DISCLAIMER

The contents of this report are the views of the contractor and do not necessarily reflect 

the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the 

U.S. Government. 
Characteristics of 

HUD-Assisted Renters 

and Their Units in 2017

Frederick J. Eggers

Econometrica, Inc. 

SP Group LLC

March 2020
i 

Table of Contents

LIST OF EXHIBITS .......................................................................................................................... III

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. ES-1

HUD-ASSISTED RENTAL HOUSING (SECTION 2) ....................................................................ES-1

CHARACTERISTICS THAT AFFECT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE (SECTION 3) .............................ES-2

CHARACTERISTICS OF HUD-ASSISTED TENANTS (SECTIONS 4 AND 5)...................................ES-3

HOUSING COSTS, UNIT QUALITY, AND TENANT SATISFACTION (SECTIONS 5 AND 6) .............ES-4

CONCLUSIONS (SECTION 7) ....................................................................................................ES-4

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................1

SECTION 2: HUD RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS .....................................................................3

MULTIPLE ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS BUT TWO STRATEGIES .........................................................3

THE BIG PICTURE IN 2017 ............................................................................................................6

INTERPRETING THE DATA .............................................................................................................7

A NOTE ON ELIGIBILITY ...............................................................................................................8

SECTION 3: LOCATION AND KEY UNIT CHARACTERISTICS...........................................................9

REGIONAL AND METROPOLITAN LOCATION .................................................................................9

YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT ...........................................................................................................14

NUMBER OF BEDROOMS .............................................................................................................15

CLOSING THOUGHTS ..................................................................................................................16

SECTION 4: HOUSEHOLDER CHARACTERISTICS ..........................................................................18

RACE AND ETHNIC ORIGIN OF HOUSEHOLDER ...........................................................................18

AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER ..............................................................................................................19

EDUCATION OF HOUSEHOLDER ..................................................................................................20

YEARS IN SAME UNIT .................................................................................................................21

SECTION 5: HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS ...............................................................................24

HOUSEHOLD INCOME .................................................................................................................24

INCOME SOURCES.......................................................................................................................25

HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION ........................................................................................................26

HOUSEHOLD SIZE .......................................................................................................................28

HOUSEHOLDS WITH A DISABLED MEMBER .................................................................................29
ii

HOUSING COST AS PERCENTAGE OF INCOME..............................................................................29

CLOSING THOUGHTS ..................................................................................................................32

SECTION 6: UNIT QUALITY AND TENANT SATISFACTION ............................................................33

STRUCTURE TYPE .......................................................................................................................33

OVERALL ADEQUACY OF UNITS .................................................................................................34

TENANT SATISFACTION ..............................................................................................................39

RECENT MOVERS .......................................................................................................................39

CLOSING THOUGHTS ..................................................................................................................41

SECTION 7: ASSESSMENT OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING—LOOKING ACROSS THE SECTIONS ...43

WHO DO THE PROGRAMS SERVE? ..............................................................................................43

WHAT BENEFITS DO THE PROGRAMS PROVIDE? ........................................................................44

HOW DO THE PROGRAMS DIFFER WITH RESPECT TO RECIPIENTS AND BENEFITS? .....................45

HOW HAVE THE PROGRAMS EVOLVED SINCE 1989? ..................................................................46

APPENDIX A: HOW HUD DETERMINES PHYSICAL ADEQUACY ....................................................0

HOUSING ADEQUACY ...................................................................................................................0

APPENDIX B: PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE CHARACTERISTICS ON HUD-ASSISTED RENTERS AND 

THEIR UNITS BASED ON AHS DATA ...............................................................................................0

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................0
iii

List of Exhibits 

EXHIBIT 2-1. TRENDS IN HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY PROGRAM TYPE ..........................................5

EXHIBIT 2-2. RENTER ELIGIBILITY AND HOUSING ASSISTANCE IN 2017 ...........................................6

EXHIBIT 2-3. TRENDS IN HUD-ASSISTED RENTAL HOUSING, RELATIVE TO NEED ...........................7

EXHIBIT 3-1. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY REGION AND 

CENSUS DIVISION, 2017 ..........................................................................................11

EXHIBIT 3-2. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY METROPOLITAN/ 

NONMETROPOLITAN STATUS, 2017 ........................................................................12

EXHIBIT 3-3. TRENDS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF ALL HUD-ASSISTED HOUSEHOLDS BY REGION 

AND BY METROPOLITAN/NONMETROPOLITAN STATUS, 1989–2017 .......................13

EXHIBIT 3-4. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY YEAR BUILT, 2017 .........................14

EXHIBIT 3-5. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS, 2017 .......15

EXHIBIT 3-6. TRENDS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED UNITS BY NUMBER 

OF BEDROOMS.........................................................................................................16

EXHIBIT 4-1. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY RACE AND ETHNICITY OF 

HOUSEHOLDER, 2017 ..............................................................................................18

EXHIBIT 4-2. TRENDS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSEHOLDS BY RACE AND 

ETHNICITY OF HOUSEHOLDER ................................................................................19

EXHIBIT 4-3. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER, 2017.........20

EXHIBIT 4-4. TRENDS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSEHOLDS BY 

AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER ...........................................................................................20

EXHIBIT 4-5. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY EDUCATION ATTAINMENT OF 

HOUSEHOLDER, 2017 ..............................................................................................21

EXHIBIT 4-6. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY HOUSEHOLDER YEARS IN UNIT 

BY RACE, ETHNICITY, AND SENIOR AND DISABILITY STATUS, 2017 .......................22

EXHIBIT 5-1. MEDIAN INCOME OF HOUSEHOLDS BY ASSISTANCE STATUS, 2017 ...........................24

EXHIBIT 5-2. TRENDS IN MEDIAN INCOME OF HOUSEHOLDS BY ASSISTANCE STATUS ...................25
iv

EXHIBIT 5-3. INCOME SOURCES FOR RENTER HOUSEHOLDS BY ASSISTANCE STATUS, 2017 ..........26

EXHIBIT 5-4. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION, 2017 ..27

EXHIBIT 5-5. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY NUMBER OF CHILDREN 

IN HOUSEHOLD, 2017 ..............................................................................................27

EXHIBIT 5-6. TRENDS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING 

BY HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION ...............................................................................28

EXHIBIT 5-7. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE, 2017 .................28

EXHIBIT 5-8. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY DISABILITY STATUS 

OF MEMBERS, 2017 .................................................................................................29

EXHIBIT 5-9. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY RATIO OF HOUSING COSTS 

TO INCOME, 2017 ....................................................................................................30

EXHIBIT 5-10. TRENDS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY RATIO 

OF HOUSING COSTS TO INCOME ..............................................................................31

EXHIBIT 6-1. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2017 .................33

EXHIBIT 6-2. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY PHYSICAL ADEQUACY, 2017 ..........34

EXHIBIT 6-3. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY HEATING ADEQUACY, 2017 ...........35

EXHIBIT 6-4. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY FLUSH TOILET 

BREAKDOWNS, 2017 ...............................................................................................36

EXHIBIT 6-5. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY WATER LEAKS, 2017 ......................36

EXHIBIT 6-6. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY SELECTED DEFICIENCIES, 2017 ......37

EXHIBIT 6-7. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS, 2017 .......38

EXHIBIT 6-8. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY COMPLETE KITCHEN 

FACILITIES, 2017 ....................................................................................................38

EXHIBIT 6-9. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY TENANT RATINGS AS “BEST” OR 

“WORST,” 2017 ......................................................................................................39

EXHIBIT 6-10. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY PERCENT OF RECENT 

MOVERS, 2017 ........................................................................................................40
v 

EXHIBIT 6-11. DISTRIBUTION OF RECENT MOVERS HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY KEY REASONS 

GIVEN FOR MOVE, 2017 .........................................................................................40

EXHIBIT 6-12. DISTRIBUTION OF RECENT MOVERS HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY COMPARISON OF 

CURRENT AND PREVIOUS HOME AND NEIGHBORHOOD, 2017 .................................41

EXHIBIT 6-13. KEY FINDINGS FROM EXHIBITS 6-3 THROUGH 6-8 ...................................................42

EXHIBIT 7-1. KEY FINDINGS FROM EXHIBITS 6-3 THROUGH 6-8 .....................................................45
ES-1 

Executive Summary

In 2017, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provided rental 

subsidies to 4,540,000 households under several programs, with total costs exceeding $38 

billion. This report uses data from the American Housing Survey (AHS) to describe key features 

of both the rental housing assistance that HUD provided and the households that HUD served.1

The 2017 AHS contained information collected from 4,728 HUD-assisted rental units; this report 

compares this group with two control groups: all rental units and all rental units occupied by very 

low-income (VLI) households (that is, by households with incomes not exceeding 50 percent of 

local median income, adjusted for household size).2 Most VLI households are eligible for HUD 

assistance.

HUD-Assisted Rental Housing (Section 2)

HUD-assisted housing falls into three broad types: (1) public housing, (2) vouchers, and (3) 

privately owned multifamily programs.

3

 Public housing and privately owned multifamily 

programs are project-based programs, meaning the subsidy is tied to the unit and that households 

apply for the units. Vouchers are tenant-based because the subsidy attaches to the household, 

that then selects the unit. 

Public housing was first implemented in 1937 when the federal government encouraged 

the formation of local public housing authorities (PHAs) that planned projects, issued bonds to 

finance these projects, and managed the projects after completion. The government paid off the 

bonds, and PHAs maintained projects using rent from tenants. Currently, HUD also subsidizes 

operating costs and capital improvements. In 2017, public housing assisted 968,000 households. 

Historically, tenant-based assistance began with the Section 8 certificate and voucher 

programs created in 1974 and 1983, respectively. The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program 

replaced these programs under legislation enacted in 1998. Although the voucher program is 

predominantly tenant-based, a variant of it allows PHAs to attach vouchers to units in a project, 

1 The estimates presented in this report are based on survey data, which are subject to sampling and non-sampling 

error. The definitions and periods of time used in this report may not be the same as used in HUD administrative 

data or other surveys (which have their own sources of error). Readers are advised to use caution when comparing 

the results in this report with documents based on other data sources, including HUD’s Picture of Subsidized 

Households. 2 Throughout this report, the term “very low-income households” refers to renter households eligible for HUD 

assistance, including renter households receiving HUD assistance. According to the authorizing statute, households 

are initially income-eligible for the HUD rental assistance programs if they have incomes at or below 80 percent of 

the HUD area median income. Additional statutes and HUD regulations for specific rental assistance programs, 

however, as well as public housing authority-specific rules, generally limit income eligibility to households with 

incomes at or below 50 percent of the HUD area median income. As of 2019, approximately 4 percent of HUDassisted households have incomes greater than 50 percent of the HUD area median income.

3 In discussing differences between individual HUD programs or between HUD-assisted housing and comparison 

groups, the report does not determine whether the differences are statistically significant. Statistical testing was 

beyond the scope of this study. In particular, we did not have access to the sample counts behind the tables, which 

are needed for manageable testing.
ES-2 

and the “voucher” data in this report contain both the traditional voucher program and this 

variant. In 2017, the HCV program assisted 2,169,000 households. 

Privately owned multifamily housing includes projects created under a collection of 

programs created during the past four decades. These programs provide private landlords with

housing subsidies from HUD to provide affordable housing to qualified tenants. The subsidy 

arrangement is project-based because the assisted household may not take the subsidy and move 

to another location. The single largest (87 percent) project-based program is the Section 8 

program, which was created in 1974 as a project-based companion to the Section 8 voucher 

program. In 2017, privately owned multifamily programs assisted 1,403,000 households. 

HUD generally limits income eligibility for rental assistance to VLI households that have 

incomes at or below 50 percent of the HUD area median income. Throughout this report, these 

households are called VLI households. In 2017, 18,742,000 households in the United States were 

VLI, and 4,540,000 (24.2 percent) were in HUD-assisted units.

The number of assisted rental units has increased by only 12 percent during the past 26 

years: In 1991, HUD assisted 4,036,000 rental units, compared with 4,540,000 in 2017. During 

the same period, the number of VLI households increased nearly 16 percent, from 16,194,000 to 

18,742,000. Because of a reduced rate of HUD-assisted households and an increase in the number 

of VLI households, the percentage of VLI households receiving assistance fell from 24.9 to 24.2 

percent.

The mix of HUD-assisted housing has changed dramatically over time as HUD has 

shifted its resources away from project-based housing to tenant-based housing. The voucher 

program’s share of HUD-assisted households grew from 26 percent in 1989 to 48 percent in 

2017. During this period, the shares of public housing and privately owned multifamily housing 

declined by 12 and 10 percentage points, respectively; public housing decreased from 33 percent 

to 21 percent, and privately owned multifamily housing decreased from 41 percent to 31 percent.

Characteristics That Affect Program Performance (Section 3)

HUD administers its assisted rental housing through agents: In the case of public housing, this is 

done with local PHAs and, in the case of privately owned multifamily units, private landlords. 

When and where these agents get involved in the housing process and their preferences4

determine where the programs operate and who the programs serve. This circumstance is 

particularly true of project-based programs; once constructed, projects continue to serve a 

locality and a certain clientele for 40 years or more.

Project-based programs were most active before 1985; approximately 75 percent of 

privately owned multifamily housing and 80 percent of public housing was built before 1985. 

This housing construction was influenced by the demographics of that period, such as the age, 

size, and composition of low-income households. For these programs, the local needs and 

4 Such as helping households that are senior, disabled, with children, or recently homeless.
ES-3 

interests of PHAs and project managers determined the type of housing and, in particular, the 

mix of bedrooms built. 

In creating assisted units during that period, public housing and privately owned 

multifamily programs were heavily oriented toward building smaller units. In 2017, 37 percent 

of public housing units and 63 percent of privately owned multifamily were efficiencies or onebedroom units; for all renter households and VLI renter households, the share was 28 percent and 

35 percent, respectively. This heavy concentration of efficiencies and one-bedroom units 

determined the size and composition of the households served by these programs. By 

comparison, 29 percent of the units in the voucher program were efficiency or one-bedroom 

units. 

The location of projects also influences resident characteristics. In the Northeast and the

central cities of U.S. metropolitan areas, the percentage of public housing and privately owned 

multifamily rental housing is higher than the percentage of VLI households in the same areas. 

Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Tenants (Sections 4 and 5)

For some characteristics of households, the U.S. Census Bureau reports data on all household 

members; for other characteristics, such as age or race, the U.S. Census Bureau reports data from 

one individual, known as the householder. The householder is any responsible member of the 

household competent enough to answer questions about the household. For example, in a 

household with two adults and a child or children, the householder could be either adult. This 

report uses AHS data on both the householder (Section 4) and the household (Section 5) to 

describe the characteristics of those served by HUD-assisted housing.

HUD-assisted rental housing generally serves the lowest income population. In 2017, the 

median income for VLI households not assisted by HUD was $16,000; for VLI households 

assisted by HUD, the median income was $10,800 among public housing tenants, $11,160 

among tenants of privately owned multifamily units, and $12,500 among voucher recipient 

households. Compared with all VLI households, householders in HUD-assisted units had 

substantially lower educational attainment, received wage and salary income less often, and 

relied on welfare and Supplemental Security Income, or SSI, more often. HUD-assisted 

households were less often married-couple households and more often single-adult households 

with a female householder. HUD-assisted households, especially in privately owned multifamily 

projects, were more likely to contain members with disabilities (hereafter referred to as disabled 

households). 

Some of the deviations in characteristics between HUD-assisted households and 

householders and the population of unassisted VLI households generally relate to when and 

where programs began operation. HUD householders are more often Black than those in the VLI

renter population because HUD programs operate more often in central cities of metropolitan 

areas. HUD householders are somewhat less likely to be Hispanic, likely because project-based 

programs were historically concentrated in the Northeast and South and were constructed before 

the rapid growth of the Hispanic population. Similarly, HUD householders are more often 

seniors because PHAs and the owners of subsidized multifamily projects favored this clientele.
ES-4 

Housing Costs, Unit Quality, and Tenant Satisfaction

(Sections 5 and 6) 

The goals of HUD-assisted housing are to reduce the burden of housing costs on households, 

provide households with decent housing in safe neighborhoods, and improve tenant welfare 

overall. 

Section 5 concludes with an examination of rent burden (the ratio of total housing costs 

to income). Generally, a rent burden of more than 40 percent is considered excessive. AHS data 

show that 40 percent of HUD-assisted households have excessive rent burdens. This percentage 

is substantially higher than expected because tenants’ rents in HUD-assisted housing are usually 

set at 30 percent of income. Section 5 presents plausible reasons for this apparent program 

discrepancy. The bottom line is that excessive rent burdens are much less common among HUDassisted households than all VLI households (63 percent).

The main conclusion from section 6 is that American housing stock and the HUDassisted stock are of high quality. The AHS includes an overall measure of housing quality that 

detects whether an individual unit is adequate, moderately inadequate, or severely inadequate. In 

2017, 1.9 percent of all rental units, 2.9 percent of all VLI units, and 2.3 percent of all HUDassisted units were severely inadequate. 

Section 6 examines various indicators of housing problems: heating problems, toilet 

breakdowns, water leaks, other deficiencies, electrical problems, and having incomplete kitchen 

facilities. In almost every case, HUD-assisted units had few problems, were comparable in quality 

to all rental units, and were sometimes slightly better than all VLI units (see exhibit 6-13). 

HUD-assisted tenants are mostly satisfied with their units and neighborhoods. A higher 

percentage of respondents from HUD-assisted units gave their units a score of 9 or 10—on a 

scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the worst and 10 being the best—than did respondents from units 

occupied by VLI households or from all rental units. Public housing tenants are the least likely to 

be satisfied with their units and neighborhoods, while tenants of privately owned multifamily 

units are most likely to be satisfied. With respect to neighborhoods, tenants in public housing 

appear to be less satisfied than tenants in the other groups; they have the lowest percentage of 

ratings of 9 or 10 and the highest percentage of 1 through 5 ratings. 

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

respondents in HUD-assisted units were more likely than either all renters or VLI renters to rate 

the HUD-assisted unit and neighborhoods as better than their previous unit and neighborhoods. 

Conclusions (Section 7)

This section looks across the earlier sections to assess HUD’s rental assistance, focusing on four 

questions. 
ES-5 

Who Do the Programs Serve?

The households that receive HUD assistance have incomes at the bottom end of the VLI group. 

More than one-half of all HUD-assisted households had a total income in 2017 of less than 

$12,500, compared with a median of $16,000 among unassisted VLI households. Other 

characteristics of assisted households confirm that HUD-assisted housing is targeted to those 

most in need. Seventy percent of HUD-assisted households are single-adult households with a 

female householder, compared with 55 percent among VLI households, and HUD-assisted 

housing serves households with one or more disabled members at a rate (44 percent)

substantially higher than the rate among either VLI renter units (33 percent) or all rental units (22 

percent).

HUD-assisted households differ in some demographic characteristics from all VLI

households. Among HUD-assisted households, 46 percent have Black householders,n and 18 

percent have Hispanic householders, compared with 28 percent and 23 percent, respectively, 

among all VLI households. 

What Benefits Do the Programs Provide? 

Excessive rent burdens are lower among HUD-assisted households (40 percent) compared with

all VLI renters (63 percent). 

HUD-assisted programs achieved their primary objective of providing decent and 

affordable housing for needy households. The AHS provides extensive information on the 

quality and condition of units, and AHS data show that the American rental housing stock is in 

good condition and that HUD-assisted units are as good as other rental units.

Tenants of HUD-assisted housing rate their units with the highest satisfaction more often 

than VLI renters or all renters. Among recent movers, HUD tenants rate their new units and 

neighborhoods as better compared with all VLI movers and all renters. 

How Do the Programs Differ with Respect to Recipients and Benefits?

Forty-four percent of privately owned multifamily householders are seniors, compared with 24 

percent of householders in public housing and 18 percent in the voucher program. Thirty-six

percent of privately owned multifamily households include two or more persons, compared with

56 percent in public housing and 58 percent in the voucher program. Forty-nine percent of 

privately owned multifamily households have a disabled member, compared with 42 percent in 

public housing and 41 percent in the voucher program. 

How Have the Programs Evolved Since 1989? 

The biggest change in assisted housing programs has been the shift from project-based assistance 

to tenant-based assistance. From 1989 to 2017, the number of HUD-assisted units increased by 

500,000 units, but the program mix changed dramatically. The voucher program’s share grew 

from 26 percent in 1989 to 48 percent in 2017, while shares of public housing and privately 

owned multifamily housing each declined by 12 and 10 percentage points, respectively. 
ES-6 

The shift to vouchers had some programmatic effects: The metropolitan areas outside of 

central cities have a larger share of HUD assistance, at 31 percent in 2017 compared with 26 

percent in 1989, and the share of senior householders in HUD-assisted units fell from 35 percent 

to 27 percent. 
1 

Section 1: Introduction 

In 2017, HUD subsidized 4.5 million renter households under a variety of programs where total 

costs exceeded $38 billion. Using data from the 2017 American Housing Survey (AHS), this 

report describes the operations of these rental assistance programs and assesses their 

performance. This study examines the following questions: 

• Where is HUD-assisted housing located? Who operates these programs? Do these aspects 

affect who the programs serve? 

• Who lives in these units? Do HUD programs serve the lowest-income population? Are 

the occupants typical of all low-income households in terms of race, ethnicity, age, and 

household composition? 

• What types—in terms of size, structure type, and age—of units are provided? Do these 

aspects affect who the programs serve?

• How do recipients benefit from HUD assistance? Is their cost of housing reduced? Are 

the units of good quality? Are occupants satisfied with HUD-assisted units? 

Using the AHS, this report answers these questions by comparing HUD units and their 

occupants to two relevant groups: (1) all rental units and their occupants, and (2) units occupied 

by all very low-income (VLI) households. Both groups include assisted units and their 

occupants. 

The AHS is an ideal data source for these purposes. The 2017 AHS contained 

information collected from 4,728 HUD-assisted rental units, and this report compares this group 

with two control groups: all rental units and all rental units occupied by VLI households (that is, 

households eligible for HUD assistance). The data reported here represent assisted households 

and units in all 50 states and the District of Columbia but exclude households and units in Puerto

Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands—those places are not included in the AHS.

5 This report 

is the ninth in a series of studies dating back to 1989 that use AHS information on HUD-assisted

housing stock and its occupants.6

 

This report contains seven sections and an executive summary: 

• Section 1 serves as an introduction to the overall report. 

• Section 2 discusses the HUD-assisted rental housing programs, focusing on their history, 

size, and the two broad strategies that the federal government has used to subsidize 

renters. 

• Section 3 looks at three characteristics of how HUD-assisted housing has evolved: 

location, year built, and size (number of bedrooms). To a large extent, these features 

determine who the programs serve. 

5 Another series of HUD-produced reports and datasets focus only on assisted households using information gleaned

from administrative records. These reports and databases have been published under the series titled Picture of

Subsidized Households and are posted at http://www.huduser.org/datasets/assthsg.html. 6 The eight previous studies are listed in appendix B. The 2007 data were collected and analyzed, but a report was 

not prepared.
2 

• Section 4 uses the information on one important household member, called the 

householder, to describe who the programs serve. Key characteristics of the householder 

are age, race and ethnicity, education, and how long the householder has lived in the unit. 

• Section 5 uses the information on the entire household to describe who the programs 

serve. These household characteristics include income amount, income sources, 

household size and composition, presence or absence of a disabled member, and the 

relationship between rent and other housing costs and income. 

• Section 6 focuses on unit quality and tenant satisfaction: structure type, equipment 

failures and other deficiencies, how well tenants rate their units and neighborhoods, and 

how and why renters who just moved in chose their units. 

• Section 7 uses information from the previous sections to assess HUD-assisted rental 

housing. 
3 

Section 2: HUD Rental Assistance Programs

Multiple Assistance Programs but Two Strategies

HUD’s rental assistance programs provide affordable housing in one of two ways: either HUD 

(or its predecessor) subsidizes the construction and operation of units dedicated to low-income 

renters, or HUD allows selected households to find suitable housing and pays part of the rent on 

behalf of the tenants. These approaches are called project-based and tenant-based, respectively.

HUD rental housing assistance programs for families and individuals fall into three basic

categories:

1. Conventional public housing (hereafter referred to as public housing): project-based. 

2. Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (hereafter referred to as voucher): tenant-based. 

3. Privately owned multifamily housing (hereafter referred to as privately owned 

multifamily): project-based. 

Public housing consists of housing developments owned by local public housing 

authorities (PHAs) or Indian housing authorities. HUD makes payments to these authorities to

cover the development, rehabilitation, and operating costs of the housing units, which are then 

rented to selected low-income families and individuals at below-market rents. Because HUD

payments cover the development and maintenance of the project, public housing is project-based. 

The amount of rent that low-income families pay is typically a fraction (30 percent) of their

income. New tenants can select from vacant and available units owned and operated by local 

PHAs, but they must select a unit owned by the local PHA. 

Public housing was first implemented in 1937; it was designed as a program to provide 

housing for “teachers and firemen”—that is, working low-income families. The federal 

government encouraged the formation of local PHAs that planned projects, issued bonds to 

finance these projects, and managed the projects after completion. The government paid off the 

bonds, and the PHAs maintained the projects using the rent from tenants. In time, PHAs began 

serving households with lower and lower incomes; these incomes eventually would not support 

the rents needed to cover operating costs and building upkeep. HUD now subsidizes operating 

costs and capital improvements.

The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program serves selected low-income 

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

housing unit is located and approved by the local PHA, the PHA makes a subsidy payment to the 

private-sector landlord on behalf of the tenant household. The program is designed so that if the

housing unit rents for up to the fair market rent (established by HUD based on location and 

household size), the out-of-pocket amount that tenants pay is 30 percent of the household’s 

income. Families are given the choice of renting units that are more expensive, but tenants must 

then pay the difference between the payment standard and the higher rent in addition to the 
4 

standard 30 percent of their income.7 If the tenant household decides to move to another 

location, the tenant household may take the Section 8 voucher with them to another rental unit—

this is why this program is referred to as tenant-based assistance. 

Tenant-based assistance is the most prevalent form of housing assistance provided today. 

Historically, tenant-based assistance began with the Section 8 certificate and voucher programs 

created in 1974 and 1983, respectively. These programs were replaced by the HCV program 

under legislation enacted in 1998. Whereas the voucher program is predominantly tenant-based, 

a variant allows PHAs to attach vouchers to units in a project. The “voucher” data in this report 

contain both the traditional voucher program and this variant. 

The third major type of HUD rental assistance is a set of programs collectively referred to 

as privately owned multifamily housing. These programs were created during the last four 

decades of the 20th century. What these programs have in common is that they provide rental 

housing that is owned by private landlords who enter into contracts with HUD to receive housing 

subsidies. The subsidies pay the difference between tenant rent and total rental costs. The 

subsidy arrangement is project-based because the assisted household is not allowed to take the 

subsidy and move to another location. The single largest (87 percent) privately owned 

multifamily program is the Section 8 program, which was created in 1974 as a project-based 

companion to the Section 8 voucher program. This program allowed for new construction and 

substantial rehabilitation delivered through a wide variety of financing mechanisms. An 

important variant of project-based Section 8 was the Loan Management Set Aside (LMSA) 

program, which was provided in projects financed under Federal Housing Administration (FHA) 

programs that were not originally intended to provide deep subsidy rental assistance and which 

were in danger of foreclosure. Projects receiving these LMSA “piggyback” subsidies were 

developed under the Section 236 program, the Section 221(d)(3) Below Market Interest Rate 

(BMIR) program, and some others that were unassisted when originally developed.8

 The Section

202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly program is another important privately owned 

multifamily program, accounting for 9 percent of the units in this category. 

Despite the enactment of the project-based Section 8 new construction/moderate 

rehabilitation programs, the tenant-based approach has become the federal government’s major 

mechanism for providing assisted rental housing. HUD turned toward the tenant-based approach 

because of problems with project-based housing. In public housing, concentrating low-income

families in densely packed projects sometimes led to crime and vandalism; for example, the early 

abandonment and eventual demolition of Pruitt-Igoe buildings in St. Louis, MO, and Cabrini 

Green in Chicago, IL, were costly failures and became embarrassments to HUD. Numerous 

Section 221(d)(3) BMIR and Section 236 projects failed financially, causing sizable losses to 

FHA, which insured the mortgages on these programs.

7 The entity administering the voucher programs sets a payment standard based on the fair market rent, usually 

between 90 and 110 percent of the local fair market rent. 8 See Picture of Subsidized Households at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/assthsg.html. 
5 

HUD believes that the tenant-based approach offers positive advantages over the 

alternative. With vouchers, tenants can choose housing best suited to their needs in terms of unit 

characteristics, neighborhood amenities, and location. 

The debate between project-based and tenant-based approaches continues. Advocates of 

the project-based approach argue that subsidized units, once built, can continue to provide 

assistance for 40 or more years, whereas the federal government can terminate the voucher 

program at any time. A recent study of affordable housing during the 1985–2013 period 

concluded that almost 20 percent of all the affordable rental housing available during this time 

came from project-based units (Weicher, Eggers, and Moumen, 2018). 

During the 1989–2017 period, the number of HUD-assisted units increased by 500,000 

units, but the program mix changed dramatically (exhibit 2-1). In this and all future exhibits, the 

term “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned 

multifamily units. Due to differences in the way these programs are structured, sizable changes 

might be expected during this period in how HUD housing assistance affected American 

households. 

Exhibit 2-1. Trends in HUD-Assisted Housing by Program Type

AHS Survey 

Year

All HUD-Assisted 

(Thousands)

Tenants in Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients (%)

Tenants in Privately 

Owned MF Units (%)

1989 4,070 33.4 26.0 40.5

1991 4,036 28.4 28.3 43.3

1993 4,054 28.1 29.6 42.3

2003 4,280 25.6 42.1 32.4

2007 4,273 23.5 45.1 31.4

2009 4,426 22.6 46.8 30.6

2011 4,466 22.9 47.0 30.1

2013 4,490 22.9 46.8 30.2

2015 4,475 22.7 47.4 29.9

2017 4,540 21.3 47.8 30.9

AHS = American Housing Survey. MF = multifamily.

Note: “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units. 

An important note: not all housing assistance programs are assessed in this report. The 

AHS sample includes but does not identify renter households receiving housing assistance from

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs or state and local rental assistance programs. 

Estimates indicate that in fiscal year 2004, 464,000 units were available under the Rural Housing 

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

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

Rental Assistance Program. The report also does not provide information on units available for 

occupancy under the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Low-Income Housing Tax Credit 

program; from 1987 through 2013, 40,502 projects containing 2.6 million units were placed in

service for low-income households (those with incomes less than 60 percent of local area median 

income; HUD, 2019). Some of these tax credit units may also receive HUD or USDA subsidies. 
6 

The Big Picture in 2017

Exhibit 2-2 explains how HUD-assisted housing fits into the overall rental housing market. In 

2017, 18,742,000 of the 43,993,000 renter households were eligible on the basis of income for 

HUD assistance.

Exhibit 2-2. Renter Eligibility and Housing Assistance in 2017

HUD programs served 4,540,000 (24.2 percent) of very low-income (VLI) households. The 

voucher program helped 2,169,000 households; another 1,403,000 households lived in privately 

owned multifamily housing, and public housing provided housing to 968,000 households.9 This 

process left 14,202,000 eligible households without any HUD housing assistance. AHS data 

depict how housing assistance has evolved over the 28 years between the 1989 AHS and the 

2017 AHS (exhibit 2-3).

9 In the 2017 and previous AHS surveys that identified HUD-assisted units, HUD provided the U.S. Census Bureau 

with estimates of the number of HUD-assisted units by program. The U.S. Census Bureau used these estimates to 

adjust the weights of the HUD-assisted units so that the weighted counts matched program totals.
7 

Exhibit 2-3. Trends in HUD-Assisted Rental Housing, Relative to Need

AHS Survey Year All Renters 

(Thousands)

All VLI Renters 

(Thousands)

All HUD-Assisted

(Thousands)

Percent of VLI

Assisted (%)

1989 33,767 13,808 4,070 29.5

1991 33,351 16,194 4,036 24.9

1993 33,472 15,795 4,054 25.7

2003 33,604 16,576 4,280 25.8

2007 35,032 16,494 4,273 25.9

2009 35,378 18,233 4,426 24.3

2011 38,816 19,824 4,466 22.5

2013 40,202 18,856 4,490 23.8

2015 43,991 19,876 4,475 22.5

2017 43,993 18,742 4,540 24.2

AHS = American Housing Survey. VLI = very low income.

Note: “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units. 

Source: AHS

During the 1991–2017 period, the number of renter households grew from 33.4 million to 

44.0 million—an increase of 32 percent.10 During the same timeframe, the number of VLI

households increased by 16 percent, while the number of HUD-assisted units increased by only 

12 percent. The percentage of VLI households receiving assistance fell from 24.9 percent in 

1991 to 24.2 percent in 2017. The financial crisis and recession that began in 2007 caused a 

sharp increase in the number of renter households and an even sharper increase in the number of 

renter households with very low incomes. Most of the decline in the percentage of VLI

households receiving assistance occurred during the 2007–2011 period. The number of VLI

renter households declined by 1 million between 2011 and 2013, rose again by 2015, but then 

fell again in 2017. 

Interpreting the Data

There are three factors crucial for interpreting the data: 

• Unlike Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (also known as food 

stamps or SNAP), and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, or TANF, assisted 

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

requirements for assisted housing will receive housing assistance. Some households 

receive help, while others are placed on waiting lists. Such variations mean that the “who 

is helped” question is particularly relevant. In other words, individually and as a group, 

do the assisted housing programs overserve some populations and underserve others? 

• HUD delivers housing assistance through agents: PHAs administer public housing, PHAs 

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

administer the privately owned multifamily programs. The motivations of these agents 

and where and when they function greatly affect how these programs operate. 

10 The percentages reported in this and the following two sentences are based on the 1991–2013 period. In 1991, the 

U.S. Census Bureau revised AHS weights to reflect information from the 1990 census. This change corrected an 

overcount of the housing stock in the 1989 AHS of more than 1 million units. Adjustments to the weights in 2003 

and 2013 for subsequent censuses did not reveal any major problems in housing stock counts.
8 

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

privately owned multifamily housing—provide assisted housing by first producing the 

housing. Housing units are clumps of capital and land that have long lifespans. Those 

characteristics mean the location and type of units produced (such as one-bedroom units 

in central cities) determine who will be served for years to come (a one-bedroom unit 

cannot serve a larger family with multiple children, for example). 

A Note on Eligibility 

This report uses VLI rental households and the units they occupy as a comparison group because 

this group generally corresponds to renters who are eligible to receive HUD-assisted housing. 

Things are more complicated than that, however; in one sense, 50 percent of adjusted local 

median income is a lower bound because other families with higher incomes (up to 80 percent of 

median income) are eligible in some privately owned multifamily programs. In another sense, 50 

percent of adjusted local median income is an upper bound because the Quality Housing and 

Work Responsibility Act of 1998 set tighter targeting requirements for the HCV and public 

housing programs. For vouchers, no less than 75 percent of any new admissions must have 

extremely low incomes—that is, income less than 30 percent of adjusted local median income. 

For public housing, the act requires 40 percent of new admissions to be extremely low income, 

although the act allows PHAs to offset this requirement with admissions to their voucher 

programs. Finally, the act eliminated the federal admission preference and allowed PHAs to 

establish local preferences.
9 

Section 3: Location and Key Unit Characteristics

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

housing is provided: (1) which agents choose to work with HUD to provide housing assistance, 

(2) where these agents are located, and (3) the agents’ objectives. For this reason, this report 

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

units provided. 

Regional and Metropolitan Location

Exhibit 3-1 reports the geographical distribution of HUD-assisted housing; the top row shows the 

number of rental units within the United States in a given category. The subsequent rows give 

the percentage of those units that are located within a given Census Region or Census Division. 

How to Read a Current Characteristics Table 

Except for historical tables, the table exhibits in this and the remaining sections are percent 

distributions of groups of units or households by various characteristics of rental housing in 2017. 

Each of these table exhibits will have seven columns. The first column will list the various 

characteristics, such as the Census Region or Division where the rental units are located or the race 

and ethnicity of the householders in the households. The remaining six columns will provide the 

percentage of rental units or occupant households in that column that have that characteristic. In the 

column headers, “renters” refers to “renter households” and not individuals in renter households. The 

seven columns, in order from left to right, are:

1. Unit or occupant characteristics. 

2. All assisted units or households (4,540,000). This column contains the weighted sum of 

columns 3, 4, and 5. 

3. Public housing units or households (968,000). 

4. Voucher units or households (2,169,000). 

5. Privately owned multifamily units or households (1,403,000). 

6. All very low-income renter households (or units occupied by them), including assisted 

households (18,742,000). 

7. All renter households (or units occupied by them), including assisted households 

(43,993,000).

The cells in these columns, unless otherwise noted, contain the percentage of the column total that has 

that characteristic. For example, the third number down in the second column of exhibit 3-1 indicates 

that 7.7 percent of the 4,540,000 HUD-assisted units are located in the New England Census Division. 

In the characteristics exhibits and accompanying text, percentages are rounded to the nearest 1/10 of a 

percentage point to provide the fullest exposition of the data from the American Housing Survey. 

Readers should recognize that sampling errors and respondent errors limit the precision of all the 

reported percentages. In the overview sections—that is, the Executive Summary and Section 7—

percentages are generally presented without the 1/10 of a percentage point for simplicity and to 

prevent giving a false sense of precision. 
10 

Each division row lists states within that division. At the regional level, the proportions of all 

renters and all VLI renters are roughly equal; the same is true at the division level. For example, 

36.5 percent of all renters and 35.2 percent of VLI renters live in the South. Because eligibility is 

relative to local income, this pattern is not surprising because high-income areas will have higher 

local median incomes. 
11 

Exhibit 3-1. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Region and Census Division, 2017

Regions and Divisions

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total VLI 

Renters (%)

All Renters 

(%) All HUDAssisted (%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

Units (%)

United States (Units, in Thousands) 4,540 968 2,169 1,403 18,742 43,993

Northeast Region 27.7 36.5 24.4 26.8 22.0 19.0

New England Division: Connecticut, Maine, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, 

Vermont

7.7 6.7 7.2 9.3 5.7 4.8

Middle Atlantic Division: New Jersey, New 

York, Pennsylvania 20.0 29.8 17.2 17.5 16.3 14.3

Midwest Region 22.0 21.4 19.2 26.7 20.3 19.5

East North Central Division: Illinois, 

Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin 15.6 15.4 13.5 19.1 14.3 13.5

West North Central Division: Iowa, 

Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North 

Dakota, South Dakota

6.3 6.0 5.7 7.6 6.0 5.9

South Region 32.8 33.4 33.4 31.6 35.2 36.5

South Atlantic Division: Delaware, Florida, 

Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, District of 

Columbia

16.3 15.0 16.8 16.4 18.2 19.1

East South Central Division: Alabama, 

Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee 7.0 9.5 5.7 7.2 5.8 5.6

West South Central Division: Arkansas, 

Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas 9.6 8.9 10.9 8.0 11.2 11.8

West Region 17.4 8.8 22.9 14.8 22.4 25.0

Mountain Division: Arizona, Colorado, 

Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, 

Wyoming

4.1 2.6 4.7 4.3 6.0 7.0

Pacific Division: Alaska, California, Oregon, 

Washington, Hawaii 13.3 6.2 18.3 10.5 16.4 18.0

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

Note: “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau
12 

When compared with either all renter households or all VLI renter households, the HUD 

programs as a group are more concentrated in the Northeast and less concentrated in the West.

Nineteen percent of all renters and 22 percent of VLI renters live in the Northeast, but 28 percent 

of HUD-assisted housing is located there. Public housing is particularly concentrated in this 

region, but the percentages of voucher units and privately owned multifamily units are also 

higher than the percentages of all renters or all VLI renters. In 2017, the West contained 25 

percent of all renters and 22 percent of VLI renters but only 17 percent of HUD-assisted 

households. The shares of HUD-assisted renters found in the Midwest and South are closer to the 

geographic distributions of all renter households and all VLI households. 

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

drives this imbalance. PHAs administered most vouchers, which is the newest HUD program. 

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

still has a higher percentage in the Northeast and a lower percentage in the West. The overall 

regional imbalance is a function of the age of the programs; communities in the Northeast 

created active PHAs in the early years of the public housing program, whereas PHAs in the West 

became more active in the years after HUD moved toward voucher assistance. During this 

period, the nation’s population also shifted toward the West. Similar patterns appear in the 

metropolitan/nonmetropolitan distribution of HUD-assisted housing.

Overall, the split of HUD-assisted housing between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan 

areas in 2017 was similar to that of all renter households and all VLI renter households (exhibit 

3-2). Within metropolitan areas, HUD-assisted households were more concentrated in central 

cities and less concentrated outside central cities than either all renter households or all VLI

renter households. The disparity between the central city and the rest of the metropolitan area

was most pronounced in public housing, but the voucher and privately owned multifamily

programs also exhibited this imbalance to a lesser extent.

Exhibit 3-2. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Metropolitan/

Nonmetropolitan Status, 2017

Metropolitan/ 

Nonmetropolitan Areas

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All Renters

(%)

All HUDAssisted

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF

Units (%)

Inside Metropolitan 

Statistical Areas 87.3 82.7 88.8 88.2 86.5 87.9

In Central Cities 56.0 61.6 54.5 54.4 49.9 47.3

Outside Central Cities 31.3 21.2 34.3 33.8 36.7 40.6

Outside Metropolitan 

Statistical Areas 12.7 17.3 11.2 11.8 13.5 12.1

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

Notes: This exhibit does not include similar programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural 

Housing Service or Rural Development programs, which presumably are concentrated outside metropolitan areas.

“All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units. 
13 

Exhibit 3-3 shows that the regional and metropolitan/nonmetropolitan distribution on 

HUD-assisted rental housing has not seen a significant change over time. The discussion in 

section 2 called attention to the shifting importance of the voucher program in HUD’s housing 

assistance between 1989 and 2013, but despite the growth in the voucher program, the overall 

distribution of HUD-assisted housing has changed little in the past 28 years. The 10 years 

between 1993 and 2003 saw a drop in the percentage of units located in central cities and an 

increase in the percentage of units located outside central cities. This trend continued through 

2009, but since then, the share of units in central cities has increased slightly while the share 

outside central cities has declined. The percentage located outside of metropolitan areas has 

declined over time.

Exhibit 3-3. Trends in the Distribution of All HUD-Assisted Households by Region 

and by Metropolitan/Nonmetropolitan Status, 1989–201711

Percentage of All HUDAssisted Renters by 

Location 

AHS Survey Year

1989 1991 1993 2003 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

Northeast 28 24a 27 28 28 28 28 28 28 28

Midwest 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22

South 34 37 35 34 32 32 33 33 33 33

West 16 17 15 17 18 18 18 18 18 17

Inside Metropolitan 

Statistical Areas 84 81 82 87 86 86 86 87 87 87

In Central Cities 58 53 56 54 52 52 53 55 56 56

Outside Central Cities 26 27 26 33 34 34 33 32 31 31

Outside Metropolitan 

Statistical Areas 16 19 18 13 14 14 14 13 13 13

AHS = American Housing Survey.

a

 The sequence of percentages of HUD-assisted units in the Northeast between 1989 and 1993 (28 to 24 to 27) looks 

suspicious. Research confirms that these were the reported percentages, but the 1991 regional percentages may be 

incorrect. Alternatively, the 1 million overcount of housing units in 1989 may have affected the regional 

distribution.

Notes: This exhibit reports percentages as whole percentages. The published matched data for 1989, 1991, and 1993 

are available only as whole percentages, so the data for subsequent years are rounded to whole percentages. “All 

HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units. 

Source: AHS

The distribution of all renters and VLI renters has also changed over time. Between 1989 

and 2017, the proportion of assisted housing in metropolitan areas outside central cities grew 

from 26 percent to 31 percent, while the proportion of all renter households grew from 38 to 41 

percent. During this time, the proportion of assisted housing outside of metropolitan areas fell 

from 16 to 13 percent, while the proportion of all renters fell from 16 to 12 percent.12

The continuity between 2013 and 2017 in exhibit 3-3 is surprising for another technical 

reason. From 1985 to 2013, the AHS used the same 1984 boundaries between the central city and 

11 The table exhibits in this document that describe trends over all nine matched data studies report percentages as 

whole percentages, whereas the table exhibits describing characteristics of HUD programs in 2017 report 

percentages to one-tenth of a percentage point. The published matched data for 1989, 1991, and 1993 are available 

only as whole percentages, so the data for subsequent years are rounded to whole percentages.

12 The 1989 numbers in this paragraph come from Table 3 on page 25 of Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters 

and Their Units in 1989. 
14 

non-central city parts of metropolitan areas in its sample, but in 2015, the AHS updated the 

sample to reflect the boundaries in 2015. This change, however, appears to have had little effect 

on the profile of the housing stock. In 2013, 47.8 percent of all renters lived in central cities; for 

2017, 47.3 percent did. The percentage of renters living outside central cities changed slightly 

more, from 39.7 percent in 2013 to 40.6 percent in 2017. 

Year Structure Built 

HUD-operated public housing and privately owned multifamily housing programs work by 

creating new rental units and then filling these units with eligible households. The type of units 

built determine what type of families are served. PHAs and private developers, with HUD 

approval, chose what type of units to construct or renovate, based on their objectives and the 

needs at the time when building took place. Decisions made at one point in time become frozen 

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

unassisted, HUD-insured project in the area outside of Minneapolis and St. Paul, MN. The 

project was constructed in the early 1970s to accommodate all of the baby boomers entering the 

job market and consisted entirely of one-bedroom units; after experiencing declining demand, 

the project was renovated at the time of his visit to serve a family market. HUD rules determine 

what size household can be housed in different-sized units. Decisions made 40 to 50 years ago 

can still determine what type of households can be served in 2017. 

Exhibit 3-4 shows that VLI renters tend to live in older housing than that occupied by all 

renters. Almost one half (47 percent) of VLI renters rent housing built before 1970, compared 

with 43 percent of all renters. Although the percentage of assisted renters is similar, with 46 

percent living in units built before 1970, the similarity between all HUD-assisted units and those 

occupied by VLI renters vanishes when one looks across the individual programs and all four 

periods. 

Exhibit 3-4. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Year Built, 2017

Year Built

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All Renters

(%)

All HUDAssisted

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF

Units (%)

1949 and Earlier 23.7 26.3 25.3 19.8 25.2 22.7

1950–1969 22.7 30.5 20.8 20.5 21.6 20.2

1970–1984 26.3 22.7 22.8 34.0 23.9 22.1

1985-1994 10.2 7.6 10.3 11.8 9.9 11.2

1995 or Later 17.0 12.9 20.8 13.9 19.4 23.7

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

Note: “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units.

Public housing began in 1937, and 26.3 percent of today’s public housing units were built 

before 1950. More than 53 percent of public housing units were built between 1950 and 1985 

when HUD restructured its housing assistance programs to favor the voucher approach.13

13 The voucher program began in 1974; for this reason, it might have been more useful to split the two most recent 

categories at 1980 or 1985 rather than 1990. Unfortunately, these data are available only on the U.S. Census 
15 

Twenty percent of occupied public housing units were built after 1984, a surprisingly high 

percentage that may reflect errors by the AHS respondents in estimating the year built. The 

privately owned multifamily programs were most active between 1965 and 1985; 34 percent of 

these units were constructed between 1970 and 1985. The 20 percent of privately owned units 

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

as assisted housing and possible errors on the part of AHS respondents. 

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

willing to participate, its distribution by year built should more closely match the distribution of 

all renter households than either of the other two programs. This finding is certainly true for the 

three middle “Year Built” categories (1950 to 1969, 1970 to 1984, and 1985 to 1994). The 

distribution of vouchers households by age of structure is almost identical to the distribution for 

all VLI renter households. 

Number of Bedrooms

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

served. Because public housing and privately owned multifamily units are in large apartment 

buildings, the number of bedrooms in these units is set when the building is constructed. The 

bedroom configurations of these units are based on local needs as of the time they are built and 

the needs that PHAs and project owners choose to serve. Exhibit 3-5 contains the distribution of 

rental units by bedroom in 2017.14 

Exhibit 3-5. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Number of Bedrooms, 2017

Number of 

Bedrooms

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total VLI 

Renters (%)

All Renters

(%) All HUDAssisted (%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF

Units (%)

Efficiency/One 41.5 37.4 29.3 62.8 34.8 28.1

Two 32.4 30.3 37.6 25.8 37.7 39.1

Three 19.6 22.9 25.2 8.9 21.6 24.9

Four or More 6.5 9.3 7.9 2.5 5.9 8.0

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

Note: “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units.

Bureau’s internal use file, which is not available to the public. Exhibit 3-4 (and most other table exhibits in this 

report) were constructed using the U.S. Census Bureau’s Table Creator tool and must use the same categories

provided by Table Creator.

14 For previous matched studies, the counts of efficiencies are available. The U.S. Census Bureau’s disclosure rules 

have become much stricter because of the increase in computation power and the availability of many large datasets 

that can be compared to the AHS. Exhibit 3-5 combines efficiencies (units without separate bedrooms) with onebedroom units because, for some unit categories (particularly the various types of HUD-assisted housing), the count 

of zero-bedroom units is so small that the U.S. Census Bureau will not release these counts due to the risk of 

identifying individual respondents. 
16 

Looking across all four categories of units in exhibit 3-5, it is clear that VLI renters 

generally live in smaller units than most renters. The next section shows that, compared to all 

renters, a higher percentage of VLI renters are elderly and, therefore, smaller households that

have a lower demand for multiple bedroom units. 

The distribution of units by number of bedrooms varies markedly across the three HUD 

program types. Almost 63 percent of the occupied units in privately owned multifamily projects 

are either efficiencies or one-bedroom units, compared with 34.8 percent of units occupied by 

VLI renters and 28.1 percent of all renters. A large percentage of these multifamily projects were 

created to serve seniors. 

Although many public housing projects were also designed to serve seniors, that focus 

was less pronounced in public housing than in privately owned multifamily housing. The 

percentage of efficiencies and one-bedroom units in public housing is 37.4 percent. 

The distribution of voucher households by the number of bedrooms is almost identical to

the distribution for all renter households—only 29.3 percent are efficiencies and one-bedroom 

units. Because vouchers are assigned to households rather than units, they can be used more 

flexibly; that is, household size does not limit who can receive a voucher. 

Over time, the distribution of HUD-assisted units has shifted toward units with more 

bedrooms, but this movement has been modest and irregular (see exhibit 3-6). In 1989, 76 

percent of HUD-assisted units were either one- or two-bedroom units, while 24 percent had three 

or more bedrooms; by 2017, the percentages were 73 percent versus 27 percent, respectively. 

Those percentages appear to be the result of the shift in the program mix toward the voucher 

program. 

Exhibit 3-6. Trends in the Distribution of HUD-Assisted Units by Number 

of Bedrooms

Percent of Units by 

Number of Bedrooms

All HUD-Assisted Renters

1989 1991 1993 2003 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

Efficiency/One 44 45 42 41 43 38 38 39 40 41

Two 32 33 35 33 30 31 33 33 32 32

Three 20 20 19 22 22 23 23 22 21 20

Four or More 4 3 4 4 4 7 6 6 6 7

Note: “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units.

Closing Thoughts 

Sections 4 and 5 describe the individuals and households served by HUD-assisted rental housing. 

This report argues the answer to the “who is served” question is determined by the information 

presented in this section. 

The project-based programs were most active prior to 1985. Exhibit 3-4 confirms that 

more than 75 percent of public housing and privately owned multifamily housing were built 

before 1985 and thus were influenced by the demographics of that period, such as the age, size, 

and composition of low-income households. For these programs, the local needs and the interests 

of PHAs and project managers determined what type of housing and, in particular, what mix of 
17 

bedrooms was built. Exhibit 3-5 shows that public housing and privately owned multifamily

rental housing have a heavy concentration of efficiency and one-bedroom units, which in turn 

determines the size and composition of the households served by these programs. 

The location where projects were built also influences resident characteristics. Using the 

population of VLI households for assistance as the standard, public housing and privately owned 

multifamily rental housing is concentrated in the Northeast and central cities.
18 

Section 4: Householder Characteristics

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

providing information on household size, the presence or absence of children, or family status, 

for example. For other characteristics, such as age or race, the U.S. Census Bureau takes 

characteristics from one individual, known as the householder. The householder is any 

responsible member of the household competent enough to answer questions about the 

household.15 In a traditional household with two adults and a child or children, the householder 

could be either of the adults. This section focuses on the householder to describe who the 

assisted housing serves and compare those served with all renters or all very low-income (VLI) 

renters.

Race and Ethnic Origin of Householder

Exhibit 4-1 reveals that VLI households, as a group, have a higher percentage of households with 

Black and Hispanic householders than all renter households, reflecting the lower income of 

minority households. As a group and individually, the HUD-assisted programs have a higher 

percentage of households with a Black householder and a lower percentage with a Hispanic 

householder compared with all VLI households. 

Exhibit 4-1. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Race and Ethnicity of 

Householder, 2017

Race and Ethnicity of 

Householder 

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All Renters

(%)

All HUDAssisted

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF

Units (%)

White Alone 46.3 42.6 44.7 51.5 62.7 68.4

Black Alone 45.5 49.2 48.6 38.2 27.9 21.4

Other Races Alone or 

Multiple Races 8.1 8.3 6.7 10.3 9.4 10.2

Hispanic (of Any Race) 18.4 20.8 19.1 15.6 22.6 19.9

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

Notes: Race and ethnicity are different householder characteristics. The percentages for the racial categories (the first 

three rows) add up to 100 percent, except for rounding, for each column. “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public 

housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units.

The percentage of HUD-assisted units with Black householders in 2017 was 45.5 percent, 

while the percentage of all VLI renter households with Black householders was 27.9 percent.

The differentials were greatest for the public housing and voucher programs, where 49.2 and 

48.6 percent of units, respectively, were occupied by Black householders. One possible 

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

15 The U.S. Census Bureau defines the householder as follows: “The householder is the first household member 

listed on the questionnaire who is an owner or renter of the sample unit and is 18 years or older . . . If no one meets 

the full criteria, the age requirement is relaxed to 14 years or older before the owner/renter requirement. Where the 

respondent is one of several unrelated persons who all could meet the criteria, the interviewer will select one of them 

to be . . . the householder. The householder is not necessarily the one answering the survey questions.”
19 

owned multifamily units, however, have the smallest differential (38.2 percent compared with

the total VLI percentage of 27.9), and these units are also concentrated in central cities.

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

householders (18.4 percent) is smaller than the percentage of VLI households with Hispanic 

householders (22.6 percent). This conclusion applies to all three HUD programs and is most 

pronounced for privately owned multifamily housing (15.6 percent). 

Exhibit 4-2 traces how the racial and ethnic distribution of HUD-assisted renters has 

changed over time. Results from the 1989, 1991, and 1993 surveys are not strictly comparable 

with those from the surveys after 2001 when HUD and other federal agencies changed how they 

collect data on race. Before that year, survey respondents were forced to choose between four 

racial groups and an “other” category. Starting in 2001, respondents could choose more than one 

racial category; the AHS records these answers in 21 codes (for example, RACE = 1 is “White 

Alone” and RACE = 2 is “Black Alone,” whereas RACE = 6 means that the respondent chose 

both White and Black). Thus, “other” in exhibit 4-1 for later surveys consists of those who were 

coded into one of the other 19 categories, and White is really “White Alone” after 2001. 

Exhibit 4-2. Trends in the Distribution of HUD-Assisted Households by Race and 

Ethnicity of Householder

Percentage of Race 

and Ethnicity of 

Householder 

All HUD-Assisted Renters

1989 1991 1993 2003 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

White Alone 54 61 54 54 52 48 49 49 47 46

Black Alone 40 35 40 40 41 46 44 44 45 46

Other Races Alone or 

Multiple Races 6 4 6 6 7 6 7 8 8 8 

Hispanic (of Any Race) 10 10 10 18 15 17 17 17 17 18

Note: “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units.

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

households with Black householders rose sharply in 2009, long after the change in the race 

question. The percentage of units with Hispanic householders rose between 1993 and 2003, 

reflecting in part the rising Hispanic share of the population. The change in the race question did 

not directly affect the collection of data on ethnicity.

Age of Householder

Exhibit 4-3 reveals that VLI households as a group have a higher percentage of householders 

over 65 than all renter households, reflecting the lower income of senior households.Combined, 

HUD-assisted housing programs serve households with senior householders at a rate (27.5 

percent) greater than their share (22.7 percent) of the population of VLI renter households. The 

percentage of households with senior householders is particularly high among units in privately 

owned multifamily housing (44.2 percent). Owners of project-based multifamily projects appear 

to favor serving a senior population, either out of concern for seniors or because senior

households present fewer management problems. One privately owned multifamily program, 

Section 202, was created strictly for seniors. Only the voucher program serves seniors at a rate 

(18.3 percent) smaller than their share of VLI renter households. 
20 

Exhibit 4-3. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Age of Householder, 2017

Age of 

Householder 

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total VLI 

Renters (%)

All Renters

(%) All HUDAssisted (%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF

Units (%)

Under 35 20.8 24.4 20.5 18.8 27.7 33.4

35 to 64 51.7 51.9 61.2 37.0 49.6 51.4

65 or Older 27.5 23.9 18.3 44.2 22.7 15.2

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

Note: “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units.

The share of households with householders under 35 years old is substantially lower in all 

three HUD programs than the share of VLI renter households—24.4 percent in public housing, 

20.5 percent in the voucher program, and 18.8 percent in the project-based program compared 

with 27.7 percent for all VLI households.

The voucher program has a higher proportion of households with householders between 

35 and 64 years old (61.2 percent) than the VLI renter population (49.6 percent). Thirty-seven

percent of households in privately owned multifamily units were in this age range. The voucher 

program focuses more on families.

Exhibit 4-4 shows that the share of all HUD-assisted units with senior householders has 

fallen from 35 percent in 1989 to 27 percent in 2017, with most of the change taking place 

between 1993 and 2003. This change results from the steady increase in the importance of the 

voucher program and the decline in the number of privately owned multifamily projects. 

Exhibit 4-4. Trends in the Distribution of HUD-Assisted Households by Age of 

Householder

Percentage of Age of 

Householder

All HUD-Assisted Renters

1989 1991 1993 2003 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

Under 35 29 31 34 29 24 27 26 25 21 21

35 to 64 36 33 34 43 48 45 47 47 52 52

65 or Older 35 36 32 28 28 28 27 28 27 27

Education of Householder

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

renter households are much less educated than all renter households; among VLI renter 

households, 25.1 percent have householders without high school diplomas, compared with 15.7 

percent among all renter households, and 43.0 percent of VLI households had householders with 

education beyond the high school level, compared with 57.0 percent among all renter 

households.
21 

Exhibit 4-5. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Education Attainment of 

Householder, 2017

Educational Attainment 

of Householder

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All Renters

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF

Units (%)

Less Than 9th Grade 8.3 10.1 6.6 9.7 8.3 5.1

9th to 12th Grade, 

No Diploma 21.5 25.0 20.1 21.2 16.8 10.6

High School Graduate 

(Includes Equivalency) 37.0 36.1 36.8 38.1 36.2 31.1

Additional Vocational 

Training 4.9 5.8 4.5 4.9 4.4 3.8

Some College, No Degree 17.4 15.6 19.2 16.0 18.3 18.0

Associate Degree 7.7 7.2 8.8 6.3 7.7 9.0

Bachelor's Degree 6.1 4.1 6.8 6.3 9.2 17.5

Graduate or Professional 

Degree 1.9 1.9 1.7 2.4 3.4 8.8

Percent High School 

Graduate or Higher 69.8 64.9 73.3 69.1 74.7 84.3

Percent Bachelor's 

Degree or Higher 7.6 6.0 8.5 8.7 12.6 26.3

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

Notes: In this exhibit, “Additional Vocational Training” is a subset of “High School Graduate.” Omitting the 

“Additional Vocational Training” row and the final two rows, the percentages in each column total 100 percent, 

allowing for rounding. “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily 

units.

High school graduation rates are low in all three HUD programs (64.9 percent in public 

housing, 73.3 percent in the voucher program, and 69.1 percent in privately owned multifamily), 

compared with 74.7 percent among all VLI renter households and 84.3 percent among all renter 

households. These results are consistent with the finding in Section 5 that HUD-assisted 

households have lower incomes than VLI renter households overall. 

Years in Same Unit

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

assistance to be reluctant to move if moving means giving up assistance. Exhibit 4-6 examines 

this presumption. The bolded rows report the percentages for all householders, regardless of race, 

ethnicity, age, or disability; the remaining rows look at subsets based on race and ethnicity, age, 

and disability status.
22 

Exhibit 4-6. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Householder Years in Unit 

by Race, Ethnicity, and Senior and Disability Status, 2017

Years in Unit, 2017

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF

Units (%)

0 to 7 Years: All 

Householders 69.4 67.8 71.6 67.0 76.6 81.2

White, Non-Hispanic 68.5 73.3 67.7 67.3 76.9 81.8

Black, Non-Hispanic 72.4 64.7 77.8 68.7 76.0 79.3

Other Races 71.3 69.8 72.8 70.6 79.2 86.1

Hispanic 63.1 67.0 62.7 60.4 75.5 79.5

Under 65 76.4 74.9 76.7 77.1 81.8 84.7

Over 65 51.0 44.5 49.1 54.4 58.5 61.6

Without a Disabled 

Person 73.8 71.2 74.7 74.1 80.2 83.7

With a Disabled Person 63.8 62.9 67.2 59.9 69.2 72.6

8 to 13 Years: All 

Householders 14.3 12.0 14.2 16.1 9.8 8.5

White, Non-Hispanic 15.0 13.4 14.5 16.3 10.0 8.4

Black, Non-Hispanic 13.6 12.2 12.5 16.8 10.6 9.6

Other Races 14.0 11.1 12.8 16.7 8.7 6.0

Hispanic 14.9 10.0 18.1 13.5 9.0 8.7

Under 65 11.6 9.1 12.4 12.2 8.3 7.5

Over 65 21.4 21.4 21.9 21.0 14.9 14.2

Without a Disabled 

Person 13.8 12.2 14.1 14.6 8.6 7.8

With a Disabled Person 14.9 11.6 14.2 17.7 12.3 11.0

More Than 13: All 

Householders 16.3 20.3 14.2 16.9 13.6 10.3

White, Non-Hispanic 16.5 13.4 17.8 16.5 13.0 9.7

Black, Non-Hispanic 14.0 23.0 9.7 14.5 13.4 11.2

Other Races 14.6 19.0 14.4 12.7 12.1 8.0

Hispanic 22.0 23.0 19.3 26.1 15.5 11.7

Under 65 12.0 16.0 10.9 10.8 9.8 7.8

Over 65 27.6 34.1 28.9 24.6 26.6 24.2

Without a Disabled 

Person 12.4 16.6 11.2 11.3 11.1 8.5

With a Disabled Person 21.3 25.5 18.5 22.5 18.6 16.3

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

Note: This exhibit combines race and ethnicity. The first rows (“White, Non-Hispanic”) list householders who 

classified themselves as White and no other race and did not classify themselves as Hispanic. “White Alone” 

householders who also identified themselves as Hispanic are listed in row four, Hispanic. This inconsistency arose 

because this exhibit had to be compiled at the U.S. Census Bureau using data that are not publicly available. The 

U.S. Census Bureau does not tabulate “Years in Unit;” rather, it reports the year the household moved into the unit 

in 5-year blocks. For 2017, the blocks include 2000–2004, 2005–2009, and 2010–2017. This presentation translates 

years in unit into categories of “0 to 7 Years,” “8 to 13 Years,” and “More than 13 Years.” Because the size of the 

initial category depends on the survey year, the 2017 results cannot be compared with any of the previous match 

studies. The same exhibit for the 2015 Characteristics Report contained four years-in-unit categories. The request for 

special runs for this report asked for four categories, but disclosure issues limited the race and ethnicity tabulations 

to three categories. In constructing Exhibit 4-6, therefore, the other tabulations were collapsed to three categories.

“All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units.
23 

Householders who have lived in the unit for less than 8 years constitute 76.6 percent of 

VLI renter households and 81.2 percent of all renters, compared with 69.4 percent of all HUDassisted renters. There are notable differences between the two assistance paradigms—the public 

housing and privately owned multifamily programs, in which the subsidy attaches to the unit, 

and the voucher program, in which the subsidy generally remains with the tenant. The voucher 

program has a higher percentage of “recently” moved householders at 71.6 percent, compared 

with 67.8 percent of householders in public housing and 67.0 percent in privately owned 

multifamily housing.

The voucher program also has fewer householders with long tenures; for example, 14.2 

percent of voucher householders have lived in their units more than 13 years, nearly the same 

percentage as all VLI householders (13.6 percent). By comparison, 20.3 percent of public 

housing householders and 16.9 percent of householders in privately owned HUD-subsidized 

units have lived in their units for more than 13 years. The voucher program does not match the 

turnover pattern among all renters, likely due to the expense of moving in both time and effort 

and the fact that voucher participants can carry their subsidies only to units where landlords will 

participate in the program. 

The race and ethnicity, age, and disability breakouts show that other factors affect 

turnover.16 This finding is best understood by looking down the columns within each “Years in 

Unit” category. In the All Renters and VLI columns, the differences across race and ethnicity are 

minor. Senior householders and householders with a disabled person in the household, however, 

display much lower turnover—that is, lower rates of short tenure (0 to 7 years) and higher rates 

of long tenures (more than 13 years).

The longer tenure among senior householders and households with disabled members 

also appears in the tenure patterns of HUD-assisted households. The tenure patterns among 

HUD-assisted households also display one characteristic that is not seen in the patterns for VLI 

renters or all renters—namely, the tendency among HUD-assisted households with Hispanic 

householders to have longer tenures than HUD-assisted households with non-Hispanic 

householders. This report has no explanation for this observed difference. 

16 Exhibit 4-1 treats race and ethnicity as separate characteristics. The first row in exhibit 4-1 (“White Alone”) lists 

householders who classified themselves as White and no other race, regardless of whether they classified themselves 

as Hispanic.
24 

Section 5: Household Characteristics

This section describes key characteristics of HUD-assisted households, focusing primarily on 

characteristics that relate to the need for housing assistance. It is unlikely there will be substantial 

year-over-year changes in the characteristics of HUD households or householders, as only new 

units and turnover among existing assisted units can alter the mix of households. The 26-year 

period from 1991 to 2017 saw an increase in the number of assisted units of only 12 percent, and 

the previous section showed that turnover was low.

Household Income

Eligibility for assisted housing is based primarily on household income, determined by 

comparing household income to median family income in the locality. Typically, a household is 

eligible if it earns less than 50 percent of the median income for that locality, adjusted for family 

size. Within a group of lower-income households, HUD agents may, in some circumstances, 

look at additional criteria, such as being homeless or displaced, in prioritizing households for the 

limited number of units available at a given time.

In 2017, the median income of all renters nationally was $36,100, based on American 

Housing Survey data (exhibit 5-1). The median income of voucher recipients was substantially 

lower, at 34.6 percent of the median income for all renters, whereas ratios were even lower in 

public housing (29.9 percent) and privately owned multifamily housing (30.9 percent). The 

median income for very low-income households who are not assisted was $16,000, or 44.3 

percent of the all-renter median. Individually and jointly, HUD programs generally serve 

households from the lower end of the distributions of VLI renter households and all renter 

households. 

Exhibit 5-1. Median Income of Households by Assistance Status, 2017

Median Household 

Income 

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total VLI 

Rentersa

All 

Renters All HUDAssisted

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

Voucher 

Recipients

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF

Units

Median Household Income NA $10,800 $12,500 $11,160 NA $36,100

As a Percentage of the 

Median Income of All 

Renter Households

NA 29.9 34.6 30.9 NA 100

MF = multifamily. NA = data not available. VLI = very low income.

a Throughout, the report combines data on assisted and unassisted eligible households to produce this column. There 

is no legitimate way to meld the medians of those groups to produce a median for the combined group.

Note: “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units.

Exhibit 5-2 reveals a sharp drop in median income ratios for all three HUD program 

types between 2013 and 2015, which continued into 2017. This movement was unexpected. The 

economy was reasonably strong, but not so strong as to enlarge the gap between assisted renters 

and all renters. The Characteristics Report for 2015 suggested that this could be the result of the 

AHS drawing a new sample in 2015. 
25 

Exhibit 5-2 also suggests a gradual decline from 1989 through 2011 in how median 

incomes of tenants in all HUD-assisted housing have changed in relation to the median income 

of all renters. This apparent decline is probably the result of a change in program mix. Before 

2015, the ratios of the median incomes of households served by the public housing and the 

voucher program had remained relatively flat, with a higher voucher ratio than public housing 

ratio. The ratio of median income in the privately owned multifamily stock to the median income 

of all renters declined steadily from 1989 to 2009. During that period, the stock of privately 

owned multifamily housing decreased by 300,000. Section 2 explained that some components of 

the privately owned multifamily rental stock had rents that could be greater than 30 percent of 

tenant income. In recent years (particularly from 1995 to 2005), many of these units—rent 

supplements, Section 236, and the old Section 202 programs—left the programs, which may 

explain the downtrend in the ratio of median incomes among households in the privately owned 

stock. 

Exhibit 5-2. Trends in Median Income of Households by Assistance Status

Group Median Income as a 

Percentage of Renter Median Income 1989 1991 1993 2003 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

All HUD-Assisted 41 39 38 39 36 37 37 N/A N/A N/A

Tenants in Public Housing 37 36 35 37 33 32 36 36 31 30

Voucher Recipients 42 39 39 40 38 42 43 39 35 35

Tenants in Privately Owned Housing 43 42 40 39 37 34 34 34 32 31

N/A = data not available.

Note: “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units.

Income Sources

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

income. Exhibit 5-3 shows that 41.8 percent of HUD-assisted households receive wage and 

salary income, compared with 53.3 percent of VLI renter households and 73.2 percent of all 

renters. Tenants in privately owned multifamily projects have the lowest percentage of 

households with wage and salary income (30.1 percent), which is almost surely the result of the 

greater percentage of senior householders in this program. 

Although cited as sources of household income far less often, the same pattern appears 

for self-employment income and income from interest, dividends, and rent. HUD-assisted 

households report these sources less frequently than all VLI households, which, in turn, report 

them less frequently than all renter households.

The results are somewhat different for the “Social Security and Railroad Retirement” row 

and the “Retirement or Survivors’ Pensions” row. The high proportion of senior households 

among the public housing and privately owned multifamily populations make these sources 

important for HUD’s clientele. Among the six columns, the proportion of households receiving 

Social Security (45.3 percent) is the highest by far for privately owned multifamily households. 

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

ratios that HUD programs serve those with the lowest incomes of the low-income population. 

For example, 11.5 percent of HUD-assisted households report receiving welfare, compared with 

7.2 percent of VLI households and 3.7 percent of all renter households. Similarly, 21.7 percent of 
26 

all HUD-assisted households receive Supplemental Security Income, or SSI, compared with 12.9 

percent among all VLI renter households and 6.8 percent among all renters.

Exhibit 5-3. Income Sources for Renter Households by Assistance Status, 2017

Income Sources of Families

and Primary Individuals

HUD Assisted Renters All VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters

(%)

All HUDAssisted

(%)

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

(%)

Privately 

Owned 

MF (%)

Wages and Salaries 41.8 46.5 47.2 30.1 53.3 73.2

Self-Employment 2.8 2.7 3.6 1.6 4.9 7.9

Interest, Dividends, and Rental

Income 2.3 1.2 1.9 3.6 4.4 8.2

Social Security or Railroad

Retirement 33.0 32.0 25.6 45.3 26.9 18.3

Retirement or Survivors’ Pensions 5.7 6.3 2.9 9.6 6.2 6.7

SSI 21.7 22.4 21.3 21.6 12.9 6.8

Public Assistance or Public Welfare 11.5 9.9 13.3 9.8 7.2 3.7

Other Income 

(Worker's Compensation, Alimony,

and Any Other Income Not

Previously Reported)

19.8 20.5 22.6 14.9 15.8 12.8

MF = multifamily. SSI = Supplemental Security Income. VLI = very low income.

Note: “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units.

Household Composition

Exhibit 5-4 presents the distribution of households from various renter groups by household 

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

different from the typical renter household. In 2017, 27.6 percent of all renter households 

consisted of married couple households, whereas the percentage among all VLI renter 

households was 19.1 percent, and the percentage across all HUD programs ranged between 8.7 

and 12.2 percent. Privately owned multifamily units served the lowest percentage of married 

couple households. 

Combining the 4th (Other Female Householder) and the 13th (Female Householder) rows 

of exhibit 5-4 provides some additional insight into who HUD programs serve. Seventy percent 

of HUD-assisted households are single-adult householders with a female householder, compared 

with 55 percent of VLI households and 42 percent of all renter households. The program 

percentages are equal, but the ages of the female householder differ. The voucher program serves 

the highest percentage of female householders under 65 (60 percent), and the privately owned 

multifamily program serves the lowest (40 percent). Twenty-seven percent of the units in 

privately owned multifamily projects were occupied by senior, single females—more than two 

times the rate among VLI households and four times the rate among all renter households. 

Exhibit 5-4 reveals other important differences across HUD programs in the households 

served. Forty-four percent of all voucher recipient households are two-or-more-person, singleadult households with a female householder (more than one and a half times the rate among all 

renter households), compared with 24 percent of households in privately owned multifamily
27 

units. As previously noted, the privately owned multifamily housing program serves senior 

households at a much higher rate than their share of the VLI renter household population. 

Exhibit 5-4. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Household Composition, 

2017

Household Composition by 

Age of Householder

HUD-Assisted Renters All VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Vouchers 

(%)

Privately 

Owned 

MF (%)

Two-or-More-Person 

Households 50.9 56.2 57.8 36.4 55.0 63.5

Married-Couple Families,

No Nonrelatives 9.9 12.2 9.7 8.7 19.1 27.6

Other Male Householder 4.1 4.3 4.6 3.2 7.8 12.8

Other Female Householder 36.8 39.6 43.6 24.4 28.1 23.1

Under 45 Years Old 23.8 23.9 27.5 17.9 18.4 15.2

45 to 64 Years Old 11.5 13.5 14.5 5.5 8.0 6.6

65 Years Old and Over 1.6 2.2 1.6 1.1 1.7 1.3

One-Person Households 49.2 43.9 42.2 63.6 45.0 36.5

Male Householder 16.2 16.8 12.4 21.7 18.1 17.5

Under 45 Years Old 2.6 3.5 2.6 2.0 5.7 7.7

45 to 64 Years Old 7.0 6.3 7.0 7.3 7.2 6.4

65 Years Old and Over 6.7 7.0 2.9 12.3 5.2 3.4

Female Householder 32.9 27.1 29.7 41.9 27.0 19.0

Under 45 Years Old 4.0 3.2 5.3 2.5 5.9 5.9

45 to 64 Years Old 12.5 10.8 13.2 12.6 8.8 6.2

65 Years Old and Over 16.4 12.9 11.3 26.8 12.2 6.9

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

Notes: The “Two-or-More-Person Households” and the “One-Person Households” rows sum to 100 percent, except 

for rounding. Within these two groups, the next level subgroups sum up to the group percentages. “All HUDAssisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units.

Exhibit 5-5 presents the distribution of households by the presence or absence of children 

under 18. 

Exhibit 5-5. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Number of Children in 

Household, 2017

Households by 

Number of Children

HUD-Assisted Renters All VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Vouchers 

(%)

Privately 

Owned 

MF (%)

None 64.1 59.9 59.0 74.7 65.2 67.8

One 15.1 15.0 16.3 13.3 13.9 14.8

Two 10.3 13.1 10.9 7.7 11.5 10.3

Three or more 10.5 12.0 13.9 4.3 9.4 7.1

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

Note: “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units.

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

serves households with children at a rate similar to their share of the VLI renter population. 

Overall, 35.9 percent of assisted households have children, compared with 34.8 percent of all 

VLI renter households and 32.2 of all renter households. Among voucher households, 41.0 
28 

percent contain children, while 25.3 percent of assisted households in the privately owned 

multifamily program have children. The percentage of households with three or more children is 

higher in the voucher program (13.9 percent) than among all VLI renter households (9.4 

percent). 

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

time, there has been virtually no change during the past 28 years in the type of households served 

by all three HUD programs combined. Exhibit 5-6 appears to contain only random movements.

Exhibit 5-6. Trends in the Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Household 

Composition

Percentage of Household 

Composition 

AHS Survey Year

1989 1991 1993 2003 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

Two-or-More-Person 

Households 57 56 58 54 53 55 57 55 52 51

Married Couple Families, 

No Nonrelatives 13 15 13 11 10 9 11 10 10 10

Other Male Householder 4 4 3 2 4 3 5 4 4 4 

Other Female Householder 39 36 42 41 40 42 41 40 38 37

One-Person Households 43 44 42 46 47 45 43 45 48 49

Male Householder 10 13 13 14 13 13 14 15 15 16

Female Householder 33 32 29 32 34 33 29 30 33 33

AHS = American Housing Survey.

Note: “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units.

Household Size

AHS data on household size highlight the differences among the HUD programs (exhibit 5-7). 

Compared with all VLI renter households, HUD-assisted households include a higher percentage 

of one-person households (49.2 percent vs. 45.0 percent, respectively) and a lower percentage of 

two-to-four-person households (43.0 percent vs. 44.9 percent, respectively); these differences are 

small. Households with five or more persons account for 7.3 percent of HUD-assisted 

households and 10.0 percent of VLI households. 

Exhibit 5-7. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Household Size, 2017

Number of Persons in 

Household 

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

(%)

One Person 49.2 43.9 42.2 63.6 45.0 36.5

Two–Four Persons 43.0 46.5 48.1 32.9 44.9 54.1

Five or More Persons 7.3 9.6 9.7 2.1 10.0 9.4

Overcrowded 2.4 1.2 3.8 1.1 5.2 3.9

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

Note: “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units.

Taken individually, HUD-assisted programs have notably different household size 

distributions. The privately owned multifamily program has the highest percentage of one-person 

households (63.6 percent), while the public housing and voucher programs serve the highest 
29 

percentage of large (five-or-more-person) households (10 percent); this percentage is similar to 

that of VLI renters (10.0 percent) and all renters (9.4 percent).

Overcrowding is defined as more than one person per room. In recent years, 

overcrowding has not been a serious problem in the American housing stock; in 2017, 

5.2 percent of VLI renters and 3.9 percent of all renters were considered overcrowded. HUDassisted stock generally experienced even lower rates of overcrowding, at 2.4 percent for all 

HUD-assisted renters in 2017. HUD program rules determine how many persons can occupy 

units of different bedroom sizes and therefore act to reduce overcrowding. 

Households with a Disabled Member

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

members at a rate (43.6 percent) substantially higher than among either VLI renter households 

(33.0 percent) or all renter households (22.3 percent). The privately owned multifamily housing 

programs contain the highest percentage of households with a disabled member, at 49.5 percent.

Exhibit 5-8. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Disability Status of 

Members, 2017

Households by 

Disability Status of 

Members

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

(%)

With a Disabled Member 43.6 41.5 40.7 49.5 33.0 22.3

Without a Disabled 

Member 54.1 57.0 56.9 47.5 64.4 75.0

Not Reported 2.3 1.4 2.4 2.9 2.6 2.7

2013 Percent “With a 

Disabled Member” 37.8 38.2 34.3 42.9 25.9 17.5

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

Note: “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units.

The “Characteristics” report for 2015 noted that the percentages of households with a 

disabled member were substantially higher across all columns in 2015 than in 2013. The 

differences between the 2017 numbers and the 2013 numbers are slightly larger for VLI renters 

and all renters but slightly smaller for the HUD-assisted programs. Nevertheless, across all 

columns, the 2017 percentages of households with a disabled member were still substantially 

higher than the 2013 numbers. This finding could be the result of drawing a new sample in 2015 

or differences in how the disability questions were asked.17

Housing Cost as Percentage of Income

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

households. Section 6 examines the decent part of the objective; this section finishes with a look 

at the affordable part. The traditional measure of affordability is the ratio of monthly housing 

17 The questions were identical in wording but may have been asked differently.
30 

costs to monthly household income, where housing costs include both rent and utility expenses. 

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

excessive (Eggers and Moumen, 2008). 

The percentages reported in exhibit 5-9 ignore cases where respondents pay no cash rent 

and cases where respondents report zero or negative income. Among all renters, 4.4 percent 

report no cash rent, whereas 2.6 percent report zero or negative income; the percentages for all 

HUD-assisted renters are 1.5 and 4.8, respectively. 

Exhibit 5-9. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Ratio of Housing Costs to 

Income, 2017

Monthly Housing Costto-Income Ratio

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All Renters 

(%) 

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF

Units (%)

Less Than 20 Percent 11.9 16.2 10.6 11.0 5.0 22.8

40 Percent or More 39.7 35.3 47.9 30.1 62.7 32.6

Median Rent Burden18 N/A 32 40 32 N/A 30

MF = multifamily. N/A = data not available. VLI = very low income.

Note: “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units.

The rent-to-income data from the 2017 AHS clearly illustrated why housing assistance is 

needed. Among VLI renter households, 63 percent reported excessive rent burdens—that is, 

ratios greater than 40 percent. Excessive rent burdens affected 40 percent of HUD-assisted 

households. While this is substantially less than that of all VLI renter households, this rate was 

still surprisingly high. The corresponding rate for all renter households was 32.6 percent. 

In all previous analyses of HUD-assisted housing using AHS data, this table has 

generated unnecessary confusion because AHS data on how HUD programs function appear to 

be at odds with program rules. Since the early 1980s, HUD has generally required tenants to 

contribute 30 percent of their income toward rent and related expenses. No such uniformity 

exists in the above table. According to AHS data, a number of households in each of the HUD 

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

30 percent. 

The reported results should not be considered surprising: First, HUD rules allow for 

variation with regard to the 30-percent figure. Thirteen percent of households in privately owned 

multifamily housing do not pay rent based on the 30 percent of income requirement. Another 

important exception applies to the voucher program, in which recipient households are allowed 

to rent units more expensive than the HUD-established payment standard if the households incur 

all of the added rental costs. Public housing also allows public housing authorities to establish

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

incomes. 

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

medians.
31 

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

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

HUD-mandated process is more formal and detailed and focuses solely on determining program 

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

information on income, whereas the AHS collects data on income and rent within an instrument 

that also gathers information on other household characteristics and unit and neighborhood 

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

recertification process carried out by HUD agents. Measurement errors, misreporting, and 

month-to-month variation in both income and housing-related expenses affect both HUD agents 

and AHS data. A recent HUD-funded study showed that the rent-to-income ratio can vary 

substantially between surveys for the same household and demonstrated how normal variation 

and measurement error might account for a large portion of the survey-to-survey variation 

(Eggers and Moumen, 2010). 

Exhibit 5-10 examines how the median rent-to-income ratio has varied over time among 

different components of the rental housing stock. The numbers in the table are all medians, 

meaning that one-half of the renters in that category have ratios less than or equal to the reported 

ratio, and one-half have ratios greater than or equal to the reported ratio.

Exhibit 5-10. Trends in the Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Ratio of 

Housing Costs to Income

Median Monthly Housing 

Cost-to-Income Ratio (%)

AHS Survey

1989 1991 1993 2003 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

All HUD-Assisted 30 31 29 32 34 35 34 NA NA NA

Tenants in Public 

Housing 30 30 29 27 30 35 30 30 31 32

Voucher Recipients 32 34 32 40 39 40 39 39 43 40

Tenants in Privately 

Owned MF Housing 30 31 28 32 31 30 32 30 32 32

Total VLI Renters 39 36 38 81 51 52 55 NA NA NA

All Renters 28 27 28 30 33 34 35 33 31 30

AHS = American Housing Survey. MF= multifamily. NA = data not available. VLI = very low income.

Note: “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units.

Source: AHS

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

1991 until 2013, when it declined slightly and then fell through 2017. More than one-half of VLI

renters began to experience excessive rent burdens sometime between 1993 and 2003, a majority 

that remained through 2011, the most recent year for which a median for this group is 

available.19 Throughout the seven periods for which comparable data are available, the median 

ratios in each of the HUD programs were substantially lower than the median reported for all 

VLI renter households. Consistent with the special voucher exception, the voucher program had 

the highest median ratio among the HUD programs in all 10 periods. 

19 The 81-percent median rent burdens for all eligible households in 2003 seems to be an anomaly.
32 

Closing Thoughts

Taken together, Sections 4 and 5 provide strong evidence that HUD-assisted rental housing 

generally serves the lowest-income population. The median incomes of households participating 

in the three broad HUD programs in 2017 were less than one-third of the median income of the 

typical renter. Householders in HUD-assisted units have substantially lower educational 

attainment, and HUD-assisted households received wage and salary income less often and relied 

more often on welfare and Supplemental Security Income, or SSI. HUD-assisted households 

were less often married-couple households and more often single-adult households with a female 

householder. HUD-assisted households, especially in privately owned multifamily projects, were 

more likely to contain members with disabilities.

The deviations in characteristics between HUD-assisted households and householders 

and the VLI population generally relate to when and where programs began operation. HUD 

householders are more often Black than those in the VLI renter population because HUD 

programs operate more often in central cities of metropolitan areas. HUD householders are 

somewhat less likely to be Hispanic, likely because project-based programs were historically 

concentrated in the Northeast and South and were constructed before the rapid growth of the 

Hispanic population. Similarly, HUD householders are more often seniors because PHAs and the 

owners of subsidized multifamily projects favored this clientele.

While the ratio of total housing costs to income reported in the AHS is higher than 

expected, there are plausible reasons for this apparent program discrepancy. The bottom line is 

that excessive rent burdens are much less common among HUD-assisted households than all VLI

households. Section 6 will look at the quality of the housing provided by the HUD programs. 

The “Characteristics” reports for both 2015 and 2017 have uncovered two areas that are 

so different from their 2013 counterparts that it can be suspected these differences more likely 

relate to the AHS redesign than a shift in program characteristics. The turnover among HUDassisted units is too low to believe the population changed that much within 2 years. The two 

areas are the ratios of program median income to all renters’ median income and the proportion 

in all six renter groups of households containing a disabled member. 
33 

Section 6: Unit Quality and Tenant Satisfaction

This section examines the quality of housing provided by the assisted housing programs. It 

begins by comparing the types of structures containing the units available through HUD-assisted 

rental housing programs with (1) structures housing all renters and (2) structures housing all very 

low-income (VLI) renters. The next comparison focuses on the overall physical adequacy of 

units using an index devised by HUD and the U.S. Census Bureau. The appendix lists the criteria 

used to define the three categories of adequacy: severely inadequate, moderately inadequate, and 

adequate. The examination of overall adequacy is followed by a series of comparisons involving 

specific features of units and structures that go into the determination of adequacy. Then, using 

the subsample of recent movers, the section examines the reasons for moving into assisted 

housing. The section ends with comparisons of tenants’ satisfaction ratings with their units and 

neighborhoods. 

Concerns about privacy limit the comparisons that can be generated using the U.S. 

Census Bureau’s Table Creator. Only in a few places has HUD been asked for assistance in 

retrieving information from the internal use file kept at the U.S. Census Bureau, as accessing this

file is useful only when categories can be collapsed to produce counts large enough to protect 

privacy. Most of the information on housing quality are yes/no questions that cannot be 

collapsed.

Structure Type 

Exhibit 6-1 provides percentage distributions by structure type for the six groups followed in this 

report. Mobile homes and single-family detached units are combined because there are so few

mobile homes in HUD-assisted housing programs that reporting them separately would violate 

the U.S. Census Bureau’s disclosure rules. “Other” includes boats, tents, and caves—rare 

structure types that are not permitted in HUD-assisted housing.

Exhibit 6-1. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Structure Type, 2017

Structure Type

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All Renters

(%)

All HUD 

Assisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF

Units (%)

Mobile Homes, SingleFamily Detached, Other 14.6 6.4 25.8 2.9 26.4 32.2

Single-Family Attached 15.0 17.3 14.9 13.4 14.2 13.7

2 to 4 17.6 24.5 18.3 11.9 17.4 15.8

5 to 9 13.3 11.3 12.9 15.3 12.2 11.1

10 to 19 9.1 4.6 10.3 10.2 9.8 10.0

20 to 49 8.2 5.3 8.0 10.5 7.9 7.7

50 or More 22.2 30.7 9.6 35.8 12.0 9.6

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

Note: “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units.

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

most desirable structure type. Senior and small renter households generally favor units in garden 
34 

or high-rise apartments that are safe and low maintenance, whereas households with children 

generally favor single-family units, whether detached or attached (for example, townhouses). 

The most important distinction between HUD-assisted housing and both VLI rental 

housing and all rental housing is the far lower reliance on single-family detached units and 

mobile homes in HUD-assisted housing. Only 14.6 percent of HUD-assisted units fall into this 

category, slightly less than one-half the percentage found among households in VLI units or all 

rental units. The second most important distinction is the greater reliance on large buildings 

(those with 50 or more units) among the HUD-assisted units at 22.2 percent, compared with 12.0 

percent among units occupied by VLI households and 9.6 percent among all renters.

These two distinctions are even sharper when the focus is restricted to public housing or 

units in privately owned multifamily projects: 30 percent of public housing tenant households 

and 35 percent of households in privately owned multifamily projects live in buildings with 50 or 

more units. The voucher distribution is most similar to the distribution among all renters. 

Overall Adequacy of Units

For many years, HUD and the U.S. Census Bureau have used American Housing Survey data to 

assess the physical condition of each unit and categorize it into one of three groups: severely 

inadequate, moderately inadequate, and adequate. Appendix A explains how this determination 

is made; over time, definitions of the categories and the variables used to define them have 

changed.20

By these adequacy standards, 90 percent of all units are judged to be adequate, with 

trivial differences among HUD programs and between HUD programs and the comparison 

groups (exhibit 6-2). Units in the public housing program have the highest percentage of severely 

inadequate units, but even so, only 4.8 percent qualify as such. Voucher units and units in 

privately owned multifamily projects have lower rates of severely inadequate housing than all 

VLI units. Their rates are indistinguishable from the rate of all rental units.

Exhibit 6-2. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Physical Adequacy, 2017

Housing Adequacy 

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF

Units (%)

Severely Inadequate 2.3 4.8 1.8 1.3 2.9 1.9

Moderately Inadequate 5.4 7.0 4.6 5.6 7.1 5.6

Adequate 92.3 88.2 93.5 93.1 90.0 92.5

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

Note: “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units.

20 The definition last changed with the 2009 AHS.
35 

HUD rules help ensure good performance on these measures. HUD oversees conditions 

in both public housing and privately owned projects, and voucher units are subject to inspection 

before being approved for participation. 

The suppression of data by the U.S. Census Bureau to avoid disclosure prevented looking 

at the following features that would contribute to a unit being classified as severely inadequate: 

• Complete bathrooms 

• Electric or wiring problems 

• Upkeep problems 

Data on the heating adequacy are not suppressed. AHS tables classify the factors that

determine a unit to be moderately inadequate into two categories: Upkeep and Other. Table 

Creator does not suppress data on these two categories. 

This report does not analyze the three factors for which data are suppressed. Instead, to 

the extent that data are not suppressed, it analyzes conditions that feed into these factors. For 

example, to be inadequate because of heating issues, a household must have been uncomfortably 

cold last winter for 24 hours or more, and the heating equipment must have broken down at least 

three times for at least 6 hours each time. The U.S. Census Bureau provides data on being 

uncomfortably cold and having a heating breakdown but, once assisted status is introduced into 

the analysis, Table Creator suppresses data on the number of breakdowns.

Heating Adequacy

Exhibit 6-3 shows that HUD-assisted units are more likely to have heating equipment than units 

occupied by VLI renters or all renters. HUD-assisted households are slightly more likely to have 

experienced periods of cold discomfort lasting 24 hours or more, however, although tenants in 

privately owned multifamily are an exception to this generalization. 

Exhibit 6-3. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Heating Adequacy, 2017

Heating Adequacy 

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF

Units (%)

With Heating Equipment

and Occupied Last Winter 91.2 91.2 90.9 91.7 86.0 84.7

Not Uncomfortably Cold

for 24 Hours or More

81.2 78.7 79.9 84.9 76.6 77.2

Uncomfortably Cold for 24

Hours or More

10.0 12.5 11.0 6.8 9.5 7.5

Utility Interruption 0.7 S 1.4 S 0.7 0.7

Inadequate Heating

Capacity 1.3 2.1 1.8 S 1.6 1.4

Inadequate Insulation 1.0 S 2.0 S 1.5 1.3

Cost of Heating 0.0 S S S S 0.6

Other 0.7 S 1.4 S 1.0 0.9

Discomfort not Reported 0.0 S S S S S 

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income. S = data suppressed.

Note: “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units.
36 

Toilet Breakdowns

The number of toilet breakdowns within 3 months enters into the determination of moderately 

inadequate. Data on the number of breakdowns are suppressed, but exhibit 6-4 shows whether a 

breakdown did occur. Breakdowns are rare for all groups (in the 3 to 5 percent range), and the 

differences among HUD programs and between HUD programs and either comparison group are 

trivial. 

Exhibit 6-4. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Flush Toilet Breakdowns, 

2017

Flush Toilet 

Breakdowns 

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF

Units (%)

With One or More Flush

Toilets 99.8 100.0 99.7 99.9 99.6 99.8

With at Least One Toilet

Working at All Times in

Last 3 Months

95.7 95.4 95.6 96.2 95.7 96.7

None Working Some Time

in Last 3 Months 4.1 4.6 4.1 3.6 3.8 3.1

Breakdowns not Reported 0.0 S S S S 0.8

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income. S = data suppressed.

Note: “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units.

Water Leakage

Having a water leak, whether from indoors or outdoors, enters into the determination of both 

severely and moderately inadequate. Exhibit 6-5 reports on water leaks from both inside and 

outside the unit. Indoor water leaks are slightly more likely in public housing. Overall, HUDassisted households are about as likely to have indoor water leaks as VLI renters or all renters. 

With respect to water leaks from outside, there are only minor differences across all six groups.

Looking at the possible sources of leaks, no major differences across groups are apparent.

Exhibit 6-5. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Water Leaks, 2017

Water Leaks

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF

Units (%)

No Leakage from Inside

Structure 88.0 86.8 88.0 89.0 88.6 89.3

With Leakage from Inside

Structure 12.0 13.2 12.0 11.0 11.4 10.7

Fixtures Backed up or

Overflowed 3.0 4.6 3.0 1.8 2.9 2.5

Pipes Leaked 4.5 4.3 4.5 4.8 4.8 4.5

Broken Water Heater 0.0 S S S 0.7 0.7

Other or Unknown

(Includes not

Reported)

4.3 4.3 4.1 4.4 3.8 3.7

No Leakage from Outside

Structure 91.9 94.5 89.5 93.7 90.6 90.5
37 

Water Leaks

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF

Units (%)

With Leakage from

Outside Structure 8.1 5.5 10.5 6.3 9.4 9.5

Roof 3.5 2.9 4.9 1.9 4.9 4.7

Basement 1.0 S 2.1 S 1.1 1.5

Walls, Closed

Windows, or Doors

2.6 S 3.0 3.8 2.8 2.8

Other or Unknown

(Includes not

Reported)

0.8 S 1.7 S 1.2 1.3

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income. S = data suppressed.

Note: “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units.

Selected Deficiencies

The AHS reports a variety of quality problems under the title “Selected Deficiencies.” Most of 

these problems, except for signs of cockroaches, enter into the determination of being severely or 

moderately inadequate. None of the listed deficiencies would be considered serious enough to 

cause a unit to be labeled severely inadequate or moderately inadequate but can produce either 

designation when discovered in combination with each other or other problems, such as water 

leaks. Exhibit 6-6 reports on these items.

Exhibit 6-6. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Selected Deficiencies, 2017

Selected Deficiencies

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF

Units (%)

Signs of Mice or Rats Inside

Home in Last 12 Months 13.5 15.2 14.5 10.8 14.1 12.2

Signs of Cockroaches in

Last 12 Months 22.3 31.2 19.5 20.6 20.7 17.9

Holes in Floors 1.9 3.1 1.8 1.4 2.5 1.8

Open Cracks or Holes

(interior) 8.2 10.2 8.3 6.7 8.2 7.0

Broken Plaster or Peeling

Paint (interior) 3.3 7.9 1.6 2.7 3.5 2.9

Exposed Wiring 2.6 2.1 2.8 2.7 3.4 3.3

Rooms without Electric

Outlets 1.8 2.1 1.8 1.6 2.6 2.3

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

Note: “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units.

Except for signs of cockroaches, the incidence of such problems is generally low and 

there are no substantial differences across the six groups. In general, these problems occur less 

frequently in voucher units and units in privately owned multifamily housing than in units 

occupied by VLI households, but the differences are small. The rates of occurrence are typically 

highest in public housing units. 
38 

Electricity and Blown Fuses or Tripped Circuit Breakers

A unit without electricity is considered severely inadequate. The frequency of blown fuses or 

tripped circuit breakers enters into the determinations of both severely and moderately 

inadequate. Exhibit 6-7 provides information on the availability of electricity and experiencing 

blown fuses or tripped circuit breakers in units, but not the frequency of these latter conditions. 

Exhibit 6-7. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Electrical Problems, 2017

Electrical Problems 

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All Renters

(%)

All HUDAssisted

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

Units (%)

With Electrical Wiring 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.9

No Fuses or Breakers

Blown in Last 3 Months 93.3 95.2 92.2 93.9 92.2 92.0

With Fuses or Breakers

Blown in Last 3 Months 6.6 4.8 7.8 6.1 7.7 7.9

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

Note: “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units.

Fewer than 0.2 percent of all VLI rental units lack electricity. Surprisingly, the frequency 

of blown fuses or tripped circuit breakers is higher among all renters than among VLI renters, 

voucher holders, or tenants in privately owned, HUD-assisted housing; the lowest incidence 

occurred in public housing. The small differences reported in these most recent exhibits tend to 

vary across surveys; for example, in the “Characteristics” report for 2015, public housing had the 

highest percentage of units experiencing blown fuses or tripped circuit breakers (8.6 percent). 

Complete Kitchens

If a unit lacks complete kitchen facilities (sink, refrigerator, stove, or burners) or if the household 

shares kitchen facilities, it is classified as moderately inadequate. Exhibit 6-8 provides 

information on the completeness of kitchens. With the exception of units in privately owned 

multifamily projects, fewer HUD units fail the complete kitchen test than all rental units (second 

row of exhibit 6-8). The lack of complete kitchen facilities is highest among units occupied by 

all VLI households. 

Exhibit 6-8. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Complete Kitchen Facilities, 

2017

Complete Kitchens

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

Units (%)

With Complete Kitchen 98.1 98.1 98.5 97.6 97.1 97.6

Lacking Complete Kitchen

Facilities 1.5 S 1.5 2.4 2.8 2.4

Kitchen Sink 99.8 100.0 99.9 99.7 99.1 99.5

Refrigerator 99.6 99.9 99.5 99.6 99.1 99.4

Cooking Stove or Range 98.8 99.3 99.2 97.9 97.1 98.0

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income. S = data suppresses.

Note: “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units.
39 

Exhibit 6-8 also provides information on three of the necessary elements of a complete 

kitchen (sinks, refrigerators, and stoves) but not on burners or the necessity of sharing kitchen 

facilities.

Tenant Satisfaction 

The AHS asks respondents to rate their structure and their neighborhood on a scale from 1 to 10, 

where 10 is considered the best. Exhibit 6-9 presents a capsulized summary of these ratings. So 

few residents rate their units or neighborhood at the bottom of the scale that the analysis had to 

combine the bottom five ratings to avoid possible disclosure. 

Exhibit 6-9. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Tenant Ratings as “Best” or 

“Worst,” 2017

Overall Opinion

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

Units (%)

Structure

1–5 Rating 15.8 16.8 16.4 14.3 15.5 15.5

9–10 Rating 39.2 35.1 37.4 44.9 34.8 32.5

Neighborhood

1–5 Rating 20.0 23.0 18.9 19.8 16.3 18.4

9–10 Rating 36.6 32.9 36.0 39.8 37.0 37.3

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

Note: “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units.

A higher percentage of respondents from HUD-assisted units give their units a score of 9 

or 10 than did respondents from units occupied by VLI households or from all rental units. This 

result is driven by the favorable ratings given by tenants in privately owned multifamily units. 

The neighborhood ratings in exhibit 6-9 tell a different story. Tenants in public housing 

appear to be less satisfied than tenants in the other groups; they have the lowest percentage of 9 

or 10 ratings and the highest percentage of 1–5 ratings. 

Recent Movers

The AHS gathers additional information on households in which the respondent has moved into 

the unit during the past 2 years.21 Exhibit 4-6 demonstrated that householders tend to remain in 

assisted units much longer than householders in VLI households or all renters. The same pattern 

holds when one looks at recent movers: 30 percent of HUD-assisted units are occupied by 

recent-mover households, compared with 48.3 percent of all renter households (exhibit 6-10). 

The voucher program has the highest percentage of recent movers.

21 In AHS surveys before 2015, recent movers were defined as respondents who moved into their unit within the 

past year.
40 

Exhibit 6-10. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Percent of Recent Movers, 

2017

Recent-Mover 

Households 

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

Units (%)

Respondent Moved During

Past 2 Years

30.7 25.8 32.5 31.4 42.3 48.3

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

Note: “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units.

The AHS asks a detailed series of questions about why recent-mover respondents moved

into their current units. Exhibit 6-11 discusses some key reasons given by respondents. 

Respondents could give more than one answer and, thus, the percentages add to more than 100 

percent; on average, recent movers gave two reasons.

Some of the differences between the reasons given by recent movers into HUD-assisted 

housing and those given by all renters are large, reflecting the lower ability of the VLI

population to afford to move and the reluctance among HUD-assisted households to move. For 

example, 15.0 percent of all renters cite a new job or transfer, compared with 6.5 percent of VLI

renters; the numbers of HUD-assisted recent movers who cite the same reason were so low that 

the U.S. Census Bureau reported them only for the voucher program (3.7 percent). The pattern is 

similar for “to reduce commuting time.” On the other hand, “to reduce housing costs” is a reason 

given by 22.5 percent of HUD-assisted renters but only 16.2 percent of all renters.

Exhibit 6-11. Distribution of Recent Movers HUD-Assisted Housing by Key 

Reasons Given for Move, 2017

Reasons for Moving

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

Units (%)

Forced to Move 8.7 S 12.8 7.0 7.3 5.6

New Job or Job Transfer S S 3.7 S 6.5 15.0

To Form Own Household 26.5 34.4 21.4 30.2 27.7 26.2

To Be Closer to Family 26.8 21.6 24.0 34.1 23.9 20.2

Change in Household or

Family Size 12.6 15.6 10.1 15.0 12.8 12.7

To Reduce Commuting

Time 6.0 S 7.4 7.3 8.4 12.1

Wanted a Larger or BetterQuality Home

29.6 31.6 30.8 26.4 23.6 25.2

To Reduce Housing Costs 22.5 27.2 15.6 30.9 16.8 16.2

Wanted a More Desirable 

Neighborhood 28.2 24.8 31.4 25.0 22.0 24.2

Other 19.9 16.0 20.0 21.8 21.8 18.9

Not Reported 4.6 3.2 5.1 4.5 5.8 5.1

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income. S = data suppressed.

Note: “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units.
41 

When asked to compare their current unit to their previous home, recent-mover 

respondents in HUD-assisted units are more likely than all renters or all VLI renters to rate the 

HUD-assisted unit as better than their previous unit (exhibit 612). 

Exhibit 6-12. Distribution of Recent Movers HUD-Assisted Housing by 

Comparison of Current and Previous Home and Neighborhood, 2017

Comparison of Current 

and Previous Home and 

Neighborhood 

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

Units (%)

Current Home

Better 51.6 48.0 52.7 51.8 43.5 42.4

Worse 15.6 18.4 16.1 13.2 16.4 16.1

Current Neighborhood

Better 39.4 37.6 39.9 39.5 36.0 34.5

Worse 15.2 16.4 12.6 18.6 13.2 12.2

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

When asked to compare their current neighborhood with their previous neighborhood, 

recent movers in all three HUD-assisted programs are more likely to rate their current 

neighborhood as better than their previous neighborhoods. This finding was true in 2017 for 

recent movers into public housing despite the lower satisfaction scores for neighborhoods 

provided by all public housing respondents. 

Closing Thoughts

The main conclusion from section 6 is that both the American housing stock and the HUDassisted stock are high quality, with few units experiencing major problems. The AHS has an 

overall measure of housing quality that detects whether an individual unit is adequate, 

moderately inadequate, or severely inadequate; in 2017, 1.9 percent of all rental units were 

severely inadequate, whereas the percentages among all VLI units and all HUD-assisted units 

were 2.9 percent and 2.3 percent, respectively. 

This section separately examined various indicators of housing problems: heating 

problems, toilet breakdowns, water leaks, other deficiencies, electrical problems, and having 

complete kitchen facilities. Exhibit 6-13 pulls together key rows from exhibit 6-3 through exhibit 

6-8. In almost every case, HUD-assisted units have few problems and are comparable in quality 

to all rental units and sometimes slightly better than all VLI units. 
42 

Exhibit 6-13. Key Findings from Exhibits 6-3 Through 6-8 

Various Components of 

Adequate Housing

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

Units (%)

Uncomfortably Cold for 24

Hours or More

10.0 12.5 11.0 6.8 9.5 7.5

No Toilets Working Some

Time in Last 3 Months 4.1 4.6 4.1 3.6 3.8 3.1

With Water Leakage from

Inside Structure 12.0 13.2 12.0 11.0 11.4 10.7

With Water Leakage from

Outside Structure 8.1 5.5 10.5 6.3 9.4 9.5

Signs of Mice or Rats Inside

Home in Last 12 Months 13.5 15.2 14.5 10.8 14.1 12.2

Holes in Floors 1.9 3.1 1.8 1.4 2.5 1.8

Exposed Wiring 2.6 2.1 2.8 2.7 3.4 3.3

With Fuses or Breakers

Blown in Last 3 Months 6.6 4.8 7.8 6.1 7.7 7.9

Lacking Complete Kitchen 

Facilities 1.5 S 1.5 2.4 2.8 2.4

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

Note: “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units.

HUD tenants are mostly satisfied with their units and neighborhoods. A higher 

percentage of respondents from HUD-assisted units give their units a score of 9 or 10 than did 

respondents from units occupied by VLI households or from all rental units. This result is driven 

by the favorable ratings given by tenants in privately owned multifamily. Public housing tenants 

are the least likely to be satisfied with their units and neighborhoods. With respect to 

neighborhoods, tenants in public housing appear to be less satisfied than tenants in the other 

groups; they have the lowest percentage of ratings of 9 or 10 and the highest percentage of 1 

through 5 ratings. 

When asked to compare their current unit and current neighborhood with their previous 

home, recent-mover respondents in HUD-assisted units are more likely to rate the HUD-assisted 

unit as better than their previous unit than all renters or all VLI renters. 
43 

Section 7: Assessment of HUD-Assisted Housing—Looking 

Across the Sections

The previous sections use the information from the 2017 American Housing Survey to examine

the characteristics of HUD-assisted units (their location, year built, size, structure type, and 

quality) and the characteristics of their occupants (race and ethnicity, age, education, income, 

household composition, and satisfaction with their living environment). This section looks across 

these earlier sections to assess HUD’s rental assistance. 

The assessment focuses on four questions: 

1. Who do the programs serve? 

2. What benefits do the programs provide? 

3. How do the programs differ with respect to recipients and benefits? 

4. How have the programs evolved from 1989 onward? 

Who Do the Programs Serve? 

Several characteristics attest that HUD-assisted housing serves households at the bottom of the 

income distribution, particularly those with special issues—single-adult households with a 

female householder, households with disabled members, and households with householders 

without a high school diploma: 

• More than one half of all HUD-assisted households had a total income in 2017 of less 

than $12,500, compared with a median of $16,000 among unassisted households whose 

income would still qualify them to participate in the program. The median income of all 

renters was $36,000, whereas the median income of all households was $55,100. 

• Forty percent of HUD-assisted households receive wage and salary income, compared 

with 73 percent of all renters.

• Seventy percent of HUD-assisted households are single-adult households with a female 

householder, compared with 55 percent among very low-income households and 42 

percent among all renter households.

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

(44 percent) substantially higher than the rate among either units rented to VLI

households (33 percent) or all renter households (22 percent).

• Thirty percent of householders in HUD-assisted households did not graduate from high 

school, compared with 16 percent of householders among all renters. 

HUD-assisted households differ in some demographic characteristics from all VLI households: 

• Among HUD-assisted households, 46 percent have Black householders, compared with 

28 percent among VLI households. 

• Among HUD-assisted households, 18 percent have Hispanic householders, compared 

with 23 percent among VLI households. 
44 

• Among HUD-assisted households, 27 percent have senior householders (classified as 

householders 65 or older), compared with 23 percent among VLI households. 

• Fifty percent of HUD-assisted households have only one person, compared with 45 

percent among VLI renters and 35 percent among all renters.

The report attributes these differences to where the programs function and when they 

originally began operation. Units constructed for public housing and other project-based 

multifamily programs can last 40 years or more, and the original purpose and location of these 

units determines who lives in them (for example, one-bedroom units cannot serve families). 

• Approximately 80 percent of public housing units and 75 percent of privately owned 

multifamily units were built before 1985. These units were designed to serve the needs of 

the locations where they were built at the time they were built. Fifty-six percent of HUDassisted units are located in central cities, while 50 percent of units occupied by VLI 

renters are in central cities.

• More than 40 percent of HUD-assisted units are efficiencies or one-bedroom units, 

compared with 35 percent of all units occupied by VLI households and 28 percent of all 

rental units. Among units in privately owned multifamily projects, the percentage of onebedroom units is nearly 63 percent.

What Benefits Do the Programs Provide? 

HUD-assisted programs achieved their primary objective of providing decent and affordable 

housing for needy households. The AHS provides extensive information on the quality and 

condition of units, and AHS data show that the American rental housing stock is in good 

condition, and HUD-assisted units are as good as other rental units.

• By the AHS quality index, 92 percent of HUD-assisted units, 90 percent of units 

occupied by all VLI households, and 92 percent of all rental units are considered 

adequate.

• Section 6 examined several aspects of unit quality. Exhibit 6-13, which is reproduced 

here as exhibit 7-1, shows that HUD-assisted units had few problems and were 

comparable in quality to all rental units and sometimes slightly better than all VLI units.
45 

Exhibit 7-1. Key Findings from Exhibits 6-3 Through 6-8 

Various Components of 

Adequate Housing

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

Units (%)

Uncomfortably Cold for 24

Hours or More

10.0 12.5 11.0 6.8 9.5 7.5

No Toilets Working Some

Time in Last 3 Months 4.1 4.6 4.1 3.6 3.8 3.1

With Water Leakage from

Inside Structure 12.0 13.2 12.0 11.0 11.4 10.7

With Water Leakage from

Outside Structure 8.1 5.5 10.5 6.3 9.4 9.5

Signs of Mice or Rats Inside

Home in Last 12 Months 13.5 15.2 14.5 10.8 14.1 12.2

Holes in Floors 1.9 3.1 1.8 1.4 2.5 1.8

Exposed Wiring 2.6 2.1 2.8 2.7 3.4 3.3

With Fuses or Breakers

Blown in Last 3 Months 6.6 4.8 7.8 6.1 7.7 7.9

Lacking Complete Kitchen 

Facilities 1.5 S 1.5 2.4 2.8 2.4

• Among households that moved into their units within the past 2 years, respondents in 

HUD-assisted units are more likely than all renters or all VLI renters to rate the HUDassisted unit and its neighborhood as better than their previous unit and neighborhood. 

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

household income, where housing costs include both rent and utility expenses. A ratio of 

0.3 is generally considered acceptable, while a ratio greater than 0.4 is considered 

excessive. By this standard, program participants are better off than the typical VLI

household. Forty percent of HUD-assisted households pay more than 40 percent of their 

income for rent, utilities, and related expenses, compared with 63 percent of all VLI

renters.

Section 5 discusses why the AHS records that so many HUD-assisted households pay 

more than 30 percent of their income, which is the general requirement in HUD programs. 

Program rules differ, allowing higher ratios in some cases—this difference is particularly 

important in regard to the voucher program. In addition, AHS income and cost numbers may 

differ from HUD administrative records.

How Do the Programs Differ with Respect to Recipients and Benefits? 

The most important differences among the HUD programs are the following: 

• A higher percentage of public housing units are located in central cities (62 percent) than 

voucher units (54 percent) or privately owned multifamily units (54 percent). 

• Thirty-eight percent of privately owned multifamily households have Black 

householders, compared with 49 percent in both public housing and in the voucher 

program. 
46 

• Forty-four percent of privately owned multifamily householders are seniors, compared 

with 24 percent of householders in public housing and 18 percent in the voucher 

program. 

• Thirty-six percent of privately owned multifamily households are two-or-more-persons 

households, compared with 56 percent in public housing and 58 percent in the voucher 

program.

• Forty-nine percent of privately owned multifamily households have a disabled member, 

compared with 42 percent in public housing and 41 percent in the voucher program. 

• Voucher households had the highest median incomes in 2017 at $12,500, compared with

$11,160 among privately owned multifamily households and $10,800 among public 

housing tenants. 

• Forty-eight percent of voucher households pay more than 40 percent or more of their 

income on housing, compared with 35 percent of public housing tenants and 30 percent 

of privately owned multifamily tenants.

• Voucher households are the most mobile; 32 percent moved in the past 2 years. Tenants 

in privately owned multifamily units were almost as mobile; 31 percent moved in the past 

2 years. Public housing tenants were the least mobile; 26 percent moved. Mobility is 

much higher among the comparison groups; 42 percent of VLI renters and 48 percent of 

all renters moved in the past 2 years. 

• Recent movers in HUD-assisted households generally rate their new units as better than 

their previous units, with only small differences among the programs: 53 percent in the 

voucher program, 52 percent in privately owned multifamily units, and 48 percent in

public housing. These percentages are lower among VLI renter recent movers (44 

percent) and all recent-mover renters (42 percent).

How Have the Programs Evolved Since 1989?

This report is the 10th compilation of AHS data on HUD-assisted rental housing, and it uses 

information from the previous studies to track changes in the HUD programs.

• The biggest change in assisted housing programs has been the shift from project-based 

assistance to tenant-based assistance. From 1989 to 2017, the number of HUD-assisted 

units increased by 500,00 units, but program mix changed dramatically. The voucher 

program’s share grew from 26 percent in 1989 to 48 percent in 2017, while shares of 

public housing and privately owned multifamily housing each declined by 12 and 10 

percentage points, respectively. 

• The metropolitan areas outside of central cities have a larger share of HUD assistance, at 

31 percent in 2017 compared with 26 percent in 1989, probably because of the growth of 

the voucher program.

• The share of householders who are Black rose from 40 percent to 46 percent; the share 

who are Hispanic rose from 10 percent to 18 percent.
47 

• The share of households with senior householders fell from 35 percent to 27 percent with 

the decline of the privately owned multifamily program.

• In the voucher program, the median ratio of housing costs to income rose from 32 to 40. 

Although these 10 studies cover the 1989–2017 timeframe, the studies are clustered at the front 

(1989, 1991, 1993) and back (2003, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017) ends of the period. 

And while the shift in program composition was generally smooth over the 28-year period, there 

were marked changes in the share of households with a Hispanic householder, the share of 

households with a senior householder, and the median ratio of housing costs to income in the 

voucher program between the “1993 and earlier” era and the “2003 and later” era. Due to the 

back- and front-end clustering, the report cannot rule out a sharp change during the 1993–2003 

gap. 
A-0 

Appendix A: How HUD Determines Physical Adequacy

At the request of HUD, the U.S. Census Bureau provided this cogent explanation of the 

adequacy measures. 

Housing Adequacy

HUD measures housing quality by creating a measure called housing adequacy. The housing 

adequacy measure is classified into three degrees of severity: “severely inadequate,” “moderately 

inadequate,” and “adequate.” Each sample unit has to meet the conditions defined below to be 

classified in one of these three categories.

Severely Inadequate

Units are classified as “severely inadequate” if at least one of the following conditions is met: 

• Plumbing. Lacking hot or cold piped water, lacking a full bathroom, or sharing a 

bathroom with non-household members. 

• Heating. Having been uncomfortably cold last winter for 24 hours or more because the 

heating equipment broke down, and the heating equipment broke down at least three

times last winter for at least 6 hours each time.

• Electricity. Having no electricity. 

• Wiring. Having all of the following electric problems: exposed wiring, a room with no 

working wall outlet, and three blown fuses or tripped circuit breakers in the last 3 

months. 

• Upkeep. Having at least five of the following six maintenance problems: 

1. Water leaks from the outside in the last 12 months, such as from the roof, basement, 

windows, or doors. 

2. Leaks from inside the structure in the last 12 months, such as pipes or plumbing 

fixtures. 

3. Holes in the floors. 

4. Holes or open cracks (wider than a dime) in the walls or ceilings. 

5. More than 8 by 11 inches of peeling paint or broken plaster. 

6. Signs of rats in the last 12 months.

Moderately Inadequate

Units are classified as “moderately inadequate” if at least one of the following conditions is met: 

• Upkeep. Having only three or four of the six problems listed under “Severely Inadequate 

– Upkeep.” 

• Other. Having any one of the following conditions: 

1. On at least three occasions during the last 3 months, all the flush toilets were broken 

down at the same time for 6 hours or more. 
A-1 

2. Having unvented gas, oil, or kerosene heaters as the main heating equipment. 

3. Lacking a kitchen sink, lacking a working refrigerator, lacking cooking equipment 

(stove, burners, or microwave oven), or sharing the kitchen with non-household 

members.

Adequate

A unit is deemed “adequate” if it does not meet the definitions of “severely inadequate” or 

“moderately inadequate.” 
B-0 

Appendix B: Previous Studies of the Characteristics on HUDAssisted Renters and Their Units Based on AHS Data

Casey, Connie H. 1992. Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters and Their Units in 1989. 

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

Development and Research. 

———. 1997. Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters and Their Units in 1991. Washington, 

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

Research. 

Eggers, Frederick J. 2017a. Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters and Their Units in 2009. 

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

Development and Research.

———. 2017b. Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters and Their Units in 2011. Washington, 

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

Research.

———. 2017c. Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters and Their Units in 2013. Washington, 

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

Research.

———. 2017d. Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters and Their Units in 2015. Washington, 

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

Research.

McGough, Duane T. 1997. Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters and Their Units in 1993. 

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

Development and Research.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Policy Development and 

Research (PD&R), Housing and Demographic Analysis Division (HDAD). 2008. Characteristics 

of HUD-Assisted Renters and Their Units in 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. 
C-0 

References

Eggers, Frederick J., and Fouad Moumen. 2008. Trends in Housing Costs: 1985–2005 and the 

30-Percent-of-Income Standard. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. 

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

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

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

Development and Research. https://www.census.gov/programssurveys/ahs/research/publications/High_rent_burdens_v2.html. 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Office of Policy Development and 

Research (PD&R). 2019. Low-Income Housing Tax Credits. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

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

http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/lihtc.html. 

Weicher, John C., Frederick J. Eggers, and Fouad Moumen. 2017. The Long-Term Dynamics of 

Affordable Rental Housing. Washington, DC: The Hudson Institute. 

https://www.hudson.org/research/13339-the-long-term-dynamics-of-affordable-rental-housing. 
C-1