Back to Table of Contents

Abundant Fields, Meager Shelter:
Findings From a Survey of Farmworker Housing in the
Eastern Migrant Stream

© Housing Assistance Council, 2000

Permission is granted ONLY to nonprofit community-based organizations to reproduce and/or adapt this document, and only for their own use.

APPENDIX E: HAC USE OF THE AHS DEFINITION OF SEVERELY INADEQUATE HOUSING

HAC's survey of farmworker housing conditions examined many of the same housing quality problems that are used by the American Housing Survey (AHS) to determine the quality of housing units. In classifying farmworker housing units as substandard using the AHS definition, some accommodations were made in an effort to approximate AHS criteria with HAC survey data items. The AHS definition of severely inadequate housing, and the corresponding HAC survey items, are discussed below.

A unit has severe physical problems (is severely inadequate) according to the AHS if it has any of the following five problems:

Plumbing. Lacking hot or cold piped water or a flush toilet, or lacking both bathtub and shower, all inside the structure for the exclusive use of the unit.

Heating. Having been uncomfortably cold last winter for 24 hours or more because the heating broke down, and it broke down at least three times last winter for at least 6 hours each time.

Electric. Having no electricity, or all of the following three electric problems: exposed wiring; a room with no working wall outlet; and three blown fuses or tripped circuit breakers in the last 90 days.

Upkeep. Having any five of the following six maintenance problems: water leaks from the outside, such as from the roof, basement, windows, or doors; leaks from inside structure such as pipes or plumbing fixtures; holes in the floors; holes or open cracks in the walls or ceilings; more than 8 inches by 11 inches of peeling paint or broken plaster; or signs of rats or mice in the last 90 days.

Hallways. Having all of the following problems in public areas: no working light fixtures; loose or missing steps; loose or missing railings; and no elevator.

HAC's farmworker housing survey did not examine heating problems or pose questions to occupants concerning the efficiency of their units' heating systems. Part of the reason for this is that the HAC survey was conducted during the peak agricultural seasons in each region (winter in Florida, summer in upstream states). Presumably, units in warmer climates or those upstream during summer months do not require heating, so this item was left out of the HAC survey in the interest of reducing the burden on outreach workers conducting the survey and the farmworkers they interviewed.

Concerning plumbing, HAC's survey noted the presence of toilets and tub/shower fixtures. In addition, survey workers noted whether these fixtures were broken. In cases where there was no hot water, survey workers marked these fixtures as "broken." HAC's survey items directly correspond to the AHS measures, where lack of a toilet or tub/shower, or having a broken toilet or tub/shower, meant that plumbing problems were present in the unit.

Concerning electricity, HAC's survey included noting cases of exposed wiring. This is one of the items included in the AHS electricity problem criteria. The other questions addressing blown fuses and wall outlets were not included because they could not be ascertained by direct observation. Exposed wiring was used as a proxy for the AHS electricity problem criterion. It should also be noted that FHSI outreach workers are not professional housing inspectors. As part of their survey training, they were told to only note problems if they were immediately obvious and substantial. In the case of exposed wiring, this meant frayed wires extending from walls and ceilings, live wires, or outlets missing covers and having substantial wiring exposed. Although HAC's criteria do not match the AHS exactly on this point, it is most likely the case that HAC's survey under-represented the presence of electrical problems in the units surveyed.

HAC's survey had two items which addressed problems the AHS notes for hallways. HAC's survey notes the presence of broken exterior steps and interior stairs and railings. HAC's survey did not note a lack of working light fixtures or lack of elevators. If the unit had broken stairs or railings in its exterior or interior public areas, it failed on this criterion. HAC felt confident using these two variables as a proxy for the four criteria required by the AHS, since units with these problems had a high number of other problems. Units with broken exterior steps had a mean of 8.5 problems, units with broken interior stairs and railings had a mean of 6.9 problems, and units with both exterior and interior stairs broken had a mean of 13.1 problems.

Most of the AHS criteria to determine upkeep deficiencies are reflected in HAC survey items. HAC's survey noted holes in the floor large enough to trip a child, holes in the walls or ceilings wider than the diameter of a dime, presence of unsanitary conditions (denoted by rodent or insect infestation), and peeling paint or broken plaster larger than the survey workers' fists (approximately the same size as AHS, or 8 inches by 11 inches). Evidence for leaks originating inside the unit was noted by the presence of exposed plumbing or evidence of water leakage. Since outreach workers observing evidence of water leakage in unit interiors could not determine if this water originated outside the unit, another measure needed to be crafted to note this problem. HAC's survey did make note of exterior problems that promote water leakage into units. These problems are sagging structural features, damaged roofs, broken windows or screens, damaged siding, and damaged foundations. Erring on the side of caution, leaks originating from outside the unit were considered present if three of the five problems were present.

Although the HAC survey items do not correspond exactly to the AHS criteria for severely inadequate housing, they do provide a very close approximation. For instance, units in the HAC survey classified as severely inadequate under these criteria had a mean of 7.0 problems, while those not classified as severely inadequate had a mean of 2.8 problems. It is more likely that approximating the AHS criteria for severely inadequate units in this fashion under-represents the prevalence of substandard housing in the HAC survey sample. For example, 58 percent of units with sagging structural features did not meet the AHS definition of severely inadequate housing.

On To Appendix F

Back To Table of Contents