Fair Market Rents (FMRs) represent the estimated amount (base rent + essential utilities) that a property in a given area typically rents for. The data is primarily used to determine payment standard amounts for the Housing Choice Voucher program; however, FMRs are also used to:

Determine initial renewal rents for expiring project-based Section 8 contracts;

Determine initial rents for housing assistance payment (HAP) contracts in the Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy program (Mod Rehab), rent ceilings for rental units in both the HOME Investment Partnerships program and the Emergency Solution Grants (ESG) program;

Calculate of maximum award amounts for Continuum of Care recipients and the maximum amount of rent a recipient may pay for property leased with Continuum of Care funds, and;

Calculate flat rent amounts in Public Housing Units.

Data is updated annualy in accordance with 42 USC 1437f which requires FMRs be posted at least 30 days before they are effective and that they are effective at the start of the federal fiscal year, October 1st.In order to calculate rents for units with more than four bedrooms, an extra 15% cost is added to the four bedroom unit value. The formula is to multiply the four bedroom rent by 1.15. For example, in FY21 the rent for a four bedroom unit in the El Centro, California Micropolitan Statistical Area is $1,444. The rent for a five bedroom unit would be $1,444 * 1.15 or $1,661. Each subsequent bedroom is an additional 15%. A six bedroom unit would be $1,444 * 1.3 or $1,877. These values are not included in the feature service.

To learn more about Fair Market Rents visit: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr.html/, for questions about the spatial attribution of this dataset, please reach out to us at GISHelpdesk@hud.gov. Data Dictionary: DD_Fair Market Rents

Date of Coverage: FY2024 : Oct. 1 - Sept. 30

This dataset describes information related to the City of Mesa Housing Authority (MHA) which administers the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. The program assists low-income individuals or families living in Mesa with rental assistance according to their income. Information in this dataset is used to calculate the Utilization Rate (the percentage of vouchers that are leased up of the number of allocated vouchers from US Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) to MHA) and the Voucher Budget Authority (the percentage of the allocated funding dollars for rent payments on behalf of current housing voucher participants).

Rent estimates at the 50th percentile (or median) are calculated for all Fair Market Rent areas. Fair Market Rents (FMRs) are primarily used to determine payment standard amounts for the Housing Choice Voucher program, to determine initial renewal rents for some expiring project-based Section 8 contracts, to determine initial rents for housing assistance payment (HAP) contracts in the Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy program (Mod Rehab), and to serve as a rent ceiling in the HOME rental assistance program. FMRs are gross rent estimates. They include the shelter rent plus the cost of all tenant-paid utilities, except telephones, cable or satellite television service, and internet service. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) annually estimates FMRs for 530 metropolitan areas and 2,045 nonmetropolitan county FMR areas. Under certain conditions, as set forth in the Interim Rule (Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 191, Monday October 2, 2000, pages 58870-58875), these 50th percentile rents can be used to set success rate payment standards.

Small Area Fair Market Rents (SAFMRs) are FMRs calculated for ZIP Codes within Metropolitan Areas. Small Area FMRs are required to be used to set Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher payment standards in areas designated by HUD (available here). Other Housing Agencies operating in non-designated metropolitan areas may opt-in to the use of Small Area FMRs. Furthermore, Small Area FMRs may be used as the basis for setting Exception Payment Standards – PHAs may set exception payment standards up to 110 percent of the Small Area FMR. PHAs administering Public Housing units may use Small Area FMRs as an alternative to metropolitan area-wide FMRs when calculating Flat Rents. Please See HUD’s Small Area FMR Final Rule for additional information regarding the uses of Small Area FMRs.Note that this service does not denote precise SAFMR geographies. Instead, the service utilizes a relationship class to associate the information for each SAFMR with the FMR areas that its ZCTA overlaps. For example, ZCTA 94558 overlaps the Santa Rosa, Napa, and Vallejo-Fairfield MSAs. Selecting that ZCTA will reveal the SAFMR information associated with each FMR area.

  To learn more about the Small Area Fair Market Rents visit: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr/smallarea/index.html, for questions about the spatial attribution of this dataset, please reach out to us at GISHelpdesk@hud.gov. Date of Coverage: Fiscal Year 2025Date Update: 01/2025

Since passage of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, the federal government has provided housing assistance to low-income renters. Most of these housing subsidies were provided under programs administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or predecessor agencies. All programs covered in this report provide subsidies that reduce rents for low-income tenants who meet program eligibility requirements. Generally, households pay rent equal to 30 percent of their incomes, after deductions, while the federal government pays the remainder of rent or rental costs. To qualify for a subsidy, an applicant’s income must initially fall below a certain income limit. These income limits are HUD-determined, location specific, and vary by household size. Applicants for housing assistance are usually placed on a waiting list until a subsidized unit becomes available.Assistance provided under HUD programs falls into three categories: public housing, tenant-based, and privately owned, project-based.In public housing, local housing agencies receive allocations of HUD funding to build, operate or make improvements to housing. The housing is owned by the local agencies. Public housing is a form of project-based subsidy because households may receive assistance only if they agree to live at a particular public housing project.Currently, tenant based assistance is the most prevalent form of housing assistance provided. Historically, tenant based assistance began with the Section 8 certificate and voucher programs, which were created in 1974 and 1983, respectively. These programs were replaced by the Housing Choice Voucher program, under legislation enacted in 1998. Tenant based programs allow participants to find and lease housing in the private market. Local public housing agencies (PHAs) and some state agencies serving as PHAs enter into contracts with HUD to administer the programs. The PHAs then enter into contracts with private landlords. The housing must meet housing quality standards and other program requirements. The subsidies are used to supplement the rent paid by low-income households. Under tenant-based programs, assisted households may move and take their subsidy with them. The primary difference between certificates and vouchers is that under certificates, there was a maximum rent which the unit may not exceed. By contrast, vouchers have no specific maximum rent; the low-income household must pay any excess over the payment standard, an amount that is determined locally and that is based on the Fair Market Rent. HUD calculates the Fair Market Rent based on the 40th percentile of the gross rents paid by recent movers for non-luxury units meeting certain quality standards.The third major type of HUD rental assistance is a collection of programs generally referred to as multifamily assisted, or, privately-owned, project-based housing. These types of housing assistance fall under a collection of programs created during the last four decades. What these programs have in common is that they provide rental housing that is owned by private landlords who enter into contracts with HUD in order to receive housing subsidies. The subsidies pay the difference between tenant rent and total rental costs. The subsidy arrangement is termed project-based because the assisted household may not take the subsidy and move to another location. The single largest project-based program was the Section 8 program, which was created in 1974. This program allowed for new construction and substantial rehabilitation that was delivered through a wide variety of financing mechanisms. An important variant of project-based Section 8 was the Loan Management Set Aside (LMSA) program, which was provided in projects financed under Federal Housing Administration (FHA) programs that were not originally intended to provide deep subsidy rental assistance. Projects receiving these LMSA “piggyback” subsidies were developed under the Section 236 program, the Section 221(d)(3) Below Market Interest Rate (BMIR) program, and others that were unassisted when originally developed.Picture of Subsidized Households does not cover other housing subsidy programs, such as those of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Housing Service, unless they also receive subsidies referenced above. Other programs such as Indian Housing, HOME and Community Develo

In 2023, the District of Columbia had the longest waiting period among other states to obtain public housing accommodation in the United States. The average waiting period in the District of Columbia was 191 months, much higher than the national average of 20 months. California followed, with a waiting period of 60 months. Hawaii and New Jersey were some other states with protracted waiting periods, all exceeding 40 months. Nebraska, Puerto Rico, and Iowa, also reported shorter waiting times, ranging from eight to nine months. Public housing in the U.S. is owned by local agencies, which receive allocations by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to build, operate, and improve the housing conditions.

Income limits used to determine the income eligibility of applicants for assistance under three programs authorized by the National Housing Act. These programs are the Section 221(d)(3) Below Market Interest Rate (BMIR) rental program, the Section 235 program, and the Section 236 program. These income limits are listed by dollar amount and family size, and they are effective on the date issued. Due to the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-289), Income Limits used to determine qualification levels as well as set maximum rental rates for projects funded with tax credits authorized under section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code) and projects financed with tax exempt housing bonds issued to provide qualified residential rental development under section 142 of the Code (hereafter referred to as Multifamily Tax Subsidy Projects (MTSPs)) are now calculated and presented separately from the Section 8 income limits.

Multifamily Portfolio datasets (section 8 contracts) - The information has been compiled from multiple data sources within FHA or its contractors. HUD oversees more than 22,000 privately owned multifamily properties, and more than 1.4 million assisted housing units. These homes were originally financed with FHA-insured or Direct Loans and many are supported with Section 8 or other rental assistance contracts. Our existing stock of affordable rental housing is a critical resource for seniors and families who otherwise would not have access to safe, decent places to call home.

This data collection provides information on the characteristics of a national sample of housing units, including apartments, single-family homes, mobile homes, and vacant housing units in 2009. The data are presented in eight separate parts: Part 1, Home Improvement Record, Part 2, Journey to Work Record, Part 3, Mortgages Recorded, Part 4, Housing Unit Record (Main Record), Recodes (One Record per Housing Unit), and Weights, Part 5, Manager and Owner of Rental Units Record, Part 6, Person Record, Part 7, High Burden Unit Record, and Part 8, Recent Mover Groups Record. Part 1 data include questions about upgrades and remodeling, cost of alterations and repairs, as well as the household member who performed the alteration/repair. Part 2 data include journey to work or commuting information, such as method of transportation to work, length of trip, and miles traveled to work. Additional information collected covers number of hours worked at home, number of days worked at home, average time respondent leaves for work in the morning or evening, whether respondent drives to work alone or with others, and a few other questions pertaining to self-employment and work schedule. Part 3 data include mortgage information, such as type of mortgage obtained by respondent, amount and term of mortgages, as well as years needed to pay them off. Other items asked include monthly payment amount, reason mortgage was taken out, and who provided the mortgage. Part 4 data include household-level information, including demographic information, such as age, sex, race, marital status, income, and relationship to householder. The following topics are also included: data recodes, unit characteristics, and weighting information. Part 5 data include information pertaining to owners of rental properties and whether the owner/resident manager lives on-site. Part 6 data include individual person level information, in which respondents were queried on basic demographic information (i.e. age, sex, race, marital status, income, and relationship to householder), as well as if they worked at all last week, month and year moved into residence, and their ability to perform everyday tasks and whether they have difficulty hearing, seeing, and concentrating or remembering things. Part 7 data include verification of income to cost when the ratio of income to cost is outside of certain tolerances. Respondents were asked whether they receive help or assistance with grocery bills, clothing and transportation expenses, child care payments, medical and utility bills, as well as with rent payments. Part 8 data include recent mover information, such as how many people were living in last unit before move, whether last residence was a condo or a co-op, as well as whether this residence was outside of the United States.

This data collection is part of the American Housing Metropolitan Survey (AHS-MS, or "metro") which is conducted in odd-numbered years. It cycles through a set of 21 metropolitan areas, surveying each one about once every six years. The metro survey, like the national survey, is longitudinal. This particular survey provides information on the characteristics of a Seattle metropolitan sample of housing units, including apartments, single-family homes, mobile homes, and vacant housing units in 2009. The data are presented in eight separate parts: Part 1, Home Improvement Record, Part 2, Journey to Work Record, Part 3, Mortgages Recorded, Part 4, Housing Unit Record (Main Record), Recodes (One Record per Housing Unit), and Weights, Part 5, Manager and Owner of Rental Units Record, Part 6, Person Record, Part 7, High Burden Unit Record, and Part 8, Recent Mover Groups Record. Part 1 data include questions about upgrades and remodeling, cost of alterations and repairs, as well as the household member who performed the alteration/repair. Part 2 data include journey to work or commuting information, such as method of transportation to work, length of trip, and miles traveled to work. Additional information collected covers number of hours worked at home, number of days worked at home, average time respondent leaves for work in the morning or evening, whether respondent drives to work alone or with others, and a few other questions pertaining to self-employment and work schedule. Part 3 data include mortgage information, such as type of mortgage obtained by respondent, amount and term of mortgages, as well as years needed to pay them off. Other items asked include monthly payment amount, reason mortgage was taken out, and who provided the mortgage. Part 4 data include household-level information, including demographic information, such as age, sex, race, marital status, income, and relationship to householder. The following topics are also included: data recodes, unit characteristics, and weighting information. Part 5 data include information pertaining to owners of rental properties and whether the owner/resident manager lives on-site. Part 6 data include individual person level information, in which respondents were queried on basic demographic information (i.e. age, sex, race, marital status, income, and relationship to householder), as well as if they worked at all last week, month and year moved into residence, and their ability to perform everyday tasks and whether they have difficulty hearing, seeing, and concentrating or remembering things. Part 7 data include verification of income to cost when the ratio of income to cost is outside of certain tolerances. Respondents were asked whether they receive help or assistance with grocery bills, clothing and transportation expenses, child care payments, medical and utility bills, as well as with rent payments. Part 8 data include recent mover information, such as how many people were living in last unit before move, whether last residence was a condo or a co-op, as well as whether this residence was outside of the United States.

This dataset denotes HUD subsidized Multifamily Housing properties excluding insured hospitals with active loans. HUD’s Multifamily Housing property portfolio consist primarily of rental housing properties with five or more dwelling units such as apartments or town houses, but can also include nursing homes, hospitals, elderly housing, mobile home parks, retirement service centers, and occasionally vacant land. HUD provides subsidies and grants to property owners and developers in an effort to promote the development and preservation of affordable rental units for low-income populations, and those with special needs such as the elderly, and disabled. The portfolio can be broken down into two basic categories: insured, and assisted. The three largest assistance programs for Multifamily Housing are Section 8 Project Based Assistance, Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly, and Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities. The Multifamily property locations represent the approximate location of the property. The locations of individual buildings associated with each property are not depicted here.

The dataset is a catalog of major residential development projects in Somerset County, NJ. This includes Affordable Housing, Senior housing options, and Market-rate rentalsAffordable Housing Options: With New Jersey having some of the highest housing costs in the county, the state government has implemented several initiatives and programs to provide housing options for low- and moderate-income eligible households. In addition, several municipalities have implemented inclusionary zoning laws, that require property developers to allocate a certain percentage of the units for affordable housing. Somerset county has several affordable housing programs to help low-and moderate-income eligible households and first-time homebuyers, including the Mt. Laurel Doctrine, New Jersey Balanced Housing Program, HUD Public Housing Program, HUD Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8). This dataset provides a comprehensive list of all affordable housing projects in the county. The dataset includes ‘inclusionary’ developments that are comprised of both market-rate units and affordable units. It also includes municipality-sponsored and other 100% affordable housing projects, as well as affordable housing created through the redevelopment process. The total number of market rate and affordable housing units in each project is provided. Some projects include a blend of both rental and for-purchase units. Senior Housing Options: There are several housing options in Somerset County for older adults seeking assistance with daily living or those who want to maintain their independence or those who seek to live in communities designed for older adults. These options include – Active Adult Communities: These are communities designed for older adults who can live independently but want to live in a community specifically for older adults. They typically offer amenities such as fitness centers, swimming pools, and social activities. Many independent living communities also offer additional services such as transportation, housekeeping, and meals. Assisted Living Communities: These communities aid with daily living activities such as bathing, dressing, and medication management. They offer a range of services, depending on the level of care needed. Some assisted living communities also offer memory care services for individuals with dementia or Alzheimer's disease. Continuing Care Retirement Communities: These communities offer a continuum of care that includes independent living, assisted living, and skilled nursing care. This allows residents to "age in place" and receive additional care as needed without having to move to a different community. Senior Residence: These communities are restricted to residents who are 55 years of age or older. They typically offer amenities like active adult communities and may have additional features such as golf courses, community centers, and events. Market Rate Rentals: These properties are typically owned/operated by private landlords and are not considered affordable housing and are not subject to government subsidies. These include apartments, condominiums, town homes, single-family homes. The information included in this dataset represents a point-in-time (November 2023) and is subject to change. Furthermore, new, or alternative housing projects may be proposed in future years, which will be incorporated into subsequent dataset updates. Updates to this dataset will take place on an as-needed basis.

Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program Management Programmatic Reports are created from information collected from Housing Authorities across the nation on the use of HUD vouchers by the Housing Voucher Program Support Division.

The Moving to Opportunity (MTO) program was a randomized housing experiment administered by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that gave low-income families living in high-poverty areas the chance to move to lower-poverty areas. This Restricted Access Dataset (RAD) includes data from the 3,273 adults interviewed as part of the MTO long-term evaluation and is comprised of variables analyzed for the article "Neighborhood Effects on the Long-Term Well-Being of Low-Income Adults" that was published in the journal Science on September 21, 2012. The article focused on subjective well-being, physical and mental health, social networks, neighborhoods, housing, and economic self-sufficiency. Families were tracked from the baseline survey (1994-1998) through the long-term evaluation survey fielding period (2008-2010) with the purpose of determining the effects of "neighborhood" on participating families from five United States cities. Households were randomly assigned to one of three groups: The low-poverty voucher (LPV) group (also called the experimental group) received Section 8 rental assistance certificates or vouchers that they could use only in census tracts with 1990 poverty rates below 10 percent. The families received mobility counseling and help in leasing a new unit. One year after relocating, families could use their voucher to move again if they wished, without any special constraints on location.The traditional voucher (TRV) group (also called the Section 8 group) received regular Section 8 certificates or vouchers that they could use anywhere; these families received no special mobility counseling.The control group received no certificates or vouchers through MTO, but continued to be eligible for project-based housing assistance and other social programs and services to which they would otherwise be entitled.The dataset contains all outcomes and mediators analyzed for the Science article, as well as a variety of demographic and other baseline measures that were controlled for in the analysis. Demographic information includes age, gender, race/ethnicity, employment status, and education level.

The Affordable Housing Appeals Procedure List is published annually on or about February 1. The data for the Affordable Housing Appeals Procedure List comes from different sources including federal, state and local programs. This makes it difficult to ensure complete accuracy, so DOH asks municipalities to provide a local administrative review of and input on the street addresses of units and projects as well as information on deed-restricted units. The responses received by DOH vary widely from each municipality. In developing the Affordable Housing Appeals Procedure List, DOH counts:

Assisted housing units or housing receiving financial assistance under any governmental program for the construction or substantial rehabilitation of low and moderate income housing that was occupied or under construction by the end date of the report period for compilation of a given year’s list; Rental housing occupied by persons receiving rental assistance under C.G.S. Chapter 138a (State Rental Assistance/RAP) or Section 142f of Title 42 of the U.S. Code (Section 8); Ownership housing or housing currently financed by the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority and/or the U.S. Department of Agriculture; and Deed-restricted properties or properties with deeds containing covenants or restrictions that require such dwelling unit(s) be sold or rented at or below prices that will preserve the unit(s) as affordable housing as defined in C.G.S. Section 8-39a for persons or families whose incomes are less than or equal to 80% of the area median income.

As part of the Regional Housing Initiative (RHI), the team conducted a submarket analysis. This analysis identifies 2020 census tracts with similar housing characteristics (density, price, market conditions) and groups them accordingly. This submarket analysis uses a Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) via the mclust package in R to group the region's 1,407 eligible census tracts (tracts with no households or population were removed) into one of eight submarkets. The team reviewed the existing conditions of these submarkets to identify their housing challenges and appropriate policies and strategies for each submarket.Census tables used to gather data from the 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.Data DictionaryFieldNameSourcesubmarketHousing submarketDVRPChhinc_medMedian household incomeU.S. Census Bureau, ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2016-2020rent_medMedian gross rentU.S. Census Bureau, ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2016-2020ten_rentPercent of households that are renter-occupiedU.S. Census Bureau, ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2016-2020ten_ownPercent of households that are owner-occupiedU.S. Census Bureau, ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2016-2020vcyResidential vacancy rate U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2016-2020hhi_150pPercent of households with incomes of $150,000 or higherU.S. Census Bureau, ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2016-2020yb_59ePercent of housing units built in 1959 or earlierU.S. Census Bureau, ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2016-2020yb_6099Percent of housing units built between 1960 and 1999U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2016-2020yb_00pPercent of housing units built since 2000U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2016-2020unit_1Percent of housing units that are 1 unit in structureU.S. Census Bureau, ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2016-2020unit_2to4Percent of housing units that are 2 to 4 units in structureU.S. Census Bureau, ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2016-2020unit_5pPercent of housing units that are 5 or more units in structureU.S. Census Bureau, ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2016-2020pct_subsidizedPercent of housing units that are federally subsidized (Public housing, Section 8, LIHTC)U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2016-2020, National Housing Preservation Database (NHPD)med21Median single family home sale price, 2021 The Warren Group, 2021pct_diffMedian percent change in median single family home sale price, 2016-2021The Warren Group, 2016 & 2021hhs_1Percent of households that are 1-person householdsU.S. Census Bureau, ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2016-2020hhs_2to4Percent of households that are 2- to 4-person householdsU.S. Census Bureau, ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2016-2020hhs_5pPercent of households that are 5 or more person householdsU.S. Census Bureau, ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2016-2020hu_acreHousing units per acreU.S. Census Bureau, ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2016-2020Please contact Brian Carney, bcarney@dvrpc.org, for more information.

Abstract (en): Nearly 9 million Americans live in extreme-poverty neighborhoods, places that also tend to be racially segregated and dangerous. Yet, the effects on the well-being of residents of moving out of such communities into less distressed areas remain uncertain. Moving to Opportunity (MTO) is a randomized housing experiment administered by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development that gave low-income families living in high-poverty areas in five cities the chance to move to lower-poverty areas. Families were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) the low-poverty voucher (LPV) group (also called the experimental group) received Section 8 rental assistance certificates or vouchers that they could use only in census tracts with 1990 poverty rates below 10 percent. The families received mobility counseling and help in leasing a new unit. One year after relocating, families could use their voucher to move again if they wished, without any special constraints on location; (2) the traditional voucher (TRV) group (also called the Section 8 group) received regular Section 8 certificates or vouchers that they could use anywhere; these families received no special mobility counseling; (3) the control group received no certificates or vouchers through MTO, but continued to be eligible for project-based housing assistance and whatever other social programs and services to which they would otherwise be entitled. Families were tracked from baseline (1994-1998) through the long-term evaluation survey fielding period (2008-2010) with the purpose of determining the effects of "neighborhood" on participating families. This data collection includes data from the 3,273 adult interviews completed as part of the MTO long-term evaluation. Using data from the long-term evaluation, the associated article reports that moving from a high-poverty to lower-poverty neighborhood was associated in the long-term (10 to 15 years) with modest, but potentially important, reductions in the prevalence of extreme obesity and diabetes. The data contain all outcomes and mediators analyzed for the associated article (with the exception of a few mediator variables from the interim MTO evaluation) as well as a variety of demographic and other baseline measures that were controlled for in the analysis. All analysis of the data should be weighted using the total survey weight. The cell-level file includes a separate weight for each outcome and mediator measure that is the sum of weights for all observations in the cell with valid data for the measure (for example, wt_f_db_hba1c_diab_final is the weight for the glycated hemoglobin measure, mn_f_db_hba1c_diab_final). In the pseudo-individual file, mn_f_wt_totsvy is the average of the total survey weight variable for all observations in the cell. In the original individual-level file, the total survey weight (f_wt_totsvy) is calculated as the product of three component weights: (1) Randomization ratio weight -- At the start of the MTO program, random assignment (RA) ratios were set to produce equal numbers of leased-up families in the low-poverty and traditional voucher groups based on expected leased-up rates. The initial ratios were "8 to 3 to 5": eight low-poverty voucher group families to three traditional voucher families to five control families. During the demonstration program, these RA ratios were adjusted to accommodate higher than anticipated leased-up rates among low-poverty voucher group families. This weight ensures that the proportion of families in a given site is the same across all three treatment groups. This component weight value ranges from 0.59 to 2.09. (2) Survey sample selection weight -- For budgetary reasons, adults from only a random two-thirds of traditional voucher group households were selected for the long-term survey interview sample (while adults from all low-poverty voucher and control group families were selected), so this component weights up the selected traditional voucher group adults so that they are representative of all traditional voucher group adults. This weight component is equal to the inverse probability of selection into the subsample (~1.52). (3) Phase 2 subsample weight -- The long-term survey data collection was completed as a two-phase process. In the first phase, we sought to interview all selected respondents. Phase 2 of fielding was triggered when the response rate reached approximately 74 percent. In the second phase, we su...

This dataset contains replication files for "The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment" by Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren, and Lawrence Katz. For more information, see https://opportunityinsights.org/paper/newmto/. A summary of the related publication follows. There are large differences in individuals’ economic, health, and educational outcomes across neighborhoods in the United States. Motivated by these disparities, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development designed the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) experiment to determine whether providing low-income families assistance in moving to better neighborhoods could improve their economic and health outcomes. The MTO experiment was conducted between 1994 and 1998 in five large U.S. cities. Approximately 4,600 families living in high-poverty public housing projects were randomly assigned to one of three groups: an experimental voucher group that was offered a subsidized housing voucher that came with a requirement to move to a census tract with a poverty rate below 10%, a Section 8 voucher group that was offered a standard housing voucher with no additional contingencies, and a control group that was not offered a voucher (but retained access to public housing). Previous research on the MTO experiment has found that moving to lower-poverty areas greatly improved the mental and physical health of adults. However, prior work found no impacts of the MTO treatments on the earnings of adults and older youth, leading some to conclude that neighborhood environments are not an important component of economic success. In this study, we present a new analysis of the effect of the MTO experiment on children’s long-term outcomes. Our re-analysis is motivated by new research showing that a neighborhood’s effect on children’s outcomes may depend critically on the duration of exposure to that environment. In particular, Chetty and Hendren (2015) use quasi-experimental methods to show that every year spent in a better area during childhood increases a child’s earnings in adulthood, implying that the gains from moving to a better area are larger for children who are younger at the time of the move. In light of this new evidence on childhood exposure effects, we study the long-term impacts of MTO on children who were young when their families moved to better neighborhoods. Prior work has not been able to examine these issues because the younger children in the MTO experiment are only now old enough to be entering the adult labor market. For older children (those between ages 13-18), we find that moving to a lower-poverty neighborhood has a statistically insignificant or slightly negative effect. More generally, the gains from moving to lower-poverty areas decline steadily with the age of the child at the time of the move. We do not find any clear evidence of a “critical age” below which children must move to benefit from a better neighborhood. Rather, every extra year of childhood spent in a low-poverty environment appears to be beneficial, consistent with the findings of Chetty and Hendren (2015). The MTO treatments also had little or no impact on adults’ economic outcomes, consistent with previous results. Together, these studies show that childhood exposure plays a critical role in neighborhoods’ effects on economic outcomes. The experimental voucher increased the earnings of children who moved at young ages in all five experimental sites, for Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics, and for boys and girls. Perhaps most notably, we find robust evidence that the experimental voucher improved long-term outcomes for young boys, a subgroup where prior studies have found little evidence of gains. Our estimates imply that moving a child out of public housing to a low-poverty area when young (at age 8 on average) using a subsidized voucher like the MTO experimental voucher will increase the child’s total lifetime earnings by about $302,000. This is equivalent to a gain of $99,000 per child moved in present value at age 8, discounting future earnings at a 3% interest rate. The additional tax revenue generated from these earnings increases would itself offset the incremental cost of the subsidized voucher relative to providing public housing. We conclude that offering low-income families housing vouchers and assistance in moving to lowerpoverty neighborhoods has substantial benefits for the families themselves and for taxpayers. It appears important to target such housing vouchers to families with young children – perhaps even at birth – to maximize the benefits. Our results provide less support for policies that seek to improve the economic outcomes of adults through residential relocation. More broadly, our findings suggest that efforts to integrate disadvantaged families into mixed-income communities are likely to reduce the persistence of poverty across generations. The opinions expressed in this paper are...

Abstract

The NLSS 1995/96 is basically limited to the living standards of households.

The basic objectives of this survey was to provide information required for monitoring the progress in improving national living standards and to evaluate the impact of various government policies and program on living condition of the population. This survey captured comprehensive set of data on different aspects of households welfare like consumption, income, housing, labour markets, education, health etc.

Geographic coverage

National coverage The 4 strata of the survey: - Mountains - Hills (Urban) - Hills (Rural) - Terai

Analysis unit

• Household
• Individual
• Community

Universe

The survey covered all modified de jure household members (usual residents).

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Sample Design

Sample Frame: A complete list of all wards in the country, with a measure of size, was developed in order to select from it with Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) the sample of wards to be visited. The 1991 Population Census of Nepal was the best starting point for building such a sample frame. The Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) constructed a data set with basic information from the census at the ward level. This data set was used as a sample frame to develop the NLSS sample.

Sample Design: The sample size for the NLSS was set at 3,388 households. This sample was divided into four strata based on the geographic and ecological regions of the country: (i) mountains, (ii) urban Hills, (iii) rural Hills, and (iv) Terai.

The sample size was designed to provide enough observations within each ecological stratum to ensure adequate statistical accuracy, as well as enough variation in key variables for policy analysis within each stratum, while respecting resource constraints and the need to balance sampling and non-sampling errors.

A two-stage stratified sampling procedure was used to select the sample for the NLSS. The primary sampling unit (PSU) is the ward, the smallest administrative unit in the 1991 Population Census. In order to increase the variability of the sample, it was decided that a small number of households - twelve - would be interviewed in each ward. Thus, a total of275 wards was obtained.

In the first stage of the sampling, wards were selected with probability proportional to size (PPS) from each of the four ecological strata, using the number of household in the ward as the measure of size. In order to give the sample an implicit stratification respecting the division of the country into Development Regions, the sample frame was sorted by ascending order of district codes, and these were numbered from East to West. The sample frame considered all the 75 districts in the country, and indeed 73 of them were represented in the sample. In the second stage of the sampling, a fixed number of households were chosen with equal probabilities from each selected PSU.

The two-stage procedure just described has several advantages. It simplified the analysis by providing a self-weighted sample. It also reduced the travel time and cost, as 12 or 16 households are interviewed in each ward. In addition, as the number of households to be interviewed in each ward was known in advance, the procedure made it possible to plan an even workload across different survey teams.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

A preliminary draft of the questionnaire was first prepared with several discussions held between the core staff and the consultant to the project. Several documents both received from the world bank as well as from countries that had already conducted such surveys in the past were referred during this process. Subsequently the questionnaire was translated into NepalI.

After a suitable draft design of the questionnaire, a pre-test was conducted in five different places of the country. The places selected for the pre-test were Biratnagar, Rasuwa, Palpa, Nepalganj and Kathmandu Valley. The entire teams created for the pre-test were also represented by either a consultant or an expert from the bank. Feedback received from the field was utilized for necessary improvements in finalizing the seventy page questionnaire.

The content of each questionnaire is as follows:

HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE

Section 1. HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION This section served two main purposes: (i) identify every person who is a member of the household, and (ii) provide basic demographic data such as age, sex, and marital status of everyone presently living in the household. In addition, information collected also included data on all economic activities undertaken by household members and on unemployment.

Section 2. HOUSING This section collected information on the type of dwelling occupied by the household, as well as on the household's expenditures on housing and amenities (rent, expenditure on water, garbage collection, electricity, etc.).

Section 3. ACCESS TO FACILITIES This section collected information on the distance from the household's residence to various public facilities and services.

Section 4. MIGRATION This section collected information from the household head on permanent migration for reasons of work or land availability.

Section 5. FOOD EXPENSES AND HOME PRODUCTION This section collected information on all food expenditures of the household, as well as on consumption of food items that the household produced.

Section 6. NON-FOOD EXPENDITURES AND INVENTORY OF DURABLE GOODS This section collected information on expenditure on non-food items (clothing, fuels, items for the house, etc.), as well as on the durable goods owned by the household.

Section 7. EDUCATION This section collected information on literacy for all household members aged 5 years and above, on the level of education for those members who have attended school in the past, and on levelof education and expenditures on schooling for those currently attending an educational institution.

Section 8. HEALTH This section collected information on illnesses, use of medical facilities, expenditure on health care, children's immunization, and diarrhea.

Section 9. ANTHROPOMETRICS This section collected weight and height measurements for all children 3 years or under.

Section 10. MARRIAGE AND MATERNITY HISTORY This section collected information on maternity history, pre/post-natal care, and knowledge/use of family planning methods.

Section 11. WAGE EMPLOYMENT This section collected information on wage employment in agriculture and in non-agricultural activities, as well as on income earned through wage labor.

Section 12. FARMING AND LIVESTOCK This section collected information on all agricultural activities -- land owned or operated, crops grown, use of crops, income from the sale of crops, ownership of livestock, and income from the sale of livestock.

Section 13. NON-FARM ENTERPRISES/ACTIVITIES This section collected information on all non-agricultural enterprises and activities -- type of activity, revenue earned, expenditures, etc.

Section 14. CREDIT AND SAVINGS This section collected information on loans made by the household to others, or loans taken from others by household members, as well as on land, property, or other fixed assets owned by the household.

Section 15. REMITTANCES AND TRANSFERS This section collected information on remittances sent by members of the household to others and on transfers received by members of the household from others.

Section 16. OTHER ASSETS AND INCOME This section collected information on income from all other sources not covered elsewhere in the questionnaire.

Section 17. ADEQUACY OF CONSUMPTION This section collected information on whether the household perceives its level of consumption to be adequate or not.

RURAL COMMUNITY QUESTIONNAIRE

Section 1. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS AND INFRASTRUCTURES This section collected information on the characteristics of the community, availability of electricity and its services and water supply and sewerage.

Section 2. ACCESS TO FACILITIES Data on services and amenities, education status and health facilities was collected.

Section 3. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY Information on the land situation, irrigation systems, crop cycles, wages paid to hired labor, rental rates for cattle and machinery and forestry use were asked in this section.

Section 4. MIGRATION This section collected information on the main migratory movements in and out.

Section 5. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS, USER GROUPS, etc. In this section, information on development programs, existence user groups, and the quality of life in the community was collected.

Section 6. RURAL PRIMARY SCHOOL This section collected information on enrollment, infrastructure, and supplies.

Section 7. RURAL HEALTH FACILITY This section collected information on health facilities, equipment and services available, and health personnel in the community.

Section 8. MARKETS AND PRICES This section collected information on local shops, Haat Bazaar, agricultural inputs, sale of crops and the conversion of local units into standard units.

URBAN COMMUNITY QUESTIONNAIRE

Section 1. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS AND INFRASTRUCTURE Information was collected on the characteristics of the community, availability of electricity, water supply and sewerage system in the ward.

Section 2. ACCESS TO FACILITIES This section collected information on the distance from the community to the various places and public facilities and services.

Section 3. MARKETS AND PRICES This section collected information on the availability and prices of different goods.

Section 4. QUALITY OF LIFE Here the notion of the quality of life in the community was

The Census is the official count of population and dwellings in Tonga, providing a ‘snapshot’ of the society and its most precious resource, its people, at a point in time. The official reference period of the census was midnight, the 30th of November, 2006.

The census provides a unique source of detailed demographic, social and economic data relating the entire population at a single point in time. Census information is used for policy setting and implementation, research, planning and other decision-making. The census is often the primary source of information used for the allocation of public funding, especially in areas such as health, education and social policy. The main users of this information are the government, local authorities, education facilities (such as schools and tertiary organizations), businesses, community organizations and the public in general.

The 2006 Census was taken under the authority of Section 8 of Statistical Act Chap. 53 of 1978 which empowers the Minister of Finance to make regulations necessary to conduct the population Census. This regulation was approved by the Cabinet and cited as Census Regulation 2006. The Census regulations also indicate that the Government Statistician would be responsible for the administration and completion of the Census. In addition, the regulations enabled the Statistics Department to carry out the necessary activities required to plan, manage and implement all the necessary Census activities.

Census planning and management

From a planning and management perspective, the Census had two main objectives. Firstly, it was to ensure that the process of collecting, compiling, evaluating, analyzing and disseminating of demographic, economic and social data was conducted in a timely and accurate manner. The development of procedures and processes for the 2006 Census of Population and Housing made use of the lessons learned in previous censuses, and built upon recommendations for improvements.

Secondly, it was a valuable opportunity for building the capacities of employees of the Statistics Department (SD), thus resulting in enhancing the image, credibility and reputation of the Department and at the same time, strengthening its infrastructure. Emphasis was placed on having a senior staff with a wide perspective and leadership qualities. Through the use of vision, planning, coordination, delegation of responsibility and a strong team spirit, the census work was conducted in an effective and efficient manner. Staffs at all levels were encouraged to have an innovative mindset in addressing issues. Incentives for other parties to participate, both within Statistics Department Tonga Tonga 2006 Census of Population and Housing viii and outside the government, were encouraged. As a result, the wider community including donors such as AusAID, the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) in Noumea, that provided the technical assistance and the general public, were able to support the census project.

Extensive and detailed planning is needed to conduct a successful census. Areas that required planning include: enumeration procedures and fieldwork, public communication, data processing and output systems, mapping and the design of census block boundaries, dissemination procedures, content determination and questionnaire development and training. These aspects, and how they interacted with each other, played a crucial role in determining the quality of all of the census outputs. Each phase therefore required careful, methodical planning and testing. The details of such activities, and their implementation and responsibilities were assigned to 5 subcommittees composed of staff members of the SD.

Organizational structure of the Census

A census organizational structure is designed to implement a number of interrelated activities. Each of these activities was assigned to a specific sub-committee. The census manuals provided guidelines on processes, organizational structures, controls for quality assurance and problem solving. The challenge for managers was developing a work environment that enabled census personnel to perform all these tasks with a common goal in mind. Each sub-committee was responsible for its own outputs, and specific decisions for specific situations were delegated to the lowest level possible. Problem situations beyond the scope of the sub-committee were escalated to the next higher level.

The organizational structure of the census was as follows: a) The Steering Committee (consisting of the Head of both Government and nongovernment organizations), chaired by Secretary for Finance with the Government Statistician (GS) as secretary. b) The Census Committee (consisted of all sub-committee leaders plus the GS, and chaired by the Assistant Government Statistician (AGS) who was the officer in charge of all management and planning of the Census 2006 operations. c) There were five Sub-committees (each sub-committee consisted of about 5 members and were chaired by their Sub-committee leader). These committees included: Mapping, Publicity, Fieldwork, Training and Data Processing. In this way, every staff member of the SD was involved with the census operation through their participation on these committees.

The census steering committee was a high level committee that approved and endorsed the plans and activities of the census. Policy issues that needed to be addressed were submitted to the steering committee for approval prior to the census team and sub-committees designation of the activities necessary to address the tasks.

Part of the initial planning of the 2006 Census involved the establishment of a work-plan with specific time frames. This charted all activities that were to be undertaken and, their impact and dependencies on other activities. These time frames were an essential part of the overall exercise, as they provided specific guides to the progress of each area, and alerted subcommittees’ team leaders (TL) to areas where problems existed and needed to be addressed. These also provided the SD staff with a clear indication of where and how their roles impacted the overall Census process.

Monitoring of the timeframe was an essential part of the management of the Census program. Initially, weekly meetings were held which involved the GS, AGS and team leaders (TL) of the Census committee. As the Census projects progressed, the AGS and TL’s met regularly with their sub-committees to report on the progress of each area. Decisions were made on necessary actions in order to meet the designated dates. Potential risks that could negatively affect the deadlines and actions were also considered at these meetings.

For the 5 sub-committees, one of their first tasks was to verify and amend their terms of reference using the “Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats” (SWOT) analysis methodology, as it applied to past censuses. Each committee then prepared a work-plan and listed all activities for which that particular sub-committee was responsible. This listing included the assignment of a responsible person, together with the timeline indicating the start and end dates required to complete that particular activity. These work-plans, set up by all the 5 sub-committees, were then used by the AGS to develop a detailed operational plan for all phases of the census, the activities required to complete these phases, start and end dates, the person responsible and the dependencies, - all in a Ghant chart format. These combined work-plans were further discussed and amended in the Census team and reported to the Steering committee on regular basis as required.

Version 01 - Edited, cleaned, de-identified and labelled version of the Master file.

The scope of the National Population Census includes personal information on individual characteristics, health, education, literacy, labor market and reproduction.

The scope of the Household module includes information on dwelling style, energy, goods present in the HH, technology, waste, tenure, income, remittances and mortality.

• Collection start: 2006
• Collection end: 2006