Re: AHS Voucher Coverage / Housing Adequacy (was AHS 2015 Geographic Coverage) - 8

Forgive me for harshing the conversation, but I just have to wonder whether these requests are going beyond the intended scope of the AHS. (Please point me in the right direction if this has already been covered.) The requested data would be invaluable, no question, and I’d love to have it myself; but shouldn’t it be the responsibility of the program administrators (not the residents/recipients or the AHS surveyors) to report this information?

Mike Stanger
Housing Planner
ARCH (A Regional Coalition for Housing)
16225 NE 87th Street Suite A3
Redmond, WA 98052
ph: 425-861-3677
www.archhousing.org

From: AHS [mailto:ahs@huduser.gov]
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 6:26 AM
To: Stanger, Michael

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

Thanks for the reply, a few related notes, especially looking at this all through the lens of housing quality (and wanting to know more specifics, if possible, about physical adequacy in a variety of subsidized dwellings/settings):

1) I know this is getting a little technical, but, could the HUDADMIN variable in the AHS PUF (which I believe was just added in survey year 2011), be expanded to clarify the receipt of federal rental assistance? The present HUDADMIN responses are rather limiting, and a unit could qualify under response 2/3 (receipt of voucher and resides in a privately owned subsidized housing complex). In addition, I feel "privately owned subsidized housing" simply fails to capture the specificity of the multiple rental assistance programs presently active, and, to a degree, essentially masks subsidy layering--however, possibly with a few tweaks to the interview guide / the variables, this could potentially be corrected, and, in turn, become really instructive data to reference.

I find this important, especially because of the nature of the AHS--self-report from residents, at the unit level, as it relates to physical adequacy. The current means for determining physical adequacy (and housing quality), for public housing, project-based housing, Housing Choice Voucher units and even LIHTC, (from my experience), are predominantly inspections conducted via an outside agency, where resident input is not often factored into the scoring and assessment process. For project-based and public housing, the inspection scores are at the property level (based upon a random sampling of the units on site), and, at least the publicly available inspection data does not get into the specifics already covered by the AHS (i.e., presence of vermin, leaks, holes). Further, HCV units are inspected (pass/fail) based upon HQS standards, and, reporting at the unit level regarding these conditions (besides audits), is limited. When you tie in subsidy layering, (i.e., housing voucher recipients at subsidized/unsubsidized complexes), with the limited HUDADMIN variable as it stands, it's extremely difficult to parse out / determine any differences between housing conditions of residents using their vouchers out in a private single-family dwelling versus residents using a voucher in a subsidized apartment complex--and based upon where housing voucher recipients tend to concentrate across the country, (especially as I consider the patterns in Baltimore City), I think this would be really important data to have and explore. Granted, while neither method (AHS/resident report and physical property inspection) is perfect, I think having the chance to query AHS physical adequacy data (as well as other areas of interest to others), by more specific federal rental assistance program, (which could then be compared with property-level inspection data), would be tremendously useful.

And, on this note, I agree that reliance on self-report from residents is of concern, and, working with HUD administrative data (i.e., TRACS), before the household interview would be ideal. I'm not also sure if the matching of sample unit addresses to HUD administrative data was conducted before or after interviewing, and, if the interviewer could also assist with confirmation of the unit description on site. Logistically, I don't know if this would be too ambitious, but, maybe it could be piloted within a specific region on a smaller scale (if enough were interested in this level of specificity, and factoring in other constraints). Going forward, some suggestions to maybe work around this would be:

a) A reworking of the language utilized in the interview about receipt of subsidy which ties into the HUDADMIN variable. (i.e., Did you apply for this unit through the Housing Authority or at the property management office? Is residency in this apartment complex based upon your income?)

b) A separate variable on Housing Choice Vouchers (Receipt, and, also, the specific setting in which it is being used--private single family dwelling, private unsubsidized apartment complex, privately owned subsidized complex, etc.)

c) A separate variable on Privately Owned Subsidized Housing (Relying solely on HUD administrative, and even maybe local housing authority, data. And, with this, the type of program and even Section the unit falls under).

Other quick questions:
1) Is there discussion whether LIHTC units will be added to the AHS 2015?

2) This may have been asked in the past, but, is there any way to make the AHS data more Mac-user friendly? (In the short term, breaking down some of the larger files by metro area, with limited variables, downloadable in .CSV or .XLS format)?

I will follow up with more specifics via e-mail, and again, thanks so much for your review and feedback.

Best,

Tanya M. Lukasik
tanya1@jhu.edu | (516) 587-4013