Rent Burden in the

Housing Choice

Voucher Program

Multi-Disciplinary

Research Team

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development  |  Office of Policy Development and Research

Rent Burden in the Housing Choice Voucher Program

Multi-Disciplinary Research Team

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

October 2017

Submitted by

Economic Systems Inc.

Falls Church, Virginia

Prepared by

Casey J. Dawkins, Ph.D.

Jae Sik Jeon, Ph.D. candidate

University of Maryland

About MDRT

PD&R developed the Multidisciplinary Research Team (MDRT) vehicle to manage a team of qualified researchers. Researchers are selected for their expertise to produce an array of high quality, short-turnaround research. MDRT researchers use a variety of HUD and external data sources to answer research questions relating to HUD’s priority policies and strategic goals.

Disclaimer

The contents of this report are the views of the contractor and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. government.

ii

Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... iv

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Background ..................................................................................................................................... 2

Data and Methods ........................................................................................................................... 4

Findings........................................................................................................................................... 5

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 32

References ..................................................................................................................................... 35

Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 36

iii

Executive Summary

The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, the nation’s largest tenant-based rental assistance program, is designed to reduce housing cost burdens for qualifying low-to-moderate income households. For those participating in the HCV program, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) awards housing assistance payments (HAPs) through local public housing agencies (PHAs) that cover the difference between 30 percent of a household’s adjusted gross income and a payment standard that reflects the cost of renting a standard quality housing unit. In theory, HCV recipients should not spend more than 40 percent of their income on rent while participating in the program, yet research finds that many HCV participants still experience housing cost burdens in excess of this threshold. Some evidence suggests that the scarcity of affordable rental housing in areas where HCV participants desire to live may be one factor contributing to higher housing cost burdens. Other possible explanations include variable income streams that do not keep pace with adjustments to HAPs, poor program compliance monitoring on the part of local PHAs, or rising utility costs that are not offset by utility allowances.

This report examines trends in housing cost burden for HCV participants between the years of 2003 and 2015. We examine cross-sectional data in each of these years and conduct a cohort analysis of those participants who initially leased a unit in 2003 or 2008. We find that housing cost burdens for HCV participants have risen since 2003, and the year-to-year changes in housing cost burden roughly approximate trends in the recent housing market cycle. Housing cost burdens have been particularly high for those earning the lowest incomes. Households headed by females, nonelderly persons, non-Hispanic Black persons, and persons without a disability were more likely than other households to exhibit severe housing cost burdens.

Participants living in larger single-family homes have experienced higher cost burdens than those living in other housing types. These trends have played out unevenly across geography. Housing cost burdens have been highest in the South. During the housing boom, rural areas saw the highest housing cost burdens. When the market fell into decline, cost burdens fell in all areas, but as the market began to recover, severe cost burdens rose in metropolitan areas, due largely to the relative increase in housing cost burdens within suburban areas. Residential segregation and the limited availability of good neighborhoods offering units for HCV participants at affordable rents also shape housing cost burdens. During an era when insufficient affordable housing is being built and affordable rental units are becoming more scarce, much of the housing cost burden faced by HCV participants is attributable to renting units above local payment standards, combined with changes in income that do not keep pace with rising rents.

iv

Introduction

The housing cost burdens of U.S. renters are reaching historic highs. According to JCHS (2016), the number of households spending more than 30 percent of their income on rent rose by 3.6

million between 2008 and 2014, and the number of households spending more than 50 percent of their income on rent rose to a record high of 11.4 million. According to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) 2015  Worst Case Housing Needs  report, of the approximately 40.3 million U.S. renters in 2013, 24 percent are severely housing cost burdened, spending more than 50 percent of their income on rent. These high housing cost burdens fall most heavily on renters who earn the lowest incomes. Of those earning less than 30 percent of the Area Median Family Income, 62 percent are severely cost-burdened (Steffen et al., 2015: table A-1A).

The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, the nation’s largest tenant-based rental assistance program, is designed to alleviate these high housing cost burdens for qualifying low-to-moderate income households, while also expanding housing choice in a wider variety of neighborhoods that offer beneficial economic and social opportunities. For those participating in the HCV

program, HUD awards housing assistance payments (HAPs) through local public housing agencies (PHAs) that cover the difference between 30 percent of a household’s adjusted gross income and a payment standard that reflects the cost of renting a standard quality housing unit (McClure, 2005).

This report examines trends in housing cost burden for HCV participants between the years of 2003 and 2015. We examine cross-sectional data in each of these years and conduct a cohort analysis of households that initially leased up in 2003 and 2008. Our research aims to identify the household, housing unit, and geographic factors associated with housing cost burdens in the HCV program and provide policy recommendations for ways to reduce the prevalence of high housing cost burden among HCV-assisted renters. The report begins with a discussion of relevant literature addressing housing cost burden in the HCV program, followed by a more detailed discussion of the data and methods, a discussion of findings pertaining to seven specific research questions, and a conclusion that summarizes the findings and policy implications.

1

Background

Although the HCV program is designed to lower the cost of rental housing for participating households, some evidence suggests that many HCV participants still face high housing cost burdens. McClure (2005) found that 38 percent of HCV participants in 2002 spent more than 31

percent of their income on rent and utilities, and 17 percent spent more than 40 percent of their income on rent. Williamson (2011) examined data from a sample of about 38,000 households residing in Florida’s Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) properties and found that about 35 percent of LIHTC residents receiving vouchers spent more than 30 percent of household income on rent. Leopold et al. (2015) conducted a more recent (2013) analysis of HUD

administrative data and find that 42 percent of HCV recipients earning extremely low incomes spent more than 30 percent of income on rent. This 42 percent was highest among all HUD’s programs, including the Moderate Rehabilitation program, project-based Section 8, other multifamily programs, and public housing.

Because HCV program rules prohibit participating households from spending more than 40

percent of their income on rent at initial lease up, why do so many HCV participants still face high housing cost burdens? Many households choose to spend as much as 40 percent of their income on rent to obtain housing that is higher quality, larger, or in more desirable neighborhoods.

If higher cost burdens are associated with improved neighborhood quality, then a HCV

recipient’s realization of these benefits may be a positive policy outcome. Even short-term gains in access to certain local public goods, such as high-quality schools, may yield long-term gains in a child’s future economic opportunities and well-being. However, if these initially higher cost burdens persist or rise over time, as rents rise relative to household incomes, households may be unable to remain in the neighborhood to take advantage of beneficial neighborhood amenities.

Because there is no cap on the percentage of income that can be spent on housing costs after initial lease up, HCV participants are at risk of incurring higher housing cost burdens over time if rents increase or if utilities rise above the HUD utility allowance. Furthermore, some HCV

participants may lose their jobs or experience a decline in income after initial lease up even if rents remain stable. Although HUD adjusts tenant payments upon annual reexaminations, these adjustments may not keep pace with changes in income if income streams vary from month to month.

Certain types of households may be more likely to incur higher housing cost burdens than others.

McClure (2005) found that among all HCV recipients, housing cost burden is particularly high for single-parent female-headed households, larger families with children (who need larger units), and recipients with extremely low incomes. It is possible that low-income families with children are more strongly “tied” to location, due to reliance on local social networks for social support and financial assistance (Dawkins, 2006). Likewise, non-White households may experience housing market discrimination, limiting their ability to move to adjust housing costs.

This latter explanation is consistent with McClure’s (2005) finding that households headed by African-Americans are more likely than other households to spend more than 40 percent of their income on rent.

2

Supply-side conditions may also influence households’ ability to reduce housing cost burdens on residential mobility. Pendall (2000) found that households receiving tenant-based rental assistance are more concentrated in distressed neighborhoods when those neighborhoods have a higher concentration of rental housing, despite such households’ tendency to avoid neighborhoods with very low rents. Another factor is landlords’ reluctance to participate in the HCV program. Unless states or localities have adopted legislation prohibiting the discrimination against those receiving tenant-based assistance, landlords’ participation in the HCV program is voluntary, and many landlords choose not to participate due to perceived administrative barriers or other considerations (Freeman, 2011). Local land use regulations substantially restrict the development of affordable rental units for moderate-income workers by ensuring that developers profit only by constructing luxury housing. White et al. (2016) show, however, that development of economical, unsubsidized rental housing is feasible by presenting a case study of how Sarasota and Manatee Counties in Florida accommodated cost-effective design standards and streamlined approval processes.

Additional factors may be due to local PHAs’ discretionary decisions on setting local preferences for admission and enforcing compliance with HUD program rules. Local PHAs may also prioritize admission to households that are more or less likely to incur higher housing cost burdens over time. The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 19981 (QHWRA) expanded the discretionary authority of local PHAs and set threshold requirements for the incomes of those newly admitted to HUD programs. Since 1998, PHAs have been required to ensure that 75 percent of new voucher holders have incomes no greater than 30 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI) and that all households spend no more than 40 percent of income on housing costs at the time of lease up. Beyond these requirements, PHAs have substantial discretion to prioritize assistance to different types of households. Some PHAs place priority on housing those recipients who are in greatest need, whereas others place emphasis on those most able to move to achieve greater self-sufficiency (Devine et al., 2000). Dawkins (2007) found that, since the enactment of QHWRA, PHAs increasingly have been admitting smaller families headed by older adults and fewer extremely low-income female-headed households with children, thus signaling a trend away from the types of households identified by McClure (2005) who are most likely to incur high housing cost burdens.

1 Pub. L. 105–276, Title V.

3

Data and Methods

This research relies on administrative data from HUD’s Public and Indian Housing Information Center, or PIC, system to examine trends in HCV housing cost burden between 2003 and 2015.

The data are assembled from tenant-level databases collected from the HUD-50058 Family Report form completed by local PHAs.

We assemble two primary databases for the analyses. The first database is a set of cross-sectional household-level files for each year between 2003 and 2015. These files (one for each year) include the last household record available for each household in each year for all households that have successfully leased up during or prior to the year in question. Using these databases, we examine trends in housing cost burden over time for all HCV-assisted households and households classified by various household, housing unit type, and geographic characteristics.

For those participating in the HCV program in the most recent period (2015), we also examine the marginal effect of each of these characteristics, holding the others constant, on the odds of an HCV household experiencing a housing cost burden.

We also construct two longitudinal files of households that leased up in 2003 and 2008. For each of these longitudinal files, we follow households over time, appending observations on rental spells for each year after initial lease up until either 2015 or the year in which the household exits from the HCV program. Using these two longitudinal databases, we examine the duration of housing cost burden, emphasizing factors associated with different housing cost burden trajectories. The findings section is organized according to more specific research questions.

We define housing cost burden as the ratio of the family’s total contribution to housing payments (gross rent minus the household’s HAP) to the household’s total annual adjusted gross income.

Gross rent is equal to the contract rent plus utility allowance. HAP is defined as the lower of gross rent or the payment standard minus the total tenant payment (TTP). We use the terms  rent burden and  housing cost burden interchangeably throughout the report to reflect the percentage of income spent on rental housing costs. We categorize housing cost burdens into the following cost burden categories: no cost burden (spending 30 percent or less of income on housing costs), moderate cost burden (spending 31 to 40 percent of income on housing costs), high cost burden (spending 41 to 50 percent of income on housing costs), and severe cost burden (spending 51

percent of income or higher on housing costs). The so-called “30 percent rule” is a standard threshold level of housing cost burden that can be traced to the Brooke Amendment to the 1968

Housing and Community Development Act. Because HCV recipients are required to spend no more than 40 percent of income on housing on lease up, we use the 40-percent threshold to define a second housing cost burden threshold. The 50-percent threshold corresponds to HUD’s definition of severe cost burden in its  Worst Case Housing Needs reports. Households with zero income, those that receive project-based vouchers, and those that receive HCVs from Moving to Work PHAs are excluded from the analyses. Appendix table A1 displays the number of HCV

households included and excluded from the analyses.

4

Findings

The discussion of research findings is organized according to seven specific research questions.

The first three questions are addressed using the cross-sectional household-level files for each year between 2003 and 2015, with some analyses emphasizing only the cross-sectional file for the most recent year (2015). To address the fourth question, we rely on a subset of households from the cross-sectional files that exited the program between 2003 and 2015. The final three research questions are addressed using the two longitudinal files of households that leased up in 2003 and 2008.

How has the prevalence of housing cost burden changed over time?

To address this question, we calculate housing cost burden for each year (2003 through 2015) for each of the housing cost burden categories defined in the previous section. Figure 1 displays, for each year, the total number of HCV households spending 30 percent or less of their income on rent, 31 percent or more of income on rent, between 31 and 40 percent of income on rent, between 41 and 50 percent of income on rent, 51 percent or more of income on rent, and the total number of households. Figure 2 displays the percentage of households falling into each of these housing cost burden categories by year. (The tables used to construct each of these and subsequent figures are provided in the appendix).

Although the total number of HCV-assisted households remained essentially flat during the 2003-to-2015 period (see appendix table A2), the number of cost-burdened HCV households has increased 52 percent from 517,665 in 2003 to 786,958 in 2015 (The number of cost-burdened households reached a high of 811,315 in 2014 but fell slightly in 2015). As a share of total HCV

households in each year, those experiencing any level of cost burden increased by 13 percentage points, those experiencing moderate cost burdens increased by 7 percentage points, those experiencing high cost burdens increased by 3 percentage points, and those experiencing severe cost burdens increased by 4 percentage points.

The year-to-year change in housing cost burden roughly corresponds to the recent housing market boom-and-bust cycle and subsequent economic depression. The share of HCV households experiencing housing cost burdens rose to a peak of 46 percent of households in 2006, with a steady decline during the housing bust period. As the housing market began to recover, the share of cost-burdened HCV households rose again, to a higher peak of 48 percent in 2014.

These trends likely reflect larger housing market dynamics. Rental prices peaked in 2007, steadily declined from 2007 through 2010, and have risen since (JCHS, 2016). DiPasquale and Murray (2017) found that between 1970 and 2010, incomes fell for renters in all but the highest income quintile. Between 2000 and 2010, incomes for renters in the lowest income quintile fluctuated, falling by 12 percent between 2000 and 2005, rising by 7 percent between 2005 and 2008, and falling again by 6 percent between 2008 and 2010. These larger trends roughly correspond to the housing cost burden trends displayed in figures 1 and 2, suggesting that increased rental affordability temporarily lowered housing cost burdens for HCV households during the housing bust.

5

Figure 1. HCV Households by Extent of Housing Cost Burden, 2003–2015

1,200,000

1,000,000

lds 800,000

eho

ous

CV H 600,000

f Hr obe 400,000

Num

200,000

0

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Year

No cost burden (30% or Less)

Cost burden (31% or More)

Moderate cost burden (31% - 40%)

High cost burden (41% - 50%)

Severe cost burden (51% or more)

HCV = Housing Choice Voucher.

Figure 2. Proportion of HCV Households With Specified Housing Cost Burden, 2003–2015

100%

90%

80%

Severe cost burden

(51% or more)

70%

ds 60%

High cost burden

(41% - 50%)

seholou 50%

CV H

Moderate cost

H of

burden (31% - 40%)

40%

%

30%

No cost burden

(30% or Less)

20%

10%

0%

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Year

HCV = Housing Choice Voucher.

6

What factors are associated with the prevalence of housing cost burden in the HCV

program? Has the prevalence of more severe housing cost burdens changed over time across different locations and types of HCV households?

To address these questions, we classify households experiencing various housing cost burden levels into the following categories:

•  Household characteristics (length of program participation, household size, female-headed household status, elderly status of household head, disability status of household head, presence of children, TTP relative to the HUD minimum rent threshold ($50), household income, source of income, race, and ethnicity).

•  Housing unit type (number of bedrooms, structure type, year built).

•  Geography (U.S. Census region; metropolitan and rural location; central city, suburb, or rural location; census tract poverty rate; census tract minority (non-White) percentage; census tract vacancy rate; and census tract median rent).

Tables 1 through 3 display, for those households participating in the HCV program in the most recent year (2015), the total number of HCV households, total number experiencing any cost burden, and total number experiencing a severe cost burden, along with corresponding row and column percentages.

Tables A4 through A9 in the appendix display trends in the “Row percent” column (percentage of households within a given category that are cost burdened or severely cost burdened) across years. Figures 3 through 9 graphically display selected trends from tables A4 through A9 that differ significantly from the cross-sectional findings displayed in tables 1 through 3. We begin with a discussion of the prevalence of housing cost burdens and severe housing cost burdens by various household characteristics.

We might expect those with shorter HCV program durations to be more likely to rely on HCV

assistance to address temporary conditions of housing instability, perhaps induced by short-term job loss or changes in family status compared with long-term program participants who may be more heavily dependent on housing assistance to cover rent payments. As displayed in table 1, the length of program participation has little relation to the prevalence of any housing cost burden, but those with longer program durations are more likely to exhibit severe cost burdens.

In 2015, participants who had been in the HCV program for 10 years or longer were more than twice as likely to exhibit a severe cost burden than those who had been in the program for less than 1 year.

7

Table 1. HCV Households by Household Characteristics and Severity of Housing Cost Burden, 2015

Total HCV

Any Cost Burden

Severe Cost Burden

Households

(31% or More)

(51% or More)

Number

Column

Column

Column

%

Number  Row

%

%

Number  Row

%

%

1,728,756

786,958

46

144,402

8

Le  ngth of HCV program participation

< 1 year

273,747

16

124,040    45

16

12,783

5

9

1–4.9 years

404,783

23

182,949

45

23

31,310

8

22

5–9.9 years

472,076

27

217,149

46

28

42,417

9

29

10 years or more

577,939

33

262,707

45

33

57,869

10

40

Household size

1 member

704,952

41

322,973    46

41

51,493

7

36

2 members

362,151

21

178,586

49

23

35,242

10

24

3 members

286,987

17

130,676

46

17

27,460

10

19

4 members

195,379

11

83,422

43

11

17,805

9

12

5 or more members

179,287

10

71,301

40

9

12,402

7

9

Presence of children

No children

937,003

54

431,441    46

55

70,532

8

49

Children

791,753

46

355,517

45

45

73,870

9

51

Household head gender

Male

330,182

19

135,650    41

17

17,868

5

12

Female

1,398,519

81

651,272

47

83

126,522

9

88

Household head age

Nonelderly

1,332,946

77

623,043    47

79

124,544

9

86

Elderly

395,810

23

163,915

41

21

19,858

5

14

Household head disability status

Nondisabled

1,234,653

71

558,666    45

71

116,908

9

81

Disabled

494,103

29

228,292

46

29

27,494

6

19

Income

$5,000 or less

161,699

9

105,101    65

13

64,256    40

44

$5,001–$10,000

503,440

29

223,834

44

28

44,896

9

31

$10,001–$15,000

453,546

26

196,352

43

25

23,462

5

16

More than $15,000

610,071

35

261,671

43

33

11,788

2

8

Income (as percent of AMI)

10% or less

196,882

11

120,295    61

15

70,873    36

49

11–30%

1,053,181

61

452,725

43

58

67,702

6

47

31–50%

392,432

23

178,963

46

23

5,436

1

4

51–80%

78,384

5

33,523

43

4

258

0

0

More than 80%

5,512

0

778

14

0

3

0

0

Primary source of income

Wages

523,356

30

226,586    43

29

25,138

5

17

Government

1,205,072

70

560,069

46

71

118,990

10

83

TTP

$50 or less

74,152

4

68,248    92

9

44,867    61

31

More than $50

1,654,604

96

718,710

43

91

99,535

6

69

Race/ethnicity

White, not Hispanic

584,128

34

256,052    44

33

34,228

6

24

Black, not Hispanic

778,144

45

377,683

49

48

77,107

10

53

Asian/Pacific Islands,

not Hispanic

40,776

2

16,874

41

2

3,740

9

3

Native American, not

Hispanic

11,131

1

4,863

44

1

821

7

1

More than one race,

not Hispanic

15,468

1

6,500

42

1

1,153

7

1

Hispanic, any race

297,856

17

124,517

42

16

27,276

9

19

AMI = Area Median Income. HCV = Housing Choice Voucher. TTP = total tenant payment.

8

As graphically displayed in figure 3, the relationship between length of program participation and severity of cost burden has changed over time. Until 2006, the length of program participation had little relation to the severity of cost burden, but afterwards, participants who had been in the program for longer periods of time were more likely to experience severe cost burdens, particularly after 2011. These trends likely reflect the combination of program rules and household choices to consume slightly more expensive housing on initial lease up. If households spend up to the program limit of 40 percent of income in their first HCV-subsidized home and rents rise over time or household incomes fall, the incidence of severe cost burden would rise, particularly for participants who stay in the program but do not move to less expensive housing.

Figure 3. Prevalence of Severe Housing Cost Burden by Length of Program Participation, 2003–2015

12%

11%

10%

9%

8%

ds

7%

seholou 6%

CV H 5%

H of% 4%

3%

2%

1%

0%

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Year

< 1 year in HCV program

1 - 4.9 years in HCV program

5 - 9.9 years in HCV program

10 years or more in HCV program

HCV = Housing Choice Voucher.

We may also expect housing cost burden to vary with household size and the presence of children, because larger families may require larger, more expensive homes. Table 1 does not fully support this conjecture, as smaller households are slightly more likely to experience a housing cost burden, and moderately sized households (two to three persons) are the most likely household size group to experience a severe housing cost burden. Figure 4 suggests that this relationship has changed over time. Until about 2011, single-person households were less likely than larger households to exhibit severe housing cost burdens. Afterwards, the relationship still holds, but four-person households became less likely to experience a severe housing cost burden as compared with other household size groups. Regarding the influence of various demographic 9

characteristics, households headed by females, nonelderly persons, non-Hispanic Black persons, and persons without a disability are more likely to exhibit severe housing cost burdens. These demographic differences generally held across the entire analysis period.

Figure 4. Prevalence of Severe Housing Cost Burden by Household Size, 2003–2015

12%

11%

10%

9%

8%

ds

7%

seholou 6%

CV H H 5%

of% 4%

3%

2%

1%

0%

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Year

1 household member

2 household members

3 household members

4 household members

5 or more household members

HCV = Housing Choice Voucher.

The higher incidence of severe housing cost burden among households headed by nondisabled persons is somewhat unexpected, given evidence that those with disabilities often face more severe constraints in the housing market (Souza et al., 2011). In 2015, approximately 29 percent of households in the sample are headed by those with a disability. It is possible that households with disabled heads rely on more steady income support streams, even if fixed, and live in units that are not as likely to increase in price. This finding deserves further exploration in future research.

Table 1 points to significant differences in cost burden by income, with lower income households exhibiting much higher cost burdens. As of 2015, the majority of HCV households in the sample (61 percent) had incomes between 11 and 30 percent of AMI. 11 percent had incomes less than 10 percent of AMI, and the remainder had incomes more than 30 percent of AMI.

Among those with incomes less than 10 percent of AMI, 61 percent experienced a housing cost burden, and 36 percent experienced a severe housing cost burden. Also, among those earning $5,000 or less, 65 percent experienced a housing cost burden, and 40 percent experienced a severe housing cost burden.

10

Figure 5 examines the prevalence of severe housing cost burden by income over time. The gap in severe housing cost burdens between those with incomes of 10 percent or less of AMI and those with incomes of more than 80 percent of AMI has grown over time, from 35 percentage points in 2003 to 47 percentage points in 2015. It is notable that in all years but 2003, more than 20

percent of those with incomes of 10 percent or less of AMI experienced cost burdens of 51

percent or higher, a level of cost burden that is inconsistent with HCV program rules.

Figure 5. Prevalence of Severe Housing Cost Burden by Income as a Percentage of AMI, 2003–2015

40%

35%

30%

ds 25%

seholou 20%

CV H H 15%

of%

10%

5%

0%

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Year

Income 10% or less AMI

Income 11% - 30% AMI

Income 31% - 50% AMI

Income 51% - 80% AMI

Income more than 80% AMI

AMI = Area Median Income. HCV = Housing Choice Voucher.

Table 1 also suggests that households relying on government sources of income are more likely to exhibit cost burdens and severe cost burdens (households are classified into a given income source category if 50 percent or more of income is attributable to that source). Although government sources of income may be more stable than income from wages, these findings suggest that government transfer payments are inadequate to offset rising rents.

Table 2 displays the prevalence of housing cost burden and severe housing cost burden by various structural characteristics of the housing units where HCV households reside. Although HAPs are adjusted for family size and number of bedrooms, households may choose to consume larger homes than their HAP is designed to cover. Likewise, rents may be proportionately higher for multifamily apartments with more bedrooms if the supply of homes large enough to 11

accommodate large families is limited. We find that the prevalence of housing cost burdens and severe housing cost burdens is highest among those living in larger single-family homes. We do not find a significant relationship between cost burden and age of the structure, although those living in the oldest housing units (100 years or older) exhibit lower cost burdens than those living in newer housing units.

Table 2. HCV Households by Housing Unit Characteristics and Severity of Housing Cost Burden, 2015

Total HCV

Any Cost Burden

Severe Cost Burden

Households

(31% or More)

(51% or More)

Number

Column

Column

Column

%

Number

Row

%

%

Number  Row

%

%

1,728,756

786,958

46

144,402

8

N

umber of bedrooms

0 bedrooms

26,853

2    7,386

28

1    1,369

5

1

1 bedroom

463,328

27  172,835

37

22

18,161

4

13

2 bedrooms

628,606

36  312,808

50

40

52,521

8

36

3 bedrooms

490,954

28  234,493

48

30

57,615

12

40

4 or more bedrooms

119,015

7

59,436

50

8

14,736

12

10

Structure type

Single-family

1,008,653

58  501,260

50

64

98,378

10

68

Multifamily

635,699

37  254,939

40

32

40,286

6

28

Other (mfg. home)

84,403

5

30,758

36

4

5,737

7

4

Years since home built

< 10 years

137,616

8    61,701

45

8

9,586

7

7

10–19.9 years

240,674

14  110,503

46

14

19,231

8

13

20–29.9 years

156,572

9

75,742

48

10

14,417

9

10

30–39.9 years

263,809

15  125,476

48

16

23,534

9

16

40–49.9 years

267,814

15  117,552

44

15

21,155

8

15

50–99.9 years

529,898

31  243,112

46

31

46,704

9

32

100 years or more

131,933

8

52,681

40

7

9,738

7

7

HCV = Housing Choice Voucher.

Figure 6 suggests that the prevalence of severe housing cost burden by structure type has varied over time. In all years between 2003 and 2015, those living in single-family homes have consistently been more likely to exhibit severe housing cost burdens, even though the percentage of HCV households living in single-family homes has declined from 64 percent in 2003 to 58

percent in 2015. Over the same period, the percentage of households living in multifamily homes increased from 33 to 37 percent, and the percentage living in other housing types has increased from 3 to 5 percent.

Even though very few HCV households live in other housing types (primarily manufactured housing), the prevalence of severe housing cost burden among these households has declined since 2005. It is possible that these trends reflect changing dynamics in the affordability of manufactured homes available for rent by HCV households. This trend deserves further exploration in future research.

12

Figure 6. Prevalence of Severe Housing Cost Burden by Structure Type, 2003–2015

14%

12%

10%

ds

seholou 8%

CV H H of 6%

%

4%

2%

0%

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Year

Single-family

Multifamily

Other (mfg. home)

HCV = Housing Choice Voucher.

Table 3 displays the prevalence of housing cost burden and severe housing cost burden by various geographic characteristics. Housing cost burdens are most prevalent in the South and least prevalent in the Northeast. Many large manufacturing centers in the Northeast have been slow to recover from the recent housing market crisis, so housing prices in these areas are likely lower than in the South, which has been quick to recover.

Table 3 also examines differences in the severity of cost burden across central city, suburban, and rural areas. Metropolitan areas are defined as Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs), including metropolitan and micropolitan areas. Central cities include the CBSAs’ principal cities, suburbs include all portions of the metropolitan area that are outside of central cities, and rural areas include all areas that are outside of metropolitan areas. Those living in metropolitan areas were slightly more likely to experience severe housing cost burdens in 2015. Within metropolitan areas, those living in the suburbs were slightly more likely to exhibit severe housing cost burdens than those living in central cities.

13

Table 3. HCV Households by Geographic Characteristics and Severity of Housing Cost Burden, 2015

Total HCV

Any Cost Burden

Severe Cost Burden

Households

(31% or More)

(51% or More)

Number  Column

Column

Column

%

Number  Row

%

%

Number  Row

%

%

H

CV   households

1,728,756

786,958

46

144,402

8

Ge

ography

Region

Northeast

421,878

25

161,529

38

21

28,698

7

20

Midwest

324,082

19

156,247

48

20

23,884

7

17

South

583,601

34

291,899

50

38

56,207

10

40

West

374,377

22

168,083

45

22

31,324

8

22

Metropolitan

Metropolitan

1,527,645

88

695,150

46

88

132,278

9

92

Nonmetropolitan/

rural

201,111

12

91,808

46

12

12,124

6

8

Central city

Central city

738,361

43

337,032

46

43

60,294

8

42

Suburb

920,865

53

418,899

45

53

79,795

9

55

Rural

69,530

4

31,027

45

4

4,313

6

3

C

ens us tract characteristics

Median rent per month

Less than $400

14,696

1

5,846

40

1

1,804

12

1

$400–$800

709,735

41

318,074

45

41

50,788

7

35

More than $800

995,830

58

459,584

46

59

90,889

9

63

Vacancy rate

Less than 5%

316,022

18

143,037

45

18

26,743

8

19

5–8%

334,416

19

153,315

46

20

27,775

8

19

Greater than 8%

1,071,973

62

488,268

46

62

89,259

8

62

Poverty rate

10% or less

336,225

20

161,971

48

21

28,365

8

20

11–20%

552,868

32

257,325

47

33

44,196

8

31

More than 20%

833,742

48

365,409

44

47

71,234

9

50

Minority percentage

20% or less

365,094

21

166,167

46

21

21,168

6

15

20–40%

300,062

17

140,054

47

18

21,593

7

15

More than 40%

1,057,701

61

478,489

45

61

101,037

10

70

HCV = Housing Choice Voucher.

Figure 7 suggests that the differences in severity of cost burden across central city, suburban, and rural areas have fluctuated over time. During the housing boom, rural areas saw the highest housing cost burdens. When the national housing market and economy fell into decline, cost burdens fell in all areas, but as the housing market began to recover, severe cost burdens rose again in metropolitan areas, due primarily to the relative increase in housing cost burdens within suburban areas. The geographic mobility of HCV households may have also played a role in shaping these trends, as HCV households increasingly suburbanized over the analysis period.

Between 2003 and 2015, the proportion of HCV households living in central cities declined from 53 percent to 43 percent; the proportion living in suburban areas increased from 33 percent to 53

percent; and the proportion living in rural areas declined from 14 to 4 percent.

14

Figure 7. Prevalence of Severe Housing Cost Burden by Central City, Suburb, or Rural Location, 2003–2015

12%

10%

ds 8%

seholou

CV H 6%

H of%

4%

2%

0%

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Year

Central City

Suburb

Rural

HCV = Housing Choice Voucher.

We also examined the severity of housing cost burden by various characteristics of the census tracts where HCV households reside. The thresholds used to define breakpoints for each census tract category are based on McClure (2005), who examined similar census tract characteristics for the 2000-to-2002 period, just prior to our analysis period. Table 3 suggests that housing cost burden varies according to census tract characteristics, and the relationships differ by severity of cost burden. Households living in census tracts with higher median rents, lower poverty rates, and a smaller percentage of minority residents were more likely to exhibit housing cost burdens.

Households exhibiting severe cost burdens were more likely to live in census tracts with low median rents and a high percentage of minority residents.

Figures 8 and 9 examine trends in severe housing cost burden by median rents and census tract minority percentage. Across all years, households living in census tracts with the lowest median rents were the most likely to exhibit severe cost burdens, although the gap between the most expensive and least expensive census tracts has narrowed since 2006. Until 2005, the differences in prevalence of severe housing cost burden by census tract minority percentage were small, but over time, those living in census tracts with a larger minority percentage have become increasingly more likely to experience severe cost burdens, and the differences in severe cost burden between neighborhoods with low and high minority percentages have increased over time. The next section explores these findings in more detail.

15

Figure 8. Prevalence of Severe Housing Cost Burden by Census Tract Median Rent, 2003–2015

14%

12%

10%

ds

sehol 8%

ou

CV H H 6%

of%

4%

2%

0%

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Year

Tract median rent below $400 per month

Tract median rent $400 to $800 per month

Tract median rent above $800 per month

HCV = Housing Choice Voucher.

Figure 9. Prevalence of Severe Housing Cost Burden by Census Tract Minority Percentage, 2003–2015

14%

12%

10%

ds

sehol 8%

ou

CV H H 6%

of%

4%

2%

0%

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Year

Tract minority % 20 or less

Tract minority % between 20 and 40

Tract minority % more than 40

HCV = Housing Choice Voucher.

16

What factors increase the odds of a HCV household experiencing housing cost burden?

The analysis in the previous section examined the influence of each household, housing unit, and geographic factor on the prevalence of housing cost burden in isolation. It is more useful to examine the marginal contribution of each of these factors while simultaneously controlling for the influence of other factors. To address this issue, we estimate two logistic regression models.

Logistic regressions are models that are used to explain the factors associated with outcomes that are binary in nature. We estimate models that account for the factors associated with being cost-burdened or not and models that account for the factors associated with being severely cost-burdened or not. Independent variables for these models include the various household, housing unit, and geographic factors used to address research question 2. We estimate these models for the most recent period for which data are available (2015). Appendix table A10 provides a description of the variables used in the regression model. We begin with a discussion of the logistic regression coefficients displayed in table 4.

We find that the length of program participation is negatively associated with the odds of having any cost burden but positively associated with the odds of having a severe housing cost burden.

These effects are small and generally consistent with the descriptive evidence presented in the previous section. Households most likely to suffer housing cost burdens include those without children, those headed by females, those with nonelderly household heads, those without disabled household heads, those headed by non-White household heads, those headed by Hispanic household heads, those dependent on government sources of income, and those earning lower incomes. Households earning the lowest incomes (10 percent or less of AMI) are 1.4 times as likely to experience a housing cost burden and 3.9 times as likely to experience a severe housing cost burden as those earning 51 to 80 percent of AMI.

Consistent with the descriptive evidence examined in the previous section, households living in larger single-family units are more likely to experience a housing cost burden. The effect of the number of bedrooms on the odds of a severe housing cost burden is 1.8 times greater than the effect of number of bedrooms on the odds of any housing cost burden. Although households living in newer units are more likely to experience housing cost burdens, the magnitude of this effect is small compared with the effect of other housing unit characteristics. These findings should be confirmed with additional research that examines HCV use in different housing types.

We also find evidence of significant geographic variation in the odds of experiencing a housing cost burden. Consistent with the evidence presented in the previous section, households living in the South are more likely to experience a housing cost burden than those living in other regions.

In contrast to the evidence in the previous section, households living in central cities are more likely to experience a housing cost burden, compared with those living in suburban areas. The evidence presented in table 4 also suggests that the influence of census tract characteristics on housing cost burden changes when controlling for other determinants of housing cost burden. We find that households living in census tracts with higher median rents, lower vacancy rates, and lower poverty rates are more likely to experience a housing cost burden, although these census tract-level effects are small compared to the influence of other factors.

17

Table 4. Factors Associated With the Odds of Any Housing Cost Burden and Severe Housing Cost Burden, 2015 (Base Model)

Category/Explanatory Variable

Any Cost Burden

Severe Cost Burden

Household characteristics

Length of participation

– 0.000**  *

0.000**  *

Household size

– 0.281***

– 0.448***

Children

– 0.211***

– 0.221***

Female

0.117***

0.172***

Elderly

– 0.268***

– 0.622***

Disabled

– 0.086***

– 0.481***

Income at 10% or less than AMI

2.298***

7.028***

Income at 11–30% of AMI

1.644***

5.033***

Income at 31–50% of AMI

1.744***

3.440***

Income at 51–80% of AMI

1.596***

1.806***

Primarily wage

– 0.145***

– 0.376***

Non-White

0.079***

0.087***

Hispanic

0.041***

0.137***

Housing unit type

Bedroom

0.456**  *

0.817**  *

Single-family

0.338***

0.300***

Building age

– 0.000***

– 0.000***

Geography

Midwest

0.333**  *

0.170**  *

South

0.391***

0.394***

West

0.227***

0.219***

Central city

0.114***

0.120***

Suburb

0.029***

– 0.060***

Neighborhood characteristics

Tract median rent

0.000**  *

0.001**  *

Tract vacancy

– 0.005***

– 0.006***

Tract poverty

– 0.004***

– 0.003***

Tract minority

– 0.001***

0.002***

Constant

– 2.648***

– 9.537***

N

umber of observations

1,697,242

1,697,242

Wald chi-square

88,679.65***

183,413.74***

Pseudo  R 2

0.044

0.234

***  p < 0.01. **  p < 0.05. *  p < 0.1.

AMI = Area Median Income.

Notes: Income more than 80% of AMI is omitted. Northeast is omitted. Rural is omitted.

Estimates of the impact of census tract minority percentage are comparable to those discussed in the previous section. In the descriptive analysis, census tract percentage of minority residents was not clearly related to the prevalence of any cost burden, but census tracts with a larger minority 18

percentage had a higher prevalence of severe cost burden, and the differences in severe cost burden between neighborhoods with low and high minority percentages have increased over time.

Taken together, the evidence suggests that some household characteristics, particularly race and income, possibly interact in more complex ways with geographic characteristics to shape housing cost burdens. For example, the housing cost burdens of non-White households living in neighborhoods with higher non-White percentages may reflect the influence of racial segregation on non-White households’ housing options. To examine this conjecture, we examine the interaction between income, race, and census tract characteristics in table 5.

Table 5 suggests that residential segregation by race and income has an impact on the prevalence and severity of housing cost burden. Among non-White persons with the lowest household incomes (income 10 percent or less of AMI), higher census tract poverty rates do not significantly reduce cost burden despite the lower housing prices found in high-poverty areas. For non-White persons earning higher incomes, living in a high-poverty census tract lowers housing cost burden, and the magnitude of this effect increases with household income.

This finding is expected, because higher income households face a potentially larger housing cost savings from living in neighborhoods likely to exhibit lower housing costs.

We also find that higher income non-White persons are more likely than White persons to experience a cost burden when living in census tracts with a higher percentage of non-White residents. The impact of census tract median rents on the cost burden experienced by non-White households is statistically significant in most models, but the magnitude of this effect is very small.

Taken together, these findings suggest that reductions in residential segregation by race and income segregation may improve housing affordability for HCV households, even if local rents change in response to household mobility. These results should be confirmed by a general equilibrium analysis that examines the simultaneous interaction among housing supply, household demand, and household mobility.

What are the income and cost burden levels of families at the time of their last recertification before exiting the program?

To address this question, we calculate the average housing cost burden upon entering and exiting the HCV program, for a subset of households from the cross-sectional files that exited the program between 2003 and 2015. As table 6 indicates, households’ cost burdens, income, and rent differ little from program entry to exit, although rent and incomes have increased slightly, and exit is associated with a slightly higher cost burden. In a separate analysis not discussed in this report, we also examined housing cost burden by income at the time of last recertification before exiting the program. That analysis revealed that 65 percent of households experiencing housing cost burdens at the time of exit had extremely low incomes, and 97 percent of households with severe housing cost burdens upon exit had extremely low incomes.

19

Table 5. Factors Associated With the Odds of Any Housing Cost Burden and Severe Housing Cost Burden, 2015 (Income, Race*Census Tract Characteristics Interactions) Category/Explanatory Variable

Any Cost

Severe Cost

Burden

Burden

Household characteristics

Length of participation

– 0.000***

0.000***

Household size

– 0.283***

– 0.449***

Children

– 0.208***

– 0.222***

Female

0.119***

0.178***

Elderly

– 0.264***

– 0.619***

Disabled

– 0.082***

– 0.466***

Income at 10% or less than AMI

2.235***

7.371***

Income at 11–30% of AMI

1.647***

5.314***

Income at 31–50% of AMI

1.739***

3.704***

Income at 51–80% of AMI

1.533***

2.129***

Primarily wage

– 0.144***

– 0.379***

Non-White

0.089***

0.477***

Hispanic

0.058***

0.116***

Housing unit type

Bedroom

0.457***

0.818***

Single-family

0.340***

0.305***

Building age

– 0.000***

– 0.000***

Geography

Midwest

0.337***

0.162***

South

0.395***

0.388***

West

0.230***

0.209***

Central city

0.125***

0.115***

Suburb

0.038***

– 0.062***

Neighborhood characteristics

Tract median rent

0.000***

0.001***

Tract vacancy

– 0.004***

– 0.004***

Tract poverty

– 0.002***

– 0.001***

Tract minority

– 0.002***

0.002***

Interaction terms (Race x income x neighborhood characteristics)

Non-White x income at 10% or less than AMI x tract median rent

– 0.000***

– 0.000***

Non-White x income at 10% or less than AMI x tract vacancy

0.014***

0.014***

Non-White X income at 10% or less than AMI x tract poverty

0.000

0.000

Non-White X income at 10% or less than AMI x tract minority

0.002***

– 0.003***

Non-White X income at 11–30% of AMI x tract median rent

0.000***

– 0.000***

Non-White X income at 11–30% of AMI x tract vacancy

– 0.004***

– 0.019***

Non-White X income at 11–30% of AMI x tract poverty

– 0.002***

– 0.005***

Non-White X income at 11–30% of AMI x tract minority

0.001***

0.002***

Non-White X income at 31–50% of AMI x tract median rent

0.000***

– 0.000*

Non-White X income at 31–50% of AMI x tract vacancy

– 0.005***

– 0.037***

Non-White X income at 31–50% of AMI x tract poverty

– 0.006***

– 0.014***

Non-White X income at 31–50% of AMI x tract minority

0.001***

0.006***

Non-White X income at 51–80% of AMI x tract median rent

0.000***

– 0.000

Non-White X income at 51–80% of AMI x tract vacancy

– 0.002

– 0.047***

Non-White X income at 51–80% of AMI x tract poverty

– 0.011***

– 0.022**

Non-White X income at 51–80% of AMI x tract minority

0.004***

0.010***

Constant

– 2.674***

– 10.019***

Number of observations

1,697,242

1,697,242

Wald chi-square

90,313.88***

181,904.79***

Pseudo  R 2

0.045

0.236

***  p < 0.01. **  p < 0.05. *  p < 0.1.

AMI = Area Median Income.

Notes: Income more than 80% of AMI is omitted. Northeast is omitted. Rural is omitted.

20

Table 6. Descriptive Statistics for Households Upon HCV Program Entry and Exit Number of households that received a voucher between 2003 and 2015

3,993,848

Number of households that exited the program between 2003 and 2015

1,964,144

Average length of program participation (years)

4.7

Average gross rent at beginning of the voucher contract ($)

864.41

Average income at beginning of the voucher contract ($)

13,359.82

Average cost burden at beginning of the voucher contract (%)

34.6%

Average gross rent at last recertification before program exit ($)

876.06

Average income at last recertification before program exit ($)

15,236.34

Average cost burden at last recertification before program exit ($)

35.2%

HCV = Housing Choice Voucher.

Tracking cohorts of voucher households over time, what was the duration of housing cost burden, and what were the potential causes of increased housing cost burden?

To address this research question and those that follow, we construct a longitudinal cohort-level file of HCV households that initially leased up in the year 2003 and track each household from this initial lease-up year until 2015 or exit from the program. We also construct a similar cohort-level file for HCV households that initially leased up in the year 2008 and track these households until 2015 or exit from the program. Two cohort years were chosen to determine if the dynamics of housing cost burden differ for those entering the program during the housing market upswing relative to the period immediately following the housing market bust. We construct a longitudinal file for households with multiple years of participation in the HCV program to examine how housing cost burdens have changed over time. To examine the duration and causes of increased housing cost burden (changes in income versus changes in rent), we examine tables that display, across different year-to-year periods, the percentage change in annual income versus the percentage change in gross rent, separately for households whose cost burden level increased (positive change in cost burden) and households whose cost burden level decreased (negative change in cost burden) over year-to-year periods.

Table 7 is based on the longitudinal cohort of HCV participants that initially leased up in 2003.

Shown in table 7 are percentage changes in gross rent and annual income for households experiencing different cost burden trajectories (positive versus negative changes in cost burden).

Households are further differentiated by their housing cost burden status at the end of each year.

Table 8 displays the same information for the longitudinal cohort of HCV participants that initially leased up in 2008. Rent and income were calculated in 2015 dollar values using CPI-U

city average series for all items, not seasonally adjusted, provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

21

Table 7. Percent Change in Housing Cost Burden for HCV Households by Change in Rent and Change in Income (Leased Up in 2003)

Year

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

HC

V households that leased up in 2003

153,500  129,272  113,266  100,383  90,786  82,077  76,456  71,630  66,734  62,750  58,986  55,423

Mean rent burden (%)

34.7

35.8

36.2

35.3

34.6

34.9

35.1

35.6

35.9

36.4

37.1

36.6

Mean gross rent ($)

1,007

1,013

1,027

1,047

1,053

1,091

1,096

1,087

1,083

1,085

1,084

1,100

Mean income ($)

13,324

13,732

14,120

14,444  14,286  14,620  14,416  14,017  13,982  14,110  14,178  14,627

HCV households that reduced rent burden

63,642

43,854

44,781

47,751  44,594  35,941  28,260  25,227  27,501  27,145  25,051  24,525

Change in rent burden (%)

– 6.3

– 8.4

– 9.5

– 10.1

– 8.3

– 7.0

– 8.4

– 8.5

– 7.2

– 7.2

– 7.3

– 9.9

Change in gross rent (%)

– 1.0

– 2.5

– 1.1

– 0.6

– 1.3

2.1

– 1.6

– 2.7

– 2.1

– 1.4

– 1.6

– 0.3

Change in income (%)

110.3

138.0

134.4

150.6

114.0

139.5

174.4

68.6

45.7

99.5

90.0

202.8

No rent burden

45,660

29,319

30,600

32,216  32,561  26,352  18,879  16,635  17,889  17,890  16,019  14,511

Change in rent burden (%)

– 5.2

– 6.5

– 7.2

– 8.0

– 6.1

– 4.9

– 6.2

– 6.3

– 5.0

– 5.3

– 5.0

– 7.5

Change in gross rent (%)

– 0.8

– 2.5

– 1.0

– 0.5

– 1.1

2.4

– 1.2

– 2.5

– 1.8

– 1.0

– 1.2

0.0

Change in income (%)

122.8

108.7

115.9

179.4

94.3

79.5

190.1

85.3

47.9

90.7

56.7

247.0

Rent burden

17,982

14,535

14,181

15,535  12,033

9,589

9,381

8,592

9,612

9,255

9,032  10,014

Change in rent burden (%)

– 9.2

– 12.2

– 14.4

– 14.5  – 14.2

– 12.8  – 12.9  – 12.6  – 11.4  – 11.0  – 11.3  – 13.5

Change in gross rent (%)

– 1.4

– 2.5

– 1.2

– 0.8

– 1.8

1.4

– 2.3

– 3.3

– 2.7

– 2.0

– 2.2

– 0.9

Change in income (%)

78.5

197.2

174.2

90.9

167.3

304.4

142.9

36.3

41.8

116.4

149.0

138.7

Severe rent burden

736

1,034

1,182

1,336

1,125

912

906

973

1,104

1,130

1,206

1,298

Change in rent burden (%)

– 17.2

– 16.5

– 16.6

– 15.9  – 15.9

– 14.5  – 14.9  – 14.7  – 12.6  – 12.4  – 12.5  – 14.7

Change in gross rent (%)

– 0.3

– 2.3

– 0.9

0.4

1.0

2.0

– 1.6

– 2.9

– 1.8

– 1.5

– 1.9

– 1.1

Change in income (%)

163.2

97.2

372.1

41.2

156.4  1,055.0

34.1

43.3

35.0

57.0

66.6

790.3

HCV households that increased rent burden

63,105

54,247

41,944

33,341  28,978  30,597  28,635  26,856  29,225  26,084  25,579  22,894

Change in rent burden (%)

16.0

17.4

19.5

16.5

14.5

14.5

15.3

15.9

13.4

15.0

16.0

13.7

Change in gross rent (%)

2.9

3.0

5.3

8.1

4.3

7.1

2.3

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.1

3.0

Change in income (%)

7.7

6.5

6.8

5.0

3.0

7.2

1.6

0.6

3.4

2.7

3.0

4.4

No rent burden

28,839

24,148

15,446

15,841  14,860  15,275  14,234  11,587  14,872  11,899  10,521  11,239

Change in rent burden (%)

0.3

0.9

1.0

1.4

0.7

0.5

0.7

0.2

0.8

0.2

0.3

0.2

Change in gross rent (%)

0.5

1.4

3.8

4.5

1.8

4.4

0.8

– 1.1

– 0.3

– 0.1

0.0

1.4

Change in income (%)

16.8

13.0

14.0

12.2

9.5

13.9

8.3

9.8

11.1

9.1

9.2

11.9

Rent burden

34,266

30,099

26,498

17,500  14,118  15,322  14,401  15,269  14,353  14,185  15,058  11,655

Change in rent burden (%)

29.1

30.6

30.3

30.1

29.0

28.6

29.7

27.9

26.5

27.5

27.0

26.7

Change in gross rent (%)

4.9

4.2

6.2

11.4

7.0

9.7

3.9

2.1

2.4

2.3

1.9

4.5

Change in income (%)

0.0

1.3

2.5

– 1.4

– 3.9

0.6

– 5.1

– 6.4

– 4.5

– 2.7

– 1.3

– 2.8

Severe rent burden

6,185

5,793

5,403

3,803

2,830

2,962

3,085

3,288

3,087

3,273

3,512

2,687

Change in rent burden (%)

97.3

89.7

82.0

78.9

82.3

83.4

87.0

76.7

73.0

69.8

69.8

69.1

Change in gross rent (%)

4.4

2.2

3.9

6.1

4.7

7.6

2.0

0.4

1.5

1.0

0.9

2.9

Change in income (%)

– 32.1

– 23.8

– 22.2

– 28.0  – 31.5

– 26.5  – 25.9  – 26.2  – 26.5  – 19.9  – 20.7  – 23.4

HCV = Housing Choice Voucher.

22

Table 8. Percent Change in Housing Cost Burden for HCV Households by Change in Rent and Change in Income (Leased Up in 2008) Year

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

HCV households that leased up in 2008

145,861

128,713

115,139

103,651

94,974

87,304

80,201

Mean rent burden (%)

34.8

35.1

35.6

35.8

36.1

36.8

36.2

Mean gross rent ($)

967

986

989

993

1,001

1,005

1,025

Mean income ($)

13,273

13,257

13,060

13,181

13,423

13,562

14,057

HCV households that reduced rent burden

65,619

48,858

41,371

42,736

41,960

36,407

35,809

Change in rent burden (%)

– 7.0

– 9.1

– 9.0

– 8.0

– 7.8

– 7.6

– 9.8

Change in gross rent (%)

2.2

– 1.4

– 2.5

– 1.9

– 1.1

– 1.5

– 0.1

Change in income (%)

98.9

111.2

112.1

144.4

36.7

196.3

471.0

No rent burden

46,762

32,322

27,163

27,371

28,041

23,548

21,752

Change in rent burden (%)

– 5.8

– 7.3

– 7.1

– 6.0

– 5.9

– 5.4

– 7.5

Change in gross rent (%)

2.3

– 1.2

– 2.3

– 1.6

– 0.8

– 1.1

0.3

Change in income (%)

91.6

145.4

123.2

143.7

31.0

191.9

226.1

Rent burden

18,857

16,536

14,208

15,365

13,919

12,859

14,057

Change in rent burden (%)

– 9.9

– 12.6

– 12.7

– 11.5

– 11.7

– 11.5

– 13.4

Change in gross rent (%)

1.8

– 1.8

– 2.8

– 2.4

– 1.6

– 2.1

– 0.7

Change in income (%)

116.9

44.6

90.9

145.7

48.3

204.2

850.1

Severe rent burden

623

1,026

1,154

1,346

1,368

1,348

1,523

Change in rent burden (%)

– 16.9

– 16.7

– 16.7

– 14.7

– 14.2

– 13.1

– 15.2

Change in gross rent (%)

3.0

– 1.4

– 2.0

– 1.8

– 1.4

– 1.5

– 0.9

Change in income (%)

447.6

128.9

42.4

357.3

50.4

56.0

784.5

HCV households that increased rent burden

57,583

48,008

44,296

44,607

38,470

38,232

32,733

Change in rent burden (%)

16.9

16.9

17.7

14.5

15.7

16.0

13.6

Change in gross rent (%)

5.7

3.0

1.5

1.1

1.6

1.2

3.2

Change in income (%)

7.2

3.0

0.8

2.4

2.7

2.1

5.3

No rent burden

25,842

22,003

17,907

21,817

17,068

15,906

15,698

Change in rent burden (%)

0.2

0.9

0.7

1.0

0.3

0.2

0.3

Change in gross rent (%)

3.4

1.2

– 0.1

– 0.4

0.2

0.0

1.7

Change in income (%)

16.9

12.2

10.8

9.4

10.6

9.8

12.9

Rent burden

31,741

26,005

26,389

22,790

21,402

22,326

17,035

Change in rent burden (%)

30.5

30.5

29.2

27.4

27.9

27.1

25.9

Change in gross rent (%)

7.6

4.5

2.6

2.5

2.7

2.0

4.6

Change in income (%)

– 0.8

– 4.8

– 5.9

– 4.2

– 3.6

– 3.5

– 1.7

Severe rent burden

5,892

5,071

5,275

4,550

4,525

4,836

3,592

Change in rent burden (%)

100.3

97.3

89.4

82.1

78.3

75.8

73.3

Change in gross rent (%)

6.1

3.1

1.4

1.5

1.4

1.0

3.0

Change in income (%)

– 36.3

– 31.8

– 30.6

– 30.3

– 24.8

– 23.8

– 26.1

HCV = Housing Choice Voucher.

23

Tables 7 and 8 reveal additional insights into the dynamics of housing cost burden. Across most periods, households that reduced their housing cost burden saw small percentage declines in rent along with much larger percentage increases in income. Note that between 2014 and 2015, households that saw reductions in rent burden saw an average income increase of more than 200

percent compared with rent declines of less than 1 percent. Comparatively, households that saw increases in rent burden experienced declines or small increases in income that were not large enough to offset proportionately larger increases in rent. Of particular importance, households that experienced increased housing cost burden and became or remained severely cost burdened at the end of each period experienced large decreases in income (more than 20 percent in every period) while also experiencing an increase in rent. These trends are roughly the same for those that entered the HCV program in 2008.

Taken together, tables 7 and 8 suggest that changes in income play a proportionately larger role than changes in rent in altering a household’s housing cost burden trajectory. This is an important finding, because it suggests that adjustments to HAPs on annual reexaminations may not be sufficiently keeping pace with changing housing cost burdens. This finding also suggests that housing options that also improve households’ access to employment prospects and earning potential can foster large gains in housing affordability, even if rents are higher in those locations, as long as tenant rent is not increased proportionally to rising income. This finding also suggests that policy arenas that typically lie outside the domain of housing, such as workforce development, can go a long way toward lowering housing cost burden for HCV

recipients.

Are there typical, longitudinal trajectories of housing cost burdens experienced by individual HCV households or clusters of households, and are such trajectories associated with length of program participation?

This analysis relies on the same 2003 and 2008 cohort files used to address research question 5.

For this analysis, we construct indicators of whether, in a given year, a household has moved since the previous year. This analysis enables us to compare the longitudinal trajectories of renters who remained in their existing dwellings with those of renters who moved from their initial dwelling. We also examine the trajectories since initial lease up of renters who exit the program. These files are used to calculate several descriptive statistics.

For all households, we calculate—

•  Average total duration (years).

•  Average duration in rent burden (years), separately for all households and households that have ever experienced a rent burden.

•  Average duration in severe rent burden (years), separately for all households and households that have ever experienced a rent burden.

•  Percentage that are rent burdened at beginning of the voucher contract.

•  Percentage that are severely rent burdened at beginning of the voucher contract.

•  Percentage that are rent burdened at least 1 year.

24

•  Percentage that are severely rent burdened at least 1 year.

•  Percentage that are rent burdened consecutively during the voucher contract.

•  Percentage that are severely rent burdened consecutively during the voucher contract.

For the subsample of households that exited the HCV program during the analysis period, we also calculate—

•  Percentage that are rent burdened at the time of last recertification before exiting the program.

•  Percentage that are severely rent burdened at the time of last recertification before exiting the program.

For the subsample of households that moved at least once during the analysis period, we also calculate—

•  Average number of moves.

•  Percentage that reduced rent burden upon mobility.

•  Percentage that reduced rent burden upon mobility and became not burdened.

•  Percentage that reduced severe rent burden upon mobility and became not burdened.

•  Percentage that reduced severe rent burden upon mobility and became burdened.

•  Percentage that increased rent burden upon mobility.

•  Percentage that became rent burdened upon mobility.

•  Percentage that became severely rent burdened upon mobility.

•  Percentage that increased rent burden upon mobility and became severely rent burdened.

Table 9 reports each of these longitudinal statistics for the two cohorts of HCV participants: households that initially leased a unit in 2003 and households that initially leased a unit in 2008.

We report separate statistics for households that exited the program before 2015 and households that moved from their initial residential location.

On average, households that initially leased a unit in 2003 participated in the HCV program for about 6 years. Households that leased up in 2008 participated for about 5 years, although this shorter duration likely reflects the shorter observational period for the 2008 cohort. Despite these differences, both cohorts exhibit an average rent-burden duration of about 2 years and spend less than 1 year on average in a severely cost-burdened state. Among the HCV households that have ever experienced any rent burden, those entering the program in 2003 spend an average of about 4 years in a rent-burdened state, and those entering the program in 2008 spend an average of about 3 years in a rent-burdened state.

25

Table 9. Longitudinal Statistics for HCV Households, 2003 and 2008 Cohorts

Leased  Leased

Category/Explanatory Variable

a Unit

a Unit

in 2003  in 2008

Al  HCV households

204,213  176,949

Average total duration (years)

6.3

5.3

Average duration in rent burden (years)

2.4

2.1

Average duration in rent burden (HCV households have ever experienced rent

burden only)

3.7

3.3

Average duration in severe rent burden (years)

0.4

0.3

Average duration in severe rent burden (HCV households have ever

experienced severe rent burden only)

2.1

1.9

Percent rent burdened at beginning of the voucher contract

37.3

39.6

Percent severely rent burdened at beginning of the voucher contract

3.1

3.0

Percent rent burdened at least 1 year

64.3

62.8

Percent severely rent burdened at least 1 year

18.0

16.3

Percent rent burdened consecutively during the voucher contract

16.4

17.3

Percent severely rent burdened consecutively during the voucher contract

0.9

0.7

Al  HCV households who exited the program

121,132

82,526

Average total duration (years)

4.5

3.4

Average duration in rent burden (years)

1.8

1.4

Average duration in rent burden (HCV households have ever experienced rent

burden only)

2.8

2.4

Average duration in severe rent burden (years)

0.3

0.2

Average duration in severe rent burden (HCV households have ever

experienced severe rent burden only)

1.7

1.5

Percent rent burdened at the time of last recertification before exiting the program

42.9

40.9

Percent severely rent burdened at the time of last recertification before exiting the program

6.2

5.8

Al  HCV households who moved since initial lease up

39,092

30,348

Average number of moves

1.4

1.3

Average total duration (years)

9.3

6.8

Average duration in rent burden (years)

3.7

2.9

Average duration in rent burden (HCV households have ever experienced rent

burden only)

4.4

3.6

Average duration in severe rent burden (years)

0.6

0.5

Average duration in severe rent burden (HCV households have ever

experienced severe rent burden only)

2.2

1.8

Percent who reduced rent burden upon mobility

42.5

42.2

Average change in income upon mobility ($)

1,026

990

Percent who reduced rent burden upon mobility and became not burdened

(burden ≥ no burden)

15.4

15.9

Percent who reduced severe rent burden upon mobility and became not

burdened (severe burden ≥ no burden)

2.3

2.4

Percent who reduced severe rent burden upon mobility and became

burdened (severe burden ≥ burden)

3.6

3.4

Percent who increased rent burden upon mobility

45.5

45.5

Average change in income upon mobility ($)

506

389

Percent who became rent burdened upon mobility (no burden ≥ burden)

21.8

21.4

Percent who became severely rent burdened upon mobility (no burden ≥

severe burden)

1.0

1.0

Percent who increased rent burden upon mobility and became severely

burdened (burden ≥ severe burden)

1.4

1.4

HCV = Housing Choice Voucher.

26

Although more than 60 percent of households experience no cost burden upon entering the HCV

program, a substantial share (37 percent in 2003 and 40 percent in 2008) experience some level of cost burden, and about 3 percent experience severe cost burdens. Because program rules preclude households from spending more than 40 percent of their income on rent at the time of lease up, this latter percentage suggests that either some PHAs are not adequately monitoring compliance with the program rules or some HCV households spend more on utilities beyond what their utility allowance covers.

Across most statistics, the differences between the 2003 and 2008 cohort are small, which suggests that overall housing market conditions had little influence on the trajectory of those entering the program at different points in the housing market cycle. Given this, the remainder of this discussion focuses on the 2003 cohort, for which we have data over a longer observational period. For these households, 64 percent experienced a cost burden of at least 1 year, and 16

percent experienced cost burdens throughout their duration of tenure in the HCV program.

Notably, 18 percent of households experienced at least 1 year of severe cost burden.

The middle portion of table 9 examines similar trajectories for households that exited the program to determine if length of program participation plays a role in the trajectories observed. Households that exit the HCV program tend to spend less time in a cost-burdened state, but, as a ratio of the total average duration spent in the program, those that exit spend about the same average proportion of time in a rent-burdened state as all HCV households (38 percent). Of those that exit the program, about 43 percent are cost burdened upon exiting the program, and 6 percent are severely cost burdened. This percentage is twice as high as the percentage of those that enter the program and incur a severe cost burden upon initially leasing a unit.

The bottom portion of table 9 describes various transitions between different levels of cost burden upon residential mobility. The most noteworthy finding is that, among the 39,092 (19

percent) of households that leased up in 2003 and moved at some point later in their HCV tenure, households were more likely to transition from not experiencing a cost burden to experiencing it upon mobility (22 percent), compared with initially experiencing a cost burden but no longer experiencing it upon mobility (15 percent). This finding suggests that households that move may be more likely to do so in order to occupy larger units or units in more expensive neighborhoods.

Again, income changes seem to play an important role in reducing housing cost burden upon mobility. Among households with rent burden that declined upon mobility, the average change in income was more than $1,000.

Do households accept high housing cost burdens to maintain stability in a unit?

Households may accept high rent burdens to live in high-amenity neighborhoods that are closer to work, particularly if few housing options in the surrounding housing market offer comparable amenities at a lower cost. To examine how households’ acceptance of higher cost burdens upon initial lease up influences their cost burden trajectories over time, while also examining the impact of housing options in the surrounding market, we calculate similar longitudinal statistics to those used to address question 6, emphasizing how households’ trajectories differ with respect to: (1) initially renting a unit above or below the local payment standard, (2) the Fair Market 27

Rent (FMR) for the surrounding area, and (3) the percentage of census tracts where HCV

households reside where median rents are above the FMR. Whereas the second variable controls for the average level of housing costs within the region, the third variable reflects the range of neighborhoods where HCV households can use their voucher without likely having to pay a rent that is higher than the payment standard. Due to the small number of census tracts in many rural counties, the second variable is calculated only for households living in U.S. metropolitan areas (Core Based Statistical Areas, including metropolitan and micropolitan areas).

To determine how households’ longitudinal trajectories are influenced by the decision to initially live in a more expensive housing unit, table 10 displays the same longitudinal information from the previous analysis, focusing on the comparison between households initially renting a unit above the payment standard and households initially renting a unit at or below the payment standard. Because no large differences emerged in findings between the 2003 and 2008 cohorts, table 10 focuses only on the 2003 cohort. Appendix table A11 displays comparable information for the 2008 cohort.

It is useful to further elaborate on the significance of the comparison between households renting units above and below the payment standard. If gross rent is equal to or lower than the payment standard, then rent burden is simply equal to total tenant payment divided by income. In this case, TTP is usually equal to 30 percent of a household’s adjusted monthly income, so the rent burden would be 30 percent or below in this case, regardless of the level of the payment standard. However, if rent increases at the same time that income declines, and after the change, rent becomes higher than the payment standard, HCV households might experience an increase in rent burden, because the HAP is not sufficient to reduce a household’s cost burden to 30

percent. If gross rent is higher than the payment standard, rent burden is equal to ([gross rent –

payment standard + TTP] / income). If rent increases and income declines, rent burden will always increase unless the payment standard is set higher than the newly increased rent. These relationships suggest that the level of the payment standard interacts with income and rent to jointly influence housing cost burden.

Approximately 36 percent (73,045) of households initially leasing a unit in 2003 leased a unit with a rent above the payment standard. Of these households, 95 percent were cost-burdened upon lease up, and 43 percent remained cost-burdened throughout the analysis period. By comparison, only 5 percent of households leasing a unit below the payment standard were cost-burdened upon lease up, and only 2 percent of these households experienced housing cost burden throughout the analysis period. Households leasing a unit above the payment standard also exhibited longer cost burden durations, were more likely to exhibit severe cost burdens, and were more likely to exhibit a cost burden upon exiting the program. Households initially living in in a high-cost unit were also more likely to exhibit a lower cost burden upon residential mobility. An interesting comparison is how initially living in high-cost versus low-cost units affects changes in cost burden state for households that move. Whereas households living in low-cost units were more likely to transition from not having a cost burden to having one upon mobility, those living in high-cost units were more likely to transition from having a cost burden to not having one.

These trends suggest that HCV households are sensitive to housing cost and will adjust housing to the extent possible to reduce their cost burdens.

28

Table 10: Longitudinal Statistics by Initial Rent Payment, 2003 HCV Cohort

Rent ≤

Rent >

Category/Explanatory Variable

Payment  Payment

Standard  Standard

Al  HCV households

131,168

73,045

Average total duration (years)

6.4

6.1

Average duration in rent burden (years)

1.7

3.8

Average duration in rent burden (HCV households have ever experienced rent

burden only)

3.4

3.9

Average duration in severe rent burden (years)

0.4

0.5

Average duration in severe rent burden (HCV households have ever

experienced severe rent burden only)

2.1

2.1

Percent rent burdened at beginning of the voucher contract

5.3

94.7

Percent severely rent burdened at beginning of the voucher contract

2.6

4.1

Percent rent burdened at least 1 year

46.1

97.0

Percent severely rent burdened at least 1 year

15.4

22.6

Percent rent burdened consecutively during the voucher contract

1.7

42.7

Percent severely rent burdened consecutively during the voucher contract

0.6

1.4

Al  HCV households who exited the program

75,808

45,324

Average total duration (years)

4.6

4.4

Average duration in rent burden (years)

1.1

2.9

Average duration in rent burden (HCV households have ever experienced rent

burden only)

2.6

3.0

Average duration in severe rent burden (years)

0.2

0.3

Average duration in severe rent burden (HCV households have ever

experienced severe rent burden only)

1.7

1.8

Percent rent burdened at the time of last recertification before exiting the program

24.9

73.0

Percent severely rent burdened at the time of last recertification before exiting the program

5.0

8.4

Al  HCV households who moved since initial lease up

25,853

13,239

Average number of moves

1.4

1.4

Average total duration (years)

9.3

9.1

Average duration in rent burden (years)

3.0

5.2

Average duration in rent burden (HCV households have ever experienced rent

burden only)

3.9

5.2

Average duration in severe rent burden (years)

0.6

0.7

Average duration in severe rent burden (HCV households have ever

experienced severe rent burden only)

2.2

2.2

Percent who reduced rent burden upon mobility

37.7

51.8

Average change in income upon mobility ($)

1,059

974

Percent who reduced rent burden upon mobility and became not burdened

(burden ≥ no burden)

11.2

23.7

Percent who reduced severe rent burden upon mobility and became not

burdened (severe burden ≥ no burden)

2.3

2.4

Percent who reduced severe rent burden upon mobility and became

burdened (severe burden ≥ burden)

2.7

5.2

Percent who increased rent burden upon mobility

47.5

41.5

Average change in income upon mobility ($)

620

254

Percent who became rent burdened upon mobility (no burden ≥ burden)

24.6

16.2

Percent who became severely rent burdened upon mobility (no burden ≥

severe burden)

1.3

0.4

Percent who increased rent burden upon mobility and became severely

burdened (burden ≥ severe burden)

1.3

1.7

HCV = Housing Choice Voucher.

29

Table 11 examines how conditions in the surrounding housing market influence household trajectories over time. We examine two indicators of housing market conditions: FMR for the surrounding metropolitan housing market and the percentage of census tracts within the surrounding metropolitan area where HCV households reside that have median rents above the FMR. Again, due to the similarity in results between the 2003 and 2008 cohort, table 11

emphasizes only results for the 2003 cohort. Refer to Appendix table A12 for comparable results for the 2008 cohort.

The proportion of HCV households experiencing a cost burden upon lease up and the proportion of HCV households that are rent burdened throughout their participation in the HCV program are inversely associated with FMR. This counterintuitive finding is likely explained by the relatively higher cost burdens found in rural areas over the majority of the analysis period.

The second set of columns in table 11 focuses in those living in metropolitan and micropolitan areas only, placing emphasis on the degree of choice across neighborhoods in those areas.

Generally, HCV recipients living in metropolitan areas with fewer census tracts with median rents below the FMR are more likely to be cost-burdened at the beginning of the voucher contract, cost-burdened at least 1 year, cost-burdened consecutively throughout the contract period, and cost-burdened when leaving the HCV program. Affordable housing choice also plays a role in households’ mobility over time. Whereas 17,067 households living in areas with greater choice moved since lease up, only 10,314 households living in areas with fewer choices moved since lease up. Taken together, these results point to the importance of neighborhood options in helping HCV households to alleviate housing cost burdens.

30

Table 11: Longitudinal Statistics for HCV Households That Leased a Unit in 2003 (Market Characteristics)

FMR

Percent of Tracts With

Rents Above FMR

C

ategory/Explanatory Variable

< 600  600–850

> 850

< 40%  40–55%  > 55%

All HCV households

81,107

62,827

58,976  72,246

56,373  59,096

Average total duration (years)

5.1

6.4

7.8

7.0

6.5

5.7

Average duration in rent burden (years)

2.2

2.6

2.5

2.4

2.5

2.6

Average duration in rent burden (HCV households have ever

experienced rent burden only)

3.3

3.9

4.0

3.8

3.8

3.6

Average duration in severe rent burden (years)

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

Average duration in severe rent burden (HCV households have

ever experienced severe rent burden only)

2.0

2.1

2.3

2.3

2.1

2.0

Percent rent burdened at beginning of the voucher contract

46.2

34.2

28.6

29.1

33.6

48.9

Percent severely rent burdened at beginning of the voucher

contract

3.9

2.6

2.5

3.6

1.9

3.3

Percent rent burdened at least 1 year

65.9

64.4

62.5

60.6

63.1

70.8

Percent severely rent burdened at least 1 year

16.1

19.0

19.4

19.1

17.6

18.2

Percent rent burdened consecutively during the voucher

contract

23.9

13.8

8.8

11.2

13.6

22.9

Percent severely rent burdened consecutively during the

voucher contract

1.4

0.6

0.5

0.9

0.5

1.1

All HCV households who exited the program

60,214

36,586

23,509  37,940

30,048  40,208

Average total duration (years)

4.1

4.7

5.6

5.0

4.7

4.3

Average duration in rent burden (years)

1.8

1.8

1.7

1.7

1.8

1.9

Average duration in rent burden (HCV households have ever

experienced rent burden only)

2.7

3.0

3.0

3.0

2.9

2.8

Average duration in severe rent burden (years)

0.2

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.3

Average duration in severe rent burden (HCV households have

ever experienced severe rent burden only)

1.7

1.8

1.9

1.9

1.7

1.7

Percent rent burdened at the time of last recertification

before exiting the program

48.4

40.8

32.4

36.4

40.3

49.7

Percent severely rent burdened at the time of last

recertification before exiting the program

6.5

6.2

5.7

6.3

5.7

6.5

All HCV households who moved since initial lease-up

13,406

13,579

11,890  17,067

9,849  10,314

Average number of moves

1.5

1.5

1.4

1.5

1.4

1.5

Average total duration (years)

8.5

9.3

10.1

9.6

9.2

8.9

Average duration in rent burden (years)

3.7

4.0

3.4

3.4

3.8

4.2

Average duration in rent burden (HCV households have ever

experienced rent burden only)

4.3

4.7

4.3

4.2

4.6

4.7

Average duration in severe rent burden (years)

0.6

0.7

0.6

0.7

0.6

0.6

Average duration in severe rent burden (HCV households have

ever experienced severe rent burden only)

2.1

2.2

2.2

2.3

2.1

2.1

Percent who reduced rent burden upon mobility

41.4

43.6

42.5

41.4

42.9

44.1

Average change in income upon mobility ($)

1,007

1,109

925

1,040

945

1,072

Percent who reduced rent burden upon mobility and became

not burdened (burden -> no burden)

15.5

16.5

14.2

14.6

15.6

16.7

Percent who reduced severe rent burden upon mobility and

became not burdened (severe burden -> no burden)

2.3

2.4

2.3

2.4

2.2

2.4

Percent who reduced severe rent burden upon mobility and

became burdened (severe burden -> burden)

3.5

4.2

2.9

3.2

3.6

4.4

Percent who increased rent burden upon mobility

44.8

46.6

45.4

45.4

44.9

46.7

Average change in income upon mobility ($)

412

647

428

488

560

498

Percent who became rent burdened upon mobility (no burden

-> burden)

21.1

24.4

19.8

20.5

22.4

23.9

Percent who became severely rent burdened upon mobility

(no burden -> severe burden)

1.3

1.0

0.8

1.3

0.8

0.9

Percent who increased rent burden upon mobility and

became severely burdened (burden -> severe burden)

1.9

1.3

1.1

1.7

0.8

1.5

FMR = Fair Market Rent. HCV = Housing Choice Voucher.

Note: Rural areas excluded in calculation of percentage of tracts with rents above FMR.

31

Conclusion

We conclude with a recap of the report’s most important findings.

Findings

•   The percentage of HCV households experiencing a housing cost burden has fluctuated

over time.

The number and share of HCV households experiencing a housing cost burden has

increased since 2003, and the year-to-year trend in HCV cost burden roughly corresponds to the recent housing market boom/bust cycle. Despite this overall trend, when we compare households that lease up during the housing market upswing with those that lease up during the bottom of the housing market cycle, longitudinal trajectories are remarkably similar for these two cohorts. The difference between cross-sectional comparisons across years and the longitudinal findings suggests that households are slow to adjust to changing housing market conditions, once a unit has been secured. A lack of housing choice in neighborhoods where units can be rented below the FMR reduces the likelihood that households will move for the purpose of reducing housing costs.

•   HCV housing cost burdens persist over time and are not always reduced by residential

mobility.

Among households entering the program in 2003, 64 percent experienced a cost burden of at least 1 year, 16 percent experienced cost burdens throughout their duration of tenure in the HCV program, and 18 percent experienced at least 1 year of severe cost burden.

Households that moved from their initial neighborhoods were more likely to become cost burdened than to eliminate cost burden on mobility. On the other hand, households initially living in high-cost units were more likely to transition from having a cost burden to not having one. These findings suggest that, although some households that move may be more likely to do so in order to consume larger units or units in more expensive neighborhoods, HCV households are sensitive to housing cost and will adjust housing to the extent possible to reduce their cost burdens.

•   The prevalence of housing cost burden declines dramatically with income.

The gap in housing cost burden between those earning the highest and lowest incomes has grown over time. Generally speaking, changes in income play a proportionately larger role than changes in rent in explaining these trends. Across most periods studied, households that reduced their housing cost burden saw small percentage declines in rent, along with much larger percentage increases in income. Comparatively, households that saw increases in rent burden experienced declines or small increases in income that were not large enough to offset proportionately larger increases in rent. These trends are roughly the same for those that entered the HCV program in 2008, suggesting that housing market dynamics played a less significant role in shaping the long-term dynamics of households’ cost burden trajectories.

32

•   The prevalence and severity of housing cost burden varies by length of program

participation, household composition, and demographic characteristics.

By 2015, households that had been in the HCV program for longer periods of time were more likely to have more severe cost burdens. Across most years, single-person

households were less likely than larger households to exhibit severe housing cost burdens. Households headed by females, nonelderly persons, non-Hispanic Black

persons, and persons that did not have a disability were more likely to exhibit severe housing cost burdens.

•   Households living in larger single-family homes are more likely to exhibit housing cost

burdens than those living in other types of housing.

By 2015, 12 percent of those living in homes with three or more bedrooms experienced a severe cost burden, whereas only 5 percent of those living in studio apartments experienced a severe cost burden. The prevalence of cost burden was highest for households living in single-family homes, second highest for those living in multifamily homes, and lowest for those living in other housing types. In all years, households living in single-family homes have consistently been more likely to exhibit severe housing cost burdens, even though the percentage of HCV households living in single-family homes has declined over time.

•   The geography of housing cost burden is uneven.

Housing cost burdens have been most prevalent in the South and least prevalent in the Northeast. Trends in rural areas relative to central cities and suburban areas fluctuated over the analysis period. During the housing boom, rural areas saw the highest housing cost burdens. When the market fell into decline, cost burdens fell in all areas, but as the market began to recover, severe cost burdens rose in metropolitan areas, due largely to the relative increase in housing cost burdens within suburban areas. Trends at the census tract level have also varied over time. Across all years, households living in census tracts with the lowest median rents were the most likely to exhibit severe cost burdens, although the gap between the most expensive and least expensive census tracts has narrowed since 2006. Until 2005, the differences in prevalence of severe housing cost burden by census tract minority percentage were small, but over time, households living in census tracts with a larger minority percentage have experienced an increasingly higher incidence of severe cost burden, and the differences in severe cost burden between neighborhoods with low and high minority percentages have increased over time. Our findings also suggest that residential segregation by race and income shape the prevalence and severity of housing cost burden.

•   Payment standards play an important role in shaping households’ housing cost burden

trajectories.

Local PHAs have discretionary authority to set payment standards at 90 to 110 percent of FMR, but payment standards above 110 percent of FMR must be approved by HUD. If FMRs rise, PHAs may elect not to change payment standards as long as the payment standard remains between 90 and 110 percent of the FMR. Since households must cover the proportion of rent that lies above the payment standard, failing to adjust payment standards to reflect rising market rents may place an undue housing cost burden on low-

33

income voucher recipients. We find that renting a unit above the payment standard is strongly associated with the prevalence of housing cost burden. Those leasing a unit above the payment standard exhibited longer cost burden durations, were more likely to exhibit severe cost burdens, and were more likely to exhibit a cost burden upon exiting the program.

•   Housing markets that provide greater affordable housing choice enable HCV

households to reduce housing cost burdens over time.

HCV recipients living in metropolitan areas with fewer affordable neighborhoods are more likely to be cost-burdened at the beginning of the voucher contract, cost-burdened at least 1 year, cost-burdened consecutively throughout the contract period, and cost-burdened when leaving the HCV program. Affordable housing choice also plays a role in households’ mobility over time. Whereas 17,067 households living in areas with greater choice moved since lease up, only 10,314 households living in areas with fewer choices moved since lease up. These trends appear to interact with metropolitan levels of racial segregation. Taken together, these results point to the importance of local government policies that encourage affordable rental housing development and neighborhood options in helping HCV households to alleviate housing cost burdens.

34

References

Dawkins, Casey J. 2006. “Are Social Networks the Ties That Bind Families to Neighborhoods?”

Housing Studies 21 (6): 867–881.

———. 2007. “Income Targeting of Housing Vouchers: What Happened After the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act?”  Cityscape 9 (3): 69–94.

Devine, Deborah J., Barbara A. Haley, Lester Rubin, and Robert W. Gray. 2000.  The Uses of Discretionary Authority in the Tenant-Based Section 8 Program: A Baseline Inventory of Issues, Policy, and Practice. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

DiPasquale, Denise, and Michael P. Murray. 2017. “The Shifting Demand for Housing by American Renters and Its Impact on Household Budgets: 1940–2010,”  Journal of Regional Science 57 (1): 3–27.

Freeman, Lance. 2011.  The Impact of Source of Income Laws on Voucher Utilization and Locational Outcomes.  Assisted Housing Research Cadre Report. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University (JCHS). 2016.  The State of the Nation’s Housing. Cambridge, MA: President and Fellows of Harvard College.

Leopold, Josh, Liza Getsinger, Pamela Blumenthal, Katya Abazajian, and Reed Jordan. 2015.

The Housing Affordability Gap for Extremely Low-Income Renters in 2013.  Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

McClure, Kirk. 2005. “Cost Burden in the Housing Choice Voucher Program,”  Cityscape 8 (2): 5–20.

Pendall, Rolf. 2000. “Why Voucher and Certificate Users Live in Distressed Neighborhoods,”

Housing Policy Debate 11 (4): 881–910.

Souza, Maria Teresa, Robert A. Collinson, Marge Martin, Barry L. Steffen, David A.

Vandenbroucke, and Yung-Gann David Yao. 2011.  2009 Worst Case Housing Needs of People With Disabilities.  Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

Steffen, Barry L., George R. Carter, Marge Martin, Danilo Pelletiere, David A. Vandenbroucke, and Yunn-Gann David Yao. 2015.  Worst Case Housing Needs 2015 Report to Congress.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research.

White, Tom, Charlie Wilkins, and Edward J. Pinto. 2016.  Economical Rental Housing by Design for Communities that Work. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute International Center on Housing Risk.

Williamson, Anne R. 2011. “Can They Afford the Rent? Resident Cost Burden in Low Income Housing Tax Credit Developments,”  Urban Affairs Review 47 (6): 775–799.

35

Appendix

Table A1. HCV Households Included and Excluded From Analyses

HCV Households Excluded

Total Included (TBV recipients with income

Year

From Analyses

above $0 administered by non-MTW agencies)

2003

418,627

1,613,348

2004

442,032

1,602,917

2005

503,394

1,589,316

2006

577,068

1,675,208

2007

535,958

1,709,899

2008

532,131

1,740,256

2009

533,377

1,733,080

2010

501,353

1,741,422

2011

463,472

1,750,422

2012

420,299

1,746,608

2013

452,187

1,707,830

2014

456,106

1,705,190

2015

481,036

1,728,756

HCV = Housing Choice Voucher. MTW = Moving to Work. TBV = tenant-based voucher.

Table A2. HCV Households by Extent of Housing Cost Burden, 2003–2015

No Cost

Any

Moderate

High

Severe

Burden

Cost Burden

Cost Burden

Cost Burden

Cost Burden

Year  (30% or Less)  (31% or More)

(31–40%)

(41–50%)

(51% or More)

Total

2003

1,095,683

517,665

360,794

78,500

78,371

1,613,348

2004

1,011,929

590,988

400,695

95,364

94,929

1,602,917

2005

904,844

684,472

447,381

117,583

119,508

1,589,316

2006

909,791

765,417

496,044

134,108

135,265

1,675,208

2007

999,470

710,429

473,754

116,054

120,621

1,709,899

2008

1,095,772

644,484

435,053

101,988

107,443

1,740,256

2009

1,066,702

666,378

440,855

110,858

114,665

1,733,080

2010

1,070,330

671,092

444,345

109,283

117,464

1,741,422

2011

1,033,761

716,661

460,935

123,229

132,497

1,750,422

2012

986,171

760,437

490,866

130,585

138,986

1,746,608

2013

952,359

755,471

472,499

136,247

146,725

1,707,830

2014

893,875

811,315

499,697

149,189

162,429

1,705,190

2015

941,798

786,958

505,710

136,846

144,402

1,728,756

HCV = Housing Choice Voucher.

Table A3. Proportion of HCV Households With Specified Housing Cost Burden, 2003–2015

No

Any

Moderate

High

Severe

Cost Burden

Cost Burden

Cost Burden

Cost Burden

Cost Burden

Year

(30% or Less)

(31% or More)

(31–40%)

(41–50%)

(51% or More)

2003

67.91%

32.09%

22.36%

4.87%

4.86%

2004

63.13%

36.87%

25.00%

5.95%

5.92%

2005

56.93%

43.07%

28.15%

7.40%

7.52%

2006

54.31%

45.69%

29.61%

8.01%

8.07%

2007

58.45%

41.55%

27.71%

6.79%

7.05%

2008

62.97%

37.03%

25.00%

5.86%

6.17%

2009

61.55%

38.45%

25.44%

6.40%

6.62%

2010

61.46%

38.54%

25.52%

6.28%

6.75%

2011

59.06%

40.94%

26.33%

7.04%

7.57%

2012

56.46%

43.54%

28.10%

7.48%

7.96%

2013

55.76%

44.24%

27.67%

7.98%

8.59%

2014

52.42%

47.58%

29.30%

8.75%

9.53%

2015

54.48%

45.52%

29.25%

7.92%

8.35%

HCV = Housing Choice Voucher.

36

Table A4. Percent of HCV Households Experiencing Any Housing Cost Burden

(31 Percent or More) by Household Characteristics

Year

2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015

Ho  usehold

characteristics

Length of HCV program participatio

n

< 1 year

37.8

43.8

49.0

48.2    44.4    41.0    41.9    41.8    42.7    45.9    44.6    47.4    45.3

1–4.9 years

32.7

38.5

44.8

47.4

42.4

37.7

39.4

39.6

42.4

45.0

45.2

48.4

45.2

5–9.9 years

26.7

32.3

40.4

45.3

41.6

36.6

38.0

38.0

40.4

43.2

44.2

47.5

46.0

10 years or more

24.2

28.2

34.5

38.4

35.7

32.3

34.1

34.7

38.3

41.1

43.2

47.1

45.5

Household size

1 member

30.8    34.6    38.1    39.1    35.5    32.1    33.4    33.8    36.5    39.8    43.5    47.5    45.8

2 members

34.3

39.0

45.6

48.2

43.8

39.4

41.0

41.6

44.0

46.8

48.1

51.7

49.3

3 members

33.2

38.7

46.0

49.6

45.5

40.2

41.9

41.7

44.3

46.5

44.9

47.8

45.5

4 members

30.9

36.5

45.1

49.5

45.0

39.4

41.2

40.8

42.9

44.8

42.5

45.3

42.7

5 or more

members

30.4

36.2

45.1

49.8

45.9

40.1

41.4

40.5

42.5

44.0

39.8

41.8

39.8

Presence of children

No children

30.8

34.6    38.8    40.5    36.7    33.3    34.5    35.0    37.7    40.8    44.0    47.8    46.0

Children

33.0

38.5

46.4

50.0

45.7

40.4

42.1

41.9

44.2

46.5

44.5

47.3

44.9

Household head gender

Male

29.1

32.5    36.9    38.5    34.4    30.6    31.7    32.0    34.3    36.7    39.0    42.6    41.1

Female

32.7

37.8

44.3

47.2

43.0

38.4

39.9

39.9

42.4

45.1

45.4

48.7

46.6

Household head age

Nonelderly

33.3

38.4    45.2    48.1    43.9    39.1    40.7    40.8    43.2    45.8    45.8    49.0    46.7

Elderly

26.3

29.5

33.5

35.2

31.6

28.3

29.1

29.4

32.0

34.8

38.6

42.6

41.4

Household head disability status

Nondisabled

31.8

36.6

43.2    46.0    41.9    37.3    38.7    38.8    41.2    43.6    43.9    47.2    45.2

Disabled

32.8

37.6

42.7

45.0

40.7

36.4

37.8

38.0

40.3

43.5

45.1

48.6

46.2

Income

$5,000 or less

45.3    51.2    59.5    61.4    58.6    55.3    57.1    58.8    61.3    63.2    64.1    66.7    65.0

$5,001–$10,000

30.8

35.3

40.4

42.8

38.7

33.9

35.3

35.2

37.9

41.2

42.5

46.1

44.5

$10,001–$15,000

30.9

35.8

41.8

43.5

38.7

34.2

35.5

35.7

38.3

40.8

42.0

45.6

43.3

More than $15,000

28.3

33.2

41.1

45.5

41.6

36.9

38.3

37.9

39.8

41.8

41.7

45.0

42.9

Income (as percent of AMI)

10% or less

41.6

46.9

57.0    60.4    57.5    52.8    54.0    54.7    56.9    58.9    59.7    62.9    61.1

11–30%

30.1

34.8

40.3

42.7

38.5

34.0

35.3

35.3

37.8

40.5

41.5

45.0

43.0

31–50%

32.6

38.0

44.2

47.3

43.0

38.1

39.6

39.6

41.9

44.5

44.6

47.8

45.6

51–80%

26.2

30.5

37.7

40.9

38.2

35.4

36.7

37.0

39.2

41.1

42.4

45.0

42.8

More than 80%

7.1

8.5

12.0

10.7

9.7

10.9

11.2

10.2

10.3

11.3

11.7

14.8

14.1

Primary source of income

Wages

30.7

35.8

42.6    46.4    42.2    36.7    38.2    37.8    39.7    42.1    41.9    45.3    43.3

Government

32.7

37.4

43.3

45.3

41.2

37.2

38.5

38.8

41.4

44.1

45.1

48.5

46.5

TTP

$50 or less

65.1    72.1    83.9    86.6    86.6    84.5    85.8    87.5    89.4    89.8    91.0    92.3    92.0

More than $50

30.2

34.9

41.0

43.9

39.6

35.0

36.4

36.3

38.7

41.4

42.1

45.5

43.4

Race/Ethnicity

White, not Hispanic

34.5    39.3    43.9    44.8    40.1    36.2    37.4    37.6    38.9    41.2    41.6    45.0    43.8

Black, not Hispanic

31.6

37.3

45.3

49.6

46.0

40.5

42.6

42.6

44.9

47.5

47.5

51.1

48.5

Asian/Pacific

Islands, not

Hispanic

29.2

28.0

32.7

36.8

35.2

31.0

31.2

31.1

34.3

36.3

39.4

42.9

41.4

Native American,

not Hispanic

34.3

39.2

45.5

46.8

42.1

38.6

39.3

39.9

41.0

42.3

42.0

44.5

43.7

More than one

race, not Hispanic

37.9

41.1

46.0

46.3

44.6

41.8

40.3

38.2

42.4

43.8

43.3

46.6

42.0

Hispanic, any race

27.4

31.1

37.2

40.1

35.3

31.2

31.7

31.2

35.6

38.7

41.7

44.2

41.8

AMI = Area Median Income. HCV = Housing Choice Voucher. TTP = total tenant payment.

37

Table A5. Percent of HCV Households Experiencing Severe Housing Cost Burden

(51 Percent or More) by Household Characteristics

Year

2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015

Ho  usehold

characteristics

Length of HCV program participatio

n

< 1 year

4.6

5.3

6.1

5.5    5.0    4.7    5.1    4.8    5.2    5.0    5.5    4.9    4.7

1–4.9 years

5.4

6.5

8.3

9.0

7.6

6.3

6.8

7.0

7.9

8.1

8.3

9.1

7.7

5–9.9 years

4.6

5.6

7.6

8.8

7.9

6.7

7.1

7.2

8.0

8.4

8.9

10.0

9.0

10 years or more

4.1

5.0

6.7

8.0

7.3

6.5

6.9

7.2

8.1

8.7

9.7

11.1

10.0

Household size

1 member

3.6    4.4    5.3    5.6    5.0    4.4    4.6    4.8    5.6    6.1    7.2    8.2    7.3

2 members

5.2

6.2

8.0

8.5

7.5

6.7

7.2

7.8

8.6

9.1

10.1

11.1

9.7

3 members

5.8

7.2

9.1

9.8

8.6

7.6

8.3

8.2

9.2

9.7

10.0

10.9

9.6

4 members

5.5

6.8

9.1

9.9

8.6

7.4

8.1

8.4

9.1

9.3

9.6

10.8

9.1

5 or more

members

5.2

6.5

8.6

9.8

8.4

7.0

7.5

7.1

8.1

8.1

7.4

7.9

6.9

Presence of children

No children

3.5

4.3    5.4    5.8    5.2    4.6    4.8    5.1    5.9    6.4    7.5    8.5    7.5

Children

5.8

7.1

9.2

9.9

8.6

7.5

8.3

8.4

9.2

9.6

9.8

10.7

9.3

Household head gender

Male

2.9

3.5    4.5    4.9    4.3    3.8    3.8    4.0    4.6    4.8    5.4    6.1    5.4

Female

5.3

6.4

8.1

8.7

7.6

6.7

7.2

7.3

8.2

8.7

9.3

10.3

9.0

Household head age

Nonelderly

5.4

6.6    8.4    9.0    7.9    6.9    7.5    7.7    8.6    9.1    9.7    10.7    9.3

Elderly

2.2

2.7

3.4

3.9

3.3

2.9

2.9

3.0

3.4

3.7

4.7

5.6

5.0

Household head disability status

Nondisabled

5.5

6.8

8.6    9.2    8.0    7.1    7.6    7.8    8.7    9.2    9.7    10.7    9.5

Disabled

2.8

3.5

4.5

5.1

4.5

3.9

4.1

4.1

4.7

5.0

5.8

6.6

5.6

Income

$5,000 or less

21.4    25.3    32.3    34.6    32.8    30.2    32.1    32.9    35.5    37.3    38.7    41.6    39.7

$5,001–$10,000

3.9

5.1

6.8

8.1

7.1

6.0

6.5

6.4

7.3

7.9

8.9

10.1

8.9

$10,001–$15,000

1.5

2.1

3.3

4.1

3.6

3.1

3.4

3.5

4.0

4.3

5.1

6.1

5.2

More than $15,000

0.4

0.7

1.2

1.7

1.4

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.6

1.7

2.0

2.4

1.9

Income (as percent of AMI)

10% or less

19.5

23.0

30.6    33.7    31.7    28.2    29.3    29.4    31.4    32.9    34.4    37.8    36.0

11–30%

3.0

3.9

5.3

6.0

5.2

4.3

4.5

4.5

5.2

5.5

6.5

7.6

6.4

31–50%

0.5

0.8

1.1

1.3

1.1

0.9

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.6

2.0

1.4

51–80%

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.3

More than 80%

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

Primary source of income

Wages

2.4

3.0

3.9    4.4    3.7    3.1    3.4    3.5    3.8    4.0    4.8    5.7    4.8

Government

6.0

7.3

9.2

9.8

8.6

7.5

7.9

7.9

8.9

9.4

10.0

11.1

9.9

TTP

$50 or less

35.7    41.6    52.2    55.5    54.2    50.9    53.0    53.7    56.4    58.0    59.1    61.9    60.5

More than $50

3.1

4.0

5.3

5.9

5.0

4.2

4.6

4.6

5.3

5.6

6.2

7.1

6.0

Race/Ethnicity

White, not Hispanic

4.0    4.8    5.9    6.2    5.3    4.7    4.9    4.8    5.4    5.7    6.0    6.6    5.9

Black, not Hispanic

5.7

7.1

9.2

10.2

8.9

7.7

8.4

8.6

9.5

9.8

10.4

11.7

9.9

Asian/Pacific

Islands, not

Hispanic

3.3

3.8

5.4

7.2

6.4

5.6

5.6

5.5

6.7

7.3

8.6

9.7

9.2

Native American,

not Hispanic

4.6

5.5

7.6

7.9

7.3

6.1

6.9

7.0

7.5

7.4

8.4

8.2

7.4

More than one

race, not Hispanic

6.7

7.6

9.0

8.1

7.6

6.9

6.7

6.4

7.5

7.7

7.7

8.7

7.5

Hispanic, any race

5.0

5.8

7.3

7.9

6.7

5.9

6.0

6.2

7.5

8.0

9.4

10.1

9.2

AMI = Area Median Income. HCV = Housing Choice Voucher. TTP = total tenant payment.

38

Table A6. Percent of HCV Households Experiencing Any Housing Cost Burden

(31 Percent or More) by Housing Characteristics

Year

2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015

H

ousing unit ty

pe

Number of bedrooms

0

18.7   20.6    22.8   22.5   20.1   17.7   17.9   17.2    18.0    20.0   23.4    27.1    27.5

1

24.2  26.7  30.0  30.1  26.2  22.9  23.1  22.8

24.8

27.5  31.6  36.7  37.3

2

35.1  40.1  46.2  48.7  44.2  39.4  41.2  41.8

44.5

47.6  49.1  52.5  49.8

3

33.7  39.8  48.1  52.7  48.7  43.4  45.5  45.3

47.7

50.0  48.1  50.6  47.8

4 or more

39.0  44.7  54.7  61.6  58.5  52.5  53.8  53.2

55.0

56.6  52.8  54.3  49.9

Structure type

Single-

family

36.2  41.8  48.1  51.8  48.0  42.7  44.1  43.8

46.7

49.7  49.2  52.1  49.7

Multifamily

23.6  26.5  32.9  34.3  29.6  26.6  28.2  28.9

32.6

35.6  38.3  42.5  40.1

Other

(mfg. home)  39.4  44.9  47.8  46.0  41.8  37.2  38.3  39.9

27.7

27.2  28.2  32.2  36.4

Years since home built

< 10

38.0  42.6    48.0   49.9   45.1   39.9   41.5   41.7    43.7    46.5   45.8    48.5    44.8

10–19.9

36.0  40.4  46.7  47.5  42.4  37.7  39.2  39.7

42.1

45.3  45.7  48.6  45.9

20–29.9

33.7  38.8  45.2  48.0  43.3  38.5  40.3  41.7

44.7

47.8  49.1  51.8  48.4

30–39.9

29.9  34.1  40.1  42.2  38.5  34.8  36.8  37.9

40.8

44.0  45.7  49.4  47.6

40–49.9

30.6  34.4  41.6  45.1  40.5  36.0  36.9  36.6

38.9

40.9  42.7  46.3  43.9

50–99.9

29.9  35.3  41.9  45.5  41.9  37.8  39.1  38.9

41.2

43.3  43.5  47.3  45.9

100 or more  26.2  31.2  37.6  39.4  35.8  31.5  32.6  30.6

32.4

34.6  35.5  39.2  39.9

HCV = Housing Choice Voucher.

Table A7. Percent of HCV Households Experiencing Severe Housing Cost Burden

(51 Percent or More) by Housing Characteristics

Year

2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015

H

ousing unit type

Number of bedrooms

0

3.3    3.7    4.8    4.9    4.3    3.7    3.8    3.3    3.8    4.0    4.4    5.1    5.1

1

2.0

2.2

2.7

2.7

2.3

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.4

2.5

3.1

3.8

3.9

2

5.1

6.1

7.5

7.7

6.7

5.8

6.1

6.3

7.1

7.4

8.4

9.4

8.4

3

6.5

8.1  10.5  11.7  10.3

9.1

9.9  10.1

11.3

11.9

12.5  13.7  11.7

4 or more

7.2

9.0  12.7  15.1  13.5  11.3  12.1  11.9

13.3

14.0

13.8  15.1  12.4

Structure type

Single-family

5.7    7.0    8.9    9.8    8.6    7.4    8.0    8.1    9.2    9.8    10.4    11.4    9.8

Multifamily

3.1

3.7

4.9

5.0

4.3

3.9

4.0

4.3

5.0

5.3

6.1

7.0

6.3

Other

(mfg. home)

5.7

7.1

7.7

7.5

6.6

5.9

6.5

6.4

5.0

4.5

5.1

6.2

6.8

Years since home built

< 10

5.7

6.6    8.1    8.3    7.0    6.1    6.6    6.8    7.6    7.9    8.2    8.7    7.0

10–19.9

5.4

6.5

8.3

8.5

7.0

6.3

6.6

6.6

7.4

7.9

8.3

9.2

8.0

20–29.9

5.4

6.5

8.2

8.5

7.6

6.6

7.1

7.2

8.1

8.6

9.6  10.6

9.2

30–39.9

4.4

5.3

6.9

7.3

6.6

6.0

6.5

6.9

7.7

8.3

9.2  10.2

8.9

40–49.9

4.5

5.6

7.3

8.1

6.9

6.0

6.4

6.5

7.4

7.6

8.3

9.1

7.9

50–99.9

4.3

5.5

7.2

8.2

7.2

6.3

6.8

7.1

8.0

8.3

8.8  10.0

8.8

100 or more

4.5

5.6

6.8

7.1

6.3

5.3

5.6

5.1

5.6

6.1

6.7

7.7

7.4

HCV = Housing Choice Voucher.

39

Table A8. Percent of HCV Households Experiencing Any Housing Cost Burden (31 Percent or More) by Geographic Characteristics

Year

2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015

Ge ography

Region

Northeast

24.8    29.4    35.5    37.7    34.3    30.7    29.8    27.6    29.2    30.8    31.3    36.1    38.3

Midwest

34.5

40.8

46.8

49.8

47.1

42.1

43.9

44.9

47.3

50.0

50.0

51.9

48.2

South

36.0

41.5

47.4

50.4

46.6

39.9

42.4

41.9

45.0

48.4

48.9

52.7

50.0

West

32.0

35.2

42.4

44.9

38.2

36.1

38.0

40.8

43.1

45.4

47.4

49.6

44.9

Metropolitan

Metropolitan

30.1    34.9    42.0    45.5    41.2    36.6    38.0    38.0    40.3    43.0    44.2    47.7    45.5

Nonmetropolitan/rural

41.1

46.0

48.3

46.6

43.8

39.9

41.3

42.4

45.1

47.3

44.6

47.0

45.7

Central city

Central city

30.2    34.1    41.7    45.6    42.6    39.6    40.5    39.7    41.7    42.4    43.3    47.2    45.5

Suburb

29.4

34.7

41.7

45.2

40.2

34.5

36.2

36.6

39.1

44.7

45.5

48.2

45.6

Rural

45.7

51.4

52.3

49.3

43.8

39.8

41.3

42.5

45.6

46.1

43.0

45.8

44.6

Census tract characteristics

Median rent per month

Less than $400

33.0    39.3    41.5    42.7    41.0    36.8    36.8    36.5    39.2    38.3    37.7    40.4    39.8

$400–$800

35.8

41.8

46.6

47.9

43.0

37.6

39.2

39.6

42.4

45.3

44.2

47.1

44.8

More than $800

29.1

33.2

40.8

44.5

40.6

36.7

38.0

37.8

40.1

42.6

44.5

48.1

46.2

Vacancy rate

Less than 5%

30.1    33.7    40.4    43.0    38.2    35.1    36.7    37.3    39.1    41.8    43.8    47.3    45.3

5–8%

31.8

36.1

42.6

45.3

40.4

36.6

37.8

38.4

40.7

42.4

44.1

47.7

45.8

Greater than 8%

32.5

37.9

44.2

47.1

43.1

37.8

39.2

39.0

41.7

44.6

44.6

47.7

45.5

Poverty rate

10% or less

36.0    40.4    47.0    50.8    47.1    42.8    44.1    43.6    45.4    46.5    47.7    50.7    48.2

11–20%

33.6

38.5

44.4

46.7

42.2

37.7

39.2

39.3

42.1

45.0

46.0

49.1

46.5

More than 20%

28.0

33.0

39.6

41.9

37.1

32.5

33.8

34.3

36.8

41.5

41.8

45.4

43.8

Minority percentage

20% or less

37.9    43.2    47.9    48.8    44.1    40.0    41.7    41.8    43.9    46.2    45.0    47.4    45.5

20–40%

35.3

40.4

46.1

48.3

43.9

39.0

40.2

39.7

42.1

45.6

45.6

48.9

46.7

More than 40%

27.7

32.2

39.7

43.5

39.4

34.7

36.1

36.2

39.0

42.2

43.7

47.4

45.2

HC V = Housing Choice Voucher.

40

Table A9. Percent of HCV Households Experiencing Severe Housing Cost Burden (51 Percent or More) by Geographic Characteristics

Year

2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015

Ge ography

Region

Northeast

3.7    4.6    5.7    6.4    5.7    5.1    4.8    4.4    4.9    5.1    5.5    6.5    6.8

Midwest

4.6

5.9

7.6

8.2

7.5

6.4

6.9

7.2

8.0

8.3

8.5

9.0

7.4

South

6.4

7.6

9.3

9.6

8.5

7.3

8.1

7.8

8.9

9.5

10.4

11.5

9.6

West

3.6

4.4

6.4

7.1

5.6

5.0

5.6

6.9

7.6

8.0

8.9

9.8

8.4

Metropolitan

Metropolitan

4.6    5.7    7.4    8.2    7.2    6.3    6.7    6.9    7.7    8.1    8.8    9.9    8.7

Nonmetropolitan/rural

6.2

7.2

8.2

7.7

6.2

5.7

5.9

5.9

6.9

7.0

6.8

7.0

6.0

Central city

Central city

4.2    5.2    7.1    8.0    7.3    6.6    6.9    6.6    7.6    7.9    8.6    9.7    8.7

Suburb

4.7

5.9

7.5

8.3

7.2

6.1

6.6

7.1

7.8

8.1

8.8

9.6

8.2

Rural

6.2

7.3

7.9

7.0

6.1

5.6

5.9

5.9

6.9

7.1

7.0

7.1

6.2

Census tract characteristics

Median rent per month

Less than $400

6.3    8.3    8.8    8.9    11.6    11.0    10.4    10.5    11.6    12.4    12.4    13.2    12.3

$400–$800

5.4

6.5

7.8

7.8

7.0

6.1

6.5

6.6

7.4

7.8

7.9

8.4

7.2

More than $800

4.2

5.3

7.2

8.1

7.0

6.1

6.6

6.8

7.6

8.0

9.0

10.3

9.1

Vacancy rate

Less than 5%

3.8    4.7    6.3    7.0    6.0    5.3    5.7    6.1    6.8    7.3    8.3    9.4    8.5

5–8%

4.4

5.4

7.0

7.6

6.6

5.8

6.2

6.5

7.1

7.4

8.2

9.3

8.3

Greater than 8%

5.2

6.3

7.9

8.4

7.6

6.5

7.0

7.0

7.9

8.4

8.8

9.6

8.3

Poverty rate

10% or less

4.7    5.8    7.7    8.8    7.7    6.7    7.1    6.9    7.7    8.0    8.7    9.8    8.4

11–20%

4.7

5.7

7.2

7.6

6.6

5.8

6.3

6.4

7.3

7.7

8.4

9.3

8.0

More than 20%

4.8

5.9

7.4

7.8

7.0

6.1

6.5

6.9

7.8

8.1

8.7

9.6

8.5

Minority percentage

20% or less

4.6    5.6    6.8    7.0    6.1    5.4    5.8    5.6    6.3    6.6    6.5    6.7    5.8

20–40%

5.0

6.1

7.6

8.0

7.0

6.1

6.5

6.3

7.2

7.2

7.5

8.3

7.2

More than 40%

4.8

5.9

7.7

8.6

7.6

6.6

7.1

7.5

8.4

8.7

9.6

10.8

9.6

HCV = Housing Choice Voucher.

41

Table A10. Variable Definitions for Logistic Regression Models (Tables 4–6 in Text) Variable

Definition

Dependent variable

Any cost burden

1 = A household experiences any cost burden (31% or more)

Severe cost burden

1 = A household experiences a severe cost burden (51% or more)

I

ndependent variables

Household characteristics

Length of participation

Length of participation (days)

Household size

Number of household members

Children

1 = A household has at least one child

Female

1 = A household head is female

Elderly

1 = A household head is elderly

Disabled

1 = A household head is disabled

Income at 10% or less than AMI  1 = Total annual income 10% or less than AMI Income at 11–30% of AMI

1 = Total annual income 11–30% of AMI

Income at 31–50% of AMI

1 = Total annual income 31–50% of AMI

Income at 51–80% of AMI

1 = Total annual income 51–80% of AMI

Primarily wage

1 = Primary source of income is wage

Non-White

1 = A household head is non-White

Hispanic

1 = A household head is Hispanic

Housing unit type

Bedroom

Number of bedrooms

Single-family

1 = Single-family (detached/attached) home

Building age

Age of housing unit

Geography

Midwest

1 = Midwest (Census region)

South

1 = South (Census region)

West

1 = West (Census region)

Central city

1 = Central city

Suburb

1 = Suburb

Neighborhood characteristics

Tract median rent

Census-tract level median gross rent

Tract vacancy

Census-tract level vacancy rate

Tract poverty

Census-tract level poverty rate

Tract minority

Census-tract level percentage of minority population

A  MI = Area Median Income.

42

Table A11. Longitudinal Statistics by Initial Rent Payment, 2008 HCV Cohort

Rent ≤

Rent >

Category/Explanatory Variable

Payment  Payment

Standard  Standard

Al  HCV households

110,266

66,683

Average total duration (years)

5.3

5.3

Average duration in rent burden (years)

1.2

3.6

Average duration in rent burden (HCV households have ever experienced rent

burden only)

2.7

3.7

Average duration in severe rent burden (years)

0.3

0.4

Average duration in severe rent burden (HCV households have ever

experienced severe rent burden only)

1.8

1.9

Percent rent burdened at beginning of the voucher contract

6.4

94.4

Percent severely rent burdened at beginning of the voucher contract

3.2

2.7

Percent rent burdened at least 1 year

42.2

96.8

Percent severely rent burdened at least 1 year

13.4

21.2

Percent rent burdened consecutively during the voucher contract

1.9

42.7

Percent severely rent burdened consecutively during the voucher contract

0.7

0.8

Al  HCV households who exited the program

50,856

31,670

Average total duration (years)

3.4

3.4

Average duration in rent burden (years)

0.7

2.5

Average duration in rent burden (HCV households have ever experienced rent

burden only)

2.0

2.5

Average duration in severe rent burden (years)

0.1

0.2

Average duration in severe rent burden (HCV households have ever

experienced severe rent burden only)

1.5

1.6

Percent rent burdened at the time of last recertification before exiting the program

21.2

72.7

Percent severely rent burdened at the time of last recertification before exiting the program

4.7

7.5

Al  HCV households who moved since initial lease up

19,085

11,263

Average number of moves

1.3

1.3

Average total duration (years)

6.8

6.8

Average duration in rent burden (years)

2.1

4.2

Average duration in rent burden (HCV households have ever experienced rent

burden only)

3.0

4.3

Average duration in severe rent burden (years)

0.4

0.5

Average duration in severe rent burden (HCV households have ever

experienced severe rent burden only)

1.8

1.8

Percent who reduced rent burden upon mobility

36.0

52.8

Average change in income upon mobility ($)

1,058

903

Percent who reduced rent burden upon mobility and became not burdened

(burden ≥ no burden)

10.7

24.8

Percent who reduced severe rent burden upon mobility and became not

burdened (severe burden ≥ no burden)

2.2

2.8

Percent who reduced severe rent burden upon mobility and became

burdened (severe burden ≥ burden)

2.5

4.9

Percent who increased rent burden upon mobility

47.9

41.3

Average change in income upon mobility ($)

515

141

Percent who became rent burdened upon mobility (no burden ≥ burden)

25.4

14.6

Percent who became severely rent burdened upon mobility (no burden ≥

severe burden)

1.3

0.4

Percent who increased rent burden upon mobility and became severely

burdened (burden ≥ severe burden)

1.2

1.7

HCV = Housing Choice Voucher.

43

Table A12. Longitudinal Statistics for HCV Households That Leased a Unit in 2008

(Market Characteristics)

FMR

Percent of Tracts With

Rents Above FMR

C

ategory/Explanatory Variable

< 600  600–850

> 850

< 40%  40–55%  > 55%

All HCV households

74,563

55,417

46,523  45,710

58,030  60,173

Average total duration (years)

4.6

5.4

6.3

6.0

5.3

5.1

Average duration in rent burden (years)

2.0

2.3

2.2

2.0

2.2

2.3

Average duration in rent burden (HCV households have ever

experienced rent burden only)

3.0

3.3

3.5

3.3

3.3

3.3

Average duration in severe rent burden (years)

0.3

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.3

Average duration in severe rent burden (HCV households have

ever experienced severe rent burden only)

1.8

1.8

2.1

2.0

1.9

1.8

Percent rent burdened at beginning of the voucher contract

42.5

39.6

35.1

34.9

38.8

43.8

Percent severely rent burdened at beginning of the voucher

contract

3.3

3.3

2.2

3.6

2.9

2.6

Percent rent burdened at least 1 year

62.5

65.4

60.3

58.9

63.2

66.4

Percent severely rent burdened at least 1 year

14.7

18.0

16.9

16.4

17.1

16.4

Percent rent burdened consecutively during the voucher

contract

21.2

16.8

11.7

12.9

16.4

20.4

Percent severely rent burdened consecutively during the

voucher contract

0.9

0.7

0.5

0.8

0.6

0.6

All HCV households who exited the program

46,038

24,372

11,935  14,832

26,576  32,184

Average total duration (years)

3.2

3.5

3.9

3.6

3.5

3.4

Average duration in rent burden (years)

1.3

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.4

1.4

Average duration in rent burden (HCV households have ever

experienced rent burden only)

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.4

2.4

2.4

Average duration in severe rent burden (years)

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

Average duration in severe rent burden (HCV households have

ever experienced severe rent burden only)

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.6

1.6

1.5

Percent rent burdened at the time of last recertification

before exiting the program

42.5

41.4

34.0

35.1

40.4

43.8

Percent severely rent burdened at the time of last

recertification before exiting the program

5.7

6.3

5.1

5.9

5.7

5.8

All HCV households who moved since initial lease-up

11,867

11,082

7,302

6,953

11,552  10,448

Average number of moves

1.3

1.4

1.3

1.3

1.4

1.3

Average total duration (years)

6.5

6.9

7.3

7.1

6.9

6.7

Average duration in rent burden (years)

2.8

3.1

2.8

2.7

2.9

3.1

Average duration in rent burden (HCV households have ever

experienced rent burden only)

3.4

3.7

3.6

3.5

3.6

3.6

Average duration in severe rent burden (years)

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.5

0.5

0.4

Average duration in severe rent burden (HCV households have

ever experienced severe rent burden only)

1.8

1.8

1.9

1.9

1.9

1.7

Percent who reduced rent burden upon mobility

40.9

42.0

44.7

44.3

41.3

42.3

Average change in income upon mobility ($)

925

1,157

827

899

1,011

1,043

Percent who reduced rent burden upon mobility and became

not burdened (burden -> no burden)

15.4

16.1

16.4

15.8

15.9

16.1

Percent who reduced severe rent burden upon mobility and

became not burdened (severe burden -> no burden)

2.4

2.5

2.4

2.4

2.6

2.4

Percent who reduced severe rent burden upon mobility and

became burdened (severe burden -> burden)

3.1

3.7

3.3

3.4

3.3

3.5

Percent who increased rent burden upon mobility

43.8

47.5

45.4

45.3

44.7

46.7

Average change in income upon mobility ($)

389

448

294

311

324

483

Percent who became rent burdened upon mobility (no burden

-> burden)

20.7

24.1

18.7

18.2

21.4

23.7

Percent who became severely rent burdened upon mobility

(no burden -> severe burden)

1.2

1.0

0.6

0.8

1.2

0.9

Percent who increased rent burden upon mobility and

became severely burdened (burden -> severe burden)

1.6

1.3

1.1

1.4

1.5

1.2

FMR = Fair Market Rent. HCV = Housing Choice Voucher.

44

Document Outline

- Cover

- Contents

- Executive Summary

- Introduction

- Background

- Data and Methods

- Findings

- Conclusion

- Findings

- References

- Appendix

Table of Contents

Cover

Contents

Executive Summary

Introduction

Background

Data and Methods

Findings

Conclusion

Findings

References

Appendix