WORST CASE

HOUSING NEEDS

2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

A

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

Visit PD&R’s website

huduser.gov

to find this report and others sponsored by HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R).

Other services of HUD User, PD&R’s research information service, include listservs, special interest reports, bimonthly publications (best practices, significant studies from other sources), access to public use databases, and a hotline (800-245-2691) for help accessing the information you need.

WORST CASE

HOUSING NEEDS

2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

Prepared for

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Prepared by

Nicole Elsasser Watson

Barry L. Steffen

Marge Martin

David A. Vandenbroucke

June 2020

FOREWORD

FOREWORD The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is pleased to transmit to the U.S. Congress its 17th report on Worst Case Housing Needs. This biennial report provides data on and analysis of critical problems facing low-income renting families. It primarily draws on research from the 2017 American Housing Survey (AHS), which is funded by HUD and conducted by the U.S.

Census Bureau. The AHS has taken place every 2 years since 1973, and it remains a vital source of national data on housing markets, conditions, and dynamics.

Renter households with worst case housing needs are those with very low incomes that do not receive government housing assistance and pay more than one-half of their incomes toward rent, those that live in severely inadequate conditions, or both. Worst case needs have risen sharply over the long term, increasing 54 percent since 2001, and the number of households facing these severe problems peaked in 2011 in the wake of the housing crisis and recession.

The recent trend, which is the focus of this report, offers reason for optimism: the 7-percent decline observed in 2017 reverses the increase in worst case needs seen between 2013 and 2015. Indeed, worst case needs decreased

from 8.3 mil ion households in 2015 to 7.7 mil ion in 2017. The reduction is largely attributed to economic growth, driven by increased incomes, lower unemployment, and higher labor force participation rates. Despite the recent and marked progress, however, high rents in proportion to renter incomes, particularly in supply-constrained markets, remain dominant among households with worst case needs.

This report provides substantial evidence—and supports other analyses

showing—that housing developers and landlords are finding it increasingly difficult to provide decent rental housing at rates that are affordable to American working families and more vulnerable households. In 2017, only 59 affordable units were available per 100 very low-income renter households, and only 40

units were available per 100 extremely low-income renter households. Further, relative to such need, total additions to the nation’s rental supply between 2015

and 2017 were unable to adequately meet new demand.

HUD is committed to tackling these issues facing American families. The Department is working closely with its federal, state, local, and tribal partners to reduce regulatory barriers to housing construction and development and to facilitate a range of affordable rental and sustainable homeownership options.

The White House Council on Eliminating Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing, chaired by Secretary Ben Carson, is working to identify policies, regulations, and administrative obstacles that unnecessarily restrict the supply or increase the cost of housing development. To further reduce the instance of worst case housing needs, this work targets the supply of both low-rent housing and middle-market housing for renters and homeowners.

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

FOREWORD

Given that physically adequate units with program-eligible rents are available on the market, HUD’s Housing Choice Voucher program also plays a key role in reducing worst case needs. Essential to the success of this program are private-market landlords. HUD’s Landlord Task Force is focused on increasing landlord participation by assessing and reducing administrative barriers that landlords face in HUD’s primary rent subsidy program. The goal is to increase the availability of voucher-eligible units, especially in higher opportunity neighborhoods. Local policymaking—in addition to other federal initiatives, such as Small Area Fair Market Rents—is essential to mitigating barriers to rental assistance and, thus, bolstering the impact of HUD’s programming to reduce worst case needs.

It is our hope that policymakers, practitioners, researchers, and ordinary citizens alike will find this report informative and compel ing. We are eager to move forward with common purpose and to address this great challenge of our time.

Seth D. Appleton

Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

CONTENTS

CONTENTS Executive Summary ..........................................................................................vii

Section 1. Extent and Nature of Worst Case Needs .....................................1

Extent of Worst Case Needs in 2017 ...............................................................1

Inadequate Housing and Inadequate Income .............................................3

Prevalence of Worst Case Needs by Income ..............................................4

Decrease in Worst Case Needs ...................................................................4

Demographics of Worst Case Needs ..............................................................5

Worst Case Needs by Race and Ethnicity ...................................................6

Worst Case Needs by Household Type .......................................................8

Summary ..........................................................................................................11

Section 2. Shortage of Affordable Housing ...................................................13

Geography of Worst Case Needs....................................................................13

Worst Case Needs and Housing Assistance by Region and Metropolitan

Location .......................................................................................................14

Variation in Worst Case Needs Across Local Markets .................................16

Factors Limiting Access to Affordable Rental Housing ...................................18

How the Market Al ocates Affordable Housing on a National Basis ............18

Affordability, Availability, and Adequacy of the National Rental Stock ............ 20

Rental Stock by Income .................................................................................... 21

Geography of Supply .......................................................................................... 22

Rental Stock by Region ................................................................................... 23

Rental Stock by Metropolitan Location ........................................................... 24

Summary ............................................................................................................. 25

Section 3. Understanding the Trend in Worst Case Needs ............................ 27

Changes in Affordable Housing Demand .......................................................27

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS

S 2

019

1 REP

9

ORT TO

T

C

TO ONGRESS

v

CONTENTS

Affordable Housing Supply and Demand ............................................................. 29

Concluding Summary ......................................................................................32

Appendix A. Detailed Data on Housing Problems and Supply of

Affordable Housing ...........................................................................................33

Appendix B. Supplemental Exhibits ...............................................................73

Appendix C. Federal Housing Assistance and Affordable Housing

Programs............................................................................................................75

Appendix D. Previous Reports to Congress on Worst Case Needs ...........77

Appendix E. Data and Methodology ...............................................................79

Appendix F. Literature Cited ............................................................................85

vi

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE During the 2015-to-2017 period, worst case housing needs persisted across demographic groups, household types, and regions throughout the United SUMMARY States. Renter households with very low incomes—incomes that are no more than 50 percent of the area median income (AMI)—who do not receive government housing assistance and pay more than one-half of their income for rent, live in severely inadequate conditions, or both, have worst case needs for affordable housing of adequate quality. Worst Case Housing Needs: 2019

Report to Congress examines the causes of and trends in worst case needs using the most recent data from the 2017 American Housing Survey.

By the conclusion of 2017, the end of the time period evaluated, income growth had lessened the persistence of worst case needs among lower-income renters.

Stil , the unmet need for decent, safe, and affordable rental housing continues to outpace the availability of quality, affordable rental housing.

Worst Case Needs Have Decreased

The number of renter households with worst case needs decreased to 7.7

mil ion in 2017 from 8.3 mil ion in 2015 (exhibit ES-1). This 7-percent decline reverses the increase in worst case needs seen between 2013 and 2015. The decrease reflects a 321,000 reduction in worst case needs among renter households with incomes between 30 and 50 percent of AMI and a 266,000

Exhibit ES-1. Growth in Worst Case Housing Needs,

2007-2017

10.0

9.0

8.0

8.48

8.30

7.0

7.72

7.72

7.10

6.0

5.91

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

Renters with worst case needs (millions)

1.0

0.0

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

reduction in worst case needs among renters with extremely

The number of worst case needs also decreased among

low incomes—incomes that are no more than 30 percent of

most household types for VLI renters. The sole exception

AMI.

was elderly households, which included more households

with severe housing problems even as 361,000 more

The latest figure represents an improvement from the

reported receiving rental assistance in 2017. As this

overall record high of 8.5 mil ion in 2011. Looking further

population has increased during the past 10 years, so, too,

back, worst case needs remain higher than during the

has the number of elderly households with severe housing

years preceding the 2007–2009 recession, when there was

problems. The household type with the largest biennial

greater availability of affordable housing stock.

decrease, 317,000, was families with children. In 2017, 2.6

mil ion family households with children, 1.9 mil ion elderly

Recent improvement in the overall number of households

households without children, 2.5 mil ion “other nonfamily”

experiencing worst cast needs has also been tempered by

households (mostly single individuals), and 0.7 mil ion “other

a static prevalence of severe housing problems among the

family” households (including multiple family members

remaining very low-income (VLI) renter population. The rate

without children) experienced worst case needs.

of worst case needs among VLI renter households remained

flat at 43 percent between 2015 and 2017, slightly less than

As measured by prevalence rates rather than numbers, the

the highest rate observed since the recession, 44 percent in

proportion of VLI renter households with worst case needs

2011. The decrease in worst case needs between 2015 and

decreased among elderly and “other family” household

2017 is attributable to a smaller population of susceptible

types in 2017 but not among families with children or

VLI renter households resulting from income growth rather

“other nonfamily” households. Among all household types,

than a change in the availability of quality, affordable

the prevalence of worst case needs among VLI renter

housing stock. The data suggest that in 2017, the nation’s

households ranged from a high of 47 percent for “other

economic recovery was beneficial for the incomes of some

nonfamily” households to a low of 39 percent for elderly

very low-income renters, but competition for a limited

households without children.

supply of affordable rental units and rising rents, particularly

in supply-constrained markets, continued to drive severe

About one in six renter households with worst case

housing problems among this at-risk population, most

needs—17 percent—included a nonelderly person with

notably among those with extremely low incomes. These

disabilities. Those 1.3 mil ion households reflect limited

barriers remain even as homeownership increases and the

improvement since 2011, when national levels of worst case

gap between available rental assistance and the number of

needs peaked.

households in need of assistance improves.

Worst Case Needs Result

Worst Case Needs Decreased

From a Shortage of Affordable

Across Most Demographic Groups

Rental Housing

and Household Types

Most cases of worst case needs are caused by severe

The absolute number of renter households with worst case

rent burdens—that is, paying more than one-half of

needs decreased across all racial and ethnic groups. The

income for rent. Inadequate housing quality caused only

largest biennial decrease of 222,000 households was seen

3 percent of worst case needs. Inadequate market supply

among non-Hispanic Black renters as these households

and competition for affordable units continued to pose a

reported the largest increase (142,000) in the number

substantial challenge for VLI renter households in 2017.

of households receiving rental assistance by race and

ethnicity in 2017. The prevalence of worst case needs

Most of the 587,000 reduction in worst case needs between

among VLI renter households by racial and ethnic group

2015 and 2017 is attributable to demographic changes

during 2017 was 46 percent for Hispanics, 46 percent

among unassisted VLI renter households. Four

for non-Hispanic Whites, 35 percent for non-Hispanic

demographic factors affected the size of this at-risk group.

Blacks, and 42 percent for others. The share of VLI renter

Contributing most to the decrease in worst case needs were

households experiencing worst case needs decreased

renter income gains (exhibit ES-2). Rising incomes in a

between 2015 and 2017 for non-Hispanic Blacks and

strengthening economy lifted some renter households out of

Hispanics, but not for other groups. On a regional basis,

the VLI population, providing them with greater resources to

the prevalence of worst case needs among VLI renter

bid for available housing of greater quality and consume

households was greater than the national average in the

non-housing necessities. These rising incomes mitigate the

South, West, and suburbs across the United States.

risk and consequences of experiencing severe housing

problems to the extent that growing housing costs do not

viii

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Exhibit ES-2. Tenure Shifts, Tenant Income Gains,

Exhibit ES-3. Post-Recession Demand for Rental Units

and Moderation of the Rental Assistance Gap Drove

Driven by Population Growth and Tenure Trends, 2007-2017

the Decline in Worst Case Needs from 2015 to 2017

45,000

80.0%

+239

40,000

35,000

70.0%

0 0

-227

30,000

60.0%

25,000

-538

+351

-587

20,000

50.0%

15,000

Homeownership rate

-1,000

-412

Households (thousands)

emental worst case needs (thousands)

e

10,000

Incr

40.0%

5,000

Renter shar

Household formation

-

30.0%

Renter income changes

Rental assistance gap

dable unit competition

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

Affor

Net change in worst case needs

Number of renter households

Number of VLI renter households

Homeownership rate

VLI homeownership rate

Increases

Decreases

Net Result

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

Source: HUD-PD&R analysis of American Housing Survey data

consume income gains. Other factors improving the worst

but are most strongly indicated among households with

case needs picture between 2015 and 2017 were

higher incomes. In 2017, for example, the decline in the

strengthening homeownership rates and a somewhat

population of VLI renter households was met by a 5-percent

diminishing gap in rental assistance relative to households

growth in the population of higher income renters. Those

eligible to receive it.

trends indicate that households that may have been more

likely to make the transition to homeownership before the

Housing market challenges, however, substantially

recession are continuing to rent, even as their incomes rise.

impeded this progress. Net improvement due to

As the population of higher income renters grew in 2017, the

demographic changes, indicated by the first four bars of

shrinking population of VLI renter households faced tougher

exhibit ES-2, was reduced by about 37 percent due to

competition for affordable units.

growing competition for affordable rental units, as indicated

by the fifth bar of the exhibit. Despite the shrinking

If the supply of rental units were unchanged, greater

population of unassisted VLI renter households, inadequate

demand would increase competition for affordable units,

market supply responses to demand for affordable units

drive up rents, and increase prevalence of worst case

account for an additional 351,000 cases of worst case

needs. Additions to the total supply of rental units, including

needs. This market-driven increase in worst case needs

converted owner-occupied units, were minimal between

was the result of increased competition for an inadequate

2015 and 2017, increasing by less than 1 percent nationally,

supply of affordable rental units.

compared with an increase of more than 10 percent during

the previous biennial period. Costly new and existing rental

A closer look at the combined effect of supply and demand

units were even more likely to sit vacant than previous

for affordable rental units helps explain this affordable

years, suggesting that few in the growing cohort of higher

housing gap. Exhibit ES-3 examines long-term trends in two

income renters preferred to occupy higher end rentals,

demand factors—renter population growth and

competing, instead, with lower income renters for more

homeownership trends—that have exacerbated competition

affordable units.

for available rental units during the past 10 years. Overall,

the postrecession era was characterized by growth in rental

Although the supply of rental units expanded in 2017,

demand and a softening of homeownership until early 2016,

housing production significantly lagged household

when homeownership rates resumed growing. These

formation from 2010 to 2017; for a shrinking population

divergent trends are evident among VLI renter households

of VLI renter households, therefore, the additional supply

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

of rental units in 2017 failed to translate into increased

availability of affordable housing. Those units that were

Exhibit ES-4. Trends in Housing Supply Mismatch

and Worst Case Needs, 2007-2017

added skewed toward higher rent properties, likely due

to substantial fixed construction and development costs,

100.0

9,000

many of which are related to regulatory burdens. Even

8,000

as expensive units were added and remained vacant,

80.0

7,000

the stock of rental housing affordable to VLI renter

6,000

households shrank between 2015 and 2017; for them,

5,000

the availability ratio decreased from 62 to 59 affordable

enter households 60.0

4,000

units per 100 renter households. Higher income renters

3,000

may have been less likely to compete for the lowest rent

40.0

2,000

units, which are the least likely to have desirable features

orst case needs (thousands)

1,000

and amenities. Accordingly, for renter households with

Units per 100 r

W

20.0

extremely low incomes, the ratio of affordable and available

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

units increased from 38 in 2015 to 40 units per 100 renter

Affordable and available

Affordable and available

Worst Case Needs

households. The ratio of physically adequate units that were

units for ELI renters

units for VLI renters

(thousands)

both affordable and available was even lower—only 35 units

(per 100 households)

(per 100 households)

were available for every 100 extremely low-income (ELI)

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

renter households (see exhibit 2-8 and “Mismatch of Supply

and Demand for Affordable Rental Housing” methodology

detailed in appendix E). In short, competition for the most

VLI renter households is attributable primarily to

affordable housing is striking. For each affordability bracket,

demographic and economic factors—especially household

renters with incomes above the bracket levels occupy large

income gains among renters—that shrank the number of

shares of units affordable to bracket households. Such

households susceptible to worst case needs. Growing

crowding out affects 42 percent of the units affordable to

demand for available units from higher income renters and

ELI renters, 40 percent of units affordable at incomes of 30

uneven housing market supply responses, however, blunted

to 50 percent of AMI, and 36 percent of units affordable at

the effect of that progress, playing a substantial role in

incomes of 50 to 80 percent of AMI.

increasing the proportion of unassisted renters with

incomes between 30 and 50 percent of AMI experiencing

Exhibit ES-4 presents how the market for rental units

severe rent burdens.

affordable to VLI renter households has responded to

demand trends during the past 10 years. In most instances,

Even with rental assistance, 6 of 10 ELI renter households

increases in worst case needs were also accompanied

and 4 of 10 VLI renter households do not have access to

by declines in the national supply of units affordable to

affordable and available housing units. Rental housing

VLI renter households. The effect of this supply shortage

assistance such as that offered by HUD programs,

on worst case needs was partially mitigated in 2017 by

other federal programs, states, or localities helps many

the increase in affordable units available to ELI renter

vulnerable renter households who have such limited

households, who account for most cases of worst case

incomes. HUD assistance programs were never designed

needs. Had renters with incomes between 30 and 50

nor have they ever been funded to be an entitlement for

percent of AMI had access to an adequate supply of

all income-eligible renters. Among VLI renters in 2017, 29

affordable rental units during the most recent biennial

percent of households avoided worst case needs because

period, an even larger decrease in worst case needs may

they had rental assistance. Another 29 percent were

have been seen nationally. Increasing housing supply for a

able to avoid severe housing problems in the unassisted

range of rental and sustainable homeownership options to

private rental market. The remaining 43 percent, however,

households with both lower and higher incomes, therefore,

were left with worst case needs for assisted or other

is important to maintaining the downward trend in worst

affordable housing.

case needs seen between 2015 and 2017.

Based on the most recent evidence, the inadequate

Conclusion

production and supply of affordable homes undermines

otherwise promising demographic trends and tempers

Worst case housing needs improved between 2015 and

potential improvements in national levels of severe housing

2017 in connection with a rise in incomes. Maintaining the

problems as the economy grows. A broad strategy at

most recent promising trends will require continued

the federal, state, and local levels is needed to grow

economic growth, coupled with increased production of

the economy, support market production and access to

affordable housing supply at lower price points. The latest

affordable homes, and provide assistance to the most

relief from worsening housing problems among the nation’s

vulnerable households. HUD’s work to reduce regulatory

x

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

barriers to affordable housing production is particularly

timely in this regard. The White House Council on Eliminating

Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing, chaired by

Secretary Ben Carson, is leading efforts to boost the supply

of affordable housing by identifying policies, regulations,

and administrative obstacles to cost-effective development

of a much needed supply of affordable rental units and

entry-level homes. Relaxing unnecessary constraints on

affordable housing production is expected to both increase

the number of units affordable to VLI renter households

and ease transitions for qualified renters to sustainable

homeownership, thereby increasing the availability of rental

units. Rental assistance in the form of vouchers for use on

the private market could also reduce worst case needs to the

extent that rents fall within program limits and landlords are

wil ing to participate. HUD’s ongoing Landlord Task Force

initiatives are expected to improve access to voucher-eligible

units among VLI renter households, especially in higher

opportunity neighborhoods.

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

xi

xii

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND NATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS

1 Extent and Nature of

Worst Case Needs

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is the largest federal provider of affordable rental housing. In response to a request by Congress in 1991, HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) periodically reports on the severity of worst case needs for affordable rental housing, as collected in the biennial American Housing Survey (AHS). This Section

report is the 17th in the series of core reports.1

Extent of Worst Case Needs in 2017

HUD examined the 2017 AHS data to understand the evolving dimensions of a persistently expanding shortage of decent and affordable rental housing for lower-income households. The basic facts presented and examined in the fol owing pages are—

- In 2017, 7.72 mil ion renter household had worst case needs (see exhibit 1-1). These renters have very low incomes,2 lack housing assistance, and have either severe rent burdens or severely inadequate housing (or both).

- Between 2015 and 2017, the number of worst case needs decreased by

7.1 percent fol owing a 7.5-percent increase observed during the 2013-to-2015 period. This decrease was driven by a reduction of 321,000 in worst case needs among renter households with incomes between 30 and 50

percent of AMI and a reduction of 266,000 in worst case needs among

renters with extremely low incomes—incomes that are no more than 30

percent of AMI.

1 PD&R supplements the core reports on worst case needs with periodic topical reports. For a list of previous titles, see appendix D.

2 Very low income and extremely low income refer throughout this report to the income levels of renters. Very low incomes (VLI) are those incomes of no more than 50 percent of the area median income (AMI), and extremely low incomes (ELI) are those incomes of no more than 30 percent of AMI—typical y below the poverty line. HUD programs use AMI based on local family incomes with adjustments for household size, more precisely known as HUD-adjusted area median family income, or HAMFI (see appendix E). Nationwide, median very low-income and extremely low-income levels were $29,400 and $19,800 per year, respectively, in 2017 (see exhibit 3-2). These income levels are for a family of four. ELI and VLI families may have incomes much less than these national thresholds if they have fewer than four members or live in areas with lower median family incomes.

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

1

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND N

ATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS

WHICH HOUSEHOLDS CAN HAVE WORST

Exhibit 1-1. Growth in Worst Case Housing Needs, 2007-2017

CASE NEEDS?

10.0

By definition, households that can have worst case

needs are households that—

9.0

8.0

• Are renters.

8.48

8.30

7.72

7.72

• Have very low incomes—that is, incomes of

7.0

no more than 50 percent of the area median

7.10

6.0

income (as adjusted for family size).

5.91

• Do not receive housing assistance.

5.0

4.0

PRIORITY PROBLEMS TRIGGER WORST CASE

3.0

NEEDS

2.0

Two types of priority problems determine whether

Renters with worst case needs (millions) 1.0

households have worst case needs:

0.0

1. Severe rent burden, which means that a renter

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

household is paying more than one-half of its

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

income for gross rent (rent and utilities).

2. Severely inadequate housing, which refers

to units having one or more serious physical

- Consistent with long-term trends, the primary problem

problems related to heating, plumbing, and

for worst case needs renters in 2017 was severe rent

electrical systems or maintenance (problems

burden—insufficient tenant incomes relative to rents.

are listed in appendix E).

Among all renter households, a 10.1-percent increase

in median incomes between 2015 and 2017 was

consumed, in part, by a 7.5-percent increase in median

- Housing assistance prevents mil ions of renters from

housing costs for renters. Severely inadequate housing

experiencing worst case needs. The shortfall of

accounted for only 2.5 percent of worst case needs.

housing assistance relative to need relaxed somewhat

between 2015 and 2017. In absolute terms, the number

- The most recent decrease in worst case needs is a

of assisted renters increased by 8.3 percent, and

result of some positive improvements in the trends that

housing assistance met a larger share of the need

drove the recession-era increases observed from 2007

among a shrinking population of VLI renter households.

through 2011. During that period, the combination of

The share of VLI renter households receiving housing

mortgage foreclosures, widespread unemployment,

assistance grew by 3.8 points between 2015 and 2017

and shrinking renter incomes resulted in historic

to 28.7 percent.

increases in the number of VLI renter households with

worst case needs, growing by 2.57 mil ion households,

- An important dimension of the affordable housing

or 43.5 percent. In contrast, recent gains in renter

supply gap is that affordable units are not necessarily

incomes played a prominent role in the modest

available to the renters who need them most; higher-

7.1-percent decrease in worst case needs observed

income renters occupy substantial shares of units that

during the 2015-to-2017 period, with some support

would be affordable to the lowest-income renters.

from moves toward homeownership.

With these key facts in mind, section 1 explores the current

- In 2017, there were 18.01 mil ion VLI renter households,

extent and the demographic characteristics of worst case

a 6.1-percent decrease from 2015 levels that reversed

needs—which households have such needs and what their

the 4.0-percent increase seen in the 2013-to-2015

situations are.

period. In 2017, 42.7 percent of VLI renter households

and 48.1 percent of ELI renter households had worst

case needs.

- Worst case needs also decreased as a proportion

of U.S. households during the most recent two-year

period, from 7.0 percent in 2015 to 6.3 percent in 2017.

2

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND N

ATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS

WHAT IS A TYPICAL WORST CASE NEEDS

HOUSEHOLD?

Exhibit 1-2. Severe Rent Burdens Drove

Worst Case Needs in 2017

The typical renter household with worst case

housing needsa is a family with two children, most

often a minority family headed by either a single

female or a married couple. The family resides

Severe rent

in adequate or good-quality housing in a central

burden only

city of a southern metropolitan area. Earnings are

the family’s primary source of income, yet their

2.5%

low wages place them below the poverty line

Severely

94.9%

inadequate

and in the extremely low-income category. Their

housing only

rent plus utilities consume most, if not all, of their

2.6%

extremely low reported income, costing more than

$1,100 per month on average. They meet other

Both priority

problems

needs with food stamps from the Supplemental

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid,

gifts from friends and relatives, and Earned

Income Tax Credits.

N = 7.716 million renters with worst case needs.

a See table A-7 for household characteristics of worst case needs

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

renters. Table A-14 describes average income and housing cost

characteristics.

More stringent building codes prevent the construction of

units without complete plumbing or heating systems, and

Inadequate Housing and Inadequate Income

obsolete units are demolished each year.3 In addition, a

Of the two types of priority problems that make up worst

portion of severe physical inadequacies reported in the

case needs, severe rent burden is, by far, the more frequent

AHS likely results from or reflects maintenance or

problem. As exhibit 1-2 il ustrates, 97.5 percent of all

upgrade activity occurring in occupied units. Among all

worst case needs renters, or 7.52 mil ion households, had

renter households, 3.0 percent of those with very low

severe rent burdens in 2017. Paying one-half (or more) of

incomes and 1.0 percent of those with higher incomes4

a limited total income for rent leaves very little income for

had severely inadequate housing in 2017. Nevertheless,

other essentials, such as food, medical care, transportation

the housing stock is continually aging, and thousands of

expenses, education, and child care.

renters continue to live in severely inadequate units. The

costs associated with repairing severe quality

Severely inadequate housing alone made up only 2.5

deficiencies present another formidable barrier to the

percent of worst case needs in 2017; 5.1 percent (or

ability of lower-income households to improve their

397,000) of renter households with worst case needs had

housing conditions. Landlords offering lower-priced units

severely inadequate housing, either alone or in combination

for rent may similarly delay or avoid high maintenance

with severe rent burdens. Although severe housing

and repair expenses as units age.5

inadequacies represent only a small fraction of severe

housing problems, the number and share of worst case

needs households experiencing such quality problems

increased slightly in the 2015-to-2017 period.

That severely inadequate housing causes such a small

fraction of worst case needs is the result of a decades-

long trend of improvements to the nation’s housing stock.

3 Changes in the overall housing stock are primarily driven by new construction and losses due to demolition and natural disasters (Econometrica, 2016).

4 Homeowners reported severely inadequate housing at even lower rates than renters: 1.6 percent of VLI homeowners and 0.5 percent of homeowners with higher incomes had severely inadequate housing. See table A-1B.

5 Divringi et al. (2019) estimated repair costs associated with quality deficiencies identified in the 2017 AHS and found that units occupied by renters with incomes at or below the poverty line accounted for $25.5 bil ion, or 56.7 percent, of the aggregate estimated repair costs associated with rental units in the United States. Older single-family and multifamily units occupied by poor renters had higher median repair cost estimates—$2,096 and $1,355, respectively—

than newer units. Similarly, Wal ace et al. (2019) found that repair costs increase with the degree of housing inadequacy as measured by the AHS, with median costs for repairing moderately and severely inadequate units estimated at $2,440 and $3,346, respectively.

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

3

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND N

ATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS

PROGRESS IN REDUCING HOMELESSNESS

Prevalence of Worst Case Needs by Income

Homeless individuals and families clearly have the

Because most cases of worst case needs are triggered by

greatest need for affordable or assisted housing.

severe rent burdens, the adequacy of household incomes

Homeless people, however, are not included in

relative to rents of available units is crucial. Among the 18.07

official estimates of worst case needs because the

mil ion VLI renter households in 2017, 42.7 percent had worst

AHS covers only housing units and the households

case needs (exhibit 1-3). The VLI category includes ELI

that live in them, and persons experiencing

renters, who had an even greater prevalence of worst case

homelessness, by definition, do not live in a

needs at 48.1 percent. ELI renter households constituted a

housing unit and are not surveyed by the American

large share (63.9 percent) of VLI renter households in 2017.

Housing Survey (AHS).a

They were also a growing share because, between 2015 and

2017, the number of renters with extremely low incomes grew

In the most recent Annual Homeless Assessment

by 2.3 percent (258,000) as those with incomes between 30

Report to Congress, HUD estimated that 568,000

and 50 percent of AMI declined by 17.9 percent (1.43 mil ion).

people in the United States experienced sheltered

As a result of such income shifts, ELI renter households

and unsheltered homelessness during a given

accounted for 72.0 percent of worst case needs in 2017, up

night in January 2019. Most of these, 63 percent,

from 70.1 percent in 2015.6 Despite recent progress in the

were staying in residential programs for homeless

number of renters experiencing severe housing problems,

people, and the remaining 37 percent were staying

those with the lowest incomes remain the worst off.

in unsheltered locations (HUD-CPD, 2019).

Exhibit 1-3. Extremely Low-Income Renters Were Most

Since 2007, total homelessness on a given night

Vulnerable to Worst Case Needs in 2017

has declined by 15 percent, and homelessness

among families with children continues to decline.

0–30% AMI

>30–50%

Total

This long-term progress, however, is threatened

AMI

by recent local trends among unsheltered and

Number

chronically homeless populations in certain areas

of renter

11,548

6,519

18,067

of the country. Total homelessness has increased

households

modestly since 2016. The increase has been

(thousands)

driven by a growing unsheltered population in high-

Number that

cost markets, particularly in California, even as total

are worst case

5,555

2,161

7,716

homelessness has continued to decline outside

needs renters

(thousands)

those areas. Although the number of people

staying in emergency shelters and transitional

Percentage

housing programs continues to decline as the

that are worst

48.1

33.1

42.7

case needs

inventory of beds in rapid rehousing programs

renters

increases, the number of people staying in

AMI = area median income (HUD adjusted).

unsheltered locations grew by 20 percent between

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

2016 and 2019.

Decrease in Worst Case Needs

Between 2016 and 2019, homeless people in

Worst case needs decreased by 587,000 cases (or 7.1

families with children decreased by 12 percent,

percent) from 2015 to 2017, more than offsetting the

but the number of homeless individuals increased

increase of 582,000 cases from 2013 to 2015. The decrease

by 11 percent. Chronic homelessness among

in the most recent period, however, only slightly mitigated

individuals grew by 24 percent even as the count of

the long-term trend of increasing worst case needs,

homeless veterans decreased by 6 percent during

including growth of 30.7 percent, or 1.81 mil ion households,

the same period.

during the 10-year span of 2007–2017 (exhibit 1-4).

a The AHS samples both occupied and vacant residential

housing units but excludes places such as group quarters or

Worst case needs also decreased as a proportion of U.S.

motels where homeless persons may be sheltered (Census-

households during the most recent 2-year period, from 7.0

HUD, 2017: 3–5)

percent in 2015 to 6.3 percent in 2017, but remains higher

than prerecession levels.

6 Of the 6.0 mil ion ELI renter households without worst case needs, 4.0 mil ion (or 67.4 percent) received rental assistance subsidized by HUD or other federal, state, or local programs. In other words, only 2.0 mil ion of the 11.5 mil ion ELI renter households national y (or 16.9 percent) avoided severe housing problems in the unassisted private market in 2017. See table A-1A.

4

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND N

ATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS

Exhibit 1-4. Growth in Worst Case Needs Among All

Because the problem of worst case needs is primarily one

U.S. Households

of a scarcity of units with affordable rents relative to the

number of renters with very low incomes, the balance of

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

section 1 examines the demographics of the renters who

All

have those problems. Section 2 explores the dimensions of

households 110.72 111.86 115.08 116.03 118.29 121.56

the inadequate supply of affordable rental units, and section

(millions)

3 summarizes and integrates supply and demand issues to

Renters

shed light on the root causes and shifting dimensions of this

with worst

national problem.

case needs

5.91

7.10

8.48

7.72

8.30

7.72

(millions)

Worst case

Demographics of Worst Case

needs as

percentage

5.33

6.34

7.36

6.65

7.02

6.35

Needs

of all

households

Worst case needs are an economic reality for many of

the nation’s VLI renter households. The severe housing

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

problems that trigger worst case needs are widespread

for such households, yet notable variations exist among

subgroups of the population.

EFFECT OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS AND

RECESSION ON WORST CASE NEEDS

Exhibit 1-5 shows population subgroups defined either

The decade from 2007 to 2017 was dramatically

on the basis of race and ethnicity (orange markers) or on

shaped by the financial crisis and recession, which

the basis of household structure (dark green markers).

nominally extended from December 2007 to June

The position of the markers reflects each subgroup’s

2009 but was fol owed by several years of slow

share of VLI renter households and the proportion of such

economic growth.

renters experiencing worst case needs. If the likelihood

In the years leading up to the recession, relaxed

of experiencing worst case needs were distributed evenly

housing finance terms, aggressive and risky

throughout the population of VLI renter households, we

subprime mortgage lending, and rapidly growing

would expect for the markers to cluster around the gray

home prices had induced many lower income

line on the chart. In other words, the gray line represents

renters to finance home purchases under terms

the distribution expected if a VLI renter household had

they could not sustain. Such factors contributed

the same chance of having worst case needs as it did

to a near-col apse of financial markets, falling

to be very low-income. As indicated by exhibit 1-5,

house prices, sudden restrictions on mortgage

however, some subgroups that account for a small share

capital, unemployment, and extremely high levels

of the VLI population have a relatively high chance of

of mortgage defaults and foreclosures (HUD-

experiencing severe housing problems. As a share of VLI

PD&R, 2010).

renter households, the subgroups span a range of 35.7

percentage points, but the prevalence of worst case needs

As documented in previous Worst Case Needs

varied by only 12.4 percentage points. Households from

reports, many homeowners were forced to become

subgroups in the upper-left quadrant of the chart, including

renters during and after the crisis period. Both

other family, other race and ethnicity, and Hispanic

90-day delinquency rates and foreclosure rated

households, are particularly more likely to have worst case

peaked during 2010 and 2011 (HUD-PD&R, 2019).

needs than other subgroups, relative to their share of the

This tenure shift greatly increased market demand

VLI renter population.

pressure on the relatively fixed rental stock and drove

up market rents even as economic conditions further

The subgroups that account for a relatively large share of

depressed incomes of renter households and slowed

the VLI renter household population and have a relatively

housing construction. Under the influence of these

large number of worst case needs cases appear in the

multiple forces, the number of renter households

upper-right quadrant of the exhibit and therefore account for

increased by 11 percent and the number of very

the greatest numbers of worst case households. Those

low-income renters increased by 21 percent between

subgroups include non-Hispanic White, families with

2007 and 2011. Worst case housing needs reached

children, and other nonfamily households. Subgroups

their peak in the same year, 2011, at 43 percent

marked along the top of the chart, including non-Hispanic

above their 2007 level. (See table A-13 for trends of

White, Hispanic, other family, and other nonfamily

renter households by income level.)

households, have a larger share of their VLI renter

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

5

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND N

ATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS

non-Hispanic Black renters (a reduction of 222,000), as

Exhibit 1-5. Very Low-Income Renters from All

these households reported the largest increase (142,000)

Household Types and Racial and Ethnic Groups

in the number of households receiving rental assistance.

Experienced Worst Case Needs in 2017

Hispanic renters also reported a large reduction of 220,000

worst case needs during this period.

cent) 50%

Other nonfamily

Hispanic

As suggested by exhibit 1-5, very low-income renters do not

Non-Hispanic White

Other family

experience worst case needs at a uniform rate. During 2017,

Families

worst case needs affected 45.8 percent of non-Hispanic

with children

White renters with very low incomes, slightly less than the

40%

Elderly

Other race/ethnicity

proportion of Hispanics—46.1 percent. Prevalence was

lower for non-Hispanic Blacks, at 34.6 percent, and other

Non-Hispanic

VLI renter households fell between, with 41.6 percent having

Black

worst case needs. Variation in rates of housing assistance

among VLI renter households contributed to variation in

oup VLIR with worst case needs (per

prevalence of worst case needs and the likelihood that

30%

households avoided severe housing problems unassisted

Subgr

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

in the private market.8 Non-Hispanic White and Hispanic

Subgroup share of all very low-income renters (percent)

VLI renter households had the best odds of avoiding severe

housing problems in the private market in 2017—29.9

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

percent of non-Hispanic White VLI renters and 30.7 percent

of Hispanic VLI renters avoided severe problems without

housing assistance. Only about one-fourth of Non-Hispanic

household population afflicted with worst case needs than

Black and other VLI renter households—25.2 and 26.0

the national average of 43 percent.

percent, respectively—avoided severe problems in the

The variations in prevalence among subgroups, although

private market without housing assistance.

limited, may reflect different access to affordable or assisted

Exhibit 1-6 shows a downward trend in worst case needs

units resulting from differences in geographic distribution

for all racial and ethnic groups between 2015 and 2017. The

and markets, household preferences, disabilities, or

587,000 fewer cases of worst case needs in 2017 reflected

possibly housing discrimination.

222,000 fewer non-Hispanic Black households, 220,000

fewer Hispanic households, 144,000 fewer non-Hispanic

Worst Case Needs by Race and Ethnicity

White households, and a negligible 1,000 fewer households

Worst case needs were found across all types of

among other VLI renter households.

communities, racial groups, and ethnic lines. Both

similarities and differences emerged when examining the

Despite those absolute decreases in numbers, the

three largest racial and ethnic groups: non-Hispanic White,

shares of VLI renter households with worst case needs

non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic.

did not universally decrease for racial and ethnic groups

between 2015 and 2017. Prevalence decreased by

During 2017, non-Hispanic White renters account for the

2.8 points for non-Hispanic Blacks and 1.2 points for

largest number of households with worst case needs (3.6

Hispanics. Prevalence rates increased, however, by 1.2

mil ion) by race and ethnicity. They also experienced the

points for non-Hispanic Whites and 0.5 points for renters

greatest share of worst case needs—47.1 percent—fol owed

of other races and ethnicities (despite the small absolute

by Hispanics, with 24.4 percent; non-Hispanic Blacks, with

decrease in number).

20.5 percent; and renters of other races and ethnicities, with

8.0 percent. Together, the three largest race and ethnicity

Exhibit 1-6 also il ustrates differences in the long-term

groups accounted for 92.0 percent of worst case needs in

growth of worst case needs. Between 2007 and 2017, worst

2017, and minority households accounted for more than

case needs increased 30.7 percent overall but increased

one-half—52.9 percent—of worst case needs.7 Between

only 24.5 percent for the largest subgroup of VLI renter

2015 and 2017, the largest decrease in households with

households: non-Hispanic Whites. The 10-year increase

worst case needs by race and ethnicity was seen among

was only 17.3 percent among non-Hispanic Blacks, whose

long-term trajectory was largely altered by the most recent

7 Similarly, the three largest race and ethnicity groups accounted for 91.8 percent of all VLI renter households national y, and minority households accounted for 56.1 percent of VLI renter households.

8 See table A-9.

6

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND N

ATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS

decreases of 5.2 percent observed among non-Hispanic

Exhibit 1-6. Growth in Worst Case Needs Among

Blacks and 1.3 percent among other minority renters.

All Racial and Ethnic Groups, 2007-2017

587

Although minority renters who are not Hispanic or non-

9,000

621

601

620

Hispanic Black make up a small share (8.0 percent)

8,000

1,971

of households with worst case needs, the American

437

7,000

2,104

Housing Survey sample is large enough to provide

1,845

407

1,884

detailed national estimates for some subgroups within

6,000

1,582

1,820

this category. For the first time, the Worst Case Housing

1,234

5,000

1,800

1,657

1,578

Needs Report to Congress includes estimates of worst

1,640

case needs for Asian, American Indian or Alaska Native,

4,000 1,345

4,097

and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander households,

3,000

3,618

3,778

3,634

orst case needs (thousands)

3,436

providing additional insight into the composition of the

W 2,000 2,919

small but growing group of “other minority” renters (exhibit

1-7). Specifically, this detailed examination reveals that

1,000

minority households not defined by these six subgroups

0

make up only 1.8 percent (141,000 cases) of households

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

experiencing worst case needs in 2017.

Asian households account for more than one-half of worst-

Other

Hispanic

Non-Hispanic Black

Non-Hispanic White

case households categorized as “other” minorities in exhibit

1-6, representing 4.7 percent of all households with worst

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

case needs. The prevalence of worst case needs among

Asian VLI renter households was also higher than among

biennial decrease. Worst case needs expanded much more

any other racial or ethnic group: 47.1 percent experienced

rapidly during these 10 years among other minority

worst case needs in 2017.

subgroups, with increases of 52.7 percent among Hispanics

and 52.3 percent among renters of other races and

Together, American Indian or Alaska Native and Native

ethnicities. In the most recent biennial period, economic

Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander households accounted

progress reduced the population of non-Hispanic White VLI

for 1.5 percent of all cases of worst case needs in 2017.

renter households by 6.4 percent. Minority VLI renter

Although those estimates provide one indication of the

households decreased slightly less—5.8 percent—led by

prevalence of severe housing affordability and quality

an 8.1-percent decrease among Hispanics, with smaller

problems among those populations, HUD’s Native American

Exhibit 1-7. Worst Case Needs Among Detailed Race and Ethnicity Subgroups in 2017

American

Native

Non-

Non-

Indian or

Hawaiian or

Hispanic

Hispanic

Alaska

Other Pacific

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian

Native

Islander

Other

0-30% AMI renter

households (thousands)

4,815

3,098

2,592

509

206

47

281

Worst case needs (thousands)

2,559

1,161

1,369

247

77

20

122

Percent with worst case needs

53.1

37.5

52.8

48.5

37.4

42.6

43.4

>30%-50% AMI renter

households (thousands)

3,119

1,463

1,491

255

76

24

92

Worst case needs (thousands)

1,075

417

515

112

11

11

19

Percent with worst case needs

34.5

28.5

34.5

43.9

14.5

45.8

20.7

Total very low-income renter

households (thousands)

7,934

4,561

4,083

764

282

72

372

Worst case needs (thousands)

3,634

1,578

1,884

360

88

31

141

Percent with worst case needs

45.8

34.6

46.1

47.1

31.2

43.1

37.9

AMI = area median income (HUD adjusted).

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

7

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND N

ATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS

Housing Needs Study also found that overcrowding

and doubling up were far more common among Native

Exhibit 1-8. Growth in Worst Case Needs Among

All Household Types, 2007-2017

American households compared with other households in

the United States.9 Thus, estimates of worst case housing

9,000

needs should be viewed as one component of a larger

2,758

body of evidence on housing problems among American

8,000

2,969

2,676

2,497

Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific

7,000

2,401

Islander households in tribal and urban areas.

6,000

2,157

801

805

Worst Case Needs by Household Type

5,000

716

741

633

3,236

2,888

2,571

The composition of different households reflects variations

4,000

352

2,734

in their stage of life, income and resources, and housing

3,000

2,187

2,833

needs. Exhibit 1-8 shows that families with children

orst case needs (thousands) 2,000

constituted the largest share of households experiencing

W

1,853

1,932

worst case needs in 2017—33.3 percent—fol owed by other

1,000

1,209

1,328

1,470

1,471

nonfamily households (single adults and roommates),10 with

0

32.4 percent; elderly households without children (hereafter,

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

elderly households), with 25.0 percent; and other family

households, with 9.3 percent.

Other nonfamily

Families with children

Other family

Elderly, no children

Families with Children. The largest group by household

type, families with children, also saw the largest decrease in

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

worst case needs between 2015 and 2017. The number of

families with children having worst case needs decreased

by 317,000 during the 2015-to-2017 period, contributing

with children experiencing worst case needs remained

to a total reduction of 665,000 cases since their housing

flat, at 41.5 percent, as the percentage reporting housing

problems peaked in 2011.

assistance increased from 24.8 to 26.8 percent.

Worst case needs decreased, in part, because VLI

Without housing assistance, substantially more cases

renter households with children decreased by 763,000

of worst case needs would occur. Among VLI renter

between 2015 and 2017. This decrease took place whol y

households with children, 1.66 mil ion reported having rental

among households with incomes between 30 and 50

assistance in 2017 and, by definition, could not have worst

percent of AMI. Along with rising incomes, tenure shifts

case needs. Only about one in four VLI renter households

from renting to owning appear to have had a causal

with children received housing assistance, which helps

role. Nationally, the number of owner households with

account for the fact that the greatest share of worst case

children increased by 8 percent between 2015 and 2017,

needs occurred in such families.11

whereas the number of renter households with children

decreased by 1 percent.

Elderly Households. The national trend of declining

worst case needs was not experienced across all

Although progress is being made, the number of families

household types in 2017. The number of elderly

with children experiencing worst case needs remains above

households experiencing severe housing problems has

prerecession levels. In contrast to the overall decrease in

steadily increased over the past decade. During 2017,

the number of VLI renters with children between 2015 and

1.93 mil ion elderly12 renters had worst case needs,

2017, the number of ELI renter households with children

an increase of 79,000 since 2015, even as 361,000

increased by 172,000. The share of VLI renter households

more of these households reported receiving rental

9 The series of reports produced by this assessment are available at https:/ www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-research-022117.html.

10 See appendix E for more on the composition of household types.

11 Estimates of the number of rental households that reported receiving rental housing assistance are presented for various subgroups in the tables of appendix A. AHS estimates of assisted very low-income renters in this report rely on self-reported data, which primarily include HUD-assisted households and may also include households assisted through other federal, state, or local programs, such as U.S. Department of Agriculture rental housing subsidies. As expected, HUD administrative data matching procedures suggest that excluding households assisted by non-HUD programs reduces the number of households classified as receiving housing assistance. For the purposes of this report, however, households receiving assistance from a non-HUD program are not classified as having worst case housing needs. Because administrative data matching across several federal, state, and local agencies is not feasible, AHS self-reported assistance is the preferred measure of housing assistance for this report. The aggregate numbers of households served by HUD’s primary rental assistance programs, based on administrative records, are outlined in appendix C.

12 HUD defines elderly households as those having a household head or spouse who is at least age 62 and including no children younger than age 18.

8

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND N

ATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS

assistance in 2017. The proportion of elderly VLI renter

Other Nonfamily Households. About 5.32 mil ion VLI

households with worst case needs was 39.0 percent in

renter households in 2017 were other nonfamily households,

2017, less than the rate for families with children and

making this category the second largest after families

representing a 0.9-point decrease since 2015. The

with children. Like families with children, other nonfamily

increase is largely attributable to the growing population

households saw a large reduction in those with very low

of VLI elderly renter households, which increased by

incomes between 2015 and 2017.

308,000 households between 2015 and 2017. Although

more VLI elderly households—nearly 4 in 10—received

Worst case needs affected 2.50 mil ion other nonfamily

housing assistance in 2017, aging baby boomers are

households in 2017, 261,000 fewer than in 2015. Worst

likely to continue to be a key demographic facing housing

case needs affect a larger share, however, of VLI renter

problems in the years to come.13

households of this type compared with other subgroups.

In 2017, 47.0 percent of VLI other nonfamily households

Other Family Households. After considering families with

had worst case needs, a 0.2-point increase since 2015

children and elderly households, other households can

and the only group to experience a rate increase among

be divided into those that include multiple members of a

the four household categories. Most renters in this group

given family and those that do not. Other family households

are single individuals, and the rest are unrelated people

include those such as married couples who are childless,

sharing a housing unit.16 VLI one-person households

one or more parents with adult children at home, adult

may be less wel -equipped to handle rent increases than

siblings sharing an apartment, and householders boarding

those who share housing costs with a roommate or family

an elderly parent.14

member. Income shocks may also affect one-person

households more severely than households in which two

Other family households constitute the smallest category

or more people contribute resources to the household.17

in exhibit 1-8, contributing 716,000 worst case households

in 2017. The rate of worst case needs among VLI renter

Households Including People with Disabilities. Having

households in this group was 45.0 percent, exceeding

worst case needs can be especially difficult for renter

the prevalence for either families with children or elderly

households that include people with disabilities. Disabilities

households. The high rate of worst case needs among

can reduce employment options and create additional

this group declined by 1.6 points between 2015 and 2017,

difficulties in finding suitable housing at reasonable cost.

more than for any other household type. A reduction of

135,000 VLI households in this subgroup contributed

Beginning with the 2009 AHS, respondents have been

to the reduction, although complex dynamics within

asked directly whether household members have any of

this small, diverse group are likely driving change. As

six types of disabilities, including four basic functional

income trends improve nationally, fewer households

limitations—visual, hearing, cognitive, and ambulatory—and

of adult relatives may choose to double up if other

two types of difficulties with activities of daily living—self-

adequate housing options are available. Stil , some

care and independent living. Ambulatory limitations (walking

of those households may be at a disadvantage in

or climbing stairs) are the most frequently occurring type of

competing for limited available housing. For example,

disability, affecting 44.6 percent of VLI renter households

non-elderly families without children may be less likely to

that include a nonelderly person with a disability. Cognitive

be prioritized among households competing for limited

limitations (serious difficulties concentrating, remembering,

housing assistance resources.15

or making decisions) have nearly the same prevalence,

13 Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies projects that aging baby boomers will swell the nation’s population aged 65 or older by 11.1 mil ion over the next decade, fueling both the housing remodeling market and demand for smal er, accessible homes (JCHS, 2019).

14 Among “other family” very low-income renter households, 42.4 percent include a married couple, 58.6 percent have a female householder, 66.2 percent have a minority householder, and the mean household size is 2.47 persons. See table A-6A.

15 Within HUD’s largest rental assistance program, the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP), the majority (69 percent) of households served are either families with children or elderly. In addition to only one-fourth of eligible households receiving assistance, the scarcity of HCVP resources is further evidenced by long waiting lists. On average, eligible households had waited 2.4 years before receiving a voucher in 2018. Public housing authorities have the discretion to establish local preferences for choosing which households to assist based on local housing needs and priorities within this constrained resource environment.

See appendix C for additional information on HUD’s rental assistance programs.

16 Among VLI nonfamily renter households, 83.6 percent were one-person households in 2017. See table A-6A. The AHS does not include col ege students living in institutional housing, but it may include students sharing off-campus housing and other households in which individuals double up to share housing expenses. As the number of enrol ed postsecondary students decreased by 222,000 between 2015 and 2017, a decrease in off-campus student households might account for part of the reduction in worst case needs for this household type (NCES, 2019.) 17 In a similar vein, single adults, unaccompanied youth, or multiple-adult households are more prevalent within the homeless population than are families with children (HUD-CPD, 2018). Likewise, a recent study of community-level predictors of homelessness found that higher population rates of one-person households were associated with higher homelessness rates (Nisar et al., 2019).

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

9

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND N

ATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS

DISABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY IN THE

affecting 44.4 percent of these households.18 People with

AMERICAN HOUSING SURVEY

disabilities are found among all four household types

discussed previously.

Since 2009, the American Housing Survey (AHS)

has collected information about the fol owing types

As exhibit 1-9 shows, 3.28 mil ion VLI renter households, or

of disabilities:

18.1 percent, include nonelderly individuals19 reporting at

• Deafness or serious difficulty hearing.

least one of the six measures of disability. Worst case needs

• Blindness or difficulty seeing, even when

affected 1.30 mil ion of these households, 6.2 percent fewer

wearing glasses.

than the 1.39 mil ion in 2015.

• Serious difficulty concentrating, remembering,

or making decisions because of a physical,

The prevalence of worst case needs among households

mental, or emotional condition.

with nonelderly disabled members was 39.8 percent in

• Serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.

2017, little changed from 39.4 percent in 2015 because the

• Serious difficulty dressing or bathing.

numerator and denominator decreased in similar

• Difficulty doing errands alone because of a

proportions—by about 6 percent—as did VLI renters

physical, mental, or emotional condition.

overall. Prevalence during 2017 ranged from 30.5 percent

for elderly households to 45.9 percent for other family

The 2015 AHS also included questions related to the

households. The largest household categories accounted

wheelchair accessibility of housing units and home

for most cases of worst case needs affecting people with

modifications made to accommodate individuals

disabilities; of those affected, 37.2 percent are families with

with physical disabilities. As in 2011, future AHS

children and 43.9 percent are other nonfamily households.

surveys may periodically include topical modules of

questions related to housing accessibility features.

For further information, see demographics and

accessibility sections of the AHS Codebook

interactive tool (Census-HUD, 2019).

Exhibit 1-9. Worst Case Needs Were Common Among Nonelderly People with Disabilities Across All Household Types in 2017

Families with

Elderly Households

Other Family

Other Nonfamily

Children

without Children

Households

Households

Total

Very low-income renter

households (thousands)

6,199

4,960

1,591

5,317

18,067

Worst case needs

(thousands)

2,571

1,932

716

2,497

7,716

Percentage with worst

case needs

41.5

39.0

45.0

47.0

42.7

Percentage having

nonelderly people with

19.0

3.1

27.4

28.4

18.1

disabilities

Very low-income renter

households having

nonelderly people with

1,175

154

436

1,511

3,276

disabilities (thousands)

Worst case needs

(thousands)

485

47

200

572

1,304

Percentage with worst

case needs

41.3

30.5

45.9

37.9

39.8

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

18 The data about types of limitations are summarized in appendix A, table A-15. Also see HUD-PD&R (2008).

19 The analysis is limited to nonelderly people with disabilities because many elderly people suffer from impairments and activity limitations as a consequence of aging. Note, however, that nonelderly people with disabilities may be found in elderly households, as exhibit 1-9 demonstrates. Households headed by an elderly person with disabilities are not excluded if they also have a nonelderly person with disabilities.

10

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND N

ATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS

Summary

by other nonfamily households (typically one-person

households), with 32.4 percent.

Worst case needs for affordable rental housing remain a

serious national problem, having improved in 2017. Of the

Worst case needs affected 39.8 percent of VLI renter

18.07 mil ion VLI renter households susceptible to severe

households reporting nonelderly people with disabilities

rent burdens and severely inadequate housing in 2017, 7.72

in 2017, slightly less than the 42.7-percent prevalence

mil ion—42.7 percent—faced one or both problems without

among VLI renter households overall. Households having

housing assistance. Between 2015 and 2017, the number

nonelderly people with disabilities accounted for 16.9

of worst case needs decreased by 7.1 percent, fol owing

percent of worst case needs.

a 7.5-percent increase observed during the 2013-to-2015

period. The number of worst case needs cases remains

Section 2 examines how the broad problem of worst case

higher than before the recession, but the most recent

needs is caused by shortages of affordable housing and is

decrease reinforces the improvements from the peak in

mitigated by assisted housing on a national basis and within

worst case needs in 2011. The data are a reminder of the

regional markets.

enduring impact of the financial crisis and recession that,

a decade later, continue to affect personal finances, credit

histories, and affordable housing opportunities.

Severely inadequate housing continues to be a relatively

minor cause of worst case needs. In 2017, severely

inadequate housing alone triggered a mere 2.5 percent

of worst case needs, whereas 97.5 percent of households

with worst case needs had severe rent burdens, including

2.6 percent that had both types of housing problems.

Reflecting the importance of severe rent burdens as

a cause of worst case needs, nearly three out of four

households with worst case needs (72.0 percent) had

extremely low incomes during 2017.

VLI renter households among all racial or ethnic groups

and nearly all household compositions examined

experienced a decline in worst case needs from 2015

to 2017. Among racial and ethnic groups, those that

contributed the most substantial reductions in worst case

needs during 2015 to 2017 were non-Hispanic blacks

(222,000 cases) and Hispanics (200,000). For this report,

new race and ethnicity subgroup analysis suggests that

Asian households account for the most worst case needs

among other racial and ethnic minorities and 4.7 percent of

all worst case needs in 2017.

On the basis of household composition, only among elderly

householders did worst case needs increase during 2015

to 2017. The groups that saw the largest reductions in

worst case needs during 2015 to 2017 were families with

children (317,000 cases) and other nonfamily households

(261,000). Improvements were more substantial since

the 2011 peak, with 472,000 fewer families with children

and 665,000 fewer other nonfamilies in 2011 facing worst

case needs in 2017. Among VLI renter households, worst

case needs affected 41.5 percent of families with children,

39.0 percent of elderly households, 45.0 percent of other

family households, and 47.0 percent of other nonfamily

households. Families with children account for the greatest

share of worst case needs—33.3 percent—fol owed

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

11

12

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE

OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

2 Shortage of

Affordable Housing

The supply of rental units that are affordable to very low-income (VLI) renter households, especially those with extremely low incomes, is inadequate.

Nationwide, only 69 affordable units exist for every 100 extremely low-income (ELI) renter households. The presence of higher-income renters in units that are affordable to ELI renter households exacerbates this shortage. Because Section

of that, only 40 of those 69 affordable units are available for occupancy for every 100 ELI renter households. A final factor is that a significant portion of the affordable and available stock is physically inadequate and may pose threats to occupants. Only one-half of affordable units, or 35 units, are both physically adequate and available for occupancy for every 100 ELI renter households. The geography of worst case needs and housing assistance

sets a foundation for understanding competition for affordable rental housing and the shortages that result.

Geography of Worst Case Needs

Housing markets are local markets and often contain distinct submarkets. VLI and ELI renter households are more likely than higher-income renters to find their choice of housing units limited to communities and neighborhoods where poverty is more common. Such market segmentation and supply restrictions can manifest differently across market types in terms of renters’ likelihood of experiencing worst case needs.

As a national survey of modest scale, the American Housing Survey (AHS) does not support biennial estimates of worst case needs for most individual metropolitan areas or highly localized submarkets.20 It does, however, support select estimates of worst case needs for certain large metropolitan areas 20 HUD and the Census Bureau have traditional y conducted periodic AHS metropolitan surveys to supplement the national AHS. In 2015, the AHS was redesigned with a new national and metropolitan area longitudinal sample to account for changes in geography and attrition of housing units over time. In 2017, as in 2015, a supplemental sample of housing units in select metropolitan areas was combined with the national sample to produce metropolitan-level estimates. Stand-alone surveys were also conducted in some additional metropolitan areas.

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

13

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE

OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

included in the survey sample.21 It also supports a national

Worst Case Needs and Housing Assistance by

examination of four types of metropolitan locations—

Region and Metropolitan Location

central cities, urban and rural suburbs of central cities, and

nonmetropolitan areas22—and of four geographic regions—

A key aspect of the definition of worst case needs is that it

the Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. This analysis by

can be understood as an indicator of need for affordable

region and metropolitan status adds considerable depth to

housing. Because income-based rental assistance and

the national picture of worst case needs.

other deep public subsidies generally make housing

affordable, the definition excludes renters with housing

assistance. Examining the spatial distribution of housing

assistance23 and of worst case needs together provides

Exhibit 2-1. Very Low-Income Renters Experienced Worst Case Needs Across Every Region and Metropolitan Location in 2017

Metropolitan Location

Nonmetropolitan

Region

Central Cities

Suburbs, Urban

Suburbs, Rural

Areas

Total

Northeast (thousands)

2,165

1,346

182

268

3,961

Percentage with worst

case needs

36.5

41.6

44.1

35.6

38.5

Percentage with

housing assistance

39.6

29.6

27.0

26.9

34.8

Midwest (thousands)

1,665

963

272

769

3,670

Percentage with worst

case needs

35.5

43.0

43.3

33.1

37.5

Percentage with

housing assistance

33.6

25.4

26.7

32.3

30.7

South (thousands)

2,873

1,771

650

1,064

6,358

Percentage with worst

case needs

44.8

53.1

44.2

30.9

44.7

Percentage with

housing assistance

26.1

17.9

22.6

35.7

25.1

West (thousands)

2,292

1,207

255

324

4,078

Percentage with worst

case needs

50.0

46.2

49.2

42.6

48.3

Percentage with

housing assistance

26.9

27.1

18.9

31.8

26.9

Total (thousands)

8,995

5,287

1,360

2,425

18,067

Percentage with worst

case needs

42.4

46.8

44.9

33.7

42.7

Percentage with

housing assistance

30.9

24.4

23.3

33.1

28.7

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

21 The redesigned AHS includes a longitudinal sample of the 15 largest metropolitan areas every 2 years and an additional 10 metropolitan areas surveyed on a rotating basis every 4 years. Select estimates for the metropolitan areas sampled in 2017 are presented in exhibit 2-4 and table A-11B. For more information on the 2015 AHS redesign, see appendix E.

22 Both central cities and suburbs are located within metropolitan areas. A central city consists of the largest city within a metropolitan area. Suburbs are within metropolitan counties but outside central cities. For the purposes of this report, suburban areas are further distinguished as urban or rural based on their population density. Nonmetropolitan areas fall outside metropolitan counties and tend to be more rural in nature.

23 AHS questions about receipt of rental assistance are designed to focus on federal housing assistance programs. These data result in an estimate of 5.19 mil ion self-reported VLI renter households with housing assistance, which is somewhat more than HUD’s program total. Other potential sources of housing assistance include the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Housing Service, other federal agencies, or other state or local programs. Also affecting this comparison, a small fraction of HUD-assisted renters may have incomes above the VLI threshold because they were admitted to programs under local policy preferences or their incomes increased after program admission. See the discussion of HUD’s rental assistance programs in appendix C and housing assistance status in appendix E.

14

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE

OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

information about the extent to which assistance is

mitigating severe housing problems.

Exhibit 2-2. Housing Problem Status of Very

Low-Income Renter Households by Relative Income

Exhibit 2-1 shows the distribution of the nation’s 18.07

45%

mil ion VLI renter households across the four census regions

and four metropolitan categories. On a regional basis, most

40%

VLI renter households—6.36 mil ion—live in the South, 4.08

12.0%

35%

mil ion live in the West, 3.96 mil ion live in the Northeast, and

enters

3.67 mil ion live in the Midwest in 2017.

30%

6.4%

Central cities are home to most (9.00 mil ion) VLI renter

25%

households, fol owed by suburbs (6.65 mil ion)24 and

20%

17.7%

nonmetropolitan areas (2.43 mil ion).25

15%

30.7%

Like VLI renter households, worst case needs were

cent of very low-income r

22.3%

common in every region and metropolitan category across

Per 10%

the nation. As a national average, 42.7 percent of VLI renter

5%

10.8%

households had worst case needs. The prevalence of worst

case needs among VLI renter households was greater

0%

than the national average in the South and West and in the

Unassisted without

Assisted

Unassisted with

suburbs. On the other hand, the Midwest, Northeast, central

Severe Problems

Severe Problems

cities, and nonmetropolitan areas had smaller-than-average

0-30% AMI

>30-50% AMI

shares of VLI renter households with worst case needs.

With the VLI renter populations and prevalence rates shown

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

in the exhibit, the national total of 7.72 mil ion worst case

needs in 2017 comprises 2.84 mil ion households from the

evident nationally, ranging from 25.1 percent in the South to

South, fol owed by 1.97 mil ion from the West, 1.53 mil ion

34.8 percent in the Northeast. Another region with a low rate

from the Northeast, and 1.38 mil ion from the Midwest. (See

of housing assistance, the West, has had the highest rate

appendix table A-10 for additional regional data.)

of worst case needs for decades. Nearly one-half—48.3

percent—of VLI renter households in the West experienced

Exhibit 2-1 also demonstrates the important role that

worst case needs in 2017. Areas that developed during an

housing assistance plays in reducing worst case needs.

earlier period continue to draw benefits from an established

Nationwide, 5.19 mil ion VLI renter households—28.7

but aging stock of public housing.

percent—reported receiving housing assistance, compared

with the 42.7 percent having worst case needs. Thus, 1.5

Exhibit 2-3 charts the same data to il ustrate the vital role of

VLI renter households had worst case needs for every 1 that

housing assistance in preventing households from falling

was assisted, somewhat better than the 1.7:1 ratio seen in

into worst case needs. In exhibit 2-3, central cities, suburbs,

2015. In other words, among VLI renter households, about

and nonmetropolitan areas are represented by orange,

29 percent of households had rental assistance, and an

gray, and plum bubbles, respectively. Larger bubbles

additional 43 percent had worst case needs for assisted or

represent a larger national share of worst case needs

other affordable housing in 2017. The remaining minority (29

households. Across regions and metropolitan locations,

percent) rented on the private market unassisted and

housing assistance is inversely related to worst case needs.

avoided severe housing problems, suggesting that the

Locations indicated in the upper-left quadrant of the chart

private rental market is working adequately for less than one

fared better than the national average given their higher

in three VLI renter households (exhibit 2-2).

prevalence of housing assistance and lower prevalence of

worst case needs among VLI renter households. Locations

Nationally, housing assistance is relatively less common

clustered in the middle of the chart approximate average

in the suburbs, where less than 25 percent of VLI renter

prevalence rates, whereas locations indicated in the lower-

households were assisted. Newer central cities and

right quadrant of the chart fared worse than the national

suburbs in the South and West had particularly low rates

average given their lower rates of housing assistance and

of assistance. These regional disparities in the prevalence

higher rates of severe housing problems.

of housing assistance for VLI renter households were also

24 Among suburban VLI renter households, most (79.5 percent) were concentrated in densely populated urban suburbs.

25 Changes in annual estimates of VLI renter households in nonmetropolitan areas should be viewed with caution because HUD assigns average income limits to less populated areas to accommodate AHS data suppression. See the discussion of income cutoffs in association with AHS geography in appendix E.

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

15

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE

OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

assistance coinciding with high rates of worst case needs.

Exhibit 2-3. Prevalence of Worst Case Needs Was Inversely

Correspondingly, many Western rural suburbs experienced high

Related to Prevalence of Housing Assistance in 2017

population rates of homelessness in 2017 (Nisar et al., 2019).

Size of bubble is

proportional to share of

Northeast central city

Not shown in this exhibit are changes in rates of VLI renter

40%

national worst case needs

(range 1% – 17%)

households with worst case needs between 2015 and 2017.

South

nonmetro

Slight improvements of 1.5 and 2.1 percentage points were

Midwest

35%

Midwest central city

suburb, rural

observed in the Northeast and West, compared with a slight

enters

West

nonmetro

Northeast

worsening of prevalence rates by 1 point or less in the other

suburb, rural

West suburb, urban

regions (summarized in table A-10). During the same period,

30%

Midwest

nonmetro Northeast

rates of worst case needs increased in rural suburbs and

suburb, urban

West

central city

nonmetropolitan areas, by 10.1 and 2.5 percentage points,

25%

Northeast

respectively, with decreases of 2 points or less observed in

nonmetro Midwest South central city

suburb, rural

central cities and urban suburbs (summarized in table A-11A).

with housing assistance

South

South

suburb,urban

Differences in the rate of decline of VLI renter populations

cent of very low-income r

20%

suburb, rural

across urban and rural areas may help to explain biennial

Per

West

changes in prevalence rates. Urban areas (central cities and

suburb, rural

15%

urban suburbs) accounted for 86.1 percent of the national

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

reduction in the population of VLI renter households between

Percent of very low-income renters with worst case needs

2015 and 2017, exceeding their 79 percent share of all

households. Rural areas (rural suburbs and nonmetropolitan

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

areas) accounted for only 13.9 percent of the overall decline.

Put another way, urban areas saw a 6.6-percent decline

Trends in the suburbs tended to be worse than

in their population of VLI renter households in the biennial

nonmetropolitan areas nationally, whereas central cities

period, compared with a 4.1-percent decline in rural areas.

reflect mixed regional trends. Namely, worst case needs

This variation may reflect a combination of a slower rate of

affected a smaller share of very low-income renters in

economic improvement in rural areas during the biennial

nonmetropolitan areas, where housing assistance was

period and some out-migration of lower-income households

relatively more available. Central cities of the Northeast and

from high-cost urban areas.

Midwest also fared better—with higher rates of housing

assistance and lower rates of worst case needs—than their

counterparts in the South and West.

Variation in Worst Case Needs Across Local

Markets

Worst case needs were more prevalent in the West and the

An examination of the distribution of VLI renter households

South, especially in suburbs, where housing assistance was

and prevalence of worst case needs across the largest

scarcer—although high rents in the West also shape this

metropolitan areas offers additional insight into the variation

picture.26 Several areas that have greater relative scarcity of

of severe housing problems in central cities and suburbs.

housing assistance and an abundance of worst case needs

With their densely populated urban cores connected to

account for substantial fractions of the national problem, as

surrounding counties through strong commuting ties,

shown by the size of the bubbles in the lower-right quadrant

metropolitan areas reflect groupings of central cities

of exhibit 2-3. The relative size and positioning of the

and suburbs with a high degree of social and economic

bubbles for central cities and urban suburbs also suggest

integration. The redesigned AHS supports an examination

that denser urban areas contribute the largest shares of

of the variation in worst case needs across some of the

severe housing affordability problems. Together, southern

largest metropolitan housing markets. Exhibit 2-4 shows the

central cities and urban suburbs account for a substantial

distribution of VLI renter households and the share of those

share of the national picture, representing 29 percent of

experiencing worst case needs in the nation’s 15 largest

households with worst case needs nationally.

metropolitan areas in 2015 and 2017.

Compared with their urban counterparts, the small

Although 42.7 percent of VLI renter households had

populations of very low-income renters living in rural suburbs

worst case needs nationally, local markets reflect a

represent a small share of worst-case households. Rural

substantial degree of variation beyond the macro-level

suburbs of the West, however, do have low rates of housing

trends observed across regions and types of metropolitan

26 High rents introduce the question of whether enough rental units are available at Fair Market Rents (FMRs) to make housing vouchers an adequate policy response to affordable housing shortfal s. Appendix B, exhibit B-3, addresses the extent of the supply of below-FMR housing on a regional basis. Also see regional supply discussions later in this section.

16

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE

OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

locations. Worst case needs affected substantial shares

2015, reflecting a decrease of 401,000 cases. Reflecting

of VLI renter households in each of the nation’s largest

particularly severe local conditions, more than one-half

metropolitan areas. Among the 15 metropolitan areas

of the VLI renter households residing in and around

shown in exhibit 2-4, 44.2 percent of VLI renters had

Riverside, Miami, Atlanta, and Phoenix experienced worst

worst case needs in 2017, compared with 47.2 percent in

case needs in 2017.27 Several large metropolitan areas did

Exhibit 2-4. Prevalence of Worst Case Needs Among Very Low-Income Renters Varied Across Metropolitan Markets in 2017

Metropolitan Area

0-50% AMI

Metropolitan Area

0-50% AMI

2015

2017

2015

2017

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswel , GA

Number of very low-income renters (thousands)

1,834

1,712 Number of very low-income renters (thousands)

259

245

Number with worst case needs (thousands)

815

678 Number with worst case needs (thousands)

127

131

Percent with worst case needs

44.4

39.6 Percent with worst case needs

49.0

53.5

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA

Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH

Number of very low-income renters (thousands)

1,041

968 Number of very low-income renters (thousands)

300

313

Number with worst case needs (thousands)

567

459 Number with worst case needs (thousands)

93

100

Percent with worst case needs

54.5

47.4 Percent with worst case needs

31.0

31.9

Chicago-Napervil e-Elgin, IL-IN-WI

San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA

Number of very low-income renters (thousands)

567

509 Number of very low-income renters (thousands)

287

274

Number with worst case needs (thousands)

242

204 Number with worst case needs (thousands)

142

110

Percent with worst case needs

42.7

40.1 Percent with worst case needs

49.5

40.1

Dal as-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX

Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI

Number of very low-income renters (thousands)

365

332 Number of very low-income renters (thousands)

251

243

Number with worst case needs (thousands)

177

159 Number with worst case needs (thousands)

115

105

Percent with worst case needs

48.5

47.9 Percent with worst case needs

45.8

43.2

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA

Number of very low-income renters (thousands)

342

336 Number of very low-income renters (thousands)

215

158

Number with worst case needs (thousands)

145

147 Number with worst case needs (thousands)

123

91

Percent with worst case needs

42.4

43.8 Percent with worst case needs

57.2

57.6

Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ

Number of very low-income renters (thousands)

347

362 Number of very low-income renters (thousands)

227

189

Number with worst case needs (thousands)

159

177 Number with worst case needs (thousands)

124

97

Percent with worst case needs

45.8

48.9 Percent with worst case needs

54.6

51.3

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA

Number of very low-income renters (thousands)

343

292 Number of very low-income renters (thousands)

199

202

Number with worst case needs (thousands)

141

126 Number with worst case needs (thousands)

83

84

Percent with worst case needs

41.1

43.2 Percent with worst case needs

41.7

41.6

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL

National

Number of very low-income renters (thousands)

373

292 Number of very low-income renters (thousands)

19,235 18,067

Number with worst case needs (thousands)

227

126 Number with worst case needs (thousands)

8,303

7,716

Percent with worst case needs

41.1

60.9 Percent with worst case needs

43.2

42.7

Note: Estimates for the 15 largest metropolitan areas (by population ranking) are presented. The redesigned AHS samples these 15 metropolitan areas every 2

years. Estimates for 10 additional metropolitan areas surveyed in 2017 are presented in table A-11B.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

27 By a different measure, special tabulations of 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) data matched to HUD administrative records suggest that more metropolitan areas have especial y high rates of housing problems among VLI renter households. Namely, more than one-half of all VLI renter households without HUD assistance in each of the largest 15 metropolitan areas except for Boston experienced at least one of the four fol owing housing problems in 2017: severe rent burden, severe overcrowding (more than 1.5 persons per room), incomplete kitchen facilities, or incomplete plumbing facilities.

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

17

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE

OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

not enjoy the general declining trend of worst case needs

Factors Limiting Access to

seen nationally between 2015 and 2017—these include

Seattle to the West, Atlanta and Houston to the South,

Affordable Rental Housing

and Boston and Philadelphia to the Northeast.28 Local

events, trends, and policies may help explain why housing

Even with one-fourth of VLI renter households receiving

conditions seemed to tighten in those areas. For example,

housing assistance, the private market’s supply of

modest increases in both the number of VLI renter

affordable rental housing falls far short of need. Nationally,

households and the prevalence of worst case housing

less than one-third of VLI renter households were able to

needs in the Houston area may, in part, reflect some of the

avoid severe housing problems in the unassisted private

economic and housing challenges faced by households

rental market in 2017. An examination of the mismatches

fol owing Hurricane Harvey.

between the number of rental units needed by renters of

29

various income categories and the number of affordable

Reductions in estimates of worst case needs in other

units provided by the market to those renters lends

metropolitan areas are counterintuitive in some cases.30

considerable insight into private rental market dynamics

For example, the improvements estimated in Los Angeles

and the persistence of worst case needs during periods of

and New York seem to run counter to increasing levels

economic growth.

of unsheltered homelessness measured in those cities

in 2017 (HUD-CPD, 2017). Out-migration from large,

How the Market Al ocates Affordable Housing

expensive metropolitan areas to more affordable locations

on a National Basis

may help explain some of the declining very low-income

The competition for good-quality, affordable housing

population trends measured by the AHS in 2017. For

remains vigorous. Competition affects whether the neediest

example, New York and Los Angeles, the country’s two

households can live in the most affordable units, the

largest metropolitan areas, have recently experienced

vacancy rate at different rent levels, and how quickly new

population decline, whereas smaller cities with more

units are occupied. Exhibit 2-5 shows the distribution of

affordable housing are becoming popular destinations.31

rental units and their occupancy by the affordability of their

Furthermore, at-risk renters who became homeless

rents relative to the area median income (AMI).32 For this

between 2015 and 2017 are excluded from the AHS, which

analysis, a unit is considered affordable for a renter if the

only captures the experiences of renters who are housed.

gross rent (rent plus utilities) does not exceed 30 percent of

Some of the reduction in worst case needs seen in large

the maximum income of their income category. Any given

cities between 2015 and 2017, therefore, may represent

renter may live in a unit renting for less than, the same as, or

renters moving to more affordable locations and at-risk

more than that threshold, however.33

renters who became homeless, as well as renters who

experienced improved incomes or housing conditions.

The extent of competition for the most affordable housing

Additional estimates of renter housing problems and

portrayed in exhibit 2-5 is striking. Higher-income

housing assistance in all 25 metropolitan areas sampled in

renters occupy 3.39 mil ion, or 42.4 percent, of the units

2017 are presented in table A-11B.

affordable to ELI renter households. Similarly, higher-

income renters occupy 39.5 percent of units affordable

at incomes of 30 to 50 percent of AMI and 35.6 percent

of units affordable at incomes of 50 to 80 percent of AMI,

28 The general declining trend in both the renter population and severe housing problems among unassisted renters was also evident in ACS estimates matched to HUD administrative records. VLI renter populations declined in each of the largest 15 metropolitan areas between 2015 and 2017 except for Seattle, Boston, and Philadelphia. Those estimates also suggest that the number of VLI renter households without HUD housing assistance who experienced severe rent burden, severe overcrowding, or incomplete kitchen or plumbing facilities increased between 2015 and 2017 in the Seattle, Boston, and Philadelphia metropolitan areas. The number of severely rent-burdened very low-income renters without HUD housing assistance also increased slightly by ACS estimates in the Houston and Los Angeles metropolitan areas between 2015 and 2017, although the number experiencing severe overcrowding or incomplete kitchen or plumbing facilities declined.

29 AHS interviews were conducted between June 26 and October 30, 2017. Making landfall on August 25, 2017, Hurricane Harvey directly affected the Houston metropolitan area and several surrounding counties; see https:/ www.weather.gov/crp/hurricane_harvey and https:/ www.fema.gov/disaster/4332. About three-fourths of 2017 AHS interviews were conducted before the hurricane, with the remaining one-fourth conducted thereafter.

30 This report does not estimate the extent to which these figures represent statistical y significant biennial change.

31 See, for example, https:/ www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/americas-three-biggest-metros-shrinking/597544/.

32 The method of assigning units to cost categories was modified in 2017 to also account for limited HUD administrative exceptions to program income limits.

Slight unit affordability adjustments were applied to outliner cases where AMI-determined affordability differed from administratively determined affordability categories.

33 Note that renters whose incomes place them at the bottom of an income range would not be able to afford rents at the top of their range. More detailed presentations of these data appear in appendixes A and B, where table A-12 and exhibit B-2 show unit affordability and occupancy status using 10-point income breaks.

18

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE

OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

which is the largest category of units. Rental units that

continue to be found at the highest rent levels, which

are more affordable are both rarer and more likely to be

include numerous vacation homes35 and also may reflect

occupied by higher-income renters.

developer preferences to construct higher-end rental units

in recent years. Regulatory barriers that make affordable

Variations in vacancy rates across the affordability

homebuilding difficult have exacerbated labor shortages

categories further demonstrate the competition for

that constrain mid-range rental housing production

affordable units. The most affordable units are least

needed to cope with large tenure shifts and household

likely to be vacant (exhibit 2-6). Among the least costly

formation. In many areas the production of housing for

units—those with rents affordable at incomes of 0 to 30

ELI renters is not profitable. Compared with the market for

percent of AMI—only 4.6 percent were vacant in 2017.

the most affordable units, the availability of vacant units

The vacancy rate jumped to 10.1 among units affordable

at higher rent levels shows that in many markets, rental

at incomes of 30 to 50 percent of AMI, 9.9 percent at 50

assistance in the form of vouchers could reduce worst

to 80 percent of AMI, and 12.9 percent among the highest

case needs to the extent that rents fall within program

rent units. Since 2015, vacancy rates relaxed among

limits and landlords are wil ing to participate. Appendix

units affordable at incomes up to 30 percent of AMI but

exhibit B-3, which examines the availability of units within

tightened for renters with incomes from 30 to 80 percent of

HUD program rent limits, shows that about 75 affordable

AMI. Vacancies increased most among units affordable to

and physically adequate rental units are available for

those with incomes more than 80 percent of AMI. Overall

every 100 households nationally.36 Increasing landlord

rental vacancy rates were consistently less than 10 percent

participation in HUD’s voucher program could improve

in recent years—8.4 percent in 2013, 9.7 percent in 2015,

access to those units among very low-income households

and 9.9 percent in 2017—reflecting steady absorption of

while also improving voucher utilization rates in places

unoccupied rental housing stock.34

where vouchers are available but difficult to lease up.

The gradient in national vacancy rates seen in exhibit

The shifts in vacancy from 2015 to 2017 reflect in part the

2-6 remained relatively flat among units affordable to

slight expansion of the overall rental stock by approximately

low-income renters earning between 40 and 80 percent

150,000 units, less than 1 percent, that increased vacant

of AMI, as seen during both the 2013-to-2015 and the

units by 86,000, or nearly 2 percent. The rate of rental stock

2015-to-2017 periods. Nevertheless, the market for

expansion, however, has slowed substantially since 2015,

units affordable at ELI levels remained very tight. The

when the biennial rental stock increase was more than 10

somewhat higher vacancy rate for the units affordable

percent. Despite small increases in vacant units while the

at only 10 percent of AMI is often ascribed to units that

overall rental stock was growing, strong rental demand

have physical or locational challenges and may soon be

nationwide kept vacancy rates fairly constrained for renters

removed from the housing stock. Greater vacancy rates

with median or lower incomes. The rental stock affordable

Exhibit 2-5. Higher-Income Renters Occupied Many Affordable Units in 2017

Rental Units by Income Needed To Make the Rent Affordable (thousands) Occupancy Status

0–30% of AMI

>30–50% of AMI

>50–80% of AMI

>80% of AMI

Total

Higher-income occupants

3,387

3,320

6,997

NA

13,704

Same-income or lower-

4,223

4,232

10,723

11,109

30,287

income occupants

Vacant

371

852

1,952

1,651

4,826

Total

7,983

8,403

19,673

12,760

48,820

AMI = area median income. NA = not applicable.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

34 Comparable estimates of the rental vacancy rate based on the Current Population Survey are slightly lower in recent years: 8.3 percent in 2013, 7.1 percent in 2015, and 7.2 percent in 2017. See U.S. Housing Market Conditions charting data, http:/ www.huduser.gov/portal/ushmc/hi_RentVac.html.

35 According to 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, about one-third of vacant housing units in the United States are for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use.

36 Regional variation in the availability of units within Fair Market Rent (FMR) limits is further addressed in the “Rental Stock by Region” discussion later in this section.

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

19

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE

OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Exhibit 2-6. Vacancies Were Lowest Among

Exhibit 2-7. The Supply of Affordable, Available,

Most Affordable Rentals, 2013 to 2017

and Adequate Rental Housing Stock Was Insufficient in 2017

15%

160

140

e vacant

120

enters

10%

100

80

60

Affordable

ental units that ar 5%

Vacancy rate, 2017

40

Affordable & available

Vacancy rate, 2015

Affordable, available

Rental units per 100 r

Vacancy rate, 2013

20

& adequate

cent of r

0

Per 0%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 100 110 120

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 100 110 >110

Income as percent of Area Median Income

Affordability category

(percent of Area Median Income needed to afford the highest rent in the category) Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

Focusing first on all affordable units, regardless of whether

higher-income households occupied them or whether they

to VLI renters declined by 393,000 units, or more than 2

were adequate, the cumulative number of affordable units is

percent, whereas affordable vacant units declined 4

shown to equal the cumulative number of renters only for

percent.37 In short, the affordable stock decline seen

incomes exceeding 53 percent of AMI. Beyond that point,

between 2013 and 2015 was only made worse in 2017.

more than 100 affordable units existed per 100 renters—

enough, with perfect allocation, to provide affordable

Although vacancy rates provide a valuable indication of

housing to every renter with a higher income. This threshold

the balance between supply and demand, they do not

is 1 percentage point higher than the 2015 estimate and

directly compare the number of affordable units with the

remains significantly greater than the 2007 level of 45

number of renters. The remainder of section 2 makes

percent of AMI, which may indicate that many households

such comparisons, employing three increasingly rigorous

recovering from the recession remained renters for longer

concepts to assess whether the rental housing stock is

periods as the economy recovered.

sufficient for the need.

As in 2015, the ratio of affordable units per renter peaked at

Affordability, Availability, and Adequacy of the

income levels of 98 percent of AMI. On a cumulative basis,

National Rental Stock

there was a substantial surplus of units affordable at higher

levels of household income. As income increased, renters

The scarcity of affordable units is greatest for the poorest

were increasingly likely to spend less than 30 percent of

renters, but, because of the rapid increase in renter

their incomes on housing.39

households and greater competition since the Great

Recession, that scarcity is reaching higher up the income

The situation was completely different at the low end of the

scale. Although the expansion of the renter population

income scale. Enough affordable units existed to house 69

slowed somewhat in 2017 and fewer renter households

percent of extremely low-income renters in 2017 if those

have very low incomes, rental units largely remained out of

units somehow could have been perfectly allocated. That

reach for households remaining at the lower end of local

shortage was substantial and critical, with little improvement

income distributions. Exhibit 2-7 displays the rental housing

from the ratio of 66 percent observed in 2015.

stock in 2017. These aggregate data portray how well the

overall stock could meet the need for affordable housing if

location did not matter.38

37 See tables A-12 and A-13.

38 Measures of affordability, availability, and adequacy compare the entire housing stock with the entire renter population, and they do not reflect smal -scale geographic detail or the complexities of local housing markets.

39 Only 14.2 percent of renters with incomes above 80 percent of AMI had either moderate or severe rent burdens, compared with 69.4 percent of renters with lower incomes. See table A-1A.

20

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE

OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

MEASURING WHETHER AFFORDABLE

previously in exhibit 2-5). Such renters may be cautious

HOUSING STOCK IS SUFFICIENT FOR NEED

about their finances because of income instability, a desire

• Affordability measures the extent to which

to reduce debt burdens, or saving for a downpayment to

enough rental housing units of different costs

buy a house. The affordable stock was nominally sufficient

can provide each renter household with a unit it

to house every renter with an income greater than 53

can afford (based on the 30-percent-of-income

percent of AMI, yet the affordable and available stock did

standard). Affordability, which is the broadest

not match the number of renters until household incomes

measure of the relative supply of the housing

reached about 85 percent of AMI.

stock, addresses whether sufficient housing

The third line in exhibit 2-7 adds a third criterion—that

units would exist if allocated solely on the basis

units should be physically adequate—which further

of cost. The affordable stock includes both

reduces the supply of the rental housing stock. Even for

vacant and occupied units.

renters with low incomes (up to 80 percent of AMI), only

• Availability measures the extent to which

87 adequate units were available for every 100 renters.

affordable rental housing units are available

The physically adequate stock did not ful y match the

to renters within a particular income range.

need until it included units affordable only to renters

Availability is a more restrictive concept

with incomes exceeding 123 percent of AMI, similar to

because units that meet the definition must be

2015 levels.

available and affordable. Some renters choose

to spend less than 30 percent of their incomes

Rental Stock by Income

on rent, occupying housing that is affordable to

renters of lower incomes. Those units thus are

We have seen that relatively few rental units are affordable,

not available to lower-income renters. A unit is

and—because of occupancy by higher-income renters

available at a given level of income if (1) it is

and limited vacancies—even fewer are available to renters

affordable at that level, and (2) it is occupied by

with the lowest incomes. Exhibit 2-8 summarizes the three

a renter either at that income level or at a lower

housing stock measures for the standard income groups

level or is vacant.

used in this report.

• Adequacy extends the concept of availability

A severe mismatch existed between the number of ELI

by considering whether sufficient rental

renter households and the number of affordable units

units are physically adequate (based on unit

available to them. For every 100 ELI renter households only

characteristics described in appendix E),

69 affordable units existed, and only 40 of those units were

affordable, and available. Adequacy thus is the

affordable and available. The ratio of physically adequate

most restrictive of the three measures.

units that were both affordable and available was even

lower—only 35 units were available for every 100 ELI renter

households.41 Those figures suggest that 12 percent of

The second line in exhibit 2-7 includes the criterion

affordable and available units for ELI renters had severe

of availability in addition to affordability, meaning that

quality deficiencies.

it considers whether higher-income renters currently

occupy affordable units.40 Availability poses an important

Renters with very low incomes found 91 affordable units,

additional constraint on renters seeking affordable units;

59 affordable and available units, and only 52 affordable,

only 40 percent of extremely low-income renters could

available, and physically adequate units per 100 renters.

actually find an affordable and available unit, even if

About 12 percent of the affordable and available units for

location were not a factor.

this larger group had severe physical problems.

The paucity of affordable and available units is worsened

Renters with low incomes found that the affordable and

by the occupancy of a considerable proportion of the

available rental stock was nearly sufficient to house

most affordable housing stock by renters who could afford

them all, although 11 percent of such units had severe

to spend more but do not choose to do so (as shown

physical problems.

40 The availability measure also removes units from consideration if they have artificial y low rents because they are occupied as a benefit of employment (for example, units provided for caretakers) or because relatives or friends of the occupants own the units. In 2017, 1.96 mil ion renter households (4.5 percent) occupied their units while paying no rent. The AHS does not provide estimates of the number of households paying a positive but less-than-market rent because of employment or other reasons.

41 Previous research based on the Residential Finance Survey indicated that 12 percent of units with gross rents of $400 or less produced negative net operating income, suggesting they were headed for demolition or conversion to nonresidential use (JCHS, 2006). More recent research based on the Housing Vacancy Survey suggests that more than 10 percent of vacant units held off-market are in need of repair, abandoned, condemned, or to be demolished (JCHS, 2016).

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

21

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE

OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Exhibit 2-8. Rental Housing Stock Was Scarcest for Extremely Low-Income Renters in 2017

Rental Units per 100 Renter Households

Affordable, Available,

Income Category

Affordable

Affordable and Available

and Adequate

Extremely low-income renter households (0–30% AMI)

69.1

39.8

34.9

Very low-income renter households (0–50% AMI)

90.7

59.0

51.9

Low-income renter households (0–80% AMI)

135.0

97.4

87.2

AMI = area median income.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

Overall, the supply of affordable housing improved

Geography of Supply

slightly for extremely low-income renters from its record

low point in 2011, although fewer units are affordable to

The preceding discussion shows that worst case needs are

those with very low incomes. Exhibit 2-9 il ustrates that

dispersed across the nation, although their concentration

the supply of affordable housing stock for ELI renters

varies across geography. It further shows that spatial

increased by 3 units per 100 households, from 66 in

variation in worst case needs is affected in part by the

2015 to 69 in 2017, fol owing a 1-unit gain during the

availability and utilization of housing assistance.

previous 2 years. The ratio of affordable and available

Affordable rental housing includes both units that receive

units increased from 38 in 2015 to 40 units per 100 ELI

public rent assistance and units that for-profit and nonprofit

renter households.

housing providers offer at modest rents. The examination of

For very low-income renters, however, the past 4 years

affordable housing supply on a national basis reveals, first,

have witnessed a steady decline of affordable housing

that the supply of rental units that are affordable to very

stock. The overall supply of affordable units decreased by

low-income and poorer households remains substantially

more than 6 units per 100 renters since 2013. The more

inadequate; second, that this shortage is worsened by the

focused affordable and available unit ratio also lost 6 units

preference of higher-income renters for more affordable

per 100 renters during the same period. Netting out the

units; and third, that the shortage is further worsened by

2-point gain in units available at 0 to 30 percent of AMI

the physical inadequacy of some of the stock.

from the 3-point loss for VLI renter households suggests

The fol owing discussion sharpens that picture by showing

that the stock at 30 to 50 percent of AMI became more

how shortages vary by geography.

constrained during the 2015-to-2017 period.

Exhibit 2-9. Fewer Affordable Units Were Available to Very Low-Income Renters in 2017

Rental Units per 100 Renters

Change

Income Category

2013

2015

2017

2013 to 2015

2015 to 2017

Extremely low-income renter households (0–30% AMI)

Affordable

65.3

66.0

69.1

0.7

3.1

Affordable and available

39.0

37.7

39.8

– 1.3

2.1

Very low-income renter households (0–50% AMI)

Affordable

97.2

92.9

90.7

– 4.3

– 2.2

Affordable and available

65.2

62.0

59.0

– 3.2

– 3.0

AMI = area median income.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

22

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE

OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Rental Stock by Region

On a regional basis, adding the adequacy test restricted

Rental markets are constrained for ELI renters across the four

the estimated supply for VLI renters less in the West,

census regions despite substantial variation in the availability

eliminating 5 units, than in the other regions, which lost 8

of affordable rental units.

to 9 units per 100 VLI renter households. Even so, the West

42 Exhibit 2-10 il ustrates that the

Midwest showed the best availability, with 78 units per 100

retains its regional disadvantage for such renters across all

VLI renter households. The West was worst off, with fewer

three measures of sufficiency.

than 44 units per 100 VLI renter households, compared

with 57 units for the South and 61 for the Northeast. For

The primary point in exhibit 2-10 is that ELI renter

ELI renters, the availability of affordable units was far from

households continued to face severely constrained markets

adequate in any region. Even low-income renters with

across all four regions. The Northeast, Midwest, and South

incomes up to 80 percent of AMI found, in the West and

had affordable units available for only two in five ELI renter

Northeast, that not enough affordable units were available.

households, and the West for only one in three.

Exhibit 2-10. Rental Housing Stock Was Insufficient for Extremely Low-Income Renters Across All Regions in 2017

Housing Units per 100 Renters

Affordable, Available,

Income Category

Affordable

Affordable and Available

and Adequate

Northeast

Extremely low-income renter households

(0–30% AMI)

71.0

45.3

40.0

Very low-income renter households

(0–50% AMI)

85.0

60.5

53.1

Low-income renter households

(0–80% AMI)

123.0

93.2

83.3

Midwest

Extremely low-income renter households

(0–30% AMI)

75.2

42.1

38.3

Very low-income renter households

(0–50% AMI)

124.6

77.7

69.3

Low-income renter households

(0–80% AMI)

156.4

109.3

97.9

South

Extremely low-income renter households

(0–30% AMI)

70.6

39.2

33.3

Very low-income renter households

(0–50% AMI)

89.8

57.0

49.3

Low-income renter households

(0–80% AMI)

141.1

101.4

90.1

West

Extremely low-income renter households

(0–30% AMI)

59.0

33.2

29.1

Very low-income renter households

(0–50% AMI)

67.1

43.9

39.0

Low-income renter households

(0–80% AMI)

117.7

84.7

76.7

AMI = area median income.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

42 For renters who could afford rents no greater than the FMR, appendix B, exhibit B-3 reveals that although enough affordable units existed in each region, the number of available units in each region was sufficient to house only 76 to 88 percent of those renters. For renters who attempt to find a unit with a housing choice voucher, the housing quality standards of that program imply that their success will depend on the prevalence of physical y adequate units in their area—not merely affordable and available units. Across regions, there were only enough physical y adequate, affordable, and available units to house 70 to 80

percent of renters who could not afford rents higher than FMR.

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

23

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE

OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Rental Stock by Metropolitan Location

a whole. Exhibit 2-11 also highlights, however, severe

Similar analysis of affordable housing supply on the

deficiencies in the availability and adequacy of units

basis of metropolitan status showed market variation in

that are affordable in rural areas. Among units that are

2017. Exhibit 2-11 demonstrates the primacy of urban

affordable to VLI renter households in urban areas, 30

areas in terms of severe shortages of affordable units

to 36 percent are occupied by higher-income renters.43

for VLI renter households. As shown in exhibit 2-11,

In rural areas, that figure ranges from 40 to 45 percent,

measures of affordability, availability, and adequacy for

suggesting that higher-income renters consume a larger

each income group in central cities and urban suburbs

share of the affordable housing stock in rural areas

were generally lower than the national summary values

than those who live closer to city centers. This evidence

presented in exhibit 2-8.

disrupts the notion that the affordable housing crisis could

be resolved simply by lower-income renters moving away

Stock in rural suburbs and nonmetropolitan areas

from cities. Likewise, a greater share of units have severe

was not as constrained as the stock for the nation as

quality deficiencies in rural areas, where 14 to 15 percent

of affordable units available to very low-income renters are

Exhibit 2-11. Rental Housing Stock Was Insufficient for Extremely Low-Income Renters Across All Metropolitan Locations in 2017

Housing Units per 100 Renter Households

Affordable, Available,

Income Category

Affordable

Affordable and Available

and Adequate

Central Cities

Extremely low-income renter households

(0–30% AMI)

56.3

36.8

32.4

Very low-income renter households

(0–50% AMI)

81.4

57.4

50.7

Low-income renter households

(0–80% AMI)

128.3

95.9

85.7

Suburbs, Urban

Extremely low-income renter households

(0–30% AMI)

61.5

34.8

31.0

Very low-income renter households

(0–50% AMI)

76.7

48.8

43.6

Low-income renter households

(0–80% AMI)

132.5

91.6

84.2

Suburbs, Rural

Extremely low-income renter households

(0–30% AMI)

103.9

46.9

39.7

Very low-income renter households

(0–50% AMI)

133.8

74.2

62.9

Low-income renter households

(0–80% AMI)

149.2

104.7

90.2

Nonmetropolitan Areas

Extremely low-income renter households

(0–30% AMI)

111.3

56.5

48.4

Very low-income renter households

(0–50% AMI)

131.5

78.9

68.2

Low-income renter households

(0–80% AMI)

157.2

112.1

97.9

AMI = area median income.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

43 That is, 24 of the 81 units affordable for every 100 VLI renter households in central cities are not available; the same is true for 28 of 77 affordable units in urban suburbs.

24

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE

OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

inadequate.44 These problems are less prevalent in urban

households, and it decreases from 69 to 40 per 100 ELI

areas—affecting 11 to 12 percent of units affordable and

renter households. Higher-income families occupied 42.4

available to very low-income renters.

percent of units affordable to ELI renter households.

Summary

In addition, a substantial proportion of available units

are not in adequate physical condition. The number of

Worst case needs are commonplace in every region and

affordable, available, and adequate units in 2017 was only

metropolitan category across the United States. The national

52 per 100 VLI renter households and only 35 per 100 ELI

total of 7.72 mil ion worst case needs in 2017 is distributed

renter households.

on a regional basis, with 2.84 mil ion households in the

South, fol owed by 1.97 mil ion in the West, 1.53 mil ion in the

Given the scarcity of affordable, available, and adequate

Northeast, and 1.38 mil ion in the Midwest. Nationwide, 42.7

units for the renters with the lowest incomes, the efficacy

percent of very low-income renters had worst case needs

of housing assistance in preventing worst case needs,

in 2017, a rate lower than in 2015. Prevalence increased,

and the surplus of units available at higher rent levels,

however, by 1 percentage point or less from 2015 levels in

housing vouchers continue to offer an important policy

the South and Midwest. Both the South and West maintained

option for addressing the growing problem of worst

greater-than-average rates of worst case needs in 2017.

case needs using the existing housing stock. Given that

Suburbs also had greater-than-average prevalence rates

physically adequate units with rents within program limits

and were home to about 40 percent of worst case needs

are available on the market, vouchers could reduce worst

households. Housing assistance, including that provided

case needs to the extent that landlords are wil ing to

by HUD, is an important preventer of worst case needs

participate in HUD’s voucher program. Increasing landlord

among very low-income renters. Nationwide, 28.7 percent

participation could improve access to those units among

of very low-income renters, or 5.19 mil ion households,

VLI households while also improving voucher utilization

reported receiving housing assistance. For every VLI renter

rates in places where vouchers are available but difficult

household who was assisted, however, another 1.5 renter

to lease up. HUD’s ongoing Landlord Task Force initiatives

households had worst case needs for such assistance.

are expected to do just that by assessing and reducing

administrative barriers to landlord participation in HUD’s

Steady absorption of unoccupied rental housing stock has

primary rent subsidy program with the aim of making

reduced overall vacancy rates to consistently less than

voucher-eligible units more accessible, especially in

10 percent since 2011. With 91 rental units affordable for

higher-opportunity neighborhoods.45

every 100 VLI renter households nationally, not all such

households could find an affordable unit in 2017, even if

allocations were perfect among households across the

nation (that is, if the lowest rent units were allocated to the

lowest income households first). Many fewer affordable

units were actually available to renters with the lowest

incomes because vacancy rates were lowest for the

lowest rent units, and many affordable units were rented

to higher-income families. In 2017, the vacancy rate for

units affordable at extremely low incomes was only 4.6

percent, compared with 12.9 percent for units affordable

at more than 80 percent of AMI. The slight expansion of

rental stock to meet rental demand between 2015 and 2017

mostly benefited higher-income households, with less stock

affordable to VLI renter households.

Because of competition for affordable units, when a simple

ratio of affordable units per 100 VLI renter households

is made more stringent by adding availability as a

constraint, the ratio decreases from 91 affordable units to

only 59 affordable and available units per 100 VLI renter

44 Likewise, Divringi et al. (2019) found that aggregate repair costs were particularly high among single-family rental units, especial y older units occupied by renters with incomes at or below the poverty line. Repair needs among those units accounted for about 20 percent of the aggregate estimated repair costs of all renter households in 2018. Those units are disproportionately clustered in nonmetropolitan areas.

45 See https:/ www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/winter19/highlight1.html.

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

25

26

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 3. UNDERSTANDING T HE TREND IN WORST CASE NEEDS

3 Understanding the

Trend in Worst Case

Needs

Section 2 demonstrated that worst case needs are prevalent across the nation as a result of the limited availability of adequate, affordable rental units relative Section

to the number of very low-income (VLI) renter households who need them.

Section 3 elaborates how the changes in the number of units, the number of renter households, and the rents they paid during the 2015-to-2017 period underlie that result.

The latest 2015-to-2017 period showed improvement, with worst case needs decreasing by 587,000 households. Most of that change is attributable to demographic changes among unassisted VLI renter households. Supply

conditions and market competition, however, muted the potential of

demographic-driven improvements by about 37 percent.

Changes in tenure trends from renting to homeownership contributed to

the improvement in worst case needs between 2015 and 2017. This is a

promising departure from renting trends that escalated worst case needs in the previous 2-year period, nearly offsetting the effect of new household formation between 2015 and 2017. Consistent with improvements seen

between 2013 and 2015, rising incomes also benefited renters, contributing more than any other factor to the decline in worst case needs between 2015

and 2017. Rental assistance also contributed to the decline. A widening of the gap between demand for affordable rental housing and the supply of affordable units, however, continued to drive worst case needs upward between 2015 and 2017, dampening the effect of otherwise promising

demographic trends.

Changes in Affordable Housing Demand

The previous sections of this report have shown that the increase in the number of households with worst case needs reflects both changes in

the population vulnerable to worst case needs—unassisted VLI renter

households—and changes in the share of those renters experiencing the

severe problems that trigger worst case needs. The population of vulnerable renters is affected primarily by demographic factors (including their incomes WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

27

SECTION 3. UNDERSTANDING T

HE TREND IN WORST CASE NEEDS

and, to a small extent, HUD’s categorization of their

incomes). This population, in turn, substantially determines

Exhibit 3-1. Tenure Shifts, Tenant Income Gains,

the demand for affordable housing. The rate of worst case

and Moderation of the Rental Assistance Gap Drove

the Decline in Worst Case Needs from 2015 to 2017

needs among these vulnerable renters, by contrast, reflects

the economic response of the housing market to these

+239

demographic changes.

The fol owing analysis sorts out those factors. First, we

0 0

-227

distinguish between the effects of population change and

the effects of the prevalence of worst case needs to estimate

their relative importance. Then we identify how much various

demographic factors affected the population change.46

-538

+351

-587

The population of unassisted VLI renter households

decreased 10.8 percent between 2015 and 2017, from

-412

14.44 mil ion to 12.88 mil ion. During the same period,

-1,000

emental worst case needs (thousands)

e

however, the rate of worst case needs in this population

Incr

increased from 57.5 to 59.9 percent, as the smaller,

remaining number of unassisted VLI households had a

Renter shar

higher concentration of worst case needs.

Household formation Renter income changes

Rental assistance gap

dable unit competition

From those facts, we can attribute a net decrease of

Affor

938,000 cases of worst case needs to demographic

Net change in worst case needs

changes. That effect was muted, however, by an increase

of about 351,000 cases attributable to changes in the

Increases

Decreases

Net Result

prevalence of severe problems, which reduced the total

Source: HUD-PD&R analysis of American Housing Survey data

potential biennial decrease in worst case needs by about

37 percent. The demographic effect and the prevalence

effect together explain the 587,000 fewer cases of worst

effect of new household formation. The homeownership

case needs observed in the AHS in 2017 compared with the

rate increased slightly from 62.9 percent in 2015 to 63.8

number of cases observed in 2015.47

percent in 2017, as only 63,000 renter households were

added for 2-year growth of 0.1 percent.48 Such growth

The 938,000 decrease in worst case needs resulting from

contrasts sharply with the 9.1-percent increase in renter

demographic shifts can be further broken down into the

households between 2013 and 2015 and biennial

fol owing four components, il ustrated by the first four

increases averaging 4.5 percent since 2007.

columns of exhibit 3-1.

3. Renter income changes. Changes in income that

1. Household formation. The nation added 3.27 mil ion

raised renter households out of the very low-income

new households between 2015 and 2017, to which we

category account for a 538,000-case reduction of

attribute a proportional increase of 239,000 cases of

worst case needs. The number of renters with very

worst case needs. The household formation growth rate

low incomes decreased by 1,168,000, or 6.1 percent,

was 2.8 percent during this 2-year period, exceeding

in 2017. That biennial reduction more than offset the

the average biennial increase of 1.9 percent since 2007

4.0-percent decrease observed during 2013 to 2015

as measured by the AHS.

and limits the average biennial change since 2007

to a 2.2-percent increase.49 At the same time, the

2. Renter share of households. A decline in renters’

population of renters with higher incomes grew by

share of households accounts for a reduction of worst

5.0 percent between 2015 and 2017. In other words,

case needs by 227,000 cases, nearly offsetting the

a growing population of higher-income households

46 Any analysis of survey data faces limitations from both sampling error and non-sampling error. Such errors are compounded when multiple survey years are compared. In addition, the 2015 AHS was administered to a completely different sample of households than were previous AHS iterations. This analysis takes the AHS estimates at face value, but the reader should recognize that multiple sources of potential error exist.

47 The demographic effect equals the new prevalence rate times the numerical increase (or decrease) in renters, and the prevalence effect is the increase (or decrease) in the prevalence rate times the baseline number of renters.

48 These are AHS estimates. Annual homeownership estimates based on the Current Population Survey/Housing Vacancy Survey were 63.7 percent for 2015 and 63.9 percent for 2017.

49 Methodological factors are summarized in the sidebar, “Changes in Income Limits and Worst Case Needs.”

28

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 3. UNDERSTANDING T HE TREND IN WORST CASE NEEDS

were competing with a shrinking population of VLI

otherwise promising demographic trends seen in 2017. The

renter households for available rental units in 2017.50

next section further explores those market factors.

4. Rental assistance gap. A moderation of the rental

Affordable Housing Supply and

assistance gap accounts for a reduction of worst case

needs by 412,000 cases. The number of unassisted VLI

Demand

renter households decreased by 1,565,000 households

Exhibit 2-9 showed that the availability of affordable rental

during the 2015-to-2017 period; those reporting

units became more constrained during the 2015-to-2017

assistance increased by 397,000 even as numbers

period. Such affordability metrics are affected by multiple

of VLI renter households declined. The resulting

demographic and market factors. Some additional data,

10.8-percent decrease in the number of unassisted VLI

including key numbers underlying the changes in available

renter households more than reversed the 5.1-percent

unit ratios, will shed light on the issue.

increase of 2013-to-2015, and compares with average

biennial increases of 2.3 percent during 2007 to

Exhibit 3-2 examines the factors responsible for the change

2017. Fol owing this significant decline, the remaining

in the availability of affordable units. The total number of

unassisted VLI renter households had a higher rate of

rental units increased by only 150,000 (0.3 percent) between

prevalence of severe housing problems.

2015 and 2017, marking a substantial slowing of construction

compared with the 10.6-percent increase between 2013 and

This analysis shows that the offsetting demographic

2015. The number of renter households changed by even

factors that resulted in the net reduction in the population

less, driven by an increasing population of higher-income

of unassisted very low-income renters would account for a

renters while the population of VLI renters shrank.

decrease of worst case needs by 938,000 between 2015

and 2017. A strong economy supported those demographic

Between 2015 and 2017, the roles of both supply and

benefits. The potential reduction in severe housing

demand factors shaped worst case needs. Some of those

problems, however, was blunted by the housing market, as

trends are promising and others reflect ongoing challenges.

the mismatch between the unassisted VLI renter population

Overall, median renter incomes increased by 10.1 percent,

and affordable units available for their occupancy explains

continuing the trend of income gains since the recessionary

the difference between the potential decrease of 938,000

period.51 Growing renter incomes in 2017 served as an

and the actual decrease of 587,000. The inadequate market

indicator of a strengthening economy. Rising incomes

response is il ustrated by the fifth column of exhibit 3-1,

among renter households could translate into increased

which contracted the demographic-driven decreases in

ability to bid for housing of greater quality and greater

worst case needs by 351,000 cases.

resources to consume non-housing necessities, which

could mitigate the risk and consequences of severe housing

Affordable unit competition represents the extent to which

problems, if growing housing costs do not consume income

the market responded to demand from unassisted VLI

gains. Renter incomes rose across all income groups in

renter households and higher-income renters. As the

2017.52

population of higher-income renters grew, lower-income

renters faced increasing competition for available units.

Rising renter incomes, however, may also indicate that

Meanwhile, rental construction was weak during the biennial

households that would have been more likely to make

period, and rents continued to increase. The market result

the transition to homeownership before the recession are

was a net reduction in affordable rental units that were

continuing to rent even as their incomes rise.53 By the end

available to VLI renter households. Because the supply

of 2017, house prices ful y recovered to prerecession levels

of affordable and available units did not adequately meet

and there was limited availability of entry-level homes for

the demand, the prevalence of worst case needs among

purchase compared to homes at higher price points. As

unassisted VLI renter households actually increased from

the population of higher-income renters grew in 2017, the

57.5 percent to 59.9 percent from 2015 to 2017, despite

shrinking population of VLI renter households faced tougher

the decrease in their number. The combined effect of

competition for affordable units as costlier new and existing

insufficient construction of affordable units and demand-

rental units were even more likely to sit vacant than during

driven rent increases that make existing units unaffordable

previous years. In fact, the number of units affordable to

to VLI renter households, therefore, counteracted the

VLI renter households decreased by 1,194,000 in 2017,

50 Higher-income renters have accounted for a growing share of renters in recent years. As a percentage of renter households, VLI renters decreased from a high of 49.6 percent in 2011 to 41.1 percent in 2017.

51 The median renter household’s income placed it in the VLI category in 2011 but in the low-income category in subsequent years.

52 Table A-14 presents average monthly renter household incomes for all income groups in 2015 and 2017.

53 Exhibit 3-3 presents a 10-year analysis of tenure trends among VLI and higher-income households.

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

29

SECTION 3. UNDERSTANDIN

G THE TREND IN WORST CASE NEEDS

Exhibit 3-2. Changes in Affordable Rental Housing Availability Driven by Income Gains Among Renters That Outpaced Rising Costs, 2015 to 2017

Extremely Low-Income

Very Low-Income

Low-Income

(0–30% AMI)

(0–50% AMI)

(0–80% AMI)

Totala

Cumulative affordable & available rental units (thousands)

2015

4,278

11,854

27,716

48,670

2017

4,595

10,661

26,014

48,820

Percent change

+7.4

-10.1

-6.1

+0.3

Cumulative households (thousands)

2015

11,290

19,235

27,931

43,930

2017

11,548

18,067

26,704

43,993

Percent change

+2.3

-6.1

-4.4

+0.1

Income limit (median, current dol ars)

2015

17,050

28,400

45,450

—

2017

19,800

29,400

47,000

—

Percent change

+16.1

+3.5

+3.4

—

Median household income (all renters, current dol ars)

2015

—

—

—

32,796

2017

—

—

—

36,100

Percent change

—

—

—

+10.1

Median monthly housing cost (all renters, current dol ars)

2015

—

—

—

922

2017

—

—

—

991

Percent change

—

—

—

+7.5

AMI = area median income.

a Total represents all units or renters, not the sum of the cumulative income categories.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

outpacing the 1,168,000 reduction in the number of VLI

of income gains experienced by many renters in recent

renter households. This difference suggests that some

years, keeping worst case needs at elevated levels. Overall,

higher-income renters would prefer to own an affordable

the status quo remained as worst case needs remained at

home than occupy a higher-end rental unit. In addition,

high levels despite marginal improvements.

those renters whose growing incomes raised them out of

the VLI group may continue to reside in the same affordable

units they previously occupied. Such units would be

CHANGES IN INCOME LIMITS AND WORST

classified as affordable but not available to current very low-

CASE NEEDS

income renters. At the same time, higher-income renters

A minimal portion of the population change in

may have been less likely to compete for (or continue to

renters with extremely low and very low incomes

occupy) the lowest rent units. For extremely low-income

between 2015 and 2017, and of those with worst

(ELI) households, affordable and available units increased

case needs, is explained by a shift in income limits.

by 317,000, a promising trend that was mostly offset by an

HUD calculates income limits on the basis of area

increase of 258,000 households in this group.54

median incomes, which include both owners and

Median monthly housing costs for renters

renters, and then uses the income limits to define

55 also increased

by 7.5 percent between 2015 and 2017, building on a similar

the boundaries of the extremely low-, very low-,

increase in the prior period. Such trends suggest that

and low-income categories. (continued)

increasing housing costs probably consumed a good share

54 As shown in table A-13, movement in affordable housing needs occurred in opposite directions for ELI renter households relative to those with slightly higher incomes in the range of 30 to 50 percent of area median income.

55 Those housing costs include rent, utilities, property insurance, land rent, and association fees but exclude any separate security deposit or parking fees.

30

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 3. UNDERSTANDING T HE TREND IN WORST CASE NEEDS

Exhibit 3-2 shows that, across the nation, the income

With few exceptions, the sharpest increases in number of

limits for the median renter household increased

households experiencing worst case needs were observed

slightly between 2015 and 2017. The greatest income

during and immediately fol owing the recessionary

qualifying as extremely low income increased by

period. In most instances, increases in worst case needs

$2,750, and the greatest income qualifying as very

were accompanied by increasing numbers of VLI renter

low income increased by $1,000. As a result of the

households, indicating increasing demand for affordable

substantial median income increase for extremely

rental units. Overall, the postrecession era has been

low-income renters, more households were captured

characterized by growth in rental demand and a softening

in that category during 2017. The median income limit

of homeownership. Exhibit 3-3 shows the steady increase in

for very low-income renter households increased by

the population of renter households over the past 10 years,

a smaller degree in 2017 and fewer households were

with a corresponding decrease in the homeownership rate

captured in that category.

from 2009 through 2015. Those divergent trends are evident

among VLI households but are most strongly indicated

when higher income households are included. Those

trends were moderated in the most recent biennial period,

During the 2015-to-2017 period, median renter incomes

especially among VLI households.

increased and renter households earning less than 50

percent of area median income decreased, even as the

Another critical element to improvement in worst case

most disadvantaged ELI renter households increased

needs over time, however, is the access VLI renter

in number. Such diverging paths suggest that ELI renter

households have to an adequate supply of affordable rental

households may have been isolated from the benefits

units. Exhibit 3-4 presents how the market for rental units

of a growing economy—for example, because of fixed

affordable to VLI households has responded to demand

incomes associated with disability or advanced age. For

trends over the past 10 years.

such households, few paths of escape exist from the severe

shortage of affordable and available housing.

In most instances, increases in worst case needs were

also accompanied by declines in the national supply of

Exhibit 3-3 examines long-term trends in two demand

units affordable to VLI renters. Despite easing demand

factors, renter population growth and homeownership

between 2015 and 2017, VLI renter households found fewer

trends, to further frame changes in worst case needs

affordable units available. The effect of this supply shortage

observed over the past 10 years.

on worst case needs was partially mitigated by the increase

in affordable units available to ELI renters, who account for

most instances of worst case needs.

Exhibit 3-3. Post-Recession Demand for Rental Units

Driven by Population Growth and Tenure Trends, 2007-2017

In short, the effect of weak growth in the rental supply and

strong competition for available rental units from higher-

45,000

80.0%

income renters seems to be having the most detrimental

40,000

35,000

70.0%

Exhibit 3-4. Trends in Housing Supply Mismatch

and Worst Case Needs, 2007-2017

30,000

100.0

9,000

60.0%

25,000

8,000

80.0

7,000

20,000

6,000

50.0%

5,000

15,000

Homeownership rate

enter households 60.0

Households (thousands)

4,000

10,000

3,000

40.0%

40.0

2,000

5,000

orst case needs (thousands)

1,000

Units per 100 r

W

20.0

-

30.0%

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

Number of renter households

Number of VLI renter households

Affordable and available

Affordable and available

units for ELI renters

units for VLI renters

Worst Case Needs

Homeownership rate

VLI homeownership rate

(per 100 households)

(per 100 households)

(thousands)

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

31

SECTION 3. UNDERSTANDING T

HE TREND IN WORST CASE NEEDS

effect on the availability of units affordable to renters with

renters’ housing costs continued to rapidly escalate—the

incomes between 30 and 50 percent of AMI. One reason

7.5-percent increase in median monthly housing costs for

for this effect may be that higher-income renters are less

renter households nearly matched the 8.5-percent increase

likely to compete for units with the cheapest rents, which

in costs during the previous 2 years.

may lack the soundness, features, or amenities preferred

by the growing population of high-income renters. Had

Worst case housing needs are a national problem, with

renters with incomes between 30 and 50 percent of AMI

variations in severity across both demographic and

had access to an adequate supply of affordable rental

geographic dimensions. Worst case needs expanded

units during the biennial period, we may have seen an even

dramatically through the economic recession and

larger decrease in worst case needs nationally. Supplying a

associated col apse of the housing market, which reduced

range of rental and homeownership options to households

homeownership through foreclosures and increased

with both lower and higher incomes, therefore, is important

demand for renting. During the economic recovery that

to sustaining the downward trend in worst case needs seen

fol owed, worst case needs continued to persist at high

between 2015 and 2017.

levels. Renter income gains in recent years have been

offset by rent increases because of limited production of

Concluding Summary

affordable rental units. Even with public rental assistance,

6 of 10 ELI renter households and 4 of 10 VLI renter

In the strong U.S. economy of 2017, the number of worst

households do not have access to affordable and available

case needs declined by 587,000, to 7.72 mil ion over the

housing units. In 2017, there were 1.5 VLI renter households

preceding 2 years. An analysis decomposing demographic

with worst case needs for every VLI renter household with

and market factors indicates that the demographic factors

rental assistance. Based on the most recent evidence,

affecting the number of unassisted VLI renter households

the inadequate supply of affordable homes seriously

had the potential to reduce worst case needs by 938,000—

undermined otherwise promising demographic trends

had the increasingly inadequate market supply of affordable

and tempered potential improvements in national levels of

rental units not caused the prevalence rate of worst case

severe housing problems as the economy improved in 2017.

needs to increase among renters with incomes between 30

and 50 percent of AMI.

A broad strategy at the federal, state, and local levels is

needed to grow the economy, support market production

Of the four demographic factors, national household

and access to affordable homes, and provide assistance

formation would have been expected to increase worst

to those families most in need. HUD’s work to reduce

case needs by 239,000 cases. A decrease in the renter

regulatory barriers to affordable housing production is

share of households offset that effect by a tally of 227,000.

particularly timely in this regard. The White House Council

Improvements in renter incomes reduced worst case needs

on Eliminating Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing,

by 538,000, and a moderation of the rental assistance gap

chaired by Secretary Ben Carson, is leading efforts to

accounted for a reduction of 412,000.

boost the supply of affordable housing by identifying

policies, regulations, and administrative obstacles to cost-

The market response to those promising demographic

effective development of affordable rental units and entry-

trends, however, undercut the national reduction in worst

level homes. Relaxing constraints on affordable housing

case needs. The total increase in the supply of rental units

production is expected to both increase the number of units

between 2015 and 2017 was weak compared with that of

affordable to VLI renter households and ease transitions

the previous biennial period, adding just 150,000 units,

to homeownership, thereby increasing the availability of

or less than 1 percent, compared with the more-than-10-

rental units. HUD’s ongoing Landlord Task Force initiatives

percent increase seen in the previous period. The total

are also expected to improve access to voucher-eligible

renter population also grew more slowly between 2015

units among very low-income renters, especially in higher-

and 2017, moderated somewhat by a slight improvement in

opportunity neighborhoods.

homeownership rates. With vacancy rates highest among

the most expensive units and continuing to creep higher

than previous years, the number of rental units affordable

and available to VLI renter households decreased by

1.19 mil ion units (more than 10 percent) even as the VLI

renter household population decreased by 1.17 mil ion

households (more than 6 percent). This uneven pattern in

supply growth was mimicked in renter income changes,

with median income growing more sharply for renter

households overall (10.1 percent) than the median income

threshold for VLI renter households (3.5 percent). Further,

32

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

A Detailed Data on

Housing Problems

and Supply of

Affordable Housing

Appendix

Table A-1A. Housing Conditions of Renter Households by Relative Income,

2015 and 2017 ...............................................................................35

Table A-1B. Housing Conditions of Owner Households by Relative Income,

2015 and 2017 ...............................................................................36

Table A-2A. Housing Conditions of Renters and Owners, 2001–2017—

Number of Households ..................................................................37

Table A-2B. Housing Conditions of Renters and Owners, 2001–2017—

Percentage of Households ............................................................38

Table A-3. Housing Conditions of Unassisted Renter Households by

Relative Income, 2015 and 2017 ...................................................39

Table A-4. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Renters by Relative

Income, 2015 and 2017 .................................................................40

Table A-5A. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income

Renters by Household Type, 2015 and 2017 ................................43

Table A-5B. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renter

Households Containing Persons with Disabilities* by Household

Type, 2015 and 2017 .....................................................................45

Table A-6A. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Very Low-Income

Renters by Household Type, 2017 .................................................47

Table A-6B. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Extremely Low-Income

Renters by Household Type, 2017 .................................................49

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

33

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-7. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Very Low-Income

Worst Case Renters by Household Type, 2017 .............................51

Table A-8. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Extremely Low-Income

Worst Case Renters by Household Type, 2017 .............................53

Table A-9. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income

Renters by Race and Ethnicity, 2015 and 2017— Number and

Percentage ....................................................................................55

Table A-10. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income

Renters by Region, 2015 and 2017—Number and Percentage ....57

Table A-11A. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income

Renters by Metropolitan Location, 2015 and 2017— Number and

Percentage ....................................................................................59

Table A-11B. Housing Conditions of Renter Households by Relative Income,

Sampled Metropolitan Areas, 2015 and 2017 ...............................62

Table A-12. Households Occupying Rental Units by Affordability of Rent and

Income of Occupants, 2015 and 2017 ..........................................68

Table A-13. Renters and Rental Units Affordable and Available to Them by

Relative Income, 2001–2017 .........................................................69

Table A-14. Average Income and Average Gross Rent of Renter Households

by Relative Income, 2015 and 2017 ..............................................70

Table A-15. Housing Conditions of Households Having Nonelderly People

with Disabilities by Disability Type, 2015 and 2017 .......................71

34

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-1A. Housing Conditions of Renter Households by Relative Income, 2015 and 2017

Household Income as Percentage of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income 2017

0–30%

>30–50%

>50–80%

>80–120%

>120%

All Incomes

Total households (thousands)

11,548

6,519

8,637

7,306

9,983

43,993

Unassisted with severe problems

5,555

2,161

973

277

232

9,198

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

1,049

2,381

3,804

1,768

1,180

10,181

Unassisted with no problems

908

823

3,220

5,003

8,272

18,226

Assisted

4,037

1,154

641

259

298

6,388

Any with severe problems

7,362

2,411

1,010

286

243

11,312

Rent burden >50% of income

7,198

2,300

879

236

144

10,757

Severely inadequate housing

378

156

134

54

104

826

Any with nonsevere problems only

2,127

2,890

4,066

1,810

1,219

12,113

Rent burden >30–50% of income

1,848

2,756

3,541

1,463

607

10,215

Moderately inadequate housing

321

256

433

258

439

1,708

Crowded housing

256

241

376

149

223

1,245

Any with no problems

2,060

1,217

3,562

5,210

8,520

20,568

2015

Total households (thousands)

11,290

7,945

8,696

7,051

8,948

43,930

Unassisted with severe problems

5,821

2,482

880

258

210

9,651

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

779

3,344

3,755

1,684

893

10,455

Unassisted with no problems

988

1,027

3,623

4,908

7,720

18,265

Assisted

3,702

1,092

438

202

125

5,559

Any with severe problems

7,500

2,634

896

263

215

11,509

Rent burden >50% of income

7,385

2,525

748

207

124

10,988

Severely inadequate housing

352

157

161

60

97

828

Any with nonsevere problems only

1,776

3,848

3,919

1,712

899

12,153

Rent burden >30–50% of income

1,511

3,611

3,296

1,276

424

10,118

Moderately inadequate housing

357

452

506

336

376

2,027

Crowded housing

122

358

361

157

122

1,120

Any with no problems

2,014

1,463

3,881

5,077

7,834

20,269

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Survey

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

35

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-1B. Housing Conditions of Owner Households by Relative Income, 2015 and 2017

Household Income as Percentage of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income 2017

0–30%

>30–50%

>50–80%

>80–120%

>120%

All Incomes

Total households (thousands)

7,883

6,172

10,959

13,736

38,817

77,567

Unassisted with severe problems

4,829

1,756

1,400

744

667

9,396

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

1,365

2,125

3,481

3,128

3,353

13,452

Unassisted with no problems

1,689

2,291

6,078

9,864

34,797

54,719

Any with severe problems

4,829

1,756

1,400

744

667

9,396

Cost burden >50% of income

4,742

1,692

1,347

658

527

8,967

Severely inadequate housing

146

78

66

87

141

517

Any with nonsevere problems only

1,365

2,125

3,481

3,128

3,353

13,452

Cost burden >30–50% of income

1,174

1,952

3,136

2,674

2,454

11,391

Moderately inadequate housing

236

220

308

346

750

1,860

Crowded housing

75

64

195

187

186

706

Any with no problems

1,689

2,291

6,078

9,864

34,797

54,719

2015

Total households (thousands)

6,893

6,861

10,948

13,638

36,019

74,360

Unassisted with severe problems

4,341

1,727

1,110

556

616

8,349

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

1,206

2,387

2,947

2,323

2,354

11,217

Unassisted with no problems

1,347

2,748

6,891

10,759

33,049

54,794

Any with severe problems

4,341

1,727

1,110

556

616

8,349

Cost burden >50% of income

4,263

1,639

1,000

475

433

7,811

Severely inadequate housing

165

109

123

89

187

673

Any with nonsevere problems only

1,206

2,387

2,947

2,323

2,354

11,217

Cost burden >30–50% of income

1,056

2,167

2,541

1,821

1,549

9,135

Moderately inadequate housing

170

236

367

411

696

1,881

Crowded housing

53

144

178

158

150

683

Any with no problems

1,347

2,748

6,891

10,759

33,049

54,794

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Survey

36

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-2A. Housing Conditions of Renters and Owners, 2001–2017—Number of Households 2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

Total households (thousands)

105,435 105,868 108,901

110,719

111,861

115,076 116,032 118,290 121,560

Unassisted with severe problems

13,494

13,398

16,142

16,944

19,259

20,717

18,553

18,000

18,594

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

19,217

19,790

20,849

22,752

23,225

24,079

22,153

21,672

23,633

Unassisted with no problems

66,445

66,468

65,362

65,862

64,506

64,983

69,796

73,059

72,945

Assisted

6,279

6,211

6,547

5,161

4,871

5,298

5,530

5,559

6,388

Cost burden >50% of income

13,330

13,188

16,433

17,140

19,458

20,781

18,810

18,799

19,724

Cost burden >30–50% of income

16,923

17,856

19,403

21,153

21,818

22,369

20,884

19,252

21,606

Severely inadequate housing

2,108

1,971

2,023

1,805

1,866

2,126

1,942

1,500

1,343

Moderately inadequate housing

4,504

4,311

4,177

3,954

3,884

3,133

3,946

3,907

3,568

Crowded housing

2,631

2,559

2,621

2,529

2,509

1,923

2,509

1,803

1,951

Renter households (thousands)

33,727

33,614

33,951

35,054

35,396

38,867

40,273

43,930

43,993

Unassisted with severe problems

5,758

5,887

6,860

6,993

8,085

9,548

8,874

9,651

9,198

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

7,283

7,557

7,303

8,445

8,229

9,194

9,233

10,455

10,181

Unassisted with no problems

14,407

13,958

13,240

14,455

14,211

14,828

16,636

18,265

18,226

Assisted

6,279

6,211

6,547

5,161

4,871

5,298

5,530

5,559

6,388

Cost burden >50% of income

6,412

6,477

7,891

7,793

9,000

10,391

9,744

10,988

10,757

Cost burden >30–50% of income

6,916

7,468

7,502

8,340

8,240

9,124

9,292

10,118

10,215

Severely inadequate housing

1,168

1,038

1,100

1,073

998

1,204

1,155

828

826

Moderately inadequate housing

2,508

2,525

2,542

2,400

2,264

1,830

2,508

2,027

1,708

Crowded housing

1,658

1,615

1,635

1,511

1,499

1,072

1,652

1,120

1,245

Owner households (thousands)

71,708

72,254

74,950

75,665

76,465

76,209

75,759

74,360

77,567

Unassisted with severe problems

7,736

7,511

9,282

9,951

11,174

11,169

9,679

8,349

9,396

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

11,934

12,233

13,546

14,307

14,996

14,885

12,920

11,217

13,452

Unassisted with no problems

52,038

52,510

52,122

51,407

50,295

50,155

53,160

54,794

54,719

Cost burden >50% of income

6,918

6,711

8,542

9,347

10,458

10,390

9,066

7,811

8,967

Cost burden >30–50% of income

10,007

10,388

11,901

12,813

13,578

13,245

11,592

9,135

11,391

Severely inadequate housing

940

933

923

732

868

922

787

673

517

Moderately inadequate housing

1,996

1,786

1,635

1,554

1,620

1,303

1,438

1,881

1,860

Crowded housing

973

944

986

1,018

1,010

851

857

683

706

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Survey

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

37

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-2B. Housing Conditions of Renters and Owners, 2001–2017—Percentage of Households 2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

Total households

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Unassisted with severe problems

12.8

12.7

14.8

15.3

17.2

18.0

16.0

15.2

15.3

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

18.2

18.7

19.1

20.5

20.8

20.9

19.1

18.3

19.4

Unassisted with no problems

63.0

62.8

60.0

59.5

57.7

56.5

60.2

61.8

60.0

Assisted

6.0

5.9

6.0

4.7

4.4

4.6

4.8

4.7

5.3

Cost burden >50% of income

12.6

12.5

15.1

15.5

17.4

18.1

16.2

15.9

16.2

Cost burden >30–50% of income

16.1

16.9

17.8

19.1

19.5

19.4

18.0

16.3

17.8

Severely inadequate housing

2.0

1.9

1.9

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.7

1.3

1.1

Moderately inadequate housing

4.3

4.1

3.8

3.6

3.5

2.7

3.4

3.3

2.9

Crowded housing

2.5

2.4

2.4

2.3

2.2

1.7

2.2

1.5

1.6

Renter households

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Unassisted with severe problems

17.1

17.5

20.2

19.9

22.8

24.6

22.0

22.0

20.9

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

21.6

22.5

21.5

24.1

23.2

23.7

22.9

23.8

23.1

Unassisted with no problems

42.7

41.5

39.0

41.2

40.1

38.2

41.3

41.6

41.4

Assisted

18.6

18.5

19.3

14.7

13.8

13.6

13.7

12.7

14.5

Cost burden >50% of income

19.0

19.3

23.2

22.2

25.4

26.7

24.2

25.0

24.5

Cost burden >30–50% of income

20.5

22.2

22.1

23.8

23.3

23.5

23.1

23.0

23.2

Severely inadequate housing

3.5

3.1

3.2

3.1

2.8

3.1

2.9

1.9

1.9

Moderately inadequate housing

7.4

7.5

7.5

6.8

6.4

4.7

6.2

4.6

3.9

Crowded housing

4.9

4.8

4.8

4.3

4.2

2.8

4.1

2.6

2.8

Owner households

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Unassisted with severe problems

10.8

10.4

12.4

13.2

14.6

14.7

12.8

11.2

12.1

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

16.6

16.9

18.1

18.9

19.6

19.5

17.1

15.1

17.3

Unassisted with no problems

72.6

72.7

69.5

67.9

65.8

65.8

70.2

73.7

70.5

Cost burden >50% of income

9.6

9.3

11.4

12.4

13.7

13.6

12.0

10.5

11.6

Cost burden >30–50% of income

14.0

14.4

15.9

16.9

17.8

17.4

15.3

12.3

14.7

Severely inadequate housing

1.3

1.3

1.2

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.0

0.9

0.7

Moderately inadequate housing

2.8

2.5

2.2

2.1

2.1

1.7

1.9

2.5

2.4

Crowded housing

1.4

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.1

1.1

0.9

0.9

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Survey

38

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-3. Housing Conditions of Unassisted Renter Households by Relative Income, 2015 and 2017

Household Income as Percentage of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income 2017

0–30%

>30–50%

>50–80%

>80–120%

>120%

All Incomes

Total unassisted households (thousands)

7,511

5,365

7,997

7,048

9,685

37,605

Any with severe problems

5,555

2,161

973

277

232

9,198

Rent burden >50% of income

5,453

2,068

856

230

144

8,750

[Rent above FMR]

1,898

1,197

779

223

143

4,240

Severely inadequate housing

266

131

120

52

93

662

Any with nonsevere problems only

1,049

2,381

3,804

1,768

1,180

10,181

Rent burden >30–50% of income

852

2,278

3,333

1,432

598

8,494

Moderately inadequate housing

208

200

406

255

421

1,489

Crowded housing

200

217

336

140

211

1,103

Any with no problems

908

823

3,220

5,003

8,272

18,226

2015

Total unassisted households (thousands)

7,588

6,853

8,258

6,849

8,823

38,371

Any with severe problems

5,821

2,482

880

258

210

9,651

Rent burden >50% of income

5,756

2,395

740

202

124

9,216

[Rent above FMR]

1,919

1,437

672

202

124

4,354

Severely inadequate housing

234

130

153

59

92

669

Any with nonsevere problems only

779

3,344

3,755

1,684

893

10,455

Rent burden >30–50% of income

615

3,150

3,170

1,258

422

8,616

Moderately inadequate housing

216

376

471

329

372

1,764

Crowded housing

75

325

344

154

121

1,020

Any with no problems

988

1,027

3,623

4,908

7,720

18,265

FMR = Fair Market Rent.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Survey

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

39

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DA

TA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-4. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Renters by Relative Income, 2015 and 2017

Number

Percentage

2015

2017

2015

2017

Renter households (thousands)

43,930

43,990

100.0

100.0

Unassisted with severe problems

9,651

9,198

22.0

20.9

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

10,455

10,180

23.8

23.1

Unassisted with no problems

18,265

18,230

41.6

41.4

Assisted

5,559

6,388

12.7

14.5

Any with severe problems

11,509

11,310

26.2

25.7

Rent burden >50% of income

10,988

10,760

25.0

24.5

Severely inadequate housing

828

826

1.9

1.9

[Rent burden only]

9,772

9,748

22.2

22.2

Any with nonsevere problems only

12,153

12,110

27.7

27.5

Rent burden >30–50% of income

10,118

10,220

23.0

23.2

Moderately inadequate housing

2,027

1,708

4.6

3.9

Crowded housing

1,120

1,245

2.5

2.8

[Rent burden only]

9,098

9,254

20.7

21.0

Any with no problems

20,269

20,570

46.1

46.8

Income 0-30% HAMFI (thousands)

11,290

11,550

100.0

100.0

Unassisted with severe problems

5,821

5,555

51.6

48.1

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

779

1,049

6.9

9.1

Unassisted with no problems

988

908

8.8

7.9

Assisted

3,702

4,037

32.8

35.0

Any with severe problems

7,500

7,362

66.4

63.7

Rent burden >50% of income

7,385

7,198

65.4

62.3

Severely inadequate housing

352

378

3.1

3.3

[Rent burden only]

6,500

6,406

57.6

55.5

Any with nonsevere problems only

1,776

2,127

15.7

18.4

Rent burden >30–50% of income

1,511

1,848

13.4

16.0

Moderately inadequate housing

357

321

3.2

2.8

Crowded housing

122

256

1.1

2.2

[Rent burden only]

1,312

1,570

11.6

13.6

Any with no problems

2,014

2,060

17.8

17.8

(continued)

40

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-4. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Renters by Relative Income, 2015 and 2017 (continued) Number

Percentage

2015

2017

2015

2017

Income >30-50% HAMFI (thousands)

7,945

6,519

100.0

100.0

Unassisted with severe problems

2,482

2,161

31.2

33.1

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

3,344

2,381

42.1

36.5

Unassisted with no problems

1,027

823

12.9

12.6

Assisted

1,092

1,154

13.7

17.7

Any with severe problems

2,634

2,411

33.2

37.0

Rent burden >50% of income

2,525

2,300

31.8

35.3

Severely inadequate housing

157

156

2.0

2.4

[Rent burden only]

2,274

2,136

28.6

32.8

Any with nonsevere problems only

3,848

2,890

48.4

44.3

Rent burden >30–50% of income

3,611

2,756

45.4

42.3

Moderately inadequate housing

452

256

5.7

3.9

Crowded housing

358

241

4.5

3.7

[Rent burden only]

3,073

2,415

38.7

37.0

Any with no problems

1,463

1,217

18.4

18.7

Income >50-80% HAMFI (thousands)

8,696

8,637

100.0

100.0

Unassisted with severe problems

880

973

10.1

11.3

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

3,755

3,804

43.2

44.0

Unassisted with no problems

3,623

3,220

41.7

37.3

Assisted

438

641

5.0

7.4

Any with severe problems

896

1,010

10.3

11.7

Rent burden >50% of income

748

879

8.6

10.2

Severely inadequate housing

161

134

1.9

1.6

[Rent burden only]

696

849

8.0

9.8

Any with nonsevere problems only

3,919

4,066

45.1

47.1

Rent burden >30–50% of income

3,296

3,541

37.9

41.0

Moderately inadequate housing

506

433

5.8

5.0

Crowded housing

361

376

4.2

4.4

[Rent burden only]

3,076

3,278

35.4

38.0

Any with no problems

3,881

3,562

44.6

41.2

(continued)

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

41

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DA

TA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-4. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Renters by Relative Income, 2015 and 2017 (continued) Number

Percentage

2015

2017

2015

2017

Income >80-120% HAMFI (thousands)

7,051

7,306

100.0

100.0

Unassisted with severe problems

258

277

3.7

3.8

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

1,684

1,768

23.9

24.2

Unassisted with no problems

4,908

5,003

69.6

68.5

Assisted

202

259

2.9

3.5

Any with severe problems

263

286

3.7

3.9

Rent burden >50% of income

207

236

2.9

3.2

Severely inadequate housing

60

54

0.9

0.7

[Rent burden only]

191

226

2.7

3.1

Any with nonsevere problems only

1,712

1,810

24.3

24.8

Rent burden >30–50% of income

1,276

1,463

18.1

20.0

Moderately inadequate housing

336

258

4.8

3.5

Crowded housing

157

149

2.2

2.0

[Rent burden only]

1,226

1,407

17.4

19.3

Any with no problems

5,077

5,210

72.0

71.3

Income >120% HAMFI (thousands)

8,948

9,983

100.0

100.0

Unassisted with severe problems

210

232

2.4

2.3

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

893

1,180

10.0

11.8

Unassisted with no problems

7,720

8,272

86.3

82.9

Assisted

125

298

1.4

3.0

Any with severe problems

215

243

2.4

2.4

Rent burden >50% of income

124

144

1.4

1.4

Severely inadequate housing

97

104

1.1

1.0

[Rent burden only]

110

132

1.2

1.3

Any with nonsevere problems only

899

1,219

10.0

12.2

Rent burden >30–50% of income

424

607

4.7

6.1

Moderately inadequate housing

376

439

4.2

4.4

Crowded housing

122

223

1.4

2.2

[Rent burden only]

410

582

4.6

5.8

Any with no problems

7,834

8,520

87.5

85.3

HAMFI = HUD Area Median Family Income.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Survey

42

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-5A. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters by Household Type, 2015 and 2017

Number

Percentage

Household type

2015

2017

2015

2017

Al household types (thousands)

19,235

18,067

100.0

100.0

Elderly without children (thousands)

4,652

4,960

100.0

100.0

Unassisted with severe problems

1,853

1,932

39.8

39.0

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

722

641

15.5

12.9

Unassisted with no problems

519

467

11.2

9.4

Assisted

1,559

1,920

33.5

38.7

Any with severe problems

2,373

2,600

51.0

52.4

Rent burden >50% of income

2,335

2,571

50.2

51.8

Severely inadequate housing

86

75

1.8

1.5

[Rent burden only]

2,070

2,372

44.5

47.8

Any with nonsevere problems only

1,242

1,279

26.7

25.8

Rent burden >30–50% of income

1,149

1,190

24.7

24.0

Moderately inadequate housing

161

155

3.5

3.1

Crowded housing

(s)

(s)

(s)

(s)

[Rent burden only]

1,075

1,120

23.1

22.6

Any with no problems

1,038

1,081

22.3

21.8

Families with children (thousands)

6,962

6,199

100.0

100.0

Unassisted with severe problems

2,888

2,571

41.5

41.5

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

1,796

1,528

25.8

24.6

Unassisted with no problems

552

441

7.9

7.1

Assisted

1,726

1,659

24.8

26.8

Any with severe problems

3,614

3,333

51.9

53.8

Rent burden >50% of income

3,534

3,228

50.8

52.1

Severely inadequate housing

207

223

3.0

3.6

[Rent burden only]

3,076

2,869

44.2

46.3

Any with nonsevere problems only

2,340

2,020

33.6

32.6

Rent burden >30–50% of income

2,088

1,799

30.0

29.0

Moderately inadequate housing

333

230

4.8

3.7

Crowded housing

446

(s)

6.4

(s)

[Rent burden only]

1,607

1,377

23.1

22.2

Any with no problems

1,008

847

14.5

13.7

(continued)

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

43

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-5A. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters by Household Type, 2015 and 2017 (continued) Number

Percentage

Household type

2015

2017

2015

2017

Other family households (thousands)

1,726

1,591

100.0

100.0

Unassisted with severe problems

805

716

46.6

45.0

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

429

335

24.9

21.1

Unassisted with no problems

203

212

11.8

13.3

Assisted

289

327

16.7

20.6

Any with severe problems

922

843

53.4

53.0

Rent burden >50% of income

899

826

52.1

51.9

Severely inadequate housing

57

55

3.3

3.5

[Rent burden only]

801

710

46.4

44.6

Any with nonsevere problems only

527

423

30.5

26.6

Rent burden >30–50% of income

488

385

28.3

24.2

Moderately inadequate housing

79

41

4.6

2.6

Crowded housing

26

(s)

1.5

(s)

[Rent burden only]

427

347

24.7

21.8

Any with no problems

277

324

16.1

20.4

Other nonfamily households (thousands)

5,895

5,317

100.0

100.0

Unassisted with severe problems

2,758

2,497

46.8

47.0

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

1,176

925

19.9

17.4

Unassisted with no problems

740

611

12.6

11.5

Assisted

1,221

1,284

20.7

24.1

Any with severe problems

3,225

2,997

54.7

56.4

Rent burden >50% of income

3,142

2,872

53.3

54.0

Severely inadequate housing

159

181

2.7

3.4

[Rent burden only]

2,827

2,589

48.0

48.7

Any with nonsevere problems only

1,514

1,295

25.7

24.4

Rent burden >30–50% of income

1,397

1,229

23.7

23.1

Moderately inadequate housing

236

151

4.0

2.8

Crowded housing

(s)

(s)

(s)

(s)

[Rent burden only]

1,277

1,142

21.7

21.5

Any with no problems

1,155

1,025

19.6

19.3

(s) = Unweighted counts of 5 or fewer suppressed.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Survey

44

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-5B. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renter Households Containing Persons with Disabilities* by Household Type, 2015 and 2017

Number

Percentage

Household type

2015

2017

2015

2017

Al household types (thousands)

3,529

3,276

100.0

100.0

Elderly without children (thousands)

155

154

100.0

100.0

Unassisted with severe problems

61

47

39.7

30.5

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

44

49

28.2

31.8

Unassisted with no problems

18

4

11.6

2.6

Assisted

32

54

20.6

35.1

Any with severe problems

75

72

48.2

46.8

Rent burden >50% of income

71

72

46.1

46.8

Severely inadequate housing

(s)

(s)

(s)

(s)

[Rent burden only]

65

68

42.4

44.2

Any with nonsevere problems only

52

70

33.5

45.5

Rent burden >30–50% of income

50

59

32.5

38.3

Moderately inadequate housing

3

15

2.2

9.7

Crowded housing

0

(s)

0.0

(s)

[Rent burden only]

48

56

31.3

36.4

Any with no problems

28

12

18.3

7.8

Families with children (thousands)

1,295

1,175

100.0

100.0

Unassisted with severe problems

538

485

41.5

41.3

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

264

236

20.4

20.1

Unassisted with no problems

68

53

5.2

4.5

Assisted

425

401

32.8

34.1

Any with severe problems

722

690

55.7

58.7

Rent burden >50% of income

682

669

52.7

56.9

Severely inadequate housing

82

(s)

6.3

(s)

[Rent burden only]

541

541

41.8

46.0

Any with nonsevere problems only

403

347

31.1

29.5

Rent burden >30–50% of income

358

302

27.6

25.7

Moderately inadequate housing

74

69

5.7

5.9

Crowded housing

70

(s)

5.4

(s)

[Rent burden only]

268

213

20.7

18.1

Any with no problems

170

138

13.1

11.7

(continued)

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

45

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-5B. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renter Households Containing Persons with Disabilities* by Household Type, 2015 and 2017 (continued)

Number

Percentage

Household type

2015

2017

2015

2017

Other family households (thousands)

453

436

100.0

100.0

Unassisted with severe problems

177

200

39.1

45.9

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

81

76

17.9

17.4

Unassisted with no problems

70

36

15.5

8.3

Assisted

124

124

27.4

28.4

Any with severe problems

227

243

50.1

55.7

Rent burden >50% of income

211

228

46.7

52.3

Severely inadequate housing

36

(s)

8.0

(s)

[Rent burden only]

175

189

38.5

43.3

Any with nonsevere problems only

126

111

27.8

25.5

Rent burden >30–50% of income

116

104

25.6

23.9

Moderately inadequate housing

22

17

4.9

3.9

Crowded housing

(s)

(s)

(s)

(s)

[Rent burden only]

101

94

22.3

21.6

Any with no problems

100

82

22.0

18.8

Other nonfamily households (thousands)

1,627

1,511

100.0

100.0

Unassisted with severe problems

614

572

37.8

37.9

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

234

174

14.4

11.5

Unassisted with no problems

106

90

6.5

6.0

Assisted

673

677

41.4

44.8

Any with severe problems

863

797

53.1

52.7

Rent burden >50% of income

841

739

51.7

48.9

Severely inadequate housing

54

(s)

3.3

(s)

[Rent burden only]

739

620

45.4

41.0

Any with nonsevere problems only

436

374

26.8

24.8

Rent burden >30–50% of income

408

355

25.1

23.5

Moderately inadequate housing

61

47

3.8

3.1

Crowded housing

(s)

(s)

(s)

(s)

[Rent burden only]

374

326

23.0

21.6

Any with no problems

327

341

20.1

22.6

* Elderly persons with disabilities were excluded.

(s) = Unweighted counts of 5 or fewer suppressed.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Survey

46

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-6A. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Very Low-Income Renters by Household Type, 2017

Elderly, No

Families with

Other Nonfamily

Total

Children

Children

Other Families

Households

Renter households (thousands)

18,067

4,960

6,199

1,591

5,317

Number of children

12,510

NA

12,510

NA

NA

Number of persons

40,601

6,437

23,791

3,930

6,443

Children/household

2.02

NA

2.02

NA

NA

Persons/household

2.25

1.30

3.84

2.47

1.21

Unassisted with severe problems

7,716

1,932

2,571

716

2,497

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

3,429

641

1,528

335

925

Unassisted with no problems

1,731

467

441

212

611

Assisted

5,191

1,920

1,659

327

1,284

Any with severe problems

9,773

2,600

3,333

843

2,997

Rent burden >50% of income

9,498

2,571

3,228

826

2,872

Severely inadequate housing

534

75

223

55

181

[Rent burden only]

8,541

2,372

2,869

710

2,589

Any with nonsevere problems only

5,017

1,279

2,020

423

1,295

Rent burden >30–50% of income

4,604

1,190

1,799

385

1,229

Moderately inadequate housing

578

155

230

41

151

Crowded housing

(s)

(s)

(s)

(s)

(s)

[Rent burden only]

3,986

1,120

1,377

347

1,142

Any with no problems

3,277

1,081

847

324

1,025

(continued)

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

47

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DA

TA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-6A. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Very Low-Income Renters by Household Type, 2017 (continued) Elderly, No

Families with

Other Nonfamily

Total

Children

Children

Other Families

Households

Other characteristics

One person in household

8,257

3,799

NA

NA

4,446

Two-spouse household

3,487

678

2,135

674

NA

Female householder

11,318

3,209

4,379

933

2,797

Minority householder

10,133

2,058

4,389

1,054

2,632

Welfare/SSI income

3,393

956

1,199

367

871

Social Security income

4,934

3,791

448

184

511

Income below 50% poverty

4,447

1,029

1,733

280

1,404

Income below poverty

9,816

2,396

3,838

742

2,840

Income below 150% of poverty

14,616

3,840

5,537

1,213

4,026

High school graduate

13,561

3,534

4,491

1,174

4,362

Two+ years post-high school

3,902

1,003

1,165

331

1,403

Earnings at minimum wage: At least half time

7,984

446

4,075

989

2,474

Earnings at minimum wage: At least full time

6,043

289

3,189

783

1,783

Earnings main source of income

8,841

442

4,425

1,047

2,927

Housing rated poor

1,129

156

516

97

359

Housing rated good+

13,318

4,014

4,315

1,161

3,828

Neighborhood rated poor

1,310

179

638

112

382

Neighborhood rated good+

13,214

3,981

4,304

1,160

3,769

In central cities

8,995

2,231

3,073

823

2,867

Suburbs, urban

5,287

1,554

1,908

459

1,365

Suburbs, rural

1,360

439

488

95

338

Nonmetropolitan

2,425

735

729

213

746

Northeast

3,961

1,218

1,227

393

1,124

Midwest

3,670

1,111

1,145

210

1,203

South

6,358

1,569

2,307

584

1,899

West

4,078

1,062

1,521

404

1,091

NA = Not applicable. (s) = Unweighted counts of 5 or fewer suppressed. SSI = Supplemental Security Income.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Survey

48

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-6B. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Extremely Low-Income Renters by Household Type, 2017

Elderly, No

Families with

Other Nonfamily

Total

Children

Children

Other Families

Households

Renter households (thousands)

11,548

3,250

4,120

877

3,301

Number of children

8,786

NA

8,786

NA

NA

Number of persons

26,188

4,095

16,048

2,145

3,900

Children/household

2.13

NA

2.13

NA

NA

Persons/household

2.27

1.26

3.90

2.45

1.18

Unassisted with severe problems

5,555

1,341

1,985

472

1,757

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

1,049

215

559

94

180

Unassisted with no problems

908

217

226

97

368

Assisted

4,037

1,476

1,350

214

997

Any with severe problems

7,362

1,933

2,684

567

2,178

Rent burden >50% of income

7,198

1,915

2,640

562

2,081

Severely inadequate housing

378

58

154

30

136

[Rent burden only]

6,406

1,741

2,315

476

1,873

Any with nonsevere problems only

2,127

651

896

144

436

Rent burden >30–50% of income

1,848

584

754

129

382

Moderately inadequate housing

321

100

124

12

86

Crowded housing

(s)

(s)

(s)

(s)

(s)

[Rent burden only]

1,570

551

549

120

350

Any with no problems

2,060

665

541

166

687

(continued)

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

49

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-6B. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Extremely Low-Income Renters by Household Type, 2017 (continued) Elderly, No

Families with

Other Nonfamily

Total

Children

Children

Other Families

Households

Other characteristics

One person in household

5,423

2,577

NA

NA

2,846

Two-spouse household

1,978

394

1,229

356

NA

Female householder

7,657

2,176

3,140

540

1,801

Minority householder

6,733

1,543

2,941

591

1,658

Welfare/SSI income

2,739

781

966

239

753

Social Security income

3,243

2,411

321

107

404

Income below 50% poverty

4,420

1,020

1,731

280

1,389

Income below poverty

9,729

2,379

3,797

736

2,817

Income below 150% of poverty

11,257

3,116

4,091

859

3,191

High school graduate

8,310

2,246

2,870

617

2,577

Two+ years post-high school

2,209

597

663

169

780

Earnings at minimum wage: At least half time

3,524

152

2,159

379

835

Earnings at minimum wage: At least full time

1,904

62

1,342

215

285

Earnings main source of income

4,539

187

2,571

468

1,313

Housing rated poor

817

112

404

46

256

Housing rated good+

8,386

2,641

2,784

618

2,344

Neighborhood rated poor

945

126

469

70

281

Neighborhood rated good+

8,282

2,612

2,768

617

2,285

In central cities

5,880

1,534

2,058

457

1,831

Suburbs, urban

3,152

1,012

1,109

244

788

Suburbs, rural

880

257

363

46

215

Nonmetropolitan

1,635

447

591

130

467

Northeast

2,499

832

777

179

711

Midwest

2,320

700

753

118

748

South

4,245

1,022

1,680

365

1,178

West

2,484

696

910

214

664

NA = Not applicable. (s) = Unweighted counts of 5 or fewer suppressed. SSI = Supplemental Security Income.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Survey

50

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-7. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Very Low-Income Worst Case Renters by Household Type, 2017

Elderly, No

Families with

Other Nonfamily

Total

Children

Children

Other Families

Households

Renter households (thousands)

7,716

1,932

2,571

716

2,497

Number of children

5,115

NA

5,115

NA

NA

Number of persons

17,470

2,562

9,958

1,727

3,223

Children/household

1.99

NA

1.99

NA

NA

Persons/household

2.26

1.33

3.87

2.41

1.29

Unassisted with severe problems

7,716

1,932

2,571

716

2,497

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

—

—

—

—

—

Unassisted with no problems

—

—

—

—

—

Assisted

—

—

—

—

—

Any with severe problems

7,716

1,932

2,571

716

2,497

Rent burden >50% of income

7,521

1,916

2,493

701

2,411

Severely inadequate housing

397

50

163

48

135

[Rent burden only]

6,772

1,769

2,242

601

2,161

Any with nonsevere problems only

—

—

—

—

—

Rent burden >30–50% of income

—

—

—

—

—

Moderately inadequate housing

—

—

—

—

—

Crowded housing

—

—

—

—

—

[Rent burden only]

—

—

—

—

—

Any with no problems

—

—

—

—

—

(continued)

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

51

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-7. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Very Low-Income Worst Case Renters by Household Type, 2017 (continued) Elderly, No

Families with

Other Nonfamily

Total

Children

Children

Other Families

Households

Other characteristics

One person in household

3,413

1,430

NA

NA

1,983

Two-spouse household

1,643

303

1,000

341

NA

Female householder

4,769

1,269

1,747

400

1,353

Minority householder

4,082

716

1,781

449

1,135

Welfare/SSI income

1,145

281

406

134

324

Social Security income

2,041

1,563

224

70

185

Income below 50% poverty

2,219

558

801

146

714

Income below poverty

4,718

1,013

1,835

400

1,470

Income below 150% of poverty

6,489

1,474

2,369

597

2,049

High school graduate

6,038

1,491

1,879

517

2,150

Two+ years post-high school

1,908

483

500

158

767

Earnings at minimum wage: At least half time

3,435

153

1,635

428

1,218

Earnings at minimum wage: At least full time

2,307

103

1,158

313

733

Earnings main source of income

4,146

178

1,868

486

1,614

Housing rated poor

484

37

217

46

184

Housing rated good+

5,711

1,581

1,810

538

1,783

Neighborhood rated poor

482

42

239

52

148

Neighborhood rated good+

5,779

1,598

1,849

551

1,781

In central cities

3,816

835

1,231

382

1,367

Suburbs, urban

2,472

698

861

229

685

Suburbs, rural

611

178

210

34

189

Nonmetropolitan

816

221

270

71

255

Northeast

1,526

403

467

144

512

Midwest

1,378

448

363

78

489

South

2,844

618

1,005

293

927

West

1,968

463

735

200

570

NA = Not applicable. (s) = Unweighted counts of 5 or fewer suppressed. SSI = Supplemental Security Income.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Survey

52

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SU

PPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-8. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Extremely Low-Income Worst Case Renters by Household Type, 2017

Elderly, No

Families with

Other Nonfamily

Total

Children

Children

Other Families

Households

Renter households (thousands)

5,555

1,341

1,985

472

1,757

Number of children

4,109

NA

4,109

NA

NA

Number of persons

12,952

1,792

7,800

1,140

2,220

Children/household

2.07

NA

2.07

NA

NA

Persons/household

2.33

1.34

3.93

2.42

1.26

Unassisted with severe problems

5,555

1,341

1,985

472

1,757

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

—

—

—

—

—

Unassisted with no problems

—

—

—

—

—

Assisted

—

—

—

—

—

Any with severe problems

5,555

1,341

1,985

472

1,757

Rent burden >50% of income

5,453

1,333

1,959

468

1,693

Severely inadequate housing

266

35

106

28

97

[Rent burden only]

4,861

1,211

1,739

393

1,517

Any with nonsevere problems only

—

—

—

—

—

Rent burden >30–50% of income

—

—

—

—

—

Moderately inadequate housing

—

—

—

—

—

Crowded housing

—

—

—

—

—

[Rent burden only]

—

—

—

—

—

Any with no problems

—

—

—

—

—

(continued)

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

53

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-8. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Extremely Low-Income Worst Case Renters by Household Type, 2017 (continued) Elderly, No

Families with

Other Nonfamily

Total

Children

Children

Other Families

Households

Other characteristics

One person in household

2,413

991

NA

NA

1,417

Two-spouse household

1,161

197

750

214

NA

Female householder

3,532

891

1,411

276

955

Minority householder

2,996

553

1,372

284

787

Welfare/SSI income

1,022

244

355

112

311

Social Security income

1,455

1,069

186

49

151

Income below 50% poverty

2,218

558

801

146

713

Income below poverty

4,698

1,012

1,819

398

1,469

Income below 150% of poverty

5,385

1,266

1,965

465

1,689

High school graduate

4,214

998

1,419

324

1,473

Two+ years post-high school

1,204

296

334

87

488

Earnings at minimum wage: At least half time

2,000

67

1,111

217

607

Earnings at minimum wage: At least full time

977

29

654

122

171

Earnings main source of income

2,764

94

1,368

289

1,013

Housing rated poor

378

33

177

25

143

Housing rated good+

4,028

1,089

1,367

342

1,231

Neighborhood rated poor

373

29

188

41

115

Neighborhood rated good+

4,103

1,110

1,408

348

1,237

In central cities

2,759

571

942

252

994

Suburbs, urban

1,665

479

618

136

432

Suburbs, rural

465

121

183

23

138

Nonmetropolitan

666

170

242

61

194

Northeast

1,059

259

342

76

382

Midwest

1,051

327

297

62

366

South

2,130

439

841

205

646

West

1,314

317

506

129

363

NA = Not applicable. SSI = Supplemental Security Income.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Survey

54

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SU

PPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-9. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters by Race and Ethnicity, 2015 and 2017—

Number and Percentage

Number

Percentage

2015

2017

2015

2017

Non-Hispanic White (thousands)

8,473

7,934

100.0

100.0

Unassisted with severe problems

3,778

3,634

44.6

45.8

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

1,836

1,461

21.7

18.4

Unassisted with no problems

1,072

911

12.7

11.5

Assisted

1,787

1,927

21.1

24.3

Any with severe problems

4,379

4,291

51.7

54.1

Rent burden >50% of income

4,302

4,186

50.8

52.8

Severely inadequate housing

176

212

2.1

2.7

[Rent burden only]

3,856

3,764

45.5

47.4

Any with nonsevere problems only

2,417

2,075

28.5

26.2

Rent burden >30–50% of income

2,210

1,929

26.1

24.3

Moderately inadequate housing

346

244

4.1

3.1

Crowded housing

132

92

1.6

1.2

[Rent burden only]

1,950

1,746

23.0

22.0

Any with no problems

1,678

1,568

19.8

19.8

Non-Hispanic Black (thousands)

4,813

4,561

100.0

100.0

Unassisted with severe problems

1,800

1,578

37.4

34.6

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

906

810

18.8

17.8

Unassisted with no problems

414

339

8.6

7.4

Assisted

1,693

1,835

35.2

40.2

Any with severe problems

2,495

2,365

51.8

51.9

Rent burden >50% of income

2,421

2,310

50.3

50.6

Severely inadequate housing

151

106

3.1

2.3

[Rent burden only]

2,130

2,091

44.2

45.8

Any with nonsevere problems only

1,389

1,307

28.9

28.7

Rent burden >30–50% of income

1,261

1,182

26.2

25.9

Moderately inadequate housing

246

171

5.1

3.7

Crowded housing

65

83

1.3

1.8

[Rent burden only]

1,090

1,063

22.6

23.3

Any with no problems

929

890

19.3

19.5

(continued)

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

55

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-9. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters by Race and Ethnicity, 2015 and 2017—

Number and Percentage (continued)

Number

Percentage

2015

2017

2015

2017

Hispanic (thousands)

4,441

4,083

100.0

100.0

Unassisted with severe problems

2,104

1,884

47.4

46.1

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

1,100

916

24.8

22.4

Unassisted with no problems

361

336

8.1

8.2

Assisted

875

947

19.7

23.2

Any with severe problems

2,482

2,295

55.9

56.2

Rent burden >50% of income

2,429

2,213

54.7

54.2

Severely inadequate housing

140

161

3.2

3.9

[Rent burden only]

2,119

1,965

47.7

48.1

Any with nonsevere problems only

1,384

1,246

31.2

30.5

Rent burden >30–50% of income

1,263

1,140

28.4

27.9

Moderately inadequate housing

153

120

3.4

2.9

Crowded housing

248

252

5.6

6.2

[Rent burden only]

1,009

898

22.7

22.0

Any with no problems

575

542

12.9

13.3

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Survey

56

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-10. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters by Region, 2015 and 2017—Number and Percentage Number

Percentage

2015

2017

2015

2017

Northeast (thousands)

3,983

3,961

100.0

100.0

Unassisted with severe problems

1,593

1,526

40.0

38.5

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

725

683

18.2

17.2

Unassisted with no problems

393

376

9.9

9.5

Assisted

1,271

1,377

31.9

34.8

Any with severe problems

2,092

2,088

52.5

52.7

Rent burden >50% of income

2,015

1,990

50.6

50.2

Severely inadequate housing

189

198

4.8

5.0

[Rent burden only]

1,690

1,709

42.4

43.1

Any with nonsevere problems only

1,143

1,085

28.7

27.4

Rent burden >30–50% of income

1,035

1,015

26.0

25.6

Moderately inadequate housing

185

94

4.6

2.4

Crowded housing

70

98

1.8

2.5

[Rent burden only]

898

896

22.5

22.6

Any with no problems

748

789

18.8

19.9

Midwest (thousands)

4,053

3,670

100.0

100.0

Unassisted with severe problems

1,512

1,378

37.3

37.5

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

1,003

767

24.7

20.9

Unassisted with no problems

453

400

11.2

10.9

Assisted

1,085

1,126

26.8

30.7

Any with severe problems

1,901

1,757

46.9

47.9

Rent burden >50% of income

1,854

1,697

45.8

46.2

Severely inadequate housing

89

93

2.2

2.5

[Rent burden only]

1,667

1,552

41.1

42.3

Any with nonsevere problems only

1,335

1,118

32.9

30.5

Rent burden >30–50% of income

1,233

1,048

30.4

28.6

Moderately inadequate housing

167

127

4.1

3.5

Crowded housing

71

65

1.7

1.8

[Rent burden only]

1,116

934

27.5

25.4

Any with no problems

817

795

20.2

21.7

(continued)

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

57

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-10. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters by Region, 2015 and 2017—Number and Percentage (continued)

Number

Percentage

2015

2017

2015

2017

South (thousands)

6,696

6,358

100.0

100.0

Unassisted with severe problems

2,928

2,844

43.7

44.7

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

1,456

1,278

21.7

20.1

Unassisted with no problems

812

643

12.1

10.1

Assisted

1,501

1,593

22.4

25.1

Any with severe problems

3,494

3,475

52.2

54.7

Rent burden >50% of income

3,444

3,438

51.4

54.1

Severely inadequate housing

114

115

1.7

1.8

[Rent burden only]

3,093

3,112

46.2

48.9

Any with nonsevere problems only

1,867

1,767

27.9

27.8

Rent burden >30–50% of income

1,682

1,590

25.1

25.0

Moderately inadequate housing

316

261

4.7

4.1

Crowded housing

142

137

2.1

2.2

[Rent burden only]

1,421

1,386

21.2

21.8

Any with no problems

1,335

1,116

19.9

17.6

West (thousands)

4,503

4,078

100.0

100.0

Unassisted with severe problems

2,270

1,968

50.4

48.3

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

939

702

20.9

17.2

Unassisted with no problems

357

313

7.9

7.7

Assisted

937

1,095

20.8

26.9

Any with severe problems

2,647

2,453

58.8

60.2

Rent burden >50% of income

2,596

2,373

57.7

58.2

Severely inadequate housing

117

128

2.6

3.1

[Rent burden only]

2,324

2,169

51.6

53.2

Any with nonsevere problems only

1,279

1,047

28.4

25.7

Rent burden >30–50% of income

1,172

951

26.0

23.3

Moderately inadequate housing

142

95

3.1

2.3

Crowded housing

198

197

4.4

4.8

[Rent burden only]

950

770

21.1

18.9

Any with no problems

578

577

12.8

14.1

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Survey

58

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-11A. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters by Metropolitan Location, 2015 and 2017—

Number and Percentage

Number

Percentage

2015

2017

2015

2017

Central cities (thousands)

9,513

8,995

100.0

100.0

Unassisted with severe problems

4,202

3,816

44.2

42.4

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

1,951

1,613

20.5

17.9

Unassisted with no problems

872

783

9.2

8.7

Assisted

2,489

2,783

26.2

30.9

Any with severe problems

5,202

4,989

54.7

55.5

Rent burden >50% of income

5,080

4,828

53.4

53.7

Severely inadequate housing

296

313

3.1

3.5

[Rent burden only]

4,435

4,302

46.6

47.8

Any with nonsevere problems only

2,739

2,421

28.8

26.9

Rent burden >30–50% of income

2,496

2,226

26.2

24.7

Moderately inadequate housing

419

261

4.4

2.9

Crowded housing

240

284

2.5

3.2

[Rent burden only]

2,116

1,902

22.2

21.1

Any with no problems

1,572

1,585

16.5

17.6

Suburbs, urban (thousands)

5,775

5,287

100.0

100.0

Unassisted with severe problems

2,820

2,472

48.8

46.8

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

1,157

1,059

20.0

20.0

Unassisted with no problems

589

468

10.2

8.9

Assisted

1,209

1,287

20.9

24.3

Any with severe problems

3,294

2,976

57.0

56.3

Rent burden >50% of income

3,236

2,921

56.0

55.2

Severely inadequate housing

131

98

2.3

1.9

[Rent burden only]

2,913

2,691

50.4

50.9

Any with nonsevere problems only

1,536

1,460

26.6

27.6

Rent burden >30–50% of income

1,426

1,374

24.7

26.0

Moderately inadequate housing

179

135

3.1

2.6

Crowded housing

155

142

2.7

2.7

[Rent burden only]

1,213

1,192

21.0

22.5

Any with no problems

945

851

16.4

16.1

(continued)

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

59

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-11A. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters by Metropolitan Location, 2015 and 2017—

Number and Percentage (continued)

Number

Percentage

2015

2017

2015

2017

Suburbs, rural (thousands)

1,459

1,360

100.0

100.0

Unassisted with severe problems

507

611

34.8

44.9

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

409

255

28.0

18.8

Unassisted with no problems

239

178

16.4

13.1

Assisted

304

317

20.8

23.3

Any with severe problems

602

733

41.3

53.9

Rent burden >50% of income

584

710

40.0

52.2

Severely inadequate housing

33

56

2.3

4.1

[Rent burden only]

491

623

33.7

45.8

Any with nonsevere problems only

505

352

34.6

25.9

Rent burden >30–50% of income

464

311

31.8

22.9

Moderately inadequate housing

57

55

3.9

4.0

Crowded housing

37

29

2.5

2.1

[Rent burden only]

411

272

28.2

20.0

Any with no problems

352

275

24.1

20.2

Nonmetropolitan (thousands)

2,488

2,425

100.0

100.0

Unassisted with severe problems

774

816

31.1

33.6

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

607

503

24.4

20.7

Unassisted with no problems

315

302

12.7

12.5

Assisted

792

803

31.8

33.1

Any with severe problems

1,036

1,074

41.7

44.3

Rent burden >50% of income

1,009

1,039

40.6

42.8

Severely inadequate housing

48

66

1.9

2.7

[Rent burden only]

936

925

37.6

38.1

Any with nonsevere problems only

843

784

33.9

32.3

Rent burden >30–50% of income

736

694

29.6

28.6

Moderately inadequate housing

154

127

6.2

5.2

Crowded housing

49

42

2.0

1.7

[Rent burden only]

646

619

26.0

25.5

Any with no problems

609

566

24.5

23.3

(continued)

60

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-11A. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters by Metropolitan Location, 2015 and 2017—

Number and Percentage (continued)

Number

Percentage

2015

2017

2015

2017

U.S. Total (thousands)

19,235

18,067

100.0

100.0

Unassisted with severe problems

8,303

7,715

43.2

42.7

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

4,123

3,430

21.4

19.0

Unassisted with no problems

2,015

1,731

10.5

9.6

Assisted

4,794

5,190

24.9

28.7

Any with severe problems

10,134

9,772

52.7

54.1

Rent burden >50% of income

9,910

9,498

51.5

52.6

Severely inadequate housing

509

533

2.6

3.0

[Rent burden only]

8,774

8,541

45.6

47.3

Any with nonsevere problems only

5,624

5,017

29.2

27.8

Rent burden >30–50% of income

5,122

4,605

26.6

25.5

Moderately inadequate housing

809

578

4.2

3.2

Crowded housing

480

497

2.5

2.8

[Rent burden only]

4,385

3,985

22.8

22.1

Any with no problems

3,477

3,277

18.1

18.1

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Survey

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

61

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-11B. Housing Conditions of Renter Households by Relative Income, Sampled Metropolitan Areas, 2015 and 2017

Household Income as Percentage of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income 2015

2017

0–50%

All Incomes

0–50%

All Incomes

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswel , GA

Total households (thousands)

259

729

245

794

Unassisted with severe problems

127

131

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

52

39

Unassisted with no problems

30

22

Assisted

51

53

Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH

Total households (thousands)

300

708

313

715

Unassisted with severe problems

93

100

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

41

28

Unassisted with no problems

20

29

Assisted

146

156

Chicago-Napervil e-Elgin, IL-IN-WI

Total households (thousands)

567

1,289

509

1,238

Unassisted with severe problems

242

204

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

112

92

Unassisted with no problems

57

58

Assisted

157

155

Dal as-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX

Total households (thousands)

365

1,019

332

1,060

Unassisted with severe problems

177

159

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

112

83

Unassisted with no problems

22

35

Assisted

54

54

Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI

Total households (thousands)

251

524

243

527

Unassisted with severe problems

115

105

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

54

49

Unassisted with no problems

27

23

Assisted

57

65

Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX

Total households (thousands)

347

892

362

897

Unassisted with severe problems

159

177

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

101

91

Unassisted with no problems

37

43

Assisted

50

51

(continued)

62

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-11B. Housing Conditions of Renter Households by Relative Income, Sampled Metropolitan Areas, 2015 and 2017 (continued) Household Income as Percentage of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income 2015

2017

0–50%

All Incomes

0–50%

All Incomes

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA

Total households (thousands)

1,041

2,328

968

2,281

Unassisted with severe problems

567

459

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

220

210

Unassisted with no problems

90

86

Assisted

164

213

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL

Total households (thousands)

373

860

384

854

Unassisted with severe problems

227

211

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

43

54

Unassisted with no problems

29

39

Assisted

73

80

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA

Total households (thousands)

1,834

3,705

1,712

3,644

Unassisted with severe problems

815

678

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

281

269

Unassisted with no problems

174

168

Assisted

563

596

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD

Total households (thousands)

342

722

336

734

Unassisted with severe problems

145

147

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

74

61

Unassisted with no problems

39

29

Assisted

85

98

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ

Total households (thousands)

227

622

189

593

Unassisted with severe problems

124

97

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

63

37

Unassisted with no problems

15

20

Assisted

26

35

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA

Total households (thousands)

215

536

158

479

Unassisted with severe problems

123

91

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

33

19

Unassisted with no problems

28

19

Assisted

30

30

(continued)

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

63

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-11B. Housing Conditions of Renter Households by Relative Income, Sampled Metropolitan Areas, 2015 and 2017 (continued) Household Income as Percentage of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income 2015

2017

0–50%

All Incomes

0–50%

All Incomes

San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA

Total households (thousands)

287

791

274

774

Unassisted with severe problems

142

110

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

40

48

Unassisted with no problems

22

26

Assisted

84

89

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA

Total households (thousands)

199

604

202

614

Unassisted with severe problems

83

84

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

46

32

Unassisted with no problems

17

21

Assisted

54

65

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV

Total households (thousands)

343

809

292

802

Unassisted with severe problems

141

126

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

95

58

Unassisted with no problems

33

25

Assisted

74

82

Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD

Total households (thousands)

—

—

291

673

Unassisted with severe problems

—

124

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

—

57

Unassisted with no problems

—

23

Assisted

—

87

Birmingham-Hoover, AL

Total households (thousands)

—

—

120

279

Unassisted with severe problems

—

52

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

—

15

Unassisted with no problems

—

6

Assisted

—

47

Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN

Total households (thousands)

127

281

—

—

Unassisted with severe problems

47

—

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

28

—

Unassisted with no problems

16

—

Assisted

36

—

(continued)

64

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-11B. Housing Conditions of Renter Households by Relative Income, Sampled Metropolitan Areas, 2015 and 2017 (continued) Household Income as Percentage of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income 2015

2017

0–50%

All Incomes

0–50%

All Incomes

Cleveland-Elyria, OH

Total households (thousands)

159

301

—

—

Unassisted with severe problems

62

—

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

43

—

Unassisted with no problems

12

—

Assisted

42

—

Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO

Total households (thousands)

140

395

—

—

Unassisted with severe problems

60

—

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

33

—

Unassisted with no problems

16

—

Assisted

31

—

Kansas City, MO-KS

Total households (thousands)

121

293

—

—

Unassisted with severe problems

41

—

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

34

—

Unassisted with no problems

14

—

Assisted

32

—

Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV

Total households (thousands)

—

—

242

784

Unassisted with severe problems

—

132

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

—

50

Unassisted with no problems

—

21

Assisted

—

39

Memphis, TN-MS-AR

Total households (thousands)

90

201

—

—

Unassisted with severe problems

44

—

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

18

—

Unassisted with no problems

12

—

Assisted

16

—

Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Al is, WI

Total households (thousands)

115

248

—

—

Unassisted with severe problems

50

—

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

33

—

Unassisted with no problems

9

—

Assisted

24

—

(continued)

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

65

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-11B. Housing Conditions of Renter Households by Relative Income, Sampled Metropolitan Areas, 2015 and 2017 (continued) Household Income as Percentage of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income 2015

2017

0–50%

All Incomes

0–50%

All Incomes

Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI

Total households (thousands)

—

—

392

866

Unassisted with severe problems

—

138

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

—

79

Unassisted with no problems

—

28

Assisted

—

146

New Orleans-Metairie, LA

Total households (thousands)

76

191

—

—

Unassisted with severe problems

31

—

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

10

—

Unassisted with no problems

9

—

Assisted

28

—

Oklahoma City, OK

Total households (thousands)

—

—

131

331

Unassisted with severe problems

—

53

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

—

35

Unassisted with no problems

—

19

Assisted

—

23

Pittsburgh, PA

Total households (thousands)

141

313

—

—

Unassisted with severe problems

43

—

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

33

—

Unassisted with no problems

21

—

Assisted

44

—

Portland-Vancouver-Hil sboro, OR-WA

Total households (thousands)

125

349

—

—

Unassisted with severe problems

56

—

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

29

—

Unassisted with no problems

8

—

Assisted

32

—

Raleigh, NC

Total households (thousands)

63

166

—

—

Unassisted with severe problems

25

—

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

19

—

Unassisted with no problems

9

—

Assisted

11

—

(continued)

66

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-11B. Housing Conditions of Renter Households by Relative Income, Sampled Metropolitan Areas, 2015 and 2017 (continued) Household Income as Percentage of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income 2015

2017

0–50%

All Incomes

0–50%

All Incomes

Richmond, VA

Total households (thousands)

—

—

131

303

Unassisted with severe problems

—

55

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

—

23

Unassisted with no problems

—

24

Assisted

—

29

Rochester, NY

Total households (thousands)

—

—

142

280

Unassisted with severe problems

—

50

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

—

15

Unassisted with no problems

—

5

Assisted

—

72

San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX

Total households (thousands)

—

—

207

631

Unassisted with severe problems

—

105

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

—

46

Unassisted with no problems

—

9

Assisted

—

47

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA

Total households (thousands)

—

—

182

647

Unassisted with severe problems

—

85

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

—

33

Unassisted with no problems

—

21

Assisted

—

44

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL

Total households (thousands)

—

—

278

825

Unassisted with severe problems

—

165

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

—

43

Unassisted with no problems

—

27

Assisted

—

44

Note: Each of the 15 largest metropolitan areas, listed first, are part of the AHS longitudinal panel surveyed every 2 years. The remaining 10 metropolitan areas represent a subset of the 16th to 50th largest metropolitan areas surveyed on a rotating basis every 4 years.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Survey

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

67

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-12. Households Occupying Rental Units by Affordability of Rent and Income of Occupants, 2015 and 2017

Occupied and Vacant Rental Units (thousands) by Unit Affordability Category Relative Income of Households

(percent of HAMFI needed to afford the highest rent in the category) 2017

10*

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

>110

Total

Extremely low income (<30% HAMFI)

801 1,583 1,839 703 1,782 1,822 890 955 321 165 205 483 11,548

Very low income (30–50%)

145 326

511 505 1,242 1,304 700 820 273 123 218 351

6,519

Low income (50–80%)

243 280 476 364 1,315 1,698 1,288 1,246 531 301 305 590

8,637

Middle income or higher (>80%)

304 478 624 330 1,311 2,193 2,200 2,604 1,751 1,381 1,678 2,433 17,289

Vacant units for rent

122

89 160 236 616 770 579 603 371 261 355 664

4,827

Total units vacant and occupied

1,616 2,757 3,610 2,138 6,265 7,788 5,657 6,228 3,246 2,231 2,761 4,522 48,820

2015

Extremely low income (<30% HAMFI)

818 1,607 1,341 1,132 1,757 1,533 1,040 649 436 246 197 534 11,290

Very low income (30–50%)

272 437 387 757 1,465 1,612 1,137 634 415 270 164 398

7,945

Low income (50–80%)

226 371 259 556 1,310 1,726 1,405 1,015 663 348 240 579

8,696

Middle income or higher (>80%)

278

511 339 431 1,250 1,981 2,405 2,154 1,821 1,234 928 2,667 15,999

Vacant units for rent

89

56 128 319 686

815 692 510 363 230 180 672

4,740

Total units vacant and occupied

1,682 2,982 2,453 3,194 6,468 7,667 6,679 4,962 3,699 2,328 1,708 4,849 48,670

HAMFI = HUD Area Median Family Income.

* The 10-percent-of-HAMFI category includes units occupied with no cash rent.

Note: The method of assigning units to cost categories was modified in 2017 to account for limited HUD administrative exceptions to program income limits. Slight unit affordability adjustments were applied to outlier cases for which Area Median Income-determined affordability differed from administratively determined affordability categories.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Survey

68

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-13. Renters and Rental Units Affordable and Available to Them by Relative Income, 2001–2017

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

Renter households (thousands)

34,042

33,614

33,951

35,054

35,396

38,867

40,294

43,930

43,993

Extremely low-income (<30% HAMFI)

8,739

9,077

9,729

9,243

9,961

11,774

11,163

11,290

11,548

Very low-income (30–50%)

6,315

6,581

6,342

6,697

7,157

7,492

7,375

7,945

6,519

Low-income (50–80%)

7,251

7,460

7,488

7,650

7,168

7,750

7,795

8,696

8,637

Middle-income or higher (>80%)

11,737

10,496

10,392

11,464

11,110

11,850

13,961

15,999

17,289

Affordable units

37,197

37,577

37,924

39,330

39,744

43,075

43,992

48,670

48,820

Extremely low-income (<30% HAMFI)

6,870

7,098

6,747

7,280

6,265

6,854

7,294

7,117

7,982

Very low-income (30–50%)

12,366

12,863

12,368

11,071

10,938

10,947

10,727

9,643

8,404

Low-income (50–80%)

13,634

13,518

14,044

15,063

16,228

17,995

17,904

19,326

19,674

Middle-income or higher (>80%)

4,328

4,099

4,765

5,916

6,313

7,279

8,067

12,584

12,760

Affordable and available units

37,197

37,577

37,924

39,330

39,744

43,075

43,992

48,670

48,820

Extremely low-income (<30% HAMFI)

3,803

3,996

3,982

4,224

3,665

4,220

4,354

4,278

4,595

Very low-income (30–50%)

8,132

8,744

8,549

7,786

8,045

8,225

7,734

7,576

6,066

Low-income (50–80%)

11,665

12,396

12,865

13,196

14,004

15,361

14,529

15,862

15,353

Middle-income or higher (>80%)

13,597

12,441

12,528

14,123

14,029

15,270

17,375

20,955

22,806

HAMFI = HUD-adjusted area median family income.

Note: Income categories in this table do not overlap and therefore differ from the standard definitions. The method of assigning units to cost categories was modified in 2017 to account for limited HUD administrative exceptions to program income limits. Slight unit affordability adjustments were applied to outlier cases for which Area Median Income-determined affordability differed from administratively determined affordability categories.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Survey

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

69

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-14. Average Income and Average Gross Rent of Renter Households by Relative Income, 2015 and 2017

Household Income as Percentage of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income 2017

0–30%

>30–50%

>50–80%

>80–120%

>120%

All Incomes

Total households (thousands)

11,548

6,519

8,637

7,306

9,983

43,993

Unassisted with severe problems

5,555

2,161

973

277

232

9,198

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

1,049

2,381

3,804

1,768

1,180

10,181

Unassisted with no problems

908

823

3,220

5,003

8,272

18,226

Assisted

4,037

1,154

641

259

298

6,388

Average monthly income

$850

$2,136

$3,306

$4,726

$10,300

$4,310

Unassisted with severe problems

$868

$2,067

$3,162

$3,383

$11,060

$1,725

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

$1,355

$2,273

$3,343

$4,716

$9,047

$3,787

Unassisted with no problems

$533

$2,144

$3,335

$4,818

$10,510

$6,805

Assisted

$765

$1,974

$3,170

$4,455

$8,791

$1,749

Average gross rent

$790

$1,010

$1,109

$1,281

$1,594

$1,149

Unassisted with severe problems

$1,101

$1,491

$2,358

$4,464

$5,344

$1,534

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

$569

$887

$1,169

$1,622

$2,087

$1,226

Unassisted with no problems

$492

$399

$708

$1,000

$1,434

$1,093

Assisted

$487

$800

$869

$965

$1,179

$633

2015

Total households (thousands)

11,290

7,945

8,696

7,051

8,948

43,930

Unassisted with severe problems

5,821

2,482

880

258

210

9,651

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

779

3,344

3,755

1,684

893

10,455

Unassisted with no problems

988

1,027

3,623

4,908

7,720

18,265

Assisted

3,702

1,092

438

202

125

5,559

Average monthly income

$760

$1,988

$3,148

$4,545

$9,731

$3,890

Unassisted with severe problems

$806

$1,895

$3,024

$3,901

$7,211

$1,510

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

$1,072

$2,081

$3,173

$4,477

$8,637

$3,344

Unassisted with no problems

$470

$2,004

$3,173

$4,617

$9,934

$6,207

Assisted

$699

$1,896

$2,974

$4,197

$9,279

$1,433

Average gross rent

$763

$961

$1,014

$1,172

$1,479

$1,060

Unassisted with severe problems

$1,038

$1,537

$2,190

$3,344

$3,841

$1,394

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

$578

$801

$1,091

$1,514

$1,938

$1,100

Unassisted with no problems

$388

$364

$682

$953

$1,370

$1,012

Assisted

$470

$708

$731

$885

$968

$564

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Survey

70

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-15. Housing Conditions of Households Having Nonelderly People with Disabilities by Disability Type, 2015 and 2017

Functional Limitations

ADL/IADL Limitationsa

Any

Independent

2017

Limitation

Hearing

Visual

Cognitive Ambulatory Self-Care

Living

Households (thousands)

12,360

3,071

2,558

5,202

5,423

1,885

3,633

Renter households

5,750

1,146

1,300

2,710

2,669

923

1,819

Owner households

6,613

1,925

1,258

2,492

2,754

962

1,815

Renters (thousands)

5,750

1,146

1,300

2,710

2,669

923

1,819

Unassisted with severe problems

1,442

234

334

735

721

280

524

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

1,293

284

325

562

542

159

325

Unassisted with no problems

1,604

378

343

653

580

184

377

Assisted

1,412

250

298

760

827

299

594

Very low-income renters (thousands)

1,260

215

269

560

562

199

385

Unassisted with severe problems

344

71

56

180

162

63

130

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

493

87

157

179

192

59

120

Unassisted with no problems

192

24

24

92

82

36

37

Assisted

231

33

33

109

126

41

98

Any with severe problems

377

81

63

194

185

68

146

Rent burden >50% of income

332

72

53

162

156

62

129

Severely inadequate housing

45

8

11

32

28

6

17

[Rent burden only]

299

71

46

149

134

56

110

Any with nonsevere problems only

601

101

175

239

248

84

165

Rent burden >30–50% of income

551

93

156

220

234

80

155

Moderately inadequate housing

90

8

17

39

36

18

22

Crowded housing

57

12

24

23

17

11

17

[Rent burden only]

459

84

136

178

199

57

128

Any with no problems

282

33

32

127

130

46

74

(continued)

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

71

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HOUSING PROBLEMS AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Table A-15. Housing Conditions of Households Having Nonelderly People with Disabilities by Disability Type, 2015 and 2017

(continued)

Functional Limitations

ADL/IADL Limitationsa

2015

Households (thousands)

12,588

3,060

2,647

5,119

5,626

1,836

3,614

Renter households

5,740

1,077

1,339

2,602

2,746

888

1,755

Owner households

6,849

1,983

1,308

2,517

2,880

948

1,859

Renters (thousands)

5,740

1,077

1,339

2,602

2,746

888

1,755

Unassisted with severe problems

1,507

302

393

745

729

292

476

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

1,297

246

311

557

578

152

362

Unassisted with no problems

1,567

350

316

603

667

198

387

Assisted

1,369

179

319

698

773

246

529

Very low-income renters (thousands)

1,581

294

416

732

778

227

463

Unassisted with severe problems

387

79

117

189

200

75

123

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

716

124

182

331

351

94

197

Unassisted with no problems

235

60

54

91

117

21

66

Assisted

243

31

63

122

110

37

78

Any with severe problems

423

88

129

197

217

79

134

Rent burden >50% of income

382

83

117

171

192

69

117

Severely inadequate housing

49

12

13

33

25

(s)

23

[Rent burden only, adequate housing]

352

73

108

152

179

66

103

Any with nonsevere problems only

808

131

191

386

396

113

233

Rent burden >30–50% of income

742

116

170

343

362

103

217

Moderately inadequate housing

128

21

38

76

57

13

43

Crowded housing

56

9

8

27

27

8

21

[Rent burden only]

630

101

145

290

315

93

173

Any with no problems

351

75

95

149

164

35

96

a ADL = Activities of Daily Living. IADL = Instrumental Activities of Daily Living.

(s) = Unweighted counts of 5 or fewer suppressed.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Survey

72

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX B. SU

PPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS

B Supplemental

Exhibits

Exhibit B-1. Bird’s-Eye View of Worst Case Housing Needs in 2017

Appendix

Worst case needs,

Unassisted very

7.72 million

low-income

renters,

12.88 million

Other renters,

31.12 million

0.20

7.32

million

0.20

million

million

0.36

3.17

million

0.07

million

Renters with

million

Renters with

severely

severe

inadequate

rent burden,

housing

10.76 million

0.83 million

Note: Not to scale.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

73

APPENDIX B. SU

PPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS

Exhibit B-2. Affordable Rental Units Occupied by Higher Income Renters, 2017

9

Renters with incomes of >80% AMI

8

Renters with incomes of 50-80% AMI

Renters with incomes of 30-50% AMI

7

Renters with incomes of 0-30% AMI

2.19

Vacant units for rent

6

1.31

5

2.60

1.70

2.20

1.32

4

Rental units (millions)

0.62

1.30

1.24

1.25

3

2.43

0.48

1.29

0.48

1.75

0.51

2

0.28

0.82

0.33

0.33

0.36

1.78

1.82

0.70

0.59

0.30

1.38

1.68

0.24

1.84

0.51

0.96

1

0.15

0.89

0.48

1.58

0.70

0.80

0.62

0.77

0.60

0.53

0.66

0.58

0

0.12

0.00

0.16

0.24

0.37

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

>110

Unit affordability: percent of Area Media Income needed to afford the highest rent in the category Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data

Exhibit B-3. Rental Stock of Below-FMR Units by Region and Metropolitan Location, 2017

Households

Housing Units

Housing Units

(thousands)

(thousands)

per 100 Households

Affordable,

Affordable,

Affordable

Available,

Affordable

Available,

and

and

and

and

Affordable

Available

Adequate

Affordable

Available

Adequate

Al

25,611

28,476

21,055

19,267

111.2

82.2

75.2

Northeast

5,252

5,538

4,329

3,894

105.4

82.4

74.1

Midwest

4,552

5,675

3,994

3,656

124.7

87.7

80.3

South

9,346

10,646

7,831

7,197

113.9

83.8

77.0

West

6,461

6,618

4,901

4,520

102.4

75.9

70.0

Central cities

12,501

13,005

10,105

9,186

104.0

80.8

73.5

Suburbs, urban

7,940

8,555

6,132

5,707

107.7

77.2

71.9

Suburbs, rural

2,074

2,715

1,888

1,717

130.9

91.0

82.8

Nonmetropolitan areas

3,096

4,201

2,930

2,657

135.7

94.6

85.8

FMR = Fair Market Rent.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the American Housing Survey

74

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX C. FEDERAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS

C Federal Housing

Assistance and

Affordable Housing

Programs

Append ix

HUD provides rental housing assistance through three key programs.56

1. Public housing. This program provides affordable housing to approximately 1.0 mil ion households through units owned and managed

by local public housing agencies. Families are required to pay 30 percent of their incomes for rent.

2. Project-based assisted housing. This program provides assistance to 1.2 mil ion households living in privately owned rental housing. The assistance is attached to the units, which are reserved for low-income families who are required to pay 30 percent of their incomes for rent.

3. Tenant-based rental assistance. The Housing Choice Voucher Program supplements the rent payments of 2.3 mil ion households in the private rental market. The program is administered through state and local

housing agencies. Although 30 percent of income is the rent baseline,

families often pay more and use these portable subsidies to locate

housing of their choice.

Several other federal housing programs produce affordable housing, typically with shallower subsidies. Although these units often are more affordable than market-rate units, without additional rent subsidies (such as vouchers), extremely low-income families would often have to pay much more than 30

percent of their incomes under these programs.

- Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program. Tax credits offered to investors by the U.S. Department of the Treasury subsidize the capital costs of units that have rents affordable to households with incomes not exceeding 60 percent of area median income.

56 The number of households assisted by key programs based on HUD administrative records are

available through the Picture of Subsidized Households query tool at https://

www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/assthsg.html.

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

75

APPENDIX C. FEDERAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS

- HOME Investment Partnerships Program. This

program provides annual formula grants to state

and local governments that can be used to assist

homeowners, first-time homebuyers, or renters.

Qualifying rents must be affordable to households

with incomes not exceeding 65 percent of AMI or

must be less than the local Fair Market Rent (FMR),

whichever is less.

- Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS

(HOPWA). HOPWA provides annual formula and

competitive grants available to state and local

governments and nonprofits for rental assistance

targeted to a special-needs population.

- Older rental subsidy programs. Programs named

for sections of the National Housing Act, primarily the

Section 221(d)(3) Below Market Interest Rate Program

and the Section 236 mortgage assistance program,

were active from the early 1960s through the early

1970s. They were designed to produce housing that

was affordable for families with incomes greater than

the public housing income limits.

For further detail on HUD program requirements, see HUD

(2018).

76

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX D. PREVIOUS REPORTS TO CONGRESS ON WORST CASE NEEDS

D Previous Reports to

Congress on Worst

Case Needs

- 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, Appendix

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 Chal enges, 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 (February 2008).

- Worst Case Housing Needs 2007: A Report to Congress (May 2010).

- Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress (February 2011).

- Worst Case Housing Needs 2011: Report to Congress (August 2013).

- Worst Case Housing Needs: 2015 Report to Congress (April 2015).

- Worst Case Housing Needs: 2017 Report to Congress (August 2017).

These publications are available on line at http:/ www.huduser.gov.

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

77

78

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX E. DATA AND METHODOLOGY

E Data and Methodology

A report such as this one requires researchers to use a number of specialized concepts, definitions, and assumptions when analyzing and presenting

the data. This appendix documents such elements for those who wish to

understand the results more ful y or replicate and extend the results in their own research.

Appendix

Using the American Housing Survey

Data

This report uses data from the most recently available American Housing Survey (AHS), conducted in 2017. The AHS, which is the only detailed periodic national housing survey in the United States, is sponsored by HUD and

conducted by the Census Bureau. It provides nationally representative data on a wide range of housing subjects, including apartments, single-family homes, mobile homes, vacant homes, family composition, income, housing and

neighborhood quality, housing costs, equipment, fuel type, size of housing units, and recent moves. National data are collected every 2 years, from a sample of about 84,400 housing units in 2013 (Census-HUD, 2013) and a

new, redesigned sample of about 85,400 housing units in 2015 (Census-HUD, 2017). The survey, which started in 1973, sampled the same housing units between 1985 and 2013—with occasional adjustments and supplements—

plus samples of newly constructed units to ensure both continuity and

timeliness of the data. To address many challenges in maintaining the

AHS longitudinal sample for nearly 30 years—including attrition of housing units, response burden, changes in geography, and disclosure avoidance and mitigation—the 2015 AHS underwent a major redesign. The redesign

included selection of a new national and metropolitan area longitudinal sample, changes to weighting methodologies and imputation processes, and a reevaluation of variables. Information from the worst case needs reports has helped inform public policy decisions, including decisions on targeting existing resources, determining the need for additional resources, and choosing the form that housing assistance should take.

To accurately estimate worst case needs for federal rental assistance from AHS data, it is essential to determine whether household incomes fall below WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

79

APPENDIX E. DATA AND METHODOLOGY

HUD’s official very low-income limits (50 percent of HUD-

Elderly households without children. Households in

adjusted area median family income [HAMFI], also termed

which the householder or spouse is age 62 or older and in

area median income), whether a household already receives

which no children are present. Elderly households may be

housing assistance, and whether an unassisted income-

either family or nonfamily households.

eligible household has one or more of the priority problems

that formerly conferred preference in tenant selection for

Other family households. Households with a nonelderly

assistance (rent burdens exceeding 50 percent of income,

householder and no children, in which either (1) one or more

substandard housing, or being involuntarily displaced).

people are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or

adoption; or (2) one or more subfamilies reside there who have

A national data source that is a reasonable alternative to

members related to each other by birth, marriage, or adoption.

the AHS for measuring housing needs is the American

Community Survey (ACS). The ACS has the advantage

Other nonfamily households. Households with a single

of a larger sample size that supports estimates for

nonelderly person living alone or with only nonrelatives.

small geographic areas. Disadvantages of the ACS

Most of these households consist of a single person living

include addressing housing assistance status in a less

alone rather than unrelated people sharing housing.

comprehensive way and providing much less information

about housing unit characteristics. For example, the ACS no

Households with disabilities. Before 2009, no questions

longer ascertains whether units contain complete plumbing

in the AHS were designed to ascertain directly whether

systems.

individuals suffered from disabilities. Worst case needs

reports for 2007 and earlier identified households

Weighting. Because the AHS is based on a sample of

containing people with disabilities using various forms of

housing units rather than a census of all housing units,

income-based proxies. Households with disabilities (1) were

estimates based on the data must be “weighted up” so

not families with children, (2) were not elderly households,

that totals for each year match independent estimates

and (3) received some form of income or government

of the total housing stock and better represent the ful

assistance that is very likely to indicate that an adult with

housing stock. The Census Bureau weights up responses

disabilities is present in the household. Beginning with the

to account for undercoverage of households and

2009 AHS, the survey now asks direct questions about

household nonresponse (about 15 percent). The weights

impairments and difficulties with activities of daily living

for 2001-through-2009 AHS data used in this report are

about each household member, including children. This

based on the 2000 Census of Housing, with adjustments for

report therefore addresses disability on the basis of people

estimated change since then. Since 2011, AHS data have

identified with these problems. In this report, elderly people

been weighted to 2010 census benchmarks.

with disabilities do not increase the number of households

with disabilities because of the prevalence of disabilities

Exclusions. Households reporting incomes that are zero or

associated with aging.

negative are excluded from estimates of worst case needs,

although they are included in counts of total households.

If such households pay rents greater than the Fair Market

Housing Assistance Status

Rent and report zero or negative incomes, then their income

In 1997, the AHS questions intended to identify households

situation is presumably temporary, and so they are included

receiving rental assistance were changed in both

and higher incomes are imputed to them.

content and order from those used previously. After

careful review, HUD and the Census Bureau adopted the

Household and Family Types

fol owing procedure to identify assisted households in a

way that produces results that are more comparable with

In this report, the terms family and household are not pre-1997 data. Those questions were further refined in

interchangeable because not all households are families.

2007, as a result of additional cognitive research. In this

Families refers only to a subset of households that have one

report, therefore, receipt of rental assistance is based on

or more people in the household related to the householder

respondent reports designed to determine the fol owing:

(the first household member age 18 years or older who is

listed as an owner or renter of the housing unit) by birth,

- Whether the household must recertify to determine the

marriage, or adoption.

rent it pays.

Families with children. Households with a child younger

- Whether the rent is less because of a federal, state, or

than age 18 present are presumed to meet the definition

local government housing program.

of family through relation by birth or adoption (including

grandparents as parents).

- Whether the household has a housing voucher and, if

so, whether it can be used to move to another location.

80

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX E. DATA AND METHODOLOGY

- Whether the housing authority is the household’s

A unit has moderate inadequacies if it has any of the

landlord.

fol owing four problems but none of the severe problems

listed previously.

An alternative approach of identifying HUD-assisted

households using an administrative data match is not used

1. Plumbing. Having all toilets break down simultaneously

to determine housing assistance status for the purposes of

at least three times in the past 3 months for at least 3

this report because such an approach excludes assistance

hours each time.

received from other federal, state, or local agencies.

2. Heating. Having unvented gas, oil, or kerosene heaters

Housing Problems

as the main source of heat (because those heaters

may produce unsafe fumes and unhealthy levels of

Rent or cost burden. A ratio of housing costs (including

moisture).

utilities) to household income that exceeds 30 percent, which

3. Upkeep. Having any three of the six upkeep problems

is a conventional standard for housing affordability. To the

associated with severe inadequacies.

extent that respondents underreport total income, the AHS

estimates may overcount the number of households with

4. Kitchen. Lacking a sink, range, or refrigerator for the

a cost burden. A severe cost burden exceeds 50 percent

exclusive use of the unit.

of reported income. A moderate cost burden exceeds 30

percent but is less than or equal to 50 percent of reported

Overcrowding. The condition of having more than one

income. Cost burdens qualify as potential worst case needs

person per room in a residence. Overcrowding is counted

only if they are severe. Households reporting zero or negative

as a moderate problem rather than a severe problem that

income are defined as having no cost burden.

constitutes a potential worst case need.

Inadequate housing. Housing with severe or moderate

“Priority” problems. Problems qualifying for federal

physical problems, as defined in the AHS since 1984

preference in admission to assisted housing programs

and modified from time to time to reflect changes in the

between 1988 and 1996, including paying more than one-

survey. Severe inadequacies constitute potential worst

half of income for rent (severe rent burden), living in severely

case needs, but moderate inadequacies do not. The 2007

substandard housing (including being homeless or in a

AHS eliminated the questions about hallways (common

homeless shelter), or being involuntarily displaced. These

stairways and light fixtures) in multiunit structures in the

problems informed the original definition of worst case needs.

section on selected physical problems, which affects the

Because the AHS sample tracks housing units and thus

classification of units having severe or moderate physical

cannot count homeless people, AHS estimates of priority

problems. Briefly, a unit is defined as having severe

problems are limited to the two severe problems described

physical inadequacies if it has any one of the fol owing four

previously: (1) rent burdens greater than 50 percent of income

problems.

or (2) severe physical problems. In accordance with the

intention to estimate the number of unassisted very low-income

1. Plumbing. Lacking piped hot water or a flush toilet or

renters with priority problems, the tables in appendix A classify

lacking both bathtub and shower, all for the exclusive

households with a combination of moderate problems and

use of the unit.

severe problems as having severe problems.

2. Heating. Having been uncomfortably cold during the past

winter for 24 hours or more, or three times for at least 6

Income Measurement

hours each, because of broken-down heating equipment.

Income sources. Income means gross income reported

3. Electrical. Having no electricity or having all of the

by AHS respondents for the 12 months preceding the

fol owing three electrical problems: exposed wiring, a

interview. For each person in the household, the AHS

room with no working wall outlet, and three or more blown

questionnaire collects the amounts of several different types

fuses or tripped circuit breakers in the past 90 days.

of income. Income includes amounts reported for wage and

salary income, net self-employment income, Social Security

4. Upkeep. Having any five of the fol owing six

or railroad retirement income, public assistance or welfare

maintenance problems: leaks from outdoors, leaks from

payments, and all other money income before deductions

indoors, holes in the floor, holes or open cracks in the

for taxes or any other purpose. Imputed income from equity

walls or ceilings, more than 1 square foot of peeling

is not included as income in this report. In accordance

paint or plaster, and rats in the past 90 days.

with HUD rules for determining income eligibility for HUD

programs, the earnings of teenagers age 17 and younger

are not counted as income for this report.

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

81

APPENDIX E. DATA AND METHODOLOGY

Household income. Reported income from all sources for

and uncrowded housing. The justification for imputing

all household members age 18 and older.

higher incomes is that many households in this situation live

in housing with amenities such as dining rooms, balconies,

Income Categories

and off-street parking and thus may be reporting temporary

accounting losses.

HAMFI and official income limits. HUD is required by law

to set income limits each year that determine the eligibility

- Extremely low income (ELI). Income not in excess of 30

of applicants for assisted housing programs. In 1974,

percent of HAMFI, as determined by the extremely low-

Congress defined low income and very low income for

income cutoff.

HUD rental programs as incomes not exceeding 80 and 50

percent, respectively, of HAMFI. HAMFI is more commonly

- Very low income (VLI). Income not in excess of 50

referred to as area median income (AMI), although the latter

percent of HAMFI, as determined by the very low-income

term may be subject to misinterpretation. Note that income

cutoff. Very low income thus includes extremely low

limits are based on median family income (MFI), not on

income, although the term sometimes is used loosely in

median household income. HUD determines base income

specific contexts, such as mismatch analysis, to mean

limits for a household of four. Income limits are further

incomes of between 30 and 50 percent of HAMFI.

adjusted by household size: one person, 70 percent of

- Low income. Reported income not in excess of 80

base; two people, 80 percent; three people, 90 percent; five

percent of HAMFI, as determined by the low-income

people, 108 percent; six people, 116 percent; and so on.

cutoff.

Each household is assigned to an income category using

the income limit appropriate to its area and the number of

- Middle income. For this report, income exceeding 80

household members.57

percent and less than 120 percent of HAMFI.

Income cutoffs in association with AHS geography. The

- Upper income. For this report, income exceeding 120

Census Bureau matches AHS survey addresses with HUD

percent of HAMFI.

income limit geography and assigns the appropriate income

limits to each case, making the appropriate adjustments for

HUD allows some jurisdictions exceptions in the definition

household size.

of the ELI and VLI cutoffs. Those exceptions are intended

to prevent loss of benefits to assisted households caused

Because developing estimates of official income limits for

by improvement in local economic conditions. Thus, the

the geography identified in the AHS microdata was time

official income limits for ELI and VLI are in some cases

consuming, before the 2003 AHS release, HUD prepared

set above 30 or 50 percent of HAMFI, respectively. The

income limits to use with AHS geography for only 3

AHS (and thus this report) uses those official income

years: 1978, 1986, and 1995. Income cutoffs for the 2003

limits in al its measures.

AHS release and each subsequent dataset have been

based on HUD’s current income limits for those years,

- Poor. Household income of less than the U.S. national

weighted by AHS weights. The Census Bureau included

poverty cutoff for that household size. As discussed in

those cutoffs to the AHS public use file through 2013. To

appendix A of the Census Bureau’s AHS publications,

protect respondent confidentiality, income limit variables

AHS poverty estimates differ from official poverty

were restricted to the AHS internal use file (IUF) in 2015.

estimates made from the Current Population Survey. AHS

Additional detail about income limits can be found in the

poverty estimates are based on the income of households

housing costs-affordability section of the AHS Codebook

rather than the income of families or individuals, and

interactive tool (Census-HUD, 2019).

AHS income questions are much less detailed and refer

to income during the past 12 months rather than during

Categorizing households by income. For this report,

a fixed period. The poverty cutoff for a family of four

when households are categorized using the extremely low-,

approximates 33 percent of HAMFI. Comparisons of

very low-, and low-income cutoffs, the cutoffs are adjusted

income limits with poverty thresholds are presented in

for household size using the same adjustment factors that

appendix tables A-6A, A-6B, A-7, and A-8.

HUD programs use.

- Earnings at minimum wage. Households with incomes

In addition, households reporting negative income are

from salary or wages totaling at least as much as one

attributed incomes of slightly more than AMI if their monthly

could earn working ful -time (40 hours per week for 50

housing costs exceed the FMR and they lived in adequate

weeks per year) at the federal minimum wage of $7.25

57 For details about how HUD sets income limits, see http://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html.

82

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX E. DATA AND METHODOLOGY

per hour are defined as having at least ful -time earnings

low income) on the basis of incomes that are sufficient

at minimum wage. Thus, the sum of salary and wage

for the rents: at or less than 30 percent of HAMFI, more

income earned by all persons in the household totals at

than 30 percent and not more than 50 percent of HAMFI,

least $14,500 annually. Households with incomes from

and more than 50 percent of HAMFI. Units are assigned

salary or wages totaling at least one-half that amount

to affordability categories by comparing their gross rent,

($7,250 annually) are defined as having at least half-time

including payments for utilities, with affordability thresholds

earnings at minimum wage. Comparisons of household

calculated as 30 percent of the income cutoffs for the

earnings characteristics are presented in tables A-6A,

corresponding income group. Units with gross rents above

A-6B, A-7, and A-8.

those thresholds are not affordable because they would

cause moderate or severe cost burdens even for the highest

Location

income renters of the income group. Unit affordability thus

depends on the percent of HAMFI needed to afford the

Metropolitan Statistical Area. From 1973 to 1983,

highest rent in each income category (ELI, VLI, and so

the definitions of metropolitan location in AHS data

on). For example, to be affordable to ELI renters, a unit’s

corresponded to the 243 Standard Metropolitan Statistical

gross rent would have to be 30 percent or less (affordability

Areas used in the 1970 census. From 1984 to 2013,

threshold) of 30 percent of HAMFI (ELI threshold). The

metropolitan location in the AHS has referred to the

method of assigning units to cost categories was modified

Metropolitan Statistical Areas defined in 1983, based on the

in 2017 to account for limited HUD administrative exceptions

1980 census. The 2015 AHS redesign that selected a new

to program income limits.

national and metropolitan area longitudinal sample for the

first time since 1985 brought metropolitan area definitions

The income limits used to define rent affordability are

up-to-date with the most current Office of Management

adjusted for number of bedrooms using the formula codified

and Budget (OMB) delineations based on the 2010 census,

at 26 U.S.C. 42(g)(2)(C): no bedrooms, 70 percent of base;

which, at the time the 2015 AHS sample design took place,

one bedroom, 75 percent; two bedrooms, 90 percent; three

was February 2013.58 These areas are now termed Core-

bedrooms, 104 percent; four bedrooms, 116 percent; and

Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs).

plus 12 percent of base for every additional bedroom. This

formula assumes that an efficiency unit houses one person,

Region. The four census regions are the Northeast,

a one-bedroom unit houses 1.5 people, and each additional

Midwest, South, and West.

bedroom houses another 1.5 people.

Mismatch of Supply and

Three measures of affordability. HUD uses three

measures to analyze the supply of the rental housing stock

Demand for Affordable Rental in relation to the number of renters with household incomes below specified thresholds: affordable units per 100

Housing

renters; affordable and available units per 100 renters; and

affordable, available, and adequate units per 100 renters.

Mismatch. The discrepancy between the number of rental

units needed by renters of various income categories and

Categorizing rental units by affordability and

the number provided by the market that are affordable

households by income. To analyze the mismatch between

at those income levels based on the three measures

affordability and income, HUD compares household

described below.

incomes and housing unit rents with the current income

limits (for income and rent categories up to and including 80

Affordability. Several federal rental programs define

percent of HAMFI) and to a ratio of HAMFI (for categories

affordable rents as those requiring not more than 30

exceeding 80 percent of HAMFI). As in the analysis of

percent of an income cutoff defined in relation to HAMFI.

household income, households reporting negative income

Under the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program

are redefined as having incomes slightly greater than MFI

(LIHTC), for example, housing units with rents up to 30

if their monthly housing costs were more than the FMR

percent of 60 percent of HAMFI qualify as affordable and

and they lived in adequate and uncrowded housing. Units

eligible for the credit.

with “no cash rent” reported are categorized solely on the

basis of utility costs. Utility costs are allocated to vacant

This report generalizes the approach developed to

units through hot-deck imputation based on units that are

define LIHTC maximum rents for units of different sizes

comparable on the basis of cost, number of units in the

to define three categories of affordability (ELI, VLI, and

structure, region, and tenure.

58 For more detailed information on 2015 AHS metropolitan areas, see https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/bulletins/2013/b13-01.pdf.

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

83

APPENDIX E. DATA AND METHODOLOGY

Race and Ethnicity

In 2003, the AHS began using revised Census Bureau

categories of race and ethnicity that are not directly

comparable with the categories used in the AHS from 2001

and earlier. Survey respondents may now select more than

one racial group, causing slight but meaningful decreases

in the size of previously monolithic categories.

The 2017 AHS supports producing estimates of worst

case housing needs for more detailed race and ethnicity

categories than were included in previous reports. In

addition to non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, and

Hispanic renters, households experiencing worst case

housing needs previously enumerated in an “other” race

category are now reported for Asian, American Indian or

Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander

renters in exhibit 1-7.

84

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX F. LITERATURE CITED

F Literature Cited

Divringi, Eileen, Eliza Wallace, Keith Wardrip, and Elizabeth Nash. 2019.

Measuring and Understanding Home Repair Costs: A National

Typology of Households. Philadelphia, PA: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. https:/ philadelphiafed.org/-/media/community-

development/publications/special-reports/home-repair-costs-national-

report.pdf.

Econometrica. 2016. American Housing Survey Components of Inventory Appendix

Change: 2011–2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing

and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

https:/ www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cinch/cinch13/cinch11-13.pdf.

Joint Center for Housing Studies (JCHS) of Harvard University. 2006. The State of the Nation’s Housing: 2006. Cambridge, MA: JCHS of Harvard University. http:/ www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/

son2006.pdf.

———. 2016. The State of the Nation’s Housing: 2016. Cambridge, MA: JCHS

of Harvard University. http:/ www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.

edu/files/jchs_2016_state_of_the_nations_housing_lowres.pdf.

———. 2019. The State of the Nation’s Housing: 2019. Cambridge, MA: JCHS

of Harvard University. https:/ www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/

Harvard_JCHS_State_of_the_Nations_Housing_2019.pdf.

National Center for Education Statistics. 2019. Digest of Education Statistics 2018. Table 105.30, “Enrol ment in Elementary, Secondary, and

Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions, by Level and Control of

Institution: Selected Years, 1869-70 Through Fall 2028.” https://nces.

ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_105.30.asp.

Nisar, Hiren, Mallory Vachon, Charles Horseman, and Jim Murdoch.

2019. Market Predictors of Homelessness: How Housing and

Community Factors Shape Homelessness Rates Within Continuums

of Care. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. https://

www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/Market-Predictors-of-

Homelessness.pdf.

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

85

APPENDIX F.

LITERATURE CITED

U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Department of Housing

Wallace, Eliza, Eileen Divringi, and Keith Wardrip. 2019.

and Urban Development (Census-HUD). 2013.

“A New Cost-Based Index of Housing Quality and

“Appendix B. 2013 AHS National Sample Design

Repair Needs.” Cityscape 21(3): 299–309.

and Weighting.” In American Housing Survey for

the United States: 2013. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau.

https:/ www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/

tech-documentation/def-errors-changes.2013.html.

———. 2017. 2015 AHS Integrated National Sample:

Sample Design, Weighting, and Error Estimation.

Washington, DC: Department of Commerce, U.S.

Census Bureau and HUD. https:/ www.census.gov/

programs-surveys/ahs/tech-documentation/def-

errors-changes.html.

———. 2019. AHS Codebook. Interactive Tool. Washington,

DC: U.S. Census Bureau. https:/ www.census.gov/

data-tools/demo/codebook/ahs/ahsdict.html.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD). 2018. Programs of HUD: Major Mortgage,

Grant, Assistance, and Regulatory Programs: 2018.

Washington, DC: HUD. https:/ www.huduser.gov/

portal/publications/programs-of-hud.html.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,

Office of Community Planning and Development

(HUD-CPD). 2017. The 2017 Annual Homeless

Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress: Part

1: Point-in-Time Estimates of Homelessness.

Washington, DC: HUD-CPD. https:/ files.

hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2017-

AHAR-Part-1.pdf.

———. 2018. The 2018 Annual Homeless Assessment

Report (AHAR) to Congress: Part 1: Point-in-Time

Estimates of Homelessness. Washington, DC: HUD-

CPD.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,

Office of Policy Development and Research (HUD-

PD&R). 2008. Housing Needs of Persons With

Disabilities: Supplemental Findings to the Affordable

Housing Needs 2005 Report. Washington, DC:

HUD-PD&R. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/

publications/affhsg/affhsgneedsdis.html.

———. 2010. “Report to Congress on the Root Causes

of the Foreclosure Crisis.” Washington, DC: HUD-

PD&R. https:/ www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/

hsgfin/foreclosure_09.html.

———. 2019. “3rd Quarter 2019 National Housing Market

Summary.” https:/ www.huduser.gov/portal/ushmc/

quarterly_commentary.html.

86

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2019 REPORT TO CONGRESS

87

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Washington, DC 20410-6000

June 2020

Document Outline

- Foreword

- Contents

- Executive Summary

- Section 1

- Section 2

- Section 3

- Appendix A

- Appendix B

- Appendix C

- Appendix D

- Appendix E

- Appendix F

Table of Contents

Foreword

Contents

Executive Summary

Section 1

Section 2

Section 3

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F