Re: AHS Voucher Coverage / Housing Adequacy (was AHS 2015 Geographic Coverage) - 5

Ndeye,

The data available in the AHS doesn't permit the identification of the specific program or combination of programs that provide project-based assistance in privately owned projects. HUDADMIN=3 indicates that the unit is in a privately owned HUD-subsidized project. Most units in this category were built under the project-based Section 8 New Construction and Substantial Rehabilitation Program (including the Section 8/Section 202 combination). HUDADMIN=3 also includes projects that were built under earlier subsidized construction programs such as Section 221(d)(3) BMIR but now receive monthly project-based subsidies under Section 8. However, some HUD privately owned subsidized projects don't receive project-based assistance from Section 8. HUDADMIN doesn't identify units that receive project-based assistance under the LIHTC or USDA programs unless these projects also receive HUD assistance, for example, LIHTC projects that rehabilitate projects built under HUD programs and continue to receive assistance from them.

Ed Olsen

On 7/17/2013 12:36 PM, AHS wrote:

I agree that this is an excellent discussion. My question is how do we determine, that is what variable gets at the project based section 8 or assisted units/households. I see that the HUDADMIN gets the public housing, but what is the variable/field for projected based section 8?

Ndeye Jackson
Social Science Analyst
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Policy Development and Research
(202) 402-5737

---

From: AHS [mailto:ahs@huduser.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 1:01 PM
To: Jackson, Ndeye J
Subject: Re: AHS Voucher Coverage / Housing Adequacy (was AHS 2015 Geographic Coverage)

>>1) Does the AHS only sample privately-owned homes where assisted households are presently utilizing a Housing Choice Voucher, or, has there also been sampling of the following types of housing units where Housing Choice Vouchers holders could reside (and if so, which ones?):

Some examples:
a) Project-based Section 8 properties (i.e., Section 221, 236, 202/811), where often less than 100% of the units are assisted, meaning voucher holders could potentially reside in these 'unassisted' units on site?
b) Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) properties
c) Privately owned apartment complexes working with local public housing authorities to provide project-based vouchers?<<

AHS is, of course, a representative sample of the entire housing stock. To the extent that such units are in the stock, we pick them up in the usual sampling process. As I mentioned in earlier messages, we now include an oversample of HUD project-based assisted units. We don’t collect any information about LIHTC. We hope that some of those other forms of assistance will be picked up in the questions we still administer to the respondents, although we are aware that self-reported data is subject to errors of both false positives and false negatives.

>>2) In these above-mentioned hypothetical scenarios where subsidy 'layering' is occurring, how is this reported (and potentially parsed out) in the AHS? <<

We don’t specifically try to capture subsidy layering. Remember, this is a household-based survey, and most respondents are doing well if they know that they are subsidized or not. Layering may be visible in combinations of the self-reported questions. The HUDADMIN variable in the AHS PUF provides only one answer, on a hierarchical basis:

HUDADMIN =
Received government rental assistance (based on HUD administrative data)
1 Yes, public housing
2 Yes, someone in unit received a voucher
3 Yes, privately owned subsidized housing
4 Unit did not receive any type of government rental assistance
B Not applicable

Thus, if a unit is public housing, it is given a HUDAMIN value of 1, and the other possibilities are not coded, etc.

>>3) From what I understand, housing units targeted in the AHS are revisited every other year for assessment--in the case where a once subsidized/insured property has opted out of Section 8 rental assistance program (and is no longer affordable), or in a scenario where units within a multifamily property (or even private, single family units), are taken off line/demolished due to sale, foreclosure, or substantial rehabilitation, how have/are these changes reflected in the AHS data in future years? <<

This year (2013) is the last year in which we will use the current sample. We have not yet decided how we will treat the oversample in 2015 and following years. We would be happy to receive any advice from users about their preferences. If a unit is demolished, it of course leaves the sample.

>>4) Lastly, as housing adequacy (and relatedly housing quality), is an important aspect of worst case needs determination, I'm wondering if there are any plans to review, re-explore and/or potentially revise the physical inadequacy criteria for the AHS 2015. Further, if there's any information available regarding how these specific measures, (particularly the questions under the 'severely inadequate' category), were originally designed and tested.<<

This is another area that may change in 2015. I am working on a white paper on housing quality measures in the AHS. Again, user input is welcome.

Dav Vandenbroucke
Senior Economist
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development
451 7th Street SW, Room 8222
Washington, DC 20410


Email david.a.vandenbroucke@hud.gov
Phone 202-402-5890

Edgar O. Olsen
Department of Economics
University of Virginia

U.S. Mail and UVA Messenger Mail
P.O. Box 400182
Charlottesville, VA 22904-4182

Private Delivery (Fedex, UPS, etc)
Monroe Hall, Room 237
McCormick Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903

434-924-3443(W)
434-293-9461(H)
434-982-2904(F)
eoo@virginia.edu
http://www.virginia.edu/economics/olsen.htm
--------------------------------------------