[Federal Register: July 31, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 146)]
[Notices]
[Page 43228-43249]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31jy06-117]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
Nonforeign Area Cost-of-Living Allowance; General Population
Rental Equivalence Survey Report
AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice publishes the ``Nonforeign Area General Population
Rental Equivalence Survey Report.'' The General Population Rental
Equivalence Survey (GPRES) was a special research project in which the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) collected data on homeowner
estimates of the rental value of their homes and market rents in the
nonforeign area cost-of-living allowance (COLA) areas and in the
Washington, DC area. OPM conducted GPRES to determine whether rental
survey data collected in the COLA surveys should be adjusted to account
for homeowner shelter costs. Based on the GPRES results, OPM has
determined that no adjustment is appropriate. OPM is publishing this
report to inform interested parties of the research results and provide
an opportunity for comment.
DATES: Comments on this report must be received on or before September
29, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to Jerome D. Mikowicz, Acting
Deputy Associate Director for Pay and Performance Policy, Strategic
Human Resources Policy Division, Office of Personnel Management, Room
7H31, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415-8200; fax: (202) 606-
4264; or e-mail: COLA@opm.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald L. Paquin, (202) 606-2838; fax:
(202) 606-4264; or e-mail: COLA@opm.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
conducted the General Population Rental Equivalence Survey (GPRES) to
determine whether OPM should adjust the rent indexes it computes from
data collected in the nonforeign area cost-of-living allowance (COLA)
surveys. The Federal Government pays COLAs to certain white collar
Federal and U.S. Postal Service employees in Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and
the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
As provided by subpart B of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, OPM
conducts living-cost surveys to set COLA rates.
One of the items OPM surveys during the COLA surveys is market
rents for detached houses, duplexes and triplexes, town and row houses,
and apartments. We use rental data to estimate the relative price of
shelter for both homeowners and renters between the COLA areas and the
Washington, DC area. (For an example, see the 2004 Pacific COLA survey
report published at 70 FR 44989-45023.) As applied to homeowners, this
approach is called ``rental equivalence'' because it estimates the
shelter value of owned homes rather than surveying homeowner costs
directly.
OPM adopted the rental equivalence approach pursuant to the
settlement in Caraballo, et al. v. United States, No. 1997-0027
(D.V.I), August 17, 2000. The settlement provides for several
significant changes in the COLA methodology, including the use of
rental equivalence. The settlement also established the Survey
Implementation Committee (SIC), composed of seven plaintiffs'
representatives and two OPM representatives, and the Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC), composed of three economists with expertise in living-
cost analysis. The TAC advises the SIC and OPM on living-cost issues.
The SIC and the TAC agreed OPM could use, on an interim basis, market
rents collected in the COLA surveys to estimate homeowner costs. The
TAC noted, however, that the relative price of shelter for homeowners
could differ compared with the relative price of market rents between
the COLA areas and the DC area. If this were the case, it would be
appropriate for OPM to adjust COLA survey market rent indexes before
applying them to homeowners.
Therefore, OPM conducted a special research project, i.e., GPRES,
to collect information on market rents and homeowner estimates of the
rental value of their homes in the COLA areas and in the Washington, DC
area. The SIC and the TAC were involved heavily in the design of the
survey, and the TAC analyzed the survey results. The TAC also compared
GPRES results with the results of the 1998 Federal Employee Housing and
Living Patterns Survey (FEHLPS), which Joel Popkin and
[[Page 43229]]
Company conducted as part of the research leading to the Caraballo
settlement.
Using the GPRES results, the TAC found that no adjustment to the
COLA survey market rents was appropriate because there were no
statistically significant differences between homeowner estimated rents
and market rents in the COLA areas compared with the DC area. The TAC
found essentially the same results using FEHLPS. Therefore, the TAC
recommended no rental equivalence adjustment be made. However, the TAC
noted some differences between GPRES results and FEHLPS results and
speculated these differences could reflect trends in relative rent
prices/rental price estimates. Therefore, the TAC recommended OPM
consider conducting additional GPRES-type surveys if OPM were to adopt
a rental equivalence adjustment. Because OPM agrees that no rental
equivalence adjustment is warranted, we do not plan to conduct
additional GPRES-type surveys at this time.
Office of Personnel Management.
Linda M. Springer,
Director.
Nonforeign Area General Population Rental Equivalence Survey Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction.
2. Purpose of GPRES.
2.1 Rental Equivalence and Rents.
2.2 Caraballo Settlement and Rental Equivalence.
3. Planning GPRES.
3.1 Consultation with the SIC and TAC.
3.2 Survey Instrument, Sampling Methodology, and Sample Size.
4. Conducting the Survey.
4.1 Survey Period.
4.2 Efforts To Ensure Quality Participation.
4.3 Survey Complications.
4.3.1 Home Size.
4.3.2 Prevalence of Subsidized Housing in Some Areas.
5. Survey Results and Response Rates.
5.1 GPRES Survey Results and Response Rates.
5.2. FEHLPS Survey Results and Response Rates.
6. Survey Analyses
6.1 Homeowner Factors: Comparison of Owner Rent Estimates and
Market Rents.
6.2 Regional Comparisons.
6.3 COLA Survey Area Comparisons.
7. Summary and Conclusions.
List of Appendices
A. GPRES Survey Questionnaire.
B. GPRES Sample Size.
C. GPRES Data Collection Guidelines.
D. GPRES Number of Responses and Response Rates.
E. FEHLPS Samples Size, Responses, and Response Rates.
F. FEHLPS Survey Questionnaire--Housing Portion.
G. GPRES SAS Regression Results--Regional Analyses.
H. FEHLPS SAS Regression Results--Regional Analyses.
I. GPRES SAS Regression Results--Survey Area Analyses.
J. FEHLPS SAS Regression Results--Survey Area Analyses.
1. Introduction
This report provides the results of the General Population Rental
Equivalence Survey (GPRES), which Westat, Incorporated, conducted for
OPM in the winter of 2004/2005. In addition, the report provides for
comparison purposes the results of the 1998 Federal Employee Housing
and Living Patterns Survey (FEHLPS), which Joel Popkin and Company
conducted for plaintiffs' representatives and Government
representatives who were working collaboratively to resolve long-
contested issues in the nonforeign area cost-of-living allowance (COLA)
program. The collaborative work lead to the settlement of Caraballo, et
al. v. United States, No. 1997-0027 (D.V.I.), August 17, 2000, and to
major changes in the nonforeign area cost-of-living allowance (COLA)
program. Therefore, although this report is principally about GPRES, it
also covers the FEHLPS as it applies to rental equivalence analyses.
The report describes how OPM planned and prepared for the conduct
of GPRES. In planning the survey, OPM consulted closely with the Survey
Implementation Committee (SIC) and the Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC), both established pursuant to the Caraballo settlement. The SIC
has seven members--five plaintiffs' representatives from the COLA areas
and two OPM representatives. The TAC has three members--economists who
have expertise in living-cost measurement. The TAC performs research
for and advises the members of the SIC.
The purpose of GPRES was two-fold. First, it was to determine
whether there are statistically significant ``homeowner factors'' (HFs)
that reflect the difference between homeowners' estimates of the rental
value of their homes compared with market rents, holding rental unit
characteristics constant. (The HF is the estimated rental value of
owned homes divided by the market rent for homes of equivalent observed
quality and quantity.) Second, GPRES was to determine whether HFs
varied between the COLA areas and the Washington, DC area to a
statistically significant degree. If so, OPM could use the results to
adjust the market rents it collects during the COLA surveys to reflect
homeowner shelter costs.
FEHLPS was used to look at the same two questions. The purpose of
FEHLPS was to collect a wide range of information on Federal
employees--much more than housing data. However, among the data FEHLPS
collected were homeowner estimates of the rental value of their homes,
so it was possible to use the survey to compute HFs and to examine
whether these varied to a statistically significant degree between the
COLA areas and the Washington, DC area. The scope of FEHLPS was more
limited than GPRES. It had approximately a third fewer housing
observations and was limited to Federal employees--a subset of the
general population.
Comparing GPRES and FEHLPS results was very informative. This
report describes those comparisons and why, based on the results and
comparisons, no adjustment to rental indexes to account for homeowner
shelter costs appears warranted at this time.
2. Purpose of GPRES
2.1 Rental Equivalence and Rents
There are two commonly accepted approaches for measuring the
shelter value of owned homes. One is the user-cost approach. The other
is rental equivalence. In simplistic terms, user costs are the costs of
owning and maintaining a home minus the annual discounted expected
capital gains that the owner will realize when he or she sells the
home. Rental equivalence is what an owned home would rent for if it
were available for rent in the rental market.
Rental equivalence is a well-known approach and is used by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) in the computation of the Consumer
Price Index. Instead of measuring the change in owner user costs, which
tend to be volatile, BLS attributes the change in market rents to
homeowner shelter costs. This approach is supported by research that
BLS conducted in the 1990's. Economists advising the plaintiffs' and
Government representatives prior to the Caraballo settlement
recommended that OPM adopt a similar approach for the COLA program, and
the Caraballo settlement and OPM regulations adopted pursuant to the
settlement prescribe that OPM use a rental equivalence approach to
estimate the ``price'' of homeowner shelter.
Economic theory suggests that homeowners'' estimates of the rental
value of their homes will on average be higher than market rents for
housing with equivalent observed characteristics (i.e., of equivalent
observed quantity
[[Page 43230]]
and quality). (See Akerlof, George A., 1970. ``The Market for `Lemons':
Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism,'' The Quarterly Journal
of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 84(3), pages 488-500.) Imperfect market
knowledge on the part of potential renters' and homeowners' awareness
of unobserved amenities of their homes cause owner rent estimates to be
higher than market rents. In other words, the HF should be greater than
one. The size of the HF, however, could vary between one or more COLA
areas and the Washington, DC area if owned homes in some areas have
more unobserved amenities than owned homes in other areas.
Other factors could also affect owner rent estimates of the rental
value of their homes, such as the owner's limited knowledge of local
rental markets. Although some owners might have an excellent knowledge
of rental markets and the rental value of their homes, most owners have
little reason to pay much attention to the rental market, and their
estimates might well be less accurate. In fact, GPRES results suggest
that homeowners often relied on their mortgage payments to estimate the
rental value of their homes, and mortgage payments are not necessarily
correlated with market rents.
Although homeowner estimates may be somewhat inaccurate, the
expectation is that the inaccurate estimates would be distributed
normally in any area--some too high and some too low. Once again, it is
possible that the effect might not be constant across all areas. Owners
might overestimate in areas where home values are rising rapidly, even
though market rents were trailing. On the other hand, owners might
estimate more accurately in areas with a higher proportion of transient
population because owners might have a greater opportunity to acquire
rental market knowledge if homes near to them become available for
rent. Variation in the accuracy of owner estimates among areas would
make it difficult to compare differences between owner estimates and
market rents from one area to the next.
Another factor that might lead to inaccurate homeowner estimates
could be the pride of ownership. It is conceivable that home owners
systematically might estimate high rental values because the owners
take pride in their homes and think they should be worth more,
regardless of any unobserved amenities. This could further contribute
to the ``noise'' in the survey--i.e., undermine the survey's ability to
reflect higher owner shelter values attributable to unobserved
amenities. Whether the effect of this ``pride factor'' might vary among
areas is speculative.
GPRES was designed to collect information that could be used to
compare homeowner estimated rents with market rents. It also obtained
information on many of the characteristics and amenities of the
respondents' homes to allow the comparison of estimated rents and
market rents while holding observed quality and quantity constant.
2.2 Caraballo Settlement and Rental Equivalence
As stated in the previous section, pursuant to the Caraballo
settlement OPM adopted a rental equivalence approach to measure the
shelter value of owner-occupied housing. Appendix A of the stipulation
for settlement provides 26 ``Safe Harbor Principles'' (SHPs) concerning
the operation of the COLA program. One of the key principles, SHP-18,
describes how OPM will measure the relative cost of shelter:
18. Hedonic Housing Model and Rental Equivalence: Shelter price
relatives will be estimated for owners and renters from the
triennial regional sample. The sample for the region will be pooled
with the comparison sample from the base area and price relatives
for the COLA areas will be estimated using hedonic regression models
to adjust for quality differences.
Discussion: OPM will adopt a rental-equivalence approach to
estimate shelter costs and a hedonic regression approach to compare
housing of similar quality. To identify the living communities to be
surveyed, OPM will use the results of the 1992/93 employees survey,
JPC's [Joel Popkin and Company] survey, and/or other appropriate
information. How the housing data will be collected is not known or
stipulated. OPM may survey Federal employees, collect the data on
its own or through a contractor, enter into an interagency agreement
with another Federal agency (e.g., the Department of Interior), or
use some other appropriate approach.
OPM adopted this principle when it published final regulations at
67 FR 22339. Section 591.219 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations,
prescribes how OPM will compute shelter price indexes based on rental
and rental equivalence prices and/or estimates. As noted in Section
2.1, rental equivalence compares the shelter value (rental value) of
owned homes rather than total owner costs because the latter are
influenced by capital gains (i.e., the investment value of a home).
Most living-cost surveys do not compare how consumers invest their
money.
In the COLA surveys, OPM surveys market rents in each of the COLA
areas and in the Washington, DC area, obtaining over 80 characteristics
of the rental units for use in the hedonic regression equations. (A
hedonic regression is a statistical technique, specifically a form of
multiple linear regression. For an explanation of how OPM applies these
regressions, see ``2004 Nonforeign Area Cost-of-Living Allowance Survey
Report: Pacific and Washington, DC Areas,'' published at 70 FR 44989.)
The SIC and the TAC agreed that OPM could use market rents as an
estimate for rental equivalence until the issue of rental equivalence
could be explored more fully through a GPRES-type survey.
GPRES explored two questions. The first question was whether the
rental value of owned homes in the COLA and DC areas differed to a
statistically significant degree from market rents in the same area
holding observed quality and quantity constant. To do this, the TAC
computed homeowner factors, as described in Section 6.1. The second
question was whether the COLA area homeowner factors differed to a
statistically significant degree compared with the DC area homeowner
factor. If the homeowner factors were significantly different, it might
be appropriate for OPM to make a rental equivalence adjustment to
account for homeowner shelter costs. As it turned out, no adjustment
was appropriate because we did not find statistically significant
differences between the COLA and DC areas.
3. Planning GPRES
3.1 Consultation With the SIC and TAC
OPM worked closely with the SIC and TAC to plan and develop GPRES.
In August 2001, OPM provided the SIC and TAC with a rough draft of a
survey questionnaire that could be used with homeowners and renters to
obtain and compare information about estimated rental values and market
rents. The SIC and TAC subsequently met on several occasions to refine
the questionnaire and begin planning GPRES. The goal was to design a
survey that was sufficiently brief as to encourage renters and owners
to participate but sufficiently detailed so that OPM could compare
market rents and rental equivalence estimates for comparable housing.
By early 2002, the SIC and TAC had developed such a questionnaire.
Later that year, at the request of the SIC and TAC, the Caraballo
trustee entered into a contract with Joel Popkin and Company (JPC) to
review draft plans for GPRES, review current literature regarding
rental equivalence, and to make recommendations to the SIC and TAC
[[Page 43231]]
concerning GPRES. JPC's research emphasized the importance of
conducting GPRES. The SIC and TAC reviewed JPC's findings, incorporated
them as appropriate in the survey, and recommended that OPM proceed
with the conduct of GPRES. This OPM did.
OPM continued to consult with the SIC and TAC as it finalized plans
for GPRES and kept them apprised during the conduct of GPRES. The TAC
analyzed GPRES results, and OPM and the TAC discussed those results
with the SIC.
3.2 Survey Instrument, Sampling Methodology, and Sample Size
In the fall of 2002, OPM contracted with Westat, Inc., a
statistical research firm, to review JPC's research, propose a survey
methodology, develop a survey instrument, and recommend sample sizes
and sampling strategies for GPRES. In terms of a survey methodology,
Westat recommended the use of Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews
(CATIs). This approach appeared to offer the probability of greater
response rates at reasonable cost compared with other approaches, such
as mail-out questionnaires. Appendix A shows the GPRES questionnaire
that Westat developed as modified by OPM.
To develop sample sizes, Westat used the results of FEHLPS and
OPM's 2002 Caribbean and DC area COLA rental survey, applying standard
sample size calculations. (See Cochran, W.G., Sampling Techniques:
third edition, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1977) Westat used
FEHLPS to estimate the standard deviation of homeowner estimated rents
for each COLA area and the Washington, DC area. Westat also used the
results of the survey to estimate the standard deviation of market
rents by area, except for the Caribbean and DC areas. For these areas,
Westat used the results of the 2002 COLA survey because that survey had
more observations and covered the general population, not just Federal
employees. From the surveys, Westat developed sample sizes for owner
and renters for the COLA areas and the Washington, DC area. Westat
developed two sets each for owners and renters. One set was the sample
size necessary for estimating rent or rental equivalence within a
margin of error of +/- $500 in annual rent with 90 percent confidence
level, and the other was the sample size for estimating rent or rental
equivalence at the same margin of error at the 95 percent confidence
level. Subsequent to the 2003 Alaska COLA survey, OPM modified the
renter sample sizes for the Alaska and DC areas based on the additional
rental data that OPM had collected in these areas. Appendix B shows the
sample sizes Westat recommended, as modified by OPM.
Within each area, OPM limited the geographic scope of GPRES to the
zip code areas in which OPM collected rental data in the annual COLA
surveys. In the Washington, DC area, OPM further allocated the sample
among the District of Columbia and the Counties of Montgomery, MD;
Prince Georges, MD; Arlington, VA; Fairfax, VA; and Prince William, VA;
and the independent cities therein, based on the relative numbers of
owners and renters within these areas as reflected by the 2000 Census.
OPM obtained approval for GPRES from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) as required by 5 CFR Part 1320, and OMB assigned GPRES an
information collection number. Federal surveys and other information
collections that Federal agencies conduct are covered by the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Participation in GPRES was
voluntary, and any identifying information regarding the respondents is
protected under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and the Freedom of
Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).
4. Conducting the Survey
4.1 Survey Period
In the fall of 2004, OPM awarded a second contract to Westat to
conduct GPRES. Using CATI, Westat began collecting data in October 2004
and finished in March 2005. Although Westat started data collection in
some areas before others, Westat essentially collected data in all of
the areas throughout this entire time period. Westat provided OPM with
interim deliverables throughout the survey so that OPM and the TAC
could begin testing analyses prior to receiving the final deliverable.
Westat provided the final deliverable in early April 2005.
4.2 Efforts to Ensure Quality Participation
Westat used commercially available lists of phone numbers and
addresses of owners and renters for the Washington, DC area and all of
the COLA areas, except Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands
for which such lists were unavailable. Using the sampling strategy
described in Section 3.2, Westat drew the sample using commercial data
bases where available. Westat then mailed letters to the prospective
respondents informing them of the survey and asking for their
cooperation. The letter was prepared by OPM on OPM letterhead and
signed by Donald J. Winstead, who at that time was OPM's Deputy
Associate Director for Pay and Performance Policy, Strategic Human
Resources Policy Division. For those areas where commercial mailing/
phone lists were unavailable, Westat was unable to mail advance
letters; and Westat used simple random sampling to select potential
participants.
At the beginning of each telephone interview, Westat surveyors
explained the purpose of the survey, that the survey was voluntary, and
provided the respondent the OMB-provided information collection number.
Westat made certain that the respondent was a knowledgeable adult who
could answer questions relating to the housing unit. If the adult was
not available, Westat made arrangements to call back at a more
convenient time to conduct the interview. The complete interview took
approximately 8 minutes.
It was critically important that GPRES collect accurate information
from persons who either owned their own homes or rented homes at
current market rents. To this end, some GPRES questions were designed
to eliminate respondents who did not meet these criteria. For example,
Westat discontinued the survey if the respondent lived in rent-
subsidized or rent-controlled housing, occupied military housing, or
rented from relatives or other persons at rates other than market
rates. Likewise, Westat discontinued the survey if the respondent was
renting a room in a home or was living in a mobile home or similar
lodging.
In addition, OPM identified for Westat several ``threshold''
questions that were critical to the survey and instructed Westat to
discontinue the survey if the respondent could not or would not answer
these questions. For example, if the respondent did not know or refused
to answer how many bathrooms or bedrooms were in the home, Westat was
instructed to discontinue the survey. The questionnaire in Appendix A
shows the threshold questions. They are identified by the interview
instruction ``GO TO END.'' Similarly, OPM provided Westat with
guidelines to help ensure that respondents did not provide frivolous
responses or occupied housing so atypical as to be outside the scope of
the survey. Appendix C shows the Guidelines that Westat used to help
identify frivolous and highly atypical responses.
4.3 Survey Complications
Westat encountered two unexpected complications in conducting
GPRES. One involved the respondent's lack of knowledge concerning home
size. The
[[Page 43232]]
other involved an unexpectedly high proportion of the population in
certain areas residing in subsidized or rent-controlled housing.
4.3.1 Home Size
One problem that Westat encountered was that respondents often did
not know and could not estimate or guess the number of square feet in
their home. As shown in Appendix A, OPM had identified this as a
critical threshold question; and as shown in Appendix C, OPM provided
guidelines concerning acceptable data. Westat noted that invalidating
these responses was increasing the non-response rate and the cost of
the survey. Westat suggested that OPM reconsider whether home size
should be a threshold question and/or subject to the guidelines.
OPM discussed the issue with the TAC. The TAC was not surprised and
noted that BLS, the Bureau of the Census, and other housing surveys
encountered the same problem and dropped home size as a question in
their surveys. The TAC suggested that OPM use room count and a limited
number of other characteristics to impute home size for respondents who
were unknowledgeable or provided atypical responses. OPM tested this
approach using the rental data it had collected in the COLA surveys and
found it feasible. Therefore, OPM informed Westat to continue survey
interviews even when respondents did not know and could not estimate
home size and instructed Westat not to apply guidelines to flag
atypical responses. OPM and the TAC later tested whether to use imputed
home sizes but decided against it because the imputation process had a
systematic error in estimating the size of relatively small and
relatively large homes.
4.3.2 Prevalence of Subsidized Housing in Some Areas
Westat also discovered difficulties obtaining the desired sample of
renters in certain areas because an unexpectedly large portion of the
renter population appear to occupy subsidized or rent-controlled
housing. This was most noticeable in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands (USVI), as well as in the District of Columbia. Under
the contract, OPM paid Westat on a price-per-completed-survey-response
basis. When Westat began encountering unexpectedly high respondent
invalidation rates, Westat informed OPM that it would not be able to
provide the desired sample sizes in certain areas because the company
had reached the breakeven point at which further data collection would
not be profitable.
Therefore, OPM modified the price schedule in the contract to
ensure that Westat could obtain at least the ``minimum'' sample size
shown in Appendix B in all areas. As shown in Appendix D, Westat
exceeded this level in several areas, but it was unable to obtain the
minimum number of renter samples in Guam and Puerto Rico.
5. Survey Results and Response Rates
5.1 GPRES Survey Results and Response Rates
Appendix D shows the number of renter and owner observations that
Westat obtained by area. Except in Guam and Puerto Rico, Westat
obtained a sample that equaled or exceeded the sample size necessary
for estimating rent or rental equivalence within a margin of error of
+/-$500 in annual rent with a 90 percent confidence level. In all,
Westat obtained 6,170 observations.
To do this, Westat made more than 152,000 phone calls. Therefore,
one simplistic measure of the response rate might be 4 percent (i.e.,
6,170 divided by 152,000). Many of those calls, however, particularly
in the areas for which commercial phone list data as described in
Section 4.2 were unavailable, were screening calls to businesses,
facsimile machines, and other non-residential phone numbers. Also, many
of the residential respondents (e.g., those occupying rent-controlled
or subsidized housing) were not eligible to be part of the survey
universe. Therefore, another and perhaps more meaningful way to look at
the response rate is to compare the number of respondents with the
total number of those who were determined, after the screening
questions, to be part of the survey universe. According to Westat, a
total of 23,662 respondents passed the screening questions. Using this
as a basis, the response rate was 26.1 percent (i.e., 6,170 divided by
23,662). This does not, however, include respondents who become
ineligible in the ``extended interview,'' i.e., the main part of the
interview that followed the screening questions. Taking this into
consideration, the overall GPRES response rate according to Westat was
28 percent. Appendix D shows this type of response rate for each COLA
area and the for Washington, DC area.
5.2 FEHLPS Survey Results and Response Rates
JPC conducted FEHLPS in cooperation with OPM in 1998. It was a
survey of a sample of non-U.S. Postal Service Federal employees in the
COLA areas and in the Washington, DC area. JPC selected a sample size
of approximately 15,800, of which 11,478 were to be drawn from the COLA
areas and 4,324 were to come from the Washington, DC area. The sample
was drawn from OPM's Central Personnel Data File (CPDF), which is
essentially a census of non-Postal Federal employees. According to the
CPDF, there were approximately 44,027 non-Postal Federal employees in
1998 in the COLA areas and 258,304 in the DC area.
JPC collected 5,662 responses from the COLA areas, which makes the
average response rate for those areas 49.3 percent. JPC collected 1,081
responses from the Washington, DC area, which makes the DC area
response rate 25 percent. Appendix E shows the FEHLPS sample sizes,
responses, and response rates by COLA area and for the Washington, DC
area. Not all of the respondents provided usable housing data.
Therefore, the TAC could use only 4,275 FEHLPS observations in its
analyses.
The survey was a ``mail out'' survey, delivered to employees at
their worksite. Agencies were encouraged to grant employees time at
work to complete the survey. FEHLPS covered numerous topics, including
transportation and travel, K-12 private education, college education,
medical costs, and housing. Appendix F shows the housing related
portion of the survey.
6. Survey Analyses
The TAC performed most of the analyses of the GPRES results, with
OPM's support and oversight. OPM also contracted with JPC to review the
GPRES results and analyses. JPC concurred with the TAC's analyses,
findings, and recommendations.
6.1 Homeowner Factors: Comparison of Owner Rent Estimates and Market
Rents
As discussed in Section 2, one purpose for conducting GPRES was to
compare owner estimates of the rental value of their homes with market
rents for comparable housing in terms of quality and quantity. The goal
was to express mathematically the relationship of rents and rent
estimates within each COLA area and the Washington, DC area. The second
purpose was to examine whether those relationships varied significantly
between the COLA areas and the Washington, DC area.
The TAC computed homeowner factors (HFs) to express the
relationship of homeowner rent estimates and market rents in and among
the COLA
[[Page 43233]]
areas and the Washington, DC area. The HF is the estimated rental value
of owned homes divided by the market rent for homes of equivalent
observed quality and quantity. To compute the HF, the TAC used hedonic
regressions to hold quality and quantity constant.
The TAC used two distinctly different approaches to analyze HFs.
One approach involved comparing HFs by COLA region with the DC area HF.
The other involved estimating HFs for each COLA survey area and
comparing these with the DC area HF. The results of the two approaches
were quite different but lead to the same conclusion.
6.2. Regional Comparisons
The COLA areas are divided into three regions--the Alaska, Pacific,
and Caribbean regions. The Alaska region is composed of the Anchorage,
Fairbanks, and Juneau COLA survey areas. The Pacific region is composed
of the Honolulu County; Hilo and Kailua Kona, Hawaii County; Kauai
County; Maui County; and Guam COLA survey areas. The Caribbean region
is composed of the Puerto Rico; St. Croix, USVI, and St. Thomas/St.
John, USVI, COLA survey areas.
The TAC noted that there were virtually no previous studies to
serve as a guide on how to analyze HFs by area and compare them between
areas. The TAC believed if there were systematic differences in HFs
across areas, the TAC would need as many observations as possible to
identify these relationships. Pooling the data by region allowed the
use of all of the survey observations (GPRES or FEHLPS) at one time.
The TAC applied semi-logarithmic hedonic regressions to compute
rental equivalence indexes and market rent indexes for the COLA regions
relative to the Washington, DC area, holding quantity and quality of
housing constant. The dependent variable of the regression was the
logarithm of rent. Appendix G shows the SAS GPRES regression results
that the TAC used. (SAS is a proprietary statistical analysis computer
software package.) The independent variables for the GPRES regression
are listed below:
Type of dwelling (e.g., detached house, townhouse, apartment),
Whether the unit had central air conditioning,
Number of baths,
Number of bedrooms,
Number of baths crossed with type of dwelling, and
Tenure (i.e., owned or rented) by the COLA region or DC area in which
unit is located.
The parameter of interest in this regression was tenure by COLA
region and the results are shown in the table below. The HF is shown in
column (1). (The logarithmic form of the HFs and standard errors and t
values are shown in columns (2) through (4).) An HF of 1.223 for Alaska
means that homeowner estimates of the rental value of their homes are
on average 22.3 percent higher than market rents holding observed
quality and quantity of the housing unit characteristics constant. The
critical values of ``t'' at the 5 percent and 1 percent levels are 1.96
and 2.58 respectively. In other words, HFs with t-values equal to or
greater than 2.58 are significant at a 99 percent confidence level or
higher.
Table 1.--GPRES Homeowner Factors by Region
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard
COLA region HF Logarithmic HF error t-value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) (2) (3) (4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska...................................................... 1.223 0.201 0.027 7.50
Pacific..................................................... 1.171 0.158 0.018 8.74
Caribbean................................................... 1.117 0.111 0.023 4.94
Washington, DC Area......................................... 1.153 0.142 0.031 4.62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TAC also computed homeowner factors on a regional basis using
the results of FEHLPS. Again, the dependent variable was the log of
rent, but the independent variables were somewhat different than those
used in the GPRES analyses. Appendix H shows the TAC's regression
results using the FEHLPS data. The homeowner factors are shown in Table
2, below:
Table 2.--FEHLPS Homeowner Factors by Region
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard
COLA region HF Logarithmic HF error t-value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) (2) (3) (4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska...................................................... 1.274 0.242 0.0301 8.03
Pacific..................................................... 1.092 0.088 0.0195 4.49
Caribbean................................................... 1.168 0.155 0.0326 4.75
Washington, DC Area......................................... 1.254 0.226 0.0479 4.71
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The HFs from both surveys are statistically significant and greater
than 1 when the results are analyzed on a regional basis. HFs greater
than one is what economic theory would predict. The key question is
whether there are statistically significant differences between the HFs
for the COLA regions compared with the DC area HF. To do this, the TAC
again used a t-test where the standard error is the difference between
HFs calculated from a covariance matrix of the regression coefficients
on owners and renters. Tables 3 and 4 below show the results for GPRES
and FEHLPS respectively.
[[Page 43234]]
Table 3.--GPRES Test of Difference Between Regional HFs and DC Area HF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLA region HF Logarithmic COLA Standard
COLA region divided by DC region HF error t-value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) (2) (3) (4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska........................................... 1.061 0.0595 0.0375 1.58
Pacific.......................................... 1.016 0.0161 0.0328 0.49
Caribbean........................................ 0.970 -0.0301 0.0353 -0.85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.--FEHLPS Test of Difference Between Regional HFs and DC Area HF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLA region HF Logarithmic COLA
COLA region divided by DC region HF -DC Standard t-value
Area HF Area HF error
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska........................................... 1.016 0.0161 0.0548 0.29
Pacific.......................................... 0.871 -0.1379 0.0500 -2.76
Caribbean........................................ 0.932 -0.0705 0.0560 -1.26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 3, the TAC found, based on the GPRES results, the
differences between the COLA region HFs and the DC area HF were not
statistically significant. Similarly, as shown in Table 4, the TAC
found, based on the FEHLPS results, there was no statistically
significant difference between the COLA region HFs and the DC area HF.
Therefore, no adjustment to the COLA survey rental index was
appropriate to account for homeowner shelter values (rental
equivalence).
Although analyses of both surveys found no statistically
significant differences between the COLA and DC area HFs, the TAC also
noted the significant differences between the GPRES results compared
with the FEHLPS results. For example, GPRES showed the Pacific region
HF was slightly higher than the DC area HF, but FEHLPS show the Pacific
region HF to be somewhat lower than the DC area HF. Unless Federal
employees were atypical of the general population with regard to market
rents and homeowner estimates, it appeared that the HFs changed
substantially over the 6-year interval between FEHLPS and GPRES. The
TAC found the apparent lack of stability over time troubling.
6.3 COLA Survey Area Comparisons
The second approach the TAC used to analyze GPRES and FEHLPS
results was to compute HFs by COLA survey area and compare these with
the DC HF. The advantage of this approach was more consistency with the
COLA program, which sets COLA rates by COLA area, not COLA region. It
also allowed the HFs to be computed separately for each area, using
different equations as appropriate. The disadvantage was that each
regression used far less data than in the regional analyses.
To compute HFs for each of the COLA survey areas, the TAC pooled
the survey data by region and computed HFs for each of the COLA survey
areas within the region. Appendix I has an example of the SAS
regression results for one of the survey areas--the Pacific region--
using GPRES. Appendix J has an example of the SAS regression results
for one of the survey areas--the Caribbean region--using FEHLPS. Table
5 shows the HFs by area and their relationship to the DC HF using
GPRES. Table 6 shows the same results using FEHLPS.
Table 5.--GPRES HFs by COLA Survey Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard
Survey area HF Logarithmic HF error t ratio
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) (2) (3) (4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anchorage................................................... 1.025 0.0250 0.0354 0.70
Fairbanks................................................... 0.958 -0.0434 0.0416 -1.04
Juneau...................................................... 0.935 -0.0667 0.0392 -1.70
Honolulu.................................................... 1.061 0.0588 0.0321 1.81
Hilo........................................................ 0.986 -0.0141 0.0499 -0.28
Kailua Kona................................................. 0.957 -0.0440 0.0546 -0.81
Kauai....................................................... 0.930 -0.0728 0.0396 -1.84
Maui........................................................ 1.013 0.0134 0.0355 0.38
Guam........................................................ 0.997 -0.0030 0.0351 -0.09
Puerto Rico................................................. 1.002 0.0018 0.0495 0.04
St. Croix................................................... 1.141 0.1321 0.0395 3.35
St. Thomas/St. John......................................... 1.124 0.1166 0.0442 2.64
DC Area..................................................... 1.110 0.1040 0.0415 2.51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike the COLA region analyses, the GPRES results in Table 5 show
that the HFs are less than 1 in half of the COLA survey areas. This is
contrary to what economic theory would predict. In addition, 10 of the
13 COLA survey area HFs are not statistically significant at a 95
percent confidence level. By comparison, the results using FEHLPS are
quite different. (See Table 6.) All of the HFs are greater than 1,
which conforms with economic theory, and only four of the HFs are not
significant at a 95 percent confidence level.
[[Page 43235]]
Table 6.--FEHLPS HFs by COLA Survey Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard
Survey area HF Logarithmic HF error t ratio
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) (2) (3) (4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anchorage................................................... 1.278 0.2451 0.0397 6.17
Fairbanks................................................... 1.011 0.0106 0.0623 0.17
Juneau...................................................... 1.222 0.2006 0.0707 2.84
Honolulu.................................................... 1.120 0.1130 0.0240 4.71
Hawaii County............................................... 1.011 0.0108 0.0424 0.25
Kauai....................................................... 1.083 0.0798 0.0587 1.36
Maui........................................................ 1.176 0.1618 0.0495 3.27
Guam........................................................ 1.168 0.1549 0.0488 3.17
Puerto Rico................................................. 1.208 0.1888 0.0497 3.80
St. Croix................................................... 1.045 0.0440 0.0784 0.56
St. Thomas/St. John......................................... 1.468 0.3842 0.0839 4.58
DC Area..................................................... 1.279 0.2461 0.0450 5.46
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with the regional analysis, the key question is whether the COLA
survey area HFs are statistically significantly different from the DC
area HF. The TAC used the same approach it used to produce Tables 3 and
4 in the region analyses. As shown in Table 7, the GPRES results
indicate that the HFs in the COLA survey areas are lower than the DC
area HF except in the USVI. The t-ratios, however, show that these
results are not significant at the 95 percent confidence level in 8 out
of 12 cases. (Keep in mind that 10 of the 13 HFs were not statistically
significant at that level, which further weakens the statistical
validity of the comparison.). Table 8, which shows the FEHLPS results,
also shows that the COLA survey area HFs are lower than the DC area HF,
except in St. Thomas/St. John, USVI. (Note: Unlike GPRES, it was not
possible using FEHLPS data to split Hawaii County into the Hilo and
Kailua Kona survey areas.) In addition, the FEHLPS differences are not
statistically significant at a 95 percent confidence level in 7 out of
13 areas.
Table 7.--GPRES Test of Difference Between Survey Area HFs and DC Area HF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLA area HF Logarithmic COLA
Survey area divided by DC area HF- DC area t ratio
area HF HF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) (2) (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anchorage..................................................... 0.924 -0.0790 -1.45
Fairbanks..................................................... 0.863 -0.1474 -2.51
Juneau........................................................ 0.843 -0.1707 -2.99
Honolulu...................................................... 0.956 -0.0452 -0.86
Hilo.......................................................... 0.889 -0.1181 -1.82
Kailua Kona................................................... 0.862 -0.1480 -2.16
Kauai......................................................... 0.838 -0.1768 -3.09
Maui.......................................................... 0.913 -0.0906 -1.66
Guam.......................................................... 0.899 -0.1070 -1.97
Puerto Rico................................................... 0.903 -0.1022 -1.58
St. Croix..................................................... 1.028 0.0281 0.49
St. Thomas/St. John........................................... 1.013 0.0126 0.21
DC Area....................................................... 1.000 0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8.--FEHLPS Test of Difference Between Survey Area HFs and DC Area HF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLA area HF Logarithmic COLA
Survey area divided by DC area HF-DC Area t ratio
area HF HF
(1) (2) (5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anchorage..................................................... 0.999 -0.0010 -0.02
Fairbanks..................................................... 0.790 -0.2355 -3.06
Juneau........................................................ 0.956 -0.0455 -0.54
Honolulu...................................................... 0.875 -0.1331 -2.61
Hawaii County................................................. 0.790 -0.2353 -3.80
Kauai......................................................... 0.847 -0.1663 -2.25
Maui.......................................................... 0.919 -0.0843 -1.26
Guam.......................................................... 0.913 -0.0912 -1.37
Puerto Rico................................................... 0.944 -0.0573 -0.85
St. Croix..................................................... 0.817 -0.2021 -2.23
St. Thomas/St. John........................................... 1.148 0.1381 1.45
DC Area....................................................... 1.000 0.0 ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 43236]]
As with the regional analyses, the TAC found troubling the
significant differences between the GPRES and FEHLPS results. Once
again, the question was whether there were trends over the 6-year
period between the surveys that could explain these differences or the
differences were simply inherent in the populations surveyed and/or
survey techniques used. The TAC recommended that OPM not implement any
adjustments to the rental data based on the COLA survey area analyses
without first conducting additional GPRES-like surveys.
7. Summary and Conclusions
OPM conducted GPRES to determine whether OPM should adjust rental
data that it collects during its annual COLA surveys. In these annual
surveys, OPM collects prices on market rents on various types of
housing units. OPM uses rental data to estimate the relative price of
shelter for both homeowners and renters between the COLA areas and the
Washington, DC area.
The TAC analyzed the GPRES results and compared them with similar
analyses using rental data and estimates from an earlier survey of
Federal employees--FEHLPS. Using regression analyses, the TAC computed
homeowner estimated rent and market rent indexes and from these
computed homeowner factors (HFs), which were homeowner indexes divided
by the market rent indexes for units of equivalent observed quality and
quantity. Economic theory suggests that HFs will be greater than 1.
The TAC conducted two significantly different analyses--one pooled
the COLA region and DC area data and the other treated each COLA area
separately. The TAC conducted these analyses using GPRES results and
then using FEHLPS results for comparison. For both surveys, the
regional analyses showed that the HF were greater than 1 for all areas,
which means that homeowner rent estimates are higher than market rents,
holding observed housing characteristics constant. This is as economic
theory would predict. But the TAC also found that for both surveys, the
COLA area HFs did not differ to a statistically significant degree
compared with the DC area HF. Therefore, no adjustments to the COLA
survey rent index to account for rental equivalence are appropriate. In
addition, the differences between the results using GPRES and those
using FEHLPS raised questions of whether HFs are changing over time.
The TAC also analyzed the results of both surveys on a COLA survey
area basis. These analyses showed that the COLA area HFs were generally
less than 1, which is the opposite of the findings from the regional
analyses and what economic theory would predict. Most of these HFs were
not statistically significant using GPRES, and many were not
significant using FEHLPS. For both surveys, the COLA area HFs were
lower than the DC area HF, with the exception of the USVI HFs, but
several of the COLA area HFs did not differ to a statistically
significant degree from the DC area HF. As with the regional analyses,
the COLA survey area analyses indicates that no adjustments to the COLA
survey rent index are appropriate. In addition, the differences between
the results using GPRES and those using FEHLPS were even more extreme
and raised more questions of whether HFs are changing over time.
Based on these analyses, the TAC recommended that no adjustments be
made in the COLA survey rent index to account for homeowner shelter
costs. The TAC further recommended that OPM conduct additional GPRES-
like surveys before considering any such adjustment. OPM hired JPC to
review the TAC's analyses. JPC found the TAC's analyses to be
appropriate and comprehensive and concurred with the TAC's
recommendations. Therefore, OPM will not adjust COLA survey rent
indexes to account for homeowner shelter costs. OPM does not see a need
to conduct additional GPRES surveys at this time.
Appendix A--GPRES Survey Questionnaire
The interviewer must provide the following information to each
respondent: My name is {INTERVIEWER'S NAME{time} and I am calling
on behalf of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. We are
conducting a study to determine housing costs in your area. Although
the results of the study may be public, we will not divulge any
information that would allow someone to identify you or your home.
Your participation is voluntary and very important to the
success of this study. This study should take approximately 8
minutes. You may send any comments concerning this study to the
Office of Personnel Management. [IF NEEDED: The address is office of
Personnel Management, Forms Officer, Washington, DC 20415-8900]. We
invite comments about how long the study takes and how this time
could be reduced.
The Office of Management and Budget has approved this study and
assigned it a collection number of 3206-0247. We would not be able
to conduct this study without this approval. The approval expires 5/
31/2007.
1. Do you own or rent your home?
OWN--1 GO TO Q8a
RENT--2 GO TO 2
OTHER (SPECIFY ------------)--91 GO TO END
REFUSED---7 GO TO END
DON'T KNOW--8 GO TO END
RENTERS ONLY
2. Which of the following best describes your rental agreement?
Would you say . . .
You live in subsidized or rent controlled housing--1 GO TO END
You live in military housing--2 GO TO END
You rent from a family member or friend who does not charge you
market rate for your home--3 GO TO END
You pay the market rate for renting your home--4
REFUSED---7 GO TO END
DON'T KNOW---8 GO TO END
3. What is the length of your lease?
YEAR--1
6 MONTHS--2
NO LEASE (e.g., month-to-month)--3
OTHER--91
(SPECIFY)--
REFUSED---7
DON'T KNOW---8
4a. What is your monthly rent?
$----,------ MONTHLY RENTAL AMOUNT
REFUSED---7 GO TO END
DON'T KNOW---8 GO TO END
4b. Are any utilities included in the rent?
YES--1
NO--2 GO TO Q5
REFUSED---7 GO TO Q5
DON'T KNOW---8 GO TO Q5
4c. Which of the following utilities are included in the rent? Does
it include . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't
YES NO REF know
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4ca Water?....................... 1 2 -7 -8
4cb Electric?.................... 1 2 -7 -8
4cc Gas?......................... 1 2 -7 -8
4cd Heat?........................ 1 2 -7 -8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Are any of the following included in the rent? How about . . .
[[Page 43237]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't
YES NO REF know
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5a Maintenance, e.g. faucet/ 1 2 -7 -8
appliance repair?...........
5b Lawn care?................... 1 2 -7 -8
5c Snow removal?................ 1 2 -7 -8
5d Trash removal?............... 1 2 -7 -8
5e Parking in covered public 1 2 -7 -8
style garage?...............
5f Furnishings?................. 1 2 -7 -8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6a. Are pets allowed at your rental unit?
YES--1
NO--2 GO TO 7a
REFUSED---7 GO TO 7a
DON'T KNOW---8 GO TO 7a
6b. Is there an additional fee for pets?
YES--1
NO--2 GO TO 7a
REFUSED---7 GO TO 7a
DON'T KNOW---8 GO TO 7a
6c How much is the additional fee?
$------------ AMOUNT OF PET FEE
MONTHLY--1
ANNUALLY--2
ONE-TIME DEPOSIT--3
OTHER (SPECIFY) --------------91
REFUSED---7
DON'T KNOW---8
7a. Approximately how long have you rented at this location?
NOTE: LESS THAN 1 MONTH = 1 MONTH
------------ TIME RENTED AT THIS ADDRESS MONTHS
------------ TIME RENTED AT THIS ADDRESS YEARS
REFUSED---7
DON'T KNOW---8
7b. Would you consider the place that you're renting a permanent
rental property, that is, the property is consistently rented out,
or is it a temporary rental, for example the owner is abroad and
intends to return?.
PERMANENT--1 GO TO 11a
TEMPORARY--2 GO TO 11a
REFUSED---7 GO TO 11a
DON'T KNOW---8 GO TO 11a
OWNERS ONLY
8a. If you were to rent your home on a long term basis, not as a
vacation rental, what do you think your home would rent for per
month? We are not asking you whether you want to rent it, only to
estimate what it might rent for if it were for rent.
$------------ MONTHLY RENTAL AMOUNT--SKIP TO 8c
REFUSED---7 GO TO 8b
DON'T KNOW---8 GO TO 8b
8b. Would you estimate that your home would rent for . . .
Less than $200 per month--1 GO TO END
$201 to $500 per month--2 GO TO 8c
$501 to $1,000 per month--3 GO TO 8c
$1,001 to $1,500 per month--4 GO TO 8c
$1,501 to $2,000 per month--5 GO TO 8c
$2,001 to $2,500 per month--6 GO TO 8c
$2,501 to $3,000 per month--7 GO TO 8c
$3,001 to $6000 per month--or 8 GO TO 8c
Over $6000 per month?--9 GO TO END
REFUSED---7 GO TO END
DON'T KNOW---8 GO TO END
8c. How did you arrive at the rental amount? Was it based on . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: ALL RESPONDENTS WILL BE ASKED Don't
ABOUT EACH REASON YES NO REF know
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8ca Other neighborhood rentals?........... 1 2 -7 -8 GO TO 10a
8cb Rental ads in newspapers, etc?........ 1 2 -7 -8 GO TO 10a
8cc Realtor or property manager advide?... 1 2 -7 -8 GO TO 10a
8cd Previous experience renting this home? 1 2 -7 -8 GO TO 9a
8ce Cost incurred, for example, receiving 1 2 -7 -8 GO TO 10a
enough to cover your mortgage?.
8cf Something else? (Specify):------------ 1 2 -7 -8 GO TO 10a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9a. How long ago did you rent it?
------------ TIME SINCE RENTED MONTHS
------------ TIME SINCE RENTED YEARS
REFUSED---7
DON'T KNOW---8
9b. How much rent did you charge?
$------------ PER
9b.1 MONTH--1
WEEK--2
YEAR--3
REFUSED---7
DON'T KNOW---8
10a. What is the approximate monthly mortgage payment on your home?
$------------ MORTGAGE PAYMENT
REFUSED---7
DON'T KNOW---8
10b. Given current market conditions in your area, at what price
would your home sell?
$----------------
REFUSED---7
DON'T KNOW---8
OWNERS AND RENTERS
11a. Which one of the following best describes where you currently
live? Do you live in a . . .
One-family detached house--1 GO TO Q12a
Duplex or triplex--2 GO TO Q12a
Townhouse or rowhouse--3 GO TO Q12a
Apartment--4 GO TO Q11b
Rented room in a house--5 GO TO END
Trailer, or--6 GO TO END
Somewhere else?--91 GO TO END
REFUSED---7 GO TO END
DON'T KNOW---8 GO TO END
11b. Would you say that your home is . . .
An apartment in a home--1
An apartment in a building without an elevator or--2
An apartment in a building with an elevator--3
REFUSED---7
DON'T KNOW---8
12a. Approximately how many square feet of living space do you have?
--,---------- LIVING SPACE IN SQUARE FEET GO TO NOTE 1
REFUSED---7 GO TO 12b
DON'T KNOW---8 GO TO 12b
12b. Would you estimate that your living space is
Less than 250 square feet,--1 GO TO END
250 to less than 500 square feet,--2 SEE PROGRAMMER NOTE, ABOVE
500 to 1,000 square feet,--3 GO TO NOTE 1
1,001 to 1,500 square feet,--4 GO TO NOTE 1
1,501 to 2,000 square feet,--5 GO TO NOTE 1
2,001 to 2,500 square feet,--6 GO TO NOTE 1
2,501 to 3,000 square feet,--7 GO TO NOTE 1
3,001 to less than 6,000 square feet, or--8 GO TO NOTE 1
Over 6,000 square feet,--9 GO TO NOTE 1
REFUSED---7 GO TO END
DON'T KNOW---8 GO TO END
13. What is the lot size of your property?
----,--------.---- PROPERTY LOT SIZE
13.1 ACRES--1
SQUARE FEET--2
REFUSED---7
DON'T KNOW---8
14. Does your home have an exceptional view, for example,
overlooking a body of water or a city skyline?
YES--1
NO--2
REFUSED---7
DON'T KNOW---8
15a. How old is your home?
LESS THAN 1 YEAR = 1 YEAR
-------- TIME IN YEARS
REFUSED---7
[[Page 43238]]
DON'T KNOW---8
15b. How many years has it been since it was remodeled/renovated?
LESS THAN 1 YEAR = 1 YEAR
-------- TIME IN YEARS
NOT REMODELED/RENOVATED--N
REFUSED---7
DON'T KNOW---8
16a. Do you live in a studio or efficiency apartment?
YES--1 GO TO 17A.
NO--2 GO TO 16
REFUSED---7 GO TO 16
DON'T KNOW---8 GO TO 16
16. Please tell us how many bedrooms you have?
-- NUMBER OF BEDROOMS
REFUSED---7 GO TO END
DON'T KNOW---8 GO TO END
17a. How many full bathrooms are in your home?
---- NUMBER OF FULL BATHS
REFUSED---7 {time} GO TO END
DON'T KNOW---8 {time} GO TO END
17b. How many \1/2\ bathrooms are in your home?
---- NUMBER OF HALF BATHS
REFUSED---7 {time} GO TO END
DON'T KNOW---8 {time} GO TO END
18. Excluding the bedrooms and bathrooms you just mentioned, how
many other rooms are there? (Note: Closets and hallways are not
rooms.)
---- NUMBER OF OTHER ROOMS
REFUSED---7
DON'T KNOW---8
19. Do you have a security system or live in a gated or guarded
community?
YES--1
NO--2
REFUSED---7
DON'T KNOW---8
20a. Do you have air conditioning?
YES--1
NO--2 GO TO Q21a
REFUSED---7 GO TO Q21a
DON'T KNOW---8 GO TO Q21a
20b. Is it central air or individual room units?
CENTRAL AIR--1
ROOM UNIT--2
BOTH--3
REFUSED---7
DON'T KNOW---8
21a. How do you mainly heat your home?
SPACE HEATERS [electric or kerosene]--1
WALL UNIT [gas, electric]--2
BASEBOARD [electric, hot water]--3
CENTRAL HEAT [forced air]--4
NONE--5 GO TO Q22
OTHER--91
(SPECIFY)--------------------------------------------------------------
REFUSED---7 GO TO Q22--------------------------------------------------
DON'T KNOW---8 GO TO Q22-----------------------------------------------
21b. What type of fuel does it use?
GAS [Includes LP/ Propane]--1
ELECTRIC--2
OIL--3
OTHER--91
(SPECIFY)--------------------------------------------------------------
REFUSED---7
DON'T KNOW---8
22. What type of water system do you have? Is your water provided
via* * *
Municipal water system,--1
Well,--2
Cistern, or--3
Something else?--91
(SPECIFY)--------------------------------------------------------------
REFUSED---7
DON'T KNOW---8
23. Do you have a garage? By this I mean your own garage, not a
large public style parking garage.
YES--1
NO--2
REFUSED---7
DON'T KNOW---8
24. Do you have a carport?
YES--1
NO--2
REFUSED---7
DON'T KNOW---8
25a. Do you work outside of the home either full or part time?
YES--1
NO--2 GO TO 26
REFUSED---7 GO TO 26
DON'T KNOW---8 GO TO 26
25b. What is the one-way distance, in miles, from your home to your
work?
LESS THAN ONE MILE--1
1-5 MILES--2
6-10 MILES--3
11-15 MILES--4
16-20 MILES--5
21-25 MILES--6
26-30 MILES--7
MORE THAN 30 MILES--8
REFUSED---7
DON'T KNOW---8
26. Do you or a member of your household work for the Federal
Government?
YES--1
NO--2
REFUSED---7
DON'T KNOW---8
27. What is your zip code?
[msqu][msqu][msqu][msqu][msqu]ZIP CODE--
REFUSED---7
DON'T KNOW---8
END.
Appendix B--GPRES Sample Sizes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Target'' Quantity
``Minimum'' ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Geographic area Quantity Renter Owner Total Renter Owner Total
quantity quantity quantity quantity quantity quantity
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Area A: District of Columbia... 105 43 148 151 61 212
Area B: Montgomery Co., MD..... 72 88 160 103 126 229
Area C: Prince Geo. Co., MD.... 78 75 153 112 107 219
Area D: Arlington Co., VA...... 35 16 51 50 23 73
Area E: Fairfax Co., VA........ 82 108 190 116 155 271
Area F: Prince William Co., VA. 20 7 27 28 9 37
Area G: Anchorage, AK.......... 239 182 421 342 260 602
Area H: Fairbanks, AK.......... 122 126 248 174 179 353
Area I: Juneau, AK............. 174 114 288 249 162 411
Area J: Honolulu County, HI.... 412 279 691 587 398 985
Area K: Hilo Area, HI.......... 112 107 219 159 153 312
Area L: Kailua Kona Area, HI... 85 69 154 121 98 219
Area M: Kauai County, HI....... 187 155 342 268 221 489
Area N: Maui County, HI........ 237 246 483 337 352 689
Area O: Guam................... 278 246 524 396 351 747
Area P: Puerto Rico............ 256 361 617 365 515 880
Area Q: St. Croix, USVI........ 185 295 480 264 422 686
Area R: St. Thomas, USVI....... 219 234 462 312 346 658
Area T: St. John, USVI......... 17 25 42 25 35 61
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals..................... 2,915 2,776 5,700 4,159 3,973 8,133
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The ``Minimum'' set was the sample size necessary for
estimating rent or rental equivalence within a margin of error of +/
-$500 in annual rent with 90 percent confidence level, and the
``Target'' set was the sample size for estimating rent or rental
equivalence at the same margin of error at the 95 percent confidence
level.
[[Page 43239]]
Appendix C--Guidelines for Possible Flags to Identify Potentially
Spurious or Highly Atypical Responses
Responses outside the range are assumed to be spurious and/or
highly atypical and are not acceptable.
4a. Monthly Rent........................ $200 to $5000.
6c. Typical Pet fees.................... Suggest this field not be flagged.
7a. Time at this address................ Suggest this field not be flagged.
8a. Rental equivalence.................. $200 to $6000.
9a. Time since last rented.............. Suggest this field not be flagged.
9b. Rent charged........................ $200 to $5000.
10a. Mortgage payment................... $0 to $6000.
10b. Market Price....................... $10,000 to $1,000,000.
12a. Home square footage................ Apartments: 250 to 3000; Houses: 500 to 6000.
13. Lot size............................ One-Family Detached House: Greater than home square footage and 5
acres or less. All other homes: Suggest this field not be flagged.
15a. Age in years....................... 0 to 200.
15b. Years since remodeled.............. 0 to 50.
16. Bedrooms............................ Apartments: 0 to 4; All others: 1 to 8.
17a. Full baths......................... 1 to the number of bedrooms plus 1.
17b. Half baths......................... 0 to the number of bedrooms minus 1.
18. Other rooms......................... Apartments: 1 to 5; All other: 2 to 8.
Appendix D--General Population Rental Equivalence Survey--Final
Response Rates
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screener Extended Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area Wrkd Hsehlds Response Response Combined*
Refusals Ineligible Eligible (percent) Refusals (percent) Ineligible Total Owners Renters (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A--DC.............................................. 820 594 231 3 360 61 72 80 122 166 61 105 49
B--Mont Co......................................... 858 676 302 3 371 55 77 79 95 199 126 73 44
C--PG Co........................................... 795 581 247 3 331 57 63 81 80 188 109 79 47
D--Arlington....................................... 320 252 148 3 101 41 25 75 20 56 21 35 31
E--Fairfax......................................... 1,016 798 365 2 431 54 77 82 109 245 155 90 45
F--PW.............................................. 178 123 69 4 50 44 5 90 15 30 10 20 40
G--Anchorage....................................... 4,054 2,869 1,640 70 1,159 43 208 82 454 497 248 249 35
H--Fairbanks....................................... 1,436 1,135 444 47 644 61 90 86 282 272 150 122 52
I--Juneau.......................................... 12,878 5,225 2,638 351 2,236 50 315 86 1,597 324 163 161 43
J--Honolulu........................................ 10,563 7,908 5,313 16 2,579 33 427 83 1,445 707 288 419 27
K--Hilo............................................ 2,953 2,339 1,382 57 900 41 167 81 505 228 123 105 33
L--Kona............................................ 9,454 4,009 2,857 19 1,133 29 238 79 723 172 87 85 23
M--Kauai........................................... 14,862 9,261 7,064 263 1,934 24 310 84 1,243 381 210 171 20
N--Maui............................................ 11,239 6,489 4,660 23 1,806 28 429 76 894 483 246 237 21
O--Guam............................................ 20,791 2,638 1,249 2 1,387 53 136 90 781 470 247 223 47
Puerto Rico........................................ 39,613 18,788 14,127 1 4,660 25 477 90 3,718 465 363 102 22
Q-St. Croix........................................ 10,004 3,178 1,405 1 1,772 56 392 78 662 718 533 185 43
R-St. Thomas....................................... 7,020 1,797 611 5 1,181 66 418 65 238 525 278 247 43
T-St. John......................................... 3,672 1,931 1,304 0 627 32 352 44 231 44 27 17 14
152,526 70,591 46,056 873 23,662 35 4,278 82 13,214 6,170 3,445 2,725 28
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Combined response rate.
Appendix E--1998 Federal Employee Housing and Living Patterns Survey
Sample Size, Responses, and Response Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of non-
Survey area postal federal Sample size Responses Response rate
employees (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anchorage....................................... 7,549 1,379 748 54.2
Fairbanks....................................... 1,625 519 320 61.7
Juneau.......................................... 814 412 248 60.2
Rest of AK...................................... 2,413 524 336 64.1
Honolulu County................................. 16,073 3,768 1,923 51.0
Hawaii County................................... 728 577 378 65.5
Kauai County.................................... 332 332 182 54.8
[[Page 43240]]
Maui County..................................... 471 471 216 45.9
Guam............................................ 2,026 820 338 41.2
Puerto Rico..................................... 11,195 1,875 629 33.5
U.S. Virgin Islands............................. 801 801 344 42.9
St. Croix....................................... .............. .............. 155 ..............
St. Thomas/St. John............................. .............. .............. 184 ..............
COLA Areas Subtotal............................. 44,027 11,478 5,662 49.3
Washington DC Area.............................. 258,304 4,324 1,081 25.0
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... 302,331 15,802 6,743 42.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 6325-39-P
[[Page 43241]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN31JY06.007
[[Page 43242]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN31JY06.008
[[Page 43243]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN31JY06.009
[[Page 43244]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN31JY06.010
[[Page 43245]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN31JY06.011
[[Page 43246]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN31JY06.012
[[Page 43247]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN31JY06.013
[[Page 43248]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN31JY06.014
[[Page 43249]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN31JY06.015
[FR Doc. 06-6568 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-39-C