Unknown

by Unknown

Visit PD&R’s website

www.huduser.org
to find this report and others sponsored by HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R). Other services of HUD USER, PD&R’s research information service, include listservs, special interest reports, bimonthly publications (best practices, significant studies from other sources), access to public use databases, and a hotline (800–245–2691) for help accessing the information you need.

AmericAn Housing survey

Housing Adequacy and Quality As Measured by the AHS
Prepared for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Prepared by Frederick J. Eggers and Fouad Moumen econometrica, inc. Bethesda, maryland March 2013
The contents of this report are the views of the contractor and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. government.

Preface
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) mission statement is “Create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality, affordable homes for all” and part of the Department’s strategic plan is “Preserve the affordability and improve the quality of federally assisted and private unassisted affordable rental homes.” To monitor progress toward these goals, the quality of the housing stock must be measured. HUD’s American Housing Survey (AHS) provides key data for measuring housing quality. Housing quality data in the AHS are summarized into a measure of the most basic level of quality: housing adequacy.
As part of its ongoing program of research based on the AHS, the Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) commissioned Econometrica, Inc., to conduct a three-part evaluation of housing quality data and the housing adequacy measure in the AHS. First, Econometrica conducted research to determine which components of housing quality were key in determining whether housing units were adequate, as embodied by the variable ZADEQ, which summarizes housing quality. Second, Econometrica used the longitudinal features of the AHS to explain the persistency of inadequacy in particular housing units. Third, Econometrica summarized other housing quality information collected in the AHS that could be used to strengthen our understanding of housing adequacy in the American housing stock.
A key finding was that inadequate housing is very rare and that most inadequate units do not remain in that condition for very long. Another salient finding was that the most important component of inadequate classification is sharing one’s bathroom with members of another household. The second most important common deficiency was heating failures. This report documented more than 100 quality-related variables in the AHS data that could be analyzed to gain a better understanding of housing quality issues.
Table of Contents

Executive Summary …………………………………………………….v

1. Background …………………………………………………………….1

2. Extent and Nature of Severe Physical Problems in
Housing Units ………………………………………………………..2

2.1. AHS Definition of Physical Adequacy ………………………2

2.2. Physical Inadequacy: 2005 Through 2009 ……………….2

2.3. Persistence of Severe Physical Problems …………………..3

3. Indicators of Quality Problems in AHS ………………………6

4. Recent Interest in the AHS Measure of Housing Adequacy …………………………………………………………………12

References ……………………………………………………………….13

Appendix. Analysis of Severe Plumbing Problems Over

AHS Surveys…………………………………………………………14

List of Tables

Table 1. Units With Severe Physical Problems in 2005, 2007, and 2009 and the Specific Physical Problems Experienced by These Units ………………. 3 Table 2. Percentage of Units by the Number of Specific Physical Problems Experienced ………………………… 3 Table 3. Changes in Physical Condition Between Surveys…. 4 Table 4. Persistence of Particular Physical Problems ………… 4 Table 5. AHS Variables Related to Bathrooms …………………. 6 Table 6. AHS Variables Related to Heating ……………………… 7 Table 7. AHS Variables Related to Electricity and Wiring ….. 7 Table 8. AHS Variables Related to Outside Water Leaks ……. 8 Table 9. AHS Variables Related to Inside Water Leaks ……… 8 Table 10. AHS Variables Related to Walls, Floors, and Ceilings ………………………………………………….. 8

Table 11. AHS Variables Related to Rodents and Toilet Breakdowns …………………………………………………..8

Table 12. AHS Variables Related to Kitchens …………………….9

Table 13. AHS Variables Related to External Structural
Problems ……………………………………………………..10

Table 14. AHS Variables Related to Stair Climbing …………..10

Table 15. AHS Variables Related to Problems Outside Unit …10

Table 16. AHS Variables Related to Overall Unit Quality …..10

Table 17. AHS Variables Related to Housing Deficiencies

Not Available for All Surveys …………………………..11

Table A-1. Published AHS Data on Severe Pluming

Problems, 1985 Through 2011 ……………………….15

Executive Summary
The American Housing Survey (AHS) measures physical adequacy, a concept related to, but different from, housing quality. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development developed this measure to assess the extent to which the housing stock met the standard of “a decent home and a suitable living environment,” established by the Housing Act of 1949. The AHS definition of physical adequacy is complex; any 1 of 14 different situations can result in the classification of a unit as having severe physical problems. According to this measure, very few American housing units have serious physical problems. In each of the 3 years studied (2005, 2007, and 2009), the percentage of occupied housing units that were severely inadequate was less than 2 percent.
The two most frequently observed problems are having to share the bathroom (55 percent) and heating failure (29 percent). More than one-half of the severely inadequate units reported one household sharing its bathroom with another household. Between 5 and 11 percent of all severely inadequate units reported one or more deficiencies in bathroom facilities, namely, not having hot and cold running water, not having a shower or tub, or not having a flush toilet. More than 90 percent of the units were classified as severely inadequate because of only one condition. In the 3 years studied, only 1 sample unit of the approximately 40,000 units surveyed was found to have five severe physical problems in any year.
Severe physical problems do not persist in American housing units. Of the relatively few units with severe physical problems in 2005 or 2007 and that remained occupied in the next survey, more than 80 percent were adequate in the next survey and less than 12 percent were still severely inadequate in the next survey.
The two most frequently observed problems—having to share the bathroom and heating failures—are not persistent. The highest observed survey-to-survey persistence for these two problems was 6.9 percent, which is lower than the 11.9-percent persistence of severe inadequacy. On the other hand, the four problems that would require structural changes to the units— no hot and cold running water, no tub or shower, no flush toilet, or no electricity—are persistent from survey to survey. The percentage of units with one of these problems in one survey and the same problem in the next survey ranges from
39.8 percent (no hot and cold running water) to 88.4 percent (no electricity).
The fact that less than 6 percent of units that share the bathroom in one survey share them in the next survey is puzzling, given the way “exclusive use” is determined. This report found this characteristic of the AHS measure of severe inadequacy to be troubling, because the absence of exclusive use is by far the most important determinant of severe inadequacy. We explore this determinant in greater detail.
The report also compiles a list of 102 quality-related variables that were available in one or more national public use files (PUFs) during the 1985-through-2009 period. Of the variables, 68 can be used to track housing quality from 1985 to 2011; the remaining 34 variables are not available in all PUFs for the surveys from 1985 through 2011.

1. Background
In October 2009, Econometrica, Inc., entered into a contract with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to support the American Housing Survey (AHS). As part of that contract, HUD asked Econometrica to examine the AHS measure of housing adequacy and determine which physical problems most frequently result in a unit being labeled as severely inadequate.
In the early 1970s, HUD fostered the development of a measure of housing inadequacy because of its concern about the housing conditions of the poor. In particular, HUD wanted to assess the extent to which the housing stock met the standard of “a decent home and a suitable living environment,” established by the Housing Act of 1949. A great deal of thought went into the creation of the AHS measure. Simonson documents the research and consultation undertaken by HUD and cites seven previous indicators of inadequacy from both government (HUD, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Budget Office) and private sources.1
Section 2 of this report describes the AHS measure of housing adequacy and then analyzes the factors that determine whether the AHS labels a unit as severely inadequate. In particular, the section examines whether inadequacy in general and the conditions associated with inadequacy are persistent from one survey to the next. In the course of this research, Econometrica developed a list of all the variables collected by the AHS since 1985 relating to housing deficiencies. Section 3 discusses this fuller list of housing deficiencies. Section 4 addresses the current status of research into physical adequacy. An appendix examines how the variables related to the bathroom component of the severely inadequate determination have changed over time.
1 Simonson (unpublished).

2. Extent and Nature of Severe Physical Problems in

Housing Units

This section describes the AHS definition of physical adequacy, reports recent data on physical adequacy, and examines the extent to which physical inadequacy and the conditions that cause physical inadequacy persist. 2.1. AHS Definition of Physical Adequacy The AHS publishes information in the statistical reports on the physical adequacy of occupied housing units. Occupied units are classified as adequate, having moderate physical problems, or having severe physical problems. A unit is considered severely inadequate if any of the following criteria apply.2 1. Unit does not have hot and cold running water. 2. Unit does not have a bathtub or shower. 3. Unit does not have a flush toilet. 4. Unit shares plumbing facilities. 5. Unit was cold for 24 hours or more and more than two breakdowns of the heating equipment have occurred that lasted longer than 6 hours. 6. Electricity is not used. 7. Unit has exposed wiring, not every room has working electrical plugs, and the fuses have blown more than twice. 8. Unit has five or six of the following structural conditions: a. Unit has had outside water leaks in the past 12 months. b. Unit has had inside water leaks in the past 12 months. c. Unit has holes in the floor. d. Unit has open cracks wider than a dime. e. Unit has an area of peeling paint larger than 8 by 11 inches. f. Rats have been seen recently in the unit. The eighth criterion uses the term structural because the problems are related to structural weaknesses. Water leaks, cracks in the walls, and holes in the floor are obvious structural issues. Signs
of rats suggest holes in the exterior walls, and peeling paint is often a sign of water leakage. Seven different combinations of these structural problems can satisfy the requirements of the final criterion (all six structural conditions, all but a, all but b, and so on); therefore, 14 different situations can lead to classifying a unit as severely inadequate. The four questions related to bathroom facilities have the fol lowing internal logic. The questions related to hot and cold running water, the presence of a bathtub or shower, and having a flush toilet determine whether the unit has a complete bathroom. The “shared plumbing facilities” question presumes a complete bathroom. This question is not asked if a unit lacks hot and cold running water and lacks a tub or shower and lacks a flush toilet and lacks a bathroom sink. The wording of the question focuses not on the household’s use of a bathroom outside the unit but on whether members of another household use the bathroom in the unit. The wording in the AHS Codebook (page 589) follows. Some people live in neighborhoods where some of the houses don’t have complete plumbing facilities so they must use other people’s bathrooms. Does anyone not living in your home, not counting guests or workers, regularly use your bathroom? As a group, these four questions determine whether the unit has a full bathroom and, if so, whether the household has to share that bathroom with members of another household. The AHS reports on the physical adequacy of occupied units only, although information on some of these conditions is col lected for vacant units and units whose occupants usually reside elsewhere, so-called usual residence elsewhere, or URE, units. 2.2. Physical Inadequacy: 2005 Through 2009 Using data from the AHS, table 1 tallies the number of units considered severely inadequate in at least one of the years 2005, 2007, and 2009 and identifies the serious problems these units

2 The relevant AHS variable is ZADEQ, the definition of which can be found in HUD (2011: 281).

Table 1. Units With Severe Physical Problems in 2005, 2007, and 2009 and the Specific Physical Problems Experienced by

These Units
2005 2007 2009 Average
Occupied housing units 108,871,000 110,692,000 111,806,000 110,456,333
Severely inadequate units 2,021,050 1,805,960 1,863,660 1,896,890
Percent severely inadequate 1.9 1.6 1.7 1.7
Number of sample units severely inadequate 798 627 764 730
Percentage distribution of severely inadequate units by situationa
No hot and cold running water 11.0 9.4 6.1 8.9
No bathtub or shower 7.9 10.0 6.0 8.0
No flush toilet 7.0 7.3 5.5 6.6
Shared plumbing facilities 51.2 57.2 57.1 55.0
Unacceptable cold periods because of heat failures 31.7 25.6 29.2 29.0
No electricity 3.1 2.5 3.2 2.9
Inadequate electricity wiring 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4
Structural problems (five or six of the listed conditions) 2.6 4.2 4.0 3.6

a

The percentages add to more than 100 percent because some units suffer from multiple problems.
experienced. The counts confirm the well-known fact that very few American housing units have serious physical problems. In each of the 3 years, the percentage of occupied housing units that were severely inadequate was less than 2 percent. Having inadequate bathroom facilities proved by far to be the most common reason units were classified as having severe physical problems. More than one-half of the severely inadequate units reported sharing their bathroom with another household. Between 5 and 11 percent of all severely inadequate units also reported one or more deficiencies in bathroom facilities, namely, not having hot and cold running water, not having a shower or tub, or not having a flush toilet. Between one-fourth and one-third of severely inadequate units reported heating failures. Less than 4 percent of the severely inadequate units were without electricity. Having five or six of the structural problems occurred in 2 to 4 percent of the severely inadequate units. Table 2 indicates how frequently severely inadequate units suffered from more than one problem. More than 90 percent of the units were classified as severely inadequate because of only one condition. In the 3 years studied, only 1 sample unit of the approximately 40,000 units surveyed was found to have five severe physical problems in any year.

2.3. Persistence of Severe Physical Problems One would not expect problems of the type that lead to the designation of severely inadequate to persist from survey to survey. Instead one would expect that owners or landlords would fix the problem or that the unit would leave the stock or at least become vacant. Approximately 20 percent of all units with either moderate or severe physical problems in either 2005 or 2007 did not have information on adequacy in the next survey because they were unoccupied or because they could not be interviewed. The vacant or out-of-the-stock alternative is not as prevalent as it may at first appear, however, because approximately 15 percent of adequate units were either vacant or could not be interviewed in the next survey. Table 3 shows the extent to which physical problems persist from AHS survey to AHS survey. The table considers only those units that were occupied in both 2005 and 2007 or in both 2007 and 2009 because the Census Bureau determines physical adequacy only for occupied units. Table 3 confirms the well-known fact that severe physical problems do not persist in American housing units. Of those units with severe physical problems in 2005 or 2007 and that remained occupied in the next survey, more than 80 percent

Table 2. Percentage of Units by the Number of Specific Physical Problems Experienced

2005 (%) 2007 (%) 2009 (%) Average (%)
Percentage distribution by number of qualifying conditions
Only one condition 91.6 90.3 92.7 91.5
Two conditions 2.7 3.9 3.9 3.5
Three conditions 4.9 5.0 2.6 4.2
Four or more conditions 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9

Table 3. Changes in Physical Condition Between Surveys
Physical Condition 2007
Adequate Moderately Inadequate Severely Inadequate
2005 No. Adequate Moderately inadequate Severely inadequate 86,550,000 2,114,000 1,345,000 2,031,000 1,158,000 114,000 1,195,000 159,000 198,000
% Adequate Moderately inadequate Severely inadequate 96.4 61.6 81.2 2.3 33.8 6.9 1.3 4.6 11.9

Physical Condition 2009
Adequate Moderately Inadequate Severely Inadequate
2007 No. Adequate Moderately inadequate Severely inadequate 86,510,000 1,951,000 1,199,000 2,077,000 1,163,000 89,000 1,348,000 111,000 174,000
% Adequate Moderately inadequate Severely inadequate 96.2 60.5 82.0 2.3 36.1 6.1 1.5 3.4 11.9

were adequate in the next survey, and less than 12 percent were still severely inadequate in the next survey. Of those units that were adequate in 2005 or in 2007, 96 percent of units remained adequate in the next survey, approximately 2.5 percent had moderate physical problems, and approximately
1.5 percent had severe physical problems.
An interesting question is whether certain physical problems account for what limited persistence exists among severely inadequate housing units. Table 4 looks at the persistence of particular physical problems, focusing on the six most common problems identified in table 1. The available sample sizes are small for some of the problems because of the infrequency of the problem.
The two most frequently observed problems—having to share the bathroom and heating failures—are not persistent. The highest observed survey-to-survey persistence for these two

problems was 6.9 percent, which is lower than the 11.9-percent persistence of severe inadequacy. On the other hand, the four problems that would require structural changes to the units— no hot or cold running water, no tub or shower, no flush toilet, or no electricity—are persistent from survey to survey. The percentages of units with one of these problems in one survey and the same problem in the next survey run from 39.8 percent (no hot and cold running water) to 88.4 percent (no electricity).
The conditions that involve bathroom facilities affect adequacy differently. Having to share a bathroom with another household is relatively common but not persistent. Having incomplete bathroom facilities is not common but is persistent.
The lack of persistence in “no exclusive use” is puzzling. The appendix looks at the history of the bathroom questions and examines the questions’ internal consistency. Here we use two examples to explain why we find the lack of persistence puzzling.

Table 4. Persistence of Particular Physical Problems
Physical Problem Year Sample Units Number of Units In Next Survey Percent
Sharing bathroom 2005 2007 302 298 888,000 880,000 15,000 52,000 1.7 5.9
Heating failures 2005 2007 177 120 534,000 370,000 37,000 12,000 6.9 3.2
No hot or cold running water 2005 2007 48 31 148,000 98,000 59,000 41,000 39.8 41.8
No tub or shower 2005 2007 32 37 109,000 113,000 83,000 58,000 76.5 51.5
No flush toilet 2005 2007 26 28 91,000 90,000 81,000 54,000 88.4 60.5
No electricity 2005 2007 16 12 50,000 36,000 24,000 31,000 48.5 85.5

The first example involves two units in a duplex that share a common bathroom that has full plumbing; that is, hot and cold running water, a bathroom sink, a flush toilet, and a tub or shower. If the AHS surveyed both of these units, it would indicate that both units had complete plumbing and that both units shared the bathroom. In the AHS, the sink, toilet, and tub need not be in the same individual unit; a unit has a complete bathroom as long as the sink, toilet, and tub are in the same structure.3 The second example involves two units in different structures, one unit without a bathroom and one unit with a complete bathroom that it shares with the household of the unit without a bathroom. If the AHS surveyed both of these units, it would indicate that the first unit did not have a complete bathroom and that the second unit has a complete bathroom that it shares.4
Our expectation would be that the first example represents a situation that would persist from survey to survey, but the second example represents a situation that would not persist from survey to survey. The observed lack of persistence in “no exclusive use” implies that the second example is more common than the first example. But the second example requires that one unit lack complete plumbing. The number of units without hot piped water, a tub or shower, or a flush toilet is substantially smaller than the number of units without exclusive use in nearly all surveys. Therefore, the second example can account, at most, for a fraction of the “no exclusive use” units.

3 In the American Community Survey and its predecessors, the long forms in various decennial censuses, the Census Bureau requires that the relevant bathroom fixtures be in the same unit rather than the same structure for a unit to be credited with a complete bathroom.
4 If the first unit lacked all the elements of a full bathroom (hot and cold running water, a bathroom sink, a flush toilet, and a tub or shower), then the AHS would not even ask this household whether it shared its bathroom because it has no bathroom to share.

3. Indicators of Quality Problems in AHS

This report focuses on the AHS measure of housing adequacy. Adequacy is a broader concept than quality; a unit can have quality problems but still be considered adequate. Because of the emphasis on adequacy, the AHS measure does not use all of the extensive information collected in the AHS on quality problems.
This section provides a list of AHS variables related to quality problems that were collected in the period between 1985 and 2011. We constructed this list by identifying all the variables in the national survey that appear in the Unit Quality section of the most recent AHS Codebook5 or that were used to assign ZADEQ values. We then examined the codebook for the 1973-through-1993 period6 to determine whether those variables or closely related variables were available before 1997.7 Our approach will miss quality related variables that were in the AHS before 1995 but do not have counterparts in the 1997 or later surveys. We chose the 1985-through-2011 period because the most recent AHS sample was drawn in 1985 and augmented in subsequent survey years to account for new construction and other additions to the housing stock. During this time, a shift from onsite interviewing to telephone interviewing occurred, and a new data collection instrument was introduced in 1997.
The first five variables involve whether a unit has complete plumbing (table 5). Before 1997, the definition of variables 1 through 4 presumed “exclusive use”; that is, TUB = 1 meant that a unit had either a tub or shower and that the household did not share that tub or shower with another household.

Beginning in 1997, exclusive use was indicated by a new variable, SHARPF, so that in 1997 or later surveys, TUB = 1 means simply that a household had access to a tub or shower in the same structure. In combination with TUB = 1, SHARPF = 2 means that the household had exclusive use to that tub or shower.
Although having complete plumbing has been a core constituent of ZADEQ throughout the 1985-through-2009 period, the AHS definition of complete plumbing shifted slightly in 1997. The shift was subtle. In every survey, complete plumbing requires hot and cold running water, a tub or shower, and a toilet, all for the exclusive use of the household. The 1985-through-1993 codebook explains exclusive use in the following excerpt.
Note that plumbing facilities are considered complete if they are located in the structure in which the unit is located, while in the Census, facilities are complete only if they are inside the specific housing unit. Plumbing facilities are shared if they are also for the use of the occupants of other housing units.8
The exact same language is found on pages 118 and 119 of the AHS Codebook, version 2.0. In 1997, the focus shifted to include use of bathroom facilities by households in other structures.9 The long description of SHARPF is in the following paragraph.
Some people live in neighborhoods where some of the houses don’t have complete plumbing facilities so they must use other people’s bathrooms. Does anyone not living in your home, not counting guests or workers, regularly use your bathroom?10

Table 5. AHS Variables Related to Bathrooms

5 HUD (2011).

6 HUD (1995).
7 We did not examine volume 2 of The American Housing Survey Codebook, which covers the 1995 national survey. Instead, we presume that any variable available

8 The quote is from the first page of the section on Equipment in HUD (1995). The AHS considered a unit as having complete plumbing even if the bathroom was
located outside the unit as long as no other household used that bathroom.

9 Note that the latest Codebook places SHARPF in the Neighborhood section.

10 HUD (2011: 589).

Variable Name Codebook Definition Codebook Location* First Year in New Sample Final Year in New Sample Number of Years in Survey
1 2 3 PLUMB HOTPIP TUB Complete plumbing facilities in unit Unit has hot and cold running water Unit has a bathtub or shower Unit Quality Unit Unit 1985 1985 1985 2011 2011 2011 14 14 14
4 5 TOILET SHARPF Unit has a flush toilet Unit shares plumbing facilities Unit Quality Neighborhood 1985 1997 2011 2011 14 8

* In tables 5 through 17, if a variable is found in the “1997 or later” codebook only or in both the 1985-through-1993 codebook and the “1997 or later” codebook, the location in the “1997 or later” codebook is given.
from 1985 to 1993 and from 1997 to a later date would be available in the national surveys from 1985 to the later date.

In the appendix, we study whether this change in concept had four specific options and an “other” option. Note that the single any appreciable effect on the measurement of severe plumbing WHYCLD allowed respondents to select only one of the four problems. This analysis leads us to conclude that lacking exclureasons, whereas WHYCD1 through WHYCD5 allow responsive use was at least as important in determining whether a unit dents to select more than one reason. had severe plumbing problems before 1997 as after the change The third group of variables assesses the adequacy of the unit’s in concept. The same analysis suggests that lacking exclusive use electrical system (table 7). BUYE (17) provides a consistent is probably the predominant cause of severe plumbing problems indicator over the period as to whether a unit has electricity.11 over the period, however, if not in every survey. In addition, the Variables 18 through 21 indicate shortcomings in the electrical published numbers suggests the possibility that other changes system. occurred in how severe plumbing problems were measured in different surveys. Variables 22 through 26 in table 8 deal with water leaks originating outside the unit. LEAK (22) indicates whether any The second group of variables deals with heating problems leaks have sprung from outside; RLEAK, WLEAK, and BLEAK (table 6). (23 through 25) identify the source of the leak; and OTLEAK Although the variables have changed somewhat, the con- (26) is reserved for sources other than the roof, wall, windows, cepts have remained closely consistent throughout the 1985-doors, or basement. through-2009 period. HEQUIP (6) describes the type of heating Variables 27 through 32 in table 9 deal with water leaks origiequipment, FREEZE (7) determines whether the household nating inside the unit. ILEAK (27) indicates whether any leaks experienced uncomfortably cold conditions in the past 12 have sprung from inside, and PILEAK and PLEAK (28 through months, IFCOLD (8) indicates whether the equipment broke 29) identify the source of the leak. In the 1985 through 1995 down, NUMCOLD (9) counts the number of breakdowns, and surveys, NLEAK (30) indicated that the source was unknown OTHCLD (10) indicates whether other reasons for being cold or other than a leaking pipe or plumbing fixture. Beginning existed. If other reasons existed, WHYCLD (11) offered three with the 1997 survey, NLEAK1 and NLEAK2 separated the specific options and an “other” option from 1985 through other source answers from the unknown answers. 1995. Beginning in 1997, WHYCD# (12 through 16) offered
Table 6. AHS Variables Related to Heating
Variable Name Codebook Definition Codebook Location* First Year in New Sample Final Year in New Sample Number of Years in Survey
6 HEQUIP Main heating equipment Utilities 1985 2011 14
7 FREEZE Unit cold for 24+ hrs was uncomfortable Unit Quality 1985 2011 14
8 IFCOLD Main heating equipment broke down Unit Quality 1985 2011 14
9 NUMCOLD Number of times main heating equipment broke down Unit Quality 1985 2011 14
10 OTHCLD Unit cold for some other reason Unit Quality 1985 2011 14
11 WHYCLD Why unit cold Unit Quality 1985 1995 6
12 WHYCD1 Unit cold due to utility interruption Unit Quality 1997 2011 8
13 WHYCD2 Unit cold due to inadequate heating capacity Unit Quality 1997 2011 8
14 WHYCD3 Unit cold due to inadequate insulation Unit Quality 1997 2011 8
15 WHYCD4 Unit cold due to cost of heating Unit Quality 1997 2011 8
16 WHYCD5 Unit cold because of some other reason Unit Quality 1997 2011 8

*If a variable is found only in the 1985-through-1993 codebook, its location is given in italics. Table 7. AHS Variables Related to Electricity and Wiring

17 BUYE Pay for electricity separately (different coding) Utilities 1985 2011 14 18 NOWIRE Electrical wiring concealed by walls/wiring Unit Quality 1985 2011 14 19 PLUGS Every room has working electrical plug Unit 1985 2011 14 20 IFBLOW Fuses blown or circuit breakers tripped Unit Quality 1985 2011 14 21 NUMBLOW Number of times fuses blown or breakers tripped Unit Quality 1985 2011 14 Variable Name Codebook Definition Codebook Location First Year in New Sample Final Year in New Sample Number of Years in Survey

11 In the 1997-through-2011 period, BUYE is a recode of BUYE2.
Table 8. AHS Variables Related to Outside Water Leaks
Variable Name Codebook Definition Codebook Location First Year in New Sample Final Year in New Sample Number of Years in Survey
22 LEAK Any outside water leaks in past 12 months Unit Quality 1985 2011 14
23 RLEAK Water leak in roof Unit Quality 1985 2011 14
24 WLEAK Water leak in wall or closed door/window Unit Quality 1985 2011 14
25 BLEAK Water leak in basement Unit Quality 1985 2011 14
26 OTLEAK Water leak from other outside source Unit Quality 1985 2011 14

Table 9. AHS Variables Related to Inside Water Leaks

Variable Name Codebook Definition Codebook Location* First Year in New Sample Final Year in New Sample Number of Years in Survey
27 ILEAK Any inside water leaks in last 12 months Unit Quality 1985 2011 14
28 PILEAK Inside water leak from leaking pipes Unit Quality 1985 2011 14
29 PLEAK Inside water leak from plumbing fixtures Unit Quality 1985 2011 14
30 NLEAK Interior leak from other or unknown source Unit Quality 1985 1995 6
31 NLEAK1 Inside water leak from some other source Unit Quality 1997 2011 8
32 NLEAK2 Source of inside water leak unknown Unit Quality 1997 2011 8

*If a variable is found only in the 1985-through-1993 codebook, its location is given in italics.
Table 10 reports on problems with walls, floors, and ceilings. These variables have been consistently recorded since 1985, although the criterion for peeling paint changed from 1 square foot before 1997 to 8 by 11 inches (a sheet of paper) beginning in 1997.
Table 11 (on the following page) contains an eclectic grouping of variables. RATS (37) reports signs of rats or mice in surveys from 1985 through 1995, and EVROD (36) reports the same concept (evidence of rodents) from 1997 onward. A possible source of confusion was the redefinition of RATS (38) in 1997 to “rats seen in unit recently.” These variables (33, 34, and 35) are used in the structural problems component of the definition of severe inadequacy. Variables 39 and 40 record toilet breakdowns. We kept the toilet breakdowns separate from the bathroom variables in table 5 because the previous variables (1 through 5) are used in determining severe inadequacy whereas variables 38 and 39 are used in determining moderate inadequacy.
Table 12 contains the elements used in defining a complete kitchen. Variable 41, KITCHEN, is used in the definition of moderately inadequate. Page 118 of the AHS Codebook, version 2.0, contains a definition of complete kitchen, which is found in the following excerpt.

Table 10. AHS Variables Related to Walls, Floors, and Ceilings

Variable Name Codebook Definition Codebook Location First Year in New Sample Final Year in New Sample Number of Years in Survey
33 HOLES Holes in floor Unit Quality 1985 2011 14
34 CRACKS Open cracks wider than dime Unit Quality 1985 2011 14
35 BIGP Area of peeling paint larger than 8” x 11” Lead Based Paint 1985 2011 14
(previously 1 sq ft)

Table 11. AHS Variables Related to Rodents and Toilet Breakdowns

Variable Name Codebook Definition Codebook Location* First Year in New Sample Final Year in New Sample Number of Years in Survey
36 EVROD Evidence of rodents in unit Unit Quality 1997 2011 8
37 RATS Signs of rats or mice in building in past 90 days Unit Quality 1985 1995 6
38 RATS Rats seen in unit recently Unit Quality 1997 2011 8
39 IFTLT Any toilet breakdowns in past 3 months Unit Quality 1985 2011 14
40 NUMTLT Number of toilet breakdowns 6 hours or more Unit Quality 1985 2011 14

*If a variable is found only in the 1985-through-1993 codebook, its location is given in italics.
Variable Name Codebook Definition Codebook Location* First Year in New Sample Final Year in New Sample Number of Years in Survey
41 KITCHEN Complete kitchen facilities in unit Unit 1985 2011 14
42 COOK Unit has working cookstove or range/oven Unit 1985 2011 14
(separate use 1985–95)
43 OVEN Unit has an oven for household’s use only Equipment 1985 1995 6
44 OVEN Unit has a working microwave oven Unit 1997 2011 8
45 BURNER Unit has working built-in cooking burners Unit 1985 2011 14
(separate use 1985–95)
46 REFR Unit has a working refrigerator (separate use Unit 1985 2011 14
1985–95)
47 SINK Unit has kitchen sink (separate use 1985–95) Unit 1985 2011 14
48 KEXCLU Kitchen facilities for household use only Unit 1997 2011 8

*If a variable is found only in the 1985-through-1993 codebook, its location is given in italics.
Table 12. AHS Variables Related to Kitchens

Complete Kitchen Facilities: A unit has complete kitchen facilities if it has all three of the following for the exclusive use of the occupants of the unit: (1) an installed sink with piped water, (2) a mechanical refrigerator, and (3) built-in burners, not portable. All kitchen facilities must be located in the structure. They need not be in the same room. Quarters with only portable cooking equipment are not considered as having a range or stove. An icebox is not included as a mechanical refrigerator. The kitchen facilities are for the exclusive use of the occupants when they are used only by the occupants of one housing unit, including lodgers or other unrelated people living in the unit. When a structure consists of only one housing unit, all equipment located inside the structure is classified, by definition, for exclusive use.
Page 1062 contains the following elaboration of the concept of complete kitchen facilities.

Complete kitchen facilities. A housing unit has com
plete kitchen facilities when it has all of the following:
(1) kitchen sink; (2) burners, cook stove, or microwave oven; and (3) refrigerator. These terms are further defined below. The same criteria are used for occupied and vacant units in determining complete kitchen facilities. In some areas of the country it is common for the occupant to bring a refrigerator. In these cases the vacant unit, lacking a refrigerator, has an incomplete kitchen.
Kitchen sink. Only a sink in the unit or on an enclosed porch is counted, but it does not matter whether it is in the kitchen. However, a bathroom sink does not count as a kitchen sink.
Refrigerator. It may or may not have a freezer. Kero
sene refrigerators are counted, but not ice boxes.
Microwave oven. Data for microwave ovens were collected only if the respondent did not report having a cooking stove with oven, or burners. Prior to 1997, the data collected included all types of ovens except toaster ovens.
Burners. Data for burners were collected only if the respondent did not report having a cooking stove with oven. Burners built into a stove or counter top are counted, as are burners in a woodburning stove.
Cooking stove. The cookstove can be mechanical or wood burning.
KITCHEN (41) is the summary variable that is derived from the answers to other variables (42 through 48). A sink (47) and a refrigerator (46) are necessary components. A unit satisfies the requirements for a complete kitchen if it has either a cook stove (COOK, 42), a microwave or other oven (OVEN, 43 or 44), or built-in burners (BURNER, 45). The definition of the OVEN variable changed beginning in 1997. Before 1997, any oven satisfied the conditions for OVEN; in 1997 and later, the question refers specifically to a microwave oven. Before 1997, COOK, OVEN, BURNER, REFR, and SINK indicated positive answers only if the equipment was for the exclusive use of the household. Beginning in 1997, KEXCLU (48) indicated exclusive use but was asked only in multiunit structures.
Table 13 contains variables (49 through 59) that do not figure in the AHS determination of the physical adequacy of a unit (ZADEQ), although the variables identify potentially serious problems. Before the 1997 survey, the answers to these questions were based on the observations of the enumerator. ENOB (59) indicated that the enumerator could not observe the exterior of the unit. With the shift to telephone surveying, these questions have been asked of respondents since 1997, and ENOB was no longer relevant. It is not clear whether BOARD (50) and

Table 13. AHS Variables Related to External Structural Problems

Variable Name Codebook Definition Codebook Location* First Year in New Sample Final Year in New Sample Number of Years in Survey
49 EBROKE Windows broken Unit Quality 1985 2011 14
50 BOARD Unit boarded up Unit Quality 1985 1995 6
51 EBOARD Windows boarded up Unit Quality 1997 2011 8
52 ECRUMB Holes/cracks or crumbling in foundation Unit Quality 1985 2011 14
53 EHOLER Roof has holes Unit Quality 1985 2011 14
54 EMISSR Roof missing shingles/other roofing materials Unit Quality 1985 2011 14
55 EMISSW Outside walls missing siding/bricks/etc. Unit Quality 1985 2011 14
56 ESAGR Roof’s surface sags or is uneven Unit Quality 1985 2011 14
57 ESLOPW Outside walls slope/lean/slant/buckle Unit Quality 1985 2011 14
58 EGOOD No listed conditions seen in/on unit Unit Quality 1985 2011 14
59 ENOB Unable to observe exterior condition of unit Unit Quality 1985 1995 6

*If a variable is found only in the 1985-through-1993 codebook, its location is given in italics.
EBOARD (51) are identical concepts. BOARD might represent a more serious condition. EGOOD (58) indicates the absence of any specific external problem.
In combination, CLIMB (60) and ELEV (61) in table 14 function to identify a problem for some units in highrise buildings.
Table 15 (variables 62 through 66) identifies potentially serious problems. They may or may not be problems with the unit. Breakdowns at the municipal level could account for interruptions in the provision of water (62 and 63) or sewage services (64 and 65), but the breakdowns could also occur on the unit’s property and, therefore, be the responsibility of the property owner. If breakdowns at the municipal level occurred
frequently, then these problems would become common knowledge and be reflected in property values and rents. Crime problems that would necessitate putting bars on windows (66) would also be reflected in property values and rents. Including EBAR in the list is arguable because it definitely moves beyond the unit to the neighborhood as a source of problems.
The final two variables that are available throughout the 1985-through-2011 period are overall assessments of unit quality (table 16). The first, ZADEQ (67), is assigned by the AHS based on the answers to other questions. The second, HOWH (68), is the respondent’s assessment of the unit on a scale of 1 to 10.

Table 14. AHS Variables Related to Stair Climbing

Variable Name Codebook Definition Codebook Location First Year in New Sample Final Year in New Sample Number of Years in Survey
60 CLIMB Number of floors from main entrance to apartment Unit 1985 2011 14
61 ELEV Working passenger elevator Unit 1985 2011 14
59 ENOB Unable to observe exterior condition of unit Unit Quality 1985 1995 6

Table 15. AHS Variables Related to Problems Outside Unit

Variable Name Codebook Definition Codebook Location First Year in New Sample Final Year in New Sample Number of Years in Survey
62 IFDRY Unit completely without running water Unit Quality 1985 2011 14
63 NUMDRY Number of times completely without running water Unit Quality 1985 2011 14
64 IFSEW Sewage system broke down Unit Quality 1985 2011 14
65 NUMSEW Number of sewage system breakdowns Unit Quality 1985 2011 14
66 EBAR Windows covered with metal bars Unit 1985 2011 14

Table 16. AHS Variables Related to Overall Unit Quality

Variable Name Codebook Definition Codebook Location First Year in New Sample Final Year in New Sample Number of Years in Survey
67 ZADEQ Recoded adequacy of housing Unit Quality 1985 2011 14
68 HOWH Rating of unit as a place to live Unit Quality 1985 2011 14

Table 17 contains 34 variables (69 through 102) that are NOT available in all the PUFs. The first 3 of these (69 through 71) were used in the derivation of ZADEQ from 1985 through 2005 but were discontinued after the 2005 survey, and the definition of ZADEQ was changed to accommodate the loss. All but 1 of the remaining variables were introduced in 1997 or 1999; the one exception was introduced in 2011. Although most of the new variables are found in all the later PUFs, 9 of the variables that were introduced in 1997 were dropped after that survey, and 3 introduced in 1999 were dropped after the 2009 survey. Because these variables cannot be used for tracking unit quality over the entire period, we do not discuss them further.

Table 17. AHS Variables Related to Housing Deficiencies Not Available for All Surveys

Variable Name Codebook Definition Codebook Location First Year in New Sample Final Year in New Sample Number of Years in Survey
69 LTSOK Hallway lights working Unit Quality 1985 2005 11
70 BADSTEP Loose/broken/missing steps in common stairs Unit Quality 1985 2005 11
71 RAILOK Railings on common stairs firmly attached Unit Quality 1985 2003 10
72 BSINK Unit has a bathroom sink Unit Quality 1997 2011 8
73 DISAS Type C severely damaged by natural disaster Unit Quality 1997 2011 8
74 EXPOSE Type B interior exposed to elements Unit Quality 1997 2011 8
75 GRDMNT Satisfaction with grounds maintenance Unit Quality 1997 2011 8
76 MICE Mice seen in unit recently Unit Quality 1997 2011 8
77 NOTSUR Not sure if rodents were rats or mice Unit Quality 1997 2011 8
78 TREP Repairs made because of inspection/test Unit Quality 1997 2011 8
79 WATERS Water safe for drinking and cooking Unit Quality 1997 2011 8
80 BLDMNT Satisfaction with building maintenance Unit Quality 1999 2011 7
81 M3ROD Rodents seen in unit recently Unit Quality 1997 2009 7
82 MAJR1 Starts major maintenance/repairs soon enough Unit Quality 1999 2011 7
83 MAJR2 Solves major problems quickly Unit Quality 1999 2011 7
84 MAJR3 Polite/considerate of home (major repairs) Unit Quality 1999 2011 7
85 MINR1 Starts minor maintenance/repairs soon enough Unit Quality 1999 2011 7
86 MINR2 Solves minor problems quickly Unit Quality 1999 2011 7
87 MINR3 Polite/considerate of home (minimum repairs) Unit Quality 1999 2011 7
88 TALWIR Aluminum wiring inspected before purchase Unit Quality 1997 2009 7
89 TASB Unit tested for asbestos before purchase Unit Quality 1997 2009 7
90 TRADON Unit tested for radon before purchase Unit Quality 1997 2009 7
91 TWATER Water quality tested before purchase Unit Quality 1997 2009 7
92 WTRHRL Source of inside water leak is broken water heat Unit Quality 1999 2011 7
93 ELEVWK At least one elevator in working order Unit Quality 2001 2011 6
94 BDSTPQ Loose/broken/missing steps in common stairs Unit Quality 1997 1997 1
95 DFIRE Type C-30/31 severely damaged by fire Unit Quality 1997 1997 1
96 DORREP Any doors repaired/replaced in unit Unit Quality 1997 1997 1
97 IMAINT Receive adequate maintenance Unit Quality 1997 1997 1
98 LTSOK1 Hallway lights working Unit Quality 1997 1997 1
99 LTSOK2 All hallway lights working Unit Quality 1997 1997 1
100 OMAINT Buildings and grounds maintained properly Unit Quality 1997 1997 1
101 RAILOK1 Railings on stairs firmly attached Unit Quality 1997 1997 1
102 RAILOK2 All stair railings firmly attached Unit Quality 1997 1997 1

4. Recent Interest in the AHS Measure of Housing Adequacy

Although a great deal of interest existed in finding a measure of housing adequacy in the early years of the AHS, interest in this topic has been scant in recent years. The paucity of new research on physical inadequacy probably results from three causes. First, the work leading up to the current AHS definition was extensive and involved the persons most interested in the topic. Second, the AHS definition appeared to be doing precisely what it was intended to do, that is, identify units requiring major renovation or perhaps elimination from the stock. These first two reasons explain the absence of any immediate interest in further research. Third, the perceived level of inadequacy declined steadily after the new definition was instituted. Not only has the percentage of severely inadequate units declined, but also the incidence of severe housing problems has shifted. Orr and Peach make the following observation.
In 1975, roughly 5 percent of all housing units in the United States were rated severely inadequate; by 1997, that figure had fallen to around 2 percent… Moreover, the most dramatic reduction in the share of severely inadequate units—from around 12 percent in 1975 to about 3 percent in 1997—occurred in the lowest income quintile. Within this quintile, housing adequacy improved for households with relatively young heads (twenty-five to thirty-four years old) as well as for those with relatively older heads (sixty-five years of age and older)—regardless of whether the household head was an owner or a renter.12
The decline in the percentage of severely inadequate units, particularly among low-income households, eliminated any sense of urgency for further work on this measure.
A notable recent study of housing quality measures is a paper by Paul Emrath and Heather Taylor.13 Emrath and Taylor constructed hedonic models to estimate the value of owner-occupied housing and the gross rents of renter-occupied units. In these regressions, variables indicating that the unit was severely inadequate or, alternatively, either moderately or severely inadequate failed to be statistically significant and had the wrong sign three out of four times. Emrath and Taylor believed that the failure of these variables to have a meaningful effect on value or rent suggests the measures are themselves inadequate. Various arguments can be made to explain the lack of statistical significance, such as the small number of severely inadequate units, the lack of persistence of the conditions associated with AHS inadequacy, or the possibility that the full panoply of other variables related to quality made these variables redundant. We wonder, however, whether the predominant influence of “sharing plumbing” in determining inadequacy could account for the lack of significance. As noted, the lack of persistence is a puzzling feature of “no exclusive use.” If this negative feature is being measured incorrectly, then it would not be surprising to find that the severely inadequate variable is unrelated to value or rent. At least in the past, the AHS measure performs well in identifying—at a given point in time—the most seriously troubled units, but it does not recognize varying quality levels among the 95 percent of units classified as adequate, which represent most units. Being characterized as inadequate in one survey does not mean that the unit is at a high risk of leaving the stock or of being inadequate in the next survey. As shown in table 3, of those units with severe physical problems in 2005 or in 2007 and that remained occupied in the next survey, more than 80 percent were adequate in the next survey, and less than 12 percent were still severely inadequate in the next survey. Although little attention has been given to a single measure of quality, researchers have made use of the extensive information in the AHS on housing quality in studies of housing and related matters. Rather than employing a single measure of adequacy, authors have generally used multiple AHS variables in regression frameworks to control for variations in housing quality.14 Tables 5 through 16 list AHS quality-related variables that are generally available in most AHS datasets available for use by researchers.

12 Orr and Peach (1999: 53).

13 Emrath and Taylor (2012).

14 See, for example, Gordon and vanGoethem (2005).

References
Emrath, Paul, and Heather Taylor. 2012. “Housing Value, Costs, and Measures of Physical Adequacy,” Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research 14 (1): 99–126.
Gordon, Robert J., and Todd vanGoethem. 2005. A Century of Housing Shelter Prices: Is There a Downward Bias in the CPI? NBER Working Paper No. 11776. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Orr, James A., and Richard W. Peach. 1999. “Housing Outcomes: An Assessment of Long-Term Trends,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review September: 51–61.
Simonson, John. Unpublished. Measuring Inadequate Housing Through the Use of the Annual Housing Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 1995. The American Housing Survey Codebook, Vol. 1. Available at http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/ahs/ahs_codebook. html (accessed August 9, 2012).
———. 2011. Codebook for the American Housing Survey, Public Use File: 1997 and Later, Version 2.0, April 2011. Available at
http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/ahs/AHS_Codebook. pdf (accessed August 9, 2012).

Appendix. Analysis of Severe Plumbing Problems Over

AHS Surveys

Econometrica did some additional analysis of the bathroom condition variables primarily to determine whether the wording change in 1997 regarding exclusive use (see discussion of table 5 in the main body of this report) had any effect on the measurement of severe plumbing problems. The analysis suggests that, despite what appears to be a change in concept, no easily discernible effect on the count of units with severe plumbing problems is evident. This analysis is far from conclusive, however and suggests other issues with the measurement of plumbing problems.
For this analysis, Econometrica used the summary data for the national American Housing Survey (AHS), specifically tables 2-4 and 2-7. The numbers in rows 1, 2, and 4 through 10 in table A-1 are taken directly from published reports for the AHS surveys from 1985 to 2009. The numbers in these rows for 2011 come from tabulations based on the third test version of the public use file (PUF).15
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Census Bureau were not satisfied with the reliability of the plumbing data in the 1985 and 1987 surveys. The publications for those years contain an overall estimate of severe plumbing problems in table 2-7 but do not contain breakdowns of plumbing problems in table 2-4. The notation in table 2-4 for those years is “Data not up to publications standards.” Whatever problems were experienced resulted in rather low estimates of severe plumbing problems. The ratios of units with severe plumbing problems to all occupied units for these two surveys are one-third to one-half the same ratios for the next four surveys and are substantially lower than any subsequent ratio.
Table A-1 shows that HUD and the Census Bureau changed the way they report plumbing problems in table 2-4 beginning in 1997. In 1989 through 1995, row 4 in table A-1 records the number of units that are lacking complete plumbing fixtures, and row 8 reports the number of units with no exclusive use. These counts are mutually exclusive, because the counts in rows 4 and 8 add up to the count in row 9 for these surveys.16
Beginning with the 1997 publication, row 4 is the same as row 9; that is, it reports the number of units that have severe plumbing problems, either lacking a plumbing fixture or lacking exclusive use.
To obtain a rough estimate of how many units suffer from only lacking exclusive use for the survey years beginning in 1997, the analysts calculated two numbers. Row 11 is the maximum number of units with only no exclusive use; they calculated this estimate by subtracting the largest count from rows 5, 6, and 7 from row 9. This calculation presumes, for example, that the 385,000 units in 1997 that had no hot piped water included the 328,000 units with no bathtub or shower and the 296,000 units with no flush toilets. Row 12 is the minimum possible number of units with only no exclusive use; we calculated this estimate by subtracting the sum of rows 5, 6, and 7 from row 9. This calculation presumes no overlap in the units that had no hot piped water, no bathtub or shower, or no flush toilet.
Ignoring the unreliable 1985 and 1987 survey results, Table A-1 shows a decline in the number and percent of occupied units with severe plumbing problems over the period, but the pattern suggests that several conceptual changes in measuring severe plumbing problems may have occurred. Looking at row 9, the counts jumped in 1989, fell sharply in 1993, fell substantially again in 1997, and then rose again in 1999.
Row 14 shows that “no exclusive use” was the predominant cause of severe plumbing problems in the 1989-to-1995 period, the period before the change in the questionnaire language. Rows 15 and 16 indicate that it was an important cause in the 2003-to-2011 period and perhaps an important cause in the 1997-to-2001 period.
In the report, we noted that “no exclusive use” can arise from two situations. First, multiple units in the same structure may share the same bathroom. Because the bathroom is in the same structure, each unit is credited by the AHS as having access to all the essential elements of a full bathroom, but they do not have exclusive use. Second, a household in a unit within a structure without a full bathroom may use the bathroom in a

15 As part of the same contract that funded this research, Econometrica reviews early versions of the PUF for 2011 to help HUD and the Census Bureau check these files for reliability. When we revised this paper, we had access to an early version of the 2011 PUF.
16 From the table wording, we presume that unit row 8 includes “no exclusive use-only” problems through 1995.

Table A-1. Published AHS Data on Severe Plumbing Problems, 1985 Through 2011 (all counts in thousands)

Table 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 QC PUF
1 2-4 Occupied units 88,425 90,888 93,683 93,147 94,724 97,693 99,487 102,803 106,261 105,842 108,871 110,692 111,806 114,907
2 2-4 With complete plumbing * * 91,154 90,869 93,345 96,234 98,320 101,367 104,885 104,487 107,574 109,433 110,574 113,470
3 Calculated Difference 2,529 2,278 1,379 1,459 1,167 1,436 1,376 1,355 1,297 1,259 1,232 1,437
4 2-4 Lacking some plumbing facilities * * 276 233 227 188 1,167 1,436 1,376 1,355 1,279 1,259 1,232 1,438
5 2-4 No hot piped water * * 48 38 57 42 385 319 292 225 223 169 112 189
6 2-4 No bathtub nor shower * * 231 194 181 141 328 316 277 166 160 179 113 146
7 2-4 No flush toilet * * 155 133 131 85 296 293 264 139 141 132 102 121
8 2-4 No exclusive use * * 2,253 2,045 1,152 1,271 707 1,065 1,022 1,063 1,034 1,031 1,065 1,185
9 2-7 Severe problems: plumbing 660 574 2,529 2,278 1,379 1,459 1,169 1,436 1,376 1,355 1,297 1,259 1,232 1,435
10 2-4 No exclusive use only NA NA 2,253 2,045 1,152 1,271 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
11 Calculated Maximum possible with only NA NA NA NA NA NA 784 1,117 1,084 1,130 1,074 1,080 1,119 1,246
“no exclusive use”
12 Calculated Minimum possible with only NA NA NA NA NA NA 160 508 543 825 773 779 905 979
“no exclusive use”
13 Calculated Severe plumbing problems as 0.7% 0.6% 2.7% 2.4% 1.5% 1.5% 1.2% 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2%
percent of occupied units
14 Calculated “No exclusive use” as percent NA NA 89.1% 89.8% 83.5% 87.1% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
of severe plumbing problems
15 Calculated “Maximum possible” as percent NA NA NA NA NA NA 67.1% 77.8% 78.8% 83.4% 82.8% 85.8% 90.8% 86.8%
of severe plumbing problems
16 Calculated “Minimum possible” as percent NA NA NA NA NA NA 13.7% 35.4% 39.5% 60.9% 59.6% 61.9% 73.5% 68.2%
of severe plumbing problems

* Data not up to publications standards. NA = data not available. QC PUF = quality control version of the public use file.
unit occupied by a second household in another structure. In this case, the unit occupied by the first household would be listing as lacking one or more elements of a full bathroom, and the unit occupied by the second would be credited with all the elements of a complete bathroom except exclusive use.
Our presumption is that the first situation is the most common. The characteristics of these units would appear to be persistent, however, from survey to survey. Although persistence would not be expected in the second situation, the reported numbers limit the scope of this situation. The second situation requires each unit with “no exclusive use” to be linked to one or more units without all the elements of a full bathroom; otherwise, why would the household in the linked units need to use the bathroom in the “no exclusive use” unit?
In 2011, at most, 456,000 units were without the elements of a full bathroom (189,000 with no hot piped water, 146,000 with no tub or shower, and 121,000 with no flush toilet). This statistic assumes no overlap among the units that lack one of these three elements; if complete overlap existed, then only 189,000 units lacked one or more of the three elements. This statistic means that between 189,000 and 456,000 units had households that could possibly use the full bathrooms in a unit located in another structure. Thus, the second situation could account for no more than 47 percent of the units with no exclusive use (456,000/[1,435,000-456,000]).
Therefore, at least 53 percent of the units with no exclusive use were in units in multiunit structures that shared bathrooms, units that should have the same “no exclusive use” characteristic in repeated surveys. Table 4 shows that less than 6 percent of the units with no exclusive use in one survey, however, have the same condition in the next survey.

AmericAn Housing survey

Housing Adequacy and Quality As Measured by the AHS
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research