were no significant findings by ACORN group as the sample for this question was too small across many groups for reliable significance testing. Tenure There were no significant findings as the sample for this question was too small across some tenure groups for reliable comparative significance testing. Gender There were no significant findings relating to job security and gender By Dependents There were no significant differences between households with and without dependents to this question. 3. Tenure 3.1 Tenure Type Just over three-fifths of households in the survey were owner occupiers, while a fifth were private tenants and approximately a sixth were social tenants (figure 3.1). Figure 3.1: Tenure Type (TH2) Findings by sub City There were no significant differences between Bristol and Liverpool relating to these three broad occupancy types (N.B. There were differences within some of these three occupancy types, in particular: significantly more owner occupiers in Bristol owned their property with a mortgage or loan; and significantly more social tenants in Liverpool rented from a housing association.) ACORN group A significantly higher proportion than average of Affluent Greys (B) (94%), Secure Families (C) (91%) and Flourishing Families (H) (86%) were owner occupiers. A significantly higher proportion of Struggling Families (N) (46%) and Burdened Singles (O) (72%) were social tenants.
were no significant findings by ACORN group as the sample for this question was too small across many groups for reliable significance testing. Tenure There were no significant findings as the sample for this question was too small across some tenure groups for reliable comparative significance testing. Gender There were no significant findings relating to job security and gender By Dependents There were no significant differences between households with and without dependents to this question. 3. Tenure 3.1 Tenure Type Just over three-fifths of households in the survey were owner occupiers, while a fifth were private tenants and approximately a sixth were social tenants (figure 3.1). Figure 3.1: Tenure Type (TH2) Findings by sub City There were no significant differences between Bristol and Liverpool relating to these three broad occupancy types (N.B. There were differences within some of these three occupancy types, in particular: significantly more owner occupiers in Bristol owned their property with a mortgage or loan; and significantly more social tenants in Liverpool rented from a housing association.) ACORN group A significantly higher proportion than average of Affluent Greys (B) (94%), Secure Families (C) (91%) and Flourishing Families (H) (86%) were owner occupiers. A significantly higher proportion of Struggling Families (N) (46%) and Burdened Singles (O) (72%) were social tenants.