AHS Digest

Here are the AHS Digest messages:


= = = = = = = = = = = =

From: david_a._vandenbroucke@hud.gov on 6/9/2003 11:06:07 AM
Subject: Re: Housing Adequacy related questions

I apologize for taking so long to reply to this question.

Q1. The logic for the electrical part of ZADEQ is:

if BUYE = 1 then ZADEQ =3
if NOWIRE = 2 and PLUGS = 2 and NUMBLOW >= 3 AND NUMBLOW <= 8 then ZADEQ = 3

Q2. The time period for IFBLOW and NUMBLOW is still "the last 3 months."

Dav Vandenbroucke
Economist
U.S. Dept. HUD
david_a._vandenbroucke@hud.gov
202-708-1060 ext. 5890


ahslistserv@huduser.gov
ahslistserv@huduser.gov
06/05/03 12:06 PM
Please respond to Bulbul_Kaul

From: American Housing Survey (AHS) ListServ <ahs@huduser.gov>

Couple of specific questions about the components of the housing quality
measure (ZADEQ)

Q1. How do we know that a unit has no electricity?

This is a component of the ZADEQ variable and the description of the
variable uses BUYE=1 to indicate that the unit has no electricity. The
variable BUYE=1, if "not used". Does this mean that electricity is not
used in the unit and thus we can conclude that the unit has no electricity?

Q 2. How do we know the question on fuses blown or breakers tripped (IFBLOW
and NUMBLOW) is limited to experiences within the last 90 days?

The composite measure suggests that this is the case. The questions prior
to the 1997 survey specify this condition but the codebook for the 1997+
surveys does not explicitly state this problem should have occurred in the
last 90 days. Are we to assume that these questions do indeed refer to
experiences within the past 90 days?

Thanks,

Bulbul Kaul
Abt Associates Inc.



= = = = = = = = = = = =

From: "Sandra J. Newman" <sjn@jhu.edu> on 6/9/2003 11:35:36 AM
Subject: Re: AHS: Opinions sought on proposed changes.

I strongly advocate retaining these questions about structural conditions.
Has there been careful statistical work done on the cost/benefit of
retention versus deletion
from such perspectives as analyses of key policy questions and the
reliability and validity of scales? (You mention one, but there are others
where these items are used. Previous work has shown big variations across
different versions of housing quality or adequacy scales. Not retaining
the ability to measure this concept in alternative ways would be a major
problem to future analysts. It would also compromise trend analyses.)

Can you also let us know the changes being made to the income module? It is
good news to hear that it will be improved--a long overdue change.

Thanks.

Sandee


At 01:53 PM 06/03/2003 -0400, ahslistserv@huduser.gov wrote:
>From: American Housing Survey (AHS) ListServ <ahs@huduser.gov>
>
>We are working on changes to the content of the 2005 national survey. As I
>have mentioned here before, the 2005 survey will feature sampling
improvements
>designed to do a better job of reaching manufactured housing and assisted
>living units. We are also going to make some changes to the income module
>because of what Scott Susin found in his recent paper comparing AHS and CPS
>income meas ures.
>
>While we're at it, we are looking at a few other areas to see if we can
>rephrase questions to make them work better, and we are considering dropping
>some questions that don't yield useful information. I would like your
opinion
>on one of these proposed changes.
>
>We have a series of questions about structural conditions. At one time these
>were "observation" items, in which the interviewer would fill in the answer
>based on what he saw. After 1997, they became respondent questions. They
are
>not used in the ZADEQ recode of "adequate housing." We are considering
>dropping them to reduce respondent burden. These are the variables:
>
>EMISSR: missing roof materials
>EHOLER: holes in roof
>ESAGR: sagging roof
>EMISSW: missing wall materials
>ESLOPW: sloping walls
>EBOARD: windows boarded up
>EBROKE: broken windows
>EBAR: windows covered with metal bars
>ECRUMB: crumbling foundation
>
>An alternative to dropping these completely would be to replace them with
three
>questions, one each on roofs, windows, and walls.
>
>Are the current questions important to anyone's work? Would the proposed
>alternative do as well? Please reply to me or to the mailing list, as you
>like. Remember, to reply to the mailing list you have to include
>ahs@huduser.gov in your address header.
>
>Oh, by the way: the 2003 survey goes into the field today!
>
>Dav Vandenbroucke
>Economist
>U.S. Dept. HUD
>david_a._vandenbroucke@hud.gov
>202-708-1060 ext. 5890
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>This message was forwarded to you by the Listserv ahs@huduser.gov because
>you had expressed an interest.
>To stop receiving these messages send an email to ahs@huduser.gov
>with "unsubscribe" as the SUBJECT of your message.
>To reply to all members of the list address your reply to ahs@huduser.gov.
>Message archives are at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/elist/archive.html
>For help send an email to helpdesk@huduser.gov
>
>
>
Sandra J. Newman, Ph.D.
Director
Professor of Policy Studies
Institute for Policy Studies
Johns Hopkins University
Wyman Park Building
3400 N. Charles Street
Baltimore, MD 21218
(410) 516-4614 (phone)
(410) 516-8233 (fax)
*Please contact me for different street address if sending overnight mail.




= = = = = = = = = = = =

From: "Emrath, Paul" <pemrath@nahb.com> on 6/9/2003 12:58:30 PM
Subject: RE: AHS: Opinions sought on proposed changes.

Dav----

We use the structural condition variables quite a bit, especially in hedonic
regression work.
There is a strong, negative correlation between gross rents/ house values
and those
variables (especially EMISSR, ESAGR, EMISSW, EBROKE)---which is not true of
most of the items
used in the ZADEQ definitions. Also, the ZADEQ definitions have been in
place for a long time
without having been critically examined, and I wouldn't like to see
variables dropped
that could provide alternate assessments of unit quality. It's possible
that the three-question
alternative could work in our regressions and related applications, but then
you have the issue of
the post-2003 survey results not being comparable to the four from
1997-2003.
So I favor not changing the questions.

Paul Emrath
Assistant Staff Vice President
Housing Policy Research
National Association of Home Builders
1201 15th Street, NW, Washington DC 20005
Phone: 202-266-8449 Fax: 202-266-8426
Email: pemrath@nahb.com <mailto:pemrath@nahb.com>


At 01:53 PM 06/03/2003 -0400, ahslistserv@huduser.gov wrote:
>From: American Housing Survey (AHS) ListServ <ahs@huduser.gov>
>
>We are working on changes to the content of the 2005 national survey. As I
>have mentioned here before, the 2005 survey will feature sampling
improvements
>designed to do a better job of reaching manufactured housing and assisted
>living units. We are also going to make some changes to the income module
>because of what Scott Susin found in his recent paper comparing AHS and CPS
>income meas ures.
>
>While we're at it, we are looking at a few other areas to see if we can
>rephrase questions to make them work better, and we are considering
dropping
>some questions that don't yield useful information. I would like your
opinion
>on one of these proposed changes.
>
>We have a series of questions about structural conditions. At one time
these
>were "observation" items, in which the interviewer would fill in the answer
>based on what he saw. After 1997, they became respondent questions. They
are
>not used in the ZADEQ recode of "adequate housing." We are considering
>dropping them to reduce respondent burden. These are the variables:
>
>EMISSR: missing roof materials
>EHOLER: holes in roof
>ESAGR: sagging roof
>EMISSW: missing wall materials
>ESLOPW: sloping walls
>EBOARD: windows boarded up
>EBROKE: broken windows
>EBAR: windows covered with metal bars
>ECRUMB: crumbling foundation
>
>An alternative to dropping these completely would be to replace them with
three
>questions, one each on roofs, windows, and walls.
>
>Are the current questions important to anyone's work? Would the proposed
>alternative do as well? Please reply to me or to the mailing list, as you
>like. Remember, to reply to the mailing list you have to include
>ahs@huduser.gov in your address header.
>
>Oh, by the way: the 2003 survey goes into the field today!
>
>Dav Vandenbroucke
>Economist
>U.S. Dept. HUD
>david_a._vandenbroucke@hud.gov
>202-708-1060 ext. 5890




= = = = = = = = = = = =

From: david_a._vandenbroucke@hud.gov on 6/9/2003 1:42:07 PM
Subject: Re: AHS: Opinions sought on proposed changes.

Sandee, are you using the structural defect questions? Have the distinctions
among different kinds of roof, wall, and window problems been important in your
work? We are trying to reduce respondent burden where we can, so that the net
effect on the 2005 instrument will be less onerous, given that we are adding
more income questions and items related to assisted living. If you know of
specific work in which the form of the current questions is important, we'd
like to know about that.

It's too early for me to go into details about the income questions. We have
several alternative specifications which will have to be tested by the Census
Bureau. The main purpose of the changes is to improve our measurement of
non-labor income, since that appears to be the main reason why the AHS reports
lower incomes than other surveys.

Dav Vandenbroucke
Economist
U.S. Dept. HUD
david_a._vandenbroucke@hud.gov
202-708-1060 ext. 5890


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To stop receiving the digest, send a message with DIGEST OFF in the subject.