Page 180 - 2015 Compass Now

Access to help to stay in the home

Poor/fair 40.9% 38.8% 34.2%
51.1%
Good 33.3% 45.9% 14.7% 0.0056
0.0011
Excellent 25.8% 15.3% 31.9% 0.0408
53.9% 0.2674
A place that meets the needs of persons with disabilities 14.2%

Poor/fair 45.0% 34.8% 31.5%
54.5%
Good 31.0% 52.1% 14.0%

Excellent 24.0% 13.1% 31.7%
54.7%
Efforts to prevent abuse or neglect 13.6%

Poor/fair 35.7% 34.2%

Good 43.9% 50.9%

Excellent 20.4% 14.9%

Availability of services that meet the needs of abused

Poor/fair 43.5% 36.9%

Good 40.2% 49.8%

Excellent 16.3% 13.3%

• Aspects of caregiving varied significantly by household income.
• Those earning less than $25,000 were more likely to rate fair or poor:

• Ability to pay for child care
• A place that meets the needs of the elderly
• Access to help to stay in the home
• A place that meets the needs of persons with disabilities
• Those earning $25,000-75,000 were more likely to rate fair or poor:
• Availability of quality child care
• Ability to pay for child care

ECONOMIC ASPECTS <$25,000 $25,000-$75,000 $75,000+ Difference in
109 (15.1%) 341 (47.3%) 271 (37.6%) rating by income

Availability of jobs with wages that offer a good standard of living 46.1% <0.0001
42.5%
Poor/fair 77.1% 65.3% 11.4% <0.0001

Good 15.7% 30.1% 8.9% <0.0001
48.0%
Excellent 7.2% 4.6% 43.1%

Ability to meet basic needs 7.2%
48.9%
Poor/fair 51.0% 34.1% 43.9%

Good 37.0% 49.2%

Excellent 12.0% 16.7%

Ability to pay for housing

Poor/fair 49.5% 34.2%

Good 38.6% 47.7%

Excellent 11.9% 18.1%

2 | APPENDIX 172 COMPASS NOW 2015