Characteristics of

HUD-Assisted Renters and

Their Units in 2009

December 2017

Characteristics of

HUD-Assisted Renters and

Their Units in 2009

Prepared for

U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development

Office of Policy Development & Research

Prepared by

Frederick J. Eggers

Econometrica, Inc.

December 2017

Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ v

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

HUD Rental Assistance Programs .............................................................................................. 1

Organization of the Report and Data Tables .............................................................................. 3

Source of the Data ....................................................................................................................... 4

Relationship to Other Studies ..................................................................................................... 4

The Big Picture ............................................................................................................................... 5

Location and Key Unit Characteristics ........................................................................................... 8

Regional and Metropolitan Location .......................................................................................... 8

Year Structure Built .................................................................................................................. 10

Number of Bedrooms ................................................................................................................ 10

Householder Characteristics ......................................................................................................... 12

Race and Ethnic Origin of Householder ................................................................................... 12

Age of Householder .................................................................................................................. 13

Education of Householder ........................................................................................................ 14

Years in Same Unit ................................................................................................................... 15

Household Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 17

Household Income .................................................................................................................... 17

Income Sources ......................................................................................................................... 18

Household Composition ........................................................................................................... 19

Household Size and Overcrowding .......................................................................................... 21

Households With a Disabled Member ...................................................................................... 21

Housing Cost as Percent of Income .......................................................................................... 22

Unit Quality and Tenant Satisfaction ............................................................................................ 25

Structure Type ........................................................................................................................... 25

Equipment Failures ................................................................................................................... 26

Selected Deficiencies ................................................................................................................ 27

Indices of Physical Problems .................................................................................................... 27

Tenant Satisfaction ................................................................................................................... 29

Recent Movers .......................................................................................................................... 29

Detailed Summary Tables ............................................................................................................. 32

References ..................................................................................................................................... 44

ii

Tables and Figures

Table 2-1: Trends in HUD-Assisted Rental Housing, Relative to Need ........................................ 6

Table 2-2: Trends in HUD-Assisted Housing by Program Type .................................................... 6

Table 3-1: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Region, 2009 ............................................. 8

Table 3-2: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Metropolitan/Nonmetropolitan Status,

2009................................................................................................................................................. 9

Table 3-3: Trends in the Distribution of HUD-Assisted Households by Region and by

Metropolitan/Nonmetropolitan Status ............................................................................................ 9

Table 3-4: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Year Built, 2009 ..................................... 10

Table 3-5: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Number of Bedrooms, 2009 ................... 11

Table 3-6: Trends in the Distribution of HUD-Assisted Households by Number of Bedrooms .. 11

Table 4-1: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Race and Ethnicity of Householder, 2009 .... 12

Table 4-2: Trends in the Distribution of HUD-Assisted Households by Race and Ethnicity of

Householder .................................................................................................................................. 13

Table 4-3: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Age of Householder, 2009 ...................... 13

Table 4-4: Trends in the Distribution of HUD-Assisted Households by Age of Householder .... 14

Table 4-5: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Education Attainment of Householder by

Race and Ethnicity, 2009 .............................................................................................................. 15

Table 4-6: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Householder Years in Unit by Race,

Ethnicity, and Elderly Status, 2009 ............................................................................................... 16

Table 4-7: Trends in the Distribution of HUD-Assisted Households by Years in Unit by

Householder .................................................................................................................................. 16

Table 5-1: Median Income of Households by Assistance Status, 2009 ........................................ 17

Table 5-2: Trends in Median Income of Households by Assistance Status ................................. 18

Table 5-3: Income Sources for Renter Households by Assistant Status and by Elderly Status,

2009............................................................................................................................................... 19

Table 5-4: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Household Composition, 2009 ............... 19

Table 5-5: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Number of Children in Household, 2009 ..... 20

Table 5-6: Trends in the Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Household Composition ... 20

Table 5-7: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Household Size and the Incidence of

Overcrowding, 2009 ..................................................................................................................... 21

Table 5-8: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Disability Status of Members, 2009 ....... 22

Table 5-9: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Ratio of Housing Costs to Income, 2009 ....... 22

Table 5-10: Trends in the Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Ratio of Housing Costs to

Income........................................................................................................................................... 23

iii

Table 6-1: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Structure Type, 2009 .............................. 25

Table 6-2: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Breakdowns in Housing Systems, 2009 .... 26

Table 6-3: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Selected Deficiencies, 2009 .................... 27

Table 6-4: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Indices of Physical Problems, 2009 ........ 28

Table 6-5: Trends in the Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Indices of Physical Problems .. 28

Table 6-6: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Tenant Ratings as Best or Worst, 2009 .. 29

Table 6-7: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Percent of Recent Movers, 2009 ............. 29

Table 6-8: Distribution of Recent Movers Into HUD-Assisted Housing by Key Reasons Given

for Move, 2009.............................................................................................................................. 30

Table 6-9: Distribution of Recent Movers Into HUD-Assisted Housing by Comparison of

Current and Previous Home and Neighborhood, 2009 ................................................................. 30

Summary Table 1. 2009 Structural Characteristics ...................................................................... 33

Summary Table 2. 2009 Householder Characteristics .................................................................. 34

Summary Table 3. 2009 Household Characteristics ..................................................................... 35

Summary Table 4. 2009 Unit Conditions ..................................................................................... 38

Summary Table 5. 2009 Tenant Opinions .................................................................................... 39

Summary Table 6. Breakdown of Householder and Household Characteristics by Race,

Ethnicity, and Elderly Status ......................................................................................................... 41

Figure 1. Renters—Eligibility and Housing Assistance ................................................................. 7

iv

Executive Summary

The 2009 American Housing Survey (AHS) was the joint product of the U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Census Bureau. At HUD’s request, the

Census Bureau used addresses provided by HUD to identify units in its regular AHS sample that

are subsidized by HUD. The 2009 AHS contains 4,426 assisted sample units. This report uses

information on those units to characterize the 4.4 million rental units assisted by HUD in 2009.

Address matches previously had been done for the 1989, 1991, 1993, and 2007 AHS surveys.

In addition, 2011 and 2013 AHS surveys contain supplemental surveys of rental units from

HUD-administered programs. This report uses information from these efforts to analyze the

ways in which the HUD-assisted rental stock has changed during the past 3 decades. Because

separate reports are available for all but the 2007 effort, this Executive Summary focuses on

the characteristics of the HUD-assisted units and households in 2009, highlighting occasionally

how HUD rental assistance has evolved.

HUD Programs

Since 1937, HUD and its predecessor agencies have run a number of rental subsidy programs.

These programs fall into two broad categories— project-based assistance and  tenant-based assistance. In project-based assistance, the subsidy goes to the housing unit, and households apply for admission to those units. Public housing is the oldest of these programs. In this report, we

group the other project-based programs into one category, privately owned project based. In

tenant-based assistance, households apply for the subsidy and then search for a unit that will accept the subsidy. The Housing Choice Voucher program is the tenant-based assistance program.

In 2009, the United States had 35.4 million renter households. According to the AHS, 18.2

million of these households qualified based on income for assistance through one of HUD’s

rental assistance programs. Combined, public housing, housing choice vouchers, and privately

owned HUD-assisted housing served 4.4 million households, 24.3 percent of those eligible.

During the 1991-to-2009 period, the number of renter households grew from 33.4 million to 35.4

million, an increase of only 6 percent. During the same period, the number of households eligible

for housing assistance increased 13 percent, although the number of HUD-assisted units

increased 10 percent. Therefore, the percentage of the eligible households receiving assistance

fell from 24.9 percent in 1991 to 24.3 percent in 2009.

During the 1991-to-2009 period, the number of HUD-assisted units increased by roughly

400,000, but the program mix changed dramatically. The voucher program’s share grew from

28.3 percent in 1991 to 46.8 percent in 2009. The privately owned assisted share fell from 43.3

to 30.6 percent, and the public housing share fell from 28.4 to 22.6 percent.

The shift in program mix proceeded smoothly throughout the period. The number of eligible

households fluctuated more, notably increasing by 1.7 million households between 2007 and 2009.

Location and Unit Size

This report is interested mainly in who receives HUD assistance and in the assistance provided.

More than one-half of the 2009 assisted units are project-based units, and the percentage of

project-based units was higher in previous years. Project-based units are clumps of capital in

specific locations that last many years. Who receives assistance is dependent on where the

programs operate and the types of units provided.

v

When compared with either all renter households or all renter households eligible for assistance (including those already assisted), HUD assistance in 2009 was more concentrated in the

Northeast and less concentrated in the West. Only 20 percent of all renters and 22 percent of

eligible renters lived in the Northeast, but 28 percent of HUD-assisted housing was in the

Northeast. In 2009, the West contained 25 percent of all renters and 22 percent of eligible renters but only 18 percent of HUD-assisted households. The shares of HUD-assisted renters in the

Midwest and South are similar to the geographic distributions of all renter households and all

income-eligible renter households.

The regional distribution of public housing, the oldest HUD-assisted housing program, drives

this imbalance. Public housing authorities also administer most vouchers, the newest HUD

program. The voucher program has a regional distribution that is close to that of all renter

households but still has a higher percentage in the Northeast and a lower percentage in the West.

Overall, HUD-assisted housing is slightly more concentrated in metropolitan areas and slightly

less concentrated in nonmetropolitan areas than either all renter households or all income-eligible renter households. Within metropolitan areas, HUD-assisted housing is more concentrated in

central cities and less concentrated in suburbs than either all renter households or all income-

eligible renter households. The central city-suburb disparity is most pronounced in public

housing, but the privately owned housing programs also exhibit this imbalance. Once again, the

voucher program presents the distribution closest to that of all renter households or all income-

eligible renter households.

Despite the growth in the voucher program, the overall distribution of HUD-assisted housing has

changed little in the past 24 years. The percentage of assisted housing in suburbs has increased

slightly, accompanied by a slight decrease in the percentage in central cities. The percentage

outside of metropolitan areas has declined over time.

The number of bedrooms in an assisted unit determines the size of the household that can be

served. Overall, HUD-assisted housing has a higher percentage of one-bedroom units and a

lower percentage of two-bedroom units than the percentage among all renter households or all

income-eligible renter households. This disparity is sharpest among privately owned subsidized

housing and probably results from a focus on elderly households among several of the programs

in this category (including both older Section 202 direct loans with project-based Section 8

assistance and newer Section 8 capital grant projects built after 1990) and from the preferences

of developers in the regular Section 8 program. Public housing displays a similar distribution of

unit sizes but to a lesser degree. Not surprisingly, the bedroom distribution among voucher units

closely resembles the distribution among all renters.

The combined bedroom distribution for all three HUD-assisted housing programs has definitely

shifted over time. The percentage of units with three or four or more bedrooms increased from

24 percent in 1989 to 30 percent in 2009 despite a decline in the number of large families. The

percentage of one-bedroom units decreased slightly from 39 to 37 percent.

Householder and Household Characteristics

The Census Bureau characterizes some households using data on all household members,

providing information such as household size, the presence or absence of children, or family

status. For other characteristics, such as age or race, the Census Bureau takes these

characteristics from one individual, the householder. The householder is one of the responsible

vi

members of the household who is competent to answer questions about the household. The next few paragraphs start with householder characteristics and then move on to household

characteristics.

The percentage of HUD-assisted units with Black householders in 2009 was 46.0 percent, although

the percentage of all income-eligible renter households with Black householders was 30.0 percent.

The differentials were greatest for the public housing and voucher programs, in which Black

householders occupied 59.9 and 44.3 percent of units, respectively. With respect to ethnicity, the

percentage of all HUD-assisted households with Hispanic householders is smaller than the

percentage of income-eligible households with Hispanic householders (17.4 versus 20.3 percent).

The percentage of households with Black householders rose sharply in 2009; the percentage of

units with Hispanic householders rose between 1993 and 2003, reflecting in part the rising

Hispanic share of the population.

Combined, HUD-assisted housing programs were serving households with elderly householders

at a rate greater than their share of the population of income-eligible renter households (27.9

versus 19.2 percent). The percentage of households with elderly householders was particularly

high among units in privately owned subsidized housing (45.6 percent). The voucher program

served elderly people at a rate (16.6 percent) similar to their share of income-eligible renter

households. As the relative importance of the voucher program increased over time, the share of

all HUD-assisted units with elderly householders fell relatively steadily from 35 percent in 1989

to 28 percent in 2009.

Because housing assistance is not an entitlement, one might expect households receiving

assistance to be reluctant to move if moving means giving up assistance. Approximately 14

percent of public housing households have householders who lived in the unit for more than 15

years compared with 8.6 percent among income-eligible renter households. The voucher

program has the most turnover; for example, only 6.5 percent of householders have lived in their

units more than 15 years, roughly the same as all income-eligible householders. Among all

households, the differences in turnover across race and ethnicity are minor, but elderly

householders display lower turnover. The same patterns are apparent among householders in the

assisted housing programs.

Because the AHS reports data on years in units for assisted units in 5-year intervals, one can

compare only the 1989 and 2009 studies. The comparison of turnover patterns showed that, in

2009, more householders had moved in within the past 5 years but more had also lived in their

units for 15 years or more than in 1989.

Eligibility for assisted housing is based primarily on household income. In 2009, the median

income of all renters nationally was $28,400, based on AHS data. Households in HUD programs

had median incomes substantially less than that of all renters. The median income of voucher

recipients was 42.3 percent of that for all eligible renters, and the ratios were even less in public housing (31.7 percent) and privately owned subsidized housing (33.5 percent). Individually,

HUD programs generally serve households from the lower end of the distribution of renter

households.

HUD-assisted households differ substantially from other households in how they obtain their

income. Only 40.2 percent of HUD-assisted households have wage and salary income compared

with 54.3 percent of income-eligible renter households and 72.6 percent of all renters. Among

vii

elderly households, the percentage receiving social security income differs little between assisted renters and either eligible renters or all renters. However, the percentage of elderly households

receiving income from private pensions or survivor benefits varies by assistance status. Only

17.3 percent of elderly assisted households receive income from these sources compared with

21.5 percent among eligible renters and 30.9 percent among all renters. The income source

information reinforces the inference drawn from the median income ratios that HUD programs

serve the poorer of the poor. For example, 11.6 percent of HUD-assisted households reported

receiving welfare compared with 8.0 percent of income-eligible households and 4.2 percent of all

renter households. In addition, 44.4 percent of HUD-assisted households reported receiving food

stamps compared with 29.7 percent of income-eligible households and 14.3 percent of all renter

households.

Household composition provides further evidence that HUD-assisted housing programs serve a

clientele different from the typical renter household. In 2009, 24.9 percent of renter households

consisted of married couple households, and the percentage among all income-eligible renter

households was 16.6 percent, whereas the percentage across HUD programs ranged between 8.3

and 10.1 percent. With the exception of the privately owned housing program, HUD-assisted

housing serves households with children at a higher rate than their share of the population.

Overall, 41.9 percent of assisted households have children compared with 34.9 percent of all

renter households. Slightly more than one-half of voucher households have children under 18. In

addition, the percentage of households with three or more children is higher in the voucher

program (17.5 percent) than among all income-eligible renter households (11.1 percent).

Despite observed program differences and the change in program mix over time, virtually no

change has occurred during the past 24 years in the type of households served by all three HUD

programs combined.

HUD-assisted housing serves households with one or more disabled members at a rate (36.2

percent) substantially higher than the rate among either income-eligible renter households (26.2

percent) or all renter households (17.6 percent). The privately owned assisted housing programs

contained the highest percentage of households with a disabled member, 47.2 percent.

Finally, rent-to-income ratio data from the 2009 AHS clearly illustrate why housing assistance is

needed. Among income-eligible renter households, 59 percent have excessive rent burdens; that

is, ratios greater than 40 percent. Excessive rent burdens affect 38 percent of HUD-assisted

households, a rate equal to that for all renter households. By the same rent-to-income measure,

the HUD-assisted housing programs have made housing more affordable for clients. Nearly 60

percent of all HUD renter households have ratios less than or equal to 34 percent compared with

33 percent of income-eligible renters.

Unit Quality and Tenant Satisfaction

HUD and the Census Bureau use AHS data to construct two indices of physical problems—one

reports the incidence of severe physical problems, and one reports the incidence of moderate

physical problems. On the index of severe physical problems, HUD-assisted housing has a

slightly higher incidence of problems than units occupied by all income-eligible households and

also a higher incidence than all occupied rental units. On the index of moderate physical

problems, HUD-assisted housing has a lower incidence than either all income-eligible renters or

all renters. Within HUD-assisted housing, public housing units have the highest incidence of

both severe and moderate physical problems.

viii

When we examine specific unit deficiencies, we find that HUD-assisted units have rates of occurrence that are similar to those among all eligible renters but usually slightly higher than

among all renters.

The AHS has a series of questions that focuses on breakdowns in various housing systems. For

five of the seven reported system breakdowns (no working flush toilets, public sewage disposal

breakdowns, heating equipment breakdowns, leaking water from inside unit, and leaking water

from outside structure), the incidence of problems was higher for HUD-assisted units as a group

than for all renters. The differences are small. In most but not all categories, households in

privately owned subsidized units report a lower incidence of problems than households in other

assisted programs. However, voucher recipients report the highest incidence of problems with

fuses and circuit breakers.

The AHS asks respondents to rate their structures and neighborhoods on a scale from 1 to 10, on

which 10 is considered the best. Households receiving HUD assistance generally gave their units

a 10 more frequently than either all income-eligible renter households or all renter households.

Households in privately owned subsidized units gave the 10 rating most frequently. The worst

rating of 1 was also more common among HUD-assisted households, but the differences in

percentages are small. Public housing tenants had the highest percentage of 1 ratings.

Although assisted households overall were more likely to rate their neighborhoods a 10 than

either income-eligible renters or all renters, public housing households were the least likely of all groups to do so, and 6.4 percent of public housing tenants gave their neighborhoods the worst

rating.

When asked to compare their current unit with their previous home, recent mover respondents in

HUD-assisted units were more likely to rate the HUD-assisted unit as better and less likely to

rate the HUD-assisted unit as worse than their previous unit than either all eligible renters or all renters. When asked to compare their current neighborhood with their previous neighborhood,

recent mover respondents among voucher recipients and in privately owned HUD-assisted units

were more likely to rate their current neighborhoods as better than their previous neighborhoods.

Only 6.3 percent of recent movers in public housing rated their neighborhood as better.

Other Related Studies

This report documents one of three studies (Eggers, 2017a, 2017b; Eggers and Moumen,

2017)—identical in structure and focus—that use the AHS to assess HUD-assisted rental

housing. These studies cover HUD-assisted rental housing in 2009, 2011, and 2013 respectively.

Readers who find a particular finding important are urged to consult the same table for the other

2 survey years. As a careful reading of all three Executive Summaries suggests, most of the

interesting findings are consistent in all three reports.

ix

Introduction

This report is the seventh in a series of reports providing information on the size, composition,

and quality of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-assisted housing

stock and the characteristics of its occupants (Casey, 1992, 1997; Eggers, 2017a, 2017b; Eggers

and Moumen, 2017; HUD, 2008; McGough, 1997). These reports are intended for use by

policymakers, analysts, and proponents of housing assistance for low-income households. HUD

obtains this information by identifying assisted households that are also surveyed in the biennial

national American Housing Survey (AHS).

The 2009 data reported here represent assisted households and units in all 50 states and the

District of Columbia but exclude households and units in Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin

Islands, which are not included in the AHS. The 2009 data are a statistically valid description of

assisted households. These data are available only for the United States as a whole, with simple

tabulations for the four census regions. Because of sample limitations, data are not available for

states or smaller areas.

In this report, we compare HUD-assisted households with all income-eligible renters using the

same AHS survey data set. Another series of HUD-produced reports and data sets focuses only

on assisted households using information gleaned from administrative records. These reports and

databases were published under the series title  Picture of Subsidized Households  and are posted at http://www.huduser.org/datasets/assthsg.html.

HUD Rental Assistance Programs

HUD rental housing assistance for low-income families and individuals falls into three basic

categories.

1.  Conventional public housing (hereafter referred to as  public housing).

2.  Section 8 housing choice vouchers (hereafter referred to as  voucher).

3.  Privately owned assisted housing (hereafter referred to as  privately owned housing).

Public housing consists of housing developments owned by local public housing authorities

(PHAs) or Indian housing authorities; HUD makes payments to the authorities to cover the

development, rehabilitation, and operating costs of the housing units. Housing units in these

developments are then rented to selected low-income families and individuals at below-market

rents. Because the HUD payments cover the development and maintenance of the project, public

housing is referred to as  project based. The amount of rent low-income families pay is generally a fraction (30 percent) of their income. New tenants can select from vacant and available units

owned and operated by the local authorities. Tenants must live in units owned by the local

housing authority.

The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program involves selected low-income households

searching for housing units of their choice in the private rental market. After the household

locates a housing unit and the local housing authority grants approval, a subsidy payment is

made to the private-sector landlord on behalf of the tenant household. The program is designed

so that the out-of-pocket amount that tenants pay is 30 percent of the household’s income, if the

housing unit rents for less than the Fair Market Rent, or FMR, established by HUD for the area

and household size. Families are given the choice of renting units that are more expensive, but

tenants then pay 30 percent of their income plus the difference between the higher rent and the

1

payment standard. Because the payment is made on behalf of the tenant and the payment follows the tenant household if the household decides to move, the Section 8 voucher program is referred

to as  tenant-based assistance.

The third program category consists of privately owned projects containing housing units that are

rented to low-income households at subsidized rents. HUD provides assistance to encourage the

development of affordable housing. The following HUD programs are included in this third

category—Rent Supplement, Section 221(d)(3) Below Market Interest Rate, Section 202

Supportive Housing for the Elderly, Project-Based Section 8, Moderate Rehabilitation, and some

other smaller programs. Data on tenants in privately owned housing may not be altogether

comparable with data on public housing tenants or voucher recipients. The public housing and

voucher programs are deeply subsidized, with nearly all tenants paying income-based tenant

rents. Only approximately three-fourths of the households in privately owned housing pay

income-based tenant rents. The other tenants pay rents that do not vary by income; the project is

subsidized through initial financing without additional subsidy, and the rents are uniformly

reduced for all tenants. For these units, individual household income determines only eligibility,

not the amount by which the rent is reduced. As a consequence, approximately one-fourth of

tenants in privately owned housing may pay differing proportions of their income for rent and

also may differ in other characteristics from the other assisted tenants. Units in these programs

are also considered  project based.

Income-eligible renters are those households that would qualify for admission to assisted

housing because their income is within the HUD-determined income limit of 50 percent or less

of Median Family Income for their area, adjusted for family size. In HUD terminology, these

households are “very-low-income renters” and are eligible for assisted housing based on

income  alone. 1 Another term used in the report is “worst case households.” Worst case needs2

means renters who do not receive federal assistance, who have incomes below 50 percent of

1 All families with incomes below 50 percent of HUD-adjusted Median Family Income generally are eligible for housing assistance. The number of income-eligible families is a lower bound to the total number of eligible families, because other families with higher incomes (up to 80 percent of median income) are eligible if they also  meet additional (nonincome) criteria. These additional criteria include being displaced from certain HUD-assisted projects, having been previously assisted, being nonpurchasing tenants in certain homeownership programs, or meeting public housing agency-specified criteria.

2 Reports presenting estimates of worst case needs households have been submitted to Congress since 1991. HUD’s previous reports to Congress are  Priority Problems and “Worst Case” Needs in 1989 (June 1991, HUD-1314-PDR); The Location of Worst Case Needs in the Late 1980s (December 1992, HUD-1387-PDR);  Worst Case Needs for Housing Assistance in the United States in 1990 and 1991 (June 1994, HUD-1481-PDR);  Rental Housing Assistance at a Crossroads: A Report to Congress on Worst Case Housing Needs (March 1996);  Rental Housing Assistance—

The Crisis Continues (April 1998);  Rental Housing Assistance—The Worsening Crisis: A Report to Congress on Worst Case Housing Needs (March 2000);  A Report on Worst Case Housing Needs in 1999: New Opportunity Amid Continuing Challenges, Executive Summary (January 2001);  Trends in Worst Case Needs for Housing, 1978–1999

(December 2003);  Affordable Housing Needs: A Report to Congress on the Significant Need for Housing (December 2005);  Affordable Housing Needs 2005: Report to  Congress (May 2007);  Housing Needs of Persons With Disabilities: Supplemental Findings to the  Affordable Housing Needs 2005 Report;  Worst Case Housing Needs 2007: A Report to Congress (May 2010);  Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: A Report to Congress (February 2011); Worst Case Housing Needs 2011: Report to Congress (August 2009);  Worst Case Housing Needs: 2015 Report to Congress (April 2015). These publications are available online at

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/Worst-Case-Housing-Needs.html.

2

Median Family Income in their area, as adjusted by HUD, and who pay more than one-half their income for rent and utilities or live in severely substandard housing. 3

Readers should be aware that not all housing assistance programs are identified in this report.

Other renter households are receiving housing assistance from U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) programs or state or local rental assistance programs. Estimates indicate that in fiscal

year 2004, approximately 464,000 units were available under the Rural Housing Service

(formerly known as the Farmers Home Administration) Section 515 Rental Assistance Program.

Approximately 264,000 of the available units received deep subsidies under the Section 521

Rental Assistance Program. The report also does not include units available for occupancy under

the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program; from 1987

through 2009, 40,502 projects containing 2.6 million units were placed in service for low-income

households (those with incomes less than 60 percent of local Area Median Income; HUD, 2016).

Some of these tax credit units may also receive HUD or USDA subsidies.

Organization of the Report and Data Tables

The Big Picture through the Unit Quality and Tenant Satisfaction sections of the report contain

short topical tables with accompanying commentary. These topical tables are derived from six

detailed summary tables contained in the Detailed Summary Tables section. The structure of

these sections follows the organization of the six detailed tables.

•  The Big Picture section uses information from all eight matched surveys to track the growth of

HUD-assisted housing from 1989 to 2009.

•  The Location and Key Unit Characteristics section examines where HUD-assisted units are

located, when they were built, and how many bedrooms they contain; it is based on Summary

Table 1.

•  The Householder Characteristics section and Summary Table 2 look at the characteristics of

householders.

•  The Household Characteristics section and Summary Table 3 summarize the composition and

financial characteristics of households.

•  The Unit Quality and Tenant Satisfaction section and Summary Tables 4 and 5 summarize the

condition of units and tenants’ opinions of their units and neighborhoods.

•  Detailed Summary Table 6 contains special breakouts of the data in Summary Tables 2 and 3.

Each topical table contains information for six categories of renter households: all HUD-assisted

households, public housing tenants, voucher recipients, tenants in privately owned subsidized

units, all income-eligible households, and all renter households. The six detailed tables in the

3 A unit is severely substandard if it has any of five physical problems: (1) Lacks complete plumbing, (2) Is uncomfortably cold for 24 hours or more in the winter due to frequent heating equipment breakdowns, (3) Has no electricity or three specified electrical problems, (4) Has any five of six serious maintenance problems, and (5) The public areas of the apartment building have four serious maintenance problems. For more detail, see “Appendix A: Definitions and Questionnaire,  American Housing Survey for the United States,  Current Housing Reports H150,”

U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

3

Detailed Summary Tables section contain two additional renter household categories: all unassisted, income-eligible renters and unassisted renters identified as having worst case needs.

Source of the Data

The national AHS collects detailed information on housing units and their occupants every

2 years. Unfortunately, although this large sample contains many assisted units, it has been

impossible to determine reliably, using the self-reported data of the AHS, which units are HUD-

assisted units. In earlier reports, HUD undertook two complementary manual matching efforts to

overcome this difficulty. One involved a manual matching of AHS renter respondents’ addresses

with a list of addresses HUD developed for public housing and privately owned assisted housing

projects. In the second match, which focused on voucher recipients, Census Bureau data

collectors compared names and addresses of AHS-sampled renters in an area with the records

that local housing authorities kept for voucher recipients.

Since the earlier reports, HUD has developed information on basic tenant demographic and

financial characteristics and limited data on unit characteristics from program administrative

records. In particular, the Public and Indian Housing Information Center (PIC) provides data for

the public housing and voucher programs, and the Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System

(TRACS) provides data for privately owned housing. Some differences exist between data from

program administrative systems and similar information from the AHS. PIC and TRACS were

designed to be 100-percent reporting systems and not scientific samples; thus, when reporting

falls substantially below 100 percent, the results will not be wholly accurate. In addition, the

small samples available for program data from the AHS will result in variability of results. Users

should therefore make comparisons across different data systems with great caution.

For this report, specialists at the Census Bureau matched records from the AHS and the two

HUD administrative record systems using computerized matching algorithms and techniques.

Relationship to Other Studies

This report documents one of three studies (Eggers, 2017a, 2017b; Eggers and Moumen,

2017)—identical in structure and focus—that use the AHS to assess HUD-assisted rental

housing. These studies cover HUD-assisted rental housing in 2009, 2011, and 2013 respectively.

Because the universe of HUD-assisted rental housing underwent only marginal changes between

2009 and 2013, one should expect the findings to be nearly identical in all three studies and, for

the most part, they are. Some differences exist because the economy experienced a major swing

between 2009 and 2013 (June 2009 was the trough of the major 2007–2009 recession), because

the sample of HUD units was selected differently in each of the 3 years, and because respondents

sometimes answer the same question differently at different times due either to changes in

objective conditions or pure randomness. Readers who find a particular finding important are

urged to consult the same table for the other 2 survey years. As a careful reading of all three

Executive Summaries suggests, most of the interesting findings are consistent in all three reports.

4

The Big Picture

HUD spends approximately $40 billion a year on assisted housing (Weicher, 2012). 4 The matched AHS sample used in this report provides important information on how these

expenditures affected American households in 2009. Before reviewing the data, we call the

reader’s attention to three factors that are crucial for interpreting the data.

•  Unlike Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, assisted

housing is not an entitlement; that is, not every household that meets the eligibility

requirements for assisted housing will receive housing assistance. Some households receive

help, although others are placed on waiting lists. Such variations mean that the “who is helped”

question is particularly relevant. In other words, individually, and as a group, do the assisted

housing programs overserve some populations and underserve others?

•  HUD delivers housing assistance through agents. PHAs administer public housing, PHAs and

state agencies administer the voucher program, and private developers and landlords administer

the privately owned housing programs. The motivations of these agents and where and when

they function greatly affect how these programs operate.

•  Two of the three major categories of HUD-assisted housing—public housing and privately

owned, project-based housing—provide assisted housing by first producing the housing.

Housing units are clumps of capital and land that have long life spans. As a result, the location

and type of units produced determine who will be served for years to come.

HUD and the Census Bureau have matched administrative data on assisted housing with eight

AHS surveys (1989, 1991, 1993, 2003, 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013). Including this document,

the results of those matches have been presented in seven reports (Casey, 1992, 1997; Eggers,

2017a, 2017b; Eggers and Moumen, 2017; HUD, 2008; McGough, 1997).

AHS data depict how housing assistance has evolved during the 24 years between the 1989 and

the 2013 matches. During the 1991-to-2013 period, the number of renter households grew from

33.3 million to 40.2 million, an increase of 21 percent. 5 During the same time period, the number of households eligible for housing assistance increased 16 percent, although the number of HUD-assisted units increased only 11 percent. The percentage of the eligible households receiving

assistance fell from 24.9 percent in 1991 to 21.1 percent in 2011, before rising to 23.8 percent in 2013.

The financial crisis and recession that began in 2007 caused a sharp increase in the number of

renter households and an even sharper increase in the number of renter households with incomes

that qualify them for housing assistance. Most of the decline in the percentage of eligible

households receiving assistance occurred during the 2007-to-2011 period. The number of eligible

renter households declined by approximately 1 million between 2011 and 2013, resulting in the

observed increase in the percentage of eligible households served (Table 2-1).

4 See Table 4-4.

5 The percentages reported in this and the following two sentences are based on the 1991-to-2013 period. In 1991, the Census Bureau revised the AHS weights to reflect information from the 1990 Census. This change corrected an over count of the housing stock in the 1989 AHS of more than a million units. Adjustments to the weights in 2003

and 2009 for subsequent censuses did not reveal any major problems in housing stock counts.

5

Table 2-1: Trends in HUD-Assisted Rental Housing, Relative to Need

AHS Survey Year  Al  Renters (000s)

Al  Eligible

Al  HUD-Assisted  Percent of Eligible

Renters (000s)

(000s)

Assisted (%)

1989

33,767

13,808

4,070

29.5

1991

33,351

16,194

4,036

24.9

1993

33,472

15,795

4,054

25.7

2003

33,604

16,576

4,280

25.8

2007

35,032

16,494

4,273

25.9

2009

35,378

18,233

4,426

24.3

2011

38,814

19,737

4,168

21.1

2013

40,202

18,856

4,490

23.8

AHS = American Housing Survey. HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

During the 1989-to-2013 period, the number of HUD-assisted units increased by roughly

400,000 units, but program mix changed dramatically. The voucher program’s share grew from

26 percent in 1989 to 47 percent in 2013, although the shares of public housing and privately

owned assisted housing each declined by approximately 10 percentage points. Because of

differences in the way these programs are structured, one could expect to see big changes in how

HUD housing assistance affects American households during this period (Table 2-2).

Table 2-2: Trends in HUD-Assisted Housing by Program Type

Tenants in

AHS Survey Year  Al  HUD-Assisted  Tenants in Public

Voucher

(000s)

Housing (%)

Recipients (%)

Privately Owned

Housing (%)

1989

4,070

33.4

26.0

40.5

1991

4,036

28.4

28.3

43.3

1993

4,054

28.1

29.6

42.3

2003

4,280

25.6

42.1

32.4

2007

4,273

23.5

45.1

31.4

2009

4,426

22.6

46.8

30.6

2011

4,168

23.7

48.7

27.7

2013

4,490

22.9

46.8

30.2

AHS = American Housing Survey. HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Figure 1 explains how HUD-assisted housing fits into the overall rental housing market. In 2009,

the U.S. housing market had 35,378,000 renter households; 18,233,000 of these households were

eligible on the basis of income for HUD assistance. HUD programs served 4,426,000 of the

eligible households (24.3 percent), leaving 13,807,000 eligible households without any HUD

housing assistance; of these, 6,895,000 were judged to have worst case housing needs. The

voucher program helped 2,073,000 households; another 1,354,000 households lived in privately

owned, project-based housing, and public housing provided housing to 999,000 households. 6

6 As in previous reports, HUD provided the Census Bureau with estimates of the number of HUD-assisted units by program. The Census Bureau used these estimates to adjust the weights of the matched units so that the weighted counts matched program totals.

6

Figure 1: Renters—Eligibility and Housing Assistance

7

Location and Key Unit Characteristics

Three factors greatly influence whom the HUD-assisted housing programs serve and the type of

housing provided. The factors are which agents choose to work with HUD to provide housing

assistance, where these agents are located, and what their objectives are. For this reason, we

begin the analysis with information on the location of HUD-assisted housing and the types of

units provided. This section summarizes information in Summary Table 1.

Regional and Metropolitan Location

When compared with either all renter households or all renter households eligible for assistance

(including those already assisted), the HUD programs as a group are more concentrated in the

Northeast and less concentrated in the West. Only 20 percent of all renters and 22 percent of

eligible renters live in the Northeast, but 28 percent of HUD-assisted housing is in the Northeast.

In 2009, the West contained 25 percent of all renters and 22 percent of eligible renters but 18

percent of HUD-assisted households. The share of HUD-assisted renters in the Midwest and

South is similar to the geographic distributions of all renter households and all income-eligible

renter households (Table 3-1).

Table 3-1: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Region, 2009

HUD-Assisted Renters

Tenants in

Total

Regions

Al  HUD-

Tenants in

Voucher

Privately

Eligible

Al  Renters

Assisted (%)

Public

Recipients

Owned

Renters (%)

(%)

Housing (%)

(%)

Housing (%)

Northeast

27.8

36.1

24.5

26.9

22.1

20.0

Midwest

22.1

19.0

20.1

27.4

21.2

20.1

South

32.4

35.9

31.8

30.8

34.2

35.0

West

17.6

8.9

23.6

14.9

22.5

24.9

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The regional distribution of public housing, the oldest HUD-assisted housing program, drives

this imbalance. Vouchers, the newest HUD program, are also administered mostly by PHAs. The

voucher program has a regional distribution that is close to that of all renter households but still has a higher percentage in the Northeast and a lower percentage in the West. The overall regional

imbalance is a function of the age of the programs. Communities in the Northeast created active

PHAs in the early years of the public housing program, whereas PHAs in the West became more

active in the years when HUD moved toward voucher assistance. During this period, the nation’s

population also shifted toward the West. Similar patterns appear in the

metropolitan/nonmetropolitan distribution of HUD-assisted housing.

Overall, the proportion of HUD-assisted housing in metropolitan areas and nonmetropolitan

areas matches the proportion of all renter households or all income-eligible renter households.

Within metropolitan areas, HUD-assisted housing is more concentrated in central cities and less

concentrated in suburbs than either all renter households or all income-eligible renter

households. The central city/suburb disparity is most pronounced in public housing, but the

privately owned housing programs also exhibit this imbalance. Once again, the voucher program

presents the distribution closest to that of all renter households or all income-eligible renter

households. Table 3-2 does not include similar programs administered by USDA’s Rural

Housing Service or Rural Development programs.

8

Table 3-2: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Metropolitan/Nonmetropolitan Status, 2009

HUD-Assisted Renters  Tenants in  Total

Metropolitan/

Al  HUD-  Tenants in  Voucher  Privately

Eligible

Al

Nonmetropolitan Areas

Assisted

Public

Recipients  Owned

Renters  Renters

(%)

Housing

(%)

Housing

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Inside metropolitan

statistical areas

86.4

86.0

87.7

84.9

84.4

84.4

In central cities

52.4

60.2

49.3

51.6

46.6

41.9

In suburbs

34.0

25.8

38.4

33.3

37.9

42.4

Outside metropolitan

statistical areas

13.6

14.1

12.4

15.1

15.6

15.6

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

In the section, The Big Picture, we called attention to the shifting importance of the voucher

program in HUD’s overall housing assistance between 1989 and 2013. Despite the growth in the

voucher program, the overall distribution of HUD-assisted housing has changed little in the past

24 years. The percentage of assisted housing in suburbs has increased slightly, accompanied by a

slight decrease in the percentage in central cities. The percentage outside of metropolitan areas

has declined over time.

Of course, the distribution of all renters and eligible renters has also changed over time. The

previously mentioned shift in the proportion of assisted housing from central city to suburbs and

the observed decline outside of metropolitan areas followed similar changes in broader renter

populations. Between 1989 and 2013, the proportion of assisted housing in suburbs grew from 26

to 32 percent, although the proportion of all renter households grew from 38 to 40 percent; the

proportion of assisted housing outside of metropolitan areas fell from 16 to 13 percent, although

the proportion of all renters fell from 16 percent to 12 percent (Table 3-3).

Table 3-3: Trends in the Distribution of HUD-Assisted Households by Region and by

Metropolitan/Nonmetropolitan Status

Al  HUD-Assisted

AHS Survey Year

Renters/Location

1989

1991

1993

2003

2007

2009

2011

2013

Northeast

28

24

27

28

28

28

28

28

Midwest

22

22

22

22

22

22

19

22

South

34

37

35

34

32

32

32

33

West

16

17

15

17

18

18

20

18

Inside metropolitan

statistical areas

84

81

82

87

86

86

84

87

In central cities

58

53

56

54

52

52

54

55

In suburbs

26

27

26

33

34

34

30

32

Outside

metropolitan

16

19

18

13

14

14

16

13

statistical areas

AHS = American Housing Survey. HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Notes: The tables in this document that describe trends during all eight matched data studies report percentages as whole percentages, whereas the tables describing characteristics of HUD programs in 2009 report percentages to one-tenth of a percentage point. The published matched data for 1989, 1991, and 1993 are available only as whole percentages, so the data for subsequent years are rounded to whole percentages.

9

Year Structure Built

Public housing and HUD’s privately owned subsidized housing programs work by creating new

rental units and then filling these units with eligible households. The types of units built

determine what types of families are served. PHAs and private developers, with HUD approval,

choose what types of units to construct or renovate, and that choice is based on their objectives

and the needs at the time building takes place. Decisions made at one point in time become

frozen in housing capital. This fact was impressed on the author by a visit in the mid-1990s to an

unassisted, HUD-insured project in the suburbs outside Minneapolis and Saint Paul. The project

was constructed in the early 1970s to accommodate all the baby boomers entering the job market

and consisted entirely of one-bedroom units; after experiencing declining demand, the project

was being renovated at the time of his visit to serve a family market (Table 3-4).

Table 3-4: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Year Built, 2009

HUD-Assisted Renters

Tenants in

Tenants in

Total

Year Built

Al  HUD-

Public

Voucher

Privately

Eligible

Al  Renters

Assisted (%)  Housing

Recipients

Owned

Renters (%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Housing (%)

1949 and earlier

21.1

25.5

26.8

9.1

26.0

25.7

1950–1969

22.3

40.2

19.9

12.9

22.5

21.6

1970–1984

39.3

27.2

29.1

63.8

32.6

29.0

1985 or later

17.3

6.9

24.3

14.3

19.0

23.7

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Public housing began in 1937, and 25.5 percent of public housing units were built before 1950.

Approximately 70 percent of public housing units were built between 1950 and 1985, when

HUD restructured its housing assistance programs to favor the voucher approach. The privately

owned housing programs were most active between 1965 and 1985; 63.8 percent of these units

were constructed between 1970 and 1984. The 9.1 percent of privately owned units reportedly

built before 1950 results from a combination of rehabilitating older buildings for use as assisted

housing and errors on the part of AHS respondents in identifying the year built.

Because the voucher program can use any rental units in the stock if their owners are willing to

participate, its distribution by year built closely matches the distribution of all renter households.

Number of Bedrooms

The number of bedrooms in an assisted unit determines the size of the household that can be

served. Overall, HUD-assisted housing has a higher percentage of one-bedroom units than the

percentage among all renter households or all income-eligible renter households and a lower

percentage of two-bedroom units. This disparity is sharpest among privately owned subsidized

housing and probably results from a focus on elderly households among several of the programs

in this category (including both older Section 202 direct loans with project-based Section 8

assistance and newer Section 8 capital grant projects built after 1990) and the preferences of

developers in the regular Section 8 program. Public housing displays a similar distribution of

unit sizes but to a lesser degree. Not surprisingly, the bedroom distribution among voucher units

resembles the distribution among all renters but with a lower percentage of two-bedroom units

and a higher percentage three-bedroom units. The voucher program has the highest percentage of

units with three or four or more bedrooms among the HUD-assisted programs, probably

10

reflecting the fact that vouchers can also be used to rent single-family rentals, including townhomes or rowhouses; these percentages are actually higher than the percentage among

income-eligible renter households (Table 3-5).

Table 3-5: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Number of Bedrooms, 2009

HUD-Assisted Renters

Number of

Tenants in

Total

Tenants in

Voucher

Al  Renters

Bedrooms

Al  HUD-

Privately

Eligible

Assisted (%)

Public

Recipients

Owned

Renters (%)

(%)

Housing (%)

(%)

Housing (%)

Efficiency

1.3

0.4

1.1

2.3

2.7

2.1

One

37.1

29.5

25.4

60.6

32.5

27.5

Two

31.3

35.1

34.6

23.3

38.3

40.1

Three

23.5

25.8

29.1

13.1

20.7

23.6

Four or more

6.9

9.2

9.8

0.7

5.8

6.7

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The combined bedroom distribution for all three HUD-assisted housing programs has definitely

shifted over time. The percentage of units with three or four or more bedrooms increased from

24 percent in 1989 to 28 percent in 2009 despite a decline in the number of large families. The

percentage of one-bedroom units decreased slightly from 39 to 38 percent (Table 3-6).

Table 3-6: Trends in the Distribution of HUD-Assisted Households by Number of Bedrooms

Percent of

Al  HUD-Assisted Renters

Units by

Number of

1989

1991

1993

2003

2007

2009

2011

2013

Bedrooms

Efficiency

5

5

4

3

3

1

2

1

One

39

40

38

38

40

37

35

38

Two

32

33

35

33

30

31

34

33

Three

20

20

19

22

22

23

24

22

Four or more

4

3

4

4

4

7

6

6

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

With this background on where HUD programs function and the types of units they provide, we

will examine whom the programs serve in the Householder Characteristics and Household

Characteristics sections. In the Unit Quality and Tenant Satisfaction section, we will discuss the

quality of housing provided and tenant satisfaction; the Unit Quality and Tenant Satisfaction

section will include information on the type of structure. More detailed information on location

and other unit characteristics is in Summary Table 1.

11

Householder Characteristics

The Census Bureau characterizes some households using data on all household members,

providing information such as household size, the presence or absence of children, or family

status. For other characteristics, such as age or race, the Census Bureau takes these

characteristics from one individual, the householder. The householder is any responsible member

of the household who is competent to answer questions about the household. 7 In a traditional household with a father, a mother, and children, the householder could be either the father or

mother. This section draws information from Summary Table 2.

Race and Ethnic Origin of Householder

The percentage of HUD-assisted units with Black householders in 2009 was 46.0 percent,

although the percentage of all income-eligible renter households with Black householders was

30.0 percent. The differentials were greatest for the public housing and voucher programs, in

which Black householders occupied 59.9 and 44.3 percent of units, respectively. One possible

explanation for public housing is its high concentration in central cities. Privately owned

subsidized units, however, have the smallest differential (38.5 versus 30.0 percent), and these

units are also disproportionally concentrated in central cities (Table 4-1).

Table 4-1: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Race and Ethnicity of Householder, 2009

HUD-Assisted Renters

Race and Ethnic

Tenants in

Total

Origin of

Al  HUD-

Tenants in

Voucher

Privately

Eligible

Al  Renters

Householder  Assisted (%)

Public

Recipients

Owned

Renters (%)

(%)

Housing (%)

(%)

Housing (%)

White alone

47.9

35.9

49.9

53.8

63.0

71.2

Black alone

46.0

59.9

44.3

38.5

30.0

21.0

Other races alone

or multiple races

6.0

4.3

5.8

7.7

7.0

7.7

Hispanic (of any

race)

17.4

24.4

16.3

14.0

20.3

17.8

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

With respect to ethnicity, the percentage of all HUD-assisted households with Hispanic

householders is smaller than the percentage of income-eligible households with Hispanic

householders.

Table 4-2 traces how the racial and ethnic distribution of HUD-assisted renters has changed over

time. Unfortunately, the results from the 1989, 1991, and 1993 surveys are not strictly

comparable with those from the 2003, 2007, 2009, and 2009 surveys because HUD and other

federal agencies changed how they collect data on race in 2001. Prior to that year, survey

respondents were forced to choose between four racial groups or an “other” category. Starting in

7 The Census Bureau defines the householder as follows: “The householder is the first household member listed on the questionnaire who is an owner or renter of the sample unit and is 18 years or older…. If no one meets the full criteria, the age requirement is relaxed to 14 years or older before the owner/renter requirement. Where the respondent is one of several unrelated persons who all could meet the criteria, the interviewer will select one of them to be … the householder. The householder is not necessarily the one answering the survey questions.”

12

2001, respondents could choose more than one racial category. Thus, “other” in the later surveys consists of those who reported two or more races, and White is really White alone after 2001.

Table 4-2: Trends in the Distribution of HUD-Assisted Households by Race and Ethnicity of

Householder

Percent of Al  HUD-

AHS Survey Year

Assisted Renters by

Race and Ethnic

Origin of

1989

1991

1993

2003

2007

2009

2011

2013

Householder

White alone

54

61

54

54

52

48

49

49

Black alone

40

35

40

40

41

46

44

44

Other races alone or

multiple races

6

4

6

6

7

6

7

8

Hispanic (of any race)

10

10

10

18

15

17

18

17

AHS = American Housing Survey. HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Despite this qualification, the numbers tell an interesting story. The percentage of households

with Black householders rose sharply in 2009, long after the change in the race question. The

percentage of units with Hispanic householders rose between 1993 and 2003, reflecting in part

the rising Hispanic share of the population. The change in the race question did not directly

affect the collection of data on ethnicity.

Age of Householder

Combined HUD-assisted housing programs were serving households with elderly householders

at a rate greater than their share of the population of income-eligible renter households (27.9

versus 19.2 percent). The percentage of households with elderly householders was particularly

high among units in privately owned subsidized housing (45.6 percent). Only the voucher

program served elderly people at a rate (16.6 percent) similar to their share of income-eligible

renter households.

The share of households with householders under 35 years old is less in all three HUD programs

than their share of income-eligible renter households. The voucher program has a higher

proportion of households with householders between 35 and 64 years old than the share of such

households in the overall renter population, 53.3 compared with 46.1 percent. Only 31.9 percent

of households in privately owned subsidized units were in this age range (Table 4-3).

Table 4-3: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Age of Householder, 2009

HUD-Assisted Renters

Age of

Tenants in

Total

Tenants in

Voucher

Al  Renters

Householder

Al  HUD-

Privately

Eligible

Assisted (%)

Public

Recipients

Owned

Renters (%)

(%)

Housing (%)

(%)

Housing (%)

Under 35

27.3

27.8

30.1

22.6

37.0

40.8

35 to 64

44.8

44.8

53.3

31.9

43.8

46.1

65 or older

27.9

27.4

16.6

45.6

19.2

13.1

Median age

48

46

43

62

42

39

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

13

The median age data highlight how the privately owned subsidized housing programs have concentrated on serving an elderly population. The median age in these programs is 62 years,

compared with 46 in public housing and 43 in the voucher program.

As the relative importance of the voucher program increased over time, the share of all HUD-

assisted units with elderly householders fell nearly steadily from 35 percent in 1989 to 28 percent in 2013 (Table 4-4).

Table 4-4: Trends in the Distribution of HUD-Assisted Households by Age of Householder

Al  HUD-Assisted

AHS Survey Year

Renters/Age of

Householder

1989

1991

1993

2003

2007

2009

2011

2013

Under 35

29

31

34

29

24

27

28

25

35 to 64

36

33

34

43

48

45

47

47

65 or older

35

36

32

28

28

28

25

28

Median age (in years)

50

50

44

48

50

49

48

NA

AHS = American Housing Survey. HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

NA = data not available.

Education of Householder

The last two columns in Table 4-5 emphasize the link between education and income. Income-

eligible renter households are much less educated than all renter households. Among income-

eligible renter households, 28.9 percent had householders without high school degrees compared

with 18.9 percent among all renter households; 34.5 percent of income-eligible households have

householders with education beyond the high school level compared with 48.0 percent among all

renter households. Because of this important linkage, we present data on educational attainment

by race and ethnicity.

The high school graduation rates are low in all three HUD programs (58.1 percent in public

housing, 68.0 percent in the voucher program, and 63.9 percent in privately owned housing)

compared with 71.1 percent among all income-eligible renter households and 81.1 percent

among all renter households. These results are consistent with the finding in the Household

Characteristics section that HUD-assisted households have lower incomes than income-eligible

renter households overall.

The reports for 2011 and 2013 contain disaggregation of the education attainment data by White

alone, Black alone, other races, and Hispanic. For 2009, the available data permit disaggregation

only by Black alone and Hispanic. Educational attainment is lower for the Hispanic population in

assisted housing than for the Black alone population (some of whom are Hispanic by ethnicity).

Similar patterns are found in the 2011 and 2013 data. However, the pattern among Hispanics in

assisted housing resembles the pattern among Hispanics in the income-eligible population more

so than the same comparison among the Black alone population.

14

Table 4-5: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Education Attainment of Householder by Race and Ethnicity, 2009

HUD-Assisted Renters

Educational Attainment of

Tenants in  Total

Tenants in

Al

Householder by Race and

Al  HUD-

Voucher  Privately  Eligible

Public

Renters

Ethnicity

Assisted

Recipients  Owned

Renters

(%)

Housing

(%)

Housing

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Less than 9th grade—al

households

9.3

10.7

8.7

9.3

9.6

6.3

Black alone

5.3

9.4

2.8

5.0

5.1

3.7

Hispanic

26.9

29.9

24.9

27.0

26.4

20.5

9th to 12th grade, no

diploma—al  households

26.2

31.2

23.3

26.9

19.3

12.6

Black alone

29.5

29.4

28.0

32.6

23.4

16.7

Hispanic

25.5

31.6

22.2

23.8

25.0

20.5

High school graduation

(includes equivalency)—al

37.9

33.9

39.6

38.2

36.6

33.1

households

Black alone

36.4

30.4

40.7

35.3

39.1

37.6

Hispanic

29.8

23.4

34.6

29.6

30.0

32.2

More than high school

graduation—al  households

26.6

24.1

28.5

25.7

34.5

48.0

Black alone

28.9

30.8

28.5

27.3

32.5

41.9

Hispanic

17.7

15.2

18.6

19.6

18.6

26.7

High school graduate—al

households

64.5

58.1

68.0

63.9

71.1

81.1

Black alone

65.3

61.2

69.2

62.6

71.6

79.5

Hispanic

47.5

38.5

53.3

49.2

48.6

58.9

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Years in Same Unit

Because housing assistance is not an entitlement, one might expect households receiving

assistance to be reluctant to move if moving means giving up assistance. Table 4-6 supports that

presumption.

The bolded rows report the percentages for all householders, regardless of race, ethnicity, age, or disability. Householders who have lived in the unit fewer than 6 years constitute 69.5 percent of

income-eligible renter households, compared with 56.8 percent in public housing, 70.0 percent

among voucher recipients, and 53.8 percent in privately owned housing. Approximately 14

percent of public housing households have householders who have lived in the unit for more than

15 years compared with 8.6 percent among income-eligible renter households. Both income-

eligible renters and all renters show shorter tenancies than assisted households.

As one might expect, differences exist between the two assistance paradigms—the public

housing and privately owned program in which the subsidy attaches to the unit and the voucher

program in which the subsidy moves with the tenant. The voucher program has the most

turnover; for example, only 6.5 percent of householders have lived in their units more than 15

years, roughly the same as all income-eligible householders. The voucher program has slightly

lower turnover than the pattern among all renters, probably because moving is expensive, and

voucher participants can carry their subsidies only to units whose landlords will participate in the voucher program.

15

Table 4-6: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Householder Years in Unit by Race, Ethnicity, and Elderly Status, 2009

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total

Tenants

Tenants in

Al

Years in Unit, 2009

Al  HUD-

Voucher

Eligible

Assisted  in Public  Recipients

Privately

Renters  Renters

(%)

Housing

(%)

Owned

(%)

(%)

(%)

Housing (%)

0 to 5—Al  householders

62.1

56.8

70.0

53.8

69.5

73.4

Black alone

65.4

57.2

73.8

60.1

69.0

72.5

Hispanic

53.6

37.7

71.6

42.3

68.4

73.8

Over 65

35.2

18.6

42.6

38.5

37.3

39.6

6 to 10—Al  householders

18.8

16.4

18.4

21.0

15.5

14.0

Black alone

18.5

18.1

18.2

19.4

16.2

14.5

Hispanic

17.6

14.3

15.1

26.5

15.8

14.2

Over 65

24.1

24.1

24.3

23.8

23.2

22.8

11 to 15—Al  householders

9.7

12.5

5.1

14.8

6.5

5.4

Black alone

7.6

11.2

3.6

10.6

6.4

5.1

Hispanic

11.0

13.5

5.6

17.5

6.4

5.1

Over 65

18.8

19.7

11.3

22.8

14.4

13.1

More than 15—Al  householders

9.5

14.3

6.5

10.4

8.6

7.1

Black alone

8.6

13.7

4.4

10.0

8.4

7.9

Hispanic

17.7

34.4

7.7

13.8

9.5

6.9

Over 65

21.7

37.6

21.7

14.9

25.1

24.6

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Notes: The Census Bureau does not tabulate “years in unit”; rather, it reports the year the household moved into the unit in 5-year blocks. For 2009, the blocks include 2000–2004, 2005–2009, and 2010–2009. This presentation translates into 0 to 5 years, 6 to 10

years, 11 to 15 years, and more than 15 years categories for years in unit. Because the size of the initial category depends on the survey year, the 2009 results can be compared only with tabulations from the 2003 and the 1993 match studies.

The race, ethnicity, and age breakouts are best understood by looking down the columns within

each “years in unit” category. In the all renters and the income eligible columns, the differences

across race and ethnicity are minor, but elderly householders display lower turnover, that is,

lower rates of short tenure (0–5 years) and higher rates of long tenures (more than 15 years).

The same patterns are apparent among householders in the assisted housing programs, with one

exception. In public housing and privately owned housing, Hispanic householders have lower

turnover than all householders.

Because of the way that the AHS collects data on years in units, one can compare only data

across the 1989 and 2009 studies (see Table 4-7 note). The comparison of turnover patterns

showed that in 2009 more householders had moved in within the past 5 years but more had lived

in their units for 15 years or more.

Table 4-7: Trends in the Distribution of HUD-Assisted Households by Years in Unit by Householder Years in Unit

Al  HUD-Assisted Renters

1989 (%)

2009 (%)

0 to 5 years

60.6

62.1

6 to 10 years

20.7

18.8

11 to 15 years

10.1

9.7

More than 15

8.5

9.5

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Notes: More detailed information on householder characteristics can be found in Summary Tables 2 and 6 in the Detailed Summary Tables section. Years in unit are derived from year-moved-in data. For assisted units, year moved in is reported in decade or one-half-decade intervals. For the 1989 and 2009 surveys, the first of these intervals corresponds to 0–5 years in units. For the 1991 and 2011 surveys, the first of these intervals corresponds to 0–2 years in unit.

16

Household Characteristics

The Household Characteristics section describes key characteristics of HUD-assisted households,

focusing primarily on characteristics that relate to need for housing assistance. This section

draws on information from Summary Table 3. One should not expect significant year-to-year

changes in the characteristics of HUD households or householders. Only new units and turnover

among assisted units can alter the mix of households. In the 22 years covered by these studies,

the number of assisted units has increased by only 11 percent, and the previous section showed

that turnover is low.

Household Income

Eligibility for assisted housing is based primarily on household income. Eligibility is determined

by comparing household income with Median Family Income in the locality; typically, a

household is eligible if it earns less than 50 percent of the median income of families in that

locality adjusted for family size. Within a group of lower-income households, HUD agents may

in some circumstances look at additional criteria, such as being homeless or displaced, in

prioritizing households for the limited number of units available at a given time.

In 2009, the median income of all renters nationally was $28,400, based on AHS data.

Households in HUD programs had median incomes substantially less than that of all renters. The

median income of voucher recipients was 42.3 percent of that for all eligible renters, and the

ratios were even lower in public housing (31.8 percent) and privately owned subsidized housing

(33.5 percent). Individually the HUD programs are generally serving households from the lower

end of the distribution of renter households. See Table 5-1.

Table 5-1: Median Income of Households by Assistance Status, 2009

HUD-Assisted Renters

Median

Tenants in

Total

Household

Al  HUD-

Tenants in

Voucher

Privately

Eligible

Al  Renters

Income

Assisted

Public

Recipients

Owned

Renters

Housing

Housing

Median household

income

$10,600

$9,000

$12,000

$9,516

$14,000

$28,400

Percent of all

renter households

37.3

31.7

42.3

33.5

49.3

100.0

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. NA = data not available.

Table 5-2 reveals no clear overall trend in how HUD-assisted housing programs functioned

during the 1989-to-2009 period. The ratios of the median incomes of households served by the

public housing and voucher programs to renter median income have remained relatively flat

during the period, with the voucher ratio being higher than the public housing ratio. The ratio of

median income in the privately owned assisted stock to the median income of all renters declined

steadily from 1989 to 2009. During that period, the stock of privately owned assisted housing

decreased by approximately 300,000. The Introduction noted that some components of the

privately owned assisted rental stock had rents that could be greater than 30 percent of tenant

income. In recent years, particularly 1995 to 2005, many of these units—rent supplements,

Section 236, and the old 202 program—left the programs, a fact that may explain the downtrend

in the ratio of median incomes among households in the privately owned stock.

17

Table 5-2: Trends in Median Income of Households by Assistance Status

Group Median Income

AHS Survey Year

as Percent of Renter

Median Income

1989

1991

1993

2003

2007

2009

2011

2013

All HUD-assisted

41

39

38

39

36

37

NA

NA

Tenants in public housing

37

36

35

37

33

32

37

36

Voucher recipients

42

39

39

40

38

42

43

39

Tenants in privately

owned housing

43

42

40

39

37

34

37

34

AHS = American Housing Survey. HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. NA = data not available.

Income Sources

HUD-assisted households differ substantially from other households in how they obtain their

income. Only 40.2 percent of HUD-assisted households have wage and salary income compared

with 54.3 percent of income-eligible renter households and 72.6 percent of all renters.

Controlling for the age of the householders does not eliminate this difference, with 6.4 percent of assisted households with householders over 65 having wage and salary income compared with

10.0 percent among elderly eligible households and 20.1 percent among all elderly renters.

Among elderly households, the percentage receiving social security income differs little between

assisted renters and either eligible renters or all renters. However, the percentage of elderly

households receiving income from private pensions or survivor benefits varies by assistance

status. Only 17.3 percent of elderly assisted households receive income from these sources

compared with 21.5 percent among eligible renters and 30.9 percent among all renters.

The income source information reinforces the inference drawn from the median income ratios

that HUD programs serve the poorer of the poor. For example, 11.6 percent of HUD-assisted

households reported receiving welfare compared with 8.0 percent of income-eligible households

and 4.2 percent of all renter households. In addition, 44.4 percent of HUD-assisted households

reported receiving food stamps compared with 29.7 percent of income-eligible households and

14.3 percent of all renter households. Controlling for the age of householders alters the observed

percentages but not the difference between assisted renters and either all income-eligible renters

or all renters. For example, 29.5 percent of elderly renters in assisted housing received

supplement security income compared with 19.3 percent and 13.3 percent respectively among all

elderly renter households (Table 5-3).

18

Table 5-3: Income Sources for Renter Households by Assistant Status and by Elderly Status, 2009

HUD-Assisted Renters

Tenants in

Total

Tenants in

Al

Income Sources

Al  HUD-

Voucher

Privately

Eligible

Assisted

Public

Recipients

Owned

Renters  Renters

(%)

Housing

(%)

Housing

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Wages and salaries

40.2

41.1

49.1

25.8

54.3

72.6

Over 65

6.4

10.6

4.6

5.5

10.0

20.1

Social Security income

33.1

31.7

25.1

46.3

23.8

16.5

Over 65

83.3

83.2

86.4

81.6

84.6

85.0

Retirement or survivors

pensions

7.2

9.2

3.8

10.9

5.7

6.0

Over 65

17.3

17.9

13.3

19.3

21.5

30.9

Supplemental Security

Income

21.1

21.8

20.0

22.2

12.5

6.6

Over 65

29.5

39.4

30.7

24.4

19.3

13.3

Welfare

11.6

9.1

14.7

8.6

8.0

4.2

Over 65

4.3

0.0

13.0

1.3

3.5

2.6

Food stamps

44.4

45.1

45.7

41.9

29.7

14.3

Over 65

26.6

15.0

32.8

28.5

19.2

12.8

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Household Composition

Household composition provides further evidence that HUD-assisted housing programs serve a

clientele different from the typical renter household. In 2009, 24.9 percent of renter households

consisted of married couple households, and the percentage among all income-eligible renter

households was 16.6 percent, whereas the percentage across all HUD programs ranged between

8.3 and 10.1 percent.

Combining the fourth (other female householder) and last (female householder) rows of Table 5-4

provides some additional insight to whom HUD programs serve. Approximately 75 percent of

HUD-assisted households are female-headed compared with 57 percent among income-eligible

households and 43 percent among all renter households.

Table 5-4: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Household Composition, 2009

HUD-Assisted Renters  Tenants in  Total

Household

Al  HUD-  Tenants in  Voucher

Privately

Eligible

Al

Composition

Assisted

Public

Recipients

Owned

Renters

Renters

(%)

Housing

(%)

Housing

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Two-or-more-person

households

54.6

58.3

64.0

37.6

57.0

62.3

Married couple families,

no nonrelatives

9.3

10.1

9.6

8.3

16.6

24.9

Other male householder

3.1

0.8

4.0

3.4

8.8

13.2

Other female

householder

42.3

47.4

50.4

25.9

31.6

24.2

One-person households

45.4

41.7

36.0

62.4

43.0

37.7

Male householder

12.6

7.9

11.2

18.1

17.5

18.6

Female householder

32.8

33.8

24.8

44.3

25.5

19.1

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

19

Finally, Table 5-4 reveals some important differences across HUD programs in the households served. Approximately one-half of all voucher recipient households were two-or-more-person,

female-headed households (twice the rate among all renter households), although only 25.9

percent of households in privately owned subsidized units were. In the previous section, we

noted that the privately owned subsidized housing program served elderly households at a much

higher rate than their share of the income-eligible renter household population.

With the exception of the privately owned housing program, HUD-assisted housing serves

households with children at a higher rate than their share of the population. Approximately 42

percent of assisted households have children compared with 35.9 percent of all renter

households. Slightly more than one-half of voucher households contain children under 18,

although 24.5 percent of assisted households in privately owned housing have children. In

addition, the percentage of households with three or more children is higher the voucher program

(17.5 percent) than among all income-eligible renter households (11.1 percent). See Table 5-5.

Table 5-5: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Number of Children in Household, 2009

Number of

HUD-Assisted Renters

Single

Tenants in

Total

Children

Al  HUD-

Tenants in

Voucher

Privately

Eligible

Al  Renters

Under 18  Assisted (%)

Public

Recipients

Owned

Renters (%)

(%)

Years

Housing (%)

(%)

Housing (%)

None

58.1

53.3

49.1

75.5

60.2

65.1

One

13.9

16.5

16.3

8.2

15.4

15.1

Two

16.0

19.5

17.1

11.6

13.3

11.6

Three

7.4

6.8

9.8

4.3

7.2

5.4

Four

2.4

1.3

4.5

—

2.4

1.8

Five

1.6

1.9

2.2

0.4

1.0

0.6

Six or more

0.6

0.8

1.0

—

0.5

0.3

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. — = less than 0.1 percent.

Despite the observed program differences and the noted change in program mix over time,

virtually no change has occurred during the past 24 years in the type of households served by all

three HUD programs combined. All the rows in Table 5-6 appear to contain only random

movements.

Table 5-6: Trends in the Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Household Composition

Household

AHS Survey Year

Composition

1989

1991

1993

2003

2007

2009

2011

2013

Two-or-more-person

households

57

56

58

54

53

55

58

55

Married couple families,

no nonrelatives

13

15

13

11

10

9

11

10

Other male householder

4

4

3

2

4

3

5

4

Other female

householder

39

36

42

41

40

42

42

40

One-person households

43

44

42

46

47

45

42

45

Male householder

10

13

13

14

13

13

14

15

Female householder

33

32

29

32

34

33

28

30

AHS = American Housing Survey. HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

20

Household Size and Overcrowding

The AHS data on household size highlights the differences among the HUD programs. Overall,

HUD-assisted households have a household size distribution similar to that of all income-eligible

renter households but with slightly smaller households. Assisted households include a higher

percentage of one-person households (45.4 versus 43.0 percent) and approximately the same

percentage of two-to-four-person households (46.7 versus 46.8 percent). Households with five or

more persons account for 7.9 percent of HUD-assisted households and 10.2 income-eligible

households (Table 5-7).

Table 5-7: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Household Size and the Incidence of

Overcrowding, 2009

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total

Tenants in

Al

Household Size

Tenants in

Voucher

Eligible

Al  HUD-

Public

Recipients

Privately

Renters  Renters

Assisted (%)  Housing (%)

(%)

Owned

(%)

(%)

Housing (%)

One person

45.4

41.7

36.0

62.4

43.0

37.7

Two to four persons

46.7

51.6

51.2

36.4

46.8

53.2

Five or more persons

7.9

6.8

12.8

1.2

10.2

9.1

Overcrowded

1.8

1.5

2.4

1.0

5.2

4.2

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Taken individually, the programs have sharply different household size distributions. The

privately owned housing program has by far the highest percentage of one-person households.

The voucher program has the highest percentage of large (five-or-more-person) households.

One problem that assisted housing is intended to address is overcrowded housing conditions. For

purposes of this report, an overcrowded house is defined as one in which more persons live in the

households than the units have rooms. Nationally, 4.2 percent of renter households were

overcrowded in 2009. Overcrowding was more prevalent among income-eligible renter

households, of which 5.2 percent were overcrowded.

HUD-assisted households experienced less overcrowding than either income-eligible households

or all renter households. Among HUD-assisted households, overcrowding was highest among

voucher households (2.4 percent), which also had a higher percentage of larger households

(12.8 percent).

Households With a Disabled Member

Table 5-8 shows that HUD-assisted housing serves households with one or more disabled

members at a rate (36.2 percent) substantially higher than the rate among either income-eligible

renter households or all renter households. Income-eligible renter households were more likely

than a typical renter household to contain a disabled member, 26.2 percent compared with 17.6

percent. The privately owned assisted housing programs contained the highest percentage of

households with a disabled member, 47.2 percent.

21

Table 5-8: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Disability Status of Members, 2009

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total

Households by Disability  Al  HUD-  Tenants

Voucher

Tenants in

Eligible

Al

Status of Members

Assisted  in Public  Recipients

Privately

Renters  Renters

(%)

Housing

(%)

Owned

(%)

(%)

(%)

Housing (%)

With a disabled member

36.2

29.5

32.3

47.2

26.2

17.6

Without a disabled member

63.4

69.8

67.3

52.5

73.1

81.6

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Housing Cost as Percent of Income

The primary objective of assisted housing is to make decent housing affordable for needy

households. The traditional measure of affordability is the ratio of monthly housing costs to

monthly household income, whereby housing costs include both rent and utility expenses. A

ratio of 0.3 is generally considered acceptable, although a ratio greater than 0.4 is considered

excessive (Eggers and Moumen, 2008).

The rent-to-income data from the 2009 AHS clearly illustrated why housing assistance is needed.

Among income-eligible renter households, 59 percent have excessive rent burdens; that is, ratios

greater than 40 percent. Excessive rent burdens affect 38 percent of HUD-assisted households, a

rate equal to that for all renter households. See Table 5-9.

Table 5-9: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Ratio of Housing Costs to Income, 2009

HUD-Assisted Renters

Monthly Housing

Total

Tenants in

Al

Cost-to-Income

Tenants in

Voucher

Eligible

Al  HUD-

Privately

Renters

Ratio

Public

Recipients

Renters

Assisted (%)  Housing (%)

(%)

Owned

(%)

(%)

Housing (%)

Less than 20%

9

5

9

12

4

17

40% or more

38

36

46

28

59

38

Median rent burden

35

35

40

30

52

34

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Note: The bottom row in this table is the median of the individual ratios of housing cost to income, not a ratio of medians.

By the same rent-to-income measure, the HUD-assisted housing programs have made housing

more affordable for their clients. Nearly 60 percent of all HUD renter households have ratios less

than or equal to 34 percent compared with 33 percent for income-eligible renters. 8

In all previous analyses of HUD-assisted housing using AHS data, Table 5-9 generated

unnecessary confusion. The AHS data on how HUD programs function appear to be at odds with

program rules. Since the early 1980s, HUD has  generally  required tenants to contribute 30

percent of their income toward rent and related expenses. No such uniformity exists in Table 5-9.

According to AHS data, a number of households in each of the HUD programs spend

considerably less than 30 percent, and a number spend considerably more than 30 percent.

8 Derived from Table 3 in the Detailed Summary Tables section.

22

The reported results should not be considered surprising. For one thing, HUD rules allow for some variation around 30 percent. As noted previously, approximately one-quarter of households

in privately owned subsidized housing do not pay rent based on the 30 percent of income

requirement. Another important exception applies to the voucher program, in which recipient

households are allowed to rent units more expensive than the payment standard if the households

incur all the added rental costs. Finally, public housing also enables PHAs to establish minimum

rent contributions that can exceed 30 percent of income for families with very small incomes.

Second, one should never expect the AHS data collection process to correspond to the process by

which HUD agents collect information on tenant incomes and set tenant rents. The HUD-

mandated process is more formal and detailed and is focused solely on determining program

eligibility and setting tenant rent. HUD agents require households to present corroborating

information on income. The AHS collects data on income and rent within an instrument that also

gathers information on other household characteristics and unit and neighborhood characteristics.

The AHS interview may be separated by as much as a year from the income recertification

process carried out by HUD agents. Measurement errors, misreporting, and month-to-month

variation in both income and housing-related expenses affect both HUD agents and the AHS.

A recent HUD-funded study showed the rent-to-income ratio can vary significantly between

surveys for the same household and demonstrated how normal variation and measurement error

might account for a large portion of the survey-to-survey variation (Eggers and Moumen, 2010).

Table 5-10 examines how the median rent-to-income ratio varied over time among various

components of the rental housing stock. The numbers in Table 5-10 are all medians, meaning

that one-half of the renters in that category had ratios less than or equal to the reported ratio, and one-half had ratios greater than or equal to the reported ratio.

Table 5-10: Trends in the Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Ratio of Housing Costs to

Income

Median Monthly

AHS Survey

Housing Cost-to-

Income Ratio

1989

1991

1993

2003

2007

2009

2011

2013

All HUD-assisted

30

31

29

32

34

35

32

34

Tenants in public

housing

30

30

29

27

30

35

28

30

Voucher recipients

32

34

32

40

39

40

34

39

Tenants in privately

owned housing

30

31

28

32

31

30

31

31

Total income-

eligible renters

39

36

38

81

51

52

37

52

Al  renters

28

27

28

30

33

34

32

33

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Note: More detailed information on household characteristics can be found in Summary Table 3 in the Detailed Summary Tables section.

For all renter households as a group, the ratio of rent to income increased steadily from 1991

until 2009, when it declined slightly. Among income-eligible renters, more than one-half of the

group began to experience excessive rent burdens of more than 40 percent sometime between

23

1993 and 2003 and remained greater than one-half through 2009, the most recent year for which a median for this group is available. 9 Throughout the six periods for which comparable data are available, the median ratios in each of the HUD programs were substantially less than the median

reported for all income-eligible renter households. Finally, consistent with the special voucher

exception, the voucher program had the highest median ratio among the HUD programs in all

eight periods.

9 The 81-percent median rent burdens for all eligible households in 2003 seems an anomaly.

24

Unit Quality and Tenant Satisfaction

The preceding two sections show that HUD-assisted housing programs serve households that, for

the most part, have substantially lower incomes than all renter households and serve elderly

households, female-headed households, and larger households at a rate higher than their share of

either all income-eligible renter or all renter households. HUD-assisted households experience

lower rent-to-income ratios than all income-eligible households. This section examines the

quality of the housing provided in the assisted housing programs. The section presents

information from Summary Tables 4 and 5; it also reports some information found in Summary

Table 1.

Structure Type

Structure type can affect quality of life, but households differ in what they consider the most

desirable structure type. Elderly people and small renter households generally favor units in

garden or highrise apartments that are safe and low maintenance, although households with

children generally favor single-family units, either detached or attached (for example,

townhouses). See Table 6-1.

Table 6-1: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Structure Type, 2009

HUD-Assisted Renters

Tenants in

Total

Tenants in

Al

Structure Type

Al  HUD-

Voucher

Privately

Eligible

Assisted

Public

Recipients

Owned

Renters

Renters

(%)

Housing

(%)

Housing

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Single-family

NA

NA

37.3

4.3

27.3

33.3

Detached

NA

NA

31.1

1.0

21.4

27.6

Attached

NA

NA

6.3

3.2

5.9

5.7

2 to 4 units

NA

NA

18.0

8.9

21.0

19.8

5 to 9 units

NA

NA

13.8

21.9

15.2

13.1

10 to 19 units

NA

NA

9.7

9.2

11.1

11.8

20 to 49 units

NA

NA

10.2

12.0

9.2

8.9

50 or more units

NA

NA

8.8

43.6

12.3

9.1

Manufactured/mobile

home or trailer

NA

NA

2.2

0.0

3.9

4.0

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. NA = data not available.

Notes: The special Census tabulations used for this table have erroneous data for public housing, which, in turn, are incorporated into the Census tabulations for “Al  HUD-Assisted.” The percentage of public housing units in buildings with 10 or more units was 45

percent in 2013 and 40 percent in 2011.

In 2009, structure type varied markedly across HUD-assisted housing programs. Large buildings

(10 or more units) dominated the privately owned subsidized program (64.8 percent). The

voucher program, on the other hand, had a distribution of structure types that has an even higher

distribution of units in housing with four or fewer units than the distribution of units occupied by all renter households (55.3 versus 53.1 percent), reflecting the fact that vouchers can be used to

access single-family housing that rents at or below the voucher payment standard.

25

Equipment Failures

The AHS collects detailed information about deficiencies in individual sample units. A series of

questions focuses on breakdowns in various housing systems. Although one should be careful

about drawing conclusions from small differences in 1 survey year, some interesting patterns

appear in Table 6-2.

Table 6-2: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Breakdowns in Housing Systems, 2009

HUD-Assisted Renters  Tenants in  Total

Breakdowns in Housing  Al  HUD-  Tenants in  Voucher

Privately

Eligible

Al

Systems

Assisted

Public

Recipients  Owned

Renters

Renters

(%)

Housing

(%)

Housing

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Equipment failures in last 3 months

Water supply

stoppage

4.3

5.5

3.4

4.7

4.4

4.5

Flush toilet—none

working

4.0

3.6

4.6

3.5

4.0

3.4

Public sewage

disposal breakdowns

2.5

3.4

2.8

1.4

1.9

1.5

Electric fuse and

circuit breaker failures

7.4

5.5

10.5

4.1

8.1

8.7

Heating equipment

breakdown last winter

4.0

4.4

5.1

2.0

4.1

3.2

Water leakage

Leakage from inside

structure

12.2

15.3

12.0

10.4

11.3

10.8

Leakage from outside

structure

9.2

7.6

10.6

8.0

8.6

8.8

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

For five of the reported system breakdowns (no working flush toilets, public sewage disposal

breakdowns, heating equipment breakdowns, leaking water from inside unit, and leaking water

from outside structure), the incidence of problems was higher for HUD-assisted units as a group

than for all rental units. The differences are small from a substantive perspective, but the sample sizes are large enough for some (for example, leaking water from inside unit) to qualify as

statistically significant.

For both problems with fuses and circuit breakers and leakages from outside the structure, the

highest incidence appears among voucher units and was smallest among renters in privately

owned assisted units. The leakages from outside results are not surprising given the high

percentage of voucher households living in detached single-family detached structures and the

concentration of privately owned assisted units in large structures (see Table 6-1).

In most but not all categories, households in privately owned subsidized units reported a lower

incidence of problems than households in other assisted programs. However, voucher recipients

report the highest incidence of problems with fuses and circuit breakers. Differences in structure

type probably account for some of the variation across program types. For example, privately

owned assisted housing frequently serves elderly households in small units, although the voucher

program frequently serves larger households in single-family structures. Single-family structures

are more likely to have multiple bathrooms and therefore less likely to have no working toilets.

26

Selected Deficiencies

When we examine specific unit deficiencies, we find that HUD-assisted units as a group have

rates of occurrence that are similar to those among both all eligible renters and all renters. The

differences are substantively small. 10 For four of the five deficiencies, the incidence among voucher recipients and households in privately owned subsidized units is less than the incidence

among all income-eligible renter households (see Table 6-3).

Table 6-3: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Selected Deficiencies, 2009

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total

Selected

Tenants in

Voucher

Tenants in  Eligible

Al

Deficiencies

Al  HUD-

Public

Recipients

Privately

Renters  Renters

Assisted (%)  Housing (%)

(%)

Owned

(%)

(%)

Housing (%)

Signs of mice in last

12 months

6.2

9.2

5.5

5.1

6.7

6.0

Holes in floors

2.1

1.4

2.5

2.1

2.1

1.6

Open cracks or holes

(interior)

8.4

10.6

7.9

7.5

8.3

6.8

Broken plaster or

peeling paint (interior)

3.3

6.0

3.1

1.6

4.0

3.2

Exposed wiring

0.3

0.0

0.2

0.5

0.4

0.4

Rooms without

electric outlets

1.2

0.5

1.5

1.4

1.9

1.8

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Indices of Physical Problems

HUD and the Census Bureau use AHS data to construct two indices of physical problems—one

reports the incidence of severe physical problems, and one reports the incidence of moderate

physical problems. 11 Over time the structure of the indices and the variables used to construct them have changed. 12, 13

10 Because of the large samples, some of the differences across programs are statistically significant, for example, the difference between public housing and privately owned assisted housing with respect to open cracks and holes.

11 A unit is considered  severely inadequate if any of the following criteria apply: (1) Unit does not have hot and cold running water; (2) Unit does not have a bathtub or shower; (3) Unit does not have a flush toilet; (4) Unit shares plumbing facilities; (5) Unit was cold for 24 hours or more and more than two breakdowns of the heating equipment have occurred that lasted longer than 6 hours; (6) Electricity is not used; (7) Unit has exposed wiring, not every room has working electrical plugs, and the fuses have blown more than twice; (8) Unit has five or six of the following structural conditions: (a) Unit has had outside water leaks in the past 12 months, (b) Unit has had inside water leaks in the past 12 months, (c) Unit has holes in the floor, (d) Unit has open cracks wider than a dime, (e) Unit has an area of peeling paint larger than 8 by 11 inches, (f) Rats have been seen recently in the unit. A unit is considered  moderately inadequate room if the unit has not been identified as being severely inadequate and meets one of the following conditions: (1) There have been more than two breakdowns of the toilet that lasted longer than 6 hours; (2) The main heating equipment is unvented heaters burning kerosene, gas, or oil; or (3) The unit is lacking complete kitchen facilities.

12 The definition changed with the 2009 AHS. See the AHS Codebook Interactive Tool at

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/tech-documentation/codebooks.html.

13 For a discussion of the index of severe physical problems and what deficiencies cause units to be classified as severely inadequate, see Eggers and Moumen (2009).

27

On the index of severe physical problems, HUD-assisted housing has a slightly higher incidence of problems than units occupied by all income-eligible households and also a higher incidence

than all occupied rental units. On the index of moderate physical problems, HUD-assisted

housing has a lower incidence than either all income-eligible renters or all renters. Within HUD-

assisted housing, public housing units have the highest incidence of both severe physical

problems and moderate physical problems (Table 6-4).

Table 6-4: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Indices of Physical Problems, 2009

HUD-Assisted Renters  Tenants in  Total

Tenants in

Al

Physical Problems

Al  HUD-

Voucher

Privately  Eligible

Assisted

Public

Recipients  Owned

Renters  Renters

(%)

Housing

(%)

Housing

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Severe physical problems

3.6

5.3

3.8

2.0

3.5

2.8

Moderate physical problems

6.1

10.1

5.7

3.8

7.5

6.4

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Because the definitions of severely inadequate and moderately inadequate have changed over

time, one cannot use the indices to see whether the adequacy of HUD-assisted housing has

improved or worsened. However, one can use the indices to assess whether HUD-assisted

housing has improved or worsened relative to other rental housing. Because a unit cannot be

classified as both severely inadequate and moderately inadequate, Table 6-5 reports the

percentage of units that are either severely inadequate or moderately inadequate for a given

survey.

Table 6-5: Trends in the Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Indices of Physical Problems

Severe or Moderate Physical

AHS Survey Year

Problems

1989  1991  1993  2003  2007  2009  2011  2013

All HUD-assisted

10

10

7

8.8

9.0

9.7  10.8

9.4

Tenants in public housing

12

14

12

10.0

8.7

15.4  14.0

11.4

Voucher recipients

13

11

9

8.6

8.4

9.6  9.8

9.0

Tenants in privately owned housing

7

6

4

8.1

10.1

5.8  9.7

8.3

Total income-eligible renters

16

13

10

12.2

11.3

11.0  12.0

10.9

Al  renters

12

11

10

10.6

9.9

9.2  9.8

9.1

AHS = American Housing Survey. HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Notes: In previous tables using all eight surveys, we did not report percentages to one-tenth of a percentage point, because that level of precision is not available for the first three surveys. Because of the smallest of the percentages, we use tenths of a percentage point in this table for the surveys when that level of precision was available.

Prior to the change in definitions of inadequacy in 2009, the percentage of units that were either

severely inadequate or moderately inadequate was lower among HUD-assisted units as a group

than among all rental units and markedly lower than the percentage among units occupied by all

income-eligible renter households. In 2009, 2011, and 2013, HUD-assisted units still have a

lower incidence of inadequacy than units occupied by income-eligible households, but their

incidence is higher than that of all occupied rental units.

Previous research has shown that inadequacy is not a persistent characteristic (Eggers, 2013) for

occupied units as a group, but no study of the persistence of inadequacy among HUD-assisted

households has been conducted.

28

Tenant Satisfaction

The AHS asks respondents to rate their structure and their neighborhood on a scale from 1 to 10,

on which 10 is considered the best. Except for tenants in public housing, households receiving

HUD assistance gave their units a 10 more frequently than either all income-eligible renter

households or all renter households. Households in privately owned subsidized units gave the 10

rating most frequently. The worst rating of 1 was also more common among HUD-assisted

households. Public housing tenants had the highest percentage of “worst” ratings (Table 6-6).

Table 6-6: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Tenant Ratings as Best or Worst, 2009

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total

Overall

Tenants in

Voucher

Tenants in

Eligible

Al

Opinion

Al  HUD-

Public

Recipients

Privately

Renters  Renters

Assisted (%)  Housing (%)

(%)

Owned

(%)

(%)

Housing (%)

Structure

10 (best)

28.0

20.8

26.4

36.0

22.8

19.6

1 (worst)

2.7

4.1

2.4

2.1

1.6

0.9

Neighborhood

10 (best)

23.6

14.6

24.1

29.2

22.3

21.4

1 (worst)

3.9

6.4

2.7

4.0

2.5

1.4

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Although assisted households overall were more likely to rate their neighborhoods a 10 than

either income-eligible renters or all renters, public housing households were the least likely of all groups to do so, and 6.4 percent of public housing tenants gave their neighborhood the worst

rating.

Recent Movers

The AHS gathers additional information on households in which the respondent had moved into

the unit during the past year. In the Householder Characteristics section, we saw that

householders tended to remain in assisted units much longer than householders in income-

eligible households or all renters. The same pattern holds when we look at recent movers. Recent

mover households occupy only 24.7 percent of HUD-assisted units compared with 36.3 percent

of all renter households (Table 6-7).

Table 6-7: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Percent of Recent Movers, 2009

HUD-Assisted Renters  Tenants in  Total

Recent Mover

Al  HUD-  Tenants in

Voucher

Privately

Eligible

Al

Households

Assisted

Public

Recipients

Owned

Renters

Renters

(%)

Housing

(%)

Housing

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Respondent moved

during past year

24.7

18.9

31.9

18.0

34.2

36.3

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The AHS asks a detailed series of questions about why recent-mover respondents moved into the

units. Table 6-8 discusses some key reasons given by respondents; Summary Table 5 reports all

the reasons given.

29

Table 6-8: Distribution of Recent Movers Into HUD-Assisted Housing by Key Reasons Given for Move, 2009

HUD-Assisted Renters  Tenants  Total

Tenants

in

Al

Reasons for Moving

Al  HUD-

Voucher

Eligible

Assisted  in Public  Recipients  Privately  Renters  Renters

(%)

Housing

(%)

Owned

(%)

(%)

(%)

Housing

(%)

Displaced

6.7

0.0

7.4

9.8

5.8

5.2

New job, closer to job, school, or

other financial/employment reasons

11.7

0.0

14.7

12.7

22.5

29.0

To establish own household

12.6

41.3

6.4

7.0

13.1

11.3

Needed larger house or apartment

11.8

4.8

11.3

18.0

9.8

10.6

Wanted better home

14.3

7.9

18.9

7.0

10.1

10.0

Change from owner to renter

0.5

NA

0.9

NA

0.8

1.4

Wanted lower rent or maintenance

10.4

16.9

7.4

13.1

9.0

8.7

Other housing-related reasons

9.6

3.2

13.6

3.7

7.1

6.4

Other

35.8

32.8

32.1

48.4

33.5

30.8

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. NA = data not available.

“Displaced,” the first reason listed, means the recent mover was forced to leave the previous unit

by private action, government action, fire, natural disaster, or eviction. With the exception of

public housing tenants, between 5 and 10 percent of recent movers were displaced across all the

groups, and the percentages were lowest among public housing and voucher recent movers.

Thirty percent of respondents from the all renters group say their move resulted from a new job

or transfer, a desire to be closer to an existing job or to a school, or another financial or

employment reason. Among HUD-assisted households, respondents gave the location-related

reasons at a much lower rate.

Reflecting the greater flexibility of tenant-based assistance, voucher respondents were the most

likely to give an improved housing reason, namely “wanted better home.”

When asked to compare their current units with previous homes, recent mover respondents in

HUD-assisted units were more likely to rate the HUD-assisted unit as better and less likely to

rate the HUD-assisted unit as worse than their previous units (Table 6-9).

Table 6-9: Distribution of Recent Movers Into HUD-Assisted Housing by Comparison of Current and

Previous Home and Neighborhood, 2009  HUD-Assisted Renters

Comparison of Current

Tenants in  Total

Tenants in

Al

and Previous Home and

Al  HUD-

Voucher

Privately  Eligible

Public

Renters

Neighborhood

Assisted

Recipients

Owned

Renters

(%)

Housing

(%)

Housing

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Current home

Better

62.3

56.1

63.5

63.5

50.5

48.2

Worse

15.7

19.0

14.2

17.6

20.1

20.8

Current neighborhood

Better

38.5

6.3

43.4

50.0

38.7

38.6

Worse

17.1

31.7

15.6

9.8

16.7

15.2

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

30

When asked to compare their current neighborhoods with their previous neighborhoods, recent mover respondents among voucher recipients and tenants in privately owned HUD-assisted units

were more likely to rate their current neighborhood as better than their previous neighborhoods.

Recent movers in public housing units were more likely to rate their neighborhood as worse.

More detailed results on unit quality can be found in Summary Table 4 and on tenant satisfaction

in Summary Table 5.

31

Detailed Summary Tables

This section contains six tables that present detailed information on eight sets of rental

households. The six tables are—

Summary Table 1: 2009 Structural Characteristics.

Summary Table 2: 2009 Householder Characteristics.

Summary Table 3: 2009 Household Characteristics.

Summary Table 4: 2009 Unit Conditions.

Summary Table 5: 2009 Tenant Opinions.

Summary Table 6: Breakdown of Householder and Household Characteristics by Race,

Ethnicity, and Elderly Status.

The eight columns in each table contain counts by—

1.  All assisted households.

2.  Public housing tenants.

3.  Voucher recipients.

4.  Tenants in privately owned assisted housing units.

5.  Eligible (income at or below 50 percent of Area Median Income) but not subsidized

households.

6.  All income-eligible renters.

7.  Total renters.

8.  Worst case needs households.

Previous reports (1989, 1991, 1993, 2003, and 2005) contained special tabulation prepared by

the Census Bureau. The 2009, 2011, and 2013 reports do not contain these Census Bureau

tabulations.

32

Summary Table 1. 2009 Structural Characteristics

2009 Structural

All

Tenants

Tenants in

Eligible

Total

Worst Case

Characteristics  Assisted

in

Voucher

Privately

Unassisted

Eligible

All

Needs

(000s)

Renters

Public

Recipients

Owned

Renters

Housing

Housing

Renters

Renters

Households

Total

households

4,426

999

2,073

1,354

13,807

18,233

35,378

6,895

Number of units

in structure

One, detached

720

62

644

14

3,173

3,893

9,755

1,634

One, attached

380

206

130

44

701

1,081

2,021

374

2 to 4

809

314

373

121

3,029

3,838

6,998

1,474

5 to 9

806

225

286

296

1,960

2,767

4,637

975

10 to 19

383

57

202

125

1,640

2,024

4,178

839

20 to 49

385

11

211

163

1,297

1,681

3,131

653

50 or more

899

125

183

590

1,345

2,243

3,237

648

Manufactured/

mobile home or

45

–

45

–

661

706

1,421

299

trailer

Year structure

built

2005 to 2009

75

12

58

5

346

421

1,283

205

2000 to 2004

202

31

146

25

502

704

1,731

299

1995 to 1999

149

–

108

40

546

695

1,603

325

1990 to 1994

104

12

47

45

420

524

1,280

196

1985 to 1989

236

14

145

78

881

1,118

2,489

485

1980 to 1984

498

124

93

281

815

1,313

2,179

417

1975 to 1979

639

55

259

325

1,881

2,519

4,364

928

1970 to 1974

602

93

251

258

1,503

2,105

3,718

714

1960 to 1969

624

270

234

119

1,822

2,446

4,409

891

1950 to 1959

364

132

178

55

1,288

1,652

3,243

590

1940 to 1949

314

156

143

15

976

1,290

2,322

512

1930 to 1939

164

18

128

18

814

979

1,924

397

1920 to 1929

187

46

97

44

764

951

1,811

331

1919 or earlier

269

35

188

46

1,248

1,518

3,021

605

Median year

1972

1964

1971

1977

1970

1971

1971

1971

Regions

Northeast

1,232

361

507

364

2,799

4,031

7,073

1,371

Midwest

978

190

417

371

2,879

3,857

7,119

1,299

South

1,436

359

659

417

4,807

6,244

12,392

2,421

West

781

89

490

202

3,321

4,102

8,794

1,805

Metropolitan/

nonmetropolitan

areas

Inside

metropolitan

3,825

859

1,817

1,149

11,567

15,392

29,846

5,956

statistical areas

In central cities

2,321

601

1,021

699

6,169

8,490

14,837

3,188

In suburbs

1,504

258

796

451

5,398

6,902

15,009

2,768

Outside

metropolitan

602

141

257

205

2,240

2,841

5,532

939

statistical areas

Number of

bedrooms

None

56

4

22

31

439

495

744

228

One

1,643

295

527

821

4,289

5,933

9,720

2,008

Two

1,384

351

718

316

5,602

6,986

14,200

2,812

Three

1,038

258

604

177

2,732

3,770

8,359

1,442

Four or more

305

92

203

10

745

1,049

2,354

405

Number of

complete

bathrooms

None

12

–

12

–

140

152

229

101

One

3,422

871

1,366

1,185

9,909

13,330

22,894

4,699

One and one-half

522

91

287

145

1,257

1,779

3,575

653

Two or more

470

38

408

24

2,502

2,972

8,680

1,443

NA = data not available. – represents or rounds to 0.

33

Summary Table 2. 2009 Householder Characteristics

2009 Householder

All

Tenants

Tenants in

Eligible

Total

Worst Case

Characteristics

Assisted  in Public

Voucher

Privately

Unassisted  Eligible

All

Needs

(000s)

Renters

Housing  Recipients

Owned

Renters

Housing

Renters

Renters

Households

Total households

4,426

999

2,073

1,354

13,807

18,233

35,378

6,895

Race and origin of

householder

White alone

2,122

359

1,034

729

9,369

11,491

25,202

4,649

Non-Hispanic

1,458

151

747

561

6,668

8,127

19,427

3,215

Hispanic

664

208

287

169

2,700

3,364

5,775

1,434

Black alone

2,038

598

919

521

3,424

5,462

7,446

1,745

Non-Hispanic

1,948

562

882

503

3,303

5,251

7,195

1,677

Hispanic

91

36

36

18

120

211

252

68

American Indian or

Alaska Native alone

26

–

16

10

200

226

466

94

Asian alone

128

3

49

77

498

626

1,487

247

Pacific Islander

alone

17

9

5

4

57

74

140

33

Two or more races

95

31

51

13

260

355

637

127

Hispanic or Latino (of

any race)

772

244

338

189

2,936

3,707

6,300

1,558

Age of householder

Under 25 years

455

132

156

167

2,461

2,915

4,799

1,374

25 to 29

377

91

213

74

1,630

2,007

5,072

820

30 to 34

375

55

256

65

1,446

1,822

4,561

677

35 to 44

798

206

464

128

2,425

3,223

6,976

1,206

45 to 54

634

103

413

119

2,103

2,737

5,762

979

55 to 64

551

139

227

185

1,482

2,033

3,585

719

65 to 74

550

164

169

217

985

1,535

2,120

472

75 years and older

687

110

176

401

1,274

1,961

2,503

648

Median

48

46

43

62

40

42

39

39

Educational

attainment of the

householder

Less than 9th grade

413

107

181

126

1,343

1,756

2,232

712

9th to 12th grade, no

diploma

1,158

312

482

364

2,354

3,512

4,455

1,170

High school

graduate (includes

1,676

339

820

517

5,000

6,677

11,724

2,398

equivalency)

Additional

vocational training

181

62

60

60

452

633

1,144

221

Some college, no

degree

683

160

363

160

2,696

3,379

6,924

1,408

Associate’s degree

196

38

98

60

794

990

2,522

356

Bachelor’s degree

239

43

93

104

1,194

1,434

5,183

647

Graduate or

professional degree

60

–

36

24

425

485

2,338

204

Percent high school

graduate or higher

64.5

58.1

68.0

63.9

73.2

71.1

81.1

72.7

Percent bachelor’s

degree or higher

6.8

4.3

6.2

9.5

11.7

10.5

21.3

12.3

Year householder

moved into unit

2005 to 2009

2,747

567

1,451

728

9,921

12,667

25,982

5,131

2000 to 2004

830

164

381

285

1,999

2,829

4,970

938

1995 to 1999

431

125

106

200

746

1,177

1,914

353

1990 to 1994

209

55

85

69

438

647

1,057

178

1985 to 1989

83

37

16

30

239

322

482

96

1980 to 1984

79

34

10

35

134

213

312

70

1975 to 1979

31

8

18

5

101

132

244

43

1970 to 1974

17

9

6

2

73

90

151

29

1960 to 1969

–

–

–

–

87

87

158

40

1950 to 1959

–

–

–

–

44

44

70

18

1940 to 1949

–

–

–

–

13

13

23

–

1939 or earlier

–

–

–

–

12

12

17

–

Median year

2006

2005

2007

2005

2007

2007

2007

2007

NA = data not available. – represents or rounds to 0.

34

Summary Table 3. 2009 Household Characteristics  Tenants

2009 Household

All

Tenants

in

Eligible

Total

Worst Case

Characteristics

Assisted

in

Voucher

Privately  Unassisted  Eligible

All

Needs

(000s)

Renters

Public

Recipients

Renters

Housing

Owned

Renters

Renters

Households

Housing

Total households

4,426

999

2,073

1,354

13,807

18,233

35,378

6,895

Number of persons in

household

One person

2,008

417

746

845

5,831

7,839

13,331

3,000

Two persons

860

227

420

213

2,977

3,837

9,453

1,449

Three persons

744

179

340

225

1,996

2,740

5,345

966

Four persons

465

109

301

55

1,499

1,964

4,016

772

Five persons

200

41

157

3

874

1,074

1,910

413

Six persons

65

19

46

–

382

447

780

173

Seven persons or more

84

8

63

13

247

331

543

123

Number of persons per

room

0.50 or fewer

2,814

634

1,180

1,000

8,357

11,171

22,394

4,303

0.51 to 1.00

1,534

350

843

341

4,580

6,114

11,484

2,182

1.01 to 1.50

75

15

47

13

690

765

1,220

333

1.51 or more

3

–

3

–

180

183

279

78

Number of single

children under 18 years

None

2,571

532

1,018

1,022

8,402

10,973

23,026

4,229

One

614

165

337

111

2,198

2,811

5,349

1,120

Two

708

195

355

157

1,713

2,421

4,106

811

Three

329

68

203

58

991

1,320

1,928

489

Four

107

13

94

–

336

443

632

156

Five

70

19

45

6

108

177

222

62

Six or more

28

8

21

–

59

87

115

29

Household composition

Two-or-more-person

households

2,418

582

1,327

509

7,975

10,394

22,047

3,895

Married couple families,

no nonrelatives

412

101

199

112

2,620

3,031

8,808

1,173

Under 25 years

10

–

10

–

303

313

707

127

25 to 29 years

52

21

27

5

413

465

1,313

221

30 to 34 years

31

–

31

–

407

438

1,497

157

35 to 44 years

73

19

46

7

628

701

2,168

297

45 to 64 years

107

6

53

48

611

719

2,329

278

65 years and older

138

55

31

53

257

395

793

93

Other male householder

137

8

83

46

1,470

1,607

4,673

683

Under 45 years

96

–

60

36

1,072

1,168

3,629

532

45 to 64 years

37

8

19

10

350

387

895

136

65 years and older

4

–

4

–

48

53

150

15

Other female

householder

1,870

474

1,045

351

3,885

5,756

8,565

2,039

Under 45 years

1,454

398

772

284

2,835

4,289

6,119

1,524

45 to 64 years

334

52

245

37

847

1,181

2,030

416

65 years and older

82

23

29

30

203

285

417

99

One-person households

2,008

417

746

845

5,831

7,839

13,331

3,000

Male householder

556

79

232

245

2,641

3,197

6,588

1,315

Under 45 years

114

6

64

43

1,291

1,405

3,540

657

45 to 64 years

247

35

122

90

854

1,102

2,112

421

65 years and older

195

38

46

111

496

690

936

237

Female householder

1,452

338

514

600

3,191

4,643

6,743

1,686

Under 45 years

175

39

78

58

1,014

1,189

2,434

563

45 to 64 years

460

140

200

119

922

1,382

1,981

446

65 years and older

817

158

236

424

1,255

2,072

2,328

677

Households with

children

1,855

468

1,055

332

5,404

7,260

12,352

2,666

Children in household

with one adult

1,219

349

614

256

2,245

3,464

4,185

1,168

Disabilities

Households without a

disabled person

2,804

698

1,395

711

10,516

13,320

28,856

5,241

Households with a

disabled person

1,604

295

670

639

3,168

4,772

6,234

1,590

Disability not reported

18

7

8

4

123

141

288

64

35

Tenants

2009 Household

All

Tenants

in

Eligible

Total

Worst Case

Characteristics

Assisted

in

Voucher

Privately  Unassisted  Eligible

All

Needs

(000s)

Renters

Public

Recipients

Renters

Housing

Owned

Renters

Renters

Households

Housing

Persons not spouse or

children

With relatives

795

163

482

150

2,332

3,127

6,202

1,124

With nonrelatives

212

15

155

42

1,938

2,151

5,901

1,012

Percentage with one

adult

65.7

74.6

58.2

77.1

41.5

47.7

33.9

43.8

Median household

income

$10,600

$9,000

$12,000

$9,516

$15,000

$14,000  $28,400

$10,800

Income sources of

families and primary

individuals

Wages and salaries

1,779

411

1,017

350

8,129

9,908

25,683

3,842

Wages and salaries were

majority of income

1,541

358

882

301

7,409

8,950

24,023

3,490

Two or more people each

earned more than 20% of

111

39

56

16

609

720

3,191

260

wages and salaries

Self-employment

83

5

59

20

842

925

2,578

474

Interest

187

46

44

98

830

1,017

3,517

459

Dividends

13

5

–

8

214

227

1,100

121

Rental income

9

–

9

–

92

101

487

45

Social Security or

Railroad Retirement

1,465

317

521

627

2,880

4,345

5,843

1,385

Retirement or survivor

pensions

317

92

78

147

722

1,040

2,122

336

Supplementary Security

Income (SSI)

932

218

414

300

1,350

2,282

2,350

751

Child support or alimony

447

101

275

71

794

1,240

1,922

413

Public assistance or

public welfare

512

91

304

117

943

1,455

1,490

613

Food stamp benefits

1,967

451

948

568

3,457

5,424

5,050

1,967

Disability payments,

workers’ compensation,

veterans’ disability, other

379

50

236

93

735

1,114

1,606

394

disability

Other income (VA

payments,

unemployment, royalty,

156

34

102

20

913

1,069

2,370

475

estates, and more)

Food Stamps

Income of $25,000 or

less

3,779

873

1,680

1,225

11,983

15,762

17,650

6,462

Household members

received Food Stamps

1,967

451

948

568

3,457

5,424

5,050

1,967

Did not receive Food

Stamps

1,692

395

678

619

7,832

9,524

11,592

4,101

Not reported

120

28

54

38

694

814

1,009

395

Median monthly

housing costs

$385

$341

$525

$274

$720

$655

$808

$832

(excludes no cash rent)

Monthly housing costs

as percentage of

current income

Less than 5%

15

–

7

8

29

44

162

–

5 to 9%

58

7

21

30

36

94

721

–

10 to 14%

110

13

52

45

101

211

1,964

–

15 to 19%

216

34

105

77

198

414

3,224

6

20 to 24%

416

121

171

125

331

747

3,682

7

25 to 29%

580

72

251

257

622

1,202

3,608

21

30 to 34%

544

173

184

187

836

1,380

2,956

16

35 to 39%

347

147

134

66

944

1,290

2,317

24

40 to 49%

352

62

198

92

1,744

2,096

3,322

72

50 to 59%

271

61

158

52

1,450

1,721

2,210

964

60 to 69%

122

41

81

–

993

1,115

1,423

904

70 to 99%

214

24

147

42

1,765

1,979

2,415

1,650

36

Tenants

2009 Household

All

Tenants

in

Eligible

Total

Worst Case

Characteristics

Assisted

in

Voucher

Privately  Unassisted  Eligible

All

Needs

(000s)

Renters

Public

Recipients

Renters

Housing

Owned

Renters

Renters

Households

Housing

100% or more

741

169

379

193

3,055

3,796

4,076

2,865

Zero or negative income

158

31

60

67

780

937

1,261

181

No cash rent

283

44

127

112

923

1,206

2,037

186

Median (excludes 2

previous lines)

35

35

40

30

58

52

34

89

Median (excludes 3 lines

before medians)

31

33

33

29

47

43

31

67

NA = data not available. – represents or rounds to 0.

37

Summary Table 4. 2009 Unit Conditions

Tenants

Tenants in

2009 Unit Conditions

All

in

Voucher

Privately

Eligible

Total

All

Worst Case

(000s)

Assisted

Unassisted  Eligible

Needs

Renters  Public  Recipients

Owned

Renters

Housing

Housing

Renters  Renters

Households

Total households

4,426

999

2,073

1,354

13,807

18,233  35,378

6,895

Severe physical problems

159

53

79

27

474

633

994

474

Plumbing

79

23

41

15

286

364

656

286

Heating

77

30

35

12

169

246

300

169

Electric

–

–

–

–

7

7

13

7

Upkeep

3

–

3

–

24

27

44

24

Moderate physical problems

271

101

119

52

1,095

1,366

2,269

437

Plumbing

15

–

10

5

47

63

101

24

Heating

9

–

9

–

213

223

404

73

Upkeep

65

20

38

7

303

368

560

143

Kitchen

192

88

64

40

590

782

1,293

224

Selected deficiencies

Signs of rats in last 3 months

26

8

6

12

147

173

258

87

Signs of mice in last 3 months

276

92

115

69

949

1,225

2,138

472

Signs of rodents, not sure

which kind, in last 3 months

41

14

24

3

81

122

189

51

Holes in floors

93

14

51

29

285

378

560

152

Open cracks or holes (interior)

370

106

163

101

1,144

1,514

2,416

612

Broken plaster or peeling paint

(interior)

146

60

64

22

577

724

1,132

344

No electrical wiring

–

–

–

–

3

3

26

3

Exposed wiring

12

–

5

7

54

66

134

42

Rooms without electric outlets

55

5

32

19

283

338

624

150

Equipment failures in last 3

months

Water supply stoppage

189

55

70

64

618

806

1,601

338

Flush toilet—none working

179

36

96

47

543

722

1,210

330

Public sewage disposal

breakdowns

112

34

59

19

227

339

521

132

Electric fuse and circuit breaker

failures

328

55

218

56

1,152

1,481

3,082

619

Heating equipment

breakdown last winter

177

44

106

27

570

747

1,144

385

Water leakage

Leakage from inside structure

542

153

249

141

1,518

2,060

3,836

797

Leakage from outside structure

405

76

220

108

1,169

1,574

3,121

598

Street noise or traffic

Street noise or traffic

bothersome

1,535

384

710

440

4,345

5,880

10,158

2,235

Neighborhood crime

bothersome

1,263

434

520

309

3,114

4,376

7,650

1,627

Odor conditions bothersome

357

62

161

134

989

1,346

2,156

509

With other problems

1,026

411

381

233

2,270

3,296

5,517

1,166

Other buildings vandalized or

with interiors exposed

627

253

277

97

1,497

2,124

3,036

757

Near buildings with bars on

windows

941

271

460

211

2,736

3,678

6,025

1,429

Trash, litter, or junk on

streets or properties

844

275

378

191

2,326

3,170

4,852

1,225

NA = data not available. – represents or rounds to 0.

38

Summary Table 5. 2009 Tenant Opinions

Tenants in

2009 Tenant Opinions

All

Tenants  Voucher  Privately  Eligible

Total

All

Worst Case

(000s)

Assisted  in Public

Unassisted  Eligible

Needs

Renters  Housing  Recipients

Owned

Renters

Housing

Renters  Renters

Households

Total households

4,426

999

2,073

1,354

13,807

18,233  35,378

6,895

Overal  opinion of structure

1 (worst)

119

41

49

29

171

290

327

121

2

51

15

7

29

89

139

209

51

3

69

20

33

17

234

304

436

124

4

38

13

21

4

329

367

708

193

5

370

111

182

77

1,290

1,660

2,910

683

6

265

58

134

73

1,061

1,326

2,553

497

7

702

197

387

118

2,236

2,937

6,146

1,058

8

1,030

196

499

335

3,506

4,535

9,625

1,747

9

411

121

150

139

1,423

1,834

4,217

719

10 (best)

1,241

208

547

487

2,910

4,151

6,941

1,430

Not reported

132

21

66

45

559

691

1,306

271

Overal  opinion of

neighborhood

1 (worst)

174

64

55

54

287

460

499

176

2

91

43

37

10

159

249

348

64

3

111

54

25

31

243

354

543

121

4

84

17

54

13

433

517

867

228

5

575

202

245

128

1,399

1,974

2,976

724

6

312

62

173

76

1,020

1,332

2,465

499

7

625

163

299

163

1,882

2,507

5,164

874

8

836

140

418

278

3,168

4,004

8,986

1,618

9

430

78

197

155

1,587

2,018

4,563

784

10 (best)

1,043

146

500

396

3,027

4,071

7,575

1,504

No neighborhood

6

3

–

3

15

21

29

11

Not reported

139

26

68

45

588

726

1,362

294

Respondent moved during

past year

1,094

189

661

244

5,148

6,242

12,840

2,844

Reasons for leaving previous

unit

Private displacement

26

–

12

14

174

200

393

91

Owner to move into unit

7

–

7

–

41

47

129

26

To be converted to

condominium or cooperative

–

–

–

–

13

13

20

1

Closed for repairs

–

–

–

–

11

11

17

9

Other

19

–

5

14

108

127

225

55

Not reported

–

–

–

–

2

2

2

–

Government displacement

37

–

27

10

47

83

138

32

Government wanted building or

land

–

–

–

–

14

14

21

9

Unit unfit for occupancy

7

–

7

–

2

10

13

2

Other

29

–

19

10

30

60

105

21

Not reported

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Financial/employment related

New job or job transfer

38

–

38

–

290

328

1,326

159

To be closer to

work/school/other

26

–

20

6

695

720

1,711

409

Other, financial/employment

related

64

–

39

25

290

354

690

166

Family/person related

Married

–

–

–

–

51

51

141

27

Widowed, divorced, or

separated

28

–

14

14

113

141

292

45

Other family-/person-related

reasons

139

22

61

56

551

690

1,218

319

Housing related

To establish own household

138

78

42

17

679

816

1,445

369

Needed larger house or

apartment

129

9

75

44

484

613

1,362

271

Wanted better home

156

15

125

17

473

630

1,279

259

Change from owner to renter

6

–

6

–

41

47

180

7

Wanted lower rent or

maintenance

114

32

49

32

450

563

1,120

222

39

Tenants in

2009 Tenant Opinions

All

Tenants  Voucher  Privately  Eligible

Total

All

Worst Case

(000s)

Assisted  in Public

Unassisted  Eligible

Needs

Renters  Housing  Recipients

Owned

Renters

Housing

Renters  Renters

Households

Other housing-related

reasons

105

6

90

9

339

444

828

189

Evicted from residence

17

–

17

–

99

115

169

53

Disaster loss (fire, flood, etc.)

10

–

10

–

69

79

132

38

Other

198

25

128

45

749

947

1,831

418

Not reported

27

15

9

3

233

260

472

112

Recent mover comparison to

previous home

Better home

682

106

420

155

2,472

3,153

6,192

1,358

Worse home

172

36

94

43

1,085

1,257

2,676

587

About the same

214

32

142

39

1,363

1,577

3,498

782

Not reported

25

15

4

6

229

254

474

117

Choice of present

neighborhood

Convenient to job

155

7

142

6

1,259

1,414

4,069

672

Convenient to friends or

relatives

231

13

173

45

1,370

1,601

3,009

754

Convenient to leisure activities

79

–

49

30

305

384

972

176

Convenient to public

transportation

98

7

65

26

352

450

753

197

Good schools

94

–

92

2

654

748

1,370

352

Other public services

77

11

40

26

221

299

544

127

Looks/design of neighborhood

178

6

129

43

676

855

2,046

419

House was most important

consideration

206

37

122

47

548

754

1,523

315

Other

347

111

154

82

1,299

1,646

2,931

725

Not reported

32

15

14

3

244

276

493

123

Main reason for choice of

present neighborhood

Al  reported reasons equal

123

–

109

14

497

620

1,354

274

Convenient to job

96

7

83

6

878

975

2,924

479

Convenient to friends or

relatives

144

7

99

38

991

1,136

1,915

555

Convenient to leisure activities

17

–

2

15

80

97

244

32

Convenient to public

transportation

21

7

7

7

123

144

237

76

Good schools

48

–

48

–

388

436

798

222

Other public services

50

5

19

26

83

133

185

38

Looks/design of neighborhood

94

–

75

19

369

463

1,163

217

House was most important

consideration

137

37

67

33

358

494

964

198

Other

330

111

137

82

1,137

1,468

2,563

630

Not reported

32

15

14

3

244

276

493

123

Recent mover comparison to

previous neighborhood

Better neighborhood

421

12

287

122

1,995

2,416

4,953

1,132

Worse neighborhood

187

60

103

24

855

1,042

1,955

451

About the same

435

102

248

85

1,839

2,274

4,916

1,012

Same neighborhood

26

–

19

7

228

253

520

129

Not reported

25

15

4

6

232

257

496

120

NA = data not available. – represents or rounds to 0.

40

Summary Table 6. Breakdown of Householder and Household Characteristics by Race, Ethnicity,

and Elderly Status

2009 Householder and

Tenants

Tenants in

Household Characteristics by

All

in

Voucher

Privately

Eligible

Total

All

Worst Case

Race, Ethnicity, and Elderly

Assisted  Public  Recipients  Owned  Unassisted  Eligible  Renters  Needs

Status (000s)

Renters  Housing

Housing

Renters  Renters

Households

Total households

4,426

999

2,073

1,354

13,807

18,233  35,378

6,895

White alone

2,122

359

1,034

729

9,369

11,491  25,202

4,649

Black alone

2,038

598

919

521

3,424

5,462

7,446

1,745

Hispanic

91

36

36

18

120

211

252

68

Over 65

1,237

274

345

618

2,259

3,496

4,623

1,120

Educational attainment of the

householder

All householders

Less than 9th grade

413

107

181

126

1,343

1,756

2,232

712

9th to 12th grade, no diploma

1,158

312

482

364

2,354

3,512

4,455

1,170

High school graduate (includes

equivalency)

1,676

339

820

517

5,000

6,677

11,724

2,398

Additional vocational training

181

62

60

60

452

633

1,144

221

Some college, no degree

683

160

363

160

2,696

3,379

6,924

1,408

Associate’s degree

196

38

98

60

794

990

2,522

356

Bachelor’s degree

239

43

93

104

1,194

1,434

5,183

647

Graduate or professional degree

60

0

36

24

425

485

2,338

204

Percent high school graduate or

higher

64.5

58.1

68.0

63.9

73.2

71.1

81.1

72.7

Percent bachelor’s degree or

higher

6.8

4.3

6.2

9.5

11.7

10.5

21.3

12.3

Black Alone

2,038

598

919

521

3,424

5,462

7,446

1,745

Less than 9th grade

107

56

26

26

169

276

279

93

9th to 12th grade, no diploma

602

176

257

170

676

1,278

1,247

351

High school graduate (includes

equivalency)

741

182

374

184

1,392

2,133

2,801

708

Additional vocational training

104

38

31

36

127

231

273

59

Some college, no degree

385

137

173

75

752

1,137

1,624

372

Associate’s degree

89

7

48

34

191

280

539

94

Bachelor’s degree

98

40

27

30

181

279

728

98

Graduate or professional degree

17

0

14

3

64

81

228

29

Percent high school graduate or

higher

65

61

69

63

75

141

80

75

Percent bachelor’s degree or

higher

6

7

4

6

7

13

13

7

Hispanic

772

244

338

189

2,936

3,707

6,300

1,558

Less than 9th grade

208

73

84

51

771

979

1,294

429

9th to 12th grade, no diploma

197

77

75

45

730

927

1,294

396

High school graduate (includes

equivalency)

230

57

117

56

882

1,112

2,029

429

Additional vocational training

31

13

18

0

64

95

142

32

Some college, no degree

75

12

48

15

291

366

807

159

Associate’s degree

35

25

1

8

109

144

286

52

Bachelor’s degree

14

0

9

5

123

137

433

71

Graduate or professional degree

13

0

5

9

30

43

155

22

Percent high school graduate or

higher

48

39

53

49

49

97

59

47

Percent bachelor’s degree or

higher

4

0

4

7

5

9

9

6

Year householder moved into

unit

All households

4,426

999

2,073

1,354

13,807

18,233  35,378

6,895

2005 to 2009

2,747

567

1,451

728

9,921

12,667  25,982

5,131

2000 to 2004

830

164

381

285

1,999

2,829

4,970

938

1995 to 1999

431

125

106

200

746

1,177

1,914

353

1990 to 1994

209

55

85

69

438

647

1,057

178

1985 to 1989

83

37

16

30

239

322

482

96

1980 to 1984

79

34

10

35

134

213

312

70

1975 to 1979

31

8

18

5

101

132

244

43

1970 to 1974

17

9

6

2

73

90

151

29

1960 to 1969

0

0

0

0

87

87

158

40

1950 to 1959

0

0

0

0

44

44

70

18

1940 to 1949

0

0

0

0

13

13

23

0

41

2009 Householder and

Tenants

Tenants in

Household Characteristics by

All

in

Voucher

Privately

Eligible

Total

All

Worst Case

Race, Ethnicity, and Elderly

Assisted  Public  Recipients  Owned  Unassisted  Eligible  Renters  Needs

Status (000s)

Renters  Housing

Housing

Renters  Renters

Households

1939 or earlier

0

0

0

0

12

12

17

0

Black alone

2,038

598

919

521

3,424

5,462

7,446

1,745

2005 to 2009

1,333

342

678

313

2,436

3,769

5,401

1,264

2000 to 2004

377

108

167

101

508

885

1,076

248

1995 to 1999

155

67

33

55

194

349

382

91

1990 to 1994

119

51

34

33

128

247

272

57

1985 to 1989

14

5

0

9

61

75

98

34

1980 to 1984

20

9

6

5

34

54

87

27

1975 to 1979

13

8

0

5

29

42

66

18

1970 to 1974

9

9

0

0

12

21

24

4

1960 to 1969

0

0

0

0

14

14

28

3

1950 to 1959

0

0

0

0

2

2

6

0

1940 to 1949

0

0

0

0

5

5

5

0

1939 or earlier

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Hispanic

772

244

338

189

2,936

3,707

6,300

1,558

2005 to 2009

414

92

242

80

2,123

2,537

4,649

1,170

2000 to 2004

136

35

51

50

448

584

896

218

1995 to 1999

85

33

19

33

152

236

324

55

1990 to 1994

59

27

15

17

78

137

178

49

1985 to 1989

39

32

7

0

45

85

91

21

1980 to 1984

39

25

4

9

34

73

69

21

1975 to 1979

0

0

0

0

31

31

54

8

1970 to 1974

0

0

0

0

11

11

22

9

1960 to 1969

0

0

0

0

6

6

7

1

1950 to 1959

0

0

0

0

7

7

11

4

1940 to 1949

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

0

1939 or earlier

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Over 65

1,237

274

345

618

2,259

3,496

4,623

1,120

2005 to 2009

435

51

147

238

869

1,305

1,829

445

2000 to 2004

298

66

84

147

512

810

1,052

267

1995 to 1999

233

54

39

141

271

504

606

138

1990 to 1994

111

32

33

47

172

283

356

68

1985 to 1989

53

37

8

8

113

166

204

48

1980 to 1984

74

34

10

30

87

162

166

53

1975 to 1979

23

0

18

5

55

77

108

28

1970 to 1974

8

0

6

2

52

61

88

24

1960 to 1969

0

0

0

0

70

70

124

32

1950 to 1959

0

0

0

0

35

35

55

18

1940 to 1949

0

0

0

0

11

11

18

0

1939 or earlier

0

0

0

0

12

12

17

0

Income sources of families

and primary individuals

All households

Wages and salaries

1,779

411

1,017

350

8,129

9,908

25,683

3,842

Wages and salaries were

majority of income

1,541

358

882

301

7,409

8,950

24,023

3,490

Two or more people each

earned more than 20% of

111

39

56

16

609

720

3,191

260

wages and salaries

Self-employment

83

5

59

20

842

925

2,578

474

Interest

187

46

44

98

830

1,017

3,517

459

Dividends

13

5

–

8

214

227

1,100

121

Rental income

9

–

9

–

92

101

487

45

Social Security or Railroad

Retirement

1,465

317

521

627

2,880

4,345

5,843

1,385

Retirement or survivor pensions

317

92

78

47

722

1,040

2,122

336

Supplementary Security Income

932

218

414

300

1,350

2,282

2,350

751

Child support or alimony

447

101

275

71

794

1,240

1,922

413

Public assistance or public

welfare

512

91

304

117

943

1,455

1,490

613

Food stamp benefits

1,967

451

948

568

3,457

5,424

5,050

1,967

Disability payments, workers’

compensation, veterans’

379

50

236

93

735

1,114

1,606

394

disability, other disability

42

2009 Householder and

Tenants

Tenants in

Household Characteristics by

All

in

Voucher

Privately

Eligible

Total

All

Worst Case

Race, Ethnicity, and Elderly

Assisted  Public  Recipients  Owned  Unassisted  Eligible  Renters  Needs

Status (000s)

Renters  Housing

Housing

Renters  Renters

Households

Other income (VA payments,

unemployment, royalty, estates,

156

34

102

20

913

1,069

2,370

475

and more)

Over 65

Wages and salaries

79

29

16

34

271

349

928

105

Wages and salaries were

majority of income

54

29

7

19

133

188

571

53

Two or more people each

earned more than 20% of

27

23

0

4

47

74

200

20

wages and salaries

Self-employment

2

0

0

2

41

44

127

13

Interest

81

26

2

52

307

388

873

169

Dividends

8

0

0

8

100

108

329

63

Rental income

0

0

0

0

22

22

78

6

Social Security or Railroad

Retirement

1,030

228

298

504

1,928

2,958

3,929

918

Retirement or survivor pensions

214

49

46

119

537

751

1,430

244

Supplementary Security Income

(SSI)

365

108

106

151

307

673

615

148

Child support or alimony

5

0

0

5

8

13

22

2

Public assistance or public

welfare

53

0

45

8

68

121

121

38

Food stamp benefits

329

41

113

176

342

671

594

145

Disability payments, workers’

compensation, veterans’

65

6

35

23

88

153

195

47

disability, other disability

Other income (VA payments,

unemployment, royalty, estates,

6

0

0

6

44

50

134

17

and more)

NA = data not available. – represents or rounds to 0.

43

References

Casey, Connie H. 1992.  Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters and Their Units in 1989.

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

Development and Research.

———. 1997.  Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters and Their Units in 1991. Washington,

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

Research.

Eggers, Frederick J. 2013.  American Housing Survey: A Measure of (Poor) Housing Quality.

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

Development and Research.

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/ahsrep/AHS_hsg_quality.html.

———. 2017a.  Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters and Their Units in 2013.  Washington,

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

Research.

———. 2017b.  Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters and Their Units in 2011.  Washington,

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

Research.

Eggers, Frederick J., and Fouad Moumen. 2008. “Trends in Housing Costs: 1985–2005 and the

30-Percent-of-Income Standard.”

http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/ahsrep/trends_inhousing.html.

———. 2009.  American Housing Survey: Housing Adequacy and Quality As Measured by the

AHS. Report prepared for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. Washington, DC: Econometrica, Inc.

———. 2010. “Investigating Very High Rent Burdens Among Renters in the American Housing

Survey.”  http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/ahsrep/investing_veryhigh.html.

———. 2017.  Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters and Their Units in 2009.  Washington,

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

Research.

McGough, Duane T. 1997.  Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters and Their Units in 1993.

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

Development and Research.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).   2008.  Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters and Their Units in 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

———. 2016. “Low-Income Tax Credit Housing Tax Credits.”

http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/lihtc.html#data.

Weicher, John C. 2012.  Housing Policy at a Crossroads.  Washington, DC: AEI Press.

44

Document Outline

- Cover

- Contents

- Tables and Figures

- Executive Summary

- HUD Programs

- Location and Unit Size

- Householder and Household Characteristics

- Unit Quality and Tenant Satisfaction

- Other Related Studies

- Introduction

- HUD Rental Assistance Programs

- Organization of the Report and Data Tables

- Source of the Data

- Relationship to Other Studies

- The Big Picture

- Location and Key Unit Characteristics

- Regional and Metropolitan Location

- Year Structure Built

- Number of Bedrooms

- Householder Characteristics

- Race and Ethnic Origin of Householder

- Age of Householder

- Education of Householder

- Years in Same Unit

- Household Characteristics

- Household Income

- Income Sources

- Household Composition

- Household Size and Overcrowding

- Households With a Disabled Member

- Housing Cost as Percent of Income

- Unit Quality and Tenant Satisfaction

- Structure Type

- Equipment Failures

- Selected Deficiencies

- Indices of Physical Problems

- Tenant Satisfaction

- Recent Movers

- Detailed Summary Tables

- References

Table of Contents

Cover

Contents

Tables and Figures

Executive Summary

HUD Programs

Location and Unit Size

Householder and Household Characteristics

Unit Quality and Tenant Satisfaction

Other Related Studies

Introduction

HUD Rental Assistance Programs

Organization of the Report and Data Tables

Source of the Data

Relationship to Other Studies

The Big Picture

Location and Key Unit Characteristics

Regional and Metropolitan Location

Year Structure Built

Number of Bedrooms

Householder Characteristics

Race and Ethnic Origin of Householder

Age of Householder

Education of Householder

Years in Same Unit

Household Characteristics

Household Income

Income Sources

Household Composition

Household Size and Overcrowding

Households With a Disabled Member

Housing Cost as Percent of Income

Unit Quality and Tenant Satisfaction

Structure Type

Equipment Failures

Selected Deficiencies

Indices of Physical Problems

Tenant Satisfaction

Recent Movers

Detailed Summary Tables

References