Characteristics of

HUD-Assisted Renters and

Their Units in 2013

July 2017

Characteristics of

HUD-Assisted Renters and

Their Units in 2013

Prepared for

U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development

Office of Policy Development & Research

Prepared by

Frederick J. Eggers

Econometrica, Inc.

July 2017

Contents

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

HUD Programs .......................................................................................................................... iv

Location and Unit Size .............................................................................................................. iv

Householder and Household Characteristics ............................................................................. vi

Unit Quality and Tenant Satisfaction ....................................................................................... viii

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

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

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

Source of the Data ....................................................................................................................... 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 ................................................................................................................... 16

Household Characteristics ......................................................................................................... 19

Household Income .................................................................................................................... 19

Income Sources ......................................................................................................................... 20

Household Composition ........................................................................................................... 21

Household Size and Overcrowding .......................................................................................... 23

Households With a Disabled Member ...................................................................................... 24

Housing Cost as Percent of Income .......................................................................................... 25

Unit Quality and Tenant Satisfaction ....................................................................................... 27

Structure Type ........................................................................................................................... 27

Equipment Failures ................................................................................................................... 28

Selected Deficiencies ................................................................................................................ 29

Indices of Physical Problems .................................................................................................... 30

Tenant Satisfaction ................................................................................................................... 31

Recent Movers .......................................................................................................................... 32

Detailed Summary Tables .......................................................................................................... 35

References .................................................................................................................................... 48

i

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

Figure 2-1. Renters—Eligibility and Housing Assistance .............................................................. 7

Table 3-1: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Region, 2013 ............................................. 8

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

2013................................................................................................................................................. 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, 2013 ..................................... 10

Table 3-5: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Number of Bedrooms, 2013 ................... 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,

2013............................................................................................................................................... 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, 2013 ...................... 14

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, 2013 .............................................................................................................. 15

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

Ethnicity, and Elderly and Disability Status, 2013 ....................................................................... 16

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

Householder .................................................................................................................................. 18

Table 5-1: Median Income of Households by Assistance Status, 2013 ........................................ 19

Table 5-2: Trends in Median Income of Households by Assistance Status ................................. 20

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

Nonelderly, 2013........................................................................................................................... 21

Table 5-4: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Household Composition, 2013 ............... 22

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

2013............................................................................................................................................... 23

Table 5-6: Trends in the Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Household Composition ... 23

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

Overcrowding, 2013 ..................................................................................................................... 24

Table 5-8: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Disability Status of Members, 2013 ....... 24

ii

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

2013............................................................................................................................................... 25

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

Income........................................................................................................................................... 26

Table 6-1: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Structure Type, 2013 .............................. 27

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

2013............................................................................................................................................... 28

Table 6-3: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Selected Deficiencies, 2013 .................... 29

Table 6-4: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Indices of Physical Problems, 2013 ........ 30

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

Problems ....................................................................................................................................... 31

Table 6-6: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Tenant Ratings as Best or Worst, 2013 .. 32

Table 6-7: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Percent of Recent Movers, 2013 ............. 32

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

Given for Move, 2013 ................................................................................................................... 33

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

Current and Previous Home and Neighborhood, 2013 ................................................................. 34

Summary Table 1. 2013 Structural Characteristics ...................................................................... 36

Summary Table 2. 2013 Householder Characteristics .................................................................. 38

Summary Table 3. 2013 Household Characteristics ..................................................................... 40

Summary Table 4. 2013 Unit Conditions ..................................................................................... 43

Summary Table 5. 2013 Tenant Opinions .................................................................................... 44

iii

Executive Summary

The 2013 American Housing Survey (AHS) included a supplemental survey of rental units

receiving subsidies from programs administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD). In addition, the U.S. Census Bureau used addresses provided by HUD to

identify other units in its regular AHS sample that are subsidized by HUD. Together, the 2013

AHS contain 4,490 assisted sample units. This report uses information on those units to

characterize the 4.5 million rental units assisted by HUD in 2013.

The 2011 AHS also contained the supplement survey of assisted units and address matches that

had previously been done for the 1989, 1991, 1993, 2007, 2009, and 2011 AHS surveys. This

report uses information from these previous efforts to analyze how the HUD-assisted rental

stock has changed over the past three 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 2013, 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 2013, the United States had 40.2 million renter households. According to the AHS, 18.9

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 4.5 million households, 23.8 percent of those eligible.

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. Over the same period, the number of households eligible for

housing assistance increased by 16 percent, although the number of HUD-assisted units

increased by only 11 percent. Therefore, the percentage of the eligible households receiving

assistance fell from 24.9 percent in 1991 to 23.8 percent in 2013.

During the 1991-to-2013 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 2013. The privately owned assisted share fell from 43.3

to 30.2 percent, and the public housing share fell from 28.4 to 22.9 percent.

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

households fluctuated more, notably increasing by 1.6 million households between 2009 and

2011 before falling by 1.0 million by 2013.

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 2013 assisted units are project-based units, and the percentage of

iv

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.

When compared with either all renter households or all renter households eligible for assistance (including those already assisted), HUD assistance in 2013 was more concentrated in the

Northeast and less concentrated in the West. Only 19 percent of all renters and 20 percent of

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

Northeast. In 2013, the West contained 28 percent of all renters and 25 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 more concentrated in metropolitan areas and 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 project 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 28 percent in 2013 despite a decline in the number of large families. The

percentage of one-bedroom units decreased slightly from 39 to 38 percent.

v

Householder and Household Characteristics

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

providing information, for example, on 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. 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 2013 was 43.5 percent,

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

26.8 percent. The differentials were greatest for the public housing and voucher programs, where Black householders occupied 46.8 and 46.3 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.

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 (28.0

versus 18.8 percent). The percentage of households with elderly householders was particularly

high among units in privately owned subsidized housing (46.3 percent). The voucher program

served elderly people at a rate similar to their share of income-eligible renter households (16.9

percent). 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 2013.

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 15

percent of public housing households have householders who lived in the unit for more than 13

years compared with 9.8 percent among income-eligible renter households. The voucher

program has the most turnover; for example, only 9.5 percent of householders have lived in their units more than 13 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 and householders with a disabled person in the household display lower turnover.

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

exception. In all three assisted programs, Black alone householders have higher turnover than

White alone householders.

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

compare only the 1993, 2003, and 2013 studies; turnover was less in 2013 than in either 1993 or

2003; that is, fewer householders have moved in within the past 3 years and more have lived in

their units for 13 years or more.

Eligibility for assisted housing is based primarily on household income. In 2013, the median

income of all renters nationally was $30,200, 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 39.4 percent of that for all eligible renters, although the ratios were even less in vi

public housing (35.8 percent) and privately owned subsidized housing (34.1 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 38.1 percent of HUD-assisted households have wage and salary income compared

with 53.0 percent of income-eligible renter households and 71.8 percent of all 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

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

19.8 percent among eligible renters and 29.2 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 9.4 percent of income-eligible households and 4.0 percent of all renter households. In addition, 52.6 percent of HUD-assisted households reported receiving food

stamps compared with 34.0 percent of income-eligible households and 16.7 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 2013, 26.5 percent of renter households consisted of married couple households, and the percentage among all income-eligible renter

households was 19.8 percent, whereas the percentage across HUD programs ranged between 9.6

and 11.6 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, 43.0 percent of assisted households have children compared with 35.5 percent of all

renter households. Nearly one-half of voucher households contain children under 18. In addition, the percentage of households with three or more children is higher in public housing (11.6

percent) and the voucher program (14.4 percent) than among all income-eligible renter

households (10.9 percent).

Despite observed program differences and the change in program mix over time, there has been

virtually no change 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 (37.8

percent) substantially higher than the rate among either income-eligible renter households (25.9

percent) or all renter households (17.5 percent). The privately owned assisted housing programs

contained the highest percentage of households with a disabled member, 42.9 percent.

Finally, rent-to-income ratio data from the 2013 AHS clearly illustrate why housing assistance is needed. Among income-eligible renter households, 61 percent have excessive rent burdens; that

is, ratios greater than 40 percent. Excessive rent burdens affect 36 percent of HUD-assisted

households, a rate less than that for all renter households (39 percent). 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 22 percent for income-eligible renters.

vii

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 lower incidence of problems than units occupied by all income-eligible households but 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 problem and moderate physical problems.

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 slightly higher in general than among all renters.

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

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

breakdowns, heating equipment breakdowns, and leaking water from inside unit), the incidence

of problems was higher for HUD-assisted units as a group than for all eligible renters and all

renters. The differences are small. In general, households in privately owned subsidized units

report a lower incidence of problems than households in other assisted programs, although

households in public housing report the highest incidence. 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,

where 10 is considered the best. Households receiving HUD assistance consistently gave their

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

households. The 10 rating was given most frequently by households in privately owned

subsidized units. 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 4.6 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. When asked to compare their

current neighborhood with their previous neighborhood, recent mover respondents in HUD-

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

viii

1. Introduction

This report is the sixth 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; McGough, 1997; HUD,

2008). 1 These reports are intended for the use of 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 2013 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 2013 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 have been 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 housing unit is located and approved by the local housing authority, 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 1 The 2011 report is being revised using improved matched data.

1

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 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 about 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, about 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.

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. 2 Another term used in the report is “worst case households.” “Worst case needs” 3 means renters who do not receive federal assistance, who have incomes below 2 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.

3 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); 2

50 percent of 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. 4

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, about 464,000 units were available under the Rural Housing Service (formerly known

as the Farmers Home Administration) Section 515 Rental Assistance Program. About 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 Department of

Treasury’s Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program; from 1987 through 2013, 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 Bigger 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 five detailed summary tables contained in the Detailed Summary Tables section. The

structure of these sections follows the organization of the five detailed tables.

•  The Bigger Picture section uses information from all eight matched surveys to track the

growth of HUD-assisted housing from 1989 to 2013.

•  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 Tables.

Worst Case Housing Needs 2011: Report to Congress (August 2013);  Worst Case Housing Needs: 2015 Report to Congress (April 2015). These publications are available online at http://www.huduser.org.

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

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 five detailed tables in the 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 and the 2011 report, specialists at the Census Bureau matched records from the

AHS and the two HUD administrative record systems using computerized matching algorithms

and techniques. These matching techniques use information on the AHS and HUD records,

including first name, last name, date of birth, and detailed addresses (street number, street name, street direction/location [for example, North, South, Northwest, Southeast]), unit or apartment

number, city, state, and ZIP Code) to match households.

This 2013 report and the forthcoming 2011 report also utilize a special oversample of public

housing and privately owned subsidized units that was conducted as a part of the 2013 AHS.

4

2. The Big Picture

HUD spends approximately $40 billion a year on assisted housing (Weicher, 2012). 5 The matched AHS sample used in this report provides important information on how these

expenditures affected American households in 2013. 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 five reports (Casey, 1992, 1997; McGough,

1997; HUD, 2008). 6

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

match and the 2013 match. 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. 7 During the same time period, the number of households eligible for housing assistance increased by 16 percent, although the

number of HUD-assisted units increased by only 11 percent. The percentage of the eligible

households receiving assistance fell from 24.9 percent in 1991 to 22.5 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 being served (Table 2-1).

5 See Table 4-4.

6 Reports on the 2009 and 2011 matches are planned for 2017.

7 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 2013 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 2-1 explains how HUD-assisted housing fits into the overall rental housing market. In 2013, the U.S. housing market had 40,202,000 renter households; 18,856,000 of these households were

eligible on the basis of income for HUD assistance. HUD programs served 4,490,000 of the

eligible households (23.8 percent), leaving 14,366,000 eligible households without any HUD

housing assistance; of these, 7,935,000 were judged to have worst case housing needs. The

voucher program helped 2,103,000 households; another 1,357,000 households lived in privately

owned, project-based housing, and public housing provided housing to 1,030,000 households. 8

8 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 2-1. Renters—Eligibility and Housing Assistance

7

3. Location and Key Unit Characteristics

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

of housing is provided. The factors are what 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 found 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 19 percent of all renters and 20 percent of

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

In 2013, the West contained 28 percent of all renters and 25 percent of eligible renters but 18

percent of HUD-assisted households. The share of HUD-assisted renters found 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, 2013

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

35.8

24.3

27.0

20.9

19.0

Midwest

21.6

19.4

19.1

27.2

20.1

18.0

South

32.9

36.4

32.8

30.4

34.3

33.7

West

17.7

8.4

23.8

15.3

24.7

28.4

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, 2013

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

87.4

84.1

89.5

87.5

88.1

87.5

In central cities

55.2

61.8

52.4

49.5

47.2

47.8

In suburbs

32.2

22.2

37.2

37.9

40.9

39.7

Outside metropolitan

statistical areas

12.6

16.0

10.5

12.5

11.9

12.5

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

In The Big Picture section, 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.

There has been a slight increase in the percentage of assisted housing in suburbs, 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.

Note: 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 2013 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 type of units to construct or renovate, and that choice is based on their objectives and the needs at the time when 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, 2013

HUD-Assisted Renters

Tenants in

Total

Year Built

Al  HUD-

Tenants in

Voucher

Privately

Eligible

Al  Renters

Assisted (%)

Public

Recipients

Owned

Renters (%)

(%)

Housing (%)

(%)

Housing (%)

1949 and earlier

19.5

15.0

27.7

10.3

25.2

23.9

1950–1969

21.7

35.0

20.4

13.6

21.8

20.9

1970–1984

38.5

36.4

28.0

56.4

31.1

28.4

1985 or later

20.3

13.7

24.0

19.7

22.0

26.8

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

Public housing began in 1937, and 15.5 percent of public housing units were built before 1950.

More than 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; 57.4 percent of these units were

constructed between 1970 and 1984. The 9.6 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 closely resembles the distribution among all renters. The voucher program has the highest

10

percentage of units with three or four or more bedrooms among the HUD-assisted programs, probably reflecting the fact that vouchers can also be used to rent single-family rentals including townhouses 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, 2013

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

1.9

0.4

2.1

2.2

1.7

One

37.7

37.8

25.1

57.1

31.6

26.9

Two

33.2

33.5

37.7

25.9

39.1

39.2

Three

22.3

21.7

28.7

12.7

21.0

24.6

Four or more

5.5

5.0

8.0

2.1

6.1

7.6

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 has increased

from 24 percent in 1989 to 28 percent in 2013 despite a decline in the number of large families.

The percent of one-bedroom units decreased slightly from 39 percent 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 can be found in Summary Table 1.

11

4. Householder Characteristics

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

providing information, for example, on 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. 9 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 2013 was 43.5 percent,

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

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

which Black householders occupied 46.8 and 46.3 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 (36.8 versus 26.8 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, 2013

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

48.5

46.0

46.6

53.4

64.4

70.4

Black alone

43.5

46.8

46.3

36.8

26.8

21.0

Other races alone

or multiple races

8.0

7.2

7.2

9.9

8.8

8.7

Hispanic (of any

race)

17.4

21.3

17.1

14.9

22.9

19.4

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 2013 surveys because HUD and other

9 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

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 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

54

61

54

54

52

48

49

49

Black

40

35

40

40

41

46

44

44

Other 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 (28.0

versus 18.8 percent). The percentage of households with elderly householders was particularly

high among units in privately owned subsidized housing (46.3 percent). Only the voucher

program served elderly people at a rate similar to their share of income-eligible renter

households (16.9 percent).

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, 58.6 compared with 48.8 percent. Only 31.1 percent

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

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 51 in public housing and 47 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 has fallen nearly steadily from 35 percent in 1989 to 28

percent in 2013 (Table 4-4).

13

Table 4-3: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Age of Householder, 2013

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

24.7

28.0

24.6

22.5

34.2

38.4

35 to 64

47.3

45.3

58.6

31.1

47.1

48.8

65 or older

28.0

26.6

16.9

46.3

18.8

12.8

Median age

NA

51

47

62

NA

40

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

Notes: The tables in this document were created using the Table Creator tool available for 2013 American Housing Survey on the Census Bureau website. The “all assisted renters” and “total eligible renters”

numbers were calculated by combining two or more other categories and therefore “medians” are not available for these categories.

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

AHS Survey Year

Al  HUD-Assisted

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

NA

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, 27.0 percent had householders without high school degrees compared

with 17.3 percent among all renter households; 38.5 percent of income-eligible households have

householders with education beyond the high school level compared with 52.2 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 (63.5 percent in public

housing, 70.2 percent in the voucher program, and 65.1 percent in privately owned housing)

compared with 73.0 percent among all income-eligible renter households and 82.7 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.

14

Table 4-5: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Education Attainment of Householder by Race and Ethnicity, 2013

HUD-Assisted Renters Tenants in  Total

Educational Attainment of

Al  HUD-  Tenants in  Voucher  Privately  Eligible

Al

Householder by Race and Ethnicity  Assisted  Public  Recipients  Owned  Renters  Renters

(%)

Housing

(%)

Housing

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Less than 9th grade—all households

10.5

11.9

8.4

12.7

9.5

5.8

White alone

14.1

14.1

13.5

15.0

11.5

6.7

Black alone

5.2

8.3

3.0

6.4

4.2

3.1

Other races

17.5

21.6

10.6

23.1

10.8

5.7

Hispanic

23.5

18.7

22.6

30.2

24.5

18.6

9th to 12th grade, no diploma—all

households

22.3

24.6

21.3

22.2

17.5

11.5

White alone

20.7

20.7

21.2

19.9

17.1

11.0

Black alone

24.8

28.4

22.7

25.5

20.5

14.8

Other races

18.7

25.7

13.2

20.9

11.2

7.2

Hispanic

26.2

26.9

25.6

26.2

24.5

18.5

High school graduation (includes

equivalency)—all households

36.8

37.8

36.1

37.2

34.5

30.5

White alone

35.9

41.1

32.4

37.2

33.5

30.0

Black alone

38.8

35.7

39.5

40.7

38.2

34.9

Other races

31.2

27.0

39.1

24.6

30.6

24.4

Hispanic

28.7

33.8

29.5

21.8

29.7

30.7

More than high school graduation—all

households

30.3

25.7

34.1

27.9

38.5

52.2

White alone

29.2

23.8

32.9

27.9

37.9

52.4

Black alone

31.2

27.6

34.8

27.5

37.1

47.2

Other races

32.3

23.0

38.4

30.6

47.4

62.7

Hispanic

21.7

20.5

22.6

21.3

21.3

32.3

High school graduate—all households

67.1

63.5

70.2

65.1

73.0

82.7

White alone

65.2

65.0

65.3

65.1

71.3

82.4

Black alone

70.0

63.3

74.3

68.1

75.3

82.1

Other races

63.5

50.0

77.5

55.2

78.0

87.1

Hispanic

50.4

54.3

52.1

43.1

51.0

63.0

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

When the educational attainment data are disaggregated by race or ethnicity, the patterns are

similar among the White alone and Black alone populations. Among the Hispanic population, the

level of educational attainment among householders in HUD-assisted housing is virtually the

same as the education attainment among the income-eligible group, with the exception of

Hispanic householders in privately owned assisted housing. This difference may result from the

more elderly population in privately owned assisted housing. One puzzling finding is the very

15

low educational attainment among other race householders in public housing, in which only 50.0

are high school graduates. When one separates “other race” into its constituent parts—American

Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander, two or more races—the public housing distribution is very

similar to that of the voucher program, which has a much larger percentage of high school

graduates, 77.5 percent. This discrepancy should not be given too much attention, as it is based on only 74 other race householders in the public housing sample.

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 4 years constitute 60.7 percent of income-eligible renter households, compared with 45.7 percent in public housing, 49.5 percent

among voucher recipients, and 44.1 percent in privately owned housing. Approximately 15

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

13 years compared with 9.8 percent among income-eligible renter households. Both income-

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

Table 4-6: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Householder Years in Unit by Race, Ethnicity, and Elderly and Disability Status, 2013

HUD-Assisted Renters  Tenants in  Total

Tenants in

Al

Years in Unit, 2013

Al  HUD-

Voucher

Privately  Eligible

Assisted

Public

Recipients

Owned

Renters  Renters

(%)

Housing

(%)

Housing

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

0 to 3—Al  householders

47.0

45.7

49.5

44.1

60.7

65.6

White alone

45.1

40.0

48.5

43.2

60.8

66.0

Black alone

50.3

46.1

56.3

48.0

60.2

63.9

Other races

41.1

44.6

52.4

34.6

57.0

66.9

Hispanic

44.3

40.2

53.1

38.6

60.9

62.7

Under 65

53.5

52.0

56.7

51.9

67.1

70.0

Over 65

30.4

28.5

27.9

38.1

33.1

36.2

Without a disabled person

50.9

51.0

55.2

48.4

63.8

68.0

With a disabled person

40.5

37.0

46.7

38.6

51.5

54.4

4 to 8—Al  householders

28.6

26.3

28.7

30.1

21.5

19.9

White alone

28.3

22.1

30.8

30.2

21.4

19.8

Black alone

28.0

19.7

29.2

29.4

22.1

20.8

Other races

32.7

23.2

35.0

31.6

18.7

18.6

Hispanic

29.8

24.7

31.2

36.1

22.4

22.1

Under 65

28.9

27.2

30.0

30.4

20.8

19.2

Over 65

27.7

23.7

32.6

27.8

24.3

24.6

Without a disabled person

27.7

25.1

29.3

30.0

21.1

19.5

With a disabled person

29.8

27.8

32.4

30.4

22.5

21.8

16

HUD-Assisted Renters  Tenants in  Total

Tenants in

Al

Years in Unit, 2013

Al  HUD-

Voucher

Privately  Eligible

Assisted

Public

Recipients

Owned

Renters  Renters

(%)

Housing

(%)

Housing

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

9 to 13—Al  householders

12.4

12.7

12.3

12.2

8.0

6.7

White alone

13.8

11.6

15.0

13.8

7.9

6.6

Black alone

10.3

9.5

11.5

7.8

7.7

6.7

Other races

14.8

14.3

9.8

19.5

8.7

7.1

Hispanic

10.5

12.3

11.3

8.4

7.8

7.4

Under 65

9.8

11.0

10.4

8.3

6.4

5.7

Over 65

18.9

17.9

27.9

11.4

15.0

13.7

Without a disabled person

10.7

11.1

11.7

9.8

6.9

6.0

With a disabled person

14.9

15.2

15.8

14.9

11.1

9.9

More than 13—Al

householders

12.1

15.2

9.5

13.7

9.8

7.8

White alone

12.7

26.3

5.7

12.8

9.9

7.6

Black alone

11.4

24.6

2.9

14.8

10.0

8.7

Other races

11.5

17.9

2.8

14.3

15.6

7.4

Hispanic

15.4

22.8

4.5

16.8

8.9

7.8

Under 65

7.8

9.8

2.9

9.4

5.7

5.2

Over 65

23.1

29.9

11.7

22.7

27.6

25.5

Without a disabled person

10.6

12.7

3.8

11.9

8.1

6.5

With a disabled person

14.8

20.0

5.2

16.1

14.9

13.9

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

Note: The U.S. Census Bureau does not tabulate “years in unit”; rather, it reports the year the household moved into the unit in 5-year blocks. For 2013, the blocks include 2000–2004, 2005–2009, and 2010–

2013. This presentation translates into 0 to 3 years, 4 to 8 years, 9 to 13 years, and more than 13 years categories for years in unit. Because the size of the initial category depends on the survey year, the 2013

results can be compared only with tabulations from the 2003 and the 1993 match studies.

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 9.5 percent of householders have lived in their units more than 13 years, roughly the same as all income-eligible householders. The voucher program does not match the turnover

pattern among all renters probably because moving is expensive and voucher participants can carry their subsidies only to unit whose landlords will participate in the voucher program.

The race, ethnicity, age, and disability 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 and householders

with a disabled person in the household display lower turnover, that is, lower rates of short

tenure (0–3 years) and higher rates of long tenures (more than 13 years.).

17

The same patterns are apparent among householders in the assisted housing programs, with one exception. In all three assisted programs, Black alone householders have higher turnover than

White alone householders.

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

across the 1993, 2003, and 2013 studies (see Table 4-7 note). Table 4-7 shows that turnover is

less in 2013 than in either 1993 or 2003; that is, fewer householders have moved within the past 3 years and more have lived in their units for 13 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

1993 (%)

2003 (%)

2013 (%)

0 to 3

53.8

53.2

47.0

4 to 8

25.6

26.2

28.6

9 to 13

11.8

10.5

12.4

More than 13

8.8

10.1

12.1

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

Notes: More detailed information on householder characteristics can be found in Summary Table 2 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 1993, 2003, and 2013 surveys, the first of these intervals corresponds to 0–3 years in units. For the 1991 and 2001 surveys, the first of these intervals corresponds to 0–1 year in unit.

18

5. 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 2013, the median income of all renters nationally was $30,200, 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 39.4 percent of that for all eligible renters, although

the ratios were even lower in public housing (35.8 percent) and privately owned subsidized

housing (34.1 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, 2013

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

NA

$10,800

$11,900

$10,284

NA

$30,200

income

Percent of all

renter

NA

35.8

39.4

34.1

NA

100.0

households

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-2013 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

19

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.

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

Group Median

AHS Survey Year

Income 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 38.1 percent of HUD-assisted households have wage and salary income compared

with 53.0 percent of income-eligible renter households and 71.8 percent of all renters.

Controlling for the age of the householders does not eliminate this difference, with 48.1 percent of assisted households with householders under 65 having wage and salary income compared

with 62.2 percent among nonelderly eligible households and 79.0 percent among all nonelderly

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 15.5 percent of elderly assisted households receive income from these sources

compared with 19.8 percent among eligible renters and 29.2 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 9.4 percent of income-eligible households

and 4.0 percent of all renter households. In addition, 52.6 percent of HUD-assisted households

reported receiving food stamps compared with 34.0 percent of income-eligible households and

16.7 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, 31.6 percent of elderly renters and 20.7 percent of nonelderly renters in assisted housing received supplement security income compared with 14.3 percent and 6.5

percent respectively among all renter households (Table 5-3).

20

Table 5-3: Income Sources for Renter Households by Assistant Status and by Elderly/Nonelderly, 2013

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total

Income

Tenants in

Voucher

Tenants in

Eligible

Al

Sources

Al  HUD-

Public

Recipients

Privately

Renters

Renters

Assisted (%)  Housing (%)

(%)

Owned

(%)

(%)

Housing (%)

Wages and

salaries

38.1

41.3

44.0

26.5

53.0

71.8

Under 65

48.8

51.7

50.1

42.9

62.2

79.0

Over 65

10.7

13.5

13.8

7.6

13.4

22.5

Social security

income

31.4

30.4

23.4

44.7

22.9

16.3

Under 65

12.8

14.0

12.8

11.5

9.2

6.4

Over 65

79.3

75.9

75.6

83.0

82.5

83.2

Retirement or

survivors

6.0

5.1

4.9

8.3

5.3

5.8

pensions

Under 65

2.2

1.6

2.7

1.6

2.0

2.3

Over 65

15.5

14.6

15.2

16.1

19.8

29.2

Supplemental

security

23.7

24.0

23.4

24.0

13.3

7.5

income

Under 65

20.7

19.2

21.1

21.2

12.0

6.5

Over 65

31.6

36.5

34.6

27.7

18.8

14.3

Welfare

11.6

12.0

12.9

9.4

7.5

4.0

Under 65

13.7

14.8

13.7

12.5

8.3

4.1

Over 65

6.4

4.7

9.0

5.7

4.1

3.2

Food stamps

52.6

55.4

52.4

50.7

34.0

16.7

Under 65

57.5

58.7

55.1

62.0

35.8

16.5

Over 65

40.1

46.7

38.8

38.1

26.0

18.1

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 2013, 26.5 percent of renter households consisted of married couple households, and the percentage among all income-eligible renter

households was 19.8 percent, whereas the percentage across all HUD programs ranged between

9.6 and 11.6 percent.

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

provides some additional insight into whom HUD programs serve. Approximately 70 percent of

HUD-assisted households are female headed compared with 53 percent among income-eligible

households and 42 percent among all renter households.

21

Table 5-4: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Household Composition, 2013

HUD-Assisted Renters

Household

Tenants in

Total

Tenants in

Voucher

Al  Renters

Composition

Al  HUD-

Privately

Eligible

Assisted (%)

Public

Recipients

Owned

Renters (%)

(%)

Housing (%)

(%)

Housing (%)

Two-or-more-

person

54.6

56.9

62.6

40.4

58.7

63.8

households

Married couple

families, no

10.2

11.6

9.9

9.6

19.8

26.5

nonrelatives

Other male

householder

4.2

3.4

5.1

3.5

8.9

13.2

Other female

householder

40.2

42.0

47.6

27.3

29.9

24.0

One-person

households

45.4

43.1

37.4

59.6

41.3

36.2

Male

householder

15.2

15.3

11.9

20.3

17.8

18.2

Female

householder

30.2

27.8

25.5

39.3

23.5

18.1

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

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 27.3

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. Overall 43.0 percent of assisted households have children compared with 35.5 percent of all renter households. Nearly one-half of voucher households contain children under 18, although 28.2 percent of assisted

households in privately owned housing have children. In addition, the percentage of households

with three or more children is higher in the public housing (11.6 percent) and the voucher

program (14.4 percent) than among all income-eligible renter households (10.9 percent). See

Table 5-5.

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

has been virtually no change 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.

22

Table 5-5: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Number of Children in Household, 2013

HUD-Assisted Renters

Number of

Tenants in

Tenants in

Total

Single Children

Al  HUD-

Public

Voucher

Privately

Eligible

Al  Renters

Under 18 Years  Assisted (%)

Housing

Recipients

Owned

Renters (%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Housing

(%)

None

59.9

61.5

51.5

71.8

61.9

65.6

One

15.8

17.2

17.7

11.7

14.6

15.0

Two

12.9

9.7

16.5

9.7

12.6

11.2

Three

7.6

7.2

9.6

4.7

7.0

5.4

Four

2.1

2.6

2.3

1.5

2.7

1.9

Five

1.0

1.1

1.5

0.4

0.8

0.6

Six or more

0.7

0.7

1.0

0.2

0.3

0.2

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

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

Household Composition

AHS Survey Year

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.

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 more smaller households. Assisted households include a higher percentage of one-person households (45.4 versus 41.3 percent) and a lower percentage of two-to-four-person households (45.7 versus 47.6 percent). Households with five or more persons account

for 8.8 percent of HUD-assisted households and 11.1 income-eligible households (Table 5-7).

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;

public housing also has a high percentage of one-person households. The voucher program has

the highest percentage of large (five-or-more-person) households.

23

Table 5-7: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Household Size and the Incidence of Overcrowding, 2013

HUD-Assisted Renters

Household

Tenants in

Total

Tenants in

Voucher

Al  Renters

Size

Al  HUD-

Privately

Eligible

Assisted (%)

Public

Recipients

Owned

Renters (%)

(%)

Housing (%)

(%)

Housing (%)

One person

45.4

43.1

37.4

59.6

41.3

36.2

Two to four

persons

45.7

48.4

50.8

35.7

47.6

53.8

Five or more

persons

8.8

8.4

11.7

4.6

11.1

9.9

Overcrowded

2.8

2.6

3.3

2.1

5.1

4.1

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

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, 4.1 percent of renter households were

overcrowded in 2013. Overcrowding was more prevalent among income-eligible renter

households, where 5.1 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 (3.3 percent), which also had a higher percentage of larger households

(11.7 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 (37.8 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, 25.9 percent compared with 17.5

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

households with a disabled member, 42.9 percent.

Table 5-8: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Disability Status of Members, 2013

HUD-Assisted Renters

Households by

Total

Tenants in

Tenants in

Al

Disability Status

Al  HUD-

Voucher

Eligible

Public

Privately

Renters

of Members

Assisted

Recipients

Renters

(%)

Housing

(%)

Owned

(%)

(%)

(%)

Housing (%)

With a disabled

member

37.8%

38.2%

34.3%

42.9%

25.9%

17.5%

Without a disabled

member

61.7%

61.7%

65.1%

56.4%

73.4%

81.7%

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

24

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, where 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 2013 AHS clearly illustrated why housing assistance is needed.

Among income-eligible renter households, 61 percent have excessive rent burdens; that is, ratios greater than 40 percent. Excessive rent burdens affect 36 percent of HUD-assisted households, a

rate less than that for all renter households (39 percent). See Table 5-9.

Table 5-9: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Ratio of Housing Costs to Income, 2013

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total

Monthly Housing Cost- Al  HUD-  Tenants in

Voucher

Tenants in

Eligible

Al

to-Income Ratio

Assisted

Public

Recipients

Privately

Renters  Renters

(%)

Housing

(%)

Owned

(%)

(%)

(%)

Housing (%)

Less than 20%

11

14

10

12

4

18

40% or more

36

30

44

30

61

37

Median rent burden

NA

30

39

30

NA

33

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

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 22 percent for income-eligible renters. 10

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

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.

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

25

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 collaborating

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

NA

NA

Tenants in public

housing

30

30

29

27

30

35

30

30

Voucher recipients

32

34

32

40

39

40

39

39

Tenants in privately

owned housing

30

31

28

32

31

30

32

30

Total income-

eligible renters

39

36

38

81

51

52

NA

NA

Al  renters

28

27

28

30

33

34

35

33

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

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 2013, 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

1993 and 2003, and remained greater than one-half through 2009, the most recent year for which

a median for this group is available. 11 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.

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

26

6. 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 all either 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, 2013

HUD-Assisted Renters

Tenants in

Total

Tenants in

Al

Structure Type

Voucher

Privately  Eligible

Al  HUD-

Public

Recipients

Owned

Renters  Renters

Assisted (%)

Housing

(%)

Housing

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Single-family

21.6

16.6

33.5

6.8

29.3

35.5

Detached

14.8

6.2

26.8

2.7

23.3

29.0

Attached

6.8

10.4

6.8

4.1

6.1

6.4

2 to 4 units

21.9

28.8

24.8

12.3

21.0

19.1

5 to 9 units

14.4

13.4

12.9

17.3

13.6

12.5

10 to 19 units

10.5

7.4

11.4

11.3

11.5

11.9

20 to 49 units

9.3

8.8

7.0

13.3

9.1

8.4

50 or more units

21.1

24.6

7.9

39.0

10.9

8.8

Manufactured/mobile

home or trailer

1.2

0.5

2.4

0.0

4.6

3.9

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

In 2013, structure type varied markedly across HUD-assisted housing programs. Large buildings

(10 or more units) dominated the privately owned subsidized program (63.6 percent) and, to a

lesser extent, public housing (40.8 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 (58.3 versus 54.5

percent) reflecting the fact that vouchers can be used to access single family housing that rents at or below the voucher payment standard.

27

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, 2013

HUD-Assisted Renters  Tenants in  Total

Breakdowns in

Al  HUD-  Tenants in

Voucher

Privately

Eligible

Al

Housing Systems

Assisted

Public

Recipients

Owned

Renters

Renters

(%)

Housing

(%)

Housing

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Equipment failures in last 3 months

Water supply

stoppage

3.6

5.2

2.6

3.9

3.6

3.6

Flush toilet—none

working

3.9

5.9

2.7

4.2

3.6

2.9

Public sewage

disposal

1.8

1.6

2.0

1.6

1.6

1.4

breakdowns

Electric fuse and

circuit breaker

6.1

6.3

6.9

4.8

7.0

7.3

failures

Heating equipment

breakdown last

4.0

5.0

3.7

3.8

3.2

2.7

winter

Water leakage

Leakage from

inside structure

10.8

12.9

11.0

9.1

9.3

9.4

Leakage from

outside structure

6.8

6.0

8.0

5.6

7.8

7.4

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

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

breakdowns, heating equipment breakdowns, and leaking water from inside unit), the incidence

of problems was higher for HUD-assisted units as a group than for all rental units. In three of the four categories (leaking water from inside the unit being the exception), the incidence of

problems among total eligible renters was intermediate between assisted renters and all renters.

The differences are small from a substantive perspective, but the sample sizes are large enough

for some (for example, heating equipment breakdowns) to qualify as statistically significant.

For problems with fuses and circuit breakers, the highest incidence appears among all renters and was smallest among renters in privately owned assisted units. For leakages from outside the

structure, the highest incidence is among voucher units and the lowest incidence among units in

privately owned assisted housing. 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).

28

In general, households in privately owned subsidized units report a lower incidence of problems than households in other assisted programs, although households in public housing report the

highest incidence. 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.

Selected Deficiencies

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 slightly higher in general than among all renters. Except for exposed wiring, Table 6-3 of selected deficiencies shows the

highest incidence of deficiencies in public housing, but the differences are substantively small. 12

For three 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.

Table 6-3: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Selected Deficiencies, 2013

HUD-Assisted Renters  Tenants in  Total

Selected

Al  HUD-  Tenants in  Voucher

Privately

Eligible

Al

Deficiencies

Assisted

Public

Recipients

Owned

Renters

Renters

(%)

Housing

(%)

Housing

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Signs of mice in last

12 months

10.0

12.2

9.7

8.8

9.5

8.3

Holes in floors

1.8

2.6

1.6

1.5

2.0

1.4

Open cracks or holes

(interior)

7.8

10.4

8.0

5.5

7.4

6.2

Broken plaster or

peeling paint (interior)

3.8

6.5

3.0

2.9

3.4

2.6

Exposed wiring

2.1

2.0

2.3

1.8

2.5

2.0

Rooms without electric

outlets

1.9

2.6

1.8

1.6

2.3

2.0

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

12 Because of the large samples, some of the differences across programs are statistically significance, for example, the difference between public housing and privately owned assisted housing with respect to open cracks and holes.

29

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. 13 Over time the structure of the indices and the variables used to construct them have changed. 14, 15

On the index of severe physical problems, HUD-assisted housing has a slightly lower incidence

of problems than units occupied by all income-eligible households but 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 problem and

moderate physical problems (Table 6-4).

Table 6-4: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Indices of Physical Problems, 2013

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

3.5

4.1

3.3

3.3

3.6

2.9

Moderate physical

problems

5.9

7.3

5.8

5.0

7.3

6.2

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

13 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.

14 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.

15 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 (2013).

30

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

AHS Survey Year

Moderate

Physical

1989

1991

1993

2003

2007

2009

2011

2013

Problems

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

7

6

4

8.1

10.1

5.8

9.7

8.3

housing

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.

Note: In previous tables using all eight surveys, we have not reported 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 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 there has been no study of the persistence of inadequacy among

HUD-assisted households.

Tenant Satisfaction

The AHS asks respondents to rate their structure and their neighborhood on a scale from 1 to 10, where 10 is considered the best. Households receiving HUD assistance consistently gave their

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

households. The 10 rating was given most frequently by households in privately owned

subsidized units. 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

“worst” ratings (Table 6-6).

31

Table 6-6: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Tenant Ratings as Best or Worst, 2013

HUD-Assisted Renters  Tenants in  Total

Tenants in

Al

Overal  Opinion

Al  HUD-

Voucher

Privately

Eligible

Assisted

Public

Recipients

Owned

Renters

Renters

(%)

Housing

(%)

Housing

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Structure

10 (best)

29.4

27.3

27.8

33.5

24.1

21.0

1 (worst)

1.7

2.5

1.6

1.3

1.4

0.9

Neighborhood

10 (best)

25.0

21.8

24.5

28.2

24.2

22.9

1 (worst)

3.4

4.6

2.9

3.2

2.0

1.3

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 4.6 percent of public housing tenants gave their neighborhood the worst

rating.

Recent Movers

The AHS gathers additional information on households in which the respondent has 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 22.6 percent of HUD-assisted units compared with 34.2 percent

of all renter households (Table 6-7).

Table 6-7: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Percent of Recent Movers, 2013

HUD-Assisted Renters  Tenants in  Total

Recent Mover

Tenants in  Voucher  Privately  Eligible

Al

Households

Al  HUD-

Public

Recipients  Owned

Renters

Renters

Assisted (%)  Housing

(%)

Housing

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Respondent moved

during past year

22.6

22.2

24.1

20.7

32.6

34.2

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

The AHS asks a detailed series of question 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.

32

Table 6-8: Distribution of Recent Movers Into HUD-Assisted Housing by Key Reasons Given for Move, 2013

HUD-Assisted Renters  Tenants in  Total

Tenants in

Al

Reasons for Moving

Al  HUD-

Voucher

Privately

Eligible

Assisted

Public

Recipients

Owned

Renters

Renters

(%)

Housing

(%)

Housing

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Displaced

5.3

3.2

3.9

8.9

6.0

4.9

New job, closer to job,

17.3

14.0

17.4

19.3

28.0

33.7

school, and so on

To establish own

18.0

23.1

13.7

21.5

14.8

13.2

household

Needed larger house

12.5

14.0

15.1

7.4

10.8

10.5

or apartment

Wanted better home

11.1

8.6

11.4

12.2

9.7

8.9

Change from owner to

0.0

0.0

0.7

1.1

0.6

1.0

renter

Wanted lower rent or

10.9

12.9

11.8

8.1

6.8

6.5

maintenance

Other housing-related

8.0

8.6

7.9

7.8

6.9

6.2

reasons

Other

28.4

28.5

29.0

28.5

30.3

27.5

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

“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. Between 3 and 9 percent of recent movers were displaced across all the groups, and the percentages were lowest among

public housing and voucher recent movers. One-third of respondents from the all renters group

say their move result 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.

With the exception of the “wanted lower rent or maintenance” category, recent mover

respondents in all the groups gave the remaining reasons in roughly the same percentages.

Reflecting the greater flexibility of tenant-based assistance, voucher respondents were the most likely to give an improved housing reason, namely “needed larger house or apartment.”

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).

33

Table 6-9: Distribution of Recent Movers Into HUD-Assisted Housing by Comparison of Current and Previous Home and Neighborhood, 2013

HUD-Assisted Renters

Comparison of

Tenants in

Total

Current and

Al  HUD-  Tenants in  Voucher

Privately

Eligible

Al

Previous Home and  Assisted

Public

Recipients

Owned

Renters

Renters

Neighborhood

(%)

Housing

(%)

Housing

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Current home

Better

47.6

47.8

46.2

49.6

44.5

42.8

Worse

15.2

13.4

16.0

15.2

20.1

20.0

Current neighborhood

Better

40.5

35.5

43.4

39.3

37.3

35.2

Worse

14.5

19.9

13.9

11.9

15.2

14.8

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

When asked to compare their current neighborhoods with their previous neighborhoods, recent

mover respondents in 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.

34

7. Detailed Summary Tables

This section contains five tables that present detail information on eight sets of rental

households. The five tables are—

Summary Table 1: 2013 Structural Characteristics.

Summary Table 2: 2013 Householder Characteristics.

Summary Table 3: 2013 Household Characteristics.

Summary Table 4: 2013 Unit Conditions.

Summary Table 5: 2013 Tenant Opinions.

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, 2005, and 2009) contained special tabulation prepared

by the Census Bureau. The 2011 and 2013 reports do not contain these Census Bureau

tabulations because one can compute the equivalent information using the Census Bureau’s

Table Creator. 16

16 https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/data/interactive/ahstablecreator.html -

?s_areas=a00000&s_year=n2015&s_tableName=Table1&s_byGroup1=a1&s_byGroup2=a1&s_filterGroup1=t1&s

_filterGroup2=g1.   35

Summary Table 1. 2013 Structural Characteristics

All Assisted

Tenants in

Voucher

Tenants in

Eligible

Total Eligible

Worst Case

Renters

Public

Privately Owned

Unassisted

Needs

Housing

Recipients

Housing

Renters

Renters

All Renters  Households

Total units

4,490

1,030

2,103

1,357

14,366

18,856

40,202

7,935

Number of units in structure

One, detached

663

64

563

36

3,722

4,385

11,666

2,053

One, attached

305

107

142

56

838

1,143

2,586

511

2 to 4

985

297

521

167

2,983

3,968

7,666

1,572

5 to 9

645

138

272

235

1,913

2,558

5,009

1,003

10 to 19

470

76

240

154

1,695

2,165

4,766

957

20 to 49

419

91

148

180

1,294

1,713

3,389

754

50 or more

949

253

167

529

1,102

2,051

3,555

681

Manufactured/mobile home or trailer

55

5

50

0

819

874

1,565

405

Year structure built

2010 to 2014

24

2

13

9

148

172

503

82

2005 to 2009

165

25

110

30

478

643

1,893

309

2000 to 2004

192

27

125

40

558

750

2,094

333

1995 to 1999

170

30

79

61

639

809

1,969

356

1990 to 1994

145

26

65

54

468

613

1,469

248

1985 to 1989

217

31

113

73

942

1,159

2,828

553

1980 to 1984

441

84

107

250

960

1,401

2,706

536

1975 to 1979

634

102

252

280

1,803

2,437

4,732

930

1970 to 1974

653

189

229

235

1,374

2,027

3,998

739

1960 to 1969

550

213

222

115

1,836

2,386

4,823

980

1950 to 1959

426

148

208

70

1,291

1,717

3,576

727

1940 to 1949

270

86

159

25

1,076

1,346

2,595

601

1930 to 1939

184

27

136

21

811

995

2,088

456

1920 to 1929

183

18

131

34

806

989

2,003

435

1919 or earlier

239

23

156

60

1,176

1,415

2,924

650

Regions

Northeast

1,247

369

511

367

2,697

3,944

7,638

1,581

New England

342

69

147

126

657

999

1,867

356

Middle Atlantic

905

300

364

241

2,040

2,945

5,771

1,225

Midwest

970

200

401

369

2,813

3,783

7,871

1,428

East North Central

687

140

279

268

1,960

2,647

5,458

1,014

West North Central

283

60

122

101

853

1,136

2,413

414

South

1,478

375

690

413

4,996

6,474

14,272

2,675

South Atlantic

729

173

338

218

2,519

3,248

7,394

1,368

East South Central

313

104

116

93

790

1,103

2,245

407

West South Central

436

98

236

102

1,687

2,123

4,633

900

West

794

87

500

207

3,861

4,655

10,421

2,252

Mountain

183

27

100

56

1,008

1,191

2,825

558

Pacific

611

60

400

151

2,853

3,464

7,596

1,694

Metropolitan/nonmetropolitan areas

Inside metropolitan statistical areas

3,925

866

1,883

1,176

12,570

16,495

35,416

7,039

In central cities

2,477

637

1,101

739

6,864

9,341

18,989

3,958

36

All Assisted

Tenants in

Voucher

Tenants in

Eligible

Total Eligible

Worst Case

Renters

Public

Privately Owned

Unassisted

Needs

Housing

Recipients

Housing

Renters

Renters

All Renters  Households

In suburbs

1,448

229

782

437

5,706

7,154

16,427

3,081

Outside metropolitan statistical areas

565

165

220

180

1,794

2,359

4,786

895

In micropolitan areas

376

88

164

124

1,158

1,534

3,150

581

Outside micropolitan areas

189

77

56

56

636

825

1,636

314

Number of bedrooms

None

57

20

9

28

357

414

688

222

One

1,692

389

528

775

4,275

5,967

10,832

2,350

Two

1,490

345

793

352

5,881

7,371

15,752

3,167

Three

1,001

224

604

173

2,958

3,959

9,870

1,719

Four or more

248

51

169

28

895

1,143

3,060

477

Number of complete bathrooms

None

10

4

4

2

143

153

235

125

One

3,475

912

1,400

1,163

9,821

13,296

24,509

5,223

One and one-half

487

68

275

144

1,364

1,851

4,181

779

Two or more

515

45

423

47

3,039

3,554

11,277

1,809

37

Summary Table 2. 2013 Householder Characteristics

All Assisted

Tenants in

Voucher

Tenants in

Eligible

Total Eligible

Worst Case

Renters

Public

Privately Owned  Unassisted

Needs

Housing

Recipients

Housing

Renters

Renters

All Renters

Households

Total households

4,490

1,030

2,103

1,357

14,366

18,856

40,202

7,935

Race and origin of householder

White alone

2,178

474

979

725

9,965

12,143

28,283

5,432

Non-Hispanic

1,510

293

671

546

6,779

8,289

21,324

3,746

Hispanic

669

181

309

179

3,187

3,856

6,959

1,686

Black alone

1,954

482

973

499

3,093

5,047

8,434

1,781

Non-Hispanic

1,883

457

939

487

2,898

4,781

7,973

1,654

Hispanic

71

25

34

12

195

266

460

127

American Indian or Alaska Native

70

16

36

18

222

292

486

117

alone

Asian alone

158

30

53

75

716

874

2,014

412

Pacific Islander alone

8

2

4

2

76

84

188

43

Two or more races

123

26

58

39

293

416

797

150

Hispanic or Latino (of any race)

780

219

359

202

3,533

4,313

7,799

1,897

Age of householder

Under 25 years old

284

100

75

109

1,946

2,230

4,345

1,109

25 to 29 years old

382

82

175

125

1,718

2,100

5,573

873

30 to 34 years old

445

106

267

72

1,671

2,116

5,519

873

35 to 44 years old

654

120

420

114

2,545

3,199

7,858

1,435

45 to 54 years old

768

165

478

125

2,260

3,028

6,688

1,261

55 to 64 years old

700

182

335

183

1,946

2,646

5,060

1,094

65 to 74 years old

615

145

194

276

1,124

1,739

2,677

633

75 years old and over

643

129

162

352

1,156

1,799

2,483

658

Educational attainment of the

householder

Less than 9th grade

472

123

177

172

1,320

1,792

2,342

686

9th to 12th grade, no diploma

1,002

253

448

301

2,297

3,299

4,611

1,301

High school graduate (includes

1,654

389

760

505

4,852

6,506

12,269

2,601

equivalency)

Additional vocational training

183

43

89

51

491

674

1,373

283

Some college, no degree

797

171

415

211

2,897

3,694

7,871

1,612

Associate’s degree

277

48

168

61

976

1,253

3,290

565

Bachelor’s degree

205

34

98

73

1,521

1,726

6,675

865

Graduate or professional degree

82

12

36

34

504

586

3,144

306

Percent high school graduate or

199

64

70

65

150

349

83

75

higher

Percent bachelor’s degree or higher

19

5

6

8

28

47

24

15

Citize

nship of Householder

Citizen of the United States

4,231

970

1,993

1,268

11,953

16,184

35,193

6,712

Naturalized citizen of the United

373

64

155

154

1,099

1,472

2,878

597

Not citizen of the United States

258

60

110

88

2,413

2,671

5,010

1,223

38

All Assisted

Tenants in

Voucher

Tenants in

Eligible

Total Eligible

Worst Case

Renters

Public

Privately Owned  Unassisted

Needs

Housing

Recipients

Housing

Renters

Renters

All Renters

Households

Year householder moved into unit

2010 to 2014

2,109

471

1,040

598

9,329

11,438

26,378

5,288

2005 to 2009

1,283

271

604

408

2,768

4,051

8,008

1,517

2000 to 2004

555

131

259

165

954

1,509

2,684

488

1995 to 1999

232

68

84

80

498

730

1,268

271

1990 to 1994

152

34

67

51

274

426

714

147

1985 to 1989

64

20

16

28

182

246

410

68

1980 to 1984

31

9

7

15

114

145

241

47

1975 to 1979

25

2

13

10

75

100

177

29

1970 to 1974

25

12

11

2

62

87

134

37

1960 to 1969

9

8

1

0

54

63

101

27

1950 to 1959

4

4

0

0

23

27

52

6

1940 to 1949

0

0

0

0

19

19

23

8

1939 or earlier

0

0

0

0

13

13

13

3

39

Summary Table 3. 2013 Household Characteristics

Tenants in

All Assisted

Tenants in

Voucher

Privately

Eligible

Total Eligible

Worst Case

Renters

Public

Unassisted

Needs

Housing

Recipients

Owned

Renters

All Renters

Housing

Renters

Households

Total households

4,490

1,030

2,103

1,357

14,366

18,856

40,202

7,935

Household composition

Two-or-more-person households

2450

586

1,316

548

8610

11,060

25637

4624

Married couple families, no nonrelatives

457

119

208

130

3278

3,735

10659

1607

Under 25 years

19

7

10

2

223

242

531

94

25 to 29 years

17

4

11

2

453

470

1448

217

30 to 34 years

50

16

31

3

520

570

1884

233

35 to 44 years

83

14

41

28

820

903

2732

419

45 to 64 years

142

41

76

25

928

1,070

3138

481

65 years and older

145

36

39

70

335

480

926

163

Other male householder

190

35

107

48

1489

1,679

5326

767

Under 45 years

115

18

71

26

1019

1,134

3877

509

45 to 64 years

61

12

29

20

395

456

1247

224

65 years and older

15

5

8

2

76

91

203

34

Other female householder

1803

433

1,000

370

3844

5,647

9651

2251

Under 45 years

1227

292

656

279

2606

3,833

6614

1547

45 to 64 years

479

101

316

62

972

1,451

2466

558

65 years and older

97

40

28

29

264

361

571

145

One-person households

2040

444

787

809

5756

7,796

14565

3311

Male householder

683

158

250

275

2678

3,361

7308

1512

Under 45 years

116

28

49

39

1254

1,370

3625

704

45 to 64 years

317

85

137

95

986

1,303

2612

556

65 years and older

252

45

65

142

439

691

1071

252

Female householder

1356

286

537

533

3078

4,434

7257

1799

Under 45 years

137

30

66

41

985

1,122

2583

566

45 to 64 years

470

108

256

106

926

1,396

2285

536

65 years and older

750

149

215

386

1167

1,917

2390

697

Number of persons in household

One person

2,040

444

787

809.0

5,756

7,796

14,565

3311.0

Two persons

950

260

436

254.0

3,197

4,147

10,945

1720.0

Three persons

658

147

375

136.0

2,051

2,709

6,179

1127.0

Four persons

445

92

258

95.0

1,668

2,113

4,524

899.0

Five persons

218

55

139

24.0

944

1,162

2,350

477.0

Six persons

103

21

50

32.0

467

570

1,013

259.0

Seven persons or more

76

11

58

7.0

284

360

626

142.0

Number of persons per room

0.50 or fewer

3,042

684

1,329

1029

8,527

8,527

25,581

4830

0.51 to 1.00

1,323

319

704

300

4,883

4,883

12,972

2595

1.01 to 1.50

118

26

65

27

812

812

1,412

432

1.51 or more

7

1

5

1

143

143

237

78

Number of single children under 18 years

None

2,690

633

1,083

974.0

8,983

11,673

26,359

5068.0

40

Tenants in

All Assisted

Tenants in

Voucher

Privately

Eligible

Total Eligible

Worst Case

Renters

Public

Unassisted

Needs

Housing

Recipients

Owned

Renters

All Renters

Housing

Renters

Households

One

708

177

372

159.0

2,041

2,749

6,045

1052.0

Two

578

100

346

132.0

1,794

2,372

4,518

949.0

Three

340

74

202

64.0

985

1,325

2,175

559.0

Four

96

27

49

20.0

417

513

781

220.0

Five

47

11

31

5.0

112

159

230

64.0

Six or more

30

7

20

3.0

35

65

94

24.0

Households with children

Children in household with one adult or None

1,096

253

592

251

1,752

2,848

3,909

1,070

Persons not spouse or children

With relatives

320

89

176

55

1,175

1,495

3,079

620

With nonrelatives

208

41

121

46

2,008

2,216

6,974

1,078

Median household income

NA

10,800

11,900

10,284

Median monthly housing costs (excludes no

NA

cash rent)

Monthly housing costs as percentage of current

income Less than 5%

45

11

19

15

24

69

278

0

5 to 9%

103

26

31

46

60

163

1,144

7

10 to 14%

145

49

56

40

103

248

2,318

1

15 to 19%

213

62

94

57

137

350

3,617

13

20 to 24%

388

124

141

123

307

695

4,320

22

25 to 29%

646

162

228

256

539

1,185

4,194

28

30 to 34%

512

103

219

190

706

1,218

3,313

28

35 to 39%

290

67

143

80

861

1,151

2,464

19

40 to 49%

387

61

241

85

1,940

2,327

3,848

52

50 to 59%

222

56

119

47

1,579

1,801

2,413

1,430

60 to 69%

127

11

93

23

1,266

1,393

1,755

1,199

70 to 99%

229

45

135

49

1,827

2,056

2,569

1,704

100% or more

667

132

336

199

3,224

3,891

4,325

3,057

Zero or negative income

219

67

95

57

937

1,156

1,581

204

No cash rent

295

53

155

87

855

1,150

2,063

170

Median (excludes 2 previous lines)

NA

30

39

30

NA

NA

33

83

Median (excludes 3 lines before medians)

NA

29

34

29

NA

NA

30

65

Income sources of families and primary

individuals

Wages and salaries

1,710

425

926

359

8,290

10,000

28,854

4,396

Self-employment

129

24

74

31.0

852

981

3,061

501.0

Interest

113

22

46

45.0

629

742

2,905

350.0

Dividends

24

7

5

12.0

189

213

1,135

128.0

Rental income

17

7

6

4.0

105

122

622

61.0

Social security or railroad retirement

1,411

313

492

606.0

2,907

4,318

6,540

1714.0

Retirement or survivor pensions

268

53

102

113.0

740

1,008

2,325

438.0

Supplementary security income (SSI)

1,066

247

493

326.0

1,437

2,503

3,002

929.0

41

Tenants in

All Assisted

Tenants in

Voucher

Privately

Eligible

Total Eligible

Worst Case

Renters

Public

Unassisted

Needs

Housing

Recipients

Owned

Renters

All Renters

Housing

Renters

Households

Child support or alimony

365

62

226

77.0

756

1,121

2,020

466.0

Public assistance or public welfare

523

124

272

127.0

889

1,412

1,609

576.0

Food stamp benefits

2,362

571

1,103

688.0

4,042

6,404

6,731

2650.0

Food Stamps

Income of $25,000 or less

Household members received food stamps

2,362

571

1,103

688.0

4,042

6,404

6,731

2650.0

Did not receive food stamps

1,269

259

536

474.0

7,381

8,650

10,979

4183.0

Not reported

185

39

98

48.0

838

1,023

1,272

478.0

NA = data not available.

42

Summary Table 4. 2013 Unit Conditions

All Assisted

Tenants in

Voucher

Tenants in

Eligible

Total Eligible

Worst Case

Renters

Public Housing  Recipients  Privately Owned  Unassisted

Needs

Housing

Renters

Renters

All Renters

Households

Total households

4,490

1,030

2,103

1,357

14,366

18,856

40,202

7,935

Equipment failures in last 3 months

Water supply stoppage

161

54

54

53

525

686

1,446

296

Flush toilet—none working

174

61

56

57

509

683

1,160

284

Public sewage disposal breakdowns

80

16

42

22

215

295

562

129

Electric fuse and circuit breaker

275

65

145

65

1,036

1,311

2,953

555

failures

Heating equipment breakdown last winter

181

52

77

52

427

608

1,080

321

Water leakage

Leakage from inside structure

487

133

231

123

1,263

1,750

3,783

734

Leakage from outside structure

307

62

169

76

1,172

1,479

2,994

656

Selected deficiencies

Signs of rats in last 12 months

52

21

22

9

230

282

461

156

Signs of mice in last 12 months

449

126

204

119

1345

1,794

3343

754

Signs of rodents, not sure which kind,

in last 12 months

59

15

26

18

143

202

320

70

Holes in floors

80

27

33

20

290

370

578

173

Open cracks or holes (interior)

350

107

169

74

1054

1,404

2502

663

Broken plaster or peeling paint

(interior)

170

67

64

39

468

638

1031

268

No electrical wiring

17

4

9

4

36

53

77

22

Exposed wiring

93

21

48

24

378

471

814

239

Rooms without electric outlets

86

27

37

22

352

438

802

209

Severe physical problems

156

42

69

45

521

677

1,157

521

Plumbing

74

16

32

26

339

413

725

339

Heating

71

24

29

18

153

224

366

153

Electric

7

2

5

0

21

28

40

21

Upkeep

11

1

8

2

23

34

47

23

Hallways

Moderate physical problems

264

75

121

68

1,105

1,369

2,505

549

Plumbing

18

4

8

6

72

90

147

37

Heating

10

2

2

6

212

222

390

98

Upkeep

69

21

38

10

266

335

545

142

Kitchen

176

48

79

49

619

795

1,528

312

43

Summary Table 5. 2013 Tenant Opinions

Tenants in

All Assisted

Tenants in

Voucher

Privately

Eligible

Total Eligible

Worst Case

Renters

Public

Unassisted

Needs

Housing

Recipients

Owned

Renters

All Renters

Housing

Renters

Households

Total households

4,490

1,030

2,103

1,357

14,366

18,856

40,202

7,935

Overal  opinion of structure

1 (worst)

77

26

34

17

188

265

368

128

2

30

8

8

14

80

110

174

54

3

65

13

33

19

184

249

399

118

4

83

23

44

16

362

445

774

197

5

401

96

209

96

1,255

1,656

2,942

694

6

261

56

129

76

1,156

1,417

3,026

624

7

643

169

304

170

2,335

2,978

7,231

1,262

8

969

206

463

300

3,477

4,446

10,514

1,912

9

462

112

209

141

1,430

1,892

4,550

809

10 (best)

1,321

281

585

455

3,229

4,550

8,454

1,775

Not reported

175

40

84

51

669

844

1,769

362

Overal  opinion of neighborhood

1 (worst)

153

47

62

44

227

380

525

142

2

75

26

19

30

142

217

347

92

3

101

24

43

34

251

352

569

146

4

118

31

53

34

407

525

968

200

5

474

131

222

121

1,382

1,856

3,281

755

6

272

59

137

76

999

1,271

2,799

555

7

611

142

289

180

2,084

2,695

6,076

1,186

8

884

189

442

253

3,115

3,999

9,529

1,665

9

473

110

222

141

1,567

2,040

4,995

907

10 (best)

1,123

225

516

382

3,440

4,563

9,196

1,876

No neighborhood

19

2

9

8

28

47

61

9

Not reported

184

43

88

53

726

910

1,856

403

Respondent moved during past year

887

186

431

270

5,013

5,900

13,447

2,904

Reasons for leaving previous unit

Private displacement

27

4

10

13

157

184

353

113

Owner to move into unit

12

0

6

6

40

52

113

25

To be converted to condominium or

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

cooperative

Closed for repairs

3

3

0

0

2

5

9

2

Other

12

1

4

7

113

125

227

84

Not reported

0

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

Government displacement

5

1

1

3

19

24

57

16

Government wanted building or land

0

0

0

0

0

0

10

0

Unit unfit for occupancy

1

0

1

0

5

6

7

3

Other

4

1

0

3

14

18

41

13

Not reported

0

0

0

Disaster loss (fire, flood, and so on.)

10

0

4

6

67

77

122

45

New job or job transfer

24

1

6

17

326

350

1,666

194

44

Tenants in

All Assisted

Tenants in

Voucher

Privately

Eligible

Total Eligible

Worst Case

Renters

Public

Unassisted

Needs

Housing

Recipients

Owned

Renters

All Renters

Housing

Renters

Households

To be closer to work/school/other

50

2

39

9

727

777

1,868

413

Other, financial/employment related

79

23

30

26

447

526

992

256

To establish own household

160

43

59

58

715

875

1,772

401

Needed larger house or apartment

111

26

65

20

529

640

1,412

307

Married

0

0

2

1

44

47

154

16

Widowed, divorced, or separated

11

4

5

2

98

109

294

59

Other family-/person-related reasons

86

19

44

23

568

654

1,268

322

Wanted better home

98

16

49

33

473

571

1,191

285

Change from owner to renter

0

0

3

3

29

35

129

22

Change from renter to owner

NA

NA

NA

NA

0

0

NA

NA

Wanted lower rent or maintenance

97

24

51

22

307

404

869

153

Other housing-related reasons

71

16

34

21

338

409

837

209

Evicted from residence

5

1

2

2

62

67

121

36

Other

133

22

64

47

688

821

1,638

413

Not reported

22

8

10

4

135

157

343

69

Choice   of Present Home

70

15

33

21

3,7

4,4

9,6

2,14

Financial reasons

4

5

3

6

53

57

78

3

46

75

25

13

2,5

2,9

7,5

1,54

Room layout/design

2

4

3

07

69

42

2

54

10

28

15

2,8

3,3

8,2

1,72

Size

5

8

5

2

28

73

61

1

34

53

19

99

1,7

2,1

5,3

1,08

Exterior appearance

6

4

58

04

36

5

31

58

15

96

1,5

1,8

4,8

961

Yard/trees/view

1

7

78

89

16

28

59

13

84

1,5

1,8

4,8

964

Quality of construction

2

9

56

38

00

31

67

14

10

1,5

1,8

3,4

914

Only one available

5

1

7

45

60

91

42

71

23

12

2,5

2,9

7,2

1,48

Neighborhood

4

0

3

02

26

65

2

58

13

19

26

398

45

99

205

Other

6

3

46

16

22

8

232

27

57

131

Not reported

8

3

Main R  eason for Choice of Present Home

20

29

10

63

1,1

1,3

3,2

645

Al  reported reasons equal

0

8

02

02

77

41

98

17

13

2,0

2,5

5,0

1,16

Financial reasons

0

6

6

96

06

82

7

32

6

19

7

233

26

81

160

Room layout/design

5

1

45

Tenants in

All Assisted

Tenants in

Voucher

Privately

Eligible

Total Eligible

Worst Case

Renters

Public

Unassisted

Needs

Housing

Recipients

Owned

Renters

All Renters

Housing

Renters

Households

51

5

39

7

300

35

93

193

Size

1

8

Exterior appearance

2

0

0

2

23

25

48

18

2

0

2

0

43

45

16

25

Yard/trees/view

5

Quality of construction

0

0

0

0

24

24

46

11

48

12

23

13

268

31

60

158

Only one available

6

0

43

8

26

9

274

31

86

173

Neighborhood

7

7

26

4

10

12

250

27

58

128

Other

6

7

71

22

28

21

399

47

1,0

225

Not reported

0

27

Choice   of present neighborhood

Convenient to job

258

64

145

49

2,267

2,525

7,058

1,309

Convenient to friends or relatives

453

95

213

145

2,595

3,048

6,824

1,483

Convenient to amenities

408

89

198

121

2,473

2,881

7,076

1,450

Convenient to public transportation

317

71

163

83

1,758

2,075

4,013

1,050

Good schools

276

65

149

62

2,004

2,280

4,687

1,195

Other public services

341

85

156

100

1,911

2,252

4,937

1,093

Looks/design of neighborhood

321

52

172

97

1,989

2,310

5,985

1,215

House was most important

consideration

547

100

281

166

3,051

3,598

8,745

1,850

Other

137

37

49

51

636

773

1,580

347

Not reported

45

15

22

8

212

257

544

122

Main re ason for choice of present

neighborhood

Al  reported reasons equal

187

33

81

73

936

1,123

2,698

564

Convenient to job

58

9

44

5

814

872

2,779

480

Convenient to friends or relatives

170

27

82

61

735

905

1,791

413

Convenient to amenities

17

5

9

3

100

117

198

58

Convenient to public transportation

26

7

13

6

108

134

365

75

Good schools

4

1

2

1

76

80

183

45

Other public services

62

8

33

21

270

332

712

156

Looks/design of neighborhood

40

14

12

14

202

242

447

106

House was most important

94

14

56

24

431

525

1,245

258

consideration

Other

99

32

31

36

485

584

1,032

267

Not reported

76

28

32

16

334

410

811

163

46

Tenants in

All Assisted

Tenants in

Voucher

Privately

Eligible

Total Eligible

Worst Case

Renters

Public

Unassisted

Needs

Housing

Recipients

Owned

Renters

All Renters

Housing

Renters

Households

Recent mover comparison to previous

home  Better home

422

89

199

134

2,201

2,623

5,749

1,289

Worse home

135

25

69

41

1,051

1,186

2,686

601

About the same

275

52

140

83

1,487

1,762

4,279

857

Not reported

55

20

23

12

273

328

733

156

Recent mover comparison to previous

neighborhood

Better neighborhood

359

66

187

106

1,839

2,198

4,732

1,059

Worse neighborhood

129

37

60

32

765

894

1,994

447

About the same

292

55

130

107

1,865

2,157

5,353

1,087

Same neighborhood

47

10

24

13

234

281

599

134

Not reported

61

18

31

12

309

370

769

175

NA = data not available.

47

8. 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., and Moumen, Fouad. 2008. “Trends in Housing Costs: 1985–2005 and the

30-Percent-of-Income Standard.”

http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/ahsrep/trends_inhousing.html.

———. 2010. “Investigating Very High Rent Burdens Among Renters in the American Housing

Survey.”  http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/ahsrep/investing_veryhigh.html.

———. 2013.  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.

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.

48

Document Outline

- Cover

- Title Page

- Contents

- Tables and Figures

- Executive Summary

- HUD Programs

- Location and Unit Size

- Householder and Household Characteristics

- Unit Quality and Tenant Satisfaction

- 1. Introduction

- HUD Rental Assistance Programs

- Organization of the Report and Data Tables

- Source of the Data

- 2. The Big Picture

- 3. Location and Key Unit Characteristics

- Regional and Metropolitan Location

- Year Structure Built

- Number of Bedrooms

- 4. Householder Characteristics

- Race and Ethnic Origin of Householder

- Age of Householder

- Education of Householder

- Years in Same Unit

- 5. Household Characteristics

- Household Income

- Income Sources

- Household Composition

- Household Size and Overcrowding

- Households With a Disabled Member

- Housing Cost as Percent of Income

- 6. Unit Quality and Tenant Satisfaction

- Structure Type

- Equipment Failures

- Selected Deficiencies

- Indices of Physical Problems

- Tenant Satisfaction

- Recent Movers

- 7. Detailed Summary Tables

- 8. References

Table of Contents

Cover

Title Page

Contents

Tables and Figures

Executive Summary

HUD Programs

Location and Unit Size

Householder and Household Characteristics

Unit Quality and Tenant Satisfaction

1. Introduction

HUD Rental Assistance Programs

Organization of the Report and Data Tables

Source of the Data

2. The Big Picture

3. Location and Key Unit Characteristics

Regional and Metropolitan Location

Year Structure Built

Number of Bedrooms

4. Householder Characteristics

Race and Ethnic Origin of Householder

Age of Householder

Education of Householder

Years in Same Unit

5. Household Characteristics

Household Income

Income Sources

Household Composition

Household Size and Overcrowding

Households With a Disabled Member

Housing Cost as Percent of Income

6. Unit Quality and Tenant Satisfaction

Structure Type

Equipment Failures

Selected Deficiencies

Indices of Physical Problems

Tenant Satisfaction

Recent Movers

7. Detailed Summary Tables

8. References