1. Mercy Housing Lakefront
A COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH PROJECT
BETWEEN LOYOLA UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
AND MERCY HOUSING LAKEFRONT’S
TENANT LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE

2. Background and History
 1989 – A group called Lakefront SRO converts a single-room
occupancy hotel in the Uptown neighborhood into a 69-unit building.
 Provided rooms and social services to people who had long
experience of homelessness.
 2006 – Lakefront SRO combined with the national organization, Mercy
Housing, to become Mercy Housing Lakefront
 MHL has 12 permanent supportive housing buildings in Chicago
providing 1,307 units to some of the city's most vulnerable residents.
 Buildings in Uptown area:
 Harold Washington
 Major Jenkins/Delmar Apartments
 Malden Arms Apartment
 Miriam Apartments
 Carlton Apartments

3. Context for Research
 Mercy Housing Lakefront is funded by a mix of
city, state, and federal housing programs along with
private and philanthropic donations.
 Major Budget Spending cut proposed in 2011/2012
Illinois State budget
 Cuts of up to 8% to Department of Human Services.
 Proposed cut would affect the services offered to
Mercy Housing Lakefront tenants.
 Raises concerns for some of the tenants
 Could be any other ways to buffer the effects of the proposed
budget cut?

4. Research Questions
 Where are the free food resources in the area
available to Uptown Mercy Housing Lakefront
tenants?
 Has the increase in food prices and decrease in
federal assistance strongly impacted the tenants of
Mercy Housing Lakefront in Uptown?
 How are tenants coping with these changes through
their spending habits, grocery store preferences, and
food pantry visits?

5. Map
MAP OF THE FREE FOOD RESOURCES
AVAILABLE TO THE TENANTS LIVING IN THE
MERCY HOUSING LAKEFRONT BUILDINGS IN
THE UPTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD

6. Data Collection & Methodology
 Need for knowledge of free food resources established at
first tenant meeting
 Data Collection
 Online research
 Resource from tenant compiled by Alderman James Cappleman’s
46th Ward Community Service Office
 direct2food.org
 Looked for:
 Eligibility based on boundaries
 Reliability of information
 Recorded:
 Name, address, hours of operation, telephone numbers, any
additional services

7. Data Analysis
 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping
 Visual representation of quantitative and qualitative data
 Map is meant to be a resource that is easy for
anybody to use

9. Survey
IN ORDER TO FIND OUT IF THE ECONOMIC
DOWNTURN HAS EFFECTED TENANTS OF
MERCY HOUSING LAKEFRONT’S ABILITY TO
OBTAIN FOOD

10. Survey

11. Data Collection
 30 question survey, split into 4 sections
 Neighborhood
 Food budget
 Food pantries
 Grocery stores
 Surveyed 50 Mercy Housing Lakefront tenants
 Conducted structured interviews following CITI
guidelines

12. Data Collection
 Quantitative  Qualitative
 Direct questions with a  Open-ended questions-
narrow range of answers giving the tenants the
could be classified along opportunity to expand and
nominal, ordinal, or scaled elaborate on their
measurements. answers.
 Focus on statistical trends  Focus on the “Hows?” and
in food budgets at Mercy “Whys?”
Housing Lakefront.

13. Data Analysis: Quantitative
 Social Statistics Software: SPSS 19
 Provided a statistical method for analyzing our
community collected data and produced averages
and proportional statics to support our research
question.

14. Presentation of Data: Quantitative

15. Presentation of Data: Quantitative

16. Presentation of Data: Quantitative

17. Presentation of Data: Quantitative

18. Presentation of Data: Quantitative

19. Results and Findings: Quantitative
 Statistical trends support food cut backs in the Mercy
Housing Lakefront community
 Increase in food pantry usage, 67% frequent food
pantries in last 6 months.
 Almost unanimous agreement that food prices have
risen in the last 6 months
 Downturn has affected access to quality food
resources

20. Data Analysis: Qualitative
 Read through each survey multiple times focusing on
one section at a time
 Recorded all answers
 Grouped responses based on similarities in order to
find common themes.
 Compiled all responses into a single fluid narrative

21. Results and Findings: Qualitative
 Neighborhood  Food Pantries
 Pro: Location, Diversity  Increase in wait time
 Con:  Only go as a last resort
Gentrification, Homelessn  “Doing the best they can”
ess
 Changes: Decrease
Crime, Increase Jobs  Grocery Stores
 Food Budget
 Shop the sales
 Quality vs. Cost
 Food Prices Increase
 Traveling for savings
 Link card unchanged
 General Assistance cut

22. Limitations of Research
 Spoiled surveys
 Misunderstandings and miscommunications
 Survey variation
 Sample size and population

23. Implications
 The area is becoming gentrified: Housing cost are
increasing, cost of living is increasing, a growing
backlash against homeless and tenants of supportive
housing.
 Due to the budget cuts and increasing food prices,
tenants at Mercy Housing Lakefront are becoming more
depended on resources in the area. Resources which are
becoming depleted.
 Growing tension between what Uptown is and who lives
there and what Uptown is becoming and who wants to
live there
 Must ensure the food budget crisis does not escalate and
advocate for the tenants’ right to food.

24. Suggestions for Further Research
 Originally, “Background and Community
Information” section was intended to give context to
responses; however, it ended up serving as a general
interest and suggestions component to the survey.
 Many of our suggestions are based off tenant
concerns
 Safety
 Effects on Local Food Pantries
 Tenant Diet
 Tenant Rights
 Community Building

25. Conclusion
 Map of free food resources will be useful for Mercy
Housing Lakefront tenants
 Survey provided information about issues affect
tenants and areas of interest
 Entirely collaborative process
 This is the tenants’ map, tenants’ survey, and the tenants’
results to use as they want
 Strongest and most powerful resource – tenants