transportation Citizen Survey 2014 Q17Which kinds of transportation do you use on a regular basis?

Check all that apply.


159

Table 73). Research did not uncover trends where employers assisted employees with travel or

housing costs.


160

Table 73: Where Citizens Travel to Work Source: Appendix 2‐5. To view a full‐sized copy of the survey results go to: https://www.dropbox.com/s/34kqpdjhyfqdebx/006%20AGC%20T2‐H‐T‐FHEA%20App%202‐5%20Citizen%20Survey%20Results%20pdf%20v1FD%20PDF%2004%2029%2015.pdf?dl=0

AGC Citizen Survey 2014 Results

6a. Please list the town/city/village worked in (list all that apply) for each employed person in your household.

>12 travel to >6 <12 travel to

<6 travel to A few Go Several Places

Hudson Falls Fort Edward Saratoga Springs varies

Glens Falls Lake George Comstock Warren/ Washington Counties

Queensbury Corinth S. Glens Falls South Glens Falls, Glens Falls, Hudson Falls, Fort Edward, Lake George, Bolton, etc.

Greenwich Washington, Saratoga, Warren, Essex counties

Argyle

Granville

Salem

Saratoga Cty.

Washington Cty.

Albany

Bolton Landing

Capital Region

Delmar

Fort Ann

Minerva

Poultney, VT.

Warrensburg

Whitehall

Citizen Viewpoints on how could transportation could be improved Several of the last questions asked were open ended and offered, “Blank space” so that

respondents could suggest ways that programs and services, be improved in their community.

Here is a list of suggestions‐‐ in their own words‐‐‐:

Known and advertised

transportation

Rides to doctor and

shopping

Access to weekly

grocery/pharmacy

transport

Van or bus services

Need transportation for

senior citizens

To medical appointments if

family is unavailable


161

More transportation

(Shuttle or taxis)

Town bus

Have bicycle rental place

along bike trail

More frequent bus runs 7

days a week

24‐hour buses

A better bus line

Gas prices

Bus service

More buses

Not a good all season

transportation in place.

There needs to be a more

reliable, affordable way

through all seasons to

ensure one is able to get to

work.

A van or bus service

Earlier service so can go for

blood tests without taking a

cab

Sr. Cit. Bus

Could use transportation

with help as I use walker.

Cannot shop alone

Fix roads, potholes

Bus route

Need buses to G.F. or

Saratoga

Bussing

Much need for public

transportation

Small van public transport

and/or car share programs

Costs for vehicle repairs.

Public transportation only

covers certain areas, can't

afford cabs

Need transportation for the

outlying areas daily

We currently do not have

public transportation e.g.

buses in my area

It is impossible to carry

groceries and children on a

bus. Taxis are just too

expensive for most.

Public bus

Offer affordable public

transportation for families

with no transportation in

order to work, etc.

Bus available on Sundays

and more evenings

Lower rates

Extra bus transportation to

exit 17 Glens Falls Transit

Difficult for many to get

around after the Trolley

stops (Labor Day) although

there is some CBTA bus

service.

More available, affordable

transportation to non‐

medical appointments

Better communication of

what is available, re: car

pools, hours of senior van

and destinations

Local service to stores or

malls

Transportation to doctors

and stores

Yes, on Sundays

Regular bus service in

northern Queensbury

More bus routes

More transportation

evening hours

Weekends and evenings

Still good

Roads repaired

Taxi's cost $3 each way for

the transportation to

hospital for appointments

monthly and for doctors. I

live on a fixed income and if

I'm careful, I can afford this.

Fairly good

Good

Some way to get to where

the buses leave

Evening service expanded

To "Y" services and

programs, bus to Walmart

More transportation


162

We need weekend rides to

go to places that are fun. If

someone would give up

time to help us make this

possible.

Senior busing or local cab

Glens Falls Transit System

has bus come every day as a

regular stop.

G.F. transportation has a

bus come by every day as a

regular stop

More affordable and flexible options are suggested by these words. Questions 37 and 40 asked

similar questions. The responses are very consistent. Citizen comments on “mobility”

improvements are similar to those mentioned by providers in their survey responses. It is also

heartening to see that some folks think the “mobility” system is working well.

Citizen Viewpoints on Housing and Fair Housing Equity From the responses to the citizen survey, we know that less than one third of respondents

owned their home. Two percent (2%) reported homeless status and 7% lived in rented or

owned mobile homes. Most rent their housing. Almost seven out of ten respondents have

never received housing assistance. We asked folks what they don’t like about their current

housing situation and their responses are ranked in Table 74.

Table 74: Housing Issues Source: Appendix 2‐5. To view a full‐sized copy of the survey results go to: https://www.dropbox.com/s/34kqpdjhyfqdebx/006%20AGC%20T2‐H‐T‐FHEA%20App%202‐5%20Citizen%20Survey%20Results%20pdf%20v1FD%20PDF%2004%2029%2015.pdf?dl=0

The most popular answer to this question was affirmative—I like my current housing as it is.

This is a positive sign.

AGC Housing & Transportation Citizen Survey 2014

Q 30. What don’t you like about your current housing situation?

Answer Options Response Count Rank

I like my current housing as it is 203 1

Too expensive‐I have to make choices about heating or eating, too hard to heat

108 2

Too many repairs needed, unable to make repairs, safety, accessibility concerns

73 3

Too far from grocery stores 43 4

Too far from work 22 5

Crowded, temporary, too big, don't own it, no garden space 18 6

Too far from school 7 7

Homeless‐"Can't live there anymore" 4 8

Isolation personal problems 3 9


163

Expense and condition ranked second and third making it clear that housing and energy costs

limit household discretionary income. This leaves few dollars for repair or improvement. For

rental units, utilities may be expensive, and for folks on fixed incomes, there can be precious

little remaining after the bills are paid.

In order to stay where they are, respondents to Question 29c indicated that three major

changes or improvements were needed:

Address Health, Safety, and Accessibility Concerns

Improve Maintenance and Repair

Reduce Energy, Utilities, and Costs to Own and Maintain

If households are

looking to change

their housing

circumstances,

the question of

availability of

affordable and

workforce

housing in the

community

becomes

important. Four

out of ten

households

noted that they

never or rarely

could find

affordable and

workforce housing in the community (see Table 74).

Several questions asked respondents to suggest ways that programs, services, and/or

improvements could be improved in their community. Here is a list of suggestions in their own

words from Question 37 respondents:

Assist folks with affordable

housing/ transportation

Safe housing

Decent housing with

tenant/landlord

accountability

Safe havens

Affordable housing,

reasonable paying jobs,

appropriate jobs for

people with disabilities...

More cost effective living,

Figure 87: Availability of Affordable HousingSource: Appendix 2‐5. To view a full‐sized copy of the survey results go to: https://www.dropbox.com/s/34kqpdjhyfqdebx/006%20AGC%20T2‐H‐T‐FHEA%20App%202‐5%20Citizen%20Survey%20Results%20pdf%20v1FD%20PDF%2004%2029%2015.pdf?dl=0


164

Elderly housing

Programs that prohibit

landlords from raising the

rent unlawfully

More affordable senior

housing

We need affordable

apartments for our

elderly. Subsidized within

walking distance to stores,

restaurants, pharmacy and

bus line

Some houses in poor

shape need

improvements.

Affordable housing for

seniors

Better rooms, not so

expensive, place to help

to get on feet, help with

housing

More public housing

Section 8

Renter’s assistance

There are no shelters here

for homeless people

More help for homeless

people, nearest shelter is

1/2 hour away. If you get

put up then you lose job

and local support. Warren

County doesn't really help

people. Therefore, I will

soon be homeless again.

(Will lose housing)

Affordable housing

programs

We need a local homeless

shelter because if you

have a job, bus doesn’t

connect to go to Glens

Falls. If you don't have a

car, you might lose your

job. Plus if you’re getting

public assistance, a lot of

properties don't allow DSS

to help with the rent.

We need more low‐

income housing help

available based on family

needs. More help for

homeless

More housing

opportunities for low‐

income families

Senior housing

More affordable housing,

cheaper utilities

My oldest son and his

family were living on

approx. 475.00 bring

home per week. They

applied at XXXX. As they

thought it was for low

income, they were told

they would have to pay

over 800.00 per month for

rent! How is this

affordable for someone

trying to raise a child on

one income?

Better support of home

ownership

A homeless shelter

Homeless shelter

Greater access to

affordable housing or

assistance with itError!

Not a valid link.

Suggestions from citizens indicate their preferences:

Decent housing with tenant/landlord accountability.

Safe housing, safe havens, and emergency shelters.

More cost effective housing for all demographic groups, especially seniors.

Less expensive places to help folks get on their feet.

Financial aid, such as subsidized rental housing.

More public, section 8, affordable, and elderly housing.