Creating housing benefit indicator using _renthb & _renthb_bh
I was wondering if you were able to help me out at all with some clarification regarding the amount of missing variable associated with the “receive rent rebate or rent allowance” variable (_renthb & renthb_bh) for both BHPS and UKHLS for the years 2001 – 2019. Also, I am only including those who complete a full individual interview (ivfio = 1) and full household interview (ivfho = 10).
I am trying to create an indicator that just simply represents if an individual respondent receives housing benefits or not, but I am getting large amounts of missing observations primarily for those who are classified as “Local Authority Renter” or “Housing Association Renter”.
Even after I set all homeowners to 0, those living rent free to 0, and those paying 0 rent being set to 0. Out of all the Local Authority renters, about 18% still have a missing value and 11% of all housing association renters have a missing value still (mostly tends to be the Inapplicable -8 value).
I was mainly wondering is this normal? Is there any particular reason that so many social housing renters recorded an inapplicable value to begin with? For instance, looking at the UKHLS version “_renthb”, I get 10,374 (31%) out of 33,034 local authority renters with a value of -8 (inapplicable).
Apologies if this has been spelled out somewhere in the questionnaire or the user guide but I cannot seem to find an answer.
Updated by Understanding Society User Support Team over 1 year ago
- Status changed from New to Feedback
- % Done changed from 0 to 50
- Private changed from Yes to No
If you look at the Universe for this question, i.e., who were asked this question in the Questionnaire, you will see that this was asked of those who said they rented or partly rented/part owned the accommodation (hsownd = 3 or 4) and who had provided a valid rental payment information (rent>0). I checked and for Wave 1, there were 8274 households who had said a_hsowned=3 or 4 & a_rent>0. Of these households, 2 refused to answer this quesiton, 50 didn't know the rest said yes or no.
Does this explain the missings you find? If not, please let us know.
Understanding Society User Support Team
Updated by Jack Hewton over 1 year ago
Thank you for your response - it got me thinking and I realised my issue was that I did not account for respondents who had a negative value for the _rent variable (-1 dont know, -2 refused, -3 100% rent rebate, -8 inapplicable), mainly the -3 and -8 values. After accounting for these the missings are now looking a lot better and appropriate.