TABLE 7: EDUCATION / TRAINING REQUIREMENT FOR HOA DIRECTORS AND
HOMEOWNERS WITH CERTIFICATION AS PRECONDITION FOR BOARD SERVICE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
KEY
FINDINGS: |
1 |
Overall 89.1% of respondents wanted their HOA's directors educated
about the appropriate laws and their governing documents and trained to
operate in conformity with those rules. |
|
|
2 |
Boldfaced values in the rows of column
YESes and Noes differ significantly from the overall average as they are at
least 3 standard deviations away from that overall value. |
|
|
|
3 |
The percentage YES & NO responses of
the Non-owner Interest groups of Board Members & Other are statistically
significantly different from the corresponding ones of Owners & Overall
figures. |
|
|
Surprisingly, CAMs are slightly but not statistically significantly
more in favor of education and training than Owners, Board Members, or
Attorneys. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
Some
percentage YES and NO responses in the Gender, CCFJ Membership, Region and
Additional Remarks Made sections differ significantly from the Overall
figures.; |
|
|
|
|
5 |
The
YES and NO percentage responses of CCFJ members differ significantly from one
another as well as from those Overall. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
Respondents' traits of Interest and CCFJ membership show potentially
causal influences on their responses to this question. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* * * * * * * * * * * * |
* * * * * * *
* INTEREST * * * * * * * *
* * |
* * * * * * * * * |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* * * * * * *
REGION [8] * * * * * * * * |
* *
ADDITIONAL REMARKS MADE * * |
|
|
|
|
|
BOARD |
|
|
|
|
|
* * * GENDER [5] * * * |
|
CCFJ
MEMBER [7] |
|
|
WEST |
EAST |
|
|
PRIORITY |
COMMENT |
|
|
|
|
OVERALL |
OWNER |
MEMBER [1] |
LAWYER |
C.A.M. [2] |
OTHER [3] |
N.A. [4] |
|
MALE |
FEMALE |
D.K. [6] |
|
YES |
NO |
|
NORTH |
CENTRAL |
COAST |
COAST |
SOUTH |
|
ONLY |
ONLY |
BOTH |
NEITHER |
OVERALL TOTALS |
|
1033 |
|
740 |
130 |
7 |
13 |
8 |
135 |
|
584 |
389 |
60 |
|
196 |
837 |
|
35 |
202 |
156 |
137 |
503 |
|
176 |
131 |
418 |
308 |
% WITHIN CATEGORY |
|
100.0% |
|
71.6% |
12.6% |
0.7% |
1.3% |
0.8% |
13.1% |
|
56.5% |
37.7% |
5.8% |
|
19.0% |
81.0% |
|
3.4% |
19.6% |
15.1% |
13.3% |
48.7% |
|
17.0% |
12.7% |
40.5% |
29.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ADJUSTED # [9] |
|
1024 |
|
734 |
131 |
8 |
12 |
9 |
130 |
|
584 |
385 |
55 |
|
189 |
835 |
|
35 |
202 |
155 |
129 |
503 |
|
174 |
131 |
415 |
304 |
# OF YESes |
|
912 |
|
668 |
102 |
7 |
11 |
7 |
117 |
|
517 |
351 |
44 |
|
184 |
728 |
|
33 |
181 |
142 |
122 |
434 |
|
156 |
112 |
383 |
261 |
# OF NOs |
|
112 |
|
66 |
29 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
13 |
|
67 |
34 |
11 |
|
5 |
107 |
|
2 |
21 |
13 |
7 |
69 |
|
18 |
19 |
32 |
43 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COLUMN % YES [10] |
|
89.1% |
|
91.0% |
77.9% |
87.5% |
91.7% |
77.8% |
90.0% |
|
88.5% |
91.2% |
80.0% |
|
97.4% |
87.2% |
|
94.3% |
89.6% |
91.6% |
94.6% |
86.3% |
|
89.7% |
85.5% |
92.3% |
85.9% |
t-Test on %
YESes [11] |
|
|
2.0 |
-11.5 |
-1.6 |
2.7 |
-11.6 |
1.0 |
|
-0.5 |
2.2 |
-9.3 |
|
8.5 |
-1.9 |
|
5.4 |
0.6 |
2.6 |
5.7 |
-2.9 |
|
0.6 |
-3.7 |
3.3 |
-3.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COLUMN % NO [10] |
|
10.9% |
|
9.0% |
22.1% |
12.5% |
8.3% |
22.2% |
10.0% |
|
11.5% |
8.8% |
20.0% |
|
2.6% |
12.8% |
|
5.7% |
10.4% |
8.4% |
5.4% |
13.7% |
|
10.3% |
14.5% |
7.7% |
14.1% |
t-Test on % NOes [11] |
|
|
|
-2.0 |
11.5 |
1.6 |
-2.7 |
11.6 |
-1.0 |
|
0.5 |
-2.2 |
9.3 |
|
-8.5 |
1.9 |
|
-5.4 |
-0.6 |
-2.6 |
-5.7 |
2.9 |
|
-0.6 |
3.7 |
-3.3 |
3.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 STD.
DEVIATION [12] |
1.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% YESes Row [10] |
|
100.0% |
|
73.2% |
11.2% |
0.8% |
1.2% |
0.8% |
12.8% |
|
56.7% |
38.5% |
4.8% |
|
20.2% |
79.8% |
|
3.6% |
19.8% |
15.6% |
13.4% |
47.6% |
|
17.1% |
12.3% |
42.0% |
28.6% |
% NOs Row [10] |
|
100.0% |
|
58.9% |
25.9% |
0.9% |
0.9% |
1.8% |
11.6% |
|
59.8% |
30.4% |
9.8% |
|
4.5% |
95.5% |
|
1.8% |
18.8% |
11.6% |
6.3% |
61.6% |
|
16.1% |
17.0% |
28.6% |
38.4% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calculated
Chi-Squared Value [13]: |
0.5193X10^-6
[14] |
|
|
|
|
|
0.0376 |
|
|
|
0.0004 |
|
|
|
0.0242 |
|
|
|
|
0.0242 |
|
|
|
Implication of
Chi-Squared Test |
|
RELATIONSHIP FOUND |
|
|
|
|
|
INDEPENDENT |
|
|
RELATIONSHIP FOUND |
INDEPENDENT |
|
|
|
INDEPENDENT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 ROWS X 3 COLUMNS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 ROWS X 4 COLUMNS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
© 2008 Cyber Citizens for Justice, Inc. Deland, FL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|