IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cen/cpaper/2016-06.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evaluating the Use of Commercial Data to Improve Survey Estimates of Property Taxes

Author

Listed:
  • Zachary H. Seeskin

Abstract

While commercial data sources offer promise to statistical agencies for use in production of official statistics, challenges can arise as the data are not collected for statistical purposes. This paper evaluates the use of 2008-2010 property tax data from CoreLogic, Inc. (CoreLogic), aggregated from county and township governments from around the country, to improve 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) estimates of property tax amounts for single-family homes. Particularly, the research evaluates the potential to use CoreLogic to reduce respondent burden, to study survey response error and to improve adjustments for survey nonresponse. The research found that the coverage of the CoreLogic data varies between counties as does the correspondence between ACS and CoreLogic property taxes. This geographic variation implies that different approaches toward using CoreLogic are needed in different areas of the country. Further, large differences between CoreLogic and ACS property taxes in certain counties seem to be due to conceptual differences between what is collected in the two data sources. The research examines three counties, Clark County, NV, Philadelphia County, PA and St. Louis County, MO, and compares how estimates would change with different approaches using the CoreLogic data. Mean county property tax estimates are highly sensitive to whether ACS or CoreLogic data are used to construct estimates. Using CoreLogic data in imputation modeling for nonresponse adjustment of ACS estimates modestly improves the predictive power of imputation models, although estimates of county property taxes and property taxes by mortgage status are not very sensitive to the imputation method.

Suggested Citation

  • Zachary H. Seeskin, 2016. "Evaluating the Use of Commercial Data to Improve Survey Estimates of Property Taxes," CARRA Working Papers 2016-06, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    • Handle: RePEc:cen:cpaper:2016-06
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2016/adrm/carra-wp-2016-06.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2016
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brittany Bond & J. David Brown & Adela Luque & Amy O’Hara, 2014. "The Nature of the Bias When Studying Only Linkable Person Records: Evidence from the American Community Survey," CARRA Working Papers 2014-08, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    2. Benítez-Silva, Hugo & Eren, Selçuk & Heiland, Frank & Jiménez-Martín, Sergi, 2015. "How well do individuals predict the selling prices of their homes?," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 12-25.
    3. Pudney, Stephen, 2008. "Heaping and leaping: survey response behaviour and the dynamics of self-reported consumption expenditure," ISER Working Paper Series 2008-09, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    4. Bruce Meyer & Robert Goerge, 2011. "Errors in Survey Reporting and Imputation and Their Effects on Estimates of Food Stamp Program Participation," Working Papers 11-14, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    5. repec:mpr:mprres:6479 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. John M. Abowd & Martha H. Stinson, 2013. "Estimating Measurement Error in Annual Job Earnings: A Comparison of Survey and Administrative Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(5), pages 1451-1467, December.
    7. Bruce D. Meyer & Nikolas Mittag, 2015. "Using Linked Survey and Administrative Data to Better Measure Income: Implications for Poverty, Program Effectiveness and Holes in the Safety Net," Upjohn Working Papers 15-242, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
    8. Doove, L.L. & Van Buuren, S. & Dusseldorp, E., 2014. "Recursive partitioning for missing data imputation in the presence of interaction effects," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 92-104.
    9. Meyer, Bruce D. & Goerge, Robert M., 2011. "Errors in Survey Reporting and Imputation and Their Effects on Estimates of Food Stamp Program Participation," Contractor and Cooperator Reports 312394, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    10. John L. Czajka with other members of the Panel on the U.S. Census Bureau's Reengineered Survey of Income Program Participation. Constance F. Citro John Karl Scholz & Editors. Committee on National Sta, "undated". "Reengineering the Survey of Income and Program Participation," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 92ffe3e10fec4587859f12cb5, Mathematica Policy Research.
    11. Brady T. West & Roderick J. A. Little, 2013. "Non-response adjustment of survey estimates based on auxiliary variables subject to error," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 62(2), pages 213-231, March.
    12. Little, Roderick J A, 1988. "Missing-Data Adjustments in Large Surveys: Reply," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 6(3), pages 300-301, July.
    13. Arie Kapteyn & Jelmer Y. Ypma, 2007. "Measurement Error and Misclassification: A Comparison of Survey and Administrative Data," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 25(3), pages 513-551.
    14. Manski, Charles F., 2016. "Credible interval estimates for official statistics with survey nonresponse," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 191(2), pages 293-301.
    15. Little, Roderick J A, 1988. "Missing-Data Adjustments in Large Surveys," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 6(3), pages 287-296, July.
    16. Charles F. Manski, 2015. "Communicating Uncertainty in Official Economic Statistics: An Appraisal Fifty Years after Morgenstern," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 53(3), pages 631-653, September.
    17. Quentin Brummet, 2014. "Comparison of Survey, Federal, and Commercial Address Data Quality," CARRA Working Papers 2014-06, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    18. Basu, Sabyasachi & Thibodeau, Thomas G, 1998. "Analysis of Spatial Autocorrelation in House Prices," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 61-85, July.
    19. Manski, Charles F. & Molinari, Francesca, 2010. "Rounding Probabilistic Expectations in Surveys," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 28(2), pages 219-231.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Svitlana Pyrohova & Jiafei Hu & Jonathan Corcoran, 2023. "Urban land use transitions: Examining change over 19 years using sequence analysis. The case of South-East Queensland, Australia," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 50(9), pages 2579-2593, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Meyer, Bruce D. & Mittag, Nikolas, 2019. "Combining Administrative and Survey Data to Improve Income Measurement," IZA Discussion Papers 12266, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Bruckmeier, Kerstin & Riphahn, Regina T. & Wiemers, Jürgen, 2019. "Benefit underreporting in survey data and its consequences for measuring non-take-up: new evidence from linked administrative and survey data," IAB-Discussion Paper 201906, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany].
    3. Youngjoo Cho & Debashis Ghosh, 2021. "Quantile-Based Subgroup Identification for Randomized Clinical Trials," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 13(1), pages 90-128, April.
    4. Ana Beatriz Galvão & James Mitchell, 2024. "Communicating Data Uncertainty: Multiwave Experimental Evidence for UK GDP," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 56(1), pages 81-114, February.
    5. Michele Lalla & Maddalena Cavicchioli, 2020. "Nonresponse and measurement errors in income: matching individual survey data with administrative tax data," Department of Economics 0170, University of Modena and Reggio E., Faculty of Economics "Marco Biagi".
    6. A. R. Linero, 2017. "Bayesian nonparametric analysis of longitudinal studies in the presence of informative missingness," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 104(2), pages 327-341.
    7. Adam Bee & Joshua Mitchell & Nikolas Mittag & Jonathan Rothbaum & Carl Sanders & Lawrence Schmidt & Matthew Unrath, 2023. "National Experimental Wellbeing Statistics - Version 1," Working Papers 23-04, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    8. Andrew S. Green, 2017. "Hours Off the Clock," Working Papers 17-44, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    9. Bruce D. Meyer & Nikolas Mittag, 2019. "Combining Administrative and Survey Data to Improve Income Measurement," NBER Working Papers 25738, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Leah R. Clark & Renuka Bhaskar, 2025. "Potential Bias When Using Administrative Data to Measure the Family Income of School-Aged Children," Working Papers 25-03, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    11. Ana Beatriz Galvão & James Mitchell, 2023. "Real‐Time Perceptions of Historical GDP Data Uncertainty," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 85(3), pages 457-481, June.
    12. Kerstin Bruckmeier & Regina T. Riphahn & Jürgen Wiemers, 2021. "Misreporting of program take-up in survey data and its consequences for measuring non-take-up: new evidence from linked administrative and survey data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 1567-1616, September.
    13. Amy O’Hara & Rachel M. Shattuck & Robert M. Goerge, 2017. "Linking Federal Surveys with Administrative Data to Improve Research on Families," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 669(1), pages 63-74, January.
    14. Christian Aßmann & Ariane Würbach & Solange Goßmann & Ferdinand Geissler & Anika Bela, 2017. "Nonparametric Multiple Imputation for Questionnaires with Individual Skip Patterns and Constraints: The Case of Income Imputation in the National Educational Panel Study," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 46(4), pages 864-897, November.
    15. Nguimkeu, Pierre & Denteh, Augustine & Tchernis, Rusty, 2019. "On the estimation of treatment effects with endogenous misreporting," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 208(2), pages 487-506.
    16. Mittag, Nikolas, 2016. "Correcting for Misreporting of Government Benefits," IZA Discussion Papers 10266, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Joost Ginkel & Pieter Kroonenberg, 2014. "Using Generalized Procrustes Analysis for Multiple Imputation in Principal Component Analysis," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 31(2), pages 242-269, July.
    18. Peter R. Mueser & Colleen M. Heflin, 2013. "Aid to Jobless Workers in Florida in the Face of the Great Recession: The Interaction of Unemployment Insurance and the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program," Working Papers 1318, Department of Economics, University of Missouri.
    19. Verbeek, M.J.C.M. & Nijman, T.E., 1992. "Incomplete panels and selection bias : A survey," Discussion Paper 1992-7, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    20. Kyung Min Kang & Robert A. Moffitt, 2019. "The Effect of SNAP and School Food Programs on Food Security, Diet Quality, and Food Spending: Sensitivity to Program Reporting Error," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(1), pages 156-201, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cen:cpaper:2016-06. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Dawn Anderson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesgvus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.