WORST CASE

HOUSING NEEDS

2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

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

2017 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

August 2017

PREFACE

PREFACE

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is pleased to

transmit to the U.S. Congress this 2017 report on Worst Case Housing Needs.

This report—the 16th in a longstanding series—provides national data and

analysis of the critical problems facing low-income renting families. The report

draws on data from the American Housing Survey (AHS), which is funded by HUD

and conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. The AHS has been conducted every

2 years since 1973 and debuted a major redesign in 2015 that included a new

national and metropolitan area longitudinal sample. The AHS is a key source of

national data on housing markets, conditions, and dynamics.

Despite continued signs of a strengthening national economy, the report finds

that severe housing problems are on the rise. In 2015, 8.30 mil ion households

had worst case needs, up from 7.72 mil ion in 2013 and approaching the record

high of 8.48 mil ion in 2011. These households are defined as very low-income

renters who do not receive government housing assistance and who paid more

than one-half of their income for rent, lived in severely inadequate conditions,

or both. High rents in proportion to renter incomes remain dominant among

households with worst case needs, leaving these renters with substantial, unmet

need for affordable housing.

The modest reduction in worst case needs observed in 2013 was not sustained

and worst case needs continued their upward trend. Specifical y, severe housing

problems have grown 41 percent since the beginning of the Great Recession

in 2007 and 66 percent since 2001. Worst case needs continue to affect all

subgroups, whether defined by race and ethnicity, household structure, or location within metropolitan areas or regions.

Contributing most to the increase in worst case needs between 2013 and 2015

was a notable shift from homeownership to renting. The magnitude of this

sustained postrecession trend, along with other demographic factors, increased

the number of very low-income renters and thereby played a major role in growing

worst case needs between 2013 and 2015. Modest gains in household incomes

were met with rising rents, shrinking the supply of affordable rental housing stock in an increasingly competitive market. Even with the supply of more expensive units growing, higher-income renters occupy a growing share—43 percent—of the most

affordable units. Only 62 affordable units are available per 100 very low-income

renters, and only 38 units are available per 100 extremely low-income renters.

This report also uses new AHS enhancements to explore the variation in worst

case needs and the distribution of housing assistance across a greater variety of market geographies. These data show that, although 43.2 percent of very low-income renters had worst case needs national y, local markets reflect a substantial degree of variation beyond the longstanding trends observed across regions and

types of metropolitan locations.

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

CONTENTS

CONTENTS WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS

2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

Executive Summary ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ix

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

Extent of Worst Case Needs in 2015 .................................................................. 1

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

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

Increase in Worst Case Needs ........................................................................ 4

Demographics of Worst Case Needs ................................................................. 4

Worst Case Needs by Race and Ethnicity ....................................................... 5

Worst Case Needs by Household Type ........................................................... 5

Summary ............................................................................................................ 7

Section 2� Shortage of Affordable Housing ���������������������������������������������������� 9

Geography of Worst Case Needs ....................................................................... 9

Worst Case Needs and Housing Assistance by Region and

Metropolitan Location .............................................................................. 10

Variation in Worst Case Needs Across Local Markets ................................... 11

Factors Limiting Access to Affordable Rental Housing ..................................... 13

How the Market Al ocates Affordable Housing on a National Basis ............... 13

Affordability, Availability, and Adequacy of the National Rental Stock ............ 14

Rental Stock by Income ................................................................................ 15

Geography of Supply ........................................................................................ 16

Rental Stock by Region ................................................................................. 16

Summary .......................................................................................................... 17

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

v

CONTENTS

Section 3� Understanding the Trend in Worst Case Needs������������������������� 19

Changes in Affordable Housing Demand .......................................................... 19

Affordable Housing Supply and Demand .......................................................... 21

Concluding Summary ....................................................................................... 23

Appendix A� Detailed Data on Housing Problems and Supply of

Affordable Housing ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������25

Appendix B� Supplemental Exhibits ���������������������������������������������������������������65

Appendix C� Federal Housing Assistance and Affordable Housing

Programs ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 67

Appendix D� Previous Reports to Congress on Worst Case Needs ����������69

Appendix E� Data and Methodology �������������������������������������������������������������� 71

Literature Cited ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 77

vi

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

vii

viii

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE  WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS

SUMMARY 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

During the 2013-to-2015 period, worst case needs for housing assistance

persisted at high levels across demographic groups, household types, and

regions. Worst case needs are defined as renters with very low incomes—

no more than 50 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI) —who do not

receive government housing assistance and who pay more than one-half of

their income for rent, live in severely inadequate conditions, or both.  Worst Case Housing Needs: 2017 Report to Congress examines the causes

of and trends in worst case needs, using the most recent data from the

American Housing Survey (AHS).1

Substantial unmet needs for affordable rental housing remain even as incomes

are improving. The unmet need for decent, safe, and affordable rental housing

continues to outpace the ability of federal, state, and local governments to

supply housing assistance and facilitate affordable housing production.

1  This Executive Summary and report are based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s March 2017 release of the 2015 AHS. Estimates may differ slightly from those of the  Preview of 2015 Worst Case Housing Needs published in January 2017 using preliminary AHS data.

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Worst Case Needs Have Increased

disabilities. These 1.4 mil ion households remain 6 percent

above the 2011 estimate.

The number of renter households with worst case needs

increased to 8.3 mil ion in 2015, up from 7.7 mil ion in 2013

Worst Case Needs Result

and slightly less than the record high of 8.5 mil ion in 2011 (see

exhibit ES-1). The number of worst case needs in 2015 was 8

From a Shortage of Affordable

percent higher than in 2013, offsetting much of the 9-percent

Rental Housing

decrease observed during the 2011-to-2013 period and

marking a 10-year growth rate of 39 percent.

Most cases of worst case needs are caused by severe

rent burdens—paying more than one-half of income for

The likelihood that a very low-income renter household had

rent. Inadequate housing caused only 2 percent of worst

worst case needs increased from 42 percent in 2013 to 43

case needs.

percent in 2015, approaching the record rate of 44 percent

observed in 2011. The increase in worst case needs between

An increase by 700,000 in the number of very low-income

2013 and 2015 reflects both a larger population of susceptible

renters who lack housing assistance—the group at risk of

very low-income renters and a higher prevalence of severe

experiencing worst case needs—explains about 402,000 of

housing problems among that population. The data suggest

the 582,000 new cases of worst case needs between 2013

that the nation’s ongoing economic recovery is continuing to

and 2015. Four demographic factors, shown in the first four

have some beneficial effects on the incomes of very low-

columns of exhibit ES-2, affected the size of this at-risk group.

income renters, but growing competition for a limited supply

Contributing most to the increase in worst case needs was a

of affordable units, a rising population of renter households

notable shift from homeownership to renting, which surpassed

and a declining population of homeowners, a widening rental

even the marked tenure shift trends observed during the

assistance gap, and rising rents continue to drive severe

recessionary period. Also contributing to the increase in worst

housing problems among this vulnerable population.

case needs were a modest level of household formation and a

widening gap in rental assistance relative to need. A fourth

Worst Case Needs Increased

factor, renter income increases, raised some renters out of the

very low-income population, partial y offsetting other

Across All Demographic Groups and

demographic factors that increased worst case needs in 2015.

Household Types

Although these demographic factors created a substantial net

The absolute number of households with worst case

increase in demand for affordable rental units by a growing

needs increased across all racial and ethnic groups. The

population of unassisted very low-income renters, inadequate

prevalence of worst case needs during 2015 was 47 percent

market responses to the increased demand account for an

for Hispanic renters, 45 percent for non-Hispanic White

renters, 37 percent for non-Hispanic Black renters, and 41

percent for others. The share of very low-income renters

experiencing worst case needs increased between 2013

and 2015 for non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, and

Hispanic renters but not for others.

Worst case needs also increased among all types of

households. In 2015, 2.9 mil ion families with children, 1.9

mil ion elderly households without children, 2.8 mil ion

“other nonfamily” households (mostly single individuals),

and 0.8 mil ion “other family” households experienced

worst case needs.

The proportion of very low-income renters with worst case

needs also increased among al  household types in 2015,

ranging somewhat narrowly from a high of 47 percent

for other nonfamily and other family households to 42

percent for families with children and 40 percent for elderly

households without children.

About one in six renter households with worst case

needs—17 percent—included a nonelderly person with

x

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

additional 180,000 cases of worst case needs, as shown in

for renters overall than for poorer renters. Further, median

the fifth column of exhibit ES-2. This market-driven increase in

monthly housing costs for renters increased by nearly 9

worst case needs resulted from increased competition for a

percent, a notable jump from costs that had remained

shrinking supply of affordable rental units.

relatively flat between 2011 and 2013. For the poorest

renters, growing housing costs outpaced income gains,

If the supply of rental units were unchanged, greater demand

failing to relax typical housing cost burdens for those most

would increase competition for affordable units, drive up rents,

vulnerable to worst case needs.

and increase prevalence of worst case needs. Although the

total supply of rental units—including conversions of owner-

Conclusion

occupied properties to rentals—increased by nearly 4.7 mil ion,

or more than 10 percent, between 2013 and 2015, renter

Worst case housing needs are a national problem. Such severe

households expanded by 3.6 mil ion, or 9 percent. As a result,

housing problems have expanded dramatical y during the past

new renters absorbed much of the net increase of rental units,

decade and were exacerbated by the economic recession and

keeping overall rental vacancy rates under 10 percent. Among

associated col apse of the housing market, which reduced

units affordable to renters with extremely low incomes (0 to

homeownership through foreclosures and tight lending and

30 percent of AMI), the rental market was much tighter, with a

increased demand for renting. The slight improvements

vacancy rate of less than 4 percent.

observed since 2011 offer cause for hope, but the failure

to sustain the more promising trends observed in 2013 is

For a growing population of very low-income renters, the

sobering. Recognizing that AHS sampling and design changes

expanding supply of rental units in 2015 failed to translate into

in 2015 increase opportunities for spurious conclusions, the

increased availability of affordable housing (see exhibit ES-3).

latest resumption of worsening housing problems among the

Unlike more expensive units, the stock of rental housing

nation’s very low-income renters is attributable primarily to

affordable to very low-income renters shrank between 2013

demographic and economic factors—especial y a notable

and 2015, and vacancy rates remained highest among the

shift from homeownership to renting—that grew the number of

most expensive units. For renters with extremely low

households susceptible to worst case needs. Uneven housing

incomes, the ratio of affordable and available units decreased

market responses that increased the proportion of unassisted

by 1 from 2013 levels to 38 units per 100 renters. For very

very low-income renters with severe rent burdens played a

low-income renters, the availability ratio decreased by 3, to

secondary yet substantial role.

62 units per 100 renters.

Even with rental assistance, 6 of 10 extremely low-income

This uneven pattern in supply growth was mimicked in

renters and 4 of 10 very low-income renters do not have

renter income changes, with incomes growing more sharply

access to affordable and available housing units. Among very

low-income renters in 2015, only 25 percent of households had

rental assistance and an additional 43 percent had worst case

needs for assisted or other affordable housing. In other words,

only a small share of very low-income renters—32 percent—

avoided severe housing problems in the unassisted private

rental market in 2015. A broad strategy at the federal, state,

and local levels is needed to continue to rebuild the economy,

strengthen and realign markets, and provide assistance to

those families most in need.

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

xi

xii

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 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) periodical y reports on the severity of worst case needs for affordable rental housing, as col ected in the biennial American Housing Survey (AHS). This report is the 16th in the series of core reports.2

Extent of Worst Case Needs in 2015

HUD examined the 2015 AHS data to understand the evolving dimensions of a

Section

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 2015, 8.30 mil ion renters3 had worst case needs (see exhibit 1-1). These

renters have very low incomes,4 lack housing assistance, and have either

severe rent burdens or severely inadequate housing (or both).

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

3  That is, renter households.

4   Very low income and  extremely low income refer throughout this report to the income levels of renters. Very low incomes are those incomes of no more than 50 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI), and extremely low incomes 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 AMI was $66,700 in 2015. Median very low-income and extremely low-income levels were $28,400 and $17,050 per year, respectively.

All these income levels are for a family of four. Thresholds defining extremely low-income and very low-income families can be 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 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

1

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND NATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS

- Between 2013 and 2015, the number of worst case

needs increased by 7.5 percent fol owing an 8.9-percent

decrease observed during the 2011-to-2013 period. With

WHICH HOUSEHOLDS CAN HAVE WORST

CASE NEEDS?

this latest resumption of worsening housing problems,

the number of worst case needs has increased by 40.6

By definition, households that can have worst case

percent since 2007, when the recession began, and by

needs are households that—

65.6 percent since 2001.

•  Are renters.

•  Have  very low incomes; that is, incomes of no

- Consistent with long-term trends, the primary problem

more than 50 percent of the Area Median Income

for worst case needs renters in 2015 was  severe rent

(as adjusted for family size).

burden—insufficient tenant incomes relative to rents.

•  Do not receive housing assistance.

Among al  renter households, a 9.3-percent increase in

median incomes between 2013 and 2015 was consumed,

in part, by an 8.5-percent increase in median housing

costs for renters. Severely inadequate housing accounted

PRIORITY PROBLEMS TRIGGER WORST

for only 1.8 percent of worst case needs.

CASE NEEDS

Two types of priority problems determine whether

- The most recent increase in worst case needs5 differed

households have worst case needs.

somewhat in cause and effect from the recession-driven

increases observed from 2007 through 2011. During

1.  Severe rent burden means a renter household is

that period, the combination of mortgage foreclosures,

paying more than one-half of its income for gross

widespread unemployment, and shrinking renter incomes

rent (rent and utilities).

resulted in historic increases in the number of very

2.  Severely inadequate housing refers to units

low-income renters with worst case needs: 2.57 mil ion

having one or more serious physical problems

households or 43.5 percent. In contrast, post-recession

related to heating, plumbing, and electrical

gains in renter incomes played a mitigating role in the

systems or maintenance. (Problems are listed

more modest 7.5-percent increase in worst case needs

in appendix E.)

observed during the 2013-to-2015 period.

- In 2015, the United States had 19.24 mil ion very low-

-  Housing assistance prevents mil ions of renters from

income renters, a 4.0-percent increase from 2013 levels

experiencing worst case needs, but the shortfall of

that reversed the 4.0-percent reduction seen in the 2011-

housing assistance relative to need grew more severe

to-2013 period. In 2015, 43.2 percent of very low-income

between 2013 and 2015. In absolute terms, the number

renters and 51.6 percent of extremely low-income renters

of assisted renters increased slightly, by 0.5 percent,

had worst case needs.

but increasingly fel  behind the growing need among

very low-income renters. The share of very low-income

- Worst case needs also increased slightly as a proportion

renters receiving housing assistance fell by 0.8 points

of U.S. households during the most recent 2-year period,

between 2013 and 2015.

from 6.7 percent in 2013 to 7.0 percent in 2015.

- An important dimension of the affordable housing gap

is that affordable units are not necessarily available

to the renters who need them most; higher income

renters occupy substantial shares of units that would be

affordable to the lowest-income renters.

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

extent and the demographic characteristics of worst case

needs—which households have such needs and what are

their situations.

5  The Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University reported that the American Community Survey (ACS) recorded a smal er decline in severely cost-burdened renters than the AHS between 2011 and 2013 and observed that the broader definition of occupancy used by the ACS general y records about 2 mil ion more renter households, of which some are homeowners residing in seasonal rental units. See http://housingperspectives.blogspot.com/2016/06/are-renter-worst-

case-housing-needs.html.

2

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND NATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS

WHAT IS A TYPICAL WORST CASE

NEEDS HOUSEHOLD?

The typical renter with worst case housing needs6 is a

family with two children, most often a minority family

headed by either a single female or a married couple.

The family resides in adequate or good-quality

housing in a central city of a southern metropolitan

area. Earnings are the family’s primary source of

income, yet their low wages place them below

the poverty line and in the extremely low-income

category. Their rent plus utilities consume most, if not

al , of their extremely low reported income, costing

more than $1,000 per month on average. They meet

other needs with food stamps from the Supplemental

Nutrition Assistance Program, Medicaid, gifts from

friends and relatives, and Earned Income Tax Credits.

Inadequate Housing and Inadequate Income

Of the two types of priority problems that make up worst case

needs, severe rent burden is, by far, the more frequent problem.

As exhibit 1-2 il ustrates, 98.2 percent of all worst case needs

PROGRESS IN REDUCING HOMELESSNESS

renters, or 8.15 mil ion households, had severe rent burdens in

Homeless individuals and families clearly have the

2015. Paying one-half of a limited total income for rent leaves

greatest need for affordable or assisted housing.

very little income for other essentials, such as food, medical

Homeless people, however, are not included in official

care, transportation expenses, education, and childcare.

estimates of worst case needs because the American

Housing Survey (AHS) covers only housing units

Severely inadequate housing alone made up only 1.8 percent

and the households that live in them, and persons

of worst case needs in 2015. A total of 4.4 percent of worst

experiencing homelessness, by definition, do not live

case renters (364,000) had severely inadequate housing, either

in a housing unit and are not surveyed by the AHS.9

alone or in combination with severe rent burdens.

In the most recent  Annual Homeless Assessment

That severely inadequate housing causes such a small fraction

Report to Congress, HUD estimated that 550,000

of worst case needs is the result of a decades-long trend of

sheltered and unsheltered homeless people were

improvements to the nation’s housing stock. More stringent

in the United States during a given night in January

building codes prevent the construction of units without

2016. Most of these, 68 percent, were staying in

complete plumbing or heating systems, and obsolete units are

residential programs for homeless people, and the

demolished each year.7 In addition, a portion of severe physical

remaining 32 percent were staying in unsheltered

inadequacies reported in the AHS likely results from or reflects

locations (HUD-CPD, 2016).

maintenance or upgrade activity occurring in occupied units.

Among all renters, 2.7 percent of those with very low incomes

Homelessness declined 3 percent between 2015

had severely inadequate housing in 2015, but so did 1.3 percent

and 2016 and has declined 15 percent since 2007.

of renters with higher incomes.8 Nevertheless, the housing stock

Chronic homelessness among individuals declined 35

is continual y aging, and severely inadequate units continue to

percent between 2007 and 2016.

pose threats to the life and health of thousands of renters.

6  See table A-7 for household characteristics of worst case needs renters. Table A-14 describes average income and housing cost characteristics.

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

8  Homeowners reported severely inadequate housing at even lower rates than renters—2.0 percent of very low-income homeowners and 0.7 percent of homeowners with higher incomes had severely inadequate housing. See table A-1B.

9  The AHS samples both occupied and vacant residential housing units but excludes places like group quarters or motels where homeless persons may be sheltered (HUD-Census, 2017a: 3–5).

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

3

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND NATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS

Prevalence of Worst Case Needs by Income

Worst case needs also increased slightly as a proportion of

U.S. households during the most recent 2-year period, from

Because most cases of worst case needs are triggered by

6.7 percent in 2013 to 7.0 percent in 2015.

severe rent burdens, the adequacy of household incomes

relative to rents of available units is crucial. Among the 19.24

Because the problem of worst case needs is primarily one of

mil ion very low-income renters in 2015, 43.2 percent had

a scarcity of units with affordable rents relative to the number

worst case needs (exhibit 1-3). The very low-income category

of renters with very low incomes, the balance of section 1

includes extremely low-income renters, who had an even greater

examines the demographics of the renters who have these

prevalence of worst case needs, 51.6 percent. Extremely low-

problems. Section 2 explores the dimensions of the inadequate

income households constituted the majority (58.7 percent) of

supply of affordable rental units, and section 3 summarizes

very low-income renters and represented an even larger share

and integrates supply and demand issues to shed light on the

(70.1 percent) of households with worst case needs.

root causes and shifting dimensions of this national problem.

Exhibit 1-3� Extremely Low-Income Renters Were

Demographics of Worst Case Needs

Most Vulnerable to Worst Case Needs in 2015

Worst case needs are an economic reality for many of

0–30%

>30–50%

Total

the nation’s very low-income renters. The severe housing

AMI

AMI

problems that trigger worst case needs are widespread

Number

11,290

7,945

19,235

for such households, yet notable variations exist among

(thousands)

subgroups of the population.

Number that

are worst case

Exhibit 1-5 shows population subgroups defined either on the

5,821

2,482

8,303

needs renters

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

(thousands)

household structure (blue markers). The position of the

Percent that

markers reflects each subgroup’s share of very low-income

are worst case

51.6

31.2

43.2

renters and the proportion of such renters experiencing worst

needs renters

case needs. As a share of very low-income renters, the

AMI = Area Median Income (HUD-adjusted)

subgroups span a range of 36.2 percentage points, but the

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

prevalence of worst case needs varied by only 10.0 points

Increase in Worst Case Needs

across al  subgroups.

Although worst case needs declined by 754,000 during the

2011-to-2013 period, they then increased by 582,000 (7.5

percent) by 2015, offsetting much of the previous improvement.

The increase in the most recent period contributes to the long-

term trend of increasing worst case needs, including growth

of 38.6 percent, or 2.31 mil ion households, during the 10-year

span of 2005 to 2015 (exhibit 1-4).

Exhibit 1-4� Growth in Worst Case Needs

Among All U�S� Households

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

All

households

108.90 110.72 111.86 115.08 116.03 118.29

(millions)

Renters

with worst

5.99

5.91

7.10

8.48

7.72

8.30

case needs

(millions)

Worst case

needs as

5.50

5.33

6.34

7.36

6.65

7.02

percent of all

households

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

4

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND NATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS

The larger and more-afflicted subgroups appear in the right

side of the exhibit and therefore account for the greatest

numbers of worst case households. Although Hispanic

households, like elderly and non-Hispanic Black households,

represented roughly one-fourth of very low-income renters in

2015, Hispanics were more likely to experience worst case

needs. Subgroups on the left side represent relatively few very

low-income renters but, in the case of families without children,

were overrepresented among those with worst case needs.

The variations in prevalence among subgroups, although

limited, may reflect different access to affordable or assisted

units resulting from differences in geographic distribution

and markets, household preferences, disabilities, or possibly

housing discrimination.

Worst Case Needs by Race and Ethnicity

Worst case needs were found across all types of communities,

racial groups, and ethnic lines. Both similarities and differences

emerged when examining the three largest racial and ethnic

groups—non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic.

During 2015, non-Hispanic White renters experienced the

greatest share of worst case needs (45.5 percent) fol owed by

Hispanic renters (25.3 percent), non-Hispanic Black renters (21.7

percent), and renters of other races and ethnicities (7.5 percent).

Together, the three largest race and ethnicity groups accounted

for 92.5 percent of worst case needs in 2015, and minority

Exhibit 1-6 also il ustrates how population change affects

households accounted for 54.5 percent of worst case needs.

the long-term growth of worst case needs. Between 2005

and 2015, worst case needs increased 38.6 percent overal

The share of worst case needs approximates the relative share

but increased only 21.9 percent for the largest subgroup of

of very low-income renters in each group, but not all groups

very low-income renters, non-Hispanic White households.

are proportional y represented among those renters with worst

Worst case needs expanded much more rapidly during

case needs. During 2015, worst case needs affected 44.6

these 10 years among minority subgroups—80.1 percent

percent of non-Hispanic White renters with very low incomes,

among Hispanic households, 34.7 percent among non-

somewhat less than the proportion of Hispanic renters (47.4

Hispanic Black households, and 59.2 percent among renters

percent). Prevalence was lower for non-Hispanic Black renters

of other races and ethnicities. Disproportionate increases

(37.4 percent), and other very low-income renters fell between,

in incidence of worst case needs among minority groups,

with 41.2 percent having worst case needs.

however, are explained more by greater expansion of very

low-income renter populations than by greater increases in

Exhibit 1-6 shows that all racial and ethnic groups experienced

the percentage of very low-income minority renters with worst

increases in worst case needs between 2013 and 2015. The

case needs. Between 2013 and 2015, the population of very

582,000 additional cases of worst case needs in 2015 reflected

low-income minority renters grew more rapidly than the 3.1

259,000 additional Hispanic households, 160,000 additional

percent growth observed among their non-Hispanic White

non-Hispanic White households, 143,000 additional non-

counterparts, with increases of 3.2, 6.1, and 5.5 percent

Hispanic Black households, and 20,000 additional households

observed among non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and other

among other very low-income renters.

minority renters, respectively.

In addition to absolute increases in numbers, the shares of

very low-income renters with worst case needs in the largest

Worst Case Needs by Household Type

racial and ethnic groups increased between 2013 and 2015, by

The composition of different households reflects variations in

0.6 points for non-Hispanic White renters, 1.9 points for non-

their stage of life, income and resources, and housing needs.

Hispanic Black renters, and 3.3 points for Hispanic renters.

Exhibit 1-7 shows that families with children constituted the

Prevalence rates decreased marginal y by 0.9 points for very

largest share of households experiencing worst case needs in

low-income renters of other races and ethnicities (despite the

2015—34.8 percent—followed by other nonfamily households

smal  absolute increase in number).

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

5

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND NATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS

(single adults and roommates)10 with 33.2 percent, elderly

Without housing assistance, substantial y more cases of worst

households without children (hereafter, elderly households) with

case needs would occur. Among very low-income renters with

22.3 percent, and other family households with 9.7 percent.

children, 1.73 mil ion reported having rental assistance in 2015

and, by definition, could not have worst case needs. Only one

in four very low-income renters with children received housing

assistance, which helps account for the fact that the greatest

Exhibit 1-7. Growth in Worst Case Needs Among

share of worst case needs occurred in such families.11

All Household Types, 2005–2015

Elderly Households� During 2015, 1.85 mil ion elderly12

9,000

2,969

2,758

renters had worst case needs, an increase of 382,000 since

8,000

587

2,676

621

2013. The proportion of elderly very low-income renters with

2,401

worst case needs was 39.8 percent in 2015, less than the rate

7,000

2,104

for families with children but representing a 2.6-point increase

2,053

2,157

6,000

since 2013. Poor elderly households that rely on fixed incomes

rather than wages may be less likely to benefit from economic

5,000

801

805

recovery trends that raised incomes for others in recent years.

741

4,000

633

324

352

Other Family Households� After considering families with

3,000

2,888

3,236

children and elderly households, other households can be

2,734

2,833

orst case needs (thousands)

2,324

2,187

divided into those that include multiple members of a given

W 2,000

3,778

family and those that do not. Other family households include

those such as married couples who are childless, one or more

1,000

1,853

1,291

1,209

1,328

1,470

1,471

parents with adult children at home, adult siblings sharing an

0

apartment, and householders boarding an elderly parent.13

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

Other family households constitute the smal est category

Other nonfamily

Other family

in exhibit 1-7, contributing 805,000 worst case households

Families with children

Elderly, no children

in 2015. The rate of worst case needs among very low-

income renters in this group was 46.6 percent, exceeding the

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

prevalence for families with children and elderly households.

The high rate of worst case needs among this group is also

growing rapidly, increasing by 3.5 points between 2013 and

Families With Children� The number of families with children

2015, more than for any other household type. Complex

having worst case needs increased by 55,000 during the 2013-

dynamics within this small diverse group are likely driving this

to-2015 period to 2.89 mil ion—partial y offsetting the 400,000

growth. Families might find themselves in this category as a

decrease observed in the previous 2 years. Worst case needs

result of economic distress. Such might be the case among

increased despite a reduction of 61,000 in the number of very

adult relatives who “double up” due to economic hardship

low-income renters with children. The increase is explained

when they would otherwise choose to live independently.

primarily by an increase in the share of very low-income renters

Nonelderly families without children may also be less likely

with children experiencing worst case needs by 1.2 points, to

to be prioritized among households competing for scarce

41.5 percent, as the percentage reporting housing assistance

housing assistance resources.14

decreased by 1.4 points, or 115,000 households, to 24.8 percent.

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. HUD continues to assess the use of administrative data matching procedures, which may better identify HUD-assisted households and exclude households assisted through state or local programs. 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.

13  Table A-6A reveals that 45.3 percent of other family households with very low incomes included a married couple, 56.4 percent had a female householder, and the mean household size was 2.48 persons.

14  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 the fact that only one-fourth of eligible households receive assistance, the scarcity of HCVP resources is further evidenced by long waiting lists. On average, eligible households waited 2.5 years before receiving a voucher in 2016. Public housing authorities have the discretion to establish local preferences for choosing which families 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.

6

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND NATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS

Other Nonfamily Households� About 5.90 mil ion very

low-income renters in 2015 were other nonfamily households,

making this category the second largest after families with

DISABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY IN THE

children. Unlike families with children, however, other nonfamily

AMERICAN HOUSING SURVEY

households increased in number from 2013 to 2015.

Since 2009, the American Housing Survey (AHS)

has collected information about the following types

Worst case needs affected 2.76 mil ion other nonfamily households

of disabilities—

in 2015, 82,000 more than in 2013. Worst case needs affect 46.8

percent of very low-income renters of this type, a 0.7-point increase

•  Deafness or serious difficulty hearing.

since 2013 and still the highest rate among the four household

•  Blindness or difficulty seeing, even when

categories. Most renters in this group are single individuals, and

wearing glasses.

the rest are unrelated people sharing a housing unit.15

•  Serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or

making decisions because of a physical, mental,

Trends by Household Type� Exhibit 1-7 also displays how the

or emotional condition.

changing distribution of household types relates to the growth of

•  Serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.

worst case needs. Between 2005 and 2015, the number of worst

•  Serious difficulty dressing or bathing.

case needs increased 38.6 percent. During this period, worst case

•  Difficulty doing errands alone because of a

needs increased among all household types. Worst case needs

physical, mental, or emotional condition.

expanded at a slower-than-average pace of 24.3 percent among

The 2015 AHS also included questions related to the

families with children and 34.3 percent among other nonfamily

wheelchair accessibility of housing units and home

households. Worst case needs grew more rapidly among elderly

modifications made to accommodate individuals with

households, 43.5 percent, and among other family households, 148.5

physical disabilities. As in 2011, future AHS surveys

percent, although this rapidly growing subgroup remains the smallest.

may periodical y include topical modules of questions

Households Including People With Disabilities� Having

related to housing accessibility features.

worst case needs can be especial y difficult for renter

households that include people with disabilities. Disabilities can

For further information, see demographics and

reduce employment options and create difficulties in finding

accessibility sections of the  AHS Codebook

suitable housing at reasonable cost.

Interactive Tool (HUD-Census, 2017b).

Beginning with the 2009 AHS, respondents were asked

directly whether household members have any of six types of

The share of worst case needs among very low-income renter

disabilities, including four basic functional limitations—visual,

households having nonelderly people with disabilities was 39.4

hearing, cognitive, and ambulatory—and two types of difficulties

percent in 2015, up from 38.7 percent in 2013. Prevalence

with activities of daily living—self-care and independent living.

ranged from 37.7 percent for other nonfamily households to

Ambulatory limitations (walking or climbing stairs) are the most

41.5 percent for families with children. The largest household

frequently occurring type of disability, affecting 49.2 percent of

categories, however, accounted for most cases of worst case

very low-income renter households that include a nonelderly

needs affecting people with disabilities—of those affected,

person with a disability. Cognitive limitations (serious difficulties

38.7 percent are families with children and 44.2 percent are

concentrating, remembering, or making decisions) are next

other nonfamily households.

in prevalence, affecting 46.3 percent of these households.16

People with disabilities are found among all four household types

Summary

discussed previously. As exhibit 1-8 shows, 3.53 mil ion very low-

income renter households, or 18.4 percent, include nonelderly

Worst case needs for affordable rental housing remain a serious

individuals17 reporting at least one of the six measures of disability.

national problem, having improved only slightly since reaching

Of the 8.30 mil ion renters with worst case needs in 2015, 1.39

peak levels in 2011. Of the 19.24 mil ion very low-income renters

mil ion, or 16.7 percent, included one or more nonelderly people

susceptible to severe rent burdens and severely inadequate

with disabilities. Worst case needs among such households

housing in 2015, 8.30 mil ion (43.2 percent) faced one or both

increased by 28.0 percent from 1.09 mil ion in 2013.

problems without housing assistance. Between 2013 and 2015,

15  Among very low-income nonfamily renter households, 81.1 percent were one-person households in 2015. 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.

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

17  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 1-8 demonstrates. Households headed by an elderly person with disabilities are not excluded if they also have a nonelderly person with disabilities.

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

7

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND NATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS

Exhibit 1-8� Worst Case Needs Were Common Among Nonelderly People With Disabilities Across All Household Types in 2015

Elderly

Families With

Households

Other Family

Other Nonfamily

Children

Without Children

Households

Households

Total

Very low-income renter

6,962

4,652

1,726

5,895

19,235

households (thousands)

Worst case needs (thousands)

2,888

1,853

805

2,758

8,303

Percent with worst case needs

41.5

39.8

46.6

46.8

43.2

Percent having nonelderly

18.6

3.3

26.2

27.6

18.4

people with disabilities

Very low-income renter

1,295

155

453

1,627

3,530

households having nonelderly

people with disabilities

(thousands)

Worst case needs (thousands)

538

61

177

614

1,390

Percent with worst case needs

41.5

39.4

39.1

37.7

39.4

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

the number of worst case needs increased by 7.5 percent,

percent of other nonfamily households. Families with children

fol owing an 8.9-percent decrease observed during the 2011-to-

account for the greatest share of worst case needs—34.8

2013 period. With this latest resumption of worsening housing

percent—fol owed by other nonfamily households (typical y

problems, the number of worst case needs has increased

one-person households) with 33.2 percent.

by 40.6 percent since 2007, when the recession began, and

by 65.6 percent (3.29 mil ion households) since 2001. The

Worst case needs affected 39.4 percent of very low-income

percentage of U.S. households with worst case needs was 7.0

renters reporting nonelderly people with disabilities in 2015,

percent in 2015 compared with 5.5 percent in 2005.

slightly less than the 43.2 percent prevalence among very low-

income renters overal . Households having nonelderly people

Severely inadequate housing continues to be a relatively minor

with disabilities accounted for 16.7 percent of worst case needs.

cause of worst case needs. In 2015, severely inadequate

housing alone triggered a mere 1.8 percent of worst case

Section 2 examines how the broad problem of worst case

needs, whereas 98.2 percent of worst case needs households

needs is caused by shortages of affordable housing and is

had severe rent burdens, including 2.6 percent that had both

mitigated by assisted housing in national and regional markets.

types of housing problems. Reflecting the importance of

severe rent burdens as a cause of worst case needs, more

than two out of three households with worst case needs (70.1

percent) had extremely low incomes during 2015.

Very low-income renters among all racial or ethnic groups and

al  household compositions examined experienced growth

in worst case needs. Since 2005, worst case needs have

expanded much more rapidly among minority very low-income

renters compared to their non-Hispanic White counterparts.

Ten-year growth rates of 80.1 percent among Hispanic renters,

34.7 percent among non-Hispanic Black renters, and 59.2

percent among renters of other races and ethnicities outpaced

21.9 percent growth among the largest group of very low-

income renters, non-Hispanic White households.

Among very low-income renters, worst case needs affected

41.5 percent of families with children, 39.8 percent of elderly

households, 46.6 percent of other family households, and 46.8

8

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 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 renters, especial y those with extremely low incomes, is inadequate. Nationwide, only 66 affordable units exist for every 100 extremely low-income renters. The presence of higher-income

renters in units that are affordable to extremely low-income renters worsens this shortage. Only 38 affordable units are available for occupancy for every 100 extremely low-income renters. A final blow is that a significant portion of the affordable and available stock is physical y inadequate and may pose threats to occupants. Only

one-half of affordable units, or 33 units, are both physical y adequate and available for occupancy for every 100 extremely low-income renters. The geography of worst case needs and housing assistance sets a foundation for understanding competition for

affordable rental housing and the shortages that result.

Section

Geography of Worst Case Needs

Housing markets are local markets. To a greater extent than wealthier renters, very low-income and extremely low-income renters find their choice of housing units

limited to communities and neighborhoods where poverty is more common.

As a relatively small national survey, the American Housing Survey does not

support biennial estimates of worst case needs for most individual metropolitan

areas.18 It does, however, support select estimates of worst case needs for

certain large metropolitan areas included in the survey sample.19 It also supports a national examination of four types of metropolitan locations—central cities, urban and rural suburbs of central cities, and nonmetropolitan areas20—and of four

geographic regions—the Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. This analysis by

regional and metropolitan status adds considerable depth to the national picture of worst case needs.

18  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 2015, as in 2013, a supplemental sample of housing units in select metropolitan areas were combined with the national sample to produce metropolitan level estimates. Stand-alone surveys were also conducted in some additional metropolitan areas.

19  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 2015 are presented in exhibit 2-3 and table A-11B.

For more information on the 2015 AHS redesign, see appendix E.

20  Both central cities and suburbs are located within metropolitan areas. A central city consists of the largest city within a metropolitan area. Suburbs are located 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 fal  outside of metropolitan counties and tend to be more rural in nature.

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

9

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Worst Case Needs and Housing Assistance by

Central cities were home to most (9.51 mil ion) very low-

Region and Metropolitan Location

income renters, fol owed by suburbs (7.23 mil ion)22 and

nonmetropolitan areas (2.49 mil ion).23

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

be understood as an indicator of need for affordable housing.

Like very low-income renters, worst case needs were common

Because rental housing with deep public subsidies fal s

in every region and metropolitan category across the nation.

into the affordable range, the definition of worst case needs

As a national average, 43.2 percent of very low-income renters

excludes renters with housing assistance. Examining the

had worst case needs. The prevalence of worst case needs

spatial distribution of housing assistance21 and of worst case

among very low-income renters was greater than the national

needs together provides information about the extent to which

average in the South and West and in central cities and urban

assistance is mitigating severe housing problems.

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

suburbs, and nonmetropolitan areas had smal er than average

Exhibit 2-1 shows the distribution of the nation’s 19.24 mil ion

shares of very low-income renters with worst case needs.

very low-income renters across the four census regions and

three metropolitan categories. On a regional basis, most very

Exhibit 2-1 also demonstrates the important role housing

low-income renters (6.70 mil ion) lived in the South, 4.50 mil ion

assistance plays in reducing worst case needs. Nationwide,

lived in the West, 4.05 mil ion lived in the Midwest, and 3.98

4.79 mil ion very low-income renters (24.9 percent) reported

mil ion lived in the Northeast in 2015.

receiving housing assistance compared with the 43.2 percent

having worst case needs. Thus, 1.7 very low-income renters

Exhibit 2-1� Very Low-Income Renters Experienced Worst Case Needs Across

Every Region and Metropolitan Location in 2015

Metropolitan Location

Nonmetropolitan

Region

Central Cities

Suburbs, Urban

Suburbs, Rural

Areas

Total

Northeast (thousands)

2,169

1,385

217

212

3,983

Percent with worst case needs

39.7

43.0

33.7

29.7

40.0

Percent with housing assistance

34.3

28.6

24.7

36.6

31.9

Midwest (thousands)

1,806

1,182

283

782

4,053

Percent with worst case needs

37.3

42.1

39.5

29.2

37.3

Percent with housing assistance

28.6

21.0

20.5

33.5

26.8

South (thousands)

3,048

1,840

672

1,136

6,696

Percent with worst case needs

45.9

52.6

30.8

31.1

43.7

Percent with housing assistance

23.0

17.1

21.4

29.9

22.4

West (thousands)

2,490

1,369

287

358

4,503

Percent with worst case needs

50.9

55.4

40.0

36.4

50.4

Percent with housing assistance

21.2

18.2

16.9

31.4

20.8

Total (thousands)

9,513

5,775

1,459

2,488

19,235

Percent with worst case needs

44.2

48.8

34.8

31.1

43.2

Percent with housing assistance

26.2

20.9

20.8

31.8

24.9

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

21  AHS questions about receipt of rental assistance are designed to focus on federal housing assistance programs. These data result in an estimate of 4.79 mil ion self-reported very low-income households with housing assistance, which is comparable with HUD’s program total. Other potential sources of housing assistance include the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Housing Service or other state or local programs. Also affecting this comparison, a small fraction of HUD-assisted renters may have incomes above the very low-income 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.

22  Among suburban very low-income renters, most (79.8 percent) were concentrated in densely populated urban suburbs.

23  Changes in annual estimates of very low-income renters 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.

10

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

had worst case needs for every 1 that was assisted, somewhat

Worst case needs were more prevalent in the West and the

worse than the 1.6 ratio seen in 2013. In other words, among

South, especial y in urban suburbs, where housing assistance

very low-income renters, about 25 percent of households

was scarcer—although high rents in the West also shaped this

had rental assistance, an additional 43 percent had worst

picture.24 Several areas having greater relative scarcity of housing

case needs for assisted or other affordable housing, and the

assistance and an abundance of worst case needs account for

remaining 32 percent avoided severe housing problems in the

substantial fractions of the national problem, as shown by the

unassisted private rental market in 2015.

size of the bubbles in the lower right quadrant of exhibit 2-2. The

relative size and trajectory of the bubbles representing worst

Housing assistance is relatively less common in the suburbs,

case needs in central cities and urban suburbs also suggests

where less than 21 percent of very low-income renters

that the largest shares of severe housing affordability problems

were assisted, and especial y in the newer suburbs of the

were concentrated in densely populated urban areas. Compared

South and the West. The prevalence of housing assistance

with their urban counterparts, the small populations of very low-

for very low-income renters also varied on a regional basis,

income renters living in rural suburbs differed from the general

ranging from 20.8 percent in the West to 31.9 percent in

pattern by combining lower rates of housing assistance with

the Northeast. The region with the lowest rate of housing

lower rates of worst case needs in every region except the South.

assistance among very low-income renters, the West, has

experienced a long-term trend of the highest regional rate

Not shown in this exhibit are changes in rates of very low-

of worst case needs. Areas that developed during an earlier

income renters with worst case needs between 2013 and

period continue to draw benefits from an established but

2015, with increases of 3.6 and 2.6 percentage points

aging stock of public housing.

observed in the West and South, compared with decreases

of less than 1 point in the other regions (summarized in table

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

A-10). In the same period, prevalence of worst case needs

housing assistance in preventing households from fal ing into

increased in urban suburbs and central cities by 4.4 and

worst case needs. Worst case needs affected a smal er share

1.7 percentage points, respectively, with decreases of 2.2

of very low-income renters in nonmetropolitan areas, where

and 4.0 percentage points observed in rural suburbs and

housing assistance was relatively more available.

nonmetropolitan areas (summarized in table A-11A).

Variation in Worst Case Needs Across Local Markets

An examination of the distribution of very low-income renters

and prevalence of worst case needs across the largest

metropolitan areas offers additional insight into the variation of

severe housing problems in central cities and suburbs. With

densely populated urban cores connected to surrounding

counties through strong commuting ties, metropolitan areas

reflect groupings of central cities and suburbs with a high

degree of social and economic integration. The redesigned

AHS supports an examination of the variation in worst case

needs across some of the largest metropolitan housing

markets. Exhibit 2-3 shows the number of very low-income

renters and the share experiencing worst case needs in the

nation’s 15 largest metropolitan areas in 2015.

Although 43.2 percent of very low-income renters had worst

case needs national y, local markets reflect a substantial degree

of variation beyond the macro-level trends observed across

regions and types of metropolitan locations. Worst case needs

affected substantial shares of very low-income renters in each

of the nation’s largest metropolitan areas. Reflecting particularly

severe local conditions, more than one-half of the very low-

income renters residing in and around Miami, Riverside, Phoenix,

and Los Angeles experienced worst case needs in 2015.

24  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 to follow in this section.

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

11

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Exhibit 2-3� Prevalence of Worst Case Needs Among Very Low-Income Renters Varied Across Metropolitan Markets in 2015

0–50%

0–50%

Metropolitan Area

AMI

Metropolitan Area

AMI

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA

Number (thousands)

1,834

Number (thousands)

259

Number with worst case needs (thousands)

815

Number with worst case needs (thousands)

127

Percent with worst case needs

44.4

Percent with worst case needs

49.0

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA

Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH

Number (thousands)

1,041

Number (thousands)

300

Number with worst case needs (thousands)

567

Number with worst case needs (thousands)

93

Percent with worst case needs

54.5

Percent with worst case needs

31.0

Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI

San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA

Number (thousands)

567

Number (thousands)

287

Number with worst case needs (thousands)

242

Number with worst case needs (thousands)

142

Percent with worst case needs

42.7

Percent with worst case needs

49.5

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX

Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI

Number (thousands)

365

Number (thousands)

251

Number with worst case needs (thousands)

177

Number with worst case needs (thousands)

115

Percent with worst case needs

48.5

Percent with worst case needs

45.8

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

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA

Number (thousands)

342

Number (thousands)

215

Number with worst case needs (thousands)

145

Number with worst case needs (thousands)

123

Percent with worst case needs

42.4

Percent with worst case needs

57.2

Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ

Number (thousands)

347

Number (thousands)

227

Number with worst case needs (thousands)

159

Number with worst case needs (thousands)

124

Percent with worst case needs

45.8

Percent with worst case needs

54.6

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

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA

Number (thousands)

343

Number (thousands)

199

Number with worst case needs (thousands)

141

Number with worst case needs (thousands)

83

Percent with worst case needs

41.1

Percent with worst case needs

41.7

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL

National

Number (thousands)

373

Number (thousands)

19,235

Number with worst case needs (thousands)

227

Number with worst case needs (thousands)

8,303

Percent with worst case needs

60.9

Percent with worst case needs

43.2

AMI = Area Median Income.

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 2015 are presented in table A-11B.

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

12

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Factors Limiting Access to

category. Any given renter may live in a unit renting for less

Affordable Rental Housing

than, the same as, or more than that threshold, however.25

The extent of competition for the most affordable housing,

Even with one-fourth of very low-income renters receiving

portrayed in exhibit 2-4, is striking. Higher-income renters

housing assistance, the private market’s supply of affordable

occupy 3.08 mil ion, or 43.3 percent, of the units affordable to

rental housing is inadequate. National y, less than a third of

extremely low-income renters. Similarly, higher-income renters

very low-income renters were able to avoid severe housing

occupy 36.7 percent of units affordable at incomes of 30 to 50

problems in the unassisted private rental market in 2015. An

percent of AMI and 33.9 percent of units affordable at incomes

examination of the mismatches between the number of rental

of 50 to 80 percent of AMI, which is the largest category of

units needed by renters of various income categories and the

units. Rental units that are more affordable are both more rare

number of affordable units provided by the market to those

and more likely to be occupied by higher income renters.

renters lends considerable insight into private rental market

dynamics and the persistence of worst case needs.

Variations in vacancy rates across the affordability categories

further demonstrate the competition for affordable units. The

How the Market Allocates Affordable Housing

most affordable units are least likely to be vacant (exhibit 2-5).

Among the least costly units—those with rents affordable at

on a National Basis

incomes of 0 to 30 percent of AMI—only 3.8 percent were

The competition for good quality, affordable housing remains

vacant in 2015. The vacancy rate jumped to 10.4 percent

vigorous. Competition affects whether the neediest households

among units affordable at incomes of 30 to 50 percent of

can live in the most affordable units, the vacancy rate at

AMI and 50 to 80 percent of AMI, and the rate jumped to 11.5

different rent levels, and how quickly new units are occupied.

percent among the highest-rent units. Since 2013, vacancy

Exhibit 2-4 shows the distribution of rental units and their

rates relaxed among units affordable at incomes from 30 to

occupancy by the affordability of their rents relative to the Area

80 percent of AMI but tightened for renters with the lowest

Median Income (AMI). For this analysis, a unit is considered

incomes. Overall rental vacancy rates consistently observed

affordable for a renter if the gross rent (rent plus utilities) does

under 10 percent in recent years—9.8 percent in 2011, 8.4

not exceed 30 percent of the maximum income of their income

percent in 2013, and 9.7 percent in 2015—reflect steady

absorption of unoccupied rental housing stock.26

Exhibit 2-4� Higher-Income Renters Occupied Many Affordable Units in 2015

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

3,080

3,547

6,540

NA

13,167

occupants

Same-income

3,766

5,111

10,751

11,140

30,768

or lower income

occupants

Vacant

273

1,005

2,017

1,445

4,740

Total

7,117

9,662

19,308

12,584

48,670

AMI = Area Median Income. NA = not applicable.

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

25  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.

26  Comparable estimates of the rental vacancy rate based on the Current Population Survey are slightly lower and reflect a steady decline in rental vacancy rates in recent years—9.5 percent in 2011, 8.3 percent in 2013, and 7.1 percent in 2015. See U.S. Housing Market Conditions charting data http://www.huduser.gov/portal/

ushmc/hi_RentVac.html.

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

13

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

renters. The remainder of section 2 makes such comparisons,

Exhibit 2-5. Vacancies Were Lowest Among Most

employing three increasingly stringent concepts to assess

Affordable Rental Units, 2011 to 2015

whether the rental housing stock is sufficient for the need.

20%

Affordability, Availability, and Adequacy of the

e vacant

National Rental Stock

15%

The scarcity of affordable units is greatest for the poorest

renters, but, because of the rapid increase in renter

10%

households and greater competition, that scarcity is reaching

ntal units that ar

higher up the income scale. Exhibit 2-6 displays the rental

re

Vacancy rate, 2015

5%

housing stock in 2015. These aggregate data portray how well

Vacancy rate, 2013

Vacancy rate, 2011

the overall stock could meet the need for affordable housing if

ent of rc 0%

location did not matter.28

Pe

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 100 110 120+

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

The gradient in national vacancy rates seen in exhibit 2-5 also

became flatter for most units during both the 2011-to-2013 and

the 2013-to-2015 periods. Nevertheless, the market for units

affordable at extremely low income levels remained very tight.

Greater vacancy rates continue to be found at the highest rent

levels (which include numerous vacation homes). Compared

with the market for the most affordable units, the availability of

vacant units at higher rent levels shows that in many markets,

rental assistance in the form of vouchers could reduce worst

case needs to the extent landlords are wil ing to participate. In

addition, the somewhat higher vacancy rate for the units

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

that have physical or locational chal enges and may soon be

removed from the housing stock.

The shifts in vacancy from 2013 to 2015 reflect in part the

Focusing first on all affordable units, regardless of whether

expansion of the overall rental stock by approximately 4.7

higher-income households occupied them or whether they

mil ion units, or over 10 percent, including an increase in

were adequate, the cumulative number of affordable units

vacancies by over 1 mil ion units, or nearly 30 percent. The

is shown to equal the cumulative number of renters only for

rental stock affordable to very low-income renters, however,

incomes exceeding 52 percent of AMI. Beyond this point, more

decreased by over 1 mil ion units, or approximately 7 percent

than 100 affordable units existed per 100 renters—enough,

with a negligible increase in affordable vacant units over

with perfect al ocation, to provide affordable housing to every

the same period.27 Despite increases in vacant units while

renter with a greater income. This threshold matched the 2013

the overall rental stock was growing, strong rental demand

estimate and remains greater than the 2007 level of 45 percent

nationwide kept vacancy rates fairly constrained for renters

of AMI, meaning that the scarcity of affordable units continues

with median or lower incomes.

to reach higher up the income scale than it did in 2007, prior to

Although vacancy rates provide a valuable indication of the

the financial crisis.

balance between supply and demand, they do not directly

The ratio of affordable units per renter peaked at income levels

compare the number of affordable units with the number of

of 98 percent of AMI. On a cumulative basis, a substantial

27  See tables A-12 and A-13.

28  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.

14

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

surplus of units were affordable at higher levels of household

The second line in exhibit 2-6 includes the criterion of

income. As income increased, renters were increasingly likely

availability in addition to affordability, meaning that it considers

to spend less than 30 percent of their incomes on housing.29

whether higher-income renters currently occupy affordable

units.30 Availability poses an important additional constraint on

The situation was completely different at the low end of the

renters seeking affordable units; only 38 percent of extremely

income scale. Enough affordable units existed to house 66

low-income renters could actual y find an affordable and

percent of extremely low-income renters in 2015 if those units

available unit, even if location were not a factor.

somehow could have been perfectly al ocated. This shortage

was substantial and critical, with little improvement from the

The paucity of affordable and available units is worsened

ratio of 65 percent observed in 2013.

by the occupancy of a considerable proportion of the most

affordable housing stock by renters who could afford to spend

more (as shown previously in exhibit 2-4). The affordable stock

was nominal y sufficient to house every renter with an income

MEASURING WHETHER AFFORDABLE

greater than 52 percent of AMI, yet the affordable and available

HOUSING STOCK IS SUFFICIENT FOR NEED

stock did not match the number of renters until household

•  Affordability measures the extent to which

incomes reached about 80 percent of AMI.

enough rental housing units of different costs

The third line in exhibit 2-6 adds a third criterion—that units

can provide each renter household with a unit it

should be physical y adequate—which further reduced the

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

supply of the rental housing stock. For renters even with low

standard). Affordability, which is the broadest

incomes (up to 80 percent of AMI), only 89 adequate units

measure of the relative supply of the housing

were available for every 100 renters. The physical y adequate

stock, addresses whether sufficient housing units

stock did not ful y match the need until it included units

would exist if al ocated solely on the basis of cost.

affordable only to renters with incomes exceeding 124 percent

The affordable stock includes both vacant and

of AMI, consistent with 2013 levels and a substantial shift from

occupied units.

the 110 percent of AMI observed in 2011.

•  Availability measures the extent to which

affordable rental housing units are available

Rental Stock by Income

to renters within a particular income range.

We have seen that relatively few rental units are affordable,

Availability is a more restrictive concept, because

and—because of occupancy by higher income renters and

units that meet the definition must be available

limited vacancies—even fewer are available to renters with the

and affordable. Some renters choose to spend

lowest incomes. Exhibit 2-7 summarizes the three housing stock

less than 30 percent of their incomes on rent,

measures for the standard income groups used in this report.

occupying housing that is affordable to renters of

lower incomes. These units thus are not available

A severe mismatch existed between the number of extremely

to lower-income renters. A unit is available at a

low-income renters and the number of affordable units available

given level of income if (1) it is affordable at that

to them. For every 100 extremely low-income renters, only

level and (2) it is occupied by a renter either at that

66 affordable units existed, and only 38 of those units were

income level or at a lower level or is vacant.

affordable and available. If physical y adequate units are required,

•  Adequacy extends the concept of availability by

then only 33 units were available for every 100 extremely low-

considering whether sufficient rental units are

income renters.31 These figures suggest that 12 percent of

physical y adequate (based on unit characteristics

affordable and available units for extremely low-income renters

described in appendix E), affordable, and

had severe deficiencies. Renters with very low incomes found

available. Adequacy thus is the most restrictive of

93 affordable units, 62 affordable and available units, and only

the three measures.

54 affordable, available, and physical y adequate units per 100

renters. About 13 percent of the affordable and available units for

this larger group had severe physical problems.

29  Table A-1A shows that only 12.7 percent of renters with incomes greater than 80 percent of AMI had either moderate or severe rent burdens compared with 68.3

percent of renters with lower incomes.

30  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 2015, 2.14 mil ion renter households (4.9 percent) occupied 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.

31  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 more than 10 percent of vacant units held off the market are in need of repair, abandoned, condemned, or to be demolished (JCHS, 2016).

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

15

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Exhibit 2-7� Rental Housing Stock Was Scarcest for

income renters increased by 1 unit per 100 renters from

Extremely Low-Income Renters in 2015

2013 to 2015, fol owing a 7-unit gain during the previous 2

years. The ratio of affordable and available units, however,

Rental Units per 100 Renters

decreased by 1 unit from 2013 levels to 38 units per 100

Affordable,

extremely low-income renters.

Affordable

Available,

Income

and

and

For very low-income renters, the overall supply of affordable

Category

Affordable

Available

Adequate

units decreased by more than 4 units per 100 renters,

Extremely low-

offsetting a nearly 5-unit gain in the previous 2 years. The more

income renters

66.0

37.7

33.0

focused affordable and available unit ratio lost 3 units per 100

(0–30% AMI)

renters. Netting out the 1-point loss in units available at 0 to

Very low-

30 percent of AMI from the 3-point loss for very low-income

income renters

92.9

62.0

53.7

renters suggests that the stock at 30 to 50 percent of AMI

(0–50% AMI)

became more constrained during the 2013-to-2015 period.

Low-income

renters (0–80%

135.4

99.9

88.7

Geography of Supply

AMI)

The preceding discussion shows that worst case needs are

dispersed across the nation, yet they can be concentrated in

AMI = Area Median Income.

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

certain geographic areas, and it shows that spatial variation

in worst case needs is affected in part by the availability of

Renters with low incomes find that the affordable and available

housing assistance.

rental stock was nearly sufficient to house them al , although 11

percent of such units had severe physical problems.

Affordable rental housing includes both units that receive

public rent assistance and units that for-profit and nonprofit

Overal , the supply of affordable housing improved slightly

housing providers offer at modest rents. The examination of

from its record low point in 2011, although fewer units were

affordable housing supply on a national basis reveals, first, that

both affordable and available. Exhibit 2-8 il ustrates that the

the supply of rental units that are affordable to very low-income

supply of affordable housing stock for extremely low-

and poorer households remains substantial y inadequate;

second, that this shortage is worsened by the natural

Exhibit 2-8� Fewer Affordable Units Were Available in 2015

preference of higher-income renters for more affordable units;

and third, that the shortage is further worsened by the physical

Rental Units per 100 Renters

inadequacy of some of the stock.

Change

The fol owing discussion sharpens that picture by showing how

2011  2013

to

to

shortages vary by geography.

Income Category

2011

2013

2015

2013

2015

Extremely low-income

Rental Stock by Region

renters (0–30% AMI)

Rental markets are constrained for extremely low-income

Affordable

58.2

65.3

66.0

7.1

0.7

renters across the four census regions despite substantial

Affordable and available

35.8

39.0

37.9

3.2

– 1.1

variation in the availability of affordable rental units.32 Exhibit

Very low-income

2-9 il ustrates that the Midwest showed the best availability,

renters (0–50% AMI)

with 77 units per 100 very low-income renters. The West was

worst off, with fewer than 44 units per 100 very low-income

Affordable

92.4

97.2

92.9

4.8

– 4.3

renters, compared with 63 units for the Northeast and 64 for

Affordable and available

64.6

65.2

62.0

0.6

– 3.2

the South. For extremely low-income renters, the availability of

affordable units was far from adequate in any region. Even low-

AMI = Area Median Income. Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American

income renters with incomes up to 80 percent of AMI found, in

Housing Survey data

the West and the Northeast, that not enough affordable units

were available.

32  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 85 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 “adequate” units in their area—not merely affordable and available units. Across regions, there were enough physical y adequate, affordable, and available units to house only 70 to 77 percent of renters who could not afford rents higher than FMR.

16

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Exhibit 2-9� Rental Housing Stock Was Insufficient

On a regional basis, adding the adequacy test restricted the

for Extremely Low-Income Renters Across All

estimated supply for very low-income renters less in the West,

Regions in 2015

eliminating 6 units, than in the other regions, which lost 9 to 10

units per 100 very low-income renters.

Housing Units per 100 Renters

Nevertheless, the primary point in exhibit 2-9 is that extremely

Affordable,

Available,

low-income renters continued to face severely constrained

Income

Affordable

and

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

Category

Affordable

and Available

Adequate

South had affordable units available only for two in five extremely

Northeast

low-income renters, and the West only for one in three.

Extremely low-

Similar analysis of affordable housing supply on the basis

income renters

71.7

42.8

36.0

(0–30% AMI)

of metropolitan status displayed minimal variation in 2015.

Measures of affordability, availability, and adequacy for each

Very low-

income renters

92.2

63.2

54.1

income group were general y within a few points of the national

(0–50% AMI)

summary values presented in exhibit 2-7, regardless of whether

calculated for central cities, urban suburbs, rural suburbs, or

Low-income

renters

126.2

95.0

81.8

nonmetropolitan areas.

(0–80% AMI)

Midwest

Summary

Extremely low-

Worst case needs are commonplace in every region and

income renters

66.2

39.9

35.2

metropolitan category across the United States. Nationwide,

(0–30% AMI)

43.2 percent of very low-income renters had worst case needs

Very low-

in 2015. Prevalence increased by 3.6 percentage points from

income renters

118.8

77.3

67.6

2013 levels in the West and by 2.6 percentage points in the

(0–50% AMI)

South, which both had greater-than-average rates of worst

Low-income

case needs in 2015. Central cities and urban suburbs also had

renters

145.6

109.5

98.3

greater-than-average prevalence rates and were home to the

(0–80% AMI)

vast majority (84.6 percent) of worst case needs households.

South

Extremely low-

Housing assistance, including that provided by HUD, is an

income renters

70.8

38.7

34.3

important preventer of worst case needs among very low-

(0–30% AMI)

income renters. Nationwide, 24.9 percent of very low-income

Very low-

renters, or 4.79 mil ion households, reported receiving housing

income renters

95.4

64.1

55.1

assistance. For every very low-income renter who was

(0–50% AMI)

assisted, however, another 1.7 renters had worst case needs

Low-income

for such assistance.

renters

142.2

104.4

92.6

(0–80% AMI)

Steady absorption of unoccupied rental housing stock has

West

reduced overall vacancy rates to consistently less than 10

percent since 2011. With 93 rental units affordable for every

Extremely low-

income renters

53.9

29.9

26.6

100 very low-income renters, not al  such households could

(0–30% AMI)

find an affordable unit in 2015, even if al ocations were perfect

Very low-

among households across the nation (that is, if the lowest-

income renters

64.0

43.7

38.2

rent units were al ocated to the lowest-income households

(0–50% AMI)

first). Many fewer affordable units were actual y available to

Low-income

renters with the lowest incomes, because vacancy rates were

renters

119.9

87.6

78.7

lowest for the lowest-rent units and many affordable units

(0–80% AMI)

were rented to higher income families. In 2015, the vacancy

rate for units affordable at extremely low incomes was only

AMI = Area Median Income.

3.8 percent compared with 11.5 percent for units affordable at

more than 80 percent of AMI. The expansion of rental stock to

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

meet surging rental demand between 2013 and 2015 mostly

benefited higher-income households, with less stock affordable

to very low-income renters.

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

17

SECTION 2. SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Because of competition for affordable units, when a simple

ratio of affordable units per 100 very low-income renters is

made more stringent by adding availability as a constraint, the

ratio decreases from 93 affordable units to only 62 affordable

and available units per 100 very low-income renters, and

it decreases from 66 to 38 per 100 extremely low-income

renters. Higher income families occupied 43.3 percent of units

affordable to extremely low-income renters.

In addition, a substantial proportion of available units are not in

standard physical condition. The number of affordable, available,

and adequate units in 2015 was only 54 per 100 very low-income

renters and only 33 per 100 extremely low-income renters.

Given the scarcity of affordable, available, and adequate units

for the poorest renters, the efficacy of housing assistance in

preventing worst case needs, and the surplus of units available

at higher rent levels, housing vouchers continue to offer an

important policy option for addressing the growing problem of

worst case needs using the existing housing stock.

18

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 3. UNDERSTANDING THE 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 to the number of very low-income renters who need them. Section 3 elaborates how

the changes in the number of units, the number of renters, and the rents they paid during the 2013-to-2015 period underlie this result.

Post-recession improvements in worst case needs observed between 2011 and

2013 were not sustained during the 2013-to-2015 period. The 754,000 decline

in worst case needs between 2011 and 2013 was partial y reversed in the latest

Section

2013-to-2015 period, increasing by 582,000 households. Across both periods,

however, about 70 percent of the change in worst case needs was attributed to

demographic changes among unassisted very low-income renters and 30 percent

to changes in market conditions.

Consistent with the previous 2-year period, formation of new households and

changes in tenure from homeownership to renting continued to escalate worst

case needs between 2013 and 2015. Rising incomes also continued to benefit

renters, although increases in tenant incomes among very low-income renters

were too weak to ful y offset other factors between 2013 and 2015. Departing,

however, from trends observed in the previous 2-year period, inadequate increases in rental assistance and the widening of the gap between demand for affordable

rental housing and the supply of affordable units drove worst case needs upward

between 2013 and 2015.

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 very low-income renters—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 and, to a small extent, HUD’s

categorization of their incomes). This population, in turn, substantial y determines the demand for affordable housing. The rate of worst case needs among these

vulnerable renters, by contrast, reflects the economic response of the housing

market to these demographic changes.

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

19

SECTION 3. UNDERSTANDING THE TREND IN WORST CASE NEEDS

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

1� Household formation� The nation added 2.23 mil ion

distinguish between the effects of population change and

new households between 2013 and 2015, to which we

the effects of the prevalence of worst case needs to estimate

attribute a proportional increase of 154,000 cases of worst

their relative importance. Then we identify how much various

case needs. The household formation growth rate was

demographic factors affected the population change.33

1.9 percent during this 2-year period, equivalent to the

average biennial increase of 1.9 percent since 2005 as

The population of unassisted very low-income renters increased

measured by the AHS.

5.1 percent between 2013 and 2015, from 13.74 mil ion to 14.44

mil ion. During the same period, the rate of worst case needs in

2� Renter share of households� Shifts in tenure from

this population increased from 56.2 to 57.5 percent.

homeownership to renting account for 563,000 new cases

of worst case needs. The homeownership rate declined

From these facts, we can attribute a net increase of 402,000

from 65.3 percent in 2013 to 62.9 percent in 2015,35 as

cases of worst case needs (about 70 percent of the total

the nation added 3.66 mil ion renter households, a notable

increase) to demographic changes and a further increase of

increase of 9.1 percent. By comparison, renter households

about 180,000 cases (about 30 percent of the increase) to

increased 3.6 percent from 2011 to 2013, and the average

changes in the prevalence of severe problems. The demographic

biennial growth rate in renter households since 2005 has

effect and the prevalence effect together explain the 582,000

been 4.6 percent.

additional cases of worst case needs observed in the AHS in

2015 compared with the number of cases observed in 2013. 34

3� Renter income changes� Changes in income that raised

renter households out of the very low-income category

The 402,000 increase in worst case needs resulting from

account for a 404,000-case reduction of worst case needs.

demographic shifts can be further broken down into four

In 2015, 734,000 additional renters had very low incomes,

components, il ustrated by the first four columns of exhibit 3-1.

a 4.0-percent increase. Because the tenure shift discussed

previously was more than sufficient to explain this increase,

the attributed impact of renter income changes on the

number of worst case needs is negative.36 This increase in

very low-income renters offset the 4.0-percent decrease

during the 2011-to-2013 period but still compared favorably

with the 12.5-percent increase during the 2009-to-2011

period and was consistent with average biennial increases

of 3.6 percent observed since 2005.37

4� Rental assistance gap� We attribute 89,000 cases of

the total increase in worst case needs to the widening

gap in rental assistance. The number of unassisted very

low-income renters increased by 699,000 households

during the 2013-to-2015 period because the number of very

low-income renters reporting housing assistance increased

only slightly (35,000 cases) while the number of very low-

income renters overall increased by 734,000. The resulting

5.1-percent increase in the number of unassisted very low-

income renters partial y reversed the 6.4-percent decrease

seen during the preceding 2-year period but was moderate

compared with the 14.3-percent increase during the 2009-

to-2011 period. This increase in the rental assistance gap

was comparable with biennial increases in unassisted very

low-income renters since 2005 averaging 4.2 percent.

33  Any analysis of survey data faces limitations from both sampling error and nonsampling error. Such errors are compounded when multiple survey years are compared. Additional y, the 2015 AHS was administered to a completely different sample of households than previous AHS iterations. This analysis takes the AHS

estimates at face value, but the reader should recognize that multiple sources of potential error exist.

34  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.

35  AHS estimates. Annual homeownership estimates based on the Current Population Survey/Housing Vacancy Survey were 65.1 percent for 2013 and 63.7 percent for 2015.

36  As a percentage of renter households, very low-income renters decreased from 45.9 percent in 2013 to 43.8 percent in 2015.

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

20

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 3. UNDERSTANDING THE TREND IN WORST CASE NEEDS

Lingering effects of 2013 sequestration budget cuts may

After accounting for these four demographic factors, about

also help explain why the closing gap in rental assistance

30 percent of the increase in worst case needs remains to

observed in the 2011-to-2013 period was reversed in

be attributed to the fifth column of exhibit 3-1. Affordable unit

the 2013-to-2015 period. For example, the number of

competition represents the extent to which the market responded

households served by HUD’s largest rental assistance

to the increased demand. Because the supply of affordable and

program, the Housing Choice Voucher program, declined

available units did not increase enough to meet the increased

temporarily between 2013 and 2014 fol owing sequestration.

demand, the prevalence of worst case needs increased.

The number of households served by the program did not

ful y restore to presequestration levels until 2016.38

Affordable Housing Supply and

This analysis shows that demographic factors that caused

Demand

net increases in the population of unassisted very low-income

Exhibit 2-8 shows that the availability of affordable rental units

renters account for much of the increase in worst case needs

became more constrained during the 2013-to-2015 period.

between 2013 and 2015. Such factors drove large decreases

Such affordability metrics are affected by multiple demographic

in the previous 2 years as measured by the AHS. The increase

and market factors. Some additional data, including key

in tenure shifts from homeownership to renting was the most

numbers underlying the changes in available unit ratios, will

important demographic factor during the most recent period,

shed light on the issue.

more than offsetting tenant income effects.

Exhibit 3-2� Changes in Affordable Rental Housing Availability Driven by Growing Population of Renters and Rising Costs, 2013–2015

Extremely Low-Income

Very Low-Income

Low-Income

(0–30% AMI)

(0–50% AMI)

(0–80% AMI)

Totala

Cumulative affordable and available rental units (thousands)

2013

4,354

12,088

26,617

43,992

2015

4,278

11,854

27,716

48,670

Percent change

-1.7

-1.9

+4.1

+10.6

Cumulative households (thousands)

2013

11,163

18,538

26,333

40,294

2015

11,290

19,235

27,931

43,930

Percent change

+1.1

+3.8

+6.1

+9.0

Income limit (median, current dollars)

2013

16,800

28,000

44,618

—

2015

17,050

28,400

45,450

—

Percent change

+1.5

+1.4

+1.9

—

Median household income (all renters, current dollars)

2013

—

—

—

30,000

2015

—

—

—

32,796

Percent change

—

—

—

+9.3

Median monthly housing cost (all renters, current dollars)

2013

—

—

—

850

2015

—

—

—

922

Percent change

—

—

—

+8.5

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

38  According to calendar year-end HUD administrative records from 2012 to 2016.

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

21

SECTION 3. UNDERSTANDING THE TREND IN WORST CASE NEEDS

Exhibit 3-2 examines the factors responsible for the change

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

in the availability of affordable units. The total number of

limits for the median renter household increased

rental units increased by about 4.68 mil ion (10.6 percent)

slightly between 2013 and 2015. That is, the greatest

between 2013 and 2015, building on a modest increase of

income qualifying as extremely low income increased

920,000 (2.1 percent) during the previous 2 years. The 3.64

by $250, and the greatest income qualifying as very

mil ion new renter households absorbed much of the net

low income increased by $400. As a result, each

increase of rental units.

category captured more households during 2015.

Between 2013 and 2015, both of the primary market forces

of supply and demand contributed to increased worst case

needs among the most vulnerable, extremely low-income

The median renter’s income increased 9.3 percent

subset—the supply of affordable and available units for these

between 2013 and 2015. To the extent that these are the

renters decreased modestly by 1.7 percent or 76,000 units,

same households in both years, this increase represents a

while an additional 127,000 households, a 1.1-percent increase,

substantial gain in income compared with incomes during the

put upward pressure on demand for affordable units.

recessionary period.39 The median renter’s income placed

her in the very low-income category in 2011 and the low-

The loss of affordable and available stock was about the

income category in 2013 and 2015. At the same time, the

same in percentage terms for the broader very low-income

median monthly housing costs for renters40 also increased by

category, but demand increased more steeply. Netting out

8.5 percent, a notable jump from the nearly flat 0.6-percent

the extremely low-income estimates from the very low-income

increase during the previous 2 years. Putting these two factors

estimates reveals that households with incomes of 30 to 50

together, to the extent that renters enjoyed income gains

percent of Area Median Income increased while available units

during the 2013-to-2015 period, increasing housing costs

decreased. The increase in extremely low-income renters

consumed a good share of additional income. This tandem

was supplemented by a further increase of 570,000 renters

increase in rents and incomes stands in contrast to the trend

with incomes 30 to 50 percent of AMI, and the loss of 76,000

between 2011 and 2013, when income gains outpaced

extremely low-income units was coupled with a loss of 158,000

housing costs by substantial margins and worst case housing

units available and affordable at 30 to 50 percent of AMI. As

needs decreased. Further helping to explain the most recent

renters occupying affordable units shifted to higher income

increase in worst case needs, for extremely low-income

categories, their units were no longer considered available

renters, growth in rental costs outpaced income gains from

for the income category they exited. The data of exhibit 3-2

2013 to 2015. Although average incomes grew by 4.7 percent

suggest that such transitions may have reduced availability for

among this group, average gross rental costs increased more

both extremely low-income renters and for renters at 30 to 50

rapidly, by 6.9 percent, failing to relax typical housing cost

percent of AMI but not for renters of higher incomes.

burdens for the most vulnerable renters and yielding a greater

number of worst case housing needs.41

Growing incomes of renter households accompanied a

substantial increase in the number of renter households, but,

CHANGES IN INCOME LIMITS AND WORST

unfortunately, income increases were insufficient to prevent

CASE NEEDS

growth in the number classified as having very low incomes.

A minimal portion of the increase in renters with

Even as the overall supply of rental units expanded, rents

extremely low and very low incomes between 2013

increased and the shortage of affordable and available units

and 2015, and of those with worst case needs, is

for extremely low-income renters and very low-income renters

explained by a shift in income limits. HUD calculates

became more severe. These factors provide the primary

income limits on the basis of Area Median Incomes,

framework for understanding the increase in worst case

including both owners and renters, and then uses

housing needs between 2013 and 2015.

the income limits to define the boundaries of the

Exhibit 3-3 examines the biennial percentage change of two

extremely low-income, very low-income, and low-

supply and demand factors, the number of very low-income

income categories.

renters and the number of units they can afford, in the context of

changes in worst case needs observed over the past 10 years.

39  Another potential cause of an increase in the median renter’s income could be the addition of new, higher-income renters. HUD has not assessed the extent to which each factor contributed to the result.

40  Includes rent, utilities, property insurance, land rent, and association fees but excludes any separate security deposit or parking fees.

41  Average monthly incomes and gross rents across income groups are set forth in table A-14.

22

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

SECTION 3. UNDERSTANDING THE TREND IN WORST CASE NEEDS

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

case needs from 2013 to 2015. On net, demographic factors

limits for the median renter household increased

increased worst case needs after driving modest reductions

slightly between 2013 and 2015. That is, the greatest

in the previous 2 years. National household formation tended

income qualifying as extremely low income increased

to increase worst case needs by 154,000 cases, and a

by $250, and the greatest income qualifying as very

marked increase in the renter share of households contributed

low income increased by $400. As a result, each

563,000 more. The growing gap in rental assistance relative

category captured more households during 2015.

to the need accounted for another 89,000 cases. These

increasing factors, accounting for 806,000 new cases, were

partial y offset by renter income increases that raised renters

out of the very low-income population and reduced worst

The median renter’s income increased 9.3 percent

case needs by 404,000 cases.

between 2013 and 2015. To the extent that these are the

same households in both years, this increase represents a

The increase in the number of unassisted, very low-income

substantial gain in income compared with incomes during the

renters represents a quantitative increase in the number

recessionary period.39 The median renter’s income placed

of affordable units demanded. Even if the supply were

her in the very low-income category in 2011 and the low-

unchanged, we would expect increased competition for

income category in 2013 and 2015. At the same time, the

affordable units, increasing rents, and increasing prevalence

median monthly housing costs for renters40 also increased by

of worst case needs. Therefore, after demographic factors on

8.5 percent, a notable jump from the nearly flat 0.6-percent

net grew worst case needs by 402,000, it is reasonable that

increase during the previous 2 years. Putting these two factors

market-driven increases in prevalence would account for a

together, to the extent that renters enjoyed income gains

further increase of 180,000 cases.

during the 2013-to-2015 period, increasing housing costs

consumed a good share of additional income. This tandem

The market response is somewhat less tidy than the previous

increase in rents and incomes stands in contrast to the trend

sentence suggests. The total supply of rental units increased

between 2011 and 2013, when income gains outpaced

somewhat more (by approximately 4.7 mil ion units, or more

housing costs by substantial margins and worst case housing

With few exceptions, the number of households experiencing

than 10 percent) than the total renter population (3.64 mil ion

needs decreased. Further helping to explain the most recent

worst case needs has increased steadily, with the sharpest

renters, or 9.0 percent). However, with vacancy rates highest

increase in worst case needs, for extremely low-income

increases observed during and immediately following the

among the most expensive units, the number of rental units

renters, growth in rental costs outpaced income gains from

recessionary period. In most instances, increases in worst case

affordable and available to very low-income renters decreased

2013 to 2015. Although average incomes grew by 4.7 percent

needs were accompanied by increasing numbers of very low-

by 234,000 units (1.9 percent), while the very low-income

among this group, average gross rental costs increased more

income renters, indicating increasing demand for affordable

renter population increased by 734,000 households (4.0

rapidly, by 6.9 percent, failing to relax typical housing cost

rental units. Correspondingly, in most instances, increases in

percent). This uneven pattern in supply growth was mimicked

burdens for the most vulnerable renters and yielding a greater

worst case needs were also accompanied by declines in the

in renter income changes, with median income growing

number of worst case housing needs.41

national supply of units affordable to very low-income renters.

more sharply for renters overall (9.3 percent) than the median

income threshold for very low-income renters (1.4 percent).

Growing incomes of renter households accompanied a

In 2013, which witnessed the sharpest decline in worst case

Further, the 8.5 percent increase in median monthly housing

substantial increase in the number of renter households, but,

needs in the past decade, that trend reversed. The number

costs for renters was a notable departure from nearly flat costs

unfortunately, income increases were insufficient to prevent

of very low-income renters decreased, easing demand, and

during the previous 2 years.

growth in the number classified as having very low incomes.

the number of units affordable to very low-income renters

Even as the overall supply of rental units expanded, rents

increased, growing the national supply of affordable housing. In

Worst case housing needs are a national problem. They

increased and the shortage of affordable and available units

2015, however, supply of affordable units declined as demand

expanded dramatical y during the past decade and were

for extremely low-income renters and very low-income renters

for those units rose, yielding an increase in very low-income

exacerbated by the economic recession and associated

became more severe. These factors provide the primary

renters with worst case housing needs.

collapse of the housing market, which reduced homeownership

framework for understanding the increase in worst case

through foreclosures and increased demand for renting. The

housing needs between 2013 and 2015.

Concluding Summary

slight improvements observed since 2011 offer cause for hope,

An analysis of demographic and market factors indicates that,

but the failure to sustain the more promising trends observed in

Exhibit 3-3 examines the biennial percentage change of two

of the total increase of worst case needs by 582,000 during

2013 is sobering. Even with public rental assistance, it remains

supply and demand factors, the number of very low-income

the 2013-to-2015 period, about 70 percent is attributable to

the case that 6 of 10 extremely low-income renters and 4 of

renters and the number of units they can afford, in the context of

demographic changes that grew the population of unassisted

10 very low-income renters do not have access to affordable

changes in worst case needs observed over the past 10 years.

very low-income renters, and 30 percent is attributable to

and available housing units. In 2015, 1.7 very low-income

market responses that increased the prevalence of worst case

households experienced worst case needs for every very

needs among such households.

low-income household with rental assistance. A broad strategy

at the federal, state, and local levels is needed to continue

Four demographic factors affected the number of unassisted,

to rebuild the economy, strengthen the market, and provide

very low-income renters who were susceptible to worst

assistance to those families most in need.

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

23

24

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 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

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

2013 and 2015 ................................................................................ 27

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

2013 and 2015 ................................................................................. 28

Appendix

Table A-2A� Housing Conditions of Renters and Owners, 2001–2015—

Number of Households................................................................... 29

Table A-2B�  Housing Conditions of Renters and Owners, 2001–2015—

Percentage of Households .............................................................. 30

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

Relative Income, 2013 and 2015 ..................................................... 31

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

Income, 2013 and 2015 .................................................................. 32

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

Renters by Household Type, 2013 and 2015 .................................. 35

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

Renter Households Containing Persons With Disabilities* by

Household Type, 2013 and 2015 .................................................... 37

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

Renters by Household Type, 2015 .................................................. 39

Table A-6B� Housing Problems and Characteristics of Extremely

Low-Income Renters by Household Type, 2015 ............................. 41

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

Worst Case Renters by Household Type, 2015 ............................... 43

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

Worst Case Renters by Household Type, 2015 ............................... 45

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

by Race and Ethnicity, 2013 and 2015—Number and Percentage . 47

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

25

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, 2013 and 2015—Number and Percentage ...... 49

Table A-11A� Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters by

Metropolitan Location, 2013 and 2015—Number and Percentage . 51

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

Sampled Metropolitan Areas, 2015 ................................................. 54

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

Income of Occupants, 2013 and 2015 ............................................ 59

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

Relative Income, 2001–2015 ..............................................................60

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

by Relative Income, 2013 and 2015 ................................................ 61

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

With Disabilities by Disability Type, 2013 and 2015 ......................... 62

26

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 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, 2013 and 2015

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

2015

0–30%

>30–50%

>50–80%

>80–120%

>120%

All Incomes

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

779

3,344

3,755

1,684

893

10,455

problems only

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

2013

Total households (thousands)

11,104

7,397

7,815

6,683

7,274

40,273

Unassisted with severe problems

5,607

2,114

674

279

201

8,874

Unassisted with nonsevere

779

3,185

3,182

1,370

717

9,233

problems only

Unassisted with no problems

1,046

1,011

3,502

4,841

6,236

16,636

Assisted

3,672

1,087

457

194

120

5,530

Any with severe problems

7,116

2,237

720

287

205

10,566

Rent burden >50% of income

6,937

2,072

502

161

72

9,744

Severely inadequate housing

445

217

225

131

138

1,155

Any with nonsevere problems only

1,809

3,638

3,327

1,406

726

10,906

Rent burden >30–50% of income

1,515

3,403

2,843

952

310

9,022

Moderately inadequate housing

373

371

416

339

342

1,840

Crowded housing

173

345

296

159

92

1,066

Any with no problems

2,179

1,522

3,768

4,990

6,343

18,801

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

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

27

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

Table A-1B� Housing Conditions of Owner Households by Relative Income, 2013 and 2015

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

2015

0–30%

>30–50%

>50–80%

>80–120%

>120%

All Incomes

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

1,206

2,387

2,947

2,323

2,354

11,217

problems only

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

1,206

2,387

2,947

2,323

2,354

11,217

only

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

2013

Total households (thousands)

7,354

8,062

11,809

14,162

34,371

75,759

Unassisted with severe problems

4,402

2,282

1,609

797

589

9,679

Unassisted with nonsevere

1,301

2,496

3,470

2,919

2,734

12,920

problems only

Unassisted with no problems

1,651

3,284

6,731

10,446

31,049

53,160

Any with severe problems

4,402

2,282

1,609

797

589

9,679

Cost burden >50% of income

4,341

2,198

1,486

671

370

9,066

Severely inadequate housing

175

124

137

131

219

787

Any with nonsevere problems

1,301

2,496

3,470

2,919

2,734

12,920

only

Cost burden >30–50% of income

1,175

2,260

3,105

2,649

2,252

11,441

Moderately inadequate housing

153

217

252

193

358

1,173

Crowded housing

71

145

217

135

148

715

Any with no problems

1,651

3,284

6,731

10,446

31,049

53,160

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

28

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

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

Table A-2A� Housing Conditions of Renters and Owners, 2001–2015—Number of Households 2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

Total households (thousands)

105,435

105,868

108,901

110,719

111,861

115,076

116,032

118,290

Unassisted with severe problems

13,494

13,398

16,142

16,944

19,259

20,717

18,553

18,000

Unassisted with nonsevere

19,217

19,790

20,849

22,752

23,225

24,079

22,153

21,672

problems only

Unassisted with no problems

66,445

66,468

65,362

65,862

64,506

64,983

69,796

73,059

Assisted

6,279

6,211

6,547

5,161

4,871

5,298

5,530

5,559

Cost burden >50% of income

13,330

13,188

16,433

17,140

19,458

20,781

18,810

18,799

Cost burden >30–50% of income

16,923

17,856

19,403

21,153

21,818

22,369

20,884

19,252

Severely inadequate housing

2,108

1,971

2,023

1,805

1,866

2,126

1,942

1,500

Moderately inadequate housing

4,504

4,311

4,177

3,954

3,884

3,133

3,946

3,907

Crowded housing

2,631

2,559

2,621

2,529

2,509

1,923

2,509

1,803

Renter households (thousands)

33,727

33,614

33,951

35,054

35,396

38,867

40,273

43,930

Unassisted with severe problems

5,758

5,887

6,860

6,993

8,085

9,548

8,874

9,651

Unassisted with nonsevere

7,283

7,557

7,303

8,445

8,229

9,194

9,233

10,455

problems only

Unassisted with no problems

14,407

13,958

13,240

14,455

14,211

14,828

16,636

18,265

Assisted

6,279

6,211

6,547

5,161

4,871

5,298

5,530

5,559

Rent burden >50% of income

6,412

6,477

7,891

7,793

9,000

10,391

9,744

10,988

Rent burden >30–50% of income

6,916

7,468

7,502

8,340

8,240

9,124

9,292

10,118

Severely inadequate housing

1,168

1,038

1,100

1,073

998

1,204

1,155

828

Moderately inadequate housing

2,508

2,525

2,542

2,400

2,264

1,830

2,508

2,027

Crowded housing

1,658

1,615

1,635

1,511

1,499

1,072

1,652

1,120

Owner households (thousands)

71,708

72,254

74,950

75,665

76,465

76,209

75,759

74,360

Unassisted with severe problems

7,736

7,511

9,282

9,951

11,174

11,169

9,679

8,349

Unassisted with nonsevere

11,934

12,233

13,546

14,307

14,996

14,885

12,920

11,217

problems only

Unassisted with no problems

52,038

52,510

52,122

51,407

50,295

50,155

53,160

54,794

Cost burden >50% of income

6,918

6,711

8,542

9,347

10,458

10,390

9,066

7,811

Cost burden >30–50% of income

10,007

10,388

11,901

12,813

13,578

13,245

11,592

9,135

Severely inadequate housing

940

933

923

732

868

922

787

673

Moderately inadequate housing

1,996

1,786

1,635

1,554

1,620

1,303

1,438

1,881

Crowded housing

973

944

986

1,018

1,010

851

857

683

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

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

29

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

Table A-2B� Housing Conditions of Renters and Owners, 2001-2015—Percentage of Households 2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

Total households

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

Unassisted with nonsevere

18.2

18.7

19.1

20.5

20.8

20.9

19.1

18.3

problems only

Unassisted with no problems

63.0

62.8

60.0

59.5

57.7

56.5

60.2

61.8

Assisted

6.0

5.9

6.0

4.7

4.4

4.6

4.8

4.7

Cost burden >50% of income

12.6

12.5

15.1

15.5

17.4

18.1

16.2

15.9

Cost burden >30–50% of income

16.1

16.9

17.8

19.1

19.5

19.4

18.0

16.3

Severely inadequate housing

2.0

1.9

1.9

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.7

1.3

Moderately inadequate housing

4.3

4.1

3.8

3.6

3.5

2.7

3.4

3.3

Crowded housing

2.5

2.4

2.4

2.3

2.2

1.7

2.2

1.5

Renter households

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

Unassisted with nonsevere

21.6

22.5

21.5

24.1

23.2

23.7

22.9

23.8

problems only

Unassisted with no problems

42.7

41.5

39.0

41.2

40.1

38.2

41.3

41.6

Assisted

18.6

18.5

19.3

14.7

13.8

13.6

13.7

12.7

Rent burden >50% of income

19.0

19.3

23.2

22.2

25.4

26.7

24.2

25.0

Rent burden >30–50% of income

20.5

22.2

22.1

23.8

23.3

23.5

23.1

23.0

Severely inadequate housing

3.5

3.1

3.2

3.1

2.8

3.1

2.9

1.9

Moderately inadequate housing

7.4

7.5

7.5

6.8

6.4

4.7

6.2

4.6

Crowded housing

4.9

4.8

4.8

4.3

4.2

2.8

4.1

2.6

Owner households

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

Unassisted with nonsevere

16.6

16.9

18.1

18.9

19.6

19.5

17.1

15.1

problems only

Unassisted with no problems

72.6

72.7

69.5

67.9

65.8

65.8

70.2

73.7

Cost burden >50% of income

9.6

9.3

11.4

12.4

13.7

13.6

12.0

10.5

Cost burden >30–50% of income

14.0

14.4

15.9

16.9

17.8

17.4

15.3

12.3

Severely inadequate housing

1.3

1.3

1.2

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.0

0.9

Moderately inadequate housing

2.8

2.5

2.2

2.1

2.1

1.7

1.9

2.5

Crowded housing

1.4

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.1

1.1

0.9

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

30

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 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, 2013 and 2015

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

2015

0–30%

>30–50%

>50–80%

>80–120%

>120%

All Incomes

Total unassisted

7,588

6,853

8,258

6,849

8,823

38,371

households (thousands)

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

779

3,344

3,755

1,684

893

10,455

problems only

Rent burden >30–50% of

615

3,150

3,170

1,258

422

8,616

income

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

2013

Total unassisted

7,432

6,310

7,357

6,490

7,155

34,743

households (thousands)

Any with severe problems

5,607

2,114

674

279

201

8,874

Rent burden >50% of income

5,530

1,967

473

157

72

8,200

[Rent above FMR]

1,548

1,168

419

157

72

3,366

Severely inadequate housing

301

195

208

126

133

963

Any with nonsevere

779

3,185

3,182

1,370

717

9,233

problems only

Rent burden >30–50% of

613

3,007

2,735

928

304

7,587

income

Moderately inadequate housing

226

302

382

329

339

1,578

Crowded housing

102

320

276

157

91

946

Any with no problems

1,046

1,011

3,502

4,841

6,236

16,636

FMR = Fair Market Rent

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

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

31

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

Table A-4� Incidence of Housing Problems Among Renters by Relative Income, 2013 and 2015

Number

Percentage

2013

2015

2013

2015

Renter households (thousands)

40,273

43,930

100�0

100�0

Unassisted with severe problems

8,874

9,651

22.0

22.0

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

9,233

10,455

22.9

23.8

Unassisted with no problems

16,636

18,265

41.3

41.6

Assisted

5,530

5,559

13.7

12.7

Any with severe problems

10,566

11,509

26�2

26�2

Rent burden >50% of income

9,744

10,988

24.2

25.0

Severely inadequate housing

1,155

828

2.9

1.9

[Rent burden only]

8,743

9,772

21.7

22.2

Any with nonsevere problems only

10,906

12,153

27�1

27�7

Rent burden >30–50% of income

9,022

10,118

22.4

23.0

Moderately inadequate housing

1,840

2,027

4.6

4.6

Crowded housing

1,066

1,120

2.6

2.5

[Rent burden only]

8,088

9,098

20.1

20.7

Any with no problems

18,801

20,269

46�7

46�1

Income 0-30% HAMFI (thousands)

11,104

11,290

100�0

100�0

Unassisted with severe problems

5,607

5,821

50.5

51.6

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

779

779

7.0

6.9

Unassisted with no problems

1,046

988

9.4

8.8

Assisted

3,672

3,702

33.1

32.8

Any with severe problems

7,116

7,500

64�1

66�4

Rent burden >50% of income

6,937

7,385

62.5

65.4

Severely inadequate housing

445

352

4.0

3.1

[Rent burden only]

6,168

6,500

55.5

57.6

Any with nonsevere problems only

1,809

1,776

16�3

15�7

Rent burden >30–50% of income

1,515

1,511

13.6

13.4

Moderately inadequate housing

373

357

3.4

3.2

Crowded housing

173

122

1.6

1.1

[Rent burden only]

1,278

1,312

11.5

11.6

Any with no problems

2,179

2,014

19�6

17�8

(continued)

32

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 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, 2013 and 2015 (continued) Number

Percentage

2013

2015

2013

2015

Income >30-50% HAMFI  (thousands)

7,397

7,945

100�0

100�0

Unassisted with severe problems

2,114

2,482

28.6

31.2

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

3,185

3,344

43.1

42.1

Unassisted with no problems

1,011

1,027

13.7

12.9

Assisted

1,087

1,092

14.7

13.7

Any with severe problems

2,237

2,634

30�2

33�2

Rent burden >50% of income

2,072

2,525

28.0

31.8

Severely inadequate housing

217

157

2.9

2.0

[Rent burden only]

1,893

2,274

25.6

28.6

Any with nonsevere problems only

3,638

3,848

49�2

48�4

Rent burden >30–50% of income

3,403

3,611

46.0

45.4

Moderately inadequate housing

371

452

5.0

5.7

Crowded housing

345

358

4.7

4.5

[Rent burden only]

2,960

3,073

40.0

38.7

Any with no problems

1,522

1,463

20�6

18�4

Income >50-80% HAMFI (thousands)

7,815

8,696

100�0

100�0

Unassisted with severe problems

674

880

8.6

10.1

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

3,182

3,755

40.7

43.2

Unassisted with no problems

3,502

3,623

44.8

41.7

Assisted

457

438

5.8

5.0

Any with severe problems

720

896

9�2

10�3

Rent burden >50% of income

502

748

6.4

8.6

Severely inadequate housing

225

161

2.9

1.9

[Rent burden only]

471

696

6.0

8.0

Any with nonsevere problems only

3,327

3,919

42�6

45�1

Rent burden >30–50% of income

2,843

3,296

36.4

37.9

Moderately inadequate housing

416

506

5.3

5.8

Crowded housing

296

361

3.8

4.2

[Rent burden only]

2,630

3,076

33.7

35.4

Any with no problems

3,768

3,881

48�2

44�6

(continued)

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

33

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

Table A-4� Incidence of Housing Problems Among Renters by Relative Income, 2013 and 2015 (continued) Number

Percentage

2013

2015

2013

2015

Income >80-120% HAMFI (thousands)

6,683

7,051

100�0

100�0

Unassisted with severe problems

279

258

4.2

3.7

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

1,370

1,684

20.5

23.9

Unassisted with no problems

4,841

4,908

72.4

69.6

Assisted

194

202

2.9

2.9

Any with severe problems

287

263

4�3

3�7

Rent burden >50% of income

161

207

2.4

2.9

Severely inadequate housing

131

60

2.0

0.9

[Rent burden only]

145

191

2.2

2.7

Any with nonsevere problems only

1,406

1,712

21�0

24�3

Rent burden >30–50% of income

952

1,276

14.2

18.1

Moderately inadequate housing

339

336

5.1

4.8

Crowded housing

159

157

2.4

2.2

[Rent burden only]

922

1,226

13.8

17.4

Any with no problems

4,990

5,077

74�7

72�0

Income >120%  HAMFI (thousands)

7,274

8,948

100�0

100�0

Unassisted with severe problems

201

210

2.8

2.4

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

717

893

9.9

10.0

Unassisted with no problems

6,236

7,720

85.7

86.3

Assisted

120

125

1.6

1.4

Any with severe problems

205

215

2�8

2�4

Rent burden >50% of income

72

124

1.0

1.4

Severely inadequate housing

138

97

1.9

1.1

[Rent burden only]

65

110

0.9

1.2

Any with nonsevere problems only

726

899

10�0

10�0

Rent burden >30–50% of income

310

424

4.3

4.7

Moderately inadequate housing

342

376

4.7

4.2

Crowded housing

92

122

1.3

1.4

[Rent burden only]

299

410

4.1

4.6

Any with no problems

6,343

7,834

87�2

87�5

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

34

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 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, 2013 and 2015

Number

Percentage

Household type

2013

2015

2013

2015

All household types (thousands)

18,500

19,235

100�0

100�0

Elderly without children (thousands)

3,955

4,652

100�0

100�0

Unassisted with severe problems

1,471

1,853

37.2

39.8

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

567

722

14.3

15.5

Unassisted with no problems

510

519

12.9

11.2

Assisted

1,408

1,559

35.6

33.5

Any with severe problems

1,915

2,373

48�4

51�0

Rent burden>50% of income

1,847

2,335

46.7

50.2

Severely inadequate housing

119

86

3.0

1.8

[Rent burden only]

1,696

2,070

42.9

44.5

Any with nonsevere problems only

1,004

1,242

25�4

26�7

Rent burden >30–50% of income

942

1,149

23.8

24.7

Moderately inadequate housing

118

161

3.0

3.5

Crowded housing

1

(s)

0.0

(s)

[Rent burden only]

885

1,075

22.4

23.1

Any with no problems

1,036

1,038

26�2

22�3

Families with children (thousands)

7,023

6,962

100�0

100�0

Unassisted with severe problems

2,833

2,888

40.3

41.5

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

1,797

1,796

25.6

25.8

Unassisted with no problems

552

552

7.9

7.9

Assisted

1,841

1,726

26.2

24.8

Any with severe problems

3,478

3,614

49�5

51�9

Rent burden >50% of income

3,349

3,534

47.7

50.8

Severely inadequate housing

263

207

3.7

3.0

[Rent burden only]

2,977

3,076

42.4

44.2

Any with nonsevere problems only

2,394

2,340

34�1

33�6

Rent burden >30–50% of income

2,089

2,088

29.7

30.0

Moderately inadequate housing

290

333

4.1

4.8

Crowded housing

513

446

7.3

6.4

[Rent burden only]

1,642

1,607

23.4

23.1

Any with no problems

1,151

1,008

16�4

14�5

(continued)

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

35

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, 2013 and 2015 (continued)

Number

Percentage

Household type

2013

2015

2013

2015

Other family households  (thousands)

1,720

1,726

100�0

100�0

Unassisted with severe problems

741

805

43.1

46.6

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

442

429

25.7

24.9

Unassisted with no problems

194

203

11.3

11.8

Assisted

343

289

19.9

16.7

Any with severe problems

840

922

48�8

53�4

Rent burden >50% of income

808

899

47.0

52.1

Severely inadequate housing

56

57

3.3

3.3

[Rent burden only]

736

801

42.8

46.4

Any with nonsevere problems only

560

527

32�6

30�5

Rent burden >30–50% of income

526

488

30.6

28.3

Moderately inadequate housing

61

79

3.5

4.6

Crowded housing

4

26

0.2

1.5

[Rent burden only]

495

427

28.8

24.7

Any with no problems

320

277

18�6

16�1

Other nonfamily households  (thousands)

5,802

5,895

100�0

100�0

Unassisted with severe problems

2,676

2,758

46.1

46.8

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

1,158

1,176

20.0

19.9

Unassisted with no problems

801

740

13.8

12.6

Assisted

1,167

1,221

20.1

20.7

Any with severe problems

3,119

3,225

53�8

54�7

Rent burden >50% of income

3,005

3,142

51.8

53.3

Severely inadequate housing

223

159

3.8

2.7

[Rent burden only]

2,652

2,827

45.7

48.0

Any with nonsevere problems only

1,489

1,514

25�7

25�7

Rent burden >30–50% of income

1,361

1,397

23.5

23.7

Moderately inadequate housing

274

236

4.7

4.0

Crowded housing

1

(s)

0.0

(s)

[Rent burden only]

1,215

1,277

20.9

21.7

Any with no problems

1,193

1,155

20�6

19�6

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

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

36

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 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, 2013 and 2015

Number

Percentage

Household type

2013

2015

2013

2015

All household types (thousands)

2,804

3,529

100�0

100�0

Elderly without children (thousands)

110

155

100�0

100�0

Unassisted with severe problems

41

61

37.3

39.7

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

26

44

23.6

28.2

Unassisted with no problems

14

18

12.7

11.6

Assisted

29

32

26.4

20.6

Any with severe problems

45

75

40�9

48�2

Rent burden>50% of income

44

71

40.0

46.1

Severely inadequate housing

5

(s)

4.5

(s)

[Rent burden only]

37

65

33.6

42.4

Any with nonsevere problems only

39

52

35�5

33�5

Rent burden >30–50% of income

38

50

34.5

32.5

Moderately inadequate housing

6

3

5.5

2.2

Crowded housing

0

0

0.0

0.0

[Rent burden only]

33

48

30.0

31.3

Any with no problems

26

28

23�6

18�3

Families with children  (thousands)

1,018

1,295

100�0

100�0

Unassisted with severe problems

397

538

39.0

41.5

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

192

264

18.9

20.4

Unassisted with no problems

79

68

7.8

5.2

Assisted

350

425

34.4

32.8

Any with severe problems

523

722

51�4

55�7

Rent burden >50% of income

514

682

50.5

52.7

Severely inadequate housing

35

82

3.4

6.3

[Rent burden only]

417

541

41.0

41.8

Any with nonsevere problems only

323

403

31�7

31�1

Rent burden >30–50% of income

278

358

27.3

27.6

Moderately inadequate housing

50

74

4.9

5.7

Crowded housing

65

70

6.4

5.4

[Rent burden only]

224

268

22.0

20.7

Any with no problems

172

170

16�9

13�1

(continued)

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

37

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, 2013 and 2015 (continued)

Number

Percentage

Household type

2013

2015

2013

2015

Other family households  (thousands)

420

453

100�0

100�0

Unassisted with severe problems

196

177

46.7

39.1

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

75

81

17.9

17.9

Unassisted with no problems

34

70

8.1

15.5

Assisted

114

124

27.1

27.4

Any with severe problems

232

227

55�2

50�1

Rent burden >50% of income

224

211

53.3

46.7

Severely inadequate housing

17

36

4.0

8.0

[Rent burden only]

194

175

46.2

38.5

Any with nonsevere problems only

110

126

26�2

27�8

Rent burden >30–50% of income

103

116

24.5

25.6

Moderately inadequate housing

22

22

5.2

4.9

Crowded housing

0

(s)

0.0

(s)

[Rent burden only]

88

101

21.0

22.3

Any with no problems

78

100

18�6

22�0

Other nonfamily households  (thousands)

1,257

1,627

100�0

100�0

Unassisted with severe problems

452

614

36.0

37.8

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

216

234

17.2

14.4

Unassisted with no problems

95

106

7.6

6.5

Assisted

494

673

39.3

41.4

Any with severe problems

639

863

50�8

53�1

Rent burden >50% of income

603

841

48.0

51.7

Severely inadequate housing

60

54

4.8

3.3

[Rent burden only]

518

739

41.2

45.4

Any with nonsevere problems only

354

436

28�2

26�8

Rent burden >30–50% of income

320

408

25.5

25.1

Moderately inadequate housing

51

61

4.1

3.8

Crowded housing

0

(s)

0.0

(s)

[Rent burden only]

302

374

24.0

23.0

Any with no problems

264

327

21�0

20�1

* Elderly persons with disabilities were excluded.

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

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

38

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 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, 2015

Elderly, No

Families with

Other Nonfamily

Total

Children

Children

Other Families

Households

Renter households

19,235

4,652

6,962

1,726

5,895

(thousands)

Number of children

14,244

0

14,244

0

0

Number of persons

44,257

6,101

26,619

4,289

7,248

Children/household

0.74

0.00

2.05

0.00

0.00

Persons/household

2.30

1.31

3.82

2.48

1.23

Unassisted with severe

8,303

1,853

2,888

805

2,758

problems

Unassisted with nonsevere

4,123

722

1,796

429

1,176

problems only

Unassisted with no

2,015

519

552

203

740

problems

Assisted

4,794

1,559

1,726

289

1,221

Any with severe

10,134

2,373

3,614

922

3,225

problems

Rent burden >50% of

9,910

2,335

3,534

899

3,142

income

Severely inadequate

509

86

207

57

159

housing

[Rent burden only]

8,774

2,070

3,076

801

2,827

Any with nonsevere

5,624

1,242

2,340

527

1,514

problems only

Rent burden >30–50% of

5,121

1,149

2,088

488

1,397

income

Moderately inadequate

809

161

333

79

236

housing

Crowded housing

480

(s)

446

26

(s)

[Rent burden only]

4,385

1,075

1,607

427

1,277

Any with no problems

3,478

1,038

1,008

277

1,155

(continued)

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

39

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, 2015 (continued) Elderly, No

Families with

Other Nonfamily

Total

Children

Children

Other Families

Households

Other characteristics

One person in household

8,283

3,501

(s)

0

4,780

Two spouse household

3,688

648

2,258

782

0

Female householder

12,053

3,077

4,953

973

3,049

Minority householder

10,762

1,892

4,807

1,099

2,963

Welfare/SSI income

3,720

925

1,499

330

967

Social security income

4,814

3,529

496

254

535

Income below 50% poverty

4,671

875

1,973

309

1,514

Income below poverty

10,947

2,265

4,557

868

3,257

Income below 150% of

16,074

3,619

6,392

1,353

4,709

poverty

High school graduate

14,251

3,229

4,959

1,300

4,763

Two+ years post high

3,803

891

1,066

341

1,504

school

Earnings at minimum wage:

At least half time

8,758

453

4,485

1,057

2,763

At least full time

6,313

282

3,415

767

1,849

Earnings main source of

9,698

452

4,875

1,120

3,251

income

Housing rated poor

1,301

205

594

107

396

Housing rated good+

13,929

3,803

4,740

1,264

4,122

Neighborhood rated poor

1,446

216

662

132

436

Neighborhood rated good+

13,860

3,683

4,772

1,264

4,141

In central cities

9,513

2,082

3,380

877

3,174

Suburbs, urban

5,775

1,526

2,159

522

1,568

Suburbs, rural

1,459

388

553

149

369

Nonmetro

2,488

656

871

178

783

Northeast

3,983

1,216

1,370

381

1,016

Midwest

4,053

953

1,367

258

1,474

South

6,696

1,419

2,458

631

2,188

West

4,503

1,064

1,767

456

1,217

SSI = Supplemental Security Income. (s) = Unweighted counts of 5 or fewer suppressed.

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

40

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 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, 2015

Elderly, No

Families with

Other Nonfamily

Total

Children

Children

Other Families

Households

Renter households

11,290

2,909

3,948

850

3,583

(thousands)

Number of children

8,171

0

8,171

0

0

Number of persons

24,701

3,627

14,766

2,032

4,275

Children/household

0.72

0.00

2.07

0.00

0.00

Persons/household

2.19

1.25

3.74

2.39

1.19

Unassisted with severe

5,821

1,294

2,125

499

1,903

problems

Unassisted with nonsevere

779

196

278

76

229

problems only

Unassisted with no

988

252

231

68

436

problems

Assisted

3,702

1,166

1,313

207

1,015

Any with severe

7,500

1,762

2,792

602

2,343

problems

Rent burden >50% of

7,385

1,743

2,753

596

2,293

income

Severely inadequate

352

55

153

36

109

housing

[Rent burden only]

6,500

1,540

2,365

527

2,068

Any with nonsevere

1,776

557

606

136

477

problems only

Rent burden >30–50% of

1,511

504

509

107

391

income

Moderately inadequate

357

82

120

39

116

housing

Crowded housing

122

(s)

113

(s)

0

[Rent burden only]

1,312

469

386

96

361

Any with no problems

2,014

590

550

112

763

(continued)

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

41

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, 2015 (continued)

Elderly, No

Families with

Other Nonfamily

Total

Children

Children

Other Families

Households

Other characteristics

One person in household

5,346

2,314

(s)

0

3,029

Two spouse household

1,774

337

1,066

371

0

Female householder

7,357

1,982

2,978

499

1,898

Minority householder

6,587

1,327

2,822

561

1,877

Welfare/SSI income

2,865

742

1,094

206

823

Social security income

2,851

2,083

272

107

390

Income below 50% poverty

4,671

875

1,973

309

1,514

Income below poverty

9,816

2,193

3,724

749

3,151

Income below 150% of

11,197

2,854

3,941

839

3,562

poverty

High school graduate

8,002

1,917

2,756

609

2,719

Two+ years post high

2,058

535

549

158

816

school

Earnings at minimum wage:

At least half time

3,132

113

1,771

341

907

At least full time

1,242

32

873

146

191

Earnings main source

4,305

162

2,255

450

1,437

of income

Housing rated poor

859

145

401

59

254

Housing rated good+

8,034

2,330

2,587

624

2,494

Neighborhood rated poor

941

145

450

76

270

Neighborhood rated good+

7,909

2,251

2,560

627

2,470

In central cities

5,747

1,386

1,931

457

1,972

Suburbs, urban

3,361

980

1,198

238

944

Suburbs, rural

783

202

296

72

213

Nonmetro

1,399

341

521

82

454

Northeast

2,494

809

829

195

661

Midwest

2,380

579

783

135

883

South

3,884

889

1,397

294

1,304

West

2,532

631

939

227

735

SSI = Supplemental Security Income. (s) = Unweighted counts of 5 or fewer suppressed.

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

42

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 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, 2015

Elderly, No

Families with

Other Nonfamily

Total

Children

Children

Other Families

Households

Renter households

8,303

1,853

2,888

805

2,758

(thousands)

Number of children

5,933

0

5,933

0

0

Number of persons

19,274

2,532

11,212

1,974

3,556

Children/household

0.71

0

2.05

0

0

Persons/household

2.32

1.37

3.88

2.45

1.29

Unassisted with

8,303

1,853

2,888

805

2,758

severe problems

Unassisted with

—

—

—

—

—

nonsevere problems only

Unassisted with no

—

—

—

—

—

problems

Assisted

—

—

—

—

—

Any with severe

8,303

1,853

2,888

805

2,758

problems

Rent burden >50%

8,150

1,828

2,842

790

2,690

of income

Severely inadequate

364

59

132

40

133

housing

[Rent burden only]

7,212

1,607

2,479

715

2,411

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 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

43

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, 2015 (continued)

Elderly, No

Families with

Other Nonfamily

Total

Children

Children

Other Families

Households

Other characteristics

One person in household

3,474

1,333

0

0

2,141

Two spouse household

1,728

293

1,067

368

0

Female householder

4,988

1,186

1,952

458

1,392

Minority householder

4,526

702

1,997

523

1,304

Welfare/SSI income

1,380

292

589

121

378

Social security income

1,886

1,407

215

106

158

Income below 50% poverty

2,418

482

995

182

759

Income below poverty

5,495

1,014

2,272

495

1,714

Income below 150% of

7,342

1,506

2,787

692

2,357

poverty

High school graduate

6,345

1,403

2,067

589

2,286

Two+ years post

1,962

425

512

178

847

high school

Earnings at minimum wage:

At least half time

3,723

190

1,711

479

1,342

At least full time

2,294

106

1,150

306

733

Earnings main source of

4,528

213

2,009

547

1,759

income

Housing rated poor

555

84

250

55

166

Housing rated good+

5,960

1,494

1,959

583

1,925

Neighborhood rated poor

549

66

237

57

188

Neighborhood rated good+

5,993

1,472

1,983

581

1,957

In central cities

4,202

836

1,360

427

1,579

Suburbs, urban

2,820

681

1,044

276

818

Suburbs, rural

507

140

177

41

149

Nonmetro

774

196

307

61

211

Northeast

1,593

445

549

125

474

Midwest

1,512

372

457

103

580

South

2,928

543

1,038

321

1,026

West

2,270

493

844

256

677

SSI = Supplemental Security Income.

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

44

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

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, 2015

Elderly, No

Families with

Other Nonfamily

Total

Children

Children

Other Families

Households

Renter households

5,821

1,294

2,125

499

1,903

(thousands)

Number of children

4,433

0

4,433

0

0

Number of persons

13,606

1,695

8,285

1,213

2,414

Children/household

0.76

0

2.09

0

0

Persons/household

2.34

1.31

3.90

2.43

1.27

Unassisted with

5,821

1,294

2,125

499

1,903

severe problems

Unassisted with

—

—

—

—

—

nonsevere problems only

Unassisted with no

—

—

—

—

—

problems

Assisted

—

—

—

—

—

Any with severe

5,821

1,294

2,125

499

1,903

problems

Rent burden >50%

5,756

1,287

2,107

495

1,867

of income

Severely inadequate

234

28

96

24

86

housing

[Rent burden only]

5,053

1,123

1,807

448

1,675

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 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

45

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, 2015 (continued)

Elderly, No

Families with

Other Nonfamily

Total

Children

Children

Other Families

Households

Other characteristics

One person in household

2,478

976

0

0

1,501

Two spouse household

1,170

180

750

240

0

Female householder

3,507

852

1,455

269

931

Minority householder

3,238

527

1,495

318

899

Welfare/SSI income

1,162

246

500

87

328

Social security income

1,272

938

150

47

136

Income below 50% poverty

2,418

482

995

182

759

Income below poverty

5,121

994

2,012

445

1,670

Income below 150% of

5,767

1,266

2,121

490

1,891

poverty

High school graduate

4,288

938

1,469

356

1,524

Two+ years post

1,264

287

329

107

541

high school

Earnings at minimum wage:

At least half time

2,026

78

1,072

232

644

At least full time

788

13

552

95

129

Earnings main source of

2,912

111

1,396

320

1,085

income

Housing rated poor

420

68

191

30

131

Housing rated good+

4,101

1,020

1,423

363

1,295

Neighborhood rated poor

423

56

197

35

135

Neighborhood rated good+

4,126

1,013

1,423

369

1,320

In central cities

2,940

595

978

277

1,091

Suburbs, urban

1,899

469

745

149

536

Suburbs, rural

376

95

140

30

110

Nonmetro

606

136

262

43

165

Northeast

1,159

322

417

83

337

Midwest

1,178

276

384

80

438

South

2,039

391

758

195

696

West

1,445

305

566

142

432

SSI = Supplemental Security Income.

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

46

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

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, 2013 and 2015—Number and Percentage

Number

Percentage

2013

2015

2013

2015

Non-Hispanic White (thousands)

8,220

8,473

100�0

100�0

Unassisted with severe problems

3,618

3,778

44.0

44.6

Unassisted with nonsevere

1,770

1,836

21.5

21.7

problems only

Unassisted with no problems

1,117

1,072

13.6

12.7

Assisted

1,716

1,787

20.9

21.1

Any with severe problems

4,169

4,379

50�7

51�7

Rent burden >50% of income

4,037

4,302

49.1

50.8

Severely inadequate housing

262

176

3.2

2.1

[Rent burden only]

3,672

3,856

44.7

45.5

Any with nonsevere problems only

2,323

2,417

28�3

28�5

Rent burden >30–50% of income

2,125

2,210

25.9

26.1

Moderately inadequate housing

336

346

4.1

4.1

Crowded housing

83

132

1.0

1.6

[Rent burden only]

1,917

1,950

23.3

23.0

Any with no problems

1,728

1,678

21�0

19�8

Non-Hispanic Black (thousands)

4,666

4,813

100�0

100�0

Unassisted with severe problems

1,657

1,800

35.5

37.4

Unassisted with nonsevere

835

906

17.9

18.8

problems only

Unassisted with no problems

377

414

8.1

8.6

Assisted

1,797

1,693

38.5

35.2

Any with severe problems

2,336

2,495

50�1

51�8

Rent burden >50% of income

2,239

2,421

48.0

50.3

Severely inadequate housing

182

151

3.9

3.1

[Rent burden only]

1,936

2,130

41.5

44.2

Any with nonsevere problems only

1,342

1,389

28�8

28�9

Rent burden >30–50% of income

1,225

1,261

26.3

26.2

Moderately inadequate housing

192

246

4.1

5.1

Crowded housing

81

65

1.7

1.3

[Rent burden only]

1,078

1,090

23.1

22.6

Any with no problems

988

929

21�2

19�3

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

47

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, 2013 and 2015—

Number and Percentage (continued)

Number

Percentage

2013

2015

2013

2015

Hispanic (thousands)

4,186

4,441

100�00

100�0

Unassisted with severe problems

1,845

2,104

44.1

47.4

Unassisted with nonsevere

1,092

1,100

26.1

24.8

problems only

Unassisted with no problems

391

361

9.3

8.1

Assisted

857

875

20.5

19.7

Any with severe problems

2,129

2,482

50�9

55�9

Rent burden >50% of income

2,038

2,429

48.7

54.7

Severely inadequate housing

168

140

4.0

3.2

[Rent burden only]

1,843

2,119

44.0

47.7

Any with nonsevere problems only

1,397

1,384

33�4

31�2

Rent burden >30–50% of income

1,217

1,263

29.1

28.4

Moderately inadequate housing

173

153

4.1

3.4

Crowded housing

315

248

7.5

5.6

[Rent burden only]

939

1,009

22.4

22.7

Any with no problems

660

575

15�8

12�9

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

48

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 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, 2013 and 2015—Number and Percentage

Number

Percentage

2013

2015

2013

2015

Northeast (thousands)

3,804

3,983

100�0

100�0

Unassisted with severe problems

1,542

1,593

40.5

40.0

Unassisted with nonsevere

641

725

16.9

18.2

problems only

Unassisted with no problems

380

393

10.0

9.9

Assisted

1,241

1,271

32.6

31.9

Any with severe problems

1,992

2,092

52�4

52�5

Rent burden >50% of income

1,903

2,015

50.0

50.6

Severely inadequate housing

223

189

5.9

4.8

[Rent burden only]

1,661

1,690

43.7

42.4

Any with nonsevere

1,032

1,143

27�1

28�7

problems only

Rent burden >30–50% of income

930

1,035

24.4

26.0

Moderately inadequate housing

148

185

3.9

4.6

Crowded housing

81

70

2.1

1.8

[Rent burden only]

814

898

21.4

22.5

Any with no problems

780

748

20�5

18�8

Midwest  (thousands)

3,692

4,053

100�0

100�0

Unassisted with severe problems

1,389

1,512

37.6

37.3

Unassisted with nonsevere

872

1,003

23.6

24.7

problems only

Unassisted with no problems

424

453

11.5

11.2

Assisted

1,007

1,085

27.3

26.8

Any with severe problems

1,690

1,901

45�8

46�9

Rent burden >50% of income

1,628

1,854

44.1

45.8

Severely inadequate housing

111

89

3.0

2.2

[Rent burden only]

1,452

1,667

39.3

41.1

Any with nonsevere

1,181

1,335

32�0

32�9

problems only

Rent burden >30–50% of income

1,073

1,233

29.1

30.4

Moderately inadequate housing

167

167

4.5

4.1

Crowded housing

56

71

1.5

1.7

[Rent burden only]

963

1,116

26.1

27.5

Any with no problems

822

817

22�3

20�2

(continued)

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

49

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, 2013 and 2015—

Number and Percentage (continued)

Number

Percentage

2013

2015

2013

2015

South (thousands)

6,350

6,696

100�00

100�0

Unassisted with severe problems

2,612

2,928

41.1

43.7

Unassisted with nonsevere

1,459

1,456

23.0

21.7

problems only

Unassisted with no problems

788

812

12.4

12.1

Assisted

1,491

1,501

23.5

22.4

Any with severe problems

3,164

3,494

49�8

52�2

Rent burden >50% of income

3,065

3,444

48.3

51.4

Severely inadequate housing

176

114

2.8

1.7

[Rent burden only]

2,745

3,093

43.2

46.2

Any with nonsevere

1,895

1,867

29�8

27�9

problems only

Rent burden >30–50% of income

1,682

1,682

26.5

25.1

Moderately inadequate housing

309

316

4.9

4.7

Crowded housing

143

142

2.3

2.1

[Rent burden only]

1,463

1,421

23.0

21.2

Any with no problems

1,291

1,335

20�3

19�9

West (thousands)

4,654

4,503

100�0

100�0

Unassisted with severe problems

2,178

2,270

46.8

50.4

Unassisted with nonsevere

991

939

21.3

20.9

problems only

Unassisted with no problems

466

357

10.0

7.9

Assisted

1,019

937

21.9

20.8

Any with severe problems

2,507

2,647

53�9

58�8

Rent burden >50% of income

2,414

2,596

51.9

57.7

Severely inadequate housing

151

117

3.2

2.6

[Rent burden only]

2,203

2,324

47.3

51.6

Any with nonsevere

1,339

1,279

28�8

28�4

problems only

Rent burden >30–50% of income

1,233

1,172

26.5

26.0

Moderately inadequate housing

120

142

2.6

3.1

Crowded housing

240

198

5.2

4.4

[Rent burden only]

997

950

21.4

21.1

Any with no problems

807

578

17�3

12�8

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

50

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 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, 2013 and 2015—Number and Percentage

Number

Percentage

2013

2015

2013

2015

Central cities (thousands)

9,131

9,513

100�0

100�0

Unassisted with severe problems

3,878

4,202

42.5

44.2

Unassisted with nonsevere

1,944

1,951

21.3

20.5

problems only

Unassisted with no problems

824

872

9.0

9.2

Assisted

2,486

2,489

27.2

26.2

Any with severe problems

4,800

5,202

52�6

54�7

Rent burden >50% of income

4,596

5,080

50.3

53.4

Severely inadequate housing

397

296

4.3

3.1

[Rent burden only]

4,066

4,435

44.5

46.6

Any with nonsevere

2,677

2,739

29�3

28�8

problems only

Rent burden >30–50% of income

2,398

2,496

26.3

26.2

Moderately inadequate housing

389

419

4.3

4.4

Crowded housing

240

240

2.6

2.5

[Rent burden only]

2,075

2,116

22.7

22.2

Any with no problems

1,654

1,572

18�1

16�5

Suburbs, urban (thousands)

5,556

5,775

100�0

100�0

Unassisted with severe problems

2,466

2,820

44.4

48.8

Unassisted with nonsevere

1,218

1,157

21.9

20.0

problems only

Unassisted with no problems

611

589

11.0

10.2

Assisted

1,261

1,209

22.7

20.9

Any with severe problems

2,891

3,294

52�0

57�0

Rent burden >50% of income

2,799

3,236

50.4

56.0

Severely inadequate housing

153

131

2.7

2.3

[Rent burden only]

2,579

2,913

46.4

50.4

Any with nonsevere

1,641

1,536

29�5

26�6

problems only

Rent burden >30–50% of income

1,546

1,426

27.8

24.7

Moderately inadequate housing

145

179

2.6

3.1

Crowded housing

203

155

3.6

2.7

[Rent burden only]

1,314

1,213

23.7

21.0

Any with no problems

1,024

945

18�4

16�4

(continued)

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

51

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, 2013 and 2015—Number and Percentage (continued)

Number

Percentage

2013

2015

2013

2015

Suburbs, rural  (thousands)

1,410

1,459

100�0

100�0

Unassisted with severe problems

522

507

37.0

34.8

Unassisted with nonsevere

312

409

22.1

28.0

problems only

Unassisted with no problems

290

239

20.6

16.4

Assisted

286

304

20.3

20.8

Any with severe problems

597

602

42�4

41�3

Rent burden >50% of income

577

584

41.0

40.0

Severely inadequate housing

53

33

3.8

2.3

[Rent burden only]

505

491

35.8

33.7

Any with nonsevere problems only

407

505

28�9

34�6

Rent burden >30–50% of income

364

464

25.8

31.8

Moderately inadequate housing

62

57

4.4

3.9

Crowded housing

27

37

1.9

2.5

[Rent burden only]

318

411

22.6

28.2

Any with no problems

405

352

28�7

24�1

Non-metropolitan  (thousands)

2,385

2,488

100�00

100�00

Unassisted with severe problems

838

774

35.1

31.1

Unassisted with nonsevere

489

607

20.5

24.4

problems only

Unassisted with no problems

338

315

14.2

12.7

Assisted

719

792

30.2

31.8

Any with severe problems

1,047

1,036

43�9

41�7

Rent burden >50% of income

1,019

1,009

42.7

40.6

Severely inadequate housing

63

48

2.6

1.9

[Rent burden only]

885

936

37.1

37.6

Any with nonsevere problems only

719

843

30�2

33�9

Rent burden >30–50% of income

610

736

25.6

29.6

Moderately inadequate housing

150

154

6.3

6.2

Crowded housing

44

49

1.8

2.0

[Rent burden only]

531

646

22.3

26.0

Any with no problems

618

609

25�9

24�5

(continued)

52

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 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, 2013 and 2015—Number and Percentage (continued)

Number

Percentage

2013

2015

2013

2015

U�S� Total  (thousands)

18,482

19,235

100�0

100�0

Unassisted with severe problems

7,704

8,303

41.7

43.2

Unassisted with nonsevere

3,963

4,123

21.4

21.4

problems only

Unassisted with no problems

2,063

2,015

11.2

10.5

Assisted

4,752

4,794

25.7

24.9

Any with severe problems

9,335

10,134

50�5

52�7

Rent burden >50% of income

8,991

9,910

48.6

51.5

Severely inadequate housing

666

509

3.6

2.6

[Rent burden only]

8,035

8,774

43.5

45.6

Any with nonsevere

5,444

5,624

29�5

29�2

problems only

Rent burden >30–50% of income

4,918

5,122

26.6

26.6

Moderately inadequate housing

746

809

4.0

4.2

Crowded housing

514

480

2.8

2.5

[Rent burden only]

4,238

4,385

22.9

22.8

Any with no problems

3,701

3,477

20�0

18�1

Note: Metropolitan location tabulations for 2013 are provided for comparison to 2015 tabulations only and are not comparable to previous reports, which defined metropolitan locations across three categories: central cities, suburbs, and non-metropolitan areas.

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

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

53

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

Household Income

as Percentage of

HUD-Adjusted Area

Median Family

Income

All

2015

0–50%

Incomes

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA

Total households (thousands)

259

729

Unassisted with severe problems

127

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

52

Unassisted with no problems

30

Assisted

51

Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH

Total households (thousands)

300

708

Unassisted with severe problems

93

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

41

Unassisted with no problems

20

Assisted

146

Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI

Total households (thousands)

567

1,289

Unassisted with severe problems

242

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

112

Unassisted with no problems

57

Assisted

157

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX

Total households (thousands)

365

1,019

Unassisted with severe problems

177

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

112

Unassisted with no problems

22

Assisted

54

Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI

Total households (thousands)

251

524

Unassisted with severe problems

115

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

54

Unassisted with no problems

27

Assisted

57

(continued)

54

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 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 (continued)

Household Income

as Percentage of

HUD-Adjusted Area

Median Family

Income

All

2015

0–50%

Incomes

Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX

Total households (thousands)

347

892

Unassisted with severe problems

159

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

101

Unassisted with no problems

37

Assisted

50

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA

Total households (thousands)

1,041

2,328

Unassisted with severe problems

567

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

220

Unassisted with no problems

90

Assisted

164

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-

West Palm Beach, FL

Total households (thousands)

373

860

Unassisted with severe problems

227

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

43

Unassisted with no problems

29

Assisted

73

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA

Total households (thousands)

1,834

3,705

Unassisted with severe problems

815

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

281

Unassisted with no problems

174

Assisted

563

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington,

PA-NJ-DE-MD

Total households (thousands)

342

722

Unassisted with severe problems

145

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

74

Unassisted with no problems

39

Assisted

85

(continued)

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

55

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 (continued)

Household Income

as Percentage of

HUD-Adjusted Area

Median Family

Income

All

2015

0–50%

Incomes

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ

Total households (thousands)

227

622

Unassisted with severe problems

124

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

63

Unassisted with no problems

15

Assisted

26

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA

Total households (thousands)

215

536

Unassisted with severe problems

123

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

33

Unassisted with no problems

28

Assisted

30

San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA

Total households (thousands)

287

791

Unassisted with severe problems

142

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

40

Unassisted with no problems

22

Assisted

84

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA

Total households (thousands)

199

604

Unassisted with severe problems

83

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

46

Unassisted with no problems

17

Assisted

54

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria,

DC-VA-MD-WV

Total households (thousands)

343

809

Unassisted with severe problems

141

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

95

Unassisted with no problems

33

Assisted

74

(continued)

56

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX A. DETAILED DATA ON HO S

U E

S C

I T

N I

G ON 1

PR . E

OB X

L T

E EN

MST A

A N

N D N

D S A

U TUR

PPL E O

Y F W

OF A O

F R

F ST C

ORD AS

B E N

LE EED

HOUSING

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

Sampled Metropolitan Areas, 2015 (continued)

Household Income

as Percentage of

HUD-Adjusted Area

Median Family

Income

All

2015

0–50%

Incomes

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

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

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

(continued)

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

57

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 (continued)

Household Income

as Percentage of

HUD-Adjusted Area

Median Family

Income

All

2015

0–50%

Incomes

Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI

Total households (thousands)

115

248

Unassisted with severe problems

50

Unassisted with nonsevere problems only

33

Unassisted with no problems

9

Assisted

24

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

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-Hillsboro, 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

Note: Each of the 15 largest metropolitan areas, listed first alphabetical y, 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

58

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

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, 2013 and 2015

Relative

Occupied and Vacant Rental Units (thousands) by Unit Affordability Category (percent of HAMFI needed to afford Income of

the highest rent in the category)

Households

2015

10*

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120+

Total

Extremely

818

1,607

1,341

1,132

1,757

1,533

1,040

649

436

246

197

534

11,290

low-income

(<30% HAMFI)

Very low-income

272

437

387

757

1,465

1,612

1,137

634

415

270

164

398

7,945

(30–50%)

Low-income

226

371

259

556

1,310

1,726

1,405

1,015

663

348

240

579

8,696

(50–80%)

Middle-income or

278

511

339

431

1,250

1,981

2,405

2,154

1,821

1,234

928

2,667

15,999

higher (>80%)

Vacant units for

89

56

128

319

686

815

692

510

363

230

180

672

4,740

rent

Total units vacant   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

and occupied

2013

Extremely

868

1,672

1,367

1,423

1,911

1,718

850

513

252

136

73

321

11,104

low-income

(<30% HAMFI)

Very low-income

219

362

553

895

1,497

1,655

971

557

222

110

77

280

7,397

(30–50%)

Low-income

219

259

322

673

1,345

1,853

1,241

886

328

172

135

382

7,815

(50–80%)

Middle-income or

303

368

345

691

1,445

2,174

1,969

2,014

1,282

942

576

1,848

13,958

higher (>80%)

Total occupied

1,609

2,660

2,587

3,681

6,198

7,400

5,031

3,970

2,084

1,360

862

2,831

40,273

units

Vacant units for

120

118

133

283

616

668

484

350

235

160

110

429

3,707

rent

HAMFI = HUD-adjusted area median family income.

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

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

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

59

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, 2001–2015

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

Renter households

34,042

33,614

33,951

35,054

35,396

38,867

40,294

43,930

(thousands)

Extremely low-income

8,739

9,077

9,729

9,243

9,961

11,774

11,163

11,290

(<30% HAMFI)

Very low-income

6,315

6,581

6,342

6,697

7,157

7,492

7,375

7,945

(30–50%)

Low-income (50–80%)

7,251

7,460

7,488

7,650

7,168

7,750

7,795

8,696

Middle-income or

11,737

10,496

10,392

11,464

11,110

11,850

13,961

15,999

higher (>80%)

Affordable units

37,197

37,577

37,924

39,330

39,744

43,075

43,992

48,670

Extremely low-income

6,870

7,098

6,747

7,280

6,265

6,854

7,294

7,117

(<30% HAMFI)

Very low-income

12,366

12,863

12,368

11,071

10,938

10,947

10,727

9,643

(30–50%)

Low-income (50–80%)

13,634

13,518

14,044

15,063

16,228

17,995

17,904

19,326

Middle-income or

4,328

4,099

4,765

5,916

6,313

7,279

8,067

12,584

higher (>80%)

Affordable and

37,197

37,577

37,924

39,330

39,744

43,075

43,992

48,670

available units

Extremely low-income

3,803

3,996

3,982

4,224

3,665

4,220

4,354

4,278

(<30% HAMFI)

Very low-income

8,132

8,744

8,549

7,786

8,045

8,225

7,734

7,576

(30–50%)

Low-income (50–80%)

11,665

12,396

12,865

13,196

14,004

15,361

14,529

15,862

Middle-income or

13,597

12,441

12,528

14,123

14,029

15,270

17,375

20,955

higher (>80%)

HAMFI = HUD-adjusted area median family income.

Note: Income categories in this table do not overlap and therefore differ from the standard definitions.

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

60

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

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, 2013 and 2015

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

2015

0–30%

>30–50%

>50–80%

>80–120%

>120%

All Incomes

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

779

3,344

3,755

1,684

893

10,455

problems only

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

$1,072

$2,081

$3,173

$4,477

$8,637

$3,344

problems only

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

$578

$801

$1,091

$1,514

$1,938

$1,100

problems only

Unassisted with no problems

$388

$364

$682

$953

$1,370

$1,012

Assisted

$470

$708

$731

$885

$968

$564

2013

0–30%

>30–50%

>50–80%

>80–120%

>120%

All Incomes

Total households (thousands)

11,104

7,397

7,815

6,683

7,274

40,273

Unassisted with severe problems

5,607

2,114

674

279

201

8,874

Unassisted with nonsevere

779

3,185

3,182

1,370

717

9,233

problems only

Unassisted with no problems

1,046

1,011

3,502

4,841

6,236

16,636

Assisted

3,672

1,087

457

194

120

5,530

Average monthly income

$726

$1,961

$3,081

$4,415

$9,232

$3,559

Unassisted with severe problems

$794

$1,869

$2,937

$3,977

$8,138

$1,479

Unassisted with nonsevere

$1,039

$2,057

$3,086

$4,346

$9,170

$3,218

problems only

Unassisted with no problems

$331

$1,983

$3,122

$4,492

$9,277

$5,583

Assisted

$670

$1,839

$2,940

$3,628

$9,109

$1,374

Average gross rent

$714

$816

$870

$1,006

$1,293

$917

Unassisted with severe problems

$863

$1,125

$1,507

$2,297

$2,390

$1,056

Unassisted with nonsevere

$563

$723

$931

$1,243

$1,898

$954

problems only

Unassisted with no problems

$590

$500

$695

$863

$1,192

$925

Assisted

$542

$708

$732

$887

$931

$611

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

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

61

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, 2013 and 2015

Functional Limitations

ADL/IADL Limitationsa

Any

Independent

2015

Limitation

Hearing

Visual

Cognitive

Ambulatory

Self-Care

Living

Households

12,588

3,060

2,647

5,119

5,626

1,836

3,614

(thousands)

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

1,507

302

393

745

729

292

476

problems

Unassisted with

1,297

246

311

557

578

152

362

nonsevere problems

only

Unassisted with no

1,567

350

316

603

667

198

387

problems

Assisted

1,369

179

319

698

773

246

529

Very low-income

1,581

294

416

732

778

227

463

renters (thousands)

Unassisted with severe

387

79

117

189

200

75

123

problems

Unassisted with

716

124

182

331

351

94

197

nonsevere problems

only

Unassisted with no

235

60

54

91

117

21

66

problems

Assisted

243

31

63

122

110

37

78

Any with severe

423

88

129

197

217

79

134

problems

Rent burden >50% of

382

83

117

171

192

69

117

income

Severely inadequate

49

12

13

33

25

S

23

housing

[Rent burden only]

352

73

108

152

179

66

103

Any with nonsevere

808

131

191

386

396

113

233

problems only

Rent burden >30–50%

742

116

170

343

362

103

217

of income

Moderately inadequate

128

21

38

76

57

13

43

housing

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

(continued)

62

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 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, 2013 and 2015 (continued)

Functional Limitations

ADL/IADL Limitationsa

Any

Independent

2013

Limitation

Hearing

Visual

Cognitive

Ambulatory

Self-Care

Living

Households

9,315

2,010

1,699

3,667

5,018

1,524

2,884

(thousands)

Renter households

4,265

767

805

1,788

2,366

675

1,290

Owner households

5,050

1,243

895

1,879

2,653

849

1,594

Renters (thousands)

4,265

767

805

1,788

2,366

675

1,290

Unassisted with severe

1,156

190

215

500

686

229

417

problems

Unassisted with

910

170

184

367

463

135

267

nonsevere problems

only

Unassisted with no

1,120

228

211

393

565

127

220

problems

Assisted

1,080

179

194

529

652

184

387

Very low-income

2,804

481

524

1,281

1,623

474

955

renters (thousands)

Unassisted with severe

1,085

179

199

481

648

221

389

problems

Unassisted with

509

79

108

209

257

80

147

nonsevere problems

only

Unassisted with no

223

59

34

103

118

12

53

problems

Assisted

987

164

184

488

601

161

365

Any with severe

1,439

236

277

642

864

286

520

problems

Rent burden >50% of

1,384

230

260

617

825

274

500

income

Severely inadequate

117

18

32

62

77

24

50

housing

[Rent burden only,

1,166

188

202

512

699

235

406

adequate housing]

Any with nonsevere

825

131

158

388

449

130

258

problems only

Rent burden >30–50%

740

115

130

344

405

118

230

of income

Moderately inadequate

129

34

30

73

85

23

43

housing

Crowded housing

65

7

14

24

16

17

24

[Rent burden only]

647

92

114

302

352

98

199

Any with no problems

540

113

89

251

310

58

178

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

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

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

63

64

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX B. SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS

B Supplemental Exhibits

Appendix

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

65

APPENDIX B. SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS

Exhibit B-2. Affordable Rental Units Occupied By Higher Income Renters, 2015

9

8

Renters with incomes of >80% AMI

Renters with incomes of 50–80% AMI

7

Renters with incomes of 30–50% AMI

1.98

Renters with incomes of 0–30% AMI

6

1.25

Vacant units for rent

2.41

5

1.73

1.31

4

Rental units (millions)

2.15

1.41

2.67

3

1.47

1.61

0.43

0.51

1.82

0.37

0.56

0.34

1.14

1.02

2

0.44

0.26

0.76

0.58

0.39

0.28

1.23

1.76

1.53

0.63

0.66

0.23

0.40

0.93

1.04

1

0.27

1.61

0.42

1.34

1.13

0.65

0.35

0.53

0.82

0.44

0.82

0.25

0.32

0.69

0.69

0.51

0.36

0.67

0

0.09

0.06

0.13

0.23

0.20

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120+

Unit affordability: percent of Area Median 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, 2015

Households

(thousands)

Housing Units (thousands)

Housing Units per 100 Households

Affordable,

Affordable,

Affordable

Available, and

Affordable

Available, and

Affordable

and Available

Adequate

Affordable

and Available

Adequate

All

26,048

28,381

21,264

19,199

109.0

81.6

73.7

Northeast

5,211

5,499

4,259

3,691

105.5

81.7

70.8

Midwest

4,877

5,631

4,059

3,687

115.5

83.2

75.6

South

9,334

10,440

7,885

7,197

111.9

84.5

77.1

West

6,627

6,810

5,061

4,623

102.8

76.4

69.8

Central cities

12,538

12,960

9,986

8,869

103.4

79.6

70.7

Suburbs, urban

8,296

8,744

6,396

5,890

105.4

77.1

71.0

Suburbs, rural

2,012

2,590

1,893

1,711

128.7

94.1

85.0

Nonmetropolitan

3,202

4,087

2,989

2,728

127.6

93.3

85.2

areas

FMR = Fair Market Rent.

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

66

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX C. FEDERAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS

C Federal Housing Assistance and

Affordable Housing Programs

HUD provides rental housing assistance through three key programs.1

1� Public housing� Provides affordable housing to 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� 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

Appendix

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, typical y

with shal ower subsidies. Although these units are often 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 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 (AMI).

- HOME Investment Partnerships 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, whichever is less.

1  The number of households assisted by key programs based on HUD administrative records is available through the  Picture of Subsidized Households query tool at http://www.huduser.gov/

portal/datasets/assthsg.html.

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

67

APPENDIX C. FEDERAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS

- Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS�

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 affordable for families with

incomes greater than the public housing income limits.

For further detail on HUD program requirements, see HUD-

PD&R (2016).

68

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 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,

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

Appendix

Case Housing Needs (March 1996).

-  Rental Housing Assistance—The Crisis Continues (April 1998).

-  Rental Housing Assistance—The Worsening Crisis: A Report to Congress on

Worst Case Housing Needs (March 2000).

-  A Report on Worst Case Housing Needs in 1999: New Opportunity Amid

Continuing Challenges, Executive Summary (January 2001).

-  Trends in Worst Case Needs for Housing, 1978–1999 (December 2003).

-  Affordable Housing Needs: A Report to Congress on the Significant Need for

Housing (December 2005).

-  Affordable Housing Needs 2005: Report to Congress (May 2007).

-  Housing Needs of Persons With Disabilities: Supplemental Findings to the

Affordable Housing Needs 2005  Report (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).

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

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

69

70

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 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.

Using the American Housing Survey Data

This report uses data from the most recently available American Housing Survey

(AHS), conducted in 2015. 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 national y representative data on a wide range

Appendix

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 col ected every 2 years, from a sample of about 84,400

housing units in 2013 (HUD-Census, 2013) and a new redesigned sample of

about 85,400 housing units in 2015 (HUD-Census, 2017a). 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

chal enges 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 selecting 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

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 HUD’s

official very low-income limits (50 percent of HUD-adjusted area median family

income [HAMFI], also termed Area Median Income [AMI]), whether a household

already receives housing assistance, and whether an unassisted income-eligible

household has one or more of the priority problems that formerly conferred

preference in tenant selection for assistance (rent burdens exceeding 50 percent

of income, substandard housing, or being involuntarily displaced).

A national data source that is a reasonable alternative to the AHS for measuring

housing needs is the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS has the

advantage of a larger sample size that supports estimates for small geographic

areas. Disadvantages of the ACS include addressing housing assistance status

in a less comprehensive way and providing much less information about housing

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

71

APPENDIX E. DATA AND METHODOLOGY

unit characteristics. For example, the ACS no longer ascertains

for 2007 and earlier identified households containing people

whether units contain complete plumbing systems.

with disabilities using various forms of income-based proxies.

Households with disabilities (1) were not families with children,

Weighting� Because the AHS is based on a sample of housing

(2) were not elderly households, and (3) received some form of

units rather than a census of all housing units, estimates

income or government assistance that is very likely to indicate

based on the data must be “weighted up” so that totals for

that an adult with disabilities is present in the household.

each year match independent estimates of the total housing

Beginning with the 2009 AHS, the survey now asks direct

stock and better represent the full housing stock. The Census

questions about impairments and difficulties with activities

Bureau weights up responses to account for undercoverage of

of daily living about each household member, including

households and household nonresponse (about 15 percent).

children. This report therefore addresses disability on the

The weights for 2001-through-2009 AHS data used in this

basis of people identified with these problems. In this report,

report are based on the 2000 Census of Housing, with

elderly people with disabilities do not increase the number

adjustments for estimated change since then. Since 2011, AHS

of households with disabilities because of the prevalence of

data have been weighted to 2010 census benchmarks.

disabilities associated with aging.

Exclusions� Households reporting incomes that are zero or

Housing Assistance Status

negative are excluded from estimates of worst case needs,

although they are included in counts of total households.

In 1997, the AHS questions intended to identify households

If such households pay rents greater than the Fair Market

receiving rental assistance were changed in both content and

Rent and report zero or negative incomes, then their income

order from those used previously. After careful review, HUD

situation is presumably temporary, and so they are included

and the Census Bureau adopted the fol owing procedure

and higher incomes are imputed to them.

to identify assisted units in a way that produces results that

are more comparable with pre-1997 data. These questions

Household and Family Types

were further refined in 2007, as a result of additional cognitive

research. Therefore, in this report, receipt of rental assistance

In this report, the terms “family” and “household” are not

is based on respondent reports designed to—

interchangeable, because not al  households are families.

Families refers only to a subset of households that have one

- Determine whether the household must recertify to

or more people in the household related to the  householder

determine the rent it pays.

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

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

- Determine whether the rent is less because of a federal,

marriage, or adoption.

state, or local government housing program.

Families with children� Households with a child younger

- Determine whether the household has a housing voucher,

than age 18 present are presumed to meet the definition

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

of family through relation by birth or adoption (including

grandparents as parents).

- Determine whether the housing authority is the

household’s landlord.

Elderly households without children� Households in which

the householder or spouse is age 62 or older and in which no

- Determine whether the household was assigned to its

children are present. Elderly households may be either family

housing unit or al owed to choose it.

or nonfamily households.

HUD continues to assess an alternative approach of identifying

Other family households� Households with a nonelderly

HUD-assisted households using an administrative data match.

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

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

Housing Problems

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

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

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

utilities) to household income that exceeds 30 percent, which is a

Other nonfamily households� Households with a single

conventional standard for housing affordability. To the extent that

nonelderly person living alone or with only nonrelatives. Most

respondents underreport total income, the AHS estimates may

of these households comprise single people living alone rather

overcount the number of households with a cost burden. A  severe

than unrelated people sharing housing.

cost burden exceeds 50 percent of reported income. A  moderate

cost burden exceeds 30 percent but is less than or equal to 50

Households with disabilities� Before 2009, no questions

percent of reported income. Cost burdens qualify as potential

in the AHS were designed to ascertain directly whether

worst case needs only if they are severe. Households reporting

individuals suffered from disabilities. Worst case needs reports

zero or negative income are defined as having no cost burden.

72

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX E. DATA AND METHODOLOGY

Inadequate housing� Housing with severe or moderate

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

physical problems, as defined in the AHS since 1984 and

substandard housing (including being homeless or in a

modified from time to time to reflect changes in the survey.

homeless shelter), or being involuntarily displaced. These

Severe inadequacies constitute potential worst case needs,

problems informed the original definition of worst case needs.

but moderate inadequacies do not. The 2007 AHS eliminated

Because the AHS sample tracks housing units and thus cannot

the questions about hal ways (common stairways and light

count homeless people, AHS estimates of priority problems

fixtures) in multiunit structures in the section on selected

are limited to the two severe problems described previously: (1)

physical problems, which affects the classification of units

rent burdens greater than 50 percent of income, or (2) severe

having severe or moderate physical problems. Briefly, a unit

physical problems. In accordance with the intention to estimate

is defined as having severe physical inadequacies if it has any

the number of unassisted very low-income renters with priority

one of the fol owing four problems.

problems, the tables in appendix A classify households with

a combination of moderate problems and severe problems as

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

having severe problems.

lacking both bathtub and shower, all for the exclusive use

of the unit.

Income Measurement

2� Heating� Having been uncomfortably cold during the past

Income sources�  Income means gross income reported by

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

AHS respondents for the 12 months preceding the interview.

hours each, because of broken-down heating equipment.

For each person in the household, the AHS questionnaire

col ects the amounts of several different types of income.

3� Electrical� Having no electricity or having all three of the

Income includes amounts reported for wage and salary

fol owing electrical problems: exposed wiring, a room with

income, net self-employment income, Social Security or railroad

no working wall outlet, and three or more blown fuses or

retirement income, public assistance or welfare payments, and

tripped circuit breakers in the past 90 days.

all other money income before deductions for taxes or any other

purpose. Imputed income from equity is not included as income

4� Upkeep� Having any five of the fol owing six maintenance

in this report. In accordance with HUD rules for determining

problems: leaks from outdoors, leaks from indoors, holes

income eligibility for HUD programs, the earnings of teenagers

in the floor, holes or open cracks in the wal s or ceilings,

age 17 and younger are not counted as income for this report.

more than 1 square foot of peeling paint or plaster, and

rats in the past 90 days.

Household income� Reported income from all sources for all

household members age 18 and older.

A unit has moderate inadequacies if it has any of the fol owing

four problems but none of the severe problems listed previously.

Income Categories

1� Plumbing� Having all toilets break down simultaneously at

HAMFI and official income limits� HUD is required by law

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

to set income limits each year that determine the eligibility

each time.

of applicants for assisted housing programs. In 1974,

Congress defined “low income” and “very low income” for

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

HUD rental programs as incomes not exceeding 80 and 50

as the main source of heat (because these heaters may

percent, respectively, of HAMFI. HAMFI is more commonly

produce unsafe fumes and unhealthy levels of moisture).

referred to as AMI, although the latter term may be subject to

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

misinterpretation. Note that income limits are based on Median

associated with severe inadequacies.

Family Income (MFI), not on median household income. HUD

determines base income limits for a household of four. Income

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

limits are further adjusted by household size: one person, 70

exclusive use of the unit.

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

percent; five people, 108 percent; six people, 116 percent;

Overcrowding� The condition of having more than one

and so on. Each household is assigned to an income category

person per room in a residence. Overcrowding is counted

using the income limit appropriate to its area and the number

as a moderate problem rather than a severe problem that

of household members.2

constitutes a potential worst case need.

Income cutoffs in association with AHS geography�

“Priority” problems� Problems qualifying for federal

To categorize households in relation to local income limits as

preference in admission to assisted housing programs

accurately as possible within the limitations of the geography

between 1988 and 1996, including paying more than one-

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

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

73

APPENDIX E. DATA AND METHODOLOGY

given on the AHS public use files, HUD compares household

- Middle income� For this report, income exceeding 80

incomes with area income limits. Very low-income and low-

percent and less than 120 percent of HAMFI.

income cutoffs for a household of four are defined for each

unit of geography identified in the AHS national microdata files.

- Upper income� For this report, income exceeding 120

For housing units outside these metropolitan areas, the AHS

percent of HAMFI.

geography identifies only four regions, metropolitan status, and

six climate zones. Average income limits were estimated for

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

each of these 48 locations.

poverty cutoff for that household size. As discussed in

appendix A of the Census Bureau’s AHS publications,

Because developing estimates of official income limits for

AHS poverty estimates differ from official poverty

the geography identified in the AHS microdata was time

estimates made from the Current Population Survey. AHS

consuming, before the 2003 AHS release, HUD prepared

poverty estimates are based on the income of households

income limits to use with AHS geography for only 3

rather than the income of families or individuals, and

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

AHS income questions are much less detailed and refer

AHS release and each subsequent data set have been based

to income during the past 12 months rather than during

on HUD’s current income limits for those years, weighted by

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

AHS weights. The Census Bureau included these cutoffs to

approximates 33 percent of HAMFI. Comparisons of

the AHS public use file through 2013. To protect respondent

income limits with poverty thresholds are presented in

confidentiality, income limit variables were restricted to the

tables A-6a, A-6b, A-7, and A-8.

AHS internal use file in 2015. Additional detail about income

limits can be found in the housing costs-affordability section of

- Earnings at minimum wage� Households with incomes

the  AHS Codebook Interactive Tool (HUD-Census, 2017b).

from salary or wages totaling at least as much as one

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

Categorizing households by income� For this report,

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

when households are categorized using the extremely low-,

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

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

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

for household size using the same adjustment factors that

earned by all persons in the household total at least

HUD programs use.

$14,500 annual y. Households with incomes from salary

or wages totaling at least one-half that amount ($7,250

In addition, households reporting negative income are

annual y) are defined as having at least half-time earnings

attributed incomes of slightly more than AMI if their monthly

at minimum wage. Comparisons of household earnings

housing costs exceed the FMR and they lived in adequate

characteristics are presented in appendix tables A-6a,

and uncrowded housing. The justification for imputing higher

A-6b, A-7, and A-8.

incomes is that many households in this situation live in

housing with amenities such as dining rooms, balconies,

Location

and off-street parking, and thus may be reporting temporary

accounting losses.

Metropolitan Statistical Area� From 1973 to 1983, the

definitions of metropolitan location in AHS data corresponded

- Extremely low income� Income not in excess of 30

to the 243 standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas used in the

percent of HAMFI, as determined by the extremely low-

1970 census. From 1984 to 2013, metropolitan location in the

income cutoff.

AHS referred to the metropolitan statistical areas defined in

1983, based on the 1980 census. The 2015 AHS redesign that

- Very low income� Income not in excess of 50 percent of

selected a new national and metropolitan area longitudinal

HAMFI, as determined by the very low-income cutoff. Very

sample for the first time since 1985 brought metropolitan

low income thus includes extremely low income, although

area definitions up-to-date with the most current Office of

the term sometimes is used loosely in specific contexts,

Management and Budget delineations based on the 2010

such as mismatch analysis, to mean incomes of between

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

30 and 50 percent of HAMFI.

was February 2013.3

- Low income� Reported income not in excess of 80

Region� The four census regions are the Northeast, Midwest,

percent of HAMFI, as determined by the low-income cutoff.

South, and West.

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

74

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

APPENDIX E. DATA AND METHODOLOGY

Mismatch of Supply and Demand for

categorized solely on the basis of utility costs. Utility costs are

Affordable Rental Housing

al ocated to vacant units through hot-deck imputation based

on units that are comparable on the basis of cost, number of

Mismatch� The discrepancy between the number of rental

units, region, and tenure.

units needed by renters of various income categories and the

number provided by the market that are affordable at those

Race and Ethnicity

income levels.

In 2003, the AHS began using revised Census Bureau

Affordability� Several federal rental programs define

categories of race and ethnicity that are not directly

affordable rents as those requiring not more than 30 percent of

comparable with the categories used in the AHS from 2001

an income cutoff defined in relation to HAMFI. Under the Low-

and earlier. Survey respondents may now select more than one

Income Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC), for example,

racial group, causing slight but meaningful decreases in the

housing units with rents up to 30 percent of 60 percent of

size of previously monolithic categories.

HAMFI qualify as affordable and eligible for the credit.

This report generalizes the approach developed to define

LIHTC maximum rents for units of different sizes to define

three categories of affordability (extremely low income, very

low income, and low income) based on the incomes that are

sufficient for the rents—at or less than 30 percent of HAMFI,

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

more than 50 percent of HAMFI. Gross rents for each unit,

including payments for utilities, are compared with 30 percent

of HUD’s extremely low-income and very low-income cutoffs.

The income limits used to define rent affordability are adjusted

for number of bedrooms using the formula codified at 26

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

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

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

12 percent of base for every additional bedroom. This formula

assumes that an efficiency unit houses one person, a one-

bedroom unit houses 1.5 people, and each additional bedroom

houses another 1.5 people. For vacant units, the costs of any

utilities that would be paid by an occupant were al ocated

using a “hot deck” technique based on a matrix of structure

type, AHS climate code, and eight categories of gross rent.

Three measures of affordability� HUD uses three measures

to analyze the supply of the rental housing stock in relation to

the number of renters with household incomes below specified

thresholds—affordable units per 100 renters; affordable and

available units per 100 renters; and affordable, available, and

adequate units per 100 renters.

Categorizing rental units by affordability and

households by income� To analyze the mismatch between

affordability and income, HUD compares household incomes

and housing unit rents with the current income limits (for

income and rent categories up to and including 80 percent of

HAMFI) and to a ratio of HAMFI (for categories exceeding 80

percent of HAMFI). As in the analysis of household income,

households reporting negative income are redefined as having

incomes slightly greater than MFI if their monthly housing

costs were more than the FMR and they lived in adequate and

uncrowded housing. Units with “no cash rent” reported are

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

75

76

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

LITERATURE CITED

LITERATURE  Econometrica. 2016.  American Housing Survey Components of Inventory Change: 2011–2013.  Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

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

CITED

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

Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University (JCHS). 2006.  State of the Nation’s Housing: 2006.  Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for Housing Studies

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

files/son2006.pdf.

———. 2016.  State of the Nation’s Housing: 2016.  Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University.  http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/

jchs.harvard.edu/files/jchs_2016_state_of_the_nations_housing_lowres.pdf.

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

(HUD-Census). 2013.  2013 AHS National Sample Design and Weighting.

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.

———. 2017a.  2015 AHS Integrated National Sample: Sample Design, Weighting,

and Error Estimation.  Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce,

U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/

tech-documentation/def-errors-changes.html.

———. 2017b.  AHS Codebook Interactive Tool.  Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/

data-tools/demo/codebook/ahs/ahsdict.html.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community

Planning and Development (HUD-CPD). 2016.  The 2016 Annual Homeless

Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress: Part 1, Point-in-Time Estimates

of Homelessness.  Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development.

https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/5178/2016-ahar-part-1-pit-

estimates-of-homelessness.

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: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

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

huduser.gov/portal/publications/affhsg/affhsgneedsdis.html.

———. 2016.  Programs of HUD, 2016: Major Mortgage, Grant, Assistance and

Regulatory Programs.  Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and

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

www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/programs-of-hud.html.

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

77

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Washington, DC 20410-6000

August 2017

Document Outline

- WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

- Preface

- Contents

- Executive Summary

- Section 1 Extent and Nature of Worst Case Needs

- Section 2 Shortage of Affordable Housing

- Section 3 Understanding the Trend in Worst Case Needs

- Appendix A Detailed Data on Housing Problems and Supply of Affordable Housing

- Appendix B Supplemental Exhibits

- Appendix C  Federal Housing Assistance and Affordable Housing Programs

- Appendix D Previous Reports to Congress on Worst Case Needs

- Appendix E Data and Methodology

- Literature Cited

Table of Contents

WORST CASE HOUSING NEEDS 2017 REPORT TO CONGRESS

Preface

Contents

Executive Summary

Section 1 Extent and Nature of Worst Case Needs

Section 2 Shortage of Affordable Housing

Section 3 Understanding the Trend in Worst Case Needs

Appendix A Detailed Data on Housing Problems and Supply of Affordable Housing

Appendix B Supplemental Exhibits

Appendix C Federal Housing Assistance and Affordable Housing Programs

Appendix D Previous Reports to Congress on Worst Case Needs

Appendix E Data and Methodology

Literature Cited