<%BANNER%>

Assessment of Resident Satisfaction Levels at a Southeastern University-Affiliated Life Care Community

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021075/00001

Material Information

Title: Assessment of Resident Satisfaction Levels at a Southeastern University-Affiliated Life Care Community
Physical Description: 1 online resource (79 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Malone, Edward Kent
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Over the past 20 years the concept of retirement communities has undergone continuous, metamorphic change. No longer does the term ?retirement community? automatically default to the traditional images of the languorous shuffle-board communities. Instead, the general concept of the retirement community has transitioned into a nearly antithesis perspective. The focus has turned to enjoyment of and capitalization on the freedom from occupational and familial responsibilities and constraints. Active-lifestyle communities are big business in states like Florida, Arizona, North Carolina, and to a lesser, but emerging degree in Tennessee, Georgia, and the Carolinas. A fairly new concept in retirement living is the university-affiliated life care community (U-LCC). In addition to characteristics of the traditional LCC, these communities highlight lifelong learning, available via their affiliation with a large university located in close proximity. This study does not investigate the decision-making process involved in a person?s decision to move to a U-LCC or remain in their own home through their retirement years. Rather, the focus of this study is to measure the degree of satisfaction of individuals who have already made the move to this particular southeastern university-affiliated life care community. This may help identify the potential demand for other similar facilities around the country.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Edward Kent Malone.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Issa, R. Raymond.
Local: Co-adviser: Wetherington, Leon E.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2008-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021075:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021075/00001

Material Information

Title: Assessment of Resident Satisfaction Levels at a Southeastern University-Affiliated Life Care Community
Physical Description: 1 online resource (79 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Malone, Edward Kent
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Over the past 20 years the concept of retirement communities has undergone continuous, metamorphic change. No longer does the term ?retirement community? automatically default to the traditional images of the languorous shuffle-board communities. Instead, the general concept of the retirement community has transitioned into a nearly antithesis perspective. The focus has turned to enjoyment of and capitalization on the freedom from occupational and familial responsibilities and constraints. Active-lifestyle communities are big business in states like Florida, Arizona, North Carolina, and to a lesser, but emerging degree in Tennessee, Georgia, and the Carolinas. A fairly new concept in retirement living is the university-affiliated life care community (U-LCC). In addition to characteristics of the traditional LCC, these communities highlight lifelong learning, available via their affiliation with a large university located in close proximity. This study does not investigate the decision-making process involved in a person?s decision to move to a U-LCC or remain in their own home through their retirement years. Rather, the focus of this study is to measure the degree of satisfaction of individuals who have already made the move to this particular southeastern university-affiliated life care community. This may help identify the potential demand for other similar facilities around the country.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Edward Kent Malone.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Issa, R. Raymond.
Local: Co-adviser: Wetherington, Leon E.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2008-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021075:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 ASSESSMENT OF RESIDENT SATISFA CTION LEVELS AT A SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY-AFFILIATED LIFE CARE COMMUNITY By E. KENT MALONE A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 E. Kent Malone

PAGE 3

3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my supervisory committee for their guidance. I would also like to express a special note of apprecia tion and gratitude to Dr. R. Ra ymond Issa for his direction and encouragement as my academic advisor and mentor. To Dottie Beaupied, I would like to extend a special thank you for keeping me on track and on task these past few years. Finally, to Marion Nichols, I extend my utmost gratitude and appreciation for her interminable patience, support and encouragement.

PAGE 4

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................3 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........6 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .........9 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................13 2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................15 Survey Procedure............................................................................................................... .....15 Respondent Demographics.....................................................................................................15 Survey Questionnaire........................................................................................................... ...16 Scope of Analysis.............................................................................................................. .....17 Statistical Analyses........................................................................................................... ......18 Dependent Variables.......................................................................................................19 Independent Variables.....................................................................................................19 3 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................21 4 RESULTS........................................................................................................................ .......25 Indicators of Overall Satisfaction by Respondents.................................................................25 Overall Satisfaction (by Group)..............................................................................................28 Gender......................................................................................................................... ....28 Marital Status................................................................................................................. ..29 Age Range...................................................................................................................... .30 Length of Residency........................................................................................................31 Type of Dwelling Unit.....................................................................................................32 Physical Health Condition...............................................................................................33 Emotional Health Condition............................................................................................34 Financial Situation...........................................................................................................35 Value for Price Paid (by Group).............................................................................................37 Gender......................................................................................................................... ....37 Marital Status................................................................................................................. ..38 Age Range...................................................................................................................... .39 Length of Residency........................................................................................................40 Type of Dwelling Unit.....................................................................................................40 Physical Health................................................................................................................41 Emotional Health.............................................................................................................42

PAGE 5

5 Financial Situation...........................................................................................................43 Long-term Confidence (by Group).........................................................................................44 Gender......................................................................................................................... ....44 Marital Status................................................................................................................. ..45 Age Range...................................................................................................................... .46 Length of Residency........................................................................................................48 Type of Dwelling Unit.....................................................................................................49 Physical Health................................................................................................................49 Emotional Health.............................................................................................................50 Financial Situation...........................................................................................................51 Likeliness to Recommend this Facility to a Friend or Relative (by Group)...........................52 Gender......................................................................................................................... ....52 Marital Status................................................................................................................. ..53 Age Range...................................................................................................................... .54 Length of Residency........................................................................................................54 Type of Dwelling Unit.....................................................................................................55 Physical Health................................................................................................................55 Emotional Health.............................................................................................................56 Financial Situation...........................................................................................................57 Likeliness to Select This Facility Again (by Group)..............................................................58 Gender......................................................................................................................... ....58 Marital Status................................................................................................................. ..59 Age Range...................................................................................................................... .60 Length of Residency........................................................................................................61 Type of Dwelling Unit.....................................................................................................62 Physical Health................................................................................................................63 Emotional Health.............................................................................................................63 Financial Situation...........................................................................................................64 Compilations of Mean Scores.................................................................................................65 5 CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................68 APPENDIX COMPLETE SURVEY WITH IDEN TIFYING INFORMATION DELETED......71 LIST OF REFERENCES............................................................................................................. ..76 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................77

PAGE 6

6 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Frequencies by gender...................................................................................................... .16 2-2 Frequencies by marital status.............................................................................................16 2-3 Frequencies by age range...................................................................................................16 2-4 Frequencies by le ngth of residence....................................................................................16 2-5 Frequencies by type of residence.......................................................................................16 4-1 Mean scores by gender to the question: How do you rate your overall satisfaction?....29 4-2 Mean scores by marital status to the question: How do you rate your overall satisfaction?................................................................................................................. .....30 4-3 Mean scores by age range to the question: How do you rate your overall satisfaction?................................................................................................................. .....31 4-4 Mean scores by length of residency to the question: How do you rate your overall satisfaction?................................................................................................................. .....32 4-5 Mean scores by type of dwelling unit to the question: How do you rate your overall satisfaction?................................................................................................................. .....33 4-5 Mean scores by physical health conditi on to the question: How do you rate your overall satisfaction?......................................................................................................... .34 4-6 Mean scores by emotional health cond ition to the question: How do you rate your overall satisfaction?......................................................................................................... .35 4-7 Mean scores by financial situation to the question: How do you rate your overall satisfaction?................................................................................................................. .....36 4-8 Mean scores by gender to the question: How do you rate the va lue for price paid?......37 4-9 Mean scores by marital st atus to the question: How do you rate the value for price paid?......................................................................................................................... ........38 4-10 Mean scores by age range to the question: How do you ra te the value for price paid at ?.......................................................................................................................... ..........39 4-11 Mean scores by length of residency to the question: How do you rate the value for price paid?................................................................................................................... .....40

PAGE 7

7 4-12 Mean scores by type of dwelling unit to the question: How do you rate the value for price paid?................................................................................................................... .....41 4-13 Mean scores by physical health conditi on to the question: How do you rate the value for price paid?.........................................................................................................42 4-14 Mean scores by emotional health cond ition to the question: How do you rate the value for price paid?.........................................................................................................43 4-15 Mean scores by financial situation to the question: How do you rate the value for price paid?................................................................................................................... .....44 4-16 Mean scores by gender to the ques tion: How do you rate your long-term confidence?................................................................................................................... ...45 4-17 Mean scores by marital status to th e question: How do you rate your long-term confidence?................................................................................................................... ...46 4-18 Mean scores by age range to the qu estion: How do you ra te your long-term confidence?.................................................................................................................... ....47 4-19 Mean scores by length of residency to the question: How do you rate your longterm confidence?............................................................................................................... .48 4-20 Mean scores by type of dwelling unit to the question: How do you rate your longterm confidence?..............................................................................................................49 4-21 Mean scores by physical health conditi on to the question: How do you rate your long-term confidence?......................................................................................................50 4-22 Mean scores by emotional health cond ition to the question: How do you rate your long-term confidence?......................................................................................................51 4-23 Mean scores by financial situation to the question: How do you rate your long-term confidence?................................................................................................................... ...52 4-24 Mean scores of all survey respondents..............................................................................65 4-25 Mean scores by gender..................................................................................................... ..66 4-26 Mean scores by marital status............................................................................................66 4-27 Mean scores by age range..................................................................................................66 4-28 Mean scores by length of residency...................................................................................66 4-29 Mean scores by type of dwelling unit................................................................................67 4-30 Mean scores by physical health condition.........................................................................67

PAGE 8

8 4-31 Mean scores by physical condition....................................................................................67 4-32 Mean scores by financial strength......................................................................................67 4-33 Resident profiles with great est satisfaction acco rding to the highest survey scores..........68 4-34 Summary of Significant Differences Found at the 80% Confidence Level by Independent Variable.........................................................................................................69

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4-1 Frequency of responses to the questio n: How do you rate you r overall satisfaction with this facility?........................................................................................................... ...25 4-2 Frequency of responses to the question: How do you rate the va lue for price paid?.....26 4-3 Frequency of responses to the que stion: How do you ra te your long-term confidence?................................................................................................................... ...26 4-4 Frequency of responses to the question: Would you recommend this facility to a friend or relative?........................................................................................................... ..27 4-5 Frequency of responses to the question: Would you select this facility again?.............27 4-6 Mean ratings by gender to the question: How do you rate your overall satisfaction?...28 4-7 Mean ratings by marital status to th e question: How do you rate your overall satisfaction?................................................................................................................. .....30 4-8 Mean ratings by age range to the question: How do you rate your overall satisfaction?................................................................................................................. .....31 4-9 Mean ratings by length of residency to the question: How do you rate your overall satisfaction?................................................................................................................. .....32 4-10 Mean ratings by type of dwelling unit to the question: How do you rate your overall satisfaction?................................................................................................................. .....33 4-11 Mean ratings by physical health conditi on to the question: How do you rate your overall satisfaction?......................................................................................................... .34 4-12 Mean ratings by emotional health conditi on to the question: H ow do you rate your overall satisfaction?......................................................................................................... .35 4-13 Mean ratings by financial situation to the question: How do you rate your overall satisfaction?................................................................................................................. .....36 4-14 Frequency of responses by gender to th e question: How do you rate the value for price paid?................................................................................................................... .....37 4-15 Mean ratings by marital status to the que stion: How do you rate the value for price paid?......................................................................................................................... ........38 4-16 Mean ratings by age range to the ques tion: How do you rate the value for price paid?......................................................................................................................... ........39

PAGE 10

10 4-17 Mean ratings by length of residency to the question: How do you rate the value for price paid?................................................................................................................... .....40 4-18 Mean ratings by type of dwelling unit to the question: How do you rate the value for price paid?............................................................................................................... ...41 4-19 Mean ratings by physical health conditi on to the question: How do you rate the value for price paid?.........................................................................................................42 4-20 Mean ratings by emotional health conditi on to the question: H ow do you rate the value for price paid?.........................................................................................................43 4-21 Mean ratings by financial situation to the question: H ow do you rate the value for price paid?................................................................................................................... .....44 4-22 Mean ratings by gender to the quest ion: How do you rate your long-term confidence?................................................................................................................... ...45 4-23 Mean ratings by marital status to th e question: How do you rate your long-term confidence?................................................................................................................... ...46 4-24 Mean ratings by age range to the question: How do you rate your long-term confidence?................................................................................................................... ...47 4-25 Mean ratings by length of residency to the question: How do you rate your longterm confidence?..............................................................................................................48 4-26 Mean ratings by type of dwelling unit to the question: How do you rate your longterm confidence?..............................................................................................................49 4-27 Mean ratings by physical health conditi on to the question: How do you rate your long-term confidence?......................................................................................................50 4-28 Mean ratings by emotional health conditi on to the question: H ow do you rate your long-term confidence?......................................................................................................51 4-29 Mean ratings by financial situation to the question: H ow do you rate your long-term confidence?................................................................................................................... ...52 4-30 Mean ratings by gender to the questi on: Would you recommend to a friend or relative?..................................................................................................................... .......53 4-31 Mean ratings by marital status to the question: Would you recommend to a friend or relative?.................................................................................................................. ......53 4-32 Mean ratings by age range to the question: Would you recommend to a friend or relative?..................................................................................................................... .......54

PAGE 11

11 4-33 Mean ratings by length of residency to the question: Would you recommend to a friend or relative?........................................................................................................... ..55 4-34 Mean ratings by type of dwelling unit to the question: Would you recommend to a friend or relative?........................................................................................................... ..55 4-35 Mean ratings by physical health conditi on to the question: Would you recommend to a friend or relative?......................................................................................................56 4-36 Mean ratings by emotional health cond ition to the question: Would you recommend to a friend or relative?......................................................................................................57 4-37 Mean ratings by financial situation to the question: Would you recommend to a friend or relative?........................................................................................................... ..57 4-38 Mean ratings by gender to the que stion: Would you select again?...............................58 4-39 Mean ratings by marital status to th e question: Would you select again?....................59 4-40 Mean ratings by age range to the question: Would you select again?..........................60 4-41 Mean ratings by length of residency to the question: Would you select again?...........61 4-42 Mean ratings by type of dwelling unit to the question: Would you select again?........62 4-43 Mean ratings by physical health cond ition to the question: Would you select again?........................................................................................................................ .......63 4-44 Mean ratings by emotional health cond ition to the question: Would you select again?........................................................................................................................ .......64 4-45 Mean ratings by financial situation to the question: Would you select again?.............65

PAGE 12

12 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Bu ilding Construction ASSESSMENT OF RESIDENT SATISFA CTION LEVELS AT A SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY-AFFILIATED LIFE CARE COMMUNITY By E. Kent Malone August 2007 Chair: R. Raymond Issa Cochair: Leon E. Wetherington Major: Building Construction Over the past 20 years the concept of reti rement communities has undergone continuous, metamorphic change. No longer does the term retirement community automatically default to the traditional images of the languorous shuffleboard communities. Instead, the general concept of the retirement community has transitioned into a nearly antithesis perspective. The focus has turned to enjoyment of and capitalization on the freedom from occupational and familial responsibilities and constraints. Active-lifest yle communities are big business in states like Florida, Arizona, North Carolina, and to a lesse r, but emerging degree in Tennessee, Georgia, and the Carolinas. A fairly new concept in retire ment living is the university-affiliated life care community (U-LCC). In addition to characteri stics of the traditional LCC, these communities highlight lifelong learning, available via their affiliation with a large university located in close proximity. This study does not investigate th e decision-making process involved in a persons decision to move to a U-LCC or remain in th eir own home through their retirement years. Rather, the focus of this study is to measure th e degree of satisfaction of individuals who have already made the move to this particular southeastern university-affiliated life care community. This may help identify the potential demand for other similar fac ilities around the country.

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The perspective of retirees has changed signifi cantly over the years and has evolved to the point that the historical concep t of the retirement community as a languorous encl ave of elderly folks playing checkers and shuffleboard in the twilight of their life has nearly disappeared altogether. In its place are retiring baby-boomers seeking to capitalize on a new phase of life and the freedom to pursue new adventures and furt her expand their horizons. They are more cognizant of the importance of lead ing a healthy lifestyle and taki ng proactive step s to ensure a sound body, mind and lifestyle. A growing phe nomenon in the evolution of retirement communities is that of the university-affiliated life care community. The idea of a retirement-age person agreeing to pay a lump sum upfront and a se t monthly fee for the rema inder of their life in exchange for a home or apartment of their choice in a well planned community offering a variety of wellness-oriented amenities and activities, co upled with a return to the college life via university affiliation, underscored by the assuran ce of life-long medical care at no extra cost is gaining popularity and certainl y worthy of investigation. This study looks at one such university-affilia ted life care community in the southeastern United States and examines the level of satisf action of its members on the following criteria: overall satisfaction with the faci lity, overall value for price pa id at the facility, long-term confidence in the facility, likeliness to recommend the facility to others, and the likeliness of the resident to select the facility again. Suggestions for future work based on the findings in this study are discussed. The aim of this study is to provide an analysis of residents satisfacti on levels with respect to five key survey questions at this university-a ffiliated life care community. The objective is to contribute to the database of re sident satisfaction information in an effort to determine the

PAGE 14

14 potential for expanded development of existing a nd new similar-type retirement communities, as well as maintain or improve existing similar-type communities.

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY In December, 2006 a resident satisfaction survey was completed by a national consulting firm at the university-affiliated life care community examined in this study. Since this survey was current, permission to analyze these data wa s obtained from the consulting firm and the raw data were furnished for use in this study with the stipulation that both the U-LCC and consulting firm remained anonymous. Survey Procedure After distribution of a pre-communication le tter, all residents were mailed a survey questionnaire from the consulting firm in early October, 2006. Each questionnaire included a pre-addressed, postage-paid envelope and a request to return the questionnaire to the consulting firm by mid-October, 2006. Marr ied residents each received a que stionnaire, such that every individual resident r eceived the opportunity to participate. Reside nts participation was encouraged in an effort to not only assess th eir overall satisfaction, but specifica lly identify potential areas of concern. Residents were a ssured of anonymity in their responses and were advised that the consulting firm, which collected all the raw data, would not share any individual questionnaires with the U-LCC ad ministration or management; only the consolidated results of the survey. Of the 350 surveys distributed, 302 were returned, yielding a response rate of 86.3%. Respondent Demographics All respondents are or were current resident s of the U-LCC at the time of the survey. Resident demographics were ascertained by the Member Info rmation (MI) section in the Resident Satisfaction Survey. Tallies of the fre quency of responses in th e MI section are shown on Tables 2-1 through 2-5.

PAGE 16

16 Table 2-1. Frequency distribution by Gender Gender (N=292) Frequency % Male 42.8 Female 57.2 Table 2-2. Frequency distri bution by Marital Status Marital Status (N=284) Frequency % Single 9.2 Married 72.5 Widowed 18.3 Table 2-3. Frequency di stribution by Age Range Age Range (N=288) Frequency % Under 65 years 3.5 65-70 years 11.8 71-75 years 18.8 76-80 years 28.5 81-85 years 28.5 More than 85 years 9.0 Table 2-4. Frequency distribut ion by Length of Residence Length of Residence (N=287) Frequency % Less than 1 year 16.4 1-2 years 27.5 More than 2 years 56.1 Table 2-5. Frequency distribut ion by Type of Residence Type of Residence (N=294) Frequency % Villa/Club Home 18.7 Apartment 81.3 Survey Questionnaire The survey consisted of eight major sect ions: Member Information, Administration, Independent Living Medical/Clinical, Daily Livi ng, Facility Environment, Dining Services, Overall Satisfaction and Fi nal Thoughts. (A copy of the survey questionnaire is included in the Appendix with identifying language deleted.) The Member Information (MI) section solicited

PAGE 17

17 demographic information from eight categories: ge nder, marital status, age, type of dwelling unit the respondent lives in, the respondents se lf-described physical health condition, the respondents self-described emotional health condition and the respondents current level of comfort with their own financial situation. The last three questions in the MI section were Likert-type with five respons e options: very poor, poor, fair, good, and excellent. Each of these MI categories served as an i ndependent variable in the analyses of each Overall Satisfaction question (the dependent va riables). The remaining sections in the questionnaire (Administration, Independent Li ving Medical/Clinical, Daily Living, Facility Environment, Dining Services, Overall Satisfac tion and Final Thoughts) were not analyzed in this study. Scope of Analysis This study is limited to an examination of only the responses to the five key questions in the Overall Satisfaction (OS) sect ion of the survey. The stratifi cation of respondents into groups according to their responses in the MI section oc casionally produced groups with very small (n) sample sizes. Also, since this is a social sciences survey, more latitude wa s given with respect to possible differences in the means of the groups of respondents. Therefore, an 80% confidence level was selected since it was deemed neither too narrow nor too broad for the purpose of this study. The null hypothesis, then, assumed no significant difference between the means of each group of respondents at th e 80% confidence level (p 0.20). The objective was to report the overall satisfaction of the residents at this ma jor university-affiliated life care community in the southeastern United States. Of particular interest was not only a general sense of resident satisfaction in this facility, but if there were st atistically significant differences between levels of satisfaction when respondents were grouped accord ing to demographic categories listed in the MI section.

PAGE 18

18 Statistical Analyses Each of the five key questions in the OS s ection of the survey was used as a dependent variable with each category in the MI section serving as the independent variables. For twogroup comparisons (gender and type of dwelling unit) an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on each data set using SPSS statistical so ftware to determine if a significant difference existed between the means of each group. A stat istically significant difference between the means of the groups at the 80% c onfidence level was noted when th e value in the Sig. column of the ANOVA results was 0.20. A two-tailed t-Test for Equality of Means was then conducted using SPSS statistical software to corroborate the findings in the ANOVA. A statistically significant difference was noted when the value in the Sig. (2-tailed) column of the t-Test for Equality of Means was 0.20. When both analyses produced Sig. values 0.20 for a particular key OS question, the null hypothesis was rejected. The remainder of the analyses involved multip le means comparisons from the independent variables (marital status, age, length of residency, physical an d emotional health conditions, and financial situation). As with the two-group comparisons, an ANOVA was conducted for each of the remaining groups to determine if a signi ficant between-group difference existed. A statistically significant difference between the me ans of the groups at th e 80% confidence level was noted when the value in the Sig. column of the ANOVA results was 0.20. The SPSS statistical software was then used to perfor m Tukeys HSD (Honestly Significantly Different) procedure to test all pairwise comparisons among means of multiple-group independent variables to determine which two groups accounted for the diffe rence. A statistically significant difference was noted when the value in the Sig. colu mn of the Tukey HSD test results were 0.20. As with the two-group comparisons, the null hypothesis was rejected when the results of both tests

PAGE 19

19 produced a value of 0.20. The groups producing the significant difference between the means were noted. Dependent Variables How do you rate your overall satisfa ction with (name of U-LCC)? How do you rate the value for pri ce paid at (name of U-LCC)? How do you rate your long-term confiden ce in (name of U-LCCs) future? Would you recommend (name of U-LCC) to a friend or relative? Would you select (name of U-LCC) again? Independent Variables Gender o Male o Female Marital Status o Single o Married o Widowed Age o Under 65 o 65 70 o 71 75 o 76 80 o 81 85 o 86 and older Length of residence at this facility? o Less than 1 year o 1 2 years o More than 2 years What type of dwelling unit do you live in? o Villa/Club Home o Apartment In general, how would you rate your physical health? o Very Poor o Poor o Fair o Good o Excellent

PAGE 20

20 In general, how would you rate your emotional health? o Very Poor o Poor o Fair o Good o Excellent In general, how would you rate your current leve l of comfort with your financial situation? o Very Poor o Poor o Fair o Good o Excellent A matrix was developed from the results of the analyses indicating areas where significant differences at the 80% confidence level occurred. Additionally, a table was developed from the highest scores in each MI category as they rela ted to each key survey question creating a resident profile based on each key survey question. Thes e are found in the final two chapters and may help in constructing resident prof iles useful in target marketin g for this and future universityaffiliated life care communities around the country.

PAGE 21

21 CHAPTER 3 LITERATURE REVIEW Over the past 20 years the concept of reti rement communities has undergone continuous, metamorphic change. No longer does the term r etirement community automatically default to the traditional images of the languorous shuffleboard communities. Instead, the general concept of the retirement community has transitioned into a nearly antithesis perspective. Lethargy has been replaced with energy, activity and vitality. The focus of reti rement has turned to enjoyment of and capitalization on the freedom from occupational and familial responsibilities and constraints. Active-lifestyle communities have become bi g business in states like Florida, Arizona, North Carolina, and to a lesser, but emerging degr ee in Tennessee, Georgia, and the Carolinas. Two such types of communities are life care communities and continuing care residential communities, and though not a particularly new con cept in and of themselv es, they continue to evolve with respect to amenities, level of care, financial considerations, and a myriad of other distinctions and features, including affiliations wi th religious and fraternal entities, as well as nearby universities. Often, the terms life ca re community and continuing care retirement community are used interchangeably. Historicall y, life care facilities we re characterized by the elderly person turning over all their possession s and holdings to a nonprofit organization in exchange for the assurance of havi ng their daily housing, meal, and healthcare needs met. In the latter 20th Century, the continuing-car e retirement community (CCRC) had emerged, resembling the life care community with respect to mee ting the needs of the resident (Gordon 1998). However, the CCRC, according to Gordon, diffe red from the life care community, in that, instead of requiring residents to give up all their possessions a nd holdings to the CCRC, residents were charged substantial entrance fees, endowment s or founders fees upfront. Residents, then,

PAGE 22

22 would pay a monthly maintenance fee for the duration of their st ay (usually the remainder of their life) at the CCRC. There are some othe r technical distinctions between the two terms which should be pointed out for the sake of completeness. A continuing care retirement community (CCRC) contract in California, for exam ple, is defined as a "written contract which includes a promise, expressed or implied by a provider to provide one or more elements of care to an elderly resident for the dur ation of his or her life or for a term in excess of one year, in exchange for the payment of an entrance fee, or payment of periodic char ges, or both types of payments" (Episcopal Homes Foundation 2007). Th e types and levels of medical services may vary greatly between CCRCs. On the other hand, a life care contract m eans a continuing care contract which includes a promis e, expressed or implied by a provide r to provide routine services at all levels of care including acute care and physicians a nd surgeons services, to a resident for the duration of his or her life. Furthermore, care shall be provided in a continuing care retirement community having a comprehensive continuum of ca re, including a skilled nursing facility, under the ownership and supervision of the provider on, or adjacent to, the premises of the retirement community (Episcopal Homes Fou ndation 2007). In additi on, under the terms of a life care retirement community c ontract, no change may be made in the monthly fee based on needed level of services, as well as the inclus ion of a provision to subsidize residents who become financially unable to pay their monthly care fees. Many LCCs feature large campuses that offe r a variety of housing options including separate housing (including detached homes, cl ustered homes and apartment homes) for those who live very independently, assisted living facil ities for those who require more support, and nursing homes for those needing skilled nursing care. With all on the same grounds, people who

PAGE 23

23 are relatively active, as well as those who have serious physical and mental disabilities, all live nearby. Residents then move from one housing ch oice to another as th eir needs change. While usually very expensive, LCCs guara ntee lifetime shelter and care with long-term contracts that detail the h ousing and care obligations of the LCC as well as its costs. The level of on-campus amenities may vary between LCCs, but a common denominator between them is a commitment to wellness through rehabilitation, fi tness, nutrition, preventive and reactive care. A growing number of LCCs are affiliating w ith nearby universities to provide what is commonly referred to as Lifelong Learning. Community members are provided campus privileges similar to those of the universit y faculty, including access to sporting events, performing arts events, libraries, research facilities, museums and most classes taught at the university. The idea of provi ding a social and academic opportunity through a university affiliation is thought to add another dimension to the overall wellness of the community member. Thus, for the purpose of this study, the term univers ity-affiliated life care community (U-LCC) is used as it most appropriately describes this facility. Potential members are screened for overall health and medical history, as we ll as financial stability. Entran ce fees and monthly maintenance fees are commensurate with the type of dwelli ng unit selected by the community member. Some LCCs and U-LCCs offer programs by which the community member may apportion a percentage of their investment in the facility to their heir s. These programs carry a higher initial investment than programs without the be neficiary component. Numerous studies have been conducted out lining the benefits and pre-selection considerations related to the deci sion-making process involved in whether or not to move into a CCRC or LCC, and if so, which type should be se lected. Thus, ample literature exits on the pros and cons of selecting a life care community over an alternative type of retirement residence.

PAGE 24

24 This study, however, does not investigate the de cision-making process involved in a persons decision to move to a CCRC or LCC or remain in their own home through th eir retirement years. Rather, the focus of this study is to measure th e degree of satisfaction of individuals who have already made the move to a university-affiliated life care community. A review of existing literature revealed no substantive results in the fo rm of resident satisfact ion surveys, per se, of university-affiliated life care communities. Perhaps this is due, in part, to the relative newness of university-affiliated concept. However, a search fo r pertinent literature rev ealed that much of the existing information of this type is proprietary and difficult to acquire especially when such information is generally considered sensitive by the communitys management. Understandably, communities are reluctant to publish satisfaction surveys for public dissemination. This concern is evidenced by the stipulation pla ced on the release of the raw survey data used in this study. It was only released after agreement by the research er that neither the name of the life care community, nor the identity of the independent consulting fi rm conducting the survey be published. As such, the facility is only iden tifiable, geographically, as a major universityaffiliated life care community in the southeastern United States.

PAGE 25

25 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Indicators of Overall Sati sfaction by Respondents The first part of the data analysis focused on the overall results of the five key questions from the Overall Satisfaction (OS) section of th e survey. The results from each of the five questions were tabulated without regard to re spondent stratification by the categories in the Member Information section (gender, marital st atus, type of dwelling unit, etc.) The purpose was to give an overview of the collective responses to provide insight into the levels of satisfaction across the spectrum of all the respondents. Figure 4-1 shows the frequency of responses to the question: How do you rate you r overall satisfaction with (name of U-LCC)? The results show a very strong tendency toward a bove average satisfaction with nearly half of the respondents (45.3%) selecti ng good overall satisfaction a nd 37.6% selecting excellent. The mean score by survey respondents to the question of overa ll satisfaction was 82.8. 1.7% 3.0% 12.4% 45.3% 37.6% 0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0% Very Poor Average Excellent Figure 4-1. Frequency of res ponses by survey respondents to the question: How do you rate your overall satisfaction w ith (name of U-LCC)? The second question in the OS section was: How do you rate the value for price paid at (name of U-LCC)? Figure 4-2 shows that th e most frequently selected response was good, with 40.5% of the responses. While the responses were slightly more disp ersed in this question than the first, the mean score for this question was 74.8; a difference of -0.8 compared to overall

PAGE 26

26 satisfaction with the facility. Th is may suggest that there are f actors other than financial that drive an increased overall satisfaction with the fac ility. It may be of interest in a follow-up study to determine what factors (if any) account fo r the difference between overall satisfaction and value for price paid. 4.1% 8.9% 21.0% 40.5% 25.4% 0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0% Very Poor Average Excellent Figure 4-2. Frequency of respons es by survey respondents to the question: How do you rate the value for price paid at (name of U-LCC)? Long-term confidence in the f acility, like overall satisfacti on, showed a tendency toward higher-than-average confidence. Figure 4-3 shows the frequency of responses to the question: How would you rate your long-te rm confidence in (name of ULCC)? Nearly the same 2.8% 4.1% 17.2% 37.9% 37.9% 0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0% Very Poor Average Excellent Figure 4-3. Frequency of res ponses by survey respondents to the question: How do you rate your long-term confidence in (n ame of U-LCCs) future? proportion of respondents (37.9%) se lected excellent in response to long-term confidence as selected excellent (37.6%) in resp onse to overall satisfaction with the facility. While there was

PAGE 27

27 a slight shift in good responses toward aver age in this question as compared to overall satisfaction, the mean score for long-term c onfidence was 80.8; a difference of only -2.0. The last two questions in the OS section were three-point response type, with yes, no, and dont know response options. Figure 44 and Figure 4-5 shows the frequencies of responses to the two final quest ions: Would you recommend (name of U-LCC) to a friend or relative? and Would you select (name of U-LCC) again? 10.7% 7.0% 82.3% 0.0%20.0%40.0%60.0%80.0%100.0% Don't Know No Yes Figure 4-4. Frequency of re sponses by survey respondents to the question: Would you recommend (name of U-LCC) to a friend or relative? 19.7% 7.4% 72.9% 0.0%20.0%40.0%60.0%80.0% Don't Know No Yes Figure 4-5. Frequency of respons es by survey respondents to th e question: Would you select (name of U-LCC) again? A fairly high majority of residents indicat ed a willingness to both recommend the facility to a friend or relative and select the facility again as shown by the frequency of yes responses (82.3% and 72.9%, respectively). Ho wever, it is interesting to not e that the frequency of yes responses to a resident selecti ng the facility again lagged behi nd by nearly 10% when compared to whether a resident would recommend the facil ity to another person. These results beg the

PAGE 28

28 question: Why would a resident be more likely to recommend this facility to a friend or relative when he or she is either not sure of selecting it or would not select it again? Perhaps this question would be worthy of pursuit in a follo w-up study to assess the differing motivation of individuals to recommend the facility while lacking the inclination to select it again. Overall Satisfaction (by Group) Now that an overall basis of satisfaction by all survey respondents has been identified, this section delves further into each of the five key OS questions and stratifie s the survey respondents by groups according to the categor ies described in the Member In formation (MI) section (gender, marital status, age range, length of residency, type of dwelling unit, physical health condition, emotional health condition, and financial situation) Each of these MI categories served as an independent variable in the analyses of each ke y OS question (the dependent variables). Of interest was whether significant differences ex isted between the means the groups of respondents at the 80% confidence level. Th e results of these analyses ar e shown in Figures 4-6 through 445. Gender Referring back to the first question in the Ov erall Satisfaction sect ion; How do you rate your overall satisfaction with (name of U-LCC)? the analyses of m eans variation began with a Figure 4-6. Mean ratings by gender to surv ey question: How do you rate your overall satisfaction with (name of U-LCC)? 4.18 (0.82) 4.17 (0.82) 1.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00 Male (n=122) Female (n=167)

PAGE 29

29 t-Test for the two gender groups. Figure 4-6 show s the mean rating by gender to this question. The scale is 1 through 5, where 1 = very poor/lowest satisfacti on and 5 = excellent/highest satisfaction. This scale is used for all responses to the questions of Ov erall Satisfaction, Value for Price Paid and Long-Term Confidence. The horizontal bars represent the mean value of responses from each group. The numeric mean value is listed to the right of each bar, with the standard deviation noted in pare ntheses. The shaded vertical bar indicates homogeneity between the groups. An uninterrupted shad ed vertical bar indicates no si gnificant differen ces observed at the 80% confidence level (p 0.20). A vertical line instead of the shaded vertical bar through a horizontal bar indicates a statistically significant difference at p 0.20 between those groups sharing the line instead of the shaded vertical bar. In this case, no significant difference was observed between the two groups (Figure 4-6). Table 4-1 shows the mean scores by gender to the question of overa ll satisfaction. The means scores were nearly identical between male and female respondents (83.4 and 83.6, respectively). No significant difference between the means of the groups was observed at the 80% confidence level. Table 4-1. Mean scores by gender to surv ey question: How do you rate your overall satisfaction with (name of U-LCC)? Gender Mean Score Male (n=122) 83.4 Female (n=167) 83.6 Marital Status The next independent variable of interest in the analysis of the question of overall satisfaction with the facility is marital status. Fi gure 4-7 shows the mean ratings to this question by each group of respondents according to marital status. There were only 26 respondents in the

PAGE 30

30 Figure 4-7. Mean ratings by mar ital status to survey question: How do you rate your overall satisfaction with (name of U-LCC)? single group (about half of the number of respondents in th e widowed group, and slightly less than 13% of the total number of respondents in the married group). Table 4-2 shows the mean scores by marital st atus to the question of overall satisfaction. Widowed respondents expressed the highest level of overall satisfa ction with a mean score of 84.8. A comparison of the means between each group revealed no significant differences at the 80% confidence level. Table 4-2. Mean scores by marita l status to survey question: How do you rate your overall satisfaction with (name of U-LCC)? Marital Status Mean Score Single (n=26) 80.8 Married (n=204) 84.0 Widowed (n=51) 84.8 Age Range Each respondent was classified according to ag e and assigned to one of six age categories. Figure 4-8 shows the mean ratings by age gr oup and a general trend was observed; as age increases, so does the frequency of increased satisfaction by the respondents. Notwithstanding Group 1 (under age 65) with the smallest populati on (n=10), the frequency of responses shifted from good to excellent across the spectrum of age groups as age increased. These data are descriptive only and do not provide insight into the reasons behind this upward trend. A follow4.24 (0.89) 4.20 (0.80) 4.04 (0.60) 1.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00 Single (n=26) Married (n=204) Widowed (n=51)

PAGE 31

31 up study should probe into the reasons for incr eased overall satisfacti on as residents age increases. Figure 4-8. Mean ratings by age range to surv ey question: How do you rate your overall satisfaction with (name of U-LCC)? Table 4-3 shows the mean scores by age gr oup for the question of overall satisfaction. Despite what appears to be a good degree of va riation in the frequency graph between Group 2 and Group 6, no significant differenc es were observed between the means of the any of the age groups at the 80% confidence leve l. Without considering the fi rst group (under 65), this table more clearly shows the upward trend in satisfact ion as age increases, with the oldest group (86+) having the highest mean score at 87.6. Table 4-3. Mean scores by age range to su rvey question: How do you rate your overall satisfaction with (name of U-LCC)? Age Range Mean Score Under 65 (n=10) 84.0 65-70 (n=34) 79.4 71-75 (n=54) 80.8 76-80 (n=82) 85.6 81-85 (n=81) 85.0 86+ (n=24) 87.6 Length of Residency At the time of this survey, this U-LCC ha d been open for approximately two and a half years. Figure 4-9 shows the mean ratings by the length of each respondents residency to the 3.97 (0.76) 4.04 (0.85) 4.20 (0.63) 4.25 (0.77) 4.28 (0.81) 4.38 (0.82) 1.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00 65-70 (n=34) 71-75 (n=54) Under 65 (n=10) 81-85 (n=81) 76-80 (n=82) 86 and older (n=24)

PAGE 32

32 question of overall satisfaction w ith the facility. The highest fr equency of responses were above average (either good or excellent) for all groups, however, a slight downward shift in frequencies occurred in the two groups having the longest period of residency, as contrasted with the continuous upward trend of respondents ha ving the shortest period of residency. Figure 4-9. Mean ratings by length of residenc y to survey question: How do you rate your overall satisfaction with (name of U-LCC)? Table 4-4 shows the mean scores by length of residency to the question of overall satisfaction. The group with the highest mean sa tisfaction score of 85.6 was Group 1 (less than 1 year). No significant differences were observe d between the means of the groups at the 80% confidence level. Table 4-4. Mean scores by length of residenc y to survey question: How do you rate your overall satisfaction with (name of U-LCC)? Length of Residency Mean Score <1 Year (n=46) 85.6 1 2 Years (n=79) 82.2 2+ Years (n=158) 84.0 Type of Dwelling Unit Two main classifications of housing exist in this U-LCC: apartment homes and detached homes (villas and club homes). Although respon dents living in apartment homes outnumbered those living in villas or club homes by a margin of a little more than 4 to 1 (which is roughly the same proportion of apartment homes to detached ho mes in the community), very little difference 4.28 (0.89) 4.20 (0.79) 4.11 (0.77) 1.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00 1-2 Years (n=79) >2 Years (n=158) <1 Year (n=46)

PAGE 33

33 was observed between the means of these two groups. Once again, the mean rating of each group was well above average satisfaction. Figure 4-10. Mean ratings by type of dwelling unit to survey question: How do you rate your overall satisfaction with (name of U-LCC)? Table 4-5 shows the mean scores by type of dwelling unit for th e question of overall satisfaction. Respondents who live in apartmen t homes reported a high er degree of overall satisfaction with a mean score of 83.8 as opposed to 81.8 for residents liv ing in villas or club homes. No significant difference between the means at the 80% level was observed. Table 4-5. Mean scores by type of dwelling unit to survey question: How do you rate your overall satisfaction with (name of U-LCC)? Type of Dwelling Unit Mean Score Villa/Club Home (n=53) 81.8 Apartment (n=237) 83.8 Physical Health Condition The Member Information section of the survey asked respondents to re port their perception of their physical health condition. The response option included five selections: very poor, poor, fair, good and excellent. No re spondents reported having a very poor health condition and only seven reported having a poor health condition. Figure 4-11 shows the mean ratings to the question of overall satisfaction by self-reported health condition category. The results show a very similar trend of responses across all health condition groups. 4.19 (0.84) 4.09 (0.71) 1.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00 Villa/Club Home (n=53) Apartment (n=237)

PAGE 34

34 Figure 4-11. Mean ratings by self -described physical health cond ition to survey question: How do you rate your overall satisfac tion with (name of U-LCC)? Table 4-5 shows the mean scores by respondent s physical health condition to the question of overall satisfaction. Although Group 1 (poor physical health condition) had the smallest number of respondents (n=7), this group exhibite d the highest mean overa ll satisfaction score of 88.6. No significant differences between the means of any of the groups were observed. Table 4-5. Mean scores by self-described physical health condition to survey question: How do you rate your overall satisfacti on with (name of U-LCC)? Physical Health Condition Mean Score Poor Health (n=7) 88.6 Fair Health (n=58) 80.0 Good Health (n=180)83.8 Excellent Health (n=45) 86.2 Emotional Health Condition Respondents were grouped according to their self-reported emotional health condition, which consisted of five response options: very poor, poor, fair, good and excellent. There were no respondents who reported having a very poor em otional health condition and only two who reported having a poor emotional health condit ion. The two who repor ted a poor emotional health condition were regarded as outliers and excluded from this analysis. The results of the remaining three groups are illustrated in Fi gure 4-12. Table 4-6 shows the mean scores by respondents emotional health condi tion to the question of overall sa tisfaction. In this analysis, a significant difference between the means of the groups at the 80% confidence level was 4.43 (0.54) 4.31 (0.76) 4.19 (0.83) 4.00 (0.82) 1.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00Fair (n=58) Good (n=180) Excellent (n=45) Poor (n=7)

PAGE 35

35 observed. The difference in means occurred betw een Group 3 (excellent emotional health) with a mean satisfaction score of 86.2 and Group 2 (good emotional health) with a mean satisfaction score of 84.0, as well as between Group 3 and Gr oup 1 (fair emotional health) with a mean satisfaction score of 73.6. The results show an upward trend in satisfaction, commensurate with an increasing level of the se lf-described emotional health condition of the respondents. Figure 4-12. Mean ratings by se lf-described emotional health condition to survey question: How do you rate your overall satis faction with (name of U-LCC)? Table 4-6. Mean scores by self-described emotio nal health condition to survey question: How do you rate your overall satisfac tion with (name of U-LCC)? Emotional Health Condition Mean Score Fair EmoHlth (n=31) 73.6 Good EmoHlth (n=158)84.0 Exc. EmoHlth (n=99) 86.2 Financial Situation Part of the Member Information section as ked respondents to gauge their perception of their own financial situation. Th is served as another independent variable in the analysis of the five key survey questions. The results of the raw data analysis revealed one respondent who reported having a very poor financial situation. No respondents reported a poor financial situation. The respondent reporting a very poor financial situation was treated as an outlier and disregarded in this analysis. Figure 4-13 shows the mean ratings according to the self-described financial situation of the respondents. Here, a de finite upward trend in ov erall satisfaction with 4.31 (0.82) 4.20 (0.74) 3.68 (0.98) 3.50 (0.71) 1.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00Poor (n=2) Fair (n=31) Good (n=158) Excellent (n=99)

PAGE 36

36 this facility was observed between the groups. As respondents se lf-reported financial situation improved, so did the frequency of higher satisfaction indicators. Figure 4-13. Mean ratings according to self-descr ibed financial situation to survey question: How do you rate your overall satis faction with (name of U-LCC)? Table 4-7 shows the mean scores by residents financial situation to the question of overall satisfaction. Respondents in Group 2 (good financial situation) re ported higher frequencies of greater satisfaction, producing a mean satisfaction score of 82.8, compared to Group 1 (fair financial situation) whose mean satisfaction score was 79.4. Similarly, respondents in Group 3 (excellent financial situation) reported higher frequencies of greater satisfaction than Group 2, with a mean satisfaction score of 87.8; the highest mean score of all three groups. A significant difference at the 80% confidence level was obs erved between Groups 3 and 1, as well as between Groups 3 and 2. The results suggest that individuals with the highest degree of selfreported financial strength had the greatest degr ee of overall satisfaction with this facility. Table 4-7. Mean scores by self-described fina ncial situation to surv ey question: How do you rate your overall satisfaction with (name of U-LCC)? Financial Situation Mean Score Fair Financial (n=33) 79.4 Good Financial (n=183) 82.8 Exc. Financial (n=72) 87.8 4.39 (0.72) 4.14 (0.82) 3.97 (0.92) 11.522.533.544.55 Fair (n=33) Good (n=183) Excellent (n=72)

PAGE 37

37 Value for Price Paid (by Group) The second question in the Overall Satisfacti on section is: How do you rate the value for price paid at (name of U-LCC)? Respondents we re left to interpret th e concept of value for themselves. The eight independent variables were applied to this key surv ey question and results were analyzed as in the previous key question. Several significant di fferences were observed between the means of the various groups. Gender Figure 4-14 shows the mean ratings by gende r to the question of the respondents perception of overall value for price paid at this facility. The m ean ratings were closely related without regard to gender and showed an a bove average degree of perceived value. Table 4-8 shows the mean scores by gender to the question of overall va lue for price paid. The mean scores from male and female re spondents were 75.0 and 76.0, respectively, with no significant difference observed between th e means at the 80% confidence level. 3.80 (1.00) 3.75 (1.04) 1.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00 Male (n=121) Female (n=160) Figure 4-14. Frequency of responses by gender to survey question: How do you rate the value for price paid at (name of U-LCC)? Table 4-8. Mean scores by gender to survey ques tion: How do you rate th e value for price paid at (name of U-LCC)? Gender Mean Score Male (n=121) 75.0 Female (n=160) 76.0

PAGE 38

38 Marital Status Figure 4-15 illustrates the mean ratings by marital status to the question of overall value for price paid. The responses of each group foll owed the same general trend, indicating a level of overall value in the g ood to excellent range. Table 4-9 shows the mean scores by marital stat us to the question of overall value for price paid. Married respondents (n=198, representing 72.5% of the total number of respondents) ascribed the lowest overall valu e for price paid with a mean score of 74.4. Widowed respondents ascribed the highest level of pe rceived value for price paid with a mean score of 81.2. Single respondents nearly split the diffe rence between the other two groups with a mean score of 77.0. No significant differences were observed between the means of any of the groups at the 80% confidence level. Figure 4-15. Mean ratings by marital status to survey question: How do you rate the value for price paid at (name of U-LCC)? Table 4-9. Mean scores by marita l status to survey question: How do you rate the value for price paid at (name of U-LCC)? Marital Status Mean Score Single (n=26) 77.0 Married (n=198) 74.4 Widowed (n=49) 81.2 4.06 (0.92) 3.85 (1.01) 3.72 (1.01) 1.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00 Married (n=198) Single (n=26) Widowed (n=49)

PAGE 39

39 Age Range Figure 4-16 illustrates the mean ratings by age range to the question of overall value for price paid. Interestingly, the only group with an almost linear upward trend in satisfaction was the oldest group those respondents age 86 and over. Table 4-10 shows the mean scores by age range to the question of overall value for price paid at this facility. Group 4 (a ge 76-80) ascribed the highest ove rall value for price paid with a mean score of 78.8 and Group 2 (age 65-70) was lowe st at 71.8. No significant differences were observed between the means of any of the groups. Figure 4-16. Mean ratings by age range to survey question: How do you rate the value for price paid at (name of U-LCC)? Table 4-10. Mean scores by age range to survey question: How do you rate the value for price paid at (name of U-LCC)? Age Range Mean Score Under 65 (n=10) 74.0 65-70 (n=34) 71.8 71-75 (n=54) 72.6 76-80 (n=77) 78.8 81-85 (n=77) 77.4 86+ (n=26) 77.6 3.59 (0.92) 3.63 (1.03) 3.70 (0.82) 3.87 (0.88) 3.88 (1.24) 3.94 (1.08) 1.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00 65-70 (n=34) 71-75 (n=54) Under 65 (n=10) 81-85 (n=77) 86 and older (n=26) 76-80 (n=77)

PAGE 40

40 Length of Residency Figure 4-17 shows the mean ratings by the leng th of the respondent s residency to the question of overall value for price paid. Figure 4-17. Mean ratings by lengt h of residency to survey question: How do you rate the value for price paid at (name of U-LCC)? Table 4-11 shows the mean scores by length of respondents residenc y to the question of overall value. In this instance, a significant difference between the means of Group 2 (1 2-year residents) and Group 3 (those re siding over 2 years) with mean scores of 71.8 and 78.6, respectively, was observed at the 80% confidence level. It may of interest in a follow-up study to examine the possible cause of this dip in the perception of ove rall value for price paid from intermediate-length residents. Table 4-11. Mean scores by length of residency to survey question: H ow do you rate the value for price paid at (name of U-LCC)? Length of Residency Mean Score <1 Year (n=45) 74.2 1 2 Years (n=75) 71.8 2+ Years (n=157) 78.6 Type of Dwelling Unit Figure 4-18 shows the mean ratings by type of dwelling unit to the ques tion of overall value for price paid. From the chart, it is evident that respondents in apartment homes tended to ascribe more overall value for the price paid than respon dents residing in villas or club homes. The 3.93 (0.94) 3.71 (1.08) 3.59 (1.07) 1.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00 1-2 Years (n=75) <1 Year (n=45) >2 Years (n=157)

PAGE 41

41 vertical line through the horizontal bars indicates a significa nt difference was observed between the means of the two groups at p 0.20. Figure 4-18. Mean ratings by type of dwelling unit to survey question: How do you rate the value for price paid at (name of U-LCC)? Table 4-12 shows the mean scores by type of dwelling unit to the que stion of overall value for price paid. Respondents residing in apartm ent homes reported higher degrees of perceived value in the price paid (with a mean score of 77.2) than respondents residing in villas or club homes (with a mean score of 69.0). Table 4-12. Mean scores by type of dwelling unit to survey question: How do you rate the value for price paid at (name of U-LCC)? Type of Dwelling Unit Mean Score Villa/Club Home (n=53) 69.0 Apartment (n=231) 77.2 Physical Health Figure 4-19 shows the mean ratings by self-d escribed physical health condition to the question of overall value for pr ice paid. Table 4-13 shows the mean scores by respondents physical health condition to the question of overall value for price paid. No significant differences between the means of any group were observed at the 80% confidence level. Group 1 (respondents reporting a poor physical health cond ition) ascribed the highest overall value with 3.86 (1.00) 3.45 (1.03) 1.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00 Villa/Club Home (n=53) Apartment (n=231)

PAGE 42

42 a mean score of 80.0, while Group 2 (respondents reporting a fair physical health condition) ascribed the lowest percep tion of overall value at 72.0. Figure 4-19. Mean ratings by self -described physical health cond ition to survey question: How do you rate the value for price paid at (name of U-LCC)? Table 4-13. Mean scores by self-described physic al health condition to survey question: How do you rate the value for price paid at (name of U-LCC)? Physical Health Condition Mean Score Poor Health (n=6) 80.0 Fair Health (n=58) 72.0 Good Health (n=175) 77.0 Excellent Health (n=44) 75.0 Emotional Health Figure 4-20 shows the mean ratings by responde nts self-described level of emotional health condition to the question of overall valu e for price paid. Group 1 (respondents reporting a fair emotional health condition) ascribed the lowest degree of perceived value as shown by the distribution of the frequency of responses. Gr oups 2 and 3 (good emotional health condition and excellent emotional health condition, respectively) shared a similar trend in frequencies of responses as shown in Figure 4-19. Table 4-14 shows the mean scores by res pondents emotional health condition to the question of overall value for pri ce paid. Significant differences were observed at the 80% level between the means of Group 1 and Group 2 (fair and good emotional healt h, respectively), as 4.00 (1.27) 3.85 (0.99) 3.75 (0.99) 3.60 (1.11) 1.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00 Fair (n=58) Excellent (n=44) Good (n=175) Poor (n=6)

PAGE 43

43 well as Group 1 and Group 3 (fair and excellent em otional health, respecti vely). Group 1 (fair emotional health) ascribed the lowest percepti on of overall value for price paid with a mean score of 66.2, with respondents in Group 3 (excelle nt emotional health) ascribing the highest overall value at 77.2. Figure 4-20. Mean ratings by se lf-described emotional health condition to survey question: How do you rate the value for pr ice paid at (name of U-LCC)? Table 4-14. Mean scores by self-described emotio nal health condition to survey question: How do you rate the value for price paid at (name of U-LCC)? Emotional Health Condition Mean Score Fair EmoHlth (n=29) 66.2 Good EmoHlth (n=153) 76.6 Exc. EmoHlth (n=99) 77.2 Financial Situation Figure 4-21 shows the mean ratings by respondents self-described financ ial situation. Group 3 (respondents with an excellent financial situatio n) reporting the highest frequencies of good and excellent responses, while Group 1 (respondents with a fair financial situation) had the highest frequencies of very poor and poor responses. Table 4-15 shows the mean scores by respondent s financial situati on to the question of overall value for price paid. Here, another upw ard trend was observed. As respondents selfdescribed financial situation improved, so did th e mean scores. Group 1 (respondents with a fair 3.86 (1.03) 3.83 (0.98) 3.50 (0.71) 3.31 (1.14) 1.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00 Fair (n=29) Poor (n=2) Good (n=153) Excellent (n=99)

PAGE 44

44 financial situation) ascribed the lowest perceive d value for price paid wi th a mean score of 68.4 and Group 3 (respondents with an excellent financial situation) ascribed th e highest overall value for price paid with a mean score of 78.8. A si gnificant difference between these two groups was observed at the 80% confidence level. Figure 4-21. Mean ratings by self-described fina ncial situation to survey question: How do you rate the value for price paid at (name of U-LCC)? Table 4-15. Mean scores by self-described fina ncial situation to surv ey question: How do you rate the value for price paid at (name of U-LCC)? Financial Situation Mean Score Fair Financial (n=33) 68.4 Good Financial (n=180) 75.8 Exc. Financial (n=69) 78.8 Long-term Confidence (by Group) The third question in the Over all Satisfaction section was: How do you rate your longterm confidence in (name of U-LCCs) future? Gender Figure 4-22 shows the mean ratings by gender to th e question of residents long-term confidence. Here again, the mean responses were very similar between male and female respondents. Female respondents exhibited a higher frequency of selecting excellent than male respondents, resulting in an increasing upward trend in long-term confidence in the facility. Despite a slight downward turn in the male respondents frequenc y curve compared to female respondents, the 3.94 (0.94) 3.79 (1.01) 3.42 (1.15) 11.522.533.544.55 Fair (n=33) Good (n=180) Excellent (n=69)

PAGE 45

45 mean scores between the two groups were 81.2 and 82.0 for male and female respondents, respectively. No significant di fferences were observed between the means of these two groups at the 80% confidence level. 4.10 (0.95) 4.06 (0.91) 1.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00 Male (n=122) Female (n=158) Figure 4-22. Mean ratings by gender to surv ey question: How do you rate your long-term confidence in (name of U-LCCs) future? Table 4-16 shows the mean scores by gender to the question of re spondents long-term confidence in the facility. Table 4-16. Mean scores by gender to survey question: How do you rate your long-term confidence in (name of U-LCCs) future? Gender Mean Score Male (n=122) 81.2 Female (n=158) 82.0 Marital Status Very similar responses to the question of long-term confidence in the facility were observed across each category of marital status. An upward trend toward increased long-term confidence in the facility was observed in Gr oups 1 and 2 (single and widowed respondents, respectively). Group 2 (married respondents) showed a slight decrease in their mean rating, as shown in Figure 4-23.

PAGE 46

46 Figure 4-23. Mean ratings by marital status to survey question: H ow do you rate your longterm confidence in (name of U-LCCs) future? Table 4-17 shows the mean scor es by marital status to th e question of residents longterm confidence in the facility. Widowed respond ents ascribed the highest long-term confidence in the facility with a mean score of 83.2. Si ngle and married respondents mean scores were nearly identical at 81.6 and 81.4, respectively. No significant differences between the means of any of the groups were observed at the 80% confidence level. Table 4-17. Mean scores by marita l status to survey question: How do you rate your long-term confidence in (name of U-LCCs) future? Marital Status Mean Score Single (n=24) 81.6 Married (n=199) 81.4 Widowed (n=50) 83.2 Age Range Figure 4-24 illustrates the mean ratings by age range in response to the question of longterm confidence in this facility. An interesting observation was made in this analysis, with the results showing an increasingly fa vorable trend toward long-term confidence in the facility as age increases. The two oldest age groups, Gr oups 5 and 6 (ages 81-85 and 86+, respectively), representing just over a third ( 35.9%) of all respondents, show an upward trend in long-term confidence across the spectrum of response op tions. Group 5 (ages 8185) indicated good confidence from 33.8% of that groups respond ents and excellent confidence from 48.6% of 4.16 (0.89) 4.08 (1.02) 4.07 (0.93) 1.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00 Married (n=199) Single (n=24) Widowed (n=50)

PAGE 47

47 the respondents in that group. Group 6 (ages 86+ ) exhibited even more favorable long-term confidence in the facility with 68% of the respondents in th at group selecting excellent. Figure 4-24. Mean ratings by age range to surv ey question: How do you rate your long-term confidence in (name of U-LCCs) future? This was the highest frequency of responses by a ny one group to any of the key survey questions using the Likert-type scale. A clear trend was observed in the mean scores of each group as shown in Table 4-18; as age increased, so did re spondents long-term confid ence in the facility. Significant differences at the 80 % confidence level were observed between the means of two age groups: Groups 2 and 5 (ages 65-70 and 81-85, resp ectively) and Groups 3 and 5 (ages 71-75 and 81-85, respectively). Group 6 (ages 86+) exhib ited the highest long-te rm confidence in the facility with a mean score of 88.0. Table 4-18. Mean scores by age range to surv ey question: How do you rate your long-term confidence in (name of U-LCCs) future? Age Range Mean Score Under 65 (n=10) 74.0 65-70 (n=34) 77.0 71-75 (n=53) 78.2 76-80 (n=80) 81.6 81-85 (n=74) 86.2 86+ (n=25) 88.0 4.40 (1.00) 4.31 (0.76) 4.08 (0.96) 3.91 (1.01) 3.85 (0.78) 3.70 (1.16) 1.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00 Under 65 (n=10) 65-70 (n=34) 71-75 (n=53) 76-80 (n=80) 81-85 (n=74) 86 and older (n=25)

PAGE 48

48 Length of Residency Figure 4-25 shows the mean ratings by length of the respondents residency to the question of long-term confidence in the f acility. A very similar upward tr end toward increased long-term confidence was observed between Groups 1 and 3 (l ess than 1 year residency and over 2 years residency, respectively), while Group 2 (1 to 2 ye ars residency) exhibited a slightly lower overall rating. Table 4-19 shows the mean scores by resident s length of residenc y to the question of long-term confidence in the facil ity. Respondents having lived in th is university-affiliated life care community for two or more years exhibited th e highest long-term confidence in the facility with a mean score of 83.2. Respondents having lived in the community between one and two years exhibited the lowest l ong-term confidence w ith a mean score of 79.8. No significant differences between the means of any group we re observed at the 80% confidence level. Figure 4-25. Mean ratings by length of reside ncy to survey question: How do you rate your long-term confidence in (nam e of U-LCCs) future? Table 4-19. Mean scores by res pondents length of residency to survey question: How do you rate your long-term confidence in (name of U-LCCs) future? Length of Residency Mean Score <1 Year (n=43) 81.4 1 2 Years (n=76) 79.8 2+ Years (n=156) 83.2 4.16 (0.89) 4.07 (0.99) 3.99 (0.96) 1.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00 1-2 Years (n=76) <1 Year (n=43) >2 Years (n=156)

PAGE 49

49 Type of Dwelling Unit Figure 4-26 shows the mean ratings by dwelling unit type and, as was the case with the frequencies of responses to the question of overall value, apartm ent dwellers exhibited similar ratings of higher long-term confid ence in the facility as those re siding in club homes or villas. Table 4-20 shows the mean scores by responde nts dwelling unit type to the question of long-term confidence in the faci lity. A significant differenc e at the 80% level was again observed between the means of respondents acco rding the type of dwelling unit they occupy. Respondents residing in apartment homes exhibi ted a mean score of 82.4, while respondents residing in villas and club home s exhibited a mean score of 78.4. Figure 4-26. Mean ratings by type of dwelling unit to survey question: How do you rate your long-term confidence in (nam e of U-LCCs) future? Table 4-20. Mean scores by type of dwelling unit to survey question: How do you rate your long-term confidence in (nam e of U-LCCs) future? Type of Dwelling Unit Mean Score Villa/Club Home (n=51) 78.4 Apartment (n=231) 82.4 Physical Health Figure 4-27 shows the mean ratings by each resp ondents self-described physical health condition to the question of long-te rm confidence. Each of the groups displayed a similar trend in responses. Group 2 (fair physic al health condition) had a disp roportionately lower frequency 4.12 (0.92) 3.92 (1.00) 1.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00 Villa/Club Home (n=51) Apartment (n=231)

PAGE 50

50 of good responses compared to the other groups, producing the lo west overall rating. However, no significant differences between the means of the groups were observed at the 80% confidence level. Figure 4-27. Mean ratings by self -described physical health cond ition to survey question: How do you rate your long-term confidence in (name of U-LCCs) future? Group 1 (poor physical health c ondition) had the lowest number of respondents (n=6), but exhibited the highest degree of l ong-term confidence in the facility with a mean score of 83.4, as shown in Table 4-21. Table 4-21. Mean scores by self-described physic al health condition to survey question: How do you rate your long-term confidence in (name of U-LCCs) future? Physical Health Condition Mean Score Poor Health (n=6) 83.4 Fair Health (n=57) 79.6 Good Health (n=174) 82.0 Excellent Health (n=45) 82.6 Emotional Health Figure 4-28 shows the mean ratings by res pondents emotional health condition to the question of long-term confidence in the facility shows an upward trend in long-term confidence from Groups 2 and 3 (respondents reporting good and excellent emotional health, respectively). Group 1 (respondents reporting fair emotional hea lth condition) tended to exhibit decreasing confidence from average. It was observed that the frequency of excelle nt responses increased 4.17 (0.75) 4.13 (0.94) 4.10 (0.92) 3.98 (1.01) 1.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00Fair (n=57) Good (n=174) Excellent (n=45) Poor (n=6)

PAGE 51

51 as the emotional health condition of the responde nts improved. As a result, those reporting an excellent emotional health condition exhibited the highest mean rating, however, no significant differences were observed at the 80% confidence level between th e means of any of the groups. A trend was observed in the mean scores fr om the groups as shown in Table 4-22; as respondents emotional health condition im proved, so did the mean scores. Group 3 (respondents reporting excellent emotional health) exhibited the greatest degree of long-term confidence with a mean score of 83.2. Figure 4-28. Mean ratings by se lf-described emotional health condition to survey question: How do you rate your long-term confid ence in (name of U-LCCs) future? Table 4-22. Mean scores by self-described emotio nal health condition to survey question: How do you rate your long-term confidence in (name of U-LCCs) future? Emotional Health Condition Mean Score Fair EmoHlth (n=29) 75.8 Good EmoHlth (n=155) 81.8 Exc. EmoHlth (n=97) 83.2 Financial Situation Figure 4-29 shows the mean ratings by respondent s self-described financial situation to the question of long-term confid ence in the facility. A clear trend in the mean scores was observed. As respondents self-r eported financial situation impr oved, so did the respondents long-term confidence in the facil ity, as evidenced in the upward tr end in the mean scores shown 4.16 (0.97) 4.09 (0.91) 4.00 (1.41) 3.79 (0.94) 1.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00 Fair (n=29) Poor (n=2) Good (n=155) Excellent (n=97)

PAGE 52

52 in Table 4-23. Group 1 had exhibited the lowest long-term confidence in the facility, with a mean score of 74.8, while Group 3 exhibited the hi ghest degree of long-term confidence with a mean score of 87.8. A significant difference at the 80% confidence level was observed between the means of Groups 1 and 3 (fair and excellent comfort level with financial situations, respectively), as well as between the means of Groups 2 and 3 (good and excellent comfort level with financial situations, respectively). Figure 4-29. Mean ratings by self-described fina ncial situation to survey question: How do you rate your long-term confidence in (name of U-LCCs) future? Table 4-23. Mean scores by self-described fina ncial situation to surv ey question: How do you rate your long-term confidence in (name of U-LCCs) future? Financial Situation Mean Score Fair Financial (n=31) 74.8 Good Financial (n=179) 80.4 Exc. Financial (n=71) 87.8 Likeliness to Recommend this Facility to a Friend or Relative (by Group) The fourth key question in the Overall Sa tisfaction section is : Would you recommend (name of U-LCC) to a friend or relative? For this question, a three-point scale was used: 1 = yes, 2 = no, and 3 = dont know. As such, a lower mean rating is more favorable. Gender No significant differences were observed between the means of either group on the question of recommending the facility. Each gr oup indicated a strong w illingness to recommend 4.39 (0.78) 4.02 (0.94) 3.74 (1.03) 11.522.533.544.55 Fair (n=31) Good (n=179) Excellent (n=71)

PAGE 53

53 this facility to a friend or relative. Figur e 4-30 shows the mean ratings by gender to this question. Figure 4-30. Mean ratings by gender to surv ey question: Would you recommend (name of ULCC) to a friend or relative? Marital Status Figure 4-31 shows the mean ratings by marital status to the question of recommending this facility to others. The results are very sim ilar to those from the gender group, although the frequency of dont know responses increased s lightly, thereby slightly increasing the mean rating of each group as compared to the mean ra tings by gender. No significant differences at the 80% level were observed. Figure 4-31. Mean ratings by marital status to survey question: Would you recommend (name of U-LCC) to a friend or relative? 1.24 (0.62) 1.30 (0.67) 1.001.502.002.503.00 Female (n=166) Male (n=124) 1.26 (0.64) 1.29 (0.67) 1.35 (0.75) 1.001.502.002.503.00 Single (n=26) Widowed (n=52) Married (n=204)

PAGE 54

54 Age Range Figure 4-32 shows the mean ratings by age range to the question of recommending the facility to others. A significant difference be tween the means at the 80 % confidence level was observed between Groups 3 and 4 (ages 71 75 and ages 76 80, respectively). Group 4 (ages 76 80) represented the greatest number of survey respondents (n =82) and indicated the highest frequency of willingness to recommend the facili ty to family or friends with 90.2% of yes responses from individuals in th at group. Group 3 (ages 71 75) representing the third largest group (n=53), displayed the lowest willingness to recommend the facility to others with 73.6% of respondents in that group selec ting yes responses and the highest level of uncertainty with 17% of that group selecting dont know. Figure 4-32. Mean ratings by age range to su rvey question: Would you recommend (name of U-LCC) to a friend or relative? Length of Residency Figure 4-33 shows the mean ratings by the res pondents length of resi dency to the question of recommending the facility to a friend or rela tive. The mean ratings by each group were closely related. The non-weighted average of yes responses of all respondents was 84.0%. 1.10 1.17 (0.54) 1.24 (0.61) 1.27 (0.67) 1.31 (0.70) 1.43 (0.77) 1.001.502.002.503.00 71-75 (n=53) 81-85 (n=81) 86 and older (n=26) 65-70 (n=34) 76-80 (n=82) Under 65 (n=10)

PAGE 55

55 No significant differences between the means of the groups were observed at the 80% confidence level. Figure 4-33. Mean ratings by length of reside ncy to survey question: Would you recommend (name of U-LCC) to a friend or relative? Type of Dwelling Unit Figure 4-34 shows the mean ratings by type of dwelling unit to the question of recommending the facility to a friend or relative. Here agai n, the mean ratings between the two groups were closely related. The non-weighted average of yes responses from all respondents was 84.2%. No significant differences between the means of either group were observed at the 80% level. Figure 4-34. Mean ratings by type of dwelli ng unit to survey question: Would you recommend (name of U-LCC) to a friend or relative? Physical Health Figure 4-35 shows the mean ratings by res pondents self-described physical health condition to the question of reco mmending the facility to others. There were no respondents 1.29 (0.66) 1.26 (0.65) 1.24 (0.60) 1.001.502.002.503.00 1-2 Years (n=79) >2 Years (n=160) <1 Year (n=46) 1.24 (0.61) 1.28 (0.66) 1.001.502.002.503.00 Apartment (n=238) Villa/Club Home (n=54)

PAGE 56

56 who reported having a very poor physical hea lth condition. Group 1 (poor physical health condition) had the smallest number of respondents (n=7), however, all i ndicated a willingness to recommend the facility with 100% yes response s. A significant difference between the means of Groups 2 and 3 (fair physical health and good physical health, respectively) at the 80% confidence level was observed. Group 2 (fair phy sical health), representing 20.2% of the respondents (n=59), had the lowest frequency of yes responses (74.6%) and the highest frequency of uncertainty, as evidenced by 18.5% dont know responses, resulting in the highest mean rating (where the higher the mean rating the worse the score). Figure 4-35. Mean ratings by self-described physical health condition to survey question: Would you recommend (name of U-L CC) to a friend or relative? Emotional Health Figure 4-36 shows the mean ratings by res pondents self-described emotional health condition to the question of reco mmending the facility to others. There were no respondents who reported having a very poor emotional health condition. Group 1 (respondents who reported a poor emotional health condition) had the lowest (most favorable) mean rating of 1. However, there were only two respondents in that group. A significant difference at the 80% confidence level was observed between Group 2 (respondents who reported fair emotional health) and Group 4 (respondents who reported excelle nt emotional health). When Group 2 (fair emotional health) is omitted from the analysis, the non-weighted average of yes responses by 1.00 (0.00) 1.20 (0.55) 1.25 (0.62) 1.44 (0.79) 1.001.502.002.503.00 Fair (n=59) Good (n=181) Excellent (n=45) Poor (n=7)

PAGE 57

57 the other groups is 85.8%. Group 2 (n=31) had the lowest frequency of yes responses (67.7%) and the highest degree of uncertainly with 19.4% dont know responses. Figure 4-36. Mean ratings by se lf-described emotional health condition to survey question: Would you recommend (name of U-L CC) to a friend or relative? Financial Situation Figure 4-37 shows the mean ratings by respondent s self-described financial situation to the question of recommending the faci lity to a friend or relative. In inverse relationship between financial strength and willingness to recommend the facility wa s observed. The frequency of yes responses increased with the level of resp ondents self-described financial situation. A significant difference at the 80% confidence level was observed between the means of Groups 1 and 3 (fair financial situa tion and excellent financial situation, respectively). Figure 4-37. Mean ratings by self-described fi nancial situation to su rvey question: Would you recommend (name of U-LCC) to a friend or relative? 1.00 (0.00) 1.19 (0.55) 1.28 (0.67) 1.52 (0.81) 1.001.502.002.503.00 Fair (n=31) Good (n=159) Excellent (n=100) Poor (n=2) 1.15 (0.46) 1.29 (0.67) 1.47 (0.83) 1.001.502.002.503.00 Fair (n=34) Good (n=183) Excellent (n=73)

PAGE 58

58 Likeliness to Select this Facility Again (by Group) The fifth and final question in the Overall Sa tisfaction section is: Would you select (name of U-LCC) again? As with th e previous key satisfaction questi on, a three-point scale was used: 1 = yes, 2 = no, and 3 = dont know. Gender Figure 4-38 shows the mean ratings by gender to the question of the respondent selecting the facility again. Once again, as with all of the other key questions, no significant differences were observed between the means of either group w ith respect to gender. However, the average number of yes responses to this question vers us the question of the recommending the facility to a friend or relative is lower by nearly 10% (74% reselect versus 83.7% recommend to others). Figure 4-38. Mean ratings by gender to survey question: Would you select (name of U-LCC) again? This reduction in yes responses was not direc tly offset by no responses. In fact, no responses from female respondents actually decr eased by .05% while th e frequency of no responses from male respondents increased by only 3.3%. The major offset occurred primarily from uncertainty. The frequency of dont know responses by male resp ondents to the question of selecting the facility agai n was 16.1% as compared to on ly 9.7% dont know responses to the question of recommending the faci lity to a friend or relative an increase of just over 60%. The frequency of female dont know responses to the question of selec ting the facility again 1.40 (0.75) 1.50 (0.84) 1.001.502.002.503.00 Female (n=165) Male (n=124)

PAGE 59

59 was 22.4% as compared to 12.0% frequency of dont know responses to the question of recommending the facility to a friend or relative an increase of more than 53%. It would be of possible interest in a followup study to determine the reas on some residents would likely recommend the facility, yet be unc ertain about selecting it again. Marital Status Figure 4-39 shows the mean ratings by marita l status to the question of the respondent selecting the facility again. No significant diffe rences were observed between the means of any of the groups; however, there was a downward shift in yes res ponses and an almost equally corresponding upward shift in dont know resp onses across each group of respondents when compared to the frequency of responses by mari tal status to the question of recommending the facility to a friend or relative. This was very similar to the observation made in the gender Figure 4-39. Mean ratings by marital status to survey question: Would you select (name of ULCC) again? category to the same two key survey questions. The frequency of yes responses from single respondents to the question of selecting the facility ag ain was 65.4%, down from 80.8% frequency in response to the question of recommending the faci lity. The difference of 15.4% was shifted to a dont know response and the frequency of no responses remained the same at 3.8%. There was a 9.9% decrease in the freq uency of yes responses by married respondents to this question as compared to the question of recommending the faci lity (74.4% and 84.3%, 1.37 (0.74) 1.45 (0.80) 1.65 (0.94) 1.001.502.002.503.00 Single (n=26) Married (n=203) Widowed (n=52)

PAGE 60

60 respectively). The frequency of no responses to this question increased slightly as compared to the question of recommending the facility fr om (4.9% to 6.4%) and uncertainty rose from 10.8% to 19.2%, as evidenced by the fre quency of dont know responses. With only a 3.9% difference in the frequency of yes responses, the group of widowed respondents represented the smallest degree of difference between these two key survey questions. The downward shift in yes response s to the question of sele cting the facility again was offset by an equal rise in the frequency of dont know answers from 11.5% to the question of recommending the facility, to 15.4% response fre quency related to selecti ng the facility again. Age Range Figure 4-40 shows the mean ratings by the re spondents age range to the question of selecting the facility again. No significant differences between the means of any of the groups were observed; however, the trend of shifti ng yes responses to dont know responses continued when comparing the question of recomme nding the facility to a friend or relative to Figure 4-40. Mean ratings by age range to su rvey question: Would you select (name of ULCC) again? the question of selecting the facility again. The overall nonweighted average of the frequency of yes responses to the quest ion of selecting the facility again fell by 9.5% to 74.9% when 1.33 (0.71) 1.38 (0.77) 1.41 (0.78) 1.42 (0.81) 1.50 (0.85) 1.55 (0.82) 1.001.502.002.503.00 71-75 (n=53) 86 and older (n=26) 81-85 (n=81)

PAGE 61

61 compared to the overall non-weighted average of the frequencies of yes responses to the question of recommending the facility to a friend or relative (84.4%). Again, as in the question of recommending the facility to others, Group 3 (ages 71-75) showed the lowest frequency of yes responses. However, Group 4 (ages 76-80) with the largest number of respondents (n=82) demonstrated the highest frequenc y of dont know responses at 23.2%. Length of Residency Figure 4-41 shows the mean ratings by the length of residents residency to the question of selecting the facility again. A significant diffe rence between the means of Groups 1 and 2 (less than 1 year and 1-2 years, resp ectively) and Groups 2 and 3 (1-2 years and longer than 2 years, respectively) at the 80% confidence level were ob served. A slight decline in the frequency of yes responses to the question of selecting the f acility again when compared to the question to recommending the facility to a friend or relati ve was observed in Groups 1 and 3 (-6.5% and 5.6%, respectively). The decline in yes response s was directly offset by an increase in dont know responses in Group 1. No change was observe d in the frequency of no responses from Figure 4-41. Mean ratings by length of residenc y to survey question: Would you select (name of U-LCC) again? Group 1 respondents. The frequency of no re sponses from Group 3 increased slightly from 3.8% to 4.4% and the frequency of dont know res ponses rose 5% to 16.3%. The frequency of yes responses from Group 2 dropped by 20.3%, comp ared to the frequency of yes responses 1.37 (0.75) 1.37 (0.74) 1.67 (0.90) 1.001.502.002.503.00 1-2 Years (n=79) <1 Year (n=46) >2 Years (n=160)

PAGE 62

62 to the question of recommending the facility to a friend or relative. While the frequency of no responses for Group 2 increased sl ightly from 3.8% to 8.9%, the degree of uncertainty increased nearly three-fold to a 29.1% frequency of don t know responses. It may be of interest in a follow-up study to probe into the pos sible causes of uncertainty with in Group 2 to the question of selecting this facility again. Type of Dwelling Unit Figure 4-42 shows the mean ratings by th e type of dwelling unit occupied by the respondent to the question of sel ecting the facility again. No significant difference was observed between the means of either group. Here again an overall decrease in the frequency of yes Figure 4-42. Mean ratings by type of dwelling unit to survey question: Would you select (name of U-LCC) again? responses in favor of dont know responses was observed. The non-weighted average frequency of yes responses to the question of selecting the facility again is 73.3%; down 10.5% from the frequency of yes responses ( 84.2%) of recommending the facility to a friend or relative. The non-weighted av erage frequency of no respons es rose slightly (1.3%) from 5.6% on the question of recommending the facility to 6.9% on the question of selecting the facility again. The frequency of dont know re sponses rose 9% overall from the non-weighted average of dont know responses on the questio n of recommending the facility (10.3%) to a 1.45 (0.80) 1.46 (0.80) 1.001.502.002.503.00 Apartment (n=238) Villa/Club Home (n=53)

PAGE 63

63 non-weighted average frequency of 19.3% dont know responses to the que stion of selecting the facility again. Physical Health Figure 4-43 shows the mean ratings by the self-described physical condition of the respondents to the question of se lecting the facility again. A significant difference between Figure 4-43. Mean ratings by self-described physical health condition to survey question: Would you select (name of U-LCC) again? the means of Groups 1 and 2 (respondents repo rting a poor physical health condition and respondents reporting a fair physic al health condition, respective ly) was observed at the 80% confidence level. Group 1 displayed a 100% fr equency of yes respons es while Group 2 had the lowest frequency of yes responses ( 66.1%) and the highest degree of uncertainty, evidenced by a 30.5% frequency of dont know res ponses. It may be of interest in a future study to investigate the reason fo r the variation in responses from Group 2 compared to the others. Emotional Health Figure 4-44 shows the mean ratings based on re spondents self-described emotional health condition. Group 1 (fair emotional health condition) displayed th e lowest frequency of yes responses (61.3%) and the highest frequency of no responses compared to Groups 2 and 3 (good emotional health condition and excellent em otional health condition, respectively). The 1.00 (0.00) 1.40 (0.75) 1.43 (0.78) 1.64 (0.92) 1.001.502.002.503.00 Fair (n=59) Good (n=180) Excellent (n=45) Poor (n=7)

PAGE 64

64 frequency of yes responses by Groups 2 a nd 3 were 74.7% and 77.0%, respectively, with 5.1% and 6.0% frequencies of no responses, respectively. While no Figure 4-44. Mean ratings by se lf-described emotional health condition to survey question: Would you select (name of U-LCC) again? significant differences were observed at the 80% confidence level between the means of any of the groups, it may be worthy of further investigation to de termine why Group 1 respondents showed a much greater tendency toward uncertain ty and no responses with respect to the question of selecting this facility again. Financial Situation Figure 4-45 shows the mean ratings by respondent s self-described financial situation to the question of selecting this f acility again. Not only was an interesting trend observed, there was a significant difference between the means of Groups 1 and 2 (fair and good level of comfort with financial situation, respectiv ely), Groups 1 and 3 (fair and ex cellent level of comfort with financial situation, respectively) and Groups 2 and 3 (good and excellent level of comfort with financial situation). In no ot her analysis were significant differences between the means observed between each one of the groups. Al so, a strong inverse tendency was observed. Respondents in Group 1 (fair financial situation) had the lowest frequency of yes responses (55.9%) and the highest frequency of dont know responses (35.3%), resu lting in the highest (least favorable) mean rating, whil e Group 3 (excellent financial s ituation) exhib ited the highest 1.40 (0.77) 1.46 (0.81) 1.61 (0.84) 2.00 (1.41) 1.001.502.002.503.00 Poor (n=2) Good (n=158)

PAGE 65

65 frequency of yes responses (83.6%) and the lowest frequency of dont know responses (9.6%) resulting in the lowest (m ost favorable) mean rating. Figure 4-45. Mean ratings by self-described fi nancial situation to su rvey question: Would you select (name of U-LCC) again? Compilations of Mean Scores Tables 4-24 through 4-32 summarize the results of the analyses of the five key Overall Satisfaction questions. The first three rows in each table (Over all, Value and L-T Conf) correspond with the first three Likert-type key survey questions in th e Overall Satisfaction section of the survey. The scor es represent the mean scores co mpiled from the frequencies of responses to each key survey question. The last two rows (Recomm and Re-Select) correspond with the last two three-point res ponse key survey questi ons in the Overall Satisfaction section of the surve y. They represent only the freque ncies of yes responses from the respective groups of survey respondents. Except for Table 4-24, showing the mean scores for all non-stratified survey res pondents, each table ha s been highlighted to show the highest score in each category. Table 4-24. Mean scores of all survey respondents All Respondents Overall 82.8 Value 74.8 L-T Conf 80.8 Recommend (Yes) 82.3 Re-Select(Yes) 72.9 1.26 (0.62) 1.47 (0.82) 1.79 (0.95) 1.001.201.401.601.802.002.202.402.602.803.00 Fair (n=34) Good (n=182) Excellent (n=73)

PAGE 66

66 Table 4-25. Mean scores compile d according to respondents gender Gender Male Female Overall 83.4 83.6 Value 75.0 76.0 L-T Conf 81.2 82.0 Recommend (Yes) 85.5 81.9 Re-Select(Yes) 75.8 72.1 Table 4-26. Mean scores compiled accord ing to respondents marital status Marital Status Single Married Widowed Overall 80.8 84.0 84.8 Value 77.0 74.4 81.2 L-T Conf 81.6 81.4 83.2 Recomm (Yes) 80.8 84.3 82.7 Re-Select(Yes) 65.4 74.4 78.8 Table 4-27. Mean scores compiled according to respondents age range By Age Range Under 65 65-70 71-75 76-80 81-85 86+ Overall 84.0 79.4 80.8 85.6 85.0 87.6 Value 74.0 71.8 72.6 78.8 77.4 77.6 L-T Conf 74.0 77.0 78.2 81.6 86.2 88.0 Recommend (Yes) 90.0 85.3 73.6 90.2 82.7 84.6 Re-Select(Yes) 77.8 76.5 66.0 73.2 79.0 76.9 Table 4-28. Mean scores compiled accordi ng to respondents length of residency Length of Residency <1 Year 1-2 Years2+ Years Overall 85.6 82.2 84.0 Value 74.2 71.8 78.6 L-T Conf 81.4 79.8 83.2 Recommend (Yes) 84.8 82.3 85.0 Re-Select(Yes) 78.3 62.0 79.4

PAGE 67

67 Table 4-29. Mean scores compiled accordi ng to respondents t ype of dwelling unit Type of Dwelling Unit Villa/Club Home Apartment Overall 81.8 83.8 Value 69.0 77.2 L-T Conf 78.4 82.4 Recommend (Yes) 85.2 83.2 Re-Select(Yes) 73.6 73.9 Table 4-30. Mean scores compiled according to respondents self-described physical health condition Physical Health Condition Poor Fair Good Excellent Overall 88.6 80.0 83.8 86.2 Value 80.0 72.0 77.0 75.0 L-T Conf 83.4 79.6 82.0 82.6 Recommend (Yes) 100.0 74.6 85.1 86.7 Re-Select(Yes) 100.0 66.1 75.0 75.6 Table 4-31. Mean scores compiled according to respondents self-described physical condition Emotional Health Condition Fair Good Excellent Overall 73.6 84.0 86.2 Value 66.2 76.6 77.2 L-T Conf 75.8 81.8 83.2 Recommend (Yes) 67.7 83.6 88.0 Re-Select(Yes) 61.3 74.7 77.0 Table 4-32. Mean scores compiled according to re spondents self-described financial strength Financial Strength Fair Good Excellent Overall 79.4 82.8 87.8 Value 68.4 75.8 78.8 L-T Conf 74.8 80.4 87.8 Recommend (Yes) 73.5 83.1 89.0 Re-Select(Yes) 55.9 73.6 83.6

PAGE 68

68 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS From these results, a profile of the characteri stics of persons with the highest degree of satisfaction with this universityaffiliated life care community wa s derived for each of the five key survey questions. Two characteristics consis tently ranked highest across the spectrum of questions; individuals reporting an excellent emotional health condition and an excellent financial situation. The results for this facil ity indicate that widowed females of poor selfdescribed physical health, yet of excellent emotional health, with excellent financial stability, 76 years of age or older, who have lived in an apartment home for two years or longer are most likely to score highest with respect to the questio ns of overall satisfacti on, value for price paid and long-term confidence in th e facility (Table 4-33). Table 4-33. Resident profiles w ith greatest satisfacti on according to high est survey scores. Respondent Profiles with Highest Survey Scores Gender Marital Status Age Range Length of Residency Type of Dwelling Unit Physical Health Condition Emotional Health Condition Financial Strength Overall Female Widowed 86+ <1 Year Apartment Poor Excellent Excellent Value Female Widowed 76-80 2+ Years Apartment Good Excellent Excellent L-T Conf Female Widowed 86+ 2+ Years Apartment Poor Excellent Excellent Recomm (Yes) Male Married 76-80 2+ Years Villa/Club Poor Excellent Excellent Re-Select(Yes) Male Widowed 81-85 2+ Y ears Apartment Poor Excellent Excellent Recommendations for Future Studies The analysis of the non-stratif ied respondents to survey questions 4 and 5 (recommend the facility and selecting the facili ty again, respectively) produced an interesting difference in the mean scores as summarized in Table 4-24. These results beg the question: Why would a resident be more likely to recommen d this facility to a friend or rela tive when he or she is either not sure of selecting, or in f act, would not select it again? Perhaps this question would be worthy of pursuit in a follow-up study to assess the differing motivati on of individuals who

PAGE 69

69 would recommend the facility to others while being unwilling to select it again themselves. Furthermore, it may be of interest in a followup study to determine what factors (if any) account for the difference between the mean scores from key survey ques tions 1 and 2 (overall satisfaction and value for price paid, respectively) that was obs erved in the results of the nonstratified responses as su mmarized in Table 4-24. Table 4-34 shows a summary of areas where sign ificant differences at the 80% confidence level were observed between the groups of respondents. It may be instructive in future studies to ascertain the causes of the differences between the groups of respondents. Table 4-34. Summary of Signi ficant Differences Found at the 80% Confidence Level by Independent Variable. Summary of Significant Differences Found at the 80% Level by Independent Variable Gender Age Range Marital Status Length of Residency Residence Type Physical Health Emotional Health Financial Strength Overall Y Y Value Y Y Y Y L-T Conf Y Y Y Recommend Y Y Y Y Re-Select Y Y Y Across the spectrum of all five key OS ques tions, the category of financial strength consistently showed statistically significant di fferences at the 80% confidence level between groups of respondents. The states of respondents emotional health, as well as physical health were important factors in their responses to th e survey questions. Respondents age, type of dwelling unit and length of stay were also important factors. Not only should the causes of statistically si gnificant differences in the means of each group be investigated, but trends that were observed may be equally instructive. The consistent upward trend in positive responses as related to increasing age observed in the first three key survey questions, for example, may be worthy of investigation.

PAGE 70

70 Identifying the causes of these trends and di fferences may provide valuable insight from plural perspectives. From the pe rspective of marketing, this inform ation could be very helpful in targeting specific demographic populations ripe for this type of facility. From the perspective of emerging and developing trends in this relatively new concept in retirement communities, this information could be very useful in future studies, including pla nning for new universityaffiliated life care communities around the country.

PAGE 71

71 APPENDIX A COMPLETE SURVEY WITH IDENTI FYING INFORMATION DELETED 2006 Independent Living Member Survey MEMBER INFORMATION Gender Male Female Marital Status Single Married Widowed Age Under 65 76 80 65 70 81 85 71 75 86 and Older Length of residence at (LCC name) Less than 1 year More than 2 years 1 to 2 years Do you live in Villa/Club Home Apartment In general, how would you rate your physical health? Very poor Poor Fair Good Excellent In general, how would you rate your emotional health? Very poor Poor Fair Good Excellent In general, how would you rate your current leve l of comfort with your financial situation? Very poor Poor Fair Good Excellent Please rate the following factors using a 1 throug h 5 scale (1 = very poor /lowest satisfaction and 5 = excellent/highest satisfaction). Circle any nu mber within this range to reflect your opinion. If you have no experience with a factor or have no opinion, please circle N/A. Please feel free to add your comments after each section in the space provided. Need help completing your survey or have a question? Please call (consulting firm) fo r assistance at (XXX-XXX-XXXX). ADMINISTRATION Very poor <->Excellent Fulfillment of Life Care Member Contract 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Fulfillment of expectations as promoted (by marketing) 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Adequate member orientation 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

PAGE 72

72 Evaluation and placement of member s in the appropriate level of care 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Assurance of care if funds are depleted 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Efficiency/accuracy of Accounting Department 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Accessibility of the CEO 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Effective management of community changes 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Fairness and consistency of administration of policies 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Responsiveness/preparedness for unusual emergency situations 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Opportunity for member input 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Comments regarding Administration: INDEPENDENT LIVING MEDICAL/CLINICAL Very poor <->Excellent Quality of medical/health care services provided for Independent Living members 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Efficiency of Wellness Clinic 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Confidence in emergency response 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Availability of after-hours/w eekend non-emergency medical services 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Competence of clinical staff 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Attitude of clinical staff 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Effectiveness of rehabilitation se rvices as provided by (name of affiliated university) 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Effectiveness of (hosp ital) Advantage program 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

PAGE 73

73 Comments regarding Independent Living Medical/Clinical: DAILY LIVING Very poor <->Excellent Competence of staff 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Training and superv ision of staff 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Timely overall communications 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Resolution of and responsiveness to inquiries/complaints 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Effectiveness of Member Services staff 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Availability of member couns eling services for personal concerns, such as bereavemen t, anxiety, depression, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Variety/availability of member programs 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Quality of transportation services 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Access to community amenities at (U-LCC name) such as banks, convenience stores, barbers and beauty salons, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Quality of fitness center and programs 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Effectiveness of Partnershi p Council of Advisors (PCA) 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Comments regarding Daily Living: FACILITY/ENVIRONMENT Very poor <->Excellent Safety and security of apartments, buildings and grounds 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Cleanliness of common areas 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Quality of housekeeping services 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

PAGE 74

74 Timely response to maintenance requests 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Appearance of exterior grounds 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Comments regarding Facility/Environment: DINING SERVICES Very poor <->Excellent Quality of food 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Variety of menu selections 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Service in the dining room 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Training of waitstaff 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Appearance of waitstaff 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Cleanliness of dining areas 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Appropriateness of dining hours 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Accommodation of speci al dietary requests 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Temperature of food 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Take-out food services 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Comments regarding Dining Services: OVERALL SATISFACTION Very poor <->Excellent How do you rate your overall sa tisfaction with (U-LCC name)? 1 2 3 4 5 N/A How do you rate the value for price paid at (U-LCC name)? 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

PAGE 75

75 How do you rate your long-term confidence in (U-LCC names) future? 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Would you recommend (U-LCC name) to a friend or relative? Yes No Dont know Would you select (U-LCC name) again? Yes No Dont know FINAL THOUGHTS Can you identify any areas for improvement? Can you tell of a positive experience you have had with (U-LCC name)? What do you appreciate most about (U-LCC name)? Are there additional factors that have had a significant impact on your overall satisfaction which were not addressed on the survey? Thank you for your time and input! (Consulting Firm) 2006

PAGE 76

76 LIST OF REFERENCES Episcopal Homes Foundation. Continuing Care Communities differ from Life Care Communities. Retrieved January 23, 2007, from http://www.lifecare.org/life_care_retirement.html. Gordon, P. A. (1998). Seniors Housing and Care Facili ties: Development, Business, and Operations Washington, D.C.: ULI Th e Urban Land Institute (31-39).

PAGE 77

77 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH As an undergraduate student at the University of Florida, Kent Malone began to excel in both his studies and extracurricula r activities. Having tr ansferred from St. Petersburg College to the University of Florida as a junior with 63 cr edits, Kent graduated two and a half years later, after having completed a total of 224 credit hours of a required 133 credit hours of major coursework. While his major tract was in th e Department of Human Communication Processes and Disorders in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, emphasizing speech and written communication, he maintained studies in the fi elds of law (business and criminology), real estate, business administration, br oadcast journalism, and building construction. Kent worked in radio broadcast with an on-air shift as a DJ a nd also produced radio spots (commercials) for two years while attending th e University of Florida as an undergraduate. Although his course load could have been c onsidered heavy, Kent still found time to be involved in various campus clubs and organizations. He maintained leadership positions in Phi Alpha Delta a pre-law professiona l fraternity, serving as its treas urer and then as a two-term president. Kent was a Divisi on Director for Florida Blue Ke y Leadership Honorary and also served as an Assistant Director for Gator Grow l, the largest student-run college pep rally. He served as vice-president of Savant Leadership Honorary and was also an officer on the UF Speech and Debate team. There was also just enough room in his busy schedule to produce and direct Gator Talk, a weekly current events te levision magazine at Cox Cable, the local cable television station. Upon graduation from UF with a Bachelor of Ar ts degree, Kent took th e state real estate licensing exam, having met the licensing education prerequisite with one of the real estate courses he had taken as an underg raduate. He not only sat for th e sales associate licensing exam,

PAGE 78

78 he also took the exam for real estate instructors the same day and, having passed both, was on his way to what would prove to be very successf ul career in the field of real estate. Kent incorporated his keen interest in bu ilding construction and re habilitation with his blossoming real estate sales care er. He bought a small investment property and set about with its rehabilitation. Kent quickly real ized that in order to maximize ove rall profit he would need to do a majority of the work himself, only subcontrac ting work when the cost/benefit was warranted. He also taught real estate courses for what has now grown into the largest independent real estate school on the west coast of Florida. With the success of his first rehab house and gaining insight as a R ealtor on the local real estate market, buyers preferences in housing and amenities, as well as building relationships with subcontractors, local lender s and other real estate professionals, as well as an understanding of the local building codes and permitting requirements, Kent was able to hone his skills in the processes of selection, financing, re habilitation, marketing and sale of nine more homes. He also built a brand new two-story home, acti ng as his own general contractor. After spending time in the greater St. Peters burg area as a Realtor, licensed mortgage broker, real estate instruct or having taught over 3,000 sales associate and broker licensing candidates, renovating ten homes a nd building a new one, it was time for a change of pace. Kent returned to Gainesville and the University of Florida to pursue a Masters degree in building construction from the M. E. Rinker School of Building construction in the summer of 2003. After attending one summer semester of coursewo rk in the school of building construction, Kent discovered the Master of Science in Real Estate and Urban Anal ysis (MSRE) program offered by the Warrington College of Business at UF. With an enrollment limited to only 30 students per year, the rigorous process of candidate selecti on for this 10-month concentrated program starts

PAGE 79

79 early in the year and is usually closed well before the program begins in ear ly July. As it turned out this year, one of the candi dates for the incoming class was unable to attend which presented an extremely rare opportunity for Kent to be accepted 2 weeks after the MSRE program had begun and fill the vacant position. He studied to ma ke up the lost time and then updated his UF record to reflect the pursuit of concur rent masters degrees: Master of Science in Building Construction and Master of Scien ce in real estate and urban analysis. As a student in the MSRE program, Kent serv ed as a teaching assist ant to the two real estate professors. It was soon realized by the pr ofessors and Kent that his first-hand experiences and knowledge of the real estate brokerage busin ess, real estate licen sing education and state licensing requirements could combine with the res ources of the business college and the Center for Real Estate Studies to produce a completely unique online real esta te licensing course: unrivaled by an course currently offered. Afte r 2 years of development, the online course received certification from the Florida Departme nt of Business and Professional Regulation as a distance education course which satisfies the real estate pre-licensing education requirements. In 2006, Kent was commissioned by McGraw-Hill/Irwin publishing company to revise and update the test bank and instructor manual, as well as proof the second edition of a very popular real estate textbook.