Accessibility of 

America’s Housing 

Stock: Analysis of 

the 2011 American 

Housing Survey 

(AHS)

Multi-Disciplinary

Research Team

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research
Accessibility of America’s Housing Stock: Analysis 

of the 2011 American Housing Survey (AHS)

Multi-Disciplinary Research Team

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Office of Policy Development and Research 

March 19, 2015 

Submitted by: 

Economic Systems Inc. 

Falls Church, VA 

Prepared by:

Luke Bo’sher, Sewin Chan, Ingrid Gould Ellen, Brian Karfunkel and Hsi-Ling Liao 

New York University 

Furman Center 
Acknowledgments 

We would like to thank HUD PD&R staff for their useful insights and guidance on this 

project. 

About MDRT 

PD&R developed the Multidisciplinary Research Team (MDRT) vehicle to manage a 

team of qualified researchers. Researchers are selected for their expertise to produce an 

array of high quality, short-turnaround research. MDRT researchers use a variety of HUD 

and external data sources to answer research questions relating to HUD’s priority policies 

and strategic goals. 

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.
iii

Contents

Contents .............................................................................................................................iii

List of Tables and Figures.................................................................................................. iv

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 1

We tested an index of accessibility using American Housing Survey data .................... 1

Potentially modifiable housing is common while wheelchair accessible housing is rare

......................................................................................................................................... 1

Refinements could improve the quality of American Housing Survey data .................. 2

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 4

2. Regulations and Literature Review ................................................................................. 4

2.1 United States regulations .......................................................................................... 4

2.2 International approaches to regulating and accrediting accessibility ..................... 10

2.3 International approaches to surveying accessibility ............................................... 11

2.4 Academic literature review ..................................................................................... 11

3. AHS Disability Measures ............................................................................................. 13

4. AHS Accessibility Features .......................................................................................... 16

5. Accessibility Index........................................................................................................ 22

5.1. Accessibility index – methodology ........................................................................ 22

5.2. Accessibility index – results .................................................................................. 23

6. Accessibility of the U.S. housing stock ........................................................................ 25

6.1. All housing units .................................................................................................... 25

7. Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 45

References ......................................................................................................................... R1

Appendix A: Expert Interviews ....................................................................................... A1

Appendix B: Summary of United States Federal Housing Regulations ........................... B1

Appendix C: Coverage and Limitations of 2011 AHS Disability and Accessibility 

Measures ........................................................................................................................... C1

C.1 Scope of the survey ................................................................................................ C1

C.2 Assessment of the AHS 2011 disability measures ................................................. C1

C.3 Assessment of the AHS 2011 accessibility measures ............................................ C2

Appendix D: Alternative Indices Based on Weighting Accessibility Features ............... D1

D.1. Accessibility index based on expert weighting of accessibility features ............. D1

D.2. Accessibility index based on revealed preference in AHS .................................. D5

Appendix E: Table 11A-Supplemental Tables ................................................................. E1
iv

List of Tables and Figures 

Table 1. The 2011 AHS Questions, U.S. and International Regulations and Guidelines ... 7

Table 2. Disability Items in 2011 AHS ............................................................................. 13

Table 3. Accessibility Feature Items in 2011 AHS ........................................................... 14

Table 4. Correlation of Disability Variables ..................................................................... 15

Table 5. Prevalence of Accessibility Features .................................................................. 17

Table 6. Correlation of Accessibility Features ................................................................. 20

Table 7. Percent of Units with Critical Accessibility Features ......................................... 24

Table 8. Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features .................... 26

Table 9. Percent of Owner-Occupied Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features

........................................................................................................................................... 29

Table 10. Percent of Renter-Occupied Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features

........................................................................................................................................... 31

Table 11. Percent of Housing Units in MSAs with Critical Accessibility Features ......... 34

Table 12. Percent of Disabled Households with Critical Accessibility Features ............. 36

Table 13. Percent of Disabled Households Living in Accessible Units that Use Critical 

Accessibility Features ....................................................................................................... 40

Table 14. Percent of Housing Units with Disabled Occupants Using Critical Accessibility 

Features ............................................................................................................................. 41

Table 16. Kansas City MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility 

Features ............................................................................................................................. 25

Table D1. Expert Weighting of Accessibility Features.......................................................... D2

Table D2. Accessibility Indices Based on the Weighted Sum of Accessibility Features for 

all Housing Units (HUs)................................................................................................................ D3

Table D3. Accessibility Indices Based on the Weighted Sum of Accessibility Features for 

Housing Units (HUs) with Disabled Occupant ........................................................................ D4

Table D4. Prevalence of Accessibility Features in Housing Units with Disabled Occupant

............................................................................................................................................................ D6

Table D5. Weights Based on Feature Prevalence in Disabled Households........................ D9

Figure 1: Affordability of Accessible Units for Households with Disabled Members......43

Figure 2: Affordability of Accessible Units for Rental Households with Disabled 

Members.............................................................................................................................................44

Figure 3: Affordability of Accessible Units for Owner-Occupied Households with 

Disabled Members............................................................................................................................44
1

Executive Summary 

In 1990 the Americans with Disability Act set down the goal of “equality of opportunity, 

full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency” for individuals with 

disabilities. 

A quarter century later, our analysis of United States (U.S.) housing data suggests that 

although around a third of housing in the U.S. is potentially modifiable for a person with 

a mobility disability, currently less than five percent is accessible for individuals with 

moderate mobility difficulties and less than one percent of housing is accessible for 

wheelchair users. 

The availability of accessible housing is critical to enable people with disabilities to live 

independent lives with a minimal amount of support. It is also essential to enable people 

with disabilities to participate in society by visiting the homes of friends and family. 

Housing that meets the needs of people with disabilities is increasingly important for the 

U.S. as the population ages. 

We tested an index of accessibility using American Housing Survey data 

The aim of this research is to identify the proportion of the U.S. housing stock that can be 

accessed by people with disabilities. 

In order to assess the level of accessibility, we developed an index with three levels of 

accessibility. The three groupings reflect the linkage between accessibility features and 

how a person with a disability makes use of a dwelling. The first level defines a home 

that is not yet accessible, but has essential structural elements that make it potentially (but 

not necessarily) modifiable. The second level defines a home for individuals with 

moderate mobility difficulties. The third level defines a home that is accessible to a 

wheelchair user. 

We identified features of accessibility for each level through an examination of U.S. and 

international standards and regulations regarding housing accessibility, review of the 

relevant literature, and interviews conducted with a set of disability and housing design 

experts. 

Using data from the American Housing Survey (AHS) we estimate the percentage of 

housing stock in the U.S. that meets the requirements of each of these three levels. The 

2011 AHS included a topical module on accessibility for the first time. We were able to 

use this unprecedented opportunity to examine the accessibility of the U.S. housing stock. 

The module asked about the presence of 22 accessibility features in housing units and 

whether the accessibility features were used or not. Our analysis uses these data alongside 

the AHS’s disability questions for each household member.

Potentially modifiable housing is common while wheelchair accessible 

housing is rare 
2

The three levels of accessibility each bring together a number of accessibility features 

that all need to be present in order for housing to qualify as meeting the requirements of 

the level. 

Our analysis finds that almost one third of housing is potentially modifiable, but we 

estimate that just 0.15% of housing is currently wheelchair accessible. These rates are 

consistently higher for housing that is occupied by a person with a disability. 

Accessibility level Prevalence

Level 1: Potentially Modifiable.

The home has some essential structure features for accessibility, but 

would not be accessible without further modifications. This includes 

stepless entry from the exterior, bathroom and bedroom on the entry 

level or presence of elevator in the unit.

33.3% of all housing 

units

44.2% of housing units 

with a resident 

wheelchair user

Level 2: Livable for individuals with moderate mobility difficulties. 

A person with moderate mobility difficulties can live in the home. This 

includes all the elements in level 1 plus no steps between rooms or 

rails/grab bars along all steps and an accessible bathroom with grab 

bars.

3.8% of all housing units

12.4% of housing units 

with a resident 

wheelchair user

Level 3: Wheelchair accessible. 

The home has a minimum level of accessibility so that a wheelchair 

user can live in the home and prepare his or her own meals. This 

includes all the elements in levels 1 and 2, but removes the possibility 

of any steps between rooms, even if grab bars are present, and adds 

door handles and sink handles/levers

0.15% of all housing

units

0.73% of housing units 

with a resident 

wheelchair user

Refinements could improve the quality of American Housing Survey data 

The AHS provides a range of useful information to estimate the proportion of the U.S. 

housing stock that a person with disability could reasonably visit or live in independently. 

Our discussions with experts and international literature review identified some AHS 

measures that would benefit from refinement and additional AHS measures that would 

provide further insights about the U.S. housing stock. 

 The AHS should refocus on the objective of accessibility, rather than questions on 

specific items. For example, by focusing on having an accessible route to a 

bathroom, a bedroom and the kitchen, rather than on having specific accessibility 

features such as ramps. 

 The AHS should provide respondents with a short explanation of a wheelchair 

user’s needs, including turning radius, and width and height requirements for 

items such as doorways, counters and the location of switches. This will improve 

the quality of responses, as it appears likely that some measures are currently misreported due to subjectivity and limited respondent knowledge. 
3

 The AHS could provide greater insights on accessibility by including other 

features required by U.S. regulations that are not addressed by the AHS questions, 

including laundry facilities, parking, and the accessibility of common areas in 

multifamily buildings. 
4

1. Introduction 

The American Housing Survey (AHS) is the most comprehensive national housing 

survey in the United States. Since 2009, AHS has included six core disability questions 

used in the American Community Survey. The questions address hearing, visual, 

cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, and independent living difficulties for each household 

member. For 2011, AHS added a topical module on accessibility. The module asked 

about the presence of accessibility features in housing units, including wheelchair 

accessibility features, and whether the accessibility features were used or not. Together, 

these data provide an unprecedented opportunity to examine the accessibility of the U.S. 

housing stock and to ask whether people with disabilities reside in accessible homes. 

In this report, we present summary measures of housing accessibility based on the 2011 

AHS. To develop these summary measures, we examined United States (U.S.) and 

international standards and regulations regarding housing accessibility, reviewed the 

relevant literature, and conducted interviews with a set of disability and housing design 

experts. These interviews are further described in appendix A. Based on these summary 

measures, we describe how accessibility varies by housing market characteristics as well 

as resident characteristics such as age, disability status, and income. We also present 

evidence on the relationship between the need for and availability of accessible housing 

units, taking affordability of accessible units into account. 

2. Regulations and Literature Review 

2.1 United States regulations 

We reviewed the federal accessibility guidelines that apply to residential housing units. 

Basic coverage and requirements are summarized below. Notably, single-family 

detached, two-family, and three-family homes are not covered by any of the standards 

unless they receive federal subsidies. 

These requirements aim to improve accessibility for people with a wide variety of 

different disabilities, including vision, hearing and mobility impairments. The guidelines 

do not identify what disability types the requirement is intended to assist and some may 

assist multiple disability types, for example an extra wide doorways will assist a person 

who uses a wheelchair and also a person who uses a service animal. 

Appendix B provides a summary of the dwellings covered by U.S. regulations and how 

these regulations are enforced. The following is a summary of these regulations. More 

information on the specific regulatory requirements, including a comparison of key 

regulatory requirements and the AHS, is presented in appendix C of this report. 
5

Americans with Disability Act (ADA)1

 Dwelling coverage: ADA guidelines apply to public areas in private buildings, as 

well as to programs, services, and activities provided by public entities. ADA 

therefore covers public housing, student and faculty housing, employee housing, 

nursing homes, temporary housing provided in emergencies, and social service 

facilities, such as homeless shelters and halfway houses. 

In the private sector, ADA’s coverage of housing is limited to places of public 

accommodation, such as social service establishments and housing provided in or 

on behalf of a place of education, and does not apply to individually owned or 

leased housing, including single-family homes, condominiums, or apartments. 

 Requirements: The ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) provide a detailed 

set of requirements for dwellings, including requirements governing routes, 

surfaces, ramps and stairs, windows, doors, bathrooms, alarms, signage, and 

household controls.2 Guides such as the ADA Checklist for Readily Achievable 

Barrier Removal by the Institute for Human Centered Design interpret these 

guidelines into easy-to-use checklists for organizations.3

Fair Housing Act (FHA)4

 Dwelling coverage: FHA applies to “covered multifamily buildings,” which are 

defined as buildings with four or more dwelling units. Single-family, two-family, 

and three-family homes are not covered. The requirements only apply to 

dwellings that are newly constructed for first occupancy on or after March 13, 

1991. Both privately owned and publicly assisted housing are covered by FHA 

requirements, including a variety of housing types such as condominiums, singlestory townhouses, apartment buildings, cooperatives, assisted living and care 

facilities, and supported housing services (where these building types have four or 

more dwelling units). Buildings that meet this requirement and have an elevator 

must ensure that all units in the building meet the FHA requirement. If the 

building meets the requirements but does not have an elevator, all ground floor 

units must meet the FHA requirements, but not units on other levels. 

 Requirements: FHA requires that public and common use areas must be readily 

accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. Seven domains of 

accessibility requirements are outlined including: accessible entrance and an 

accessible route to both the building and the unit; usable public and common use 

areas; usable doors, light switches, electrical outlets, and thermostats; reinforced 

walls for grab bars; and usable kitchens and bathrooms. These requirements are 

outlined in detailed regulations5and also in more publicly accessible language 

 

1

 U.S. Access Board 2014c. 

2

 U.S. Access Board 2014b. 

3

 Institute for Human Centered Design, 2014. 

4

 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1996a and 1996b. 

5

 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2014. 
6

through guides such as the Equal Right Center’s Fair Housing Act Checklist: A 

Guide to Accessible Design and Construction Compliance, which was developed 

with funding support from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD).6

Architectural Barriers Act (ABA)7

 Dwelling coverage: ABA covers facilities built, altered, or leased with certain 

federal funds, including public housing and prisons.

 Requirements: The ABA standards for residential dwellings are very similar to 

the requirements in ADA for residential dwellings. As such, throughout the report 

we largely refer to the ADA standards.

These three Federal housing regulation systems have some features in common, however 

the maximum or minimum thresholds in order to meet the accessibility requirements 

differ across the systems. The first three columns of Table 1 summarize the accessibility 

features found in these regulation systems. Our analysis has identified 17 accessibility 

features shared by all 3 systems, with an additional 2 features (alarms and warning signs) 

that are shared only between the ADA and ABA and 1 feature (visual identification of 

visitors from entry door) only required by the ADA. The bottom rows of the table refer to 

features not found in the U.S. Federal regulations, but are present in other countries, as 

described further below. 

 

6

 Equal Right Center, 2014. 

7

 U.S. Access Board, 2014a and 2014d. 
7

Table 1. The 2011 AHS Questions, U.S. and International Regulations and Guidelines

2011 AHS

ADA FHA ABA Canada Ireland

Related 

questions cat.1 cat. 2 cat. 3 silver gold platinum

3 star

4 or 5 

star

Level 

1

Level 

2

Level 

3

Extra-wide doors or hallways. 206.6

404.1

3.3* 4.13 HMXDR Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y

No steps between rooms or 

rails/grab bars along all steps. 505 2.12* 4.94,10

HMNDRLS

HMLEVEL

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y

Accessible bathroom with grab bars

213.1

100.2

05.c.3

.ii

4.34.5 HMBROOM Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y

Bathroom can be accessed via an 

accessible route 206.2

100.2

05.a

4.3

HMELEVAT

E

HMENTBTH

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Stepless entry into the dwelling 

from the exterior 206.2

100.2

05.a

4.3 NOSTEP Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Bedroom can be accessed via an 

accessible route 206.2

100.2

05.a

4.3

HMELEVAT

E

HMENTBD

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Switches and climate controls are 

able to be operated by a person in a 

wheelchair

205.1

100.2

05.c.3

.ii

4.27

HMOUTLET

HMSWITCH

HMCLCTRL

Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N Y

Kitchen countertops, kitchen 

cabinets, and other kitchen features 

are able to be utilized by a person in 

a wheelchair

804.1

100.2

05.c.3

.ii

4.34.6

HMKIT

HMCAB

HMCOUNT

Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N Y

Door handles are installed instead 

of knobs 309.3 1.11* 4.9.13 HMHNDLE Y N N N N N Y N Y Y N N Y

Sink handles / levels are installed 

instead of knobs 213.1

100.2

05.c.3

.ii

4.34.5

HMBROOM

HMSKLVR

Y N N N N N Y N Y Y N N Y

US Regulations International Regulations and Guidelines AHS indices

United Kingdom Australia New Zealand
8

Table 1. The 2011 AHS Questions, U.S. and International Regulations and Guidelines (continued)

2011 AHS

ADA FHA ABA Canada Ireland

Related 

questions cat.1 cat. 2 cat. 3 silver gold platinum

3 star

4 or 5 

star

Level 

1

Level 

2

Level 

3

No steps between rooms (there is at 

least one accessible route to all 

features throughout the dwelling)

206.2

100.2

05.a

4.3 HMLEVEL Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y

Elevators meet minimum width 

requirements

206.6 2.12* 4.9

4.10

N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N

Minimum number of accessible 

parking spaces 208.1 2.23* 4.6 N Y N N N N N N Y Y Y N N N

Rises, ramps and floor surfaces do 

not exceed maximum limits for 

carpet depth and ramp steepness

302.1

405.1

1.7* 4.5

4.8

N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N

Laundry and laundry equipment is 

accessible (if a laundry is provided) 214.1 2.13 4.34.7 N N N N N N Y Y N Y Y N N N

Storage facilities in bedrooms and 

hallways do no exceed maximum 

heights and depth

225.1 5.6 4.35 N Y N N Y N N N N N N N N N

Emergency Alarms are both audible 

and visual 215.1 N 4.28 N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N

Warnings are tactile and signs are 

provided where required 216.1 N 4.29 N Y N N N N N N Y N N N N N

Peep hole or entrance camera is 

provided

809.5.

5

N N N N Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N

Accessible car parking and drop off 

is available N N N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N

Living area is provided within the 

entrance story

N N N N N N Y Y N N N Y N N N N N

Window positioning and tinting do 

not exceed maximum thresholds N N N N N N Y Y N N Y N Y Y N N N

US Regulations International Regulations and Guidelines AHS indices

United Kingdom Australia New Zealand
9

Table 1. The 2011 AHS Questions, U.S. and International Regulations and Guidelines (continued)

2011 AHS

ADA FHA ABA Canada Ireland

Related 

questions cat.1 cat. 2 cat. 3 silver gold platinum

3 star

4 or 5 

star

Level 

1

Level 

2

Level 

3

Lift installed or space is provided to 

install a lift N N N N N N N Y N N N Y N Y N N N

Door entry phone and remote door 

release are installed N N N N N N N Y N N N Y N N N N N

Accessible outdoor spaces N N N N Y N Y Y N N N N N N N N N

Reinforced ceiling is provided to 

allow a hoist to be installed N N N N N N N Y N N N Y N N N N N

Y implies the feature is present or required. N implies the feature is not required.

ADA references are to the 202 ADA Standards for Accessible Design

FHA references are to the Title 24 Design and Construction Requirements (24 CFR 100.205), unless marked with a * which are references to the Fair Housing Act Design Manual

ABA references are to the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS)

Canada - Legally enforceable for commercial and multi-family units (not to single family homes)

United Kingdom - Category 1 (visitable) is legally required in the UK building code, while Category 2 (accessible and adaptable) and Category 3 (wheelchair) are optional.

Australia - All three levels are optional accreditation levels and not required by law.

Ireland - Many elements of Ireland guideline's are incorporated into the national building code.

New Zealand - The stars are optional accreditation levels and not required by law.

US Regulations International Regulations and Guidelines AHS indices

United Kingdom Australia New Zealand
10

The AHS questions elicit responses that target 11 of the 20 accessibility features. The 

AHS does not seek information about the remaining nine features. 

2.2 International approaches to regulating and accrediting accessibility 

A number of other countries have guidelines to determine the level of accessibility of an 

individual dwelling, either through accreditation or self-assessment. A brief description 

for the other English-speaking OECD countries is as follows, with further information 

available in Table 1. 

 Canada: Various initiatives. Canada’s legally enforced national building code 

requires accessibility in the domains of entry and accessible walkways, entries, 

parking and barrier-free entry to all rooms in a building. The building code also 

places requirements on the slope of ramps, accessibility of bathrooms, kitchens 

and patios. These requirements are legally enforceable and apply to commercial 

and multifamily residential dwellings, but not to single-family homes. Through 

provincial building codes, governments place requirements on builders to meet 

additional accessibility requirements and quotas, as does the Canada Mortgage 

and Housing Corporation in providing funding to provinces for affordable 

housing. 

 United Kingdom (UK): Lifetime Homes. Lifetime Homes Standards are a set of 

16 criteria used to make homes accessible for people with disabilities, which 

provides for three levels of accessibility: Category 1 (visitable dwellings), 

Category 2 (accessible and adaptable dwellings), and Category 3 (wheelchairaccessible dwellings). Category 1 standards have been used to create the relevant 

section (Part M) of the UK Building Regulations which is legally required and 

enforced, while Category 2 and Category 3 are optional based on the preferences 

of the builder. 

 Ireland: Building for Everyone. Building for Everyone is a government-led 

initiative to promote accessibility of all forms of building. The housing section of 

Ireland’s guidelines outlines a range of best-practice initiatives that make housing 

accessible for people with disabilities. Many of the requirements in the Building 

for Everyone guidelines are also reflected in Ireland’s building code, which is a 

legally enforceable regulation. 

 Australia: Livable Housing Design. Livable Housing Design (LHD) is an 

initiative sponsored and promoted by the government, but it is not embedded in 

legislation or regulations. LHD provides three categories (Silver, Gold and 

Platinum) each with different accessibility standards. Dwellings must meet all 

requirements at a level in order to be recognized as being accessible. 

 New Zealand: Lifemark Design Standards. Lifemark is a set of building 

standards that provide 25 minimum standards that a dwelling must meet to be 

accessible (3 Star rating) and a further set of optional standards that provide 
11

higher levels of certification (4 Star and 5 Star ratings). Similar to Australia, this 

system is an optional accreditation system rather than mandatory. 

Although these guidelines offer useful lessons about different ways to classify the 

housing stock, it is not possible to quantify the proportion of housing stock in any of the 

countries examined, as governments do not collect aggregate data on the number of 

dwellings that meet these standards. 

2.3 International approaches to surveying accessibility 

The U.S. and the UK were the only two English-speaking OECD countries we identified 

as operating a housing survey that gained insights into accessibility. Statistical collection 

agencies in other countries tend to operate surveys that collect income and dwelling type 

characteristics, but do not ask questions that allow for the creation of an accessibility 

index or assessment of housing stock accessibility. 

UK: Housing Survey. The UK operates four separate housing surveys for each of 

England,8 Northern Ireland,9

Scotland10 and Wales.11 The Department of Communities 

and Local Government and Department for Energy and Climate Change jointly fund a 

housing survey to measure the housing condition and energy efficiency of housing in 

England. The survey for England has recently been contracted out to a private consortium 

and uses a representative sample of 13,300 household interviews, of which a subset of 

6,200 also have physical inspections. 

Questions in the survey relate to adaptions in the home for a resident with disability, 

including changes to the floor, redesigned bathroom or kitchen, specialized aids such as 

faucets or an adjustable bed. The questions cover the structure of the home and whether 

there are ramps and wide gateways and doors. The survey includes whether the resident 

has a disability and what types of modifications the person needs (regardless of whether 

the modifications are installed). The survey also asks why the modifications have not 

been made and whether the person is considering moving to a more accessible dwelling. 

2.4 Academic literature review 

The large majority of academic literature has focused on the need for accessible housing 

in light of demographic changes in the U.S. and in other countries. Smith et al (2008) is 

typical of this stream of academic work in highlighting the demographic changes in the 

U.S. and estimating the probability that a newly built single-family dwelling will have a 

disabled resident visitor throughout the dwelling’s life.12 This work highlights the 

 

8

 Department for Communities and Local Government, 2014. 

9

 Northern Ireland Housing Executive, House Condition Survey, 2014. 

10 National Statistics, 2014. 

11 Statistics for Wales, 2014. 

12 Smith, Stanley K., Stefan Rayer, and Eleanor A. Smith, 2008. 
12

importance of assessing the accessibility of the U.S. housing stock, but does not provide 

insight into the current level of accessibility or the key requirements for accessibility. 

The existing literature has established three key frameworks for understanding the 

features required in an accessible dwelling, which do assist in developing an accessibility 

index. 

1. Visitability. This basic model originated in the advocacy sector to enable 

residents to continue to access the most fundamental elements of their dwelling if 

they acquire a disability, and to enable people with disability to visit others in 

their home. The three requirements are at least one entrance without a step, 

doorways and hallways with 32 inches clearance and basic access to one half or 

full bath on the entry floor.13

2. Universal Design. This framework approaches the issue of accessibility from a 

different frame by developing dwellings that have features that can, to the 

greatest extent possible, be used by people with a variety of different needs. 

These features are easy to “approach, reach, enter or use.”14 This approach aimed 

to avoid the institutional or specialist label that was previously applied to 

accessibility features. The focus on universal design enables developers to 

market accessibility features to the general population. 

3. Adaptable design. This approach emphasizes creating a structure that can easily 

be modified to meet an individual’s requirements without needing to make 

structural changes to the building design. Modifications do not need to be built 

into the dwelling, but can be added easily by unskilled labor when required.15

These frameworks are conceptual rather than specific. We were unable to find an 

academic consensus on the levels of accessibility required in any of these frameworks. 

Federal housing regulations (ADA, ABA and FHA) have provided much of this 

specificity. Beyond federal regulations, there have been some small-scale research efforts 

to identify the most critical accessibility features. For example, Hartje surveyed around 

100 people comprising industry experts and people with lived experience of disability 

with questions on kitchen design for accessibility.16 Through this survey Hartje identified 

16 kitchen features as essential for universal design and a further 6 advanced features. 

Beyond small-scale surveys, the majority of guidance is developed by governments 

building regulations and advocacy bodies. A large number of checklists and guidance 

documents have been created on accessibility, however these do not appear to be 

informed by a robust research or empirical foundation. 

The existing academic literature provides limited insight into the accessibility of the U.S. 

housing stock. The only broad-based survey data analysis we identified is the report 

 

13 Campbell, Nichole M., and Jean Memken, 2007. 

14 Deardorff, Carolyn J., and Craig Birdsong, 2003. 

15 Deardorff, Carolyn J., and Craig Birdsong, 2003. 

16 Hartje, S. J, 2005. 
13

commissioned by HUD in 2003.17 This report analyzed almost 400 developments that 

were required to meet FHA requirements for accessibility. The survey collected data on 

the extent to which developments met FHA’s 7 domain areas for accessibility. 

3. AHS Disability Measures 

The AHS questions on disability, and on housing accessibility features, are shown in 

Tables 2 and 3, respectively. We asked our set of disability experts to comment on the 

disability measures in light of the information available on housing features. We 

summarize our conclusions here, but more details are provided in appendix C. 

Table 2. Disability Items in 2011 AHS

 

17 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2003. 

AHS Variable Question

HHEAR Is anyone in your household deaf or do they have serious difficulty hearing even when wearing a 

hearing aid?

HSEE Is anyone in your household blind or do they have serious difficulty seeing eveng when wearing glasses?

HMEMRY Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition,does anyone in your household have 

serious difficulty concentraing, remembering, or making decisions?

HWALK Does anyone in your household have serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs?

HCARE Does anyone in your household have serious difficulty dressing or bathing?

HERRND Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition, does anyone in this household have 

difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping?

Does anyone in your household use any of the following equipment because of a condition other 

than a temporary injury?

WCHAIR Manually Operated Wheelchair

ECHAIR Motorized Wheelchair, Cart, or Scooter

CLIFT Chairlift

CRUTCH Crutches

CANE Cane or Walker

SPOTHR Something Else

Without assistance, does anyone in this household have problems with any of the following:

HKCAB Reaching kitchen cabinets?

HKAB Opening kitchen cabinets?

HSTOV Turning the stove on and off?

HCTRUSE Using kitchen counters?

HGETBR Getting to the bathroom?

HSINK Using the sink?

HFAUCET Turning the faucets on or off?

HBTUB Getting into or out of the bathtub?

HWSHWR Getting into or out of the walk-in shower?

Without the use of any special equipment, does anyone in your household have problems with 

any of the following:

HSTOOP Stooping, kneeling, or bending?

HREACH Reaching over his or her head?

HGRASP Using his or her fingers to grasp small objects?
14

Table 3. Accessibility Feature Items in 2011 AHS

The U.S. Census categorizes disabilities into three types: communicative, mental and 

physical.18 The disability experts agreed that the AHS questions on accessibility features 

collect information largely relevant to physical disabilities. Federal accessibility 

regulations include other features that are more critical to the needs of people with 

communication or mental impairments such as flashing alarms and tactile cues. The 

current AHS questions do not allow for an index of accessibility to be created for the 

needs of people with communicative or mental disabilities. Thus, we will focus only on 

physical disabilities in this report. 

The correlation among the AHS disability measures is shown in Table 4. All correlations 

are positive. It is clear that difficulties with walking or climbing stairs (HWALK) and the 

use of any mobility device (a constructed variable that we labeled ANY_MOBIL) are 

highly correlated with each other (correlation of 0.53), and with the other disabilities and 

difficulties that the survey questions address. 

 

18 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. 

AHS Variable Question

NOSTEP* Is it possible to enter your home WITHOUT climbing up or down any steps or stairs? Please 

consider all entrances and any ramps that could be used.

Does your home currently have any of the following features?

HMXDR Extra wide doors or hallways?

HMLEVEL All areas on the same level, meaning no steps between rooms?

HMNDRLS Both sides of any stairs or steps with handrails or grab bars inside your home?

HMRAMPS 
Ramps inside your home?

HMBRL Handrails or grab bars in any of the bathrooms in your home, such as in the shower or 

bathtub area?

HMORL Handrails or grab bars in any other areas of your home?

HMHNDLE Door handles instead of knobs on all doors?

HMSKLVR Handles or levers for any sink faucets instead of knobs on any faucets?

HMBST Built-in seats in the shower area of the bathroom?

HMTOILET Raised toilets? Do not include portable devices.

HMKITRY Kitchen cabinets with rollout trays or lazy susans?

HMELEVATE An elevator inside your home? (If apartment building, probe: This is inside of your 

apartment, not just inside the apartment building?)

HMENTBD Bedroom on entry level?

HMENTBTH Full bathroom on the entry level?

Would a person in a wheelchair be able to access the following features in your home?

HMOUTLET Electrical outlets

HMSWITCH Electrical switches

HMCLCTRL Climate controls

HMACAB All Kitchen cabinets

HMCOUNT Counter tops

HMKIT Other Kitchen Features

HMBROOM Bathrooms

*The NOSTEP question is not in the disability and housing modifications sections of the survey, but we include it in our analysis 

of critical accessibility features.
15

Table 4. Correlation of Disability Variables

Household member has difficulty...

AHS Variable HHEAR

HSEEHMEMRYHWALKHCAREHERRNDHSTOOPHREACHHGRASPWCHAIRECHAIRCLIFTCRUTCHCANESPOTHRANY_MOBIL

...hearing HHEAR 1.00 0.19 0.17 0.21 0.14 0.18 0.20 0.15 0.14 0.09 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.18 0.04 0.16

...seeing HSEE 0.19 1.00 0.18 0.22 0.17 0.24 0.20 0.16 0.16 0.11 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.19 0.04 0.17

...concentrating or remembering HMEMRY 0.17 0.18 1.00 0.28 0.30 0.40 0.28 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.21 0.05 0.20

...walking or climbing stairs HWALK 0.21 0.22 0.28 1.00 0.43 0.50 0.65 0.42 0.37 0.31 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.56 0.10 0.53

...dressing or bathing HCARE 0.14 0.17 0.30 0.43 1.00 0.51 0.42 0.42 0.36 0.40 0.13 0.14 0.09 0.34 0.09 0.37

...doing errands alone HERRND 0.18 0.24 0.40 0.50 0.51 1.00 0.47 0.40 0.35 0.34 0.11 0.13 0.09 0.43 0.09 0.42

...stooping or kneeling HSTOOP 0.20 0.20 0.28 0.65 0.42 0.47 1.00 0.50 0.42 0.29 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.50 0.10 0.48

...reaching above head HREACH 0.15 0.16 0.25 0.42 0.42 0.40 0.50 1.00 0.48 0.25 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.35 0.08 0.34

...grasping objects HGRASP 0.14 0.16 0.25 0.37 0.36 0.35 0.42 0.48 1.00 0.22 0.08 0.09 0.06 0.29 0.07 0.29

Someone in household uses...

...a manual wheelchair WCHAIR 0.09 0.11 0.15 0.31 0.40 0.34 0.29 0.25 0.22 1.00 0.13 0.19 0.13 0.25 0.06 0.36

...electric wheelchair/cart/scooter ECHAIR 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.13 1.00 0.10 0.06 0.08 0.02 0.52

...a chairlift CLIFT 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.19 0.10 1.00 0.10 0.11 0.06 0.17

...crutches CRUTCH 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.13 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.13 0.06 0.10 1.00 0.12 0.03 0.18

...a cane/walker CANE 0.18 0.19 0.21 0.56 0.34 0.43 0.50 0.35 0.29 0.25 0.08 0.11 0.12 1.00 0.05 0.79

...other mobility device SPOTHR 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.05 1.00 0.22

...any mobility device* ANY_MOBIL 0.16 0.17 0.20 0.53 0.37 0.42 0.48 0.34 0.29 0.36 0.52 0.17 0.18 0.79 0.22 1.00

* Not in original AHS data
16

We explored the possibility of defining subgroups within the class of mobility 

disabilities; for example, wheelchair users, users of other mobility devices such as canes 

and walkers, and people who had difficulty walking but did not use a device. The experts 

were in agreement, however, that there is little reason to differentiate among these 

subgroups for the purpose of index construction because there is a great deal of overlap in 

the need for accessibility features. For example, people who use a walker or who require 

assistance from a caregiver when walking often need as much space as a wheelchair user 

to maneuver around. In addition, people with mobility difficulties can get fatigued easily 

and may need to sit down to use the shower or kitchen equipment, even if they do not use 

a wheelchair. Thus we focus on people with mobility difficulties as a single group. 

We explored the possibility of using HWALK in combination with ANY_MOBIL as the 

main definition of mobility disability, and then using the additional questions as proxies 

for the severity of the mobility disability. Experts shared a general consensus, however, 

that this was not a good idea given the existing AHS questions. 

Henceforth in this report, our definition of disabled includes anyone with serious 

difficulty walking or climbing stairs (HWALK=1), or who uses a mobility device 

because of a condition other than a temporary injury (ANY_MOBIL=1). We also 

conducted all of the analysis described below using a definition of disabled that included

people with difficulty stooping, kneeling, or bending, however, this made hardly any 

difference to the findings. Difficulties with stooping, kneeling or bending is highly 

correlated with walking or climbing difficulties (correlation of 0.65) and with using any 

mobility device (correlation of 0.48). 

4. AHS Accessibility Features 

Table 5 shows the prevalence of the AHS accessibility features in the housing stock. 

Column 1 shows prevalence for all AHS housing units including those that are vacant, 

while columns 2 and 3 show prevalence for occupied rental and owner-occupied units, 

respectively. The next column shows the prevalence of each feature among all surveyed 

multifamily units, which we define as units that are within buildings with four or more 

units. The final columns split the sample of multifamily units into buildings that were 

built before 1990 and those that were built in 1990 or later; the survey does not identify 

buildings built after March 13, 1991 (the date at which FHA began to be enforced), but 

the set of multifamily units in buildings built after 1990 provides a reasonable proxy for 

the set of buildings that are regulated by the FHA. The upper set of rows in the table 

contain individual features pulled directly from the survey, while the lower set represent 

some logical combinations of these measures. 
17

Table 5. Prevalence of Accessibility Features

Accessibility Features Present in Home

All Housing 

Units 

(Including 

Vacant Units)

All RenterOccupied 

Units

All OwnerOccupied 

Units

All 

Multifamily 

Units2

Multifamily 

Units Built 

Before 1990

Multifamily 

Units Built In 

1990 or Later

Original Accessibility Features

Can Enter Unit Without Steps 42.0% 38.6% 44.4% 38.8% 36.1% 49.3%

Extra-Wide Doors/Hallways 7.9% 6.5% 8.8% 8.0% 5.5% 17.4%

No Steps Between Rooms 65.5% 72.1% 61.5% 77.3% 77.0% 78.6%

Ramps In Home 1.0% 0.7% 1.1% 0.7% 0.7% 0.9%

Hand Rails/Grab Bars In Home 25.9% 15.0% 32.4% 11.1% 10.7% 13.0%

Handrails/Grab Bars In Bathroom 17.8% 15.9% 19.4% 17.8% 16.0% 24.5%

Handrails/Grab Bars In Other Areas 2.5% 1.5% 2.9% 1.6% 1.4% 2.4%

Door Handles Instead of Knobs 11.0% 8.4% 12.7% 11.1% 7.4% 25.4%

Sink Handles/Levers 27.9% 20.6% 33.0% 21.5% 17.9% 35.2%

Built-In Shower Seats 8.3% 4.0% 11.0% 4.1% 3.3% 7.0%

Raised Toilets 6.7% 3.7% 8.6% 4.1% 3.4% 6.8%

Kitchen Trays/Lazy Susans 18.5% 7.9% 25.3% 7.2% 5.9% 11.9%

Wheelchair Accessible Electrical Outlets 62.9% 59.5% 66.6% 58.8% 56.4% 68.4%

Wheelchair Accessible Electrical Switches 64.2% 60.3% 68.3% 59.6% 57.2% 68.7%

Wheelchair Accessible Climate Controls 47.0% 44.0% 50.2% 43.8% 40.6% 56.1%

Wheelchair Accessible Kitchen Cabinets 15.8% 15.0% 17.1% 14.5% 14.0% 16.4%

Wheelchair Accessible Countertops 51.0% 47.9% 54.9% 46.8% 44.7% 55.0%

Wheelchair Accessible Other Kitchen Features 29.9% 28.2% 32.5% 26.8% 25.4% 32.1%

Wheelchair Accessible Bathroom 39.3% 37.3% 42.5% 37.8% 34.5% 50.3%

Elevators In Home 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%

Bedroom On Entry Level 76.3% 78.8% 73.5% 77.9% 77.5% 79.4%

Full Bathroom On Entry Level 87.7% 85.0% 88.8% 82.8% 82.3% 84.8%
18

Table 5. Prevalence of Accessibility Features (continued)

Accessibility Features Present in Home

All Housing 

Units 

(Including 

Vacant Units)

All RenterOccupied 

Units

All OwnerOccupied 

Units

All 

Multifamily 

Units2

Multifamily 

Units Built 

Before 1990

Multifamily 

Units Built In 

1990 or Later

Constructed Accessibility Features

Steps Between Rooms, Handrails, and Ramps 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

Steps Between Rooms and Handrails, No Ramps 11.0% 5.3% 14.5% 3.5% 3.3% 4.1%

Steps Between Rooms and Ramps, No Handrails 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Bedroom on Entry Level or Presence of Elevator 76.4% 78.9% 73.6% 78.0% 77.6% 79.6%

Full Bathroom on Entry Level or Presence of Elevator 87.8% 85.1% 88.8% 82.9% 82.4% 84.9%

Total Number of Households/Housing Units

 AHS Sample 155,108 52,500 82,418 36,233 28,551 7,682

 Weighted Count 1132,419,831 38,816,184 76,091,837 25,900,804 20,529,912 5,370,892

2. Multifamilty Units refers to the housing units in the AHS sample that are in buildings with four or more units.

1. Weighted totals use weights rounded to the nearest integer. Housing units without any interview (STATUS=4) were dropped.
19

The most common feature is full bathroom on entry level, followed by bedroom on entry 

level and no steps between rooms. These features show up in 88, 77, and 66 percent of all 

housing units, respectively. The least common features include ramps, elevator in home, 

and handrails/ grab bars in apartment outside of the bathroom. These features are present 

in less than 3 percent of all housing units. For the combined measures, the most common 

again are full bathroom on entry level or presence of elevator, and bedroom on entry level 

or presence of elevator. These features are present in 87 and 75 percent of housing units 

respectively. The other combined features are quite rare. 

Some notable differences emerge between owner-occupied and rental units. Handrails 

and grab bars appear to be much more common in owner-occupied homes, while rental 

units are much less likely to have steps between rooms, presumably because of the 

greater prevalence of single-floor rental units. 

Every one of the features is more likely in multifamily units built after 1990 than in those 

built before. Notably, extra wide doors/hallways and door handles instead of knobs more 

than triple in prevalence in the newer units. 

Table 6 presents the correlation among the AHS accessibility feature variables. The 

wheelchair accessibility features are highly correlated with each other, as are the presence 

of a bathroom and bedroom on the entry floor. Other features are not very correlated. 
20

Table 6. Correlation of Accessibility Features

AHS Variable NOSTEP HMXWDR HMLEVEL HMHNDRL HMRAMPS HMBRL HMORL HMHNDLE HMSKLVR HMBST HMTOILET HMKITRY HMOUTLET HMSWITCH HMCLCTRL HMACAB HMCOUNT HMKIT HMBROOM HMELEVATE HMENTBD HMENTBTH

Can Enter Unit Without Steps NOSTEP 1 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.01 0.08 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.1 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.1 0.02 0.06 0.08

 Extra-Wide Doors/Hallways HMXWDR 0.071 1 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.18 0.08 0.25 0.23 0.2 0.18 0.18 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.07 0.12 0.1 0.17 0.06 0.05 0.06

 No Steps Between Rooms HMLEVEL 0.01 0.05 1 -0.1 - 0 0.07 0 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.03 0 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.02 0.11 0.09 0.1 0 0.22 0.16

 Handrails/Grab Bars In Home HMHNDRL 0.05 0.06 -0.1 1 0.04 0.14 0.11 0.07 0.08 0.1 0.08 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.03 - 0 0.05

 Ramps In Home HMRAMPS 0.03 0.05 - 0 0.04 1 0.07 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.02 0.01

 Handrails/Grab Bars In 

Bathroom HMBRL 0.06 0.18 0.07 0.14 0.07 1 0.21 0.14 0.13 0.21 0.25 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.12 0.06 0.09 0.07

 Handrails/Grab Bars In Other 

Areas HMORL 0.009 0.08 0 0.11 0.06 0.21 1 0.06 0.04 0.1 0.13 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.02

 Door Handles Instead Of Knobs HMHNDLE 0.076 0.25 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.14 0.06 1 0.38 0.19 0.14 0.19 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.05 0.1 0.08 0.13 0.05 0.02 0.05

 Sink Handles/Levers HMSKLVR 0.035 0.23 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.13 0.04 0.38 1 0.19 0.15 0.29 0.2 0.21 0.16 - 0 0.18 0.13 0.15 0.02 - 0 0.07

 Built-In Shower Seats HMBST 0.054 0.2 0.02 0.1 0.05 0.21 0.1 0.19 0.19 1 0.23 0.19 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.04 0.08 0.06 0.1 0.05 0.03 0.06

 Raised Toilets HMTOILET 0.038 0.18 0.03 0.08 0.07 0.25 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.23 1 0.12 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.09 0.04 0.06 0.05

 Kitchen Trays/Lazy Susans HMKITRY 0.012 0.18 0 0.11 0.01 0.09 0.04 0.19 0.29 0.19 0.12 1 0.14 0.15 0.12 0.02 0.13 0.09 0.11 0.01 - 0 0.06

 Wheelchair Accessible 

Electrical Outlets HMOUTLET 0.099 0.13 0.13 0.07 0.01 0.09 0.02 0.12 0.2 0.09 0.07 0.14 1 0.85 0.64 0.24 0.65 0.43 0.51 0.01 0.07 0.13

 Wheelchair Accessible 

Electrical Switches HMSWITCH 0.089 0.13 0.12 0.07 0.02 0.09 0.02 0.12 0.21 0.09 0.07 0.15 0.85 1 0.68 0.25 0.68 0.44 0.52 0.01 0.07 0.13

 Wheelchair Accessible Climate 

Controls HMCLCTRL 0.07 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.11 0.16 0.08 0.07 0.12 0.64 0.68 1 0.3 0.6 0.45 0.48 0.01 0.07 0.11

 Wheelchair Accessible Kitchen 

Cabinets HMACAB 0.066 0.07 0.02 0.08 0.03 0.08 0.05 0.05 - 0 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.24 0.25 0.3 1 0.28 0.35 0.29 0.03 0.05 0.04

 Wheelchair Accessible 

Countertops HMCOUNT 0.081 0.12 0.11 0.07 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.1 0.18 0.08 0.07 0.13 0.65 0.68 0.6 0.28 1 0.53 0.55 0.01 0.07 0.11

Wheelchair Accessible Other 

Kitchen Features HMKIT 0.06 0.1 0.09 0.06 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.08 0.13 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.35 0.53 1 0.46 0.01 0.05 0.08

 Wheelchair Accessible 

Bathroom HMBROOM 0.099 0.17 0.1 0.07 0.02 0.12 0.03 0.13 0.15 0.1 0.09 0.11 0.51 0.52 0.48 0.29 0.55 0.46 1 0.02 0.11 0.15

 Elevators In Home HMELEVATE 0.019 0.06 0 0.03 0.12 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 1 0.01 0.01

 Bedroom On Entry Level HMENTBD 0.056 0.05 0.22 - 0 0.02 0.09 0.03 0.02 - 0 0.03 0.06 - 0 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.11 0.01 1 0.62

 Full Bathroom On Entry Level HMENTBTH 0.08 0.06 0.16 0.05 0.01 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.04 0.11 0.08 0.15 0.01 0.62 1
21

In appendix C, we discuss each of these variables further in light of the expert interviews 

and the accessibility regulations and literature and offer suggestions for how they could 

be improved.

Below we summarize the major drawbacks of the existing variables to highlight the 

caution required when interpreting our summary measures of accessibility described 

later. 

 Extra-wide doors or hallways. This question does not elicit information about 

the accessibility of specific important routes, namely from the front door to the 

bathroom, bedroom and kitchen. It does not address turning radius for 

wheelchairs. In addition, “extra-wide” is not defined for the respondent and will 

thus be subjective. 

 All areas on the same level, meaning no steps between rooms. This question is 

ambiguous in the case of homes with more than one story or level. 

 Ramps. This question could elicit a response of “yes” if the home has one ramp 

somewhere, even if steps remain in critical areas such as the route to access the 

bathroom. 

 Bathroom features. Essential elements of an accessible bathroom such as turning 

radius and clearance under sinks are not addressed. 

 Kitchen features. Essential elements of an accessible kitchen such as turning 

radius and clearance under sinks are not addressed. “Wheelchair-accessible” 

cabinets and countertops are not defined for the respondent. The kitchen cabinet 

question requires all, rather than some, cabinets to be accessible. 

 Electrical switches, outlets, climate and window controls. A large number of 

units are reported as having accessible electrical outlets. It seems likely that many 

respondents do not know the requirements for accessibility. 

 Other features. A number of features required by U.S. regulations are not 

addressed by the AHS questions. These include laundry facilities, parking, and 

common areas in multifamily buildings. 

Overall, the accessibility module could be improved by focusing on having an accessible 

route to a bathroom, a bedroom and the kitchen, rather than on having specific 

accessibility features such as ramps. This refocusing would incorporate the presence of 

the specific items without having to explicitly ask about them, and would include width 

clearance in key locations, but not necessarily all locations in the home. The module 

could also be enhanced by giving the respondent a short explanation of what is needed by 

a wheelchair user, including turning radius, and width and height requirements for items 

such as doorways, counters and the location of switches. This will undoubtedly improve 

the accuracy of many responses. 
22

5. Accessibility Index 

Given the discussion above, any index constructed from the AHS data will have major 

shortcomings as critical aspects of accessibility are missing in the data. That caveat 

notwithstanding, we explored three alternative methods for constructing an index. Our 

preferred index, based on a home having a set of critical accessibility features, is 

presented below. 

The alternate methods involve indices that are a weighted sum of accessibility features, 

using either weights derived from expert opinions, or empirically derived weights based 

on features installed by households with disabled occupants. The results of this analysis 

are presented in appendix D. In these alternate approaches, while the weights themselves 

reflect priorities among the features, they cannot take into account the natural grouping of 

features that is in the version we present below. Instead, these alternate indices provide a 

sense of how much each unit would have to be modified in order to be deemed 

accessible. While we believe all the approaches have merit and suggest similar patterns, 

we consider our preferred method of defining critical features to be the most intuitive and 

ultimately the most useful. 

5.1. Accessibility index – methodology

We rely on existing literature and experts’ opinions as to which features are critical for 

accessibility. These features are grouped into three levels, as shown in the last three 

columns of Table 1. The groupings reflect the linkage between accessibility features and 

how a person with a disability makes use of a dwelling. The first level defines a home 

that is not yet accessible, but has essential structural elements that make it potentially (but 

not necessarily) modifiable. The second level defines a home for individuals with 

moderate mobility difficulties. The third level defines a home that is accessible to a 

wheelchair user. 

Our three level approach is similar in concept to approaches used in other countries for 

assessing and certifying a dwelling’s accessibility. The United Kingdom uses three 

categories—visitable dwellings; accessible and adaptable dwellings; and wheelchairaccessible dwellings. Australia has a framework of Silver, Gold, and Platinum, reflecting 

the requirements of people with minor, moderate, and profound mobility impairments. 

New Zealand uses a 3, 4 and 5 star rating system. 

Level 1: Potentially Modifiable. The home has some essential structure features for 

accessibility, but would not be accessible without further modifications. This includes all 

of the following: 

 Stepless entry into the dwelling from the exterior.

 Bathroom on the entry level or presence of elevator in the unit. 

 Bedroom on the entry level or presence of elevator in the unit.
23

Level 2: Livable for individuals with moderate mobility difficulties. The home has a 

minimum level of accessibility such that a person with moderate mobility difficulties can 

live in the home. This includes all the elements in level 1 plus all of the following: 

 No steps between rooms or rails/grab bars along all steps. 

 Accessible bathroom with grab bars. 

Level 3: Wheelchair accessible. The home has a minimum level of accessibility so that 

a wheelchair user can live in the home and prepare his or her own meals. This includes all 

the elements in levels 1 and 2 above, but removes the possibility of any steps between 

rooms, even if grab bars are present, and adds door handles and sink handles/levers.

Thus, all of the following are included:

 Extra-wide doors or hallways.

 No steps between rooms. 

 Door handles instead of knobs.

 Sink handles/levers. 

 Wheelchair-accessible electrical switches, outlets and climate controls. 

 Wheelchair-accessible kitchen countertops, kitchen cabinets, and other kitchen 

features. 

For brevity, we will use the term “accessibility” to refer to all three levels collectively 

throughout this report, even though we recognize that a unit that meets only level 1 is not 

yet accessible to those with disabilities. 

These AHS accessibility features do not appear in any of the above versions: 

 Built-in shower seat. 

 Raised toilet.

 Kitchen cabinets with rollout trays or lazy Susans. 

 Ramps. 

 Handrails or grab bars in “other areas”.

We excluded the first three because the experts reported that they are relatively cheap and 

easy to install, or portable versions are good substitutes. This is consistent with the 

international standards and literature, which place a strong focus on dwellings being 

easily adaptable to individual needs rather than dwellings being fully accessible. We 

excluded ramps because the experts indicated the question was inadequate, as noted 

above. Handrails or grab bars in “other areas” was excluded because these are low 

priority once there are already handrails or grab bars in the bathroom and along any steps 

or stairs. 

5.2. Accessibility index – results 

Table 7 shows the fraction of housing units that satisfy these three sets of criteria. The 

first row is all housing units, including those that are vacant. The next two rows show 

occupied rental and owner-occupied units. We can see that about one third of units meet 

the criteria of level 1, potentially modifiable. This seems promising, though it reflects the 

very limited set of conditions that we imposed on this level. More owner-occupied units 

meet the level 1 criteria than rental units. 
24

Table 7. Percent of Units with Critical Accessibility Features

Moving to level 2, we see that fewer than five percent of units are livable for individuals 

with moderate mobility difficulties. Rental units are more likely to be livable than owneroccupied units. 

For level 3, wheelchair accessible, the fractions are exceedingly low, far less than one 

percent. These low fractions result most from the absence of extra-wide doorways and 

hallways, but few units have fully accessible bathrooms either. The fourth and fifth rows 

show rental and owner-occupied units lived in by households with a disabled member, 

and the last two rows show households with a wheelchair user or with a user of any 

mobility device. Although the fraction of units that have the critical features is greater for 

these groups than for all housing units, they are still surprisingly low. 

The vast majority of homes with a disabled occupant are not accessible according to the 

above criteria. It is possible that some respondents are misreporting. Perhaps some people 

are unaware that their homes have extra-wide doors. Misreporting cannot be the full 

story, however. Further research would be needed to understand how disabled residents 

are managing to live in their units. 

Universe 

Size

Weighted 

Count

Percent

Nonmissing 

counts Percent

Nonmissing 

counts Percent

Nonmissing 

counts

All HUS 33.34% 148,837 3.76% 143,318 0.15% 142,665 155,108 132,419,831

All Renter-Occupied 

Units 31.48% 50,651 4.07% 49,733 0.18% 49,611 52,500 38,816,184

All Owner-Occupied 

Units 33.91% 81,215 3.68% 79,666 0.13% 79,564 82,418 76,091,837

Disabled Renters 41.12% 8,787 11.37% 8,656 0.65% 8,626 9,146 5,951,085

Disabled Owners 38.69% 12,319 9.57% 12,147 0.56% 12,128 12,402 11,442,687

Wheelchair Users 44.21% 6,271 12.44% 6,189 0.73% 6,180 6,396 4,801,063

Users of Any Mobility 

Device 40.98% 15,067 11.78% 14,839 0.70% 14,800 15,378 12,155,461

3. The home has a minimum level of accessibility such that a person using a wheelchair or walker can live in the 

home. Units have all the features in level 2 plus: extra-wide doors or hallways; no steps between rooms; door 

handles instead of knobs; sink handles / levels; and wheelchair accessible electrical switches, climate controls, 

electrical outlets, kitchen countertops, kitchen cabinets, and other kitchen features.

"Disabled" is defined as anyone with serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs, or who uses a mobility device 

because of a condition other than a temporary injury.

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable 1

Level 2: Livable 2

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible 3

1. Units have entrance accessible without steps or stairs, bathroom on the entry level OR presence of elevator; and 

bedroom on the entry level OR presence of elevator in the unit.

2. The home has a minimum level of accessibility such that a disabled person with moderate mobility impairment 

can live in the home. Units have all the features in level 1 plus: accessible bathroom with grab bars; and no steps 

between rooms or rails/grab bars along all steps.
25

6. Accessibility of the U.S. housing stock 

6.1. All housing units 

In this section, we present further disaggregation of our results using the accessibility 

indices. In Table 8, we use the entire AHS sample of housing units and calculate index 

values by a variety of building and resident characteristics. 
26

Table 8. Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features

All HUs

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable 

Level 2: 

Livable 

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 33.34% 3.76% 0.15% 155,108 132,419,831

Occupancy Status

 Renter-occupied 31.48% 4.07% 0.18% 52,500 38,816,184

 Owner-occupied 33.91% 3.68% 0.13% 82,418 76,091,837

 Vacant Unit 34.81% 3.21% 0.20% 18,107 15,294,158

 Seasonal Unit 37.48% 3.53% 0.07% 2,083 2,217,652

Monthly Housing Cost 

(Median=983)

 Above Median (in sample) 32.41% 2.98% 0.10% 67,477 54,734,202

 Below Median (in sample) 33.75% 4.58% 0.19% 67,441 60,173,819

Housing Price 

(Median=170000)

 Above Median (in sample) 33.16% 3.53% 0.15% 48,237 41,235,737

 Below Median (in sample) 35.26% 3.69% 0.10% 46,499 47,907,725

Building Size

 1 Unit 34.36% 3.44% 0.11% 110,052 99,791,163

 2-3 Units 24.09% 2.10% 0.13% 8,821 6,726,221

 4-49 Units 28.01% 3.84% 0.21% 29,087 20,783,789

 50+ Units 47.97% 12.47% 0.82% 7,148 5,118,658

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 34.52% 3.90% 0.16% 148,030 122,891,475

 Mobile home 17.51% 1.67% 0.00% 5,819 9,048,897

 Other 34.01% 6.79% 0.84% 1,259 479,459

Building Age

 Built before 1920 14.11% 1.52% 0.15% 9,219 8,989,481

 1920s 17.40% 1.41% 0.00% 6,171 5,323,329

 1930s 19.37% 1.67% 0.00% 5,972 5,536,516

 1940s 27.73% 2.44% 0.04% 9,179 7,835,931

 1950s 34.94% 3.56% 0.10% 16,634 13,454,772

 1960s 37.39% 3.92% 0.06% 19,072 15,405,187

 1970s 36.09% 3.77% 0.10% 27,110 24,754,911

 1980s 36.39% 4.86% 0.18% 20,972 16,729,163

 1990s 35.39% 4.53% 0.25% 19,942 16,154,036

 2000 or after 40.45% 4.96% 0.36% 20,837 18,236,505

Census Region

 Northeast 18.21% 2.68% 0.09% 21,444 23,716,968

 Midwest 23.88% 3.78% 0.21% 37,196 29,547,056

 South 41.27% 3.81% 0.15% 48,849 50,379,407

 West 41.21% 4.50% 0.15% 47,619 28,776,400
27

Table 8. Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features (continued)

All HUs

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable 

Level 2: 

Livable 

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 30.67% 3.28% 0.17% 48,586 37,612,156

 Suburbs 35.00% 3.84% 0.11% 92,920 62,952,270

 Non-Metropolitan Areas 33.15% 4.17% 0.21% 13,602 31,855,405

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 39.27% 8.88% 0.42% 33,183 28,530,410

 Any Resident < 18 31.18% 1.93% 0.04% 44,558 37,589,323

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 31.18% 2.42% 0.08% 59,457 50,781,123

Household Composition

 Elderly, Living Alone 39.66% 10.62% 0.48% 15,835 12,719,627

 Other 32.30% 2.98% 0.11% 119,083 102,188,394

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 32.69% 4.23% 0.19% 89,299 80,190,806

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 30.66% 3.08% 0.07% 18,796 14,159,565

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 28.40% 1.89% 0.03% 7,313 4,486,574

 Hispanic of Any Race 39.27% 2.47% 0.04% 16,996 13,841,648

Immigration Status of 

Householder

 Native, US Citizen 33.10% 4.05% 0.16% 114,077 99,355,631

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 34.18% 2.99% 0.12% 10,966 7,865,388

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 32.05% 1.48% 0.00% 9,875 7,687,002

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 34.51% 4.43% 0.13% 18,295 15,136,856

 High School Graduate 32.82% 4.08% 0.21% 31,897 29,785,007

 Some College, No Bachelor's 34.30% 3.90% 0.15% 40,206 34,533,809

 Bachelor's and Above 31.58% 3.23% 0.11% 44,520 35,452,349

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 34.02% 4.98% 0.22% 45,180 35,858,838

 Low Income 32.63% 4.13% 0.20% 22,531 20,283,340

 Moderate Income 31.69% 3.25% 0.06% 21,323 18,837,591

 Higher Income 33.22% 2.89% 0.11% 45,985 40,046,129

HUD-Assisted Households 37.79% 10.74% 0.43% 8,957 4,168,100

Very Low-Income Renters 32.66% 5.28% 0.26% 27,952 19,603,293

Worst Case Needs 31.87% 3.35% 0.10% 3,986 3,253,707
28

In the upper part of Table 8, as well as the differences by tenure already noted, we can 

see that units of below median housing cost are more likely to meet the criteria for levels 

2 and 3.19 This likely reflects the generally lower incomes of the disabled population. 

Large multifamily buildings (50+ units) are more likely to meet the criteria for all 3 

levels. Building age and accessibility have a strong correlation with newer units being 

much more likely to meet the criteria. Likely related to the age of the housing stock, the 

Northeast region and, to a lesser extent, the Midwest have fewer accessible units than the 

South and West. The prevalence of accessible units is greater in non-metropolitan areas. 

Within metropolitan areas, level 1 units are more prevalent in the suburbs, while level 3 

(wheelchair accessible) units are more prevalent in central cities. 

Turning to resident characteristics in the lower part of Table 8, we see that homes with at 

least one resident aged 65 or above, are far more likely to be accessible according to all 

three sets of criteria. Units occupied by a Black or Asian householder are less likely to be 

accessible than those occupied by a White householder. Similarly, foreign-born 

householders are less likely to occupy accessible units than the native born. By education 

level, householders with bachelor degrees are least likely to reside in accessible units. 

Disaggregating by income, we see that the lowest income groups are most likely to live in 

units meeting the three sets of criteria. HUD-assisted households are also 

disproportionately likely to live in accessible units. 

Table 9 and 10 display the same information as in Table 8 for occupied non-seasonal 

owned units and rental units respectively. The patterns we noted above generally apply 

within tenure as well. 

 

19 As defined by the AHS, the monthly housing cost (ZSMHC) includes utility costs, real estate taxes, cost 

of homeowner insurance, condominium/homeowner’s association fee, land/site rent, other mortgage 

charges, other required mortgage fees, mortgage payments, routine maintenance costs, and rent payments. 

It conveniently serves as a way to compare across rental and owned homes.
29

Table 9. Percent of Owner-Occupied Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features

Owner HHs

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable 

Level 2: 

Livable 

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 33.91% 3.68% 0.13% 82,418 76,091,837

Monthly Housing Cost 

(Median=1179)

 Above Median (in sample) 32.21% 2.81% 0.09% 41,237 34,110,112

 Below Median (in sample) 35.31% 4.40% 0.17% 41,181 41,981,725

Housing Price 

(Median=175000)

 Above Median (in sample) 32.17% 3.62% 0.16% 42,327 35,499,536

 Below Median (in sample) 35.44% 3.73% 0.11% 40,091 40,592,301

Building Size

 1 Unit 34.10% 3.60% 0.13% 78,531 72,430,504

 2-3 Units 20.04% 0.77% 0.04% 1,300 1,043,955

 4-49 Units 28.91% 5.26% 0.22% 2,004 1,878,623

 50+ Units 48.64% 11.62% 0.55% 583 738,755

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 35.26% 3.86% 0.14% 78,291 70,223,456

 Mobile home 17.62% 1.35% 0.00% 3,730 5,677,961

 Other 28.37% 5.18% 0.00% 397 190,420

Building Age

 Built before 1920 13.80% 1.61% 0.19% 4,096 4,466,955

 1920s 18.17% 1.90% 0.00% 2,820 2,597,911

 1930s 19.57% 2.19% 0.00% 2,641 2,697,199

 1940s 27.57% 3.09% 0.06% 4,610 4,172,398

 1950s 35.87% 3.92% 0.12% 9,630 8,547,758

 1960s 39.19% 4.47% 0.06% 9,778 8,679,123

 1970s 37.52% 3.65% 0.09% 12,707 12,905,559

 1980s 35.96% 4.12% 0.11% 10,503 9,310,685

 1990s 34.29% 3.87% 0.18% 12,452 10,810,549

 2000 or after 39.14% 4.15% 0.27% 13,181 11,903,700

Census Region

 Northeast 17.96% 2.30% 0.04% 11,229 13,480,497

 Midwest 23.31% 3.42% 0.19% 20,970 18,033,102

 South 43.48% 4.02% 0.13% 26,276 29,118,080

 West 42.01% 4.55% 0.16% 23,943 15,460,158
30

Table 9. Percent of Owner-Occupied Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features (continued)

Owner HHs

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable 

Level 2: 

Livable 

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 33.57% 3.29% 0.17% 18,996 16,552,275

 Suburbs 34.49% 3.66% 0.10% 56,107 40,678,730

 Non-Metropolitan Areas 32.98% 4.06% 0.17% 7,315 18,860,832

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 38.29% 7.51% 0.33% 24,707 23,051,913

 Any Resident < 18 31.49% 1.89% 0.03% 26,089 23,790,313

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 32.65% 2.29% 0.05% 33,348 30,801,773

Household Composition

 Elderly, Living Alone 37.22% 7.73% 0.23% 9,480 8,834,579

 Other 33.48% 3.15% 0.12% 72,938 67,257,258

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 32.93% 4.00% 0.16% 62,261 59,274,810

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 33.53% 2.58% 0.08% 7,643 6,495,686

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 28.43% 1.40% 0.00% 4,046 2,646,988

 Hispanic of Any Race 45.57% 2.58% 0.02% 7,288 6,530,287

Immigration Status of 

Householder

 Native, US Citizen 33.76% 3.86% 0.14% 72,305 68,035,126

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 34.71% 2.53% 0.07% 6,757 5,095,135

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 36.15% 1.44% 0.00% 3,356 2,961,576

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 36.16% 3.84% 0.06% 8,182 8,084,021

 High School Graduate 33.16% 3.91% 0.21% 18,351 19,349,561

 Some College, No Bachelor's 35.38% 3.86% 0.14% 23,820 22,195,064

 Bachelor's and Above 32.55% 3.31% 0.09% 32,065 26,463,191

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 35.61% 4.63% 0.16% 17,228 16,255,545

 Low Income 34.24% 4.67% 0.22% 12,837 12,546,747

 Moderate Income 32.58% 3.42% 0.06% 14,253 13,442,692

 Higher Income 33.54% 2.97% 0.11% 38,160 33,912,655
31

Table 10. Percent of Renter-Occupied Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features

Renter HHs

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable 

Level 2: 

Livable 

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 31.48% 4.07% 0.18% 52,500 38,816,184

Monthly Housing Cost 

(Median=821)

 Above Median (in sample) 31.35% 3.03% 0.14% 26,255 19,206,910

 Below Median (in sample) 31.62% 5.11% 0.22% 26,245 19,609,274

Building Size

 1 Unit 33.79% 2.94% 0.06% 19,245 15,265,293

 2-3 Units 25.31% 2.52% 0.18% 5,872 4,616,174

 4-49 Units 27.75% 3.75% 0.18% 22,056 15,507,713

 50+ Units 47.43% 13.37% 0.82% 5,327 3,427,004

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 32.13% 4.16% 0.18% 51,041 37,074,915

 Mobile home 15.53% 1.42% 0.00% 1,006 1,512,122

 Other 36.83% 9.02% 1.80% 453 229,147

Building Age

 Built before 1920 13.73% 1.56% 0.09% 3,469 3,140,621

 1920s 15.00% 1.04% 0.00% 2,370 2,014,525

 1930s 18.23% 1.09% 0.00% 2,364 2,007,604

 1940s 28.04% 1.55% 0.01% 3,147 2,451,443

 1950s 32.43% 2.88% 0.01% 5,013 3,357,363

 1960s 33.65% 3.13% 0.06% 7,008 4,916,761

 1970s 34.26% 4.11% 0.13% 10,843 8,434,236

 1980s 36.26% 6.13% 0.28% 7,881 5,183,245

 1990s 36.88% 6.97% 0.54% 5,393 3,359,587

 2000 or after 41.81% 7.47% 0.54% 5,012 3,950,799

Census Region

 Northeast 18.18% 3.52% 0.18% 7,546 7,585,256

 Midwest 25.08% 5.11% 0.22% 11,345 7,650,913

 South 36.81% 3.67% 0.21% 15,029 13,464,422

 West 38.87% 4.22% 0.13% 18,580 10,115,593
32

Table 10. Percent of Renter-Occupied Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features (continued)

Renter HHs

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable 

Level 2: 

Livable 

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 27.43% 3.39% 0.12% 22,708 16,609,211

 Suburbs 33.76% 4.22% 0.16% 26,500 15,461,257

 Non-Metropolitan Areas 35.92% 5.34% 0.41% 3,292 6,745,716

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 43.52% 14.82% 0.77% 8,476 5,478,497

 Any Resident < 18 30.64% 1.99% 0.06% 18,469 13,799,010

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 28.83% 2.63% 0.11% 26,109 19,979,350

Household Composition

 Elderly, Living Alone 45.51% 17.57% 1.07% 6,355 3,885,048

 Other 29.98% 2.64% 0.09% 46,145 34,931,136

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 32.00% 4.91% 0.27% 27,038 20,915,996

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 28.21% 3.50% 0.06% 11,153 7,663,879

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 28.34% 2.60% 0.08% 3,267 1,839,586

 Hispanic of Any Race 33.44% 2.37% 0.05% 9,708 7,311,361

Immigration Status of 

Householder

 Native, US Citizen 31.64% 4.46% 0.21% 41,772 31,320,505

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 33.20% 3.85% 0.21% 4,209 2,770,253

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 29.39% 1.50% 0.00% 6,519 4,725,426

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 32.56% 5.12% 0.21% 10,113 7,052,835

 High School Graduate 32.17% 4.38% 0.20% 13,546 10,435,446

 Some College, No Bachelor's 32.33% 3.98% 0.16% 16,386 12,338,745

 Bachelor's and Above 28.65% 3.00% 0.17% 12,455 8,989,158

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 32.66% 5.28% 0.26% 27,952 19,603,293

 Low Income 29.99% 3.25% 0.16% 9,694 7,736,593

 Moderate Income 29.43% 2.83% 0.08% 7,070 5,394,899

 Higher Income 31.44% 2.42% 0.07% 7,825 6,133,474

HUD-Assisted Households 37.79% 10.74% 0.43% 8,957 4,168,100

Very Low-Income Renters 32.66% 5.28% 0.26% 27,952 19,603,293

Worst Case Needs 31.87% 3.35% 0.10% 3,986 3,253,707
33

Table 11, displays the accessibility for units located within MSAs, with further 

disaggregation by 29 selected MSAs20 that were part of the 2011 AHS. It is not surprising 

that we do not see notable differences with Table 8 when considering all MSAs in 

aggregate because the majority of housing units are located within an MSA. We see, 

however, wide variation when looking at the individual metropolitan areas. In three 

metropolitan areas, a majority of housing units meet the level 1 criteria. Specifically, 66 

percent of units in Phoenix, 62 percent in Fort Worth and 61 percent in Riverside are 

potentially modifiable. These are all fairly recently developed areas and so their high 

shares may be explained in large part by their newer housing stocks. By contrast, a much 

smaller share of homes meet the level 1 criteria in older MSAs in the Northeast and 

Midwest. Buffalo, Providence, and Columbus have the smallest share of homes that are 

potentially modifiable, at 11 percent, 14.4 percent, and 15.6 percent respectively. We 

generally see less variation in the share of homes that meet the level 2 and level 3 criteria, 

because the prevalence of these features is so low across the country. Phoenix and 

Riverside, however, also have a disproportionately large share of homes that qualify as 

livable (8 and 6.5 percent, respectively). 

 

20 Tables for MSAs are presented in Appendix E. 
34

Table 11. Percent of Housing Units in MSAs with Critical Accessibility Features

All HUs in MSAs

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable 

Level 2: 

Livable 

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 33.40% 3.63% 0.13% 141,506 100,564,426

Occupancy Status

 Renter-occupied 30.53% 3.80% 0.14% 49,208 32,070,468

 Owner-occupied 34.22% 3.55% 0.12% 75,103 57,231,005

 Vacant Unit 37.55% 3.37% 0.27% 15,532 10,043,341

 Seasonal Unit 39.84% 4.54% 0.02% 1,663 1,219,612

Monthly Housing Cost 

(Median=1015)

 Above Median (in sample) 32.24% 2.83% 0.07% 62,202 45,785,931

 Below Median (in sample) 33.65% 4.51% 0.18% 62,109 43,515,542

Housing Price (Median=178900)

 Above Median (in sample) 32.08% 3.31% 0.13% 42,489 31,543,927

 Below Median (in sample) 37.62% 3.74% 0.11% 42,488 33,247,969

Building Size

 1 Unit 35.07% 3.33% 0.10% 98,687 71,667,307

 2-3 Units 21.85% 1.66% 0.04% 8,241 5,654,299

 4-49 Units 26.83% 3.34% 0.15% 27,675 18,396,863

 50+ Units 47.53% 12.07% 0.70% 6,903 4,845,957

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 34.09% 3.70% 0.14% 136,062 95,974,690

 Mobile home 18.06% 1.79% 0.01% 4,290 4,202,453

 Other 31.46% 7.21% 0.14% 1,154 387,283

Building Age

 Built before 1920 11.93% 1.18% 0.17% 8,012 6,156,897

 1920s 14.92% 1.02% 0.00% 5,710 4,228,159

 1930s 17.97% 1.28% 0.00% 5,390 4,183,462

 1940s 26.73% 2.21% 0.05% 8,406 5,998,530

 1950s 34.53% 3.46% 0.09% 15,521 10,781,951

 1960s 36.97% 3.59% 0.07% 17,764 12,289,672

 1970s 36.18% 3.77% 0.09% 24,406 18,416,967

 1980s 37.21% 4.82% 0.16% 19,350 13,114,209

 1990s 36.92% 4.45% 0.21% 18,070 11,710,546

 2000 or after 41.03% 4.91% 0.30% 18,877 13,684,033

Census Region

 Northeast 17.20% 2.49% 0.07% 19,717 20,055,212

 Midwest 22.92% 3.57% 0.16% 33,230 20,743,651

 South 43.44% 3.69% 0.14% 42,934 36,326,476

 West 40.48% 4.55% 0.16% 45,625 23,439,087
35

Table 11. Percent of Housing Units in MSAs with Critical Accessibility Features (continued)

6.2. Units occupied by disabled individuals

Table 12 shows the accessibility breakdown for housing units that are occupied by at 

least one disabled person. Although the prevalence of accessible units is greater among 

this group, at 39 percent for level 1, 10 percent for level 2 and 0.6 percent for level 3, the 

All HUs in MSAs

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable 

Level 2: 

Livable 

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 30.67% 3.28% 0.17% 48,586 37,612,156

 Suburbs 35.00% 3.84% 0.11% 92,920 62,952,270

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 39.28% 8.98% 0.43% 29,898 20,958,308

 Any Resident < 18 31.52% 1.86% 0.02% 41,381 29,773,790

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 30.83% 2.26% 0.05% 55,156 40,144,190

Household Composition

 Elderly, Living Alone 39.13% 10.77% 0.50% 14,262 9,421,901

 Other 32.20% 2.81% 0.08% 110,049 79,879,572

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 32.70% 4.13% 0.16% 80,617 58,927,802

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 30.05% 2.95% 0.06% 17,887 12,267,328

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 28.57% 1.82% 0.04% 7,240 4,324,579

 Hispanic of Any Race 38.60% 2.44% 0.04% 16,327 12,217,932

Immigration Status of 

Householder

 Native, US Citizen 32.90% 3.90% 0.14% 103,950 74,844,276

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 34.19% 2.95% 0.12% 10,731 7,373,017

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 31.80% 1.51% 0.00% 9,630 7,084,180

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 34.01% 3.97% 0.12% 16,493 10,969,882

 High School Graduate 33.01% 4.00% 0.20% 28,356 21,298,462

 Some College, No Bachelor's 34.29% 3.89% 0.12% 37,036 26,685,693

 Bachelor's and Above 31.26% 3.05% 0.09% 42,426 30,347,436

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 33.06% 4.80% 0.20% 41,674 28,197,670

 Low Income 33.02% 3.97% 0.17% 20,542 15,191,910

 Moderate Income 31.28% 3.18% 0.03% 19,643 14,571,264

 Higher Income 33.53% 2.68% 0.09% 42,552 31,456,447

HUD-Assisted Households 35.77% 10.16% 0.33% 8,163 3,495,268

Very Low-Income Renters 31.02% 4.77% 0.20% 26,074 16,198,444

Worst Case Needs 30.75% 3.11% 0.12% 3,805 2,818,469
36

patterns we described above for all units still generally apply. Notably, units with below 

median housing costs are more likely to meet each of the three sets of criteria. 

Table 12. Percent of Disabled Households with Critical Accessibility Features

Disabled HHs

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable 

Level 2: 

Livable 

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 39.50% 10.17% 0.59% 21,548 17,393,772

Occupancy Status

 Renter-occupied 41.12% 11.37% 0.65% 9,146 5,951,085

 Owner-occupied 38.69% 9.57% 0.56% 12,402 11,442,687

Monthly Housing Cost 

(Median=713)

 Above Median (in sample) 37.78% 9.20% 0.51% 10,779 8,517,086

 Below Median (in sample) 41.17% 11.11% 0.66% 10,769 8,876,686

Housing Price (Median=149000)

 Above Median (in sample) 39.23% 10.60% 0.75% 6,202 5,250,638

 Below Median (in sample) 38.23% 8.69% 0.39% 6,200 6,192,049

Building Size

 1 Unit 38.50% 8.92% 0.50% 14,663 13,081,875

 2-3 Units 27.88% 6.35% 0.97% 1,155 808,507

 4-49 Units 42.04% 11.39% 0.68% 3,746 2,530,215

 50+ Units 57.43% 28.34% 1.30% 1,984 973,175

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 41.11% 10.76% 0.63% 20,254 15,799,039

 Mobile home 23.29% 3.90% 0.01% 1,140 1,530,612

 Other 33.06% 18.81% 6.59% 154 64,121

Building Age

 Built before 1920 19.78% 4.95% 0.93% 1,269 1,230,446

 1920s 19.23% 4.81% 0.00% 786 659,725

 1930s 21.11% 5.05% 0.00% 830 736,599

 1940s 33.65% 6.17% 0.22% 1,395 1,183,460

 1950s 39.07% 7.78% 0.19% 2,686 2,167,459

 1960s 41.88% 9.58% 0.35% 3,001 2,260,880

 1970s 42.57% 9.73% 0.55% 4,136 3,513,676

 1980s 45.86% 14.32% 0.73% 2,997 2,132,207

 1990s 45.88% 14.58% 0.91% 2,478 1,860,204

 2000 or after 49.48% 15.74% 1.46% 1,970 1,649,116

Census Region

 Northeast 25.98% 7.75% 0.31% 3,313 3,207,463

 Midwest 32.31% 10.79% 0.75% 5,503 3,918,558

 South 46.06% 10.31% 0.65% 6,469 6,554,416

 West 47.06% 11.33% 0.53% 6,263 3,713,335
37

Table 12. Percent of Disabled Households with Critical Accessibility Features (continued)

Table 12A shows the fraction of homes occupied by disabled households that are 

accessible for each of the 29 selected MSAs. Again, we see substantial variation in the 

likelihood that disabled individuals live in potentially modifiable homes across cities. At 

Disabled HHs

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable 

Level 2: 

Livable 

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 36.53% 9.79% 0.61% 7,060 5,002,538

 Suburbs 41.67% 10.65% 0.47% 12,438 7,812,593

 Non-Metropolitan Areas 38.96% 9.75% 0.76% 2,050 4,578,641

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 43.50% 13.98% 0.78% 11,386 9,383,431

 Any Resident < 18 32.68% 5.11% 0.32% 3,910 3,162,055

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 36.28% 6.29% 0.35% 6,935 5,419,578

Household Composition

 Elderly, Living Alone 45.39% 16.49% 0.79% 5,534 4,132,248

 Other 37.69% 8.24% 0.53% 16,014 13,261,524

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 39.69% 11.30% 0.72% 14,445 12,313,054

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 36.49% 7.35% 0.22% 3,655 2,517,543

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 28.16% 3.85% 0.06% 825 414,143

 Hispanic of Any Race 44.53% 7.44% 0.09% 2,075 1,651,736

Immigration Status of 

Householder

 Native, US Citizen 39.68% 10.54% 0.63% 18,983 15,655,006

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 37.10% 8.67% 0.31% 1,721 1,140,818

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 39.38% 2.91% 0.01% 844 597,948

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 39.59% 8.90% 0.25% 4,738 3,830,225

 High School Graduate 39.88% 10.65% 0.78% 6,015 5,150,577

 Some College, No Bachelor's 39.72% 10.58% 0.60% 6,359 5,027,544

 Bachelor's and Above 38.50% 10.25% 0.64% 4,436 3,385,426

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 40.15% 10.83% 0.63% 11,039 8,205,812

 Low Income 39.15% 9.76% 0.70% 3,707 3,295,251

 Moderate Income 37.60% 8.15% 0.14% 2,729 2,441,100

 Higher Income 39.75% 10.49% 0.69% 4,084 3,469,645

HUD-Assisted Households 48.75% 18.61% 0.93% 3,088 1,264,300

Very Low-Income Renters 40.13% 12.16% 0.73% 6,561 4,068,232

Worst Case Needs 35.38% 9.07% 0.09% 669 521,898

"Disabled" is defined as anyone with serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs, or who uses a mobility device 

because of a condition other than a temporary injury
38

the high end, 78 percent of disabled households live in level 1 homes in Phoenix. Other 

metropolitan areas where the majority of disabled households are in level 1 homes 

include Fort Worth (69 percent), Riverside (62 percent), Sacramento (57 percent), and 

Dallas (56 percent). At the low end, only 20 percent of disabled households in Buffalo 

live in potentially modifiable homes. Other metropolitan areas where the incidence of 

level 1 homes is less than 30 percent are Columbus (22 percent), Cleveland (24 percent), 

San Francisco (27 percent) and Providence (28 percent). 
39

Table 12A. MSA Supplement: Percent of Households with Disabled Members with Critical Accessibility 

Features

We see some of the same patterns for level 2, although some metropolitan areas stand out 

for having a relatively high fraction of level 2 homes. For example, in Portland 17 

percent of disabled households live in level 2 homes, which is substantially above the 

average of 10 percent, whereas the share of disabled in level 1 homes is around the 

national average. Only 2 metropolitan areas have more than 1 percent of disabled 

households in level 3 homes. Surprisingly, Buffalo is one of them, at 2 percent; the other 

is Fort Worth at 1.5 percent. 

 MSA Supplement: Households 

with Disabled Members

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

In MSA Supplement 42.43% 10.24% 0.43% 14,341 4,034,247

Anaheim 43.84% 10.53% 0.26% 500 132,328

Birmingham 38.15% 8.46% 0.11% 538 75,270

Buffalo 20.00% 8.99% 2.01% 487 65,988

Charlotte 35.63% 6.67% 0.36% 364 81,045

Cincinnati 30.96% 9.33% 0.26% 576 150,185

Cleveland 24.58% 7.08% 0.14% 561 157,265

Columbus 22.12% 5.45% 0.50% 541 110,455

Dallas 57.21% 8.99% 0.27% 391 172,382

Denver 31.77% 9.58% 0.01% 416 127,559

Fort Worth 69.77% 9.27% 1.54% 462 112,273

Indianapolis 37.58% 10.21% 0.39% 551 112,247

Kansas City 42.01% 11.72% 0.36% 508 129,228

Los Angeles 39.71% 6.56% 0.26% 493 446,272

Memphis 49.31% 5.07% 0.65% 516 85,015

Milwaukee 33.79% 14.04% 0.64% 619 99,809

New Orleans 46.15% 9.65% 0.36% 502 73,508

Oakland 31.26% 7.97% 0.20% 515 148,952

Phoenix 78.33% 19.21% 0.96% 422 222,810

Pittsburgh 35.12% 9.71% 0.23% 541 159,835

Portland 40.00% 17.24% 0.12% 481 111,288

Providence 29.31% 11.96% 0.18% 574 83,296

Riverside 63.04% 17.16% 0.40% 526 239,646

Sacramento 57.00% 16.07% 0.94% 492 120,790

San Diego 44.43% 9.40% 0.28% 460 141,419

San Francisco 27.83% 8.88% 0.34% 464 92,831

San Jose 35.61% 7.35% 0.47% 476 77,722

St. Louis 35.82% 8.68% 0.00% 535 193,870

Virginia Beach 32.91% 7.86% 0.36% 523 99,177

"Disabled" is defined as anyone with serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs, or who uses a mobility 

device because of a condition other than a temporary injury
40

Table 13 shows the usage of the accessibility features in each of the three levels. 

Displayed is the fraction of accessible units with a disabled occupant, for which the 

householder reports that a disabled household member uses the identified accessibility 

feature “on a regular basis because of a physical limitation”. On average, more than half 

of the householders are reporting that the accessibility feature is in use by someone who 

needs it. 

Table 13. Percent of Disabled Households Living in Accessible Units that Use Critical Accessibility 

Features

Table 14 shows the fraction of accessible units with a disabled occupant, where the 

householder reports that a disabled household member uses at least one of the 

accessibility features in the indicated accessibility level due to a physical limitation. We 

break down these results by housing and individual characteristics. As expected, units 

meeting the level 2 and 3 criteria are more likely to have disabled residents using the 

features in these criteria. Households paying below the median housing cost are more 

likely to use the features, as are those in large multi-family buildings. Households with a 

resident of age 65 and older are more likely to use accessibility features, as are 

households with white and native born householders. We also see disproportionately high 

Accessibility Features

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable 

Level 2: 

Livable 

Level 3: 

Wheelcahir 

Accessible

Extra-Wide Doors/Hallways 62.22%

 No steps between rooms 63.31%

No steps between rooms or rails/grab bars along all 

steps 47.32% 63.57%

Handrails/Grab Bars In Bathroom 70.32% 80.48%

Door Handles Instead of Knobs 65.18%

Sink Handles/Levers 62.87%

Wheelchair Accessible Electrical Outlets 47.34%

Wheelchair Accessible Electrical Switches 47.18%

Wheelchair Accessible Climate Controls 46.91%

Wheelchair Accessible Kitchen Cabinets 50.70%

Wheelchair Accessible Countertops 50.98%

Wheelchair Accessible Other Kitchen Features 51.52%

Wheelchair Accessible Bathroom 31.16% 55.32%

Bedroom on Entry Level or Presence of Elevator 30.17% 41.09% 64.74%

Bathroom on Entry Level or Presence of Elevator 29.73% 41.00% 64.26%

Sample Size 8,627 2,367 146

Weighted Count 6,747,103 1,708,043 98,246

"Disabled" is defined as anyone with serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs, or who uses a mobility 

device because of a condition other than a temporary injury
41

usage rates among those without a high school degree, the very low income and HUD 

assisted households. 

Table 14. Percent of Housing Units with Disabled Occupants Using Critical Accessibility Features

Disabled HHs

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable 

Level 2: 

Livable 

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 21.63% 39.18% 39.94% 21,548 17,393,772

Occupancy Status

 Renter-occupied 20.17% 37.03% 37.62% 9,146 5,951,085

 Owner-occupied 22.65% 40.65% 41.52% 12,402 11,442,687

Monthly Housing Cost (Median=713)

 Above Median (in sample) 20.18% 34.63% 35.46% 10,779 8,517,086

 Below Median (in sample) 23.44% 44.95% 45.65% 10,769 8,876,686

Housing Price (Median=149000)

 Above Median (in sample) 21.76% 40.06% 40.95% 6,202 5,250,638

 Below Median (in sample) 23.95% 41.51% 42.36% 6,200 6,192,049

Building Size

 1 Unit 23.47% 40.54% 41.33% 14,663 13,081,875

 2-3 Units 15.60% 31.23% 31.69% 1,155 808,507

 4-49 Units 17.36% 31.62% 32.22% 3,746 2,530,215

 50+ Units 23.28% 51.92% 53.13% 1,984 973,175

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 21.67% 39.19% 39.96% 20,254 15,799,039

 Mobile home 1,140 1,530,612

 Other 14.48% 34.76% 34.15% 154 64,121

Building Age

 Built before 1920 25.86% 39.45% 40.20% 1,269 1,230,446

 1920s 22.04% 36.54% 37.35% 786 659,725

 1930s 20.53% 33.07% 33.93% 830 736,599

 1940s 25.47% 40.88% 41.77% 1,395 1,183,460

 1950s 19.19% 42.46% 42.97% 2,686 2,167,459

 1960s 20.03% 40.99% 41.59% 3,001 2,260,880

 1970s 19.01% 37.80% 38.69% 4,136 3,513,676

 1980s 23.33% 42.78% 43.51% 2,997 2,132,207

 1990s 19.89% 36.41% 37.48% 2,478 1,860,204

 2000 or after 24.17% 37.37% 38.04% 1,970 1,649,116

Census Region

 Northeast 20.28% 41.49% 42.35% 3,313 3,207,463

 Midwest 22.22% 39.28% 39.79% 5,503 3,918,558

 South 23.20% 38.33% 39.51% 6,469 6,554,416

 West 20.80% 36.27% 36.69% 6,263 3,713,335
42

Table 14. Percent of Housing Units with Disabled Occupants Using Critical Accessibility Features 

(continued)

6.3. Availability and affordability of accessible units 

In Figure 1, we assess the affordability of accessible units for households with disabled 

members. This aggregate figure shows how the overall national housing stock could meet 

the need for accessible and affordable housing if location did not matter. For households 

at or below the 10th percentile of the income distribution for the entire AHS sample, 

Disabled HHs

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable 

Level 2: 

Livable 

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 20.27% 38.84% 39.48% 7,060 5,002,538

 Suburbs 21.07% 38.80% 39.69% 12,438 7,812,593

 Non-Metropolitan Areas 25.46% 40.71% 41.39% 2,050 4,578,641

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 25.35% 49.36% 50.34% 11,386 9,383,431

 Any Resident < 18 19.62% 30.44% 30.92% 3,910 3,162,055

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 17.87% 29.52% 30.18% 6,935 5,419,578

Household Composition

 Elderly, Living Alone 23.93% 48.74% 49.59% 5,534 4,132,248

 Other 20.91% 36.22% 36.96% 16,014 13,261,524

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 22.98% 41.19% 41.95% 14,445 12,313,054

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 18.42% 36.17% 36.48% 3,655 2,517,543

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 13.12% 26.62% 26.32% 825 414,143

 Hispanic of Any Race 18.70% 32.35% 34.52% 2,075 1,651,736

Immigration Status of Householder

 Native, US Citizen 22.25% 39.79% 40.49% 18,983 15,655,006

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 18.87% 39.49% 39.85% 1,721 1,140,818

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 13.52% 24.75% 27.10% 844 597,948

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 24.52% 43.71% 45.14% 4,738 3,830,225

 High School Graduate 21.45% 39.42% 39.57% 6,015 5,150,577

 Some College, No Bachelor's 21.13% 38.81% 39.67% 6,359 5,027,544

 Bachelor's and Above 20.28% 35.89% 36.78% 4,436 3,385,426

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 23.84% 43.58% 44.49% 11,039 8,205,812

 Low Income 21.17% 37.37% 38.11% 3,707 3,295,251

 Moderate Income 17.47% 35.25% 35.61% 2,729 2,441,100

 Higher Income 19.94% 33.78% 34.53% 4,084 3,469,645

HUD-Assisted Households 22.45% 48.07% 48.80% 3,088 1,264,300

Very Low-Income Renters 21.38% 40.35% 41.04% 6,561 4,068,232

Worst Case Needs 19.52% 33.26% 34.08% 669 521,898
43

there are 15 affordable units per 100 disabled households with incomes up to the 10th 

percentile that meet the level 2 criteria for being livable for individuals with moderate 

mobility disabilities. For households at or below the 20th percentile of the income 

distribution, the number of affordable and accessible units rises to 20 units per 100 

disabled households with incomes up to the 20th percentile. Although the number of 

affordable units rises with income, at the 50th percentile of income, there still are only 25 

affordable and accessible units per 100 disabled households with incomes up to the 

median. The numbers for wheelchair accessible units are far less, with only fractions of 

one unit available per 100 disabled households, regardless of income. 

Figure 1: Affordability of Accessible Units for Households with Disabled Members

It is only with the level 1 criteria that we see more than 100 affordable units exist per 100 

disabled households - enough, with perfect reallocation, to provide affordable housing to 

every disabled household with an income at or above the 20th percentile. We note again, 

however, that the criteria of level 1 only indicates that the unit is potentially modifiable, 

and is not actually accessible according to usual definitions. 

Figures 2 and 3 display analogous information for owners and renters respectively, 

assuming that 2011 renters can only occupy 2011 rental units, and 2011 owners can only 

occupy owned units. In general, disabled renter households have fewer affordable and 

accessible rental units available to them than disabled owner households. 

10t

h

20t

h

30t

h

40t

h

50t

h

60t

h

70t

h

80t

h

90t

h

100

th

Potentially Modifiable 82 128 148 173 195 211 216 218 218 213

Livable 15 20 22 24 25 25 25 25 25 24

Wheelchair Accessible 0.76 0.85 0.96 1.07 0.97 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.95 0.94

0

50

100

150

200

250

Accessible units 

per 100 

households with 

disabled members 

(Cumulative) 

Affordable By Households at Percentile of Income 

All Housing Units 

Potentially Modifiable Livable Wheelchair Accessible
44

Figure 2: Affordability of Accessible Units for Rental Households with Disabled Members

10t

h

20t

h

30t

h

40t

h

50t

h

60t

h

70t

h

80t

h

90t

h

100

th

Potentially Modifiable 56 73 75 89 114 146 175 192 199 198

Livable 9 18 17 18 20 22 24 24 25 25

Wheelchair Accessible 0.43 0.91 0.82 0.70 0.84 0.96 0.95 0.95 1.01 1.13

0

50

100

150

200

250

Accessible units 

per 100 

households with 

disabled members 

(Cumulative) 

Affordable By Households at Percentile of Income 

Renter Households 

Potentially Modifiable Livable Wheelchair Accessible

Figure 3: Affordability of Accessible Units for Owner-Occupied Households with Disabled Members

10t

h

20t

h

30t

h

40t

h

50t

h

60t

h

70t

h

80t

h

90t

h

100

th

Potentially Modifiable 155 188 199 209 223 227 230 229 228 222

Livable 19 25 25 25 26 26 25 25 24 23

Wheelchair Accessible 0.70 1.12 1.15 0.99 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.88 0.84

0

50

100

150

200

250

Accessible units 

per 100 

households with 

disabled members 

(Cumulative) 

Affordable By Households at Percentile of Income 

Owner Households

Potentially Modifiable Livable Wheelchair Accessible
45

7. Conclusion 

We have provided a detailed discussion of the 2011 AHS accessibility variables and have 

made specific recommendations on how these questions can be improved, as well as ones 

to add or remove. Overall, the survey should focus less on a home having any specific 

item such as a ramp, an elevator, or rooms on the entry level, but rather, it should focus 

on having an accessible route into the dwelling and to key rooms, namely, a bathroom, a 

bedroom and the kitchen. This would incorporate the presence of the specific items 

without having to explicitly ask about them. It would also incorporate wide hallways and 

doors in key locations, but not necessarily all locations in the home. In many cases, the 

accessibility module can be enhanced by providing a short introduction to the respondent 

explaining what is needed by a person using a mobility device, including the required 

turning radius. Specifying width and height requirements will undoubtedly improve the 

accuracy of many responses. 

Recognizing that the content of the AHS must be limited and cannot include all areas of 

accessibility that experts would want, our criteria for suggesting the addition of questions 

is foremost based on an examination of the U.S. regulations. Currently, the accessibility 

of laundry, parking, and common areas in multifamily buildings are not addressed. It is 

important that the most critical regulatory requirements can be captured by the AHS. In 

addition, we have made a few suggestions that were mentioned by the experts and are 

found in international guidelines, although not in U.S. regulations. 

In our preferred index methodology, we use three levels of accessibility: potentially 

modifiable, livable for individuals with moderate mobility difficulties, and wheelchair 

accessible. This is similar in concept to methods used in the UK, Australia and New 

Zealand, and is somewhat analogous to the LEED rating system for designating green 

building technologies. In aggregating up to a set of homes (for example, for a jurisdiction 

or a housing type), this method would report the fraction of homes that are accessible 

according to these three sets of criteria. 

Our analysis makes clear that few housing units in the U.S. are fully accessible. All of the 

accessibility metrics we considered indicate that fewer than two percent of housing units 

are accessible, in the common usage of the term. That said, about one third of housing 

units in the U.S. are potentially modifiable. These units are disproportionately located in 

newer buildings and in multifamily buildings. They are also disproportionately located in 

the South and West. In fact, in a few metropolitan areas (Phoenix, Fort Worth, and 

Riverside), we find that a majority of homes are potentially modifiable. Many 

metropolitan areas in the Northeast and Midwest with older housing stocks, however, 

have very few homes that are even modifiable, largely because of inaccessible entrances. 

It appears that the U.S. housing stock is not well-suited to accommodate the disabled or 

to allow people to age in place. Even in the case of newly constructed homes, it appears 

that only a minority meets basic accessibility standards. As the U.S. population ages, the 

demand for accessible homes will only grow. More research would be useful to 

understand how disabled individuals are managing to live in their current homes.
R-1

References 

Campbell, Nichole M., and Jean Memken. 2007. "Accessible housing availability for the 

growing U.S. elderly population." Housing and Society 34.1: 101-115.

Department for Communities and Local Government. English housing survey: technical 

advice. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/english-housing-survey-technicaladvice 

Deardorff, Carolyn J., and Craig Birdsong. "Universal design: clarifying a common 

vocabulary." Housing and Society 30(2): 119-138. 

Equal Rights Center. Fair Housing Act Checklist: A Guide to Accessible Design and 

Construction Compliance. 

http://www.equalrightscenter.org/site/DocServer/FHA_Checklist_single_page.pdf?docID

=2281

Hartje, S. J. 2005. "Universal design features and product characteristics for kitchens." 

Housing and Society 32(2): 101-118.

Institute for Human Centered Design. 2014. ADA Checklist for Readily Achievable 

Barrier Removal. http://www.adachecklist.org/doc/fullchecklist/ada-checklist.pdf

Northern Ireland Housing Executive. House Condition Survey.

http://www.nihe.gov.uk/index/corporate/housing_research/house_condition_survey.htm

National Statistics. Scottish Household Survey.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/16002/PublicationMethodology/Methodolo

gy13

Statistics for Wales. Living in Wales. http://wales.gov.uk/statistics-and-research/living-inwales-survey/?lang=en 

Smith, Stanley K., Stefan Rayer, and Eleanor A. Smith. 2008. "Aging and disability: 

Implications for the housing industry and housing policy in the United States." Journal of 

the American Planning Association 74(3): 289-306. 

U.S. Access Board. 2014a. About the ABA Standards. http://www.accessboard.gov/guidelines-and-standards/buildings-and-sites/about-the-aba-standards 

———. 2014b. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for 

Buildings and Facilities. www.access-board.gov/attachments/article/1350/adaag.pdf
R-2

———. 2014c. Guide to ADA Standards. http://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-andstandards/buildings-and-sites/about-the-ada-standards/guide-to-the-adastandards/chapter-1-using-the-ada-standards#a

———. 2014d. Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards. http://www.accessboard.gov/guidelines-and-standards/buildings-and-sites/about-the-aba-standards/ufas; 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Americans with Disabilities: 2010. 

http://www.census.gov/people/disability/ 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2014b. Fair Housing Accessibility 

Guidelines, 24 CFR Part 100. 

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/disa

bilities/fhefhag

———. 2003. Multifamily Building Conformance With The Fair Housing Accessibility 

Guidelines. http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/fairhsg/multifamily.html

———. 1996a. Fair Housing Act Design Manual 7. 

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/disa

bilities/accessibility; 

———. 1996b. Questions and Answers About the Guidelines. Available at 

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/disa

bilities/fhefhasp
A-1

Appendix A: Expert Interviews 

In preparation of this report, we interviewed the following disability experts: 

Anne Davis

Program Director, Legal Services

National Multiple Sclerosis Society, New 

York City – Southern NY Chapter

Ms. Davis is also a board member of the 

Disabilities Network of New York City.

Robert Piccolo, AIA

Deputy Commissioner

Mayor’s Office for People with 

Disabilities

New York City

Susan Dooha, JD

Executive Director

Center for Independence of the Disabled, 

New York

Bridget Gallagher

Senior Vice President

Community Services

Jewish Home Lifecare

Anita Perr, PhD, OT, ATP, FAOTA

Clinical Associate Professor

Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, 

and Human Development

New York University

Megan Rochford, MSOTR/L, CAPS

Clinical Specialist, Barrier Free Design

Rusk Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine 

New York University Langone Medical 

Center

We asked these experts a series of questions relating to disability and accessibility, and 

the AHS variables specifically. The basic interview protocol is below. The results of 

these interviews were incorporated into this report. 

Expert interview protocol 

(1). Provide an overview of the project. 

(2). Show the list of AHS disability questions (that is, the questions in Table 2). 

Given our focus on housing accessibility features, what distinct categories of 

disabilities should be considered? 

Should greater differentiation be made within physical disabilities? If so, how? 

(3). Show the list of AHS accessibility features (that is, the questions in Table 3). 

For each disability identified in (2): 

What accessibility features are critical to include for evaluating the accessibility 

of a home?

Are there critical accessibility features that are not addressed by the AHS 

variables? 

How can the existing AHS measures be improved? 
A-2

How do regulations such as the FHA match with these critical accessibility 

features? Are the regulations missing any critical features? Do the regulations 

require features that are not important? 

(4). Refer to the same list of AHS accessibility features. Describe the construction of an 

index that is a weighted sum of these features. 

What weight should be accorded to each feature? 

If needed: For example, suppose extra wide doors or hallways is worth 5, what 

would the others be worth? 

Are there features that are substitutes that should not be doubled counted? 

Are there complementary features that cannot be counted without each other? 

Are there a set of features that have declining marginal value such that each 

additional feature counts for less? 

Using the resulting index, how would you characterize a fully accessible home, 

one that is partially accessible, and one that is not accessible? 

(5). Do you think a measure of accessibility based on having a set of critical accessibility 

features is more useful than an index of accessibility based on a weighted sum of those 

features? Or vice versa? 
B-1

Appendix B: Summary of United States Federal Housing 

Regulations 

Americans with 

Disability Act

Fair Housing 

Act

Architectural 

Barriers Act

Applies to

Public housing, student and 

faculty housing, employee 

housing, nursing homes, 

temporary housing provided 

in emergencies, and social 

service facilities, such as 

homeless shelters and 

halfway houses.

“Covered multifamily 

buildings,” which are 

defined as buildings with 

four or more dwelling units 

constructed for first 

occupancy on or after 

March 13, 1991. Includes 

both public and private 

dwellings.

Facilities built, altered, or 

leased with certain federal 

funds, including public 

housing and prisons.

Does not 

apply to

Privately owned or leased 

housing, including singlefamily homes, 

condominiums, or 

apartments. 

Single-family, two-family, 

and three-family homes.

Developments which are 

not financed using federal 

funds. 

Guidance 

documents

The ADA Accessibility 

Guidelines (ADAAG) are 

legal requirements imposed 

on all parties responsible for 

housing that is covered by 

the Act.

Other guidance: ADA 

Checklist for Readily 

Achievable Barrier Removal 

by the Institute for Human 

Centered Design.

The FHA Guidelines are 

legal requirements 

imposed on all parties 

responsible for housing 

that is covered by the Act.

Other guidance: Equal 

Right Center’s Fair

Housing Act Checklist: A 

Guide to Accessible 

Design and Construction 

Compliance.

ABA Accessibility 

Standards

are legal requirements 

imposed on all parties 

responsible for housing 

that is covered by the Act.

Other guidance: HUD 

USFA accessibility 

checklist.

Enforcement

ADA standards are enforced 

only by the U.S. Department 

of Justice (DOJ) Disability 

Rights Section litigation. 

State and local governments 

are not authorized to receive 

or address complaints about 

ADA compliance. Entities 

covered by the ADA are 

responsible for their own 

compliance. The DOJ has 

responded to around a dozen 

requests from States to 

certify that their state codes 

full meet or exceed the ADA 

which reduces compliance 

burdens for builders.

FHA standards are 

enforced only by the 

Department of Housing 

and Urban Development 

(HUD) which receives

complaints and engage in 

litigation. 38 states are 

recognized as having 

"substantially similar" laws 

to the FHA and HUD 

provides funding to 

agencies in these states to 

investigate and resolve 

FHA complaints in the first 

instance.

The United States Access 

Board investigates 

complaints about the 

ABA. 
C-1

Appendix C: Coverage and Limitations of 2011 AHS Disability 

and Accessibility Measures 

We consulted the literature and regulatory guidance in considering the 2011 AHS 

measures. We also asked each expert to describe the accessibility features that are 

important for disabled individuals. We then presented the AHS accessibility variables and 

asked them to discuss and provide a relative ranking of their importance. 

C.1 Scope of the survey 

Self-reports 

Several experts noted that the survey’s reliance on self-reported information is a 

fundamental problem. Seven of the questions rely on respondents knowing whether 

something is accessible for a wheelchair user, when they may not have any experience 

with wheelchairs or know anybody who uses one. The experts cited multiple examples of 

medical facilities (particularly doctors’ offices) claiming to be accessible when they 

really are not. 

Adaptability 

The experts highlighted as a major drawback, the survey’s focus on features that are 

already installed, with little or no attention to the adaptability of the unit. Adaptability is a 

key theme from the literature review and is a key consideration for most international 

accessibility schemes (for example, the potential to install grab rails, elevators or hoists 

are criteria in international scheme). A currently non-accessible unit that allows features 

to be installed if needed by a resident is much more accessible than a unit that is 

configured in a way that would not allow for future adaptation. 

C.2 Assessment of the AHS 2011 disability measures 

Table 2 shows the AHS questions on disability. The current set of questions do not allow 

for an index of accessibility to be created for the needs of people with communicative or 

mental disabilities. 

 Communicative domain impairments include blindness or having difficulty 

seeing, deafness or having difficulty hearing, and having difficulty with speech or 

being understood by others. 

o For hearing impairments, critical information would include the presence 

of devices such as lights instead of doorbells and flashing lights for 

warning and evacuation in multifamily buildings. 

o For vision impairments, critical information would include the presence of 

accessible signage such as Braille and large-print signage, sounds in 

elevators, accessible lighting within the unit and in all common areas in 

multifamily units, tactile cues such as patches and adhesives on light 

switches, and cues for identifying stairs or other changes in surfaces. 
C-2

 Mental domain impairments include a learning disability, an intellectual 

disability, developmental disability, Alzheimer’s disease, or another cognitive 

impairment that seriously interferes with everyday activities. 

o For cognitive disabilities, the use of signage can be important, as well as 

safety devices in the home, such as the use of induction cooking to prevent 

burns. 

Given this lack of relevant information, it would be impossible to know whether units 

surveyed in the AHS are accessible for people with communicative or mental 

impairments. Hence our focus on physical disabilities only in this report. 

The experts also noted that a question on difficulties with balance would be useful. One 

expert suggested adding a question on difficulty preparing meals. Another noted that the 

question on bathing should be explicit about bathing in a bath tub or shower, as opposed 

to a sponge bath. This expert emphasized that often people are in denial about the 

difficulties they are facing and may answer as though a sponge bath is adequate. 

C.3 Assessment of the AHS 2011 accessibility measures 

Table 3 shows the AHS questions on accessibility. 

Stepless entry into the dwelling from the exterior 

U.S. regulatory requirements: All U.S. regulations identify an accessible route into 

the dwelling as a fundamental element of accessibility. The entry into the dwelling 

from the exterior can include from the street, sidewalk, garage or other parking area 

as well as from within other common areas of a building. 

Expert views: Both the literature and the experts emphasize the importance of access 

from the street or parking area to the front door of the unit, noting that this is 

frequently a barrier to accessibility. 

Current AHS measures: The AHS includes the variable NOSTEP which asks whether 

it is possible to enter the dwelling without climbing up or down any steps. This is a 

useful measure as it identifies any obvious barriers to accessing the dwelling. It is still 

possible that the entry into the dwelling is not accessible as a ramp is too steep or 

doorways are not sufficiently wide. Importantly, the question does not specify where 

someone would be entering from. That is, it does not ask specify entering the unit 

from the street, or the garage, or, in a multifamily building, the lobby. 

Improvements to consider: The question could elicit more useful information by 

asking whether a person in a wheelchair could get from the street into the unit. This 

would ensure the respondent is considering the full path of travel from the exterior 

into the dwelling, rather than just the entry doorway. 
C-3

Extra-wide doors or hallways 

U.S. regulatory requirements: FHA requires that all buildings containing covered 

dwelling units have at least one accessible entrance along an accessible route, with 

specific width requirements for the doorways, routes, and any ramps or inclines. For 

housing funded by HUD, the ADA requirements also include minimum doorway and 

route widths. 

Expert views: It was very clear from the expert discussions that the physical layout or 

floor plan of the unit is a critical aspect of accessibility. Both the experts and the 

housing regulations emphasize turning radius as being critical for users of 

wheelchairs and walkers. Large rooms and a layout with no hallways are ideal. The 

experts agreed that some existing homes can never be made accessible because of 

inherent floor plan problems. 

Current AHS measures: Experts noted that the current AHS variables are not 

adequate for capturing this aspect of accessibility. The question on extra wide doors 

or hallways, HMXDR, could elicit a response of “yes” if the home has just one extrawide door or hallway. Instead, accessibility should mean that the doors and hallways 

are extra-wide throughout the home, or, at a minimum, in critical areas such as the 

entryway and routes providing access to the bathroom and kitchen. In addition, 

“extra-wide” is not defined and will thus be subjective. 

Improvements to consider: Provide a brief explanation to the respondent of the 

importance of turning radius of 60 inches, door width of at least 32 inches and 

hallways of at least 36 inches for people with disabilities. Then, instead of asking 

about the entire home, as HMXDR does, ask about the accessibility of specific routes. 

For example, whether there is a route with adequate width clearance from the front 

door to the bathroom, including turning radius if turns are required and assuming the 

existing furniture can be rearranged. Similarly for routes from the front door to the 

bedroom and to the kitchen. 

All areas on the same level, meaning no steps between rooms 

U.S. regulatory requirements: The ADA regulations do not allow anything more than 

a 1⁄2 inch rise without ramps. Similarly, FHA requires that there be an accessible route 

from the main entrance through to all elements of the dwelling—including each room 

and bathroom. 

Expert views: The experts viewed this as a critical aspect of accessibility. Thresholds 

between rooms and at the front door may pose a problem for the disabled even if they 

are not high enough to be considered a step. 

Current AHS measures: Experts noted that the existing question, HMLEVEL, seems 

to omit the entry area or foyer, which most people would not consider to be a “room.”

In some homes, there are steps up or down from this area to the rest of the home. The 
C-4

wording of this question is ambiguous in the case of homes with more than one story 

or level: is the answer necessarily “no” even if within the story or level there are no 

steps between rooms? Indeed, when we isolated single-unit, multistory homes21 in the 

AHS sample, more than half answered “no” to this question, indicating that they did 

not have steps between rooms. Further, the (not universal) conflation of steps between 

rooms on a single floor and steps between floors obscures the adaptability of the unit; 

in many cases, a chairlift can be installed on a staircase, allowing for someone with 

certain mobility constraints to move between floors, but steps between rooms on the 

same floor often do not have enough clearance to build a suitable ramp. 

Improvements to consider: Replace HMLEVEL with a set of questions asking 

whether there is an accessible route from the front door to a bathroom, to a bathroom 

with a shower or tub, to a bedroom, and to the kitchen. This question can replace the 

questions already asked about whether there is a bathroom and a bedroom on the 

entry level. 

Handrails along stairs or steps 

U.S. regulatory requirements: All U.S. regulations require handrails to be installed 

along both sides of stairs and steps, as well as ramps with rises above a ratio of 1:20. 

Regulations state the minimum height of handrails from the walking surface and the 

gripping surface of handrails. 

Expert views: The experts viewed this as a critical aspect of accessibility. 

Current AHS measures: The AHS question, HMNDRLS, requires handrails or grab 

bars on both sides of any stairs or steps. This is consistent with the requirements in 

the ADA and FHA. 

Improvements to consider: Explicitly say that the handrails or grab bars have to span 

the length of any steps or stairs. 

Ramps

U.S. regulatory requirements: FHA and ADA each provide stipulations on the design 

of ramps. Both regulations prohibit a slope of more than 8.33% and require a 

minimum 36” width and the installation of handrails for longer ramps.

 

21 One complicating factor is that the AHS only records the number of stories in a building, not within a 

unit, so the only way to ensure there is more than one floor in a unit is to restrict the sample to only singleunit buildings. Also, basements are counted as stories, but attics are counted only if they are finished. Even 

among single-unit, multistory buildings without basements, meaning units that necessarily have stairs 

between two living areas of the home, about half answered “yes” to HMLEVEL (indicating no steps 

between rooms) and about half answered “no.” The STAIRS question, which asks about interior stairs 

(defined as a set of three or more steps), explicitly includes stairs going to an attic or basement, so it is 

unclear whether the presence of stairs indicates a multilevel living area or simply a set of steps leading to 

an unused attic or basement. 
C-5

Expert views: The experts noted that ramps installed within homes are often too steep 

for a disabled person to use without assistance. FHA and ADA regulations would 

require a typical step of 6-8 inches would require a 6-8 foot ramp, and most homes 

will not have that amount of space available. 

Current AHS measures: The question on ramps, HMRAMPS, could elicit a response 

of “yes” if the home has one ramp somewhere, even if steps remain in critical areas 

such as access to the bathroom. Thus the experts concluded that this question is not 

very helpful in capturing accessibility. The relevant feature the survey should capture 

is whether the critical areas of a home, in particular a bedroom, a bathroom, and the 

kitchen, are accessible to people with limited mobility, rather than the presence or 

absence of features such as ramps. 

Improvements to consider: If the above suggestions for replacing HMLEVEL are 

adopted, then HMRAMPS becomes redundant. 

Bathroom features 

U.S. regulatory requirements: FHA and ADA both include detailed requirements for 

bathroom accessibility features. The areas covered by ADA include the thresholds 

throughout the bathroom; the width and openings of doors; the height and position of 

toilets; the location of faucets; and the location of grab rails adjacent to the toilet, 

shower, and bathtub. The FHA housing regulations emphasize reinforced walls so 

that grab bars can be installed if needed as well as maneuvering space and the 

positioning of taps and switches. 

Expert views: The experts agreed that the bathroom and kitchen are both critical areas 

of the home but that the bathroom is the more important of these. People are generally 

more comfortable with accepting help preparing meals, compared with personal care. 

Having prepared food delivered is also likely more affordable than paying for 

personal care assistance. 

The experts noted that turning radius within the bathroom is critical. An alternative to 

turning radius within the bathroom could be turning space just outside the bathroom 

so that a wheelchair user can back in or out, so long as the equipment in the bathroom 

can still be accessed with the wheelchair oriented that way. 

The experts further noted that portable shower seats and raised toilet seats that attach 

to a regular toilet are as functional as their built in analogs, relatively cheap, easy to 

install, and importantly for renters, do not require landlord approval. In addition, 

health insurance may cover shower seats and raised toilet seats as they are considered 

to be medical equipment. Grab bars are generally cheap and easy to install when the 

walls are already reinforced. Suction grab bars are also improving and are becoming a 

viable, cheaper option. 
C-6

Two critical bathroom features were mentioned as being important but not addressed 

by the existing AHS questions. First, there should be clearance under the sink so that 

it can be used while seated (in a wheelchair or other seat). Activities such as face 

washing may be impossible without this clearance. Second, the water controls in the 

shower or bath should be reachable while seated. 

Current AHS measures: It is not clear whether the wheelchair accessible bathroom 

question, HMBROOM, is trying to get at turning radius, but the respondent may 

simply think it means whether a standard wheelchair can enter the bathroom, rather 

than maneuver within it. 

The AHS questions focus on the presence of features which are relatively easy to 

retrofit but are quite limited when compared to the extensive range of the FHA and 

ADA requirements, which are more structural in nature. 

For homes with more than one bathroom, the questions are not directed to any 

particular bathroom. 

Improvements to consider: For homes with an accessible route from the front door to 

a bathroom, the accessibility questions should be specific to that bathroom. Modify 

HMBROOM to explicitly refer to the ability to enter and turn around in a wheelchair 

or walker. In order to receive useful answers, the respondent should be given 

information about how much space a wheelchair user actually needs in order to use a 

bathroom. HMBST and HMTOILET are low priority questions. Add a question about 

clearance under the sink, and a question on the position of water controls in the 

bath/shower. 

Kitchen features 

U.S. regulatory requirements: The FHA requirements include the ability to maneuver 

within the kitchen and access both cupboards and kitchen features such as the sink 

and appliances. Other requirements in FHA include the location of switches and 

faucets and depth of kitchen countertops. Similarly, ADA required at least one 30 

inch wide countertop to be provided no higher than 34 inches above the floor and 

surfaces to enable knee clearance, and the ability to open cupboards and operate 

appliances with one hand. 

Expert views: The experts noted that the kitchen is an important part of the house and, 

similarly to the bathroom, turning radius within the kitchen is very important but not 

specifically addressed by the AHS questions. In addition, clearance under the sink 

and some counters is important for wheelchair users and other disabled individuals 

who need to sit while preparing meals. 

Current AHS measures: The AHS asks about rollout trays or lazy Susans within 

kitchen cabinets (HMKITRY), but these are easy to install if needed. The kitchen 

cabinet question (HMACAB) asks about “all” kitchen cabinets. Several of the experts 
C-7

mentioned that this was excessive—so long as there are a sufficient number of 

cabinets that can be reached by a disabled person, the fact that there are additional 

storage units would not render the unit inaccessible. Furthermore, as with all the 

questions about wheelchair accessibility, the respondent is given no information 

about what actually constitutes a wheelchair-accessible cabinet or other kitchen 

feature. For example, Table 5 shows that more than half of homes are reported as 

having wheelchair accessible countertops. This seems implausibly high and suggests 

respondent misunderstanding of the height necessary to be accessible. It is unclear 

what HMKIT is referring to. 

Improvements to consider: Add a question on the ability to enter and turn around in a 

wheelchair or walker. HMKITRY and HMKIT are low priority questions. Modify 

HMACAB to say “some” rather than “all” kitchen cabinets. Modify HMCOUNT to 

be explicit about the required counter height. Add a question about clearance under 

the sink and counters. 

Rooms on the entry level 

U.S. regulatory requirements: The FHA and ADA requirements focus on an 

accessible route between the entryway and all rooms and features of the house (with 

some minor exceptions such as attics and an unfurnished basement). This implies that 

the kitchen, bedroom, bathroom, and living rooms are accessible from the entry level. 

FHA also requires that an accessible bathroom is provided on the entry level. 

Expert views: Besides having a bathroom and bedroom on the entry level, some of the 

experts said that a living room and a kitchen on the entry level are important. A living 

room on the entry level makes a home accessible to visitors, even if no disabled 

person lives there. 

Current AHS measures: AHS asks whether a bedroom (HMENTBD) and full 

bathroom (HMENTBTH) are on the entry level, and whether an elevator is installed 

in the home (HMELEVATE). It is possible that even if not on the entry level, there 

could be an accessible route to the bedroom or bathroom via a stair lift. On the other 

hand, there could be steps, narrow hallways, or high thresholds that could make a 

bathroom or bedroom on the entry level inaccessible. 

Improvements to consider: Instead of asking whether rooms are on the entry level, 

ask whether there is an accessible route to a bedroom, to a full bathroom, and to the 

kitchen. 

Electrical switches, outlets, climate and window controls 

U.S. regulatory requirements: All U.S. regulatory requirements include specifications 

for climate controls and electrical switches. The specified range is between 15 and 48 

inches if there is no obstruction and then reduces if there is a protruding object or 

bench top. This same specification applies to the operation of windows. 
C-8

Expert views: The experts mentioned that windows that can be opened by a 

wheelchair user are important.

Current AHS measures: The responses to AHS questions indicate that more than half 

of respondents report their electrical outlets as being accessible. Although it is 

possible that some electrical outlets and switches are accessible, it is unlikely that all 

essential switches are accessible. Light switches have historically been placed than 

48 inches, and many electrical outlets are located lower than 15 inches. In practice it 

may not be crucial that every electrical outlet is located within the range, however the 

positioning of light switches and climate controls outside the accessible region would 

make a house unlivable without retrofitting accessibility modifications to enable use. 

The AHS does not ask about windows. 

Improvements to consider: Modify these questions to be explicit about height 

requirement for these outlets, switches and controls (between 15 and 48 inches from 

the floor). Add a question about whether someone in a wheelchair could open and 

close windows. 

Handles and Levers 

U.S. regulatory requirements: The FHA requires handles to be operable without 

grasping or twisting and this is also advised by the ADA. This precludes the use of 

twist knobs. 

Expert views: The experts noted that door knobs are easy to replace with handles. 

Current AHS measures: The door handle question (HMHNDLE) refers to “all” doors 

which is consistent with regulatory requirements. The sink faucets question 

(HMSKLVR) refers to “any” faucets. 

Improvements to consider: Split HMSKLVR into two questions, one for the kitchen, 

and one for the bathroom. 

Laundry facilities 

U.S. regulatory requirements: All U.S. regulations require the washer and dryer 

(where provided) to be on an accessible route and equipment located in accessible 

positions. At least 48 inches clearance in front of the laundry equipment should be 

provided to allow for maneuvering. The opening for the machines and any controls 

cannot be more than 36 inches from the floor. 

Expert views: Laundry facilities are essential to everyday living and are a key feature 

of an accessible home. In many homes, the laundry may be located in an inaccessible 

basement. In multifamily units, there should be an accessible route to the building’s 

common laundry facilities if laundry is not available inside the unit. 
C-9

Current AHS measures: None. 

Improvements to consider: Add a question on whether there is an accessible route to 

the laundry area and whether the equipment is accessible to a wheelchair user. 

Accessible parking 

U.S. regulatory requirements: The regulations provide minimum requirements of 

accessible parking ranging from 1 accessible space for every 25 spaces (ADA) and 

2% of spaces (FHA). 

Expert views: An accessible route to the parking area or garage may be an essential 

requirement for some disabled individuals, particularly wheelchair users. 

Current AHS measures: The NOSTEP question does not ask specifically about 

entering the unit from the parking area or garage (if any). 

Improvements to consider: Add a question on an accessible route to the parking area 

or garage. 

Common areas in multifamily buildings 

U.S. regulatory requirements: For buildings subject to the ADA or FHA 

requirements, the regulatory requirements apply equally to dwellings and common 

areas. The requirements for an accessible route, ramps and handrails and location of 

switches and outlets apply. In addition, elevators must have a minimum width. The 

ADA also has requirements for warnings and signs to be tactile with minimum sizing 

and spacing of characters. 

Expert views: For multifamily units, accessibility features in the building’s common 

areas are critical. 

Current AHS measures: None. 

Improvements to consider: Add questions on additional aspects of common areas, 

such as: 

 Wheelchair accessible lobby with automatic or remote-controlled lobby door.

 Elevator with sufficient width and automatic doors that do not swing out.

 Railings and good lighting on all stairs.

Two ADA requirements are explicitly targeted to people with communicative and 

possibly mental impairments. Adding these questions would allow the AHS to go 

beyond just addressing physical disabilities: 

 Audible and visual emergency alarms. 

 Warnings and signs that are tactile and with large font. 
C-10

Additional accessibility features not addressed by the AHS 

In addition to those already mentioned, the experts identified the following features as 

being important but not included in the AHS. As shown in Table 1, they all appear in 

some of the international regulations and guidelines; the first also appears in the U.S.

guidelines. 

 An accessible route to outdoor spaces such as a patio, balcony or courtyard. 

 Wheelchair accessible intercom and buzzer in multifamily units. 

 Key-less front door entry. Keys can be difficult because of the need to balance 

when using a cane/walker. Key-less remote entry also eliminates the need to get 

to the front door to allow another person access to the dwelling. 
D-1

Appendix D: Alternative Indices Based on Weighting 

Accessibility Features 

D.1. Accessibility index based on expert weighting of accessibility features 

In this version, the weights are based on the experts’ opinions as to the importance of 

each accessibility feature. We did not include built-in shower seats, raised toilets, or 

rollout trays/lazy Susans for the reasons discussed above. We allowed the experts to use 

any scale and then we recalibrated their individual responses to sum to 100. In the case of 

“no steps between rooms,” we first asked for its weight in comparison with the other 

features. Then, we asked for the weight that should be accorded to having handrails/grab 

bars on all steps or having a ramp, or both, conditional on not having “no steps between 

rooms” (that is, there are steps between rooms). 

Table D1, column 1 shows the average recalibrated response across the experts. Column 

2 is simply a rounded version of the raw averages. The most highly weighted items are 

not having steps between rooms, having a wheelchair-accessible bathroom, and having a 

bedroom and bathroom on the entry level, each worth 8 points. When there are steps 

between rooms, having handrails or a ramp is worth 5 points, and having both is worth 6 

points. Handrails or grab bars in the bathroom is worth 7 points. Wheelchair-accessible 

electrical switches and climate controls are each worth 6.5 points. Electrical outlets, 

kitchen cabinets, kitchen countertops, and other kitchen features are each worth 6 points. 

Finally, door handles and sink levers/handles are each worth 5 points. We note that this 

ordering of importance matches the ordering of the critical features found in the method 

above moving from level 1 (visitable) to level 3 (wheelchair accessible). 
D-2

Table D1. Expert Weighting of Accessibility Features

We then used the weights in column 2 to create an index for all housing units. Table D2

shows the distribution of the index created from these weights. The first column shows 

values for all housing units, including those that are vacant, while the second and third 

columns show those for occupied rental and owner-occupied units. The mean and median 

index values are displayed as well as the fraction of housing units that have index values 

of at least 90, at least 80, at least 70, at least 60, and at least 50. Table D3 is an analogous 

table calculated for housing units with a disabled occupant. 

Accessibility Feature

Extra-Wide Doors/Hallways 7.52 7.5

No Steps Between Rooms 7.34 7

Steps Between Rooms, Handrails, and Ramps 6.04 6

Steps Between Rooms and Handrails, No Ramps 5.08 5

Steps Between Rooms and Ramps, No Handrails 4.15 4

Handrails/Grab Bars In Bathroom 6.19 6

Handrails/Grab Bars In Other Areas 5.26 5

Door Handles Instead of Knobs 4.70 5

Sink Handles/Levers 4.70 5

Wheelchair Accessible Electrical Outlets 5.64 5.5

Wheelchair Accessible Electrical Switches 6.02 6

Wheelchair Accessible Climate Controls 6.02 6

Wheelchair Accessible Kitchen Cabinets 5.45 5.5

Wheelchair Accessible Countertops 5.82 6

Wheelchair Accessible Other Kitchen Features 5.45 5.5

Wheelchair Accessible Bathroom 7.52 7.5

Bedroom on Entry Level or Presence of Elevator 7.43 7.5

Bathroom on Entry Level or Presence of Elevator 7.43 7.5

Entrance Accessible Without Steps or Stairs 7.52 7.5

Total

Average 

Weight

Rounded 

Weight

100.00 100
D-3

Table D2. Accessibility Indices Based on the Weighted Sum of Accessibility Features for all Housing Units (HUs)

Index Specification:

Sample:

All HUs 

(Including 

Vacant 

Units)

All RenterOccupied 

Units

All OwnerOccupied 

Units

All HUs 

(Including 

Vacant 

Units)

All RenterOccupied 

Units

All OwnerOccupied 

Units

All HUs 

(Including 

Vacant 

Units)

All RenterOccupied 

Units

All OwnerOccupied 

Units

Mean Score 40.24 38.58 41.66 51.85 51.26 54.30 51.09 50.26 53.72

Median Score 41.00 39.00 44.00 54.56 52.70 57.98 54.31 52.34 57.50

% with Score >= 50 37.0% 34.1% 39.4% 54.2% 52.5% 58.9% 53.5% 51.5% 58.5%

% with Score >= 60 18.7% 17.2% 20.1% 43.2% 42.1% 47.3% 43.0% 41.5% 47.2%

% with Score >= 70 6.9% 6.4% 7.1% 29.6% 29.3% 32.2% 27.9% 27.1% 30.7%

% with Score >= 80 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 12.1% 11.7% 13.4% 11.4% 10.9% 12.7%

% with Score >= 90 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 2.0% 2.1% 2.1% 1.6% 1.7% 1.6%

"High-Income" is defined as having total household income greater than $ 46,911

Expert Weighting

AHS Disabled Household 

Weighting

AHS High-Income, Disabled 

Household Weighting

 "Disabled" is defined as anyone with serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs, or who uses a mobility device because of a condition other than a 

temporary injury
D-4

Table D3. Accessibility Indices Based on the Weighted Sum of Accessibility Features for Housing Units (HUs) with Disabled Occupant

Index Specification:

Sample:

All 

Occupied 

HUs with 

Disabled 

Occupant

RenterOccupied 

Units with 

Disabled 

Occupant

OwnerOccupied 

Units with 

Disabled 

Occupant

All 

Occupied 

HUs with 

Disabled 

Occupant

RenterOccupied 

Units with 

Disabled 

Occupant

OwnerOccupied 

Units with 

Disabled 

Occupant

All 

Occupied 

HUs with 

Disabled 

Occupant

RenterOccupied 

Units with 

Disabled 

Occupant

OwnerOccupied 

Units with 

Disabled 

Occupant

Mean Score 45.43 44.93 45.75 58.36 56.77 59.19 57.40 55.68 58.30

Median Score 46.50 45.50 47.50 62.49 59.30 63.54 61.68 58.33 62.81

% with Score >= 50 45.9% 44.1% 47.0% 63.2% 59.4% 65.2% 62.4% 58.6% 64.4%

% with Score >= 60 27.3% 26.4% 27.9% 52.8% 49.5% 54.5% 52.0% 48.4% 53.8%

% with Score >= 70 12.9% 14.0% 12.1% 39.2% 36.9% 40.5% 36.8% 34.4% 38.0%

% with Score >= 80 4.5% 5.6% 3.8% 19.6% 19.2% 19.9% 17.9% 17.7% 18.1%

% with Score >= 90 0.6% 0.9% 0.4% 5.3% 6.2% 4.8% 4.2% 5.1% 3.8%

"High-Income" is defined as having total household income greater than $ 46,911

Expert Weighting

AHS Disabled Household 

Weighting

AHS High-Income, Disabled 

Household Weighting

 "Disabled" is defined as anyone with serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs, or who uses a mobility device because of a condition other than a 

temporary injury
D-5

Once again, very few units are fully accessible, with less than one percent of all units 

being fully accessible. As expected, units occupied by a disabled resident have somewhat 

greater accessibility scores, with a median of 48 on this accessibility index, in contrast to 

42.5 for all units. 

To help interpret the index, we asked the experts how they would characterize a fully 

accessible home, one that is partially accessible, and one that is not accessible, and,

specifically, what value of the index qualifies as an accessible home or a partially 

accessible home. The consensus opinion is that all the features are needed to qualify as 

fully accessible, that is, the index should be equal to 100 to qualify as fully accessible. 

The experts pointed to the housing accessibility regulations which indeed require all these 

items. They generally resisted defining “partially accessible” and called the concept 

“meaningless.” That said, they did indicate that some features were more critical than 

others, and their stated priorities determine the weights above. Thus, a unit with an index 

value of 90 is more accessible than a unit with an index value of 60. 

If we use a score of 90 (as opposed to 100) as the standard for accessibility, only 0.3 

percent of all housing units would be deemed accessible. Among housing units with a 

disabled occupant, only 0.8 percent are accessible. 

D.2. Accessibility index based on revealed preference in AHS 

In this version, we use the AHS data to empirically estimate the importance of specific 

accessibility features to households with disabilities. That is, instead of using the expertgenerated weights in Table D1, we examine the AHS data to see which features are 

installed in homes with disabled occupants. The intuition is to more heavily weight those 

features that are more commonly installed by households who need them. 

The first set of columns in Table D4 shows the prevalence of each feature for housing 

units with a disabled occupant. The first column shows all housing units with a disabled 

occupant, and the second shows the subset with above-median household income (based 

on the universe of owner-occupied households). This latter group should be less income 

constrained in their ability to install accessibility features. Columns 3 and 4 break out 

renters and owners. We distinguish owner-occupants because owners would not need to 

have landlord approval to install accessibility features. That said, we would expect all 

high-income households to be more able to move to alternate, accessible housing, and so 

tenure itself is not necessarily a constraint. Finally, column 5 shows the features installed 

in housing units with high-income homeowners. 
D-6

Table D4. Prevalence of Accessibility Features in Housing Units with Disabled Occupant 

Accessibility Features Present in 

Home All HHs

HighIncome 

HHs Renters Owners

HighIncome 

Owners All HHs

HighIncome 

HHs Renters Owners

HighIncome 

Owners All HHs

HighIncome 

HHs Renters Owners

HighIncome 

Owners

Original Accessibility Features

Can Enter Without Steps 45.3% 48.0% 45.4% 45.2% 48.7% 46.5% 43.7% 50.3% 43.4% 40.1% 46.9% 49.1% 47.4% 46.7% 49.8%

Extra-Wide Doors/Hallways 13.3% 14.6% 14.8% 12.5% 13.8% 14.2% 12.4% 18.7% 10.5% 7.4% 15.0% 15.3% 17.3% 13.9% 14.6%

No Steps Between Rooms 69.0% 61.0% 75.5% 65.7% 59.8% 74.2% 68.0% 82.5% 67.4% 59.6% 68.7% 59.8% 75.4% 65.2% 58.9%

Ramps In Home* 2.6% 3.2% 1.9% 3.1% 3.5% 2.8% 6.3% 2.4% 3.3% 5.7% 3.1% 3.8% 2.3% 3.6% 4.1%

Hand Rails/Grab Bars In Home* 31.7% 35.5% 18.6% 40.9% 39.2% 26.6% 39.2% 16.7% 38.9% 53.6% 32.5% 35.9% 19.2% 41.6% 39.8%

Handrails/Grab Bars In Bathroom 40.5% 35.6% 36.2% 42.8% 36.9% 48.0% 39.5% 47.3% 48.5% 41.2% 44.7% 38.1% 40.1% 47.0% 40.0%

Handrails/Grab Bars In Other 

Areas 6.8% 6.6% 3.8% 8.4% 7.2% 7.2% 6.6% 4.9% 9.2% 7.6% 8.1% 7.7% 4.4% 10.0% 8.7%

Door Handles Instead of Knobs 13.8% 17.9% 14.9% 13.2% 18.7% 15.0% 16.1% 20.4% 10.6% 13.4% 14.9% 18.4% 17.1% 13.8% 19.1%

Sink Handles/Levers 30.0% 40.0% 25.2% 32.5% 41.7% 28.6% 37.5% 28.3% 28.8% 39.7% 30.8% 39.2% 26.2% 33.2% 40.9%

Built-In Shower Seats* 15.5% 18.0% 10.9% 17.9% 18.9% 16.0% 16.5% 13.1% 18.4% 16.0% 17.4% 18.6% 12.1% 20.1% 19.6%

Raised Toilets* 18.8% 17.9% 12.6% 22.0% 19.5% 19.6% 20.3% 15.8% 22.8% 21.7% 21.2% 19.0% 15.2% 24.2% 21.1%

Kitchen Trays/Lazy Susans* 18.2% 28.3% 9.6% 22.7% 30.1% 14.1% 22.1% 9.0% 18.3% 25.0% 18.5% 28.0% 9.8% 22.9% 30.2%

Wheelchair Accessible Electrical 

Outlets 65.2% 65.9% 61.9% 66.9% 66.5% 65.0% 61.4% 65.0% 65.0% 62.6% 65.4% 64.6% 62.8% 66.7% 65.4%

Wheelchair Accessible Electrical 

Switches 68.3% 70.4% 64.7% 70.2% 70.9% 67.5% 62.0% 66.5% 68.3% 61.9% 68.7% 69.2% 66.2% 70.1% 69.8%

Wheelchair Accessible Climate 

Controls 49.8% 49.6% 47.2% 51.1% 49.9% 50.5% 43.5% 50.6% 50.4% 41.8% 50.5% 48.5% 49.2% 51.2% 48.7%

Wheelchair Accessible Kitchen 

Cabinets 20.1% 17.9% 18.6% 20.9% 18.5% 19.9% 17.9% 19.7% 20.1% 19.0% 21.3% 18.5% 19.7% 22.1% 19.4%

Wheelchair Accessible 

Countertops 54.9% 55.3% 50.7% 57.0% 56.1% 53.8% 50.4% 52.2% 55.1% 51.1% 55.8% 54.8% 52.6% 57.5% 55.5%

Wheelchair Accessible Other 

Kitchen Features 33.1% 31.9% 30.5% 34.5% 32.5% 32.6% 28.4% 32.4% 32.7% 26.6% 34.0% 30.2% 32.0% 35.0% 30.8%

Wheelchair Accessible Bathroom 44.2% 45.5% 41.3% 45.7% 46.1% 43.6% 41.9% 44.8% 42.7% 41.6% 45.6% 45.9% 43.9% 46.5% 46.6%

Elevators In Home* 0.9% 0.9% 1.2% 0.8% 1.1% 1.4% 1.2% 2.0% 0.6% 1.7% 1.0% 1.1% 1.3% 0.9% 1.3%

Bedroom On Entry Level* 84.1% 74.4% 86.3% 83.0% 73.6% 88.0% 81.1% 89.6% 86.7% 76.6% 84.2% 73.8% 86.3% 83.1% 73.5%

Full Bathroom On Entry Level* 90.8% 88.7% 89.5% 91.5% 88.8% 91.6% 88.8% 90.5% 92.5% 87.2% 90.8% 88.0% 89.5% 91.5% 88.3%

Disabled Disabled & Live Alone Uses Mobility Device
D-7

Table D4. Prevalence of Accessibility Features in Housing Units with Disabled Occupant (continued)

Accessibility Features Present in 

Home All HHs

HighIncome 

HHs Renters Owners

HighIncome 

Owners All HHs

HighIncome 

HHs Renters Owners

HighIncome 

Owners All HHs

HighIncome 

HHs Renters Owners

HighIncome 

Owners

Constucted Accessibility Features

Steps Between Rooms, Handrails, and Ramps 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 2.2% 0.3% 1.0% 3.3% 0.7% 0.7% 0.3% 0.9% 0.8%

Steps Between Rooms and Handrails, No Ramps 12.0% 15.8% 5.8% 16.3% 17.8% 8.9% 12.8% 3.7% 15.4% 18.7% 12.4% 16.3% 5.6% 17.0% 18.4%

Steps Between Rooms and Ramps, No Handrails 0.3% 0.4% 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.5% 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.2% 0.5% 0.5%

Bedroom on Entry Level or Presence of Elevator 84.3% 74.7% 86.5% 83.1% 73.9% 88.1% 81.2% 89.9% 86.7% 76.8% 84.4% 74.1% 86.6% 83.3% 73.9%

Bathroom on Entry Level or Presence of Elevator 90.9% 88.9% 89.7% 91.6% 88.9% 91.8% 88.9% 90.8% 92.6% 87.3% 91.0% 88.2% 89.7% 91.6% 88.6%

Total Number of Households

 Sample 21,548 6,751 9,146 12,402 5,329 8,161 823 4,693 3,478 548 15,378 4,908 6,557 8,821 3,827

 Weighted Count 1 17,393,772 5,505,022 5,951,085 11,442,687 4,557,142 6,086,495 650,973 2,763,922 3,322,573 449,963 12,155,461 3,963,836 4,133,649 8,021,812 3,246,726

* Not used in Appendix Table C5 weights

"High-Income" is defined as having total household income greater than $46,911

 "Disabled" is defined as anyone with serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs, or who uses a mobility device because of a condition other than a temporary injury

Disabled Disabled & Live Alone Uses Mobility Device
D-8

The prevalence of each feature by income and tenure does not show a clear pattern. 

Income households with a disabled member do not appear to live in systematically 

different units than their lower income counterparts. This finding was corroborated with 

regression analysis: the partial correlation between income and the prevalence of each 

feature was sometimes significantly negative and sometimes significantly positive, 

depending on the feature. Similarly, we find few systematic differences either between 

accessibility of units occupied by renters and those occupied by homeowners, or between 

accessibility features in units occupied by homeowners with high incomes and those 

occupied by other homeowners. 

We also show in additional columns of Table D4 the prevalence of accessibility features 

among housing units where a disabled individual lives alone, and among housing units 

occupied by someone who uses a mobility device (this is a subset of our disabled 

population which also includes individuals who have trouble walking or climbing stairs).

Again, no clear patterns emerged. 

Table D5 recalibrates the information in Table D4 into weights by setting the sum to 100. 

Table D5 is thus analogous to the expert weights in Table D1. We note that these 

revealed-preference weights are roughly similar to the expert weights, which bolsters our 

confidence about their validity.
D-9

Table D5. Weights Based on Feature Prevalence in Disabled Households 

Accessibility Features Present in 

Home All HHs

HighIncome 

HHs Renters Owners

HighIncome 

Owners All HHs

HighIncome 

HHs Renters Owners

HighIncome 

Owners All HHs

HighIncome 

HHs Renters Owners

HighIncome 

Owners

Weights

Can Enter Without Steps 6.21 6.63 6.42 6.10 6.66 6.23 6.24 6.58 5.93 5.91 6.29 6.80 6.48 6.19 6.82

Extra-Wide Doors/Hallways 1.82 2.01 2.09 1.69 1.89 1.90 1.77 2.44 1.44 1.10 2.01 2.12 2.36 1.84 2.00

 No Steps Between Rooms 9.46 8.43 10.68 8.86 8.20 9.94 9.72 10.79 9.21 8.79 9.21 8.29 10.32 8.66 8.06

Steps Between Rooms, 

Handrails, and Ramps 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.10 5.06 0.08 0.32 0.03 0.14 0.49 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.12 0.11

Steps Between Rooms and 

Handrails, No Ramps 1.64 2.19 0.82 2.19 0.08 1.19 1.83 0.48 2.11 2.76 1.66 2.26 0.77 2.25 2.52

Steps Between Rooms and 

Ramps, No Handrails 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.06 2.43 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.07

Handrails/Grab Bars In Bathroom 5.56 4.92 5.12 5.77 0.06 6.42 5.65 6.19 6.63 6.08 5.99 5.28 5.49 6.24 5.48

Handrails/Grab Bars In Other 

Areas 0.94 0.91 0.54 1.13 0.98 0.97 0.94 0.64 1.26 1.12 1.09 1.07 0.60 1.33 1.19

Door Handles Instead of Knobs 1.89 2.47 2.11 1.78 2.56 2.01 2.30 2.67 1.44 1.97 2.00 2.55 2.34 1.83 2.61

Sink Handles/Levers 4.11 5.52 3.56 4.39 5.71 3.83 5.37 3.70 3.94 5.86 4.13 5.43 3.59 4.41 5.60

Wheelchair Accessible Electrical 

Outlets 8.93 9.11 8.75 9.02 9.11 8.71 8.77 8.50 8.88 9.23 8.77 8.94 8.60 8.85 8.95

Wheelchair Accessible Electrical 

Switches 9.36 9.72 9.15 9.47 9.71 9.04 8.87 8.70 9.33 9.13 9.22 9.59 9.06 9.30 9.55

Wheelchair Accessible Climate 

Controls 6.82 6.85 6.68 6.89 6.83 6.76 6.22 6.63 6.88 6.17 6.78 6.72 6.74 6.80 6.66

Wheelchair Accessible Kitchen 

Cabinets 2.75 2.47 2.63 2.82 2.54 2.67 2.55 2.58 2.74 2.80 2.85 2.57 2.70 2.93 2.65

Wheelchair Accessible 

Countertops 7.52 7.64 7.18 7.69 7.68 7.21 7.21 6.83 7.53 7.53 7.49 7.59 7.20 7.63 7.60

Wheelchair Accessible Other 

Kitchen Features 4.54 4.41 4.32 4.65 4.45 4.36 4.06 4.24 4.47 3.93 4.55 4.19 4.38 4.64 4.21

Wheelchair Accessible Bathroom 6.06 6.29 5.84 6.16 6.31 5.84 6.00 5.86 5.84 6.14 6.11 6.36 6.01 6.17 6.39

Bedroom on Entry Level or 

Presence of Elevator 11.55 10.32 12.24 11.22 10.13 11.80 11.61 11.76 11.85 11.32 11.31 10.27 11.85 11.05 10.11

Bathroom on Entry Level or 

Presence of Elevator 12.47 12.28 12.69 12.36 12.18 12.29 12.72 11.88 12.64 12.88 12.20 12.22 12.28 12.15 12.13

Total Weights: 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

"High-Income" is defined as having total household income greater than $46,911

Disabled Disabled & Live Alone Uses Mobility Device

 "Disabled" includes anyone with serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs, or who uses a mobility device because of a condition other than a 
D-10

Given the lack of clear differences by income or tenure, we use the prevalence of features 

for all households with a disabled person (Table D5 first column) and all high-income 

households with a disabled person (Table D5 second column) to create two additional 

indices of accessibility for housing units. The distribution of these index values is shown 

in Table D2 for all housing units, and in Table D3 for housing units occupied by a 

disabled person. 

In these tables we can see that when we weight the accessibility features based on the 

features people with a disability actually have in their homes, the mean and median index 

values are similar to those created using the expert weighting system. The entire 

distribution of the indices is, however, more skewed to right when using the revealed 

preference weights. As such, the index weighted on features available in the homes of 

people with disability results in substantially greater percentages of units with a score of 

70 or above. 

Similar to the accessibility index based on expert weighting, these index scores do not 

have a clear interpretation and a unit would need a score of 100 to qualify as fully 

accessible according to housing regulations. That said, index values should be considered 

more accessible. If we use a score of 90 as the standard for accessibility, 1.2 to 1.4 

percent of all housing units would be deemed accessible. 
E-1

Appendix E: Table 11A-Supplemental Tables 

Table 11A. Percent of Housing Units in MSAs with Critical Accessibility Features 

All HUs in MSAs

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable 

Level 2: 

Livable 

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 33.40% 3.63% 0.13% 141,506 100,564,426

Occupancy Status

 Renter-occupied 30.53% 3.80% 0.14% 49,208 32,070,468

 Owner-occupied 34.22% 3.55% 0.12% 75,103 57,231,005

 Vacant Unit 37.55% 3.37% 0.27% 15,532 10,043,341

 Seasonal Unit 39.84% 4.54% 0.02% 1,663 1,219,612

Monthly Housing Cost (Median=1015)

 Above Median (in sample) 32.24% 2.83% 0.07% 62,202 45,785,931

 Below Median (in sample) 33.65% 4.51% 0.18% 62,109 43,515,542

Housing Price (Median=178900)

 Above Median (in sample) 32.08% 3.31% 0.13% 42,489 31,543,927

 Below Median (in sample) 37.62% 3.74% 0.11% 42,488 33,247,969

Building Size

 1 Unit 35.07% 3.33% 0.10% 98,687 71,667,307

 2-3 Units 21.85% 1.66% 0.04% 8,241 5,654,299

 4-49 Units 26.83% 3.34% 0.15% 27,675 18,396,863

 50+ Units 47.53% 12.07% 0.70% 6,903 4,845,957

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 34.09% 3.70% 0.14% 136,062 95,974,690

 Mobile home 18.06% 1.79% 0.01% 4,290 4,202,453

 Other 31.46% 7.21% 0.14% 1,154 387,283

Building Age

 Built before 1920 11.93% 1.18% 0.17% 8,012 6,156,897

 1920s 14.92% 1.02% 0.00% 5,710 4,228,159

 1930s 17.97% 1.28% 0.00% 5,390 4,183,462

 1940s 26.73% 2.21% 0.05% 8,406 5,998,530

 1950s 34.53% 3.46% 0.09% 15,521 10,781,951

 1960s 36.97% 3.59% 0.07% 17,764 12,289,672

 1970s 36.18% 3.77% 0.09% 24,406 18,416,967

 1980s 37.21% 4.82% 0.16% 19,350 13,114,209

 1990s 36.92% 4.45% 0.21% 18,070 11,710,546

 2000 or after 41.03% 4.91% 0.30% 18,877 13,684,033

Census Region

 Northeast 17.20% 2.49% 0.07% 19,717 20,055,212

 Midwest 22.92% 3.57% 0.16% 33,230 20,743,651

 South 43.44% 3.69% 0.14% 42,934 36,326,476

 West 40.48% 4.55% 0.16% 45,625 23,439,087

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 30.67% 3.28% 0.17% 48,586 37,612,156

 Suburbs 35.00% 3.84% 0.11% 92,920 62,952,270
E-2

Table 11A. Percent of Housing Units in MSAs with Critical Accessibility Features (continued) 

All HUs in MSAs

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable 

Level 2: 

Livable 

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 39.28% 8.98% 0.43% 29,898 20,958,308

 Any Resident < 18 31.52% 1.86% 0.02% 41,381 29,773,790

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 30.83% 2.26% 0.05% 55,156 40,144,190

Household Composition

 Elderly, Living Alone 39.13% 10.77% 0.50% 14,262 9,421,901

 Other 32.20% 2.81% 0.08% 110,049 79,879,572

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 32.70% 4.13% 0.16% 80,617 58,927,802

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 30.05% 2.95% 0.06% 17,887 12,267,328

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 28.57% 1.82% 0.04% 7,240 4,324,579

 Hispanic of Any Race 38.60% 2.44% 0.04% 16,327 12,217,932

Immigration Status of Householder

 Native, US Citizen 32.90% 3.90% 0.14% 103,950 74,844,276

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 34.19% 2.95% 0.12% 10,731 7,373,017

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 31.80% 1.51% 0.00% 9,630 7,084,180

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 34.01% 3.97% 0.12% 16,493 10,969,882

 High School Graduate 33.01% 4.00% 0.20% 28,356 21,298,462

 Some College, No Bachelor's 34.29% 3.89% 0.12% 37,036 26,685,693

 Bachelor's and Above 31.26% 3.05% 0.09% 42,426 30,347,436

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 33.06% 4.80% 0.20% 41,674 28,197,670

 Low Income 33.02% 3.97% 0.17% 20,542 15,191,910

 Moderate Income 31.28% 3.18% 0.03% 19,643 14,571,264

 Higher Income 33.53% 2.68% 0.09% 42,552 31,456,447

HUD-Assisted Households 35.77% 10.16% 0.33% 8,163 3,495,268

Very Low-Income Renters 31.02% 4.77% 0.20% 26,074 16,198,444

Worst Case Needs 30.75% 3.11% 0.12% 3,805 2,818,469
E-3

Table 11A. Anaheim MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

Anaheim MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 38.86% 4.03% 0.08% 3,825 1,053,770

Occupancy Status

 Renter-occupied 33.63% 2.73% 0.11% 1,593 415,638

 Owner-occupied 43.08% 4.79% 0.06% 1,909 567,157

 Vacant Unit 33.16% 1.79% 0.00% 265 59,328

 Seasonal Unit 42.90% 21.43% 0.00% 58 11,647

Monthly Housing Cost (Median=1588)

 Above Median (in sample) 37.84% 1.74% 0.04% 1,751 501,552

 Below Median (in sample) 40.49% 6.28% 0.13% 1,751 481,243

Housing Price (Median=495000)

 Above Median (in sample) 42.46% 4.17% 0.07% 1,044 297,878

 Below Median (in sample) 42.79% 5.97% 0.05% 1,043 313,857

Building Size

 1 Unit 41.95% 3.38% 0.05% 2,463 695,349

 2-3 Units 30.16% 5.92% 0.00% 141 40,199

 4-49 Units 33.13% 5.17% 0.06% 1,035 260,977

 50+ Units 32.42% 5.69% 0.55% 186 57,245

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 39.69% 3.94% 0.08% 3,678 1,019,114

 Mobile home 11.45% 6.24% 0.00% 118 31,473

 Other 52.13% 9.42% 0.00% 29 3,183

Building Age

 Built before 1920 8.59% 0.00% 0.00% 10 1,618

 1920s 30.93% 0.00% 0.00% 15 5,878

 1930s 35.37% 0.00% 0.00% 47 10,951

 1940s 39.14% 1.06% 0.00% 87 24,768

 1950s 50.12% 3.91% 0.00% 378 134,337

 1960s 48.25% 4.97% 0.00% 909 255,424

 1970s 35.82% 4.37% 0.06% 1,127 317,867

 1980s 30.90% 4.70% 0.09% 581 158,075

 1990s 28.80% 1.81% 0.39% 372 78,634

 2000 or after 26.58% 2.40% 0.22% 299 66,218

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 38.67% 3.25% 0.00% 664 205,875

 Suburbs 38.91% 4.22% 0.09% 3,161 847,895

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 45.29% 11.92% 0.33% 817 244,044

 Any Resident < 18 37.88% 1.73% 0.00% 1,384 380,739

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 36.42% 1.41% 0.00% 1,387 382,671
E-4

Table 11A. Anaheim MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features (continued) 

Anaheim MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Household Composition

 Elderly, Living Alone 47.98% 16.57% 0.89% 315 91,410

 Other 38.24% 2.69% 0.00% 3,187 891,385

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 41.39% 4.44% 0.15% 1,915 539,083

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 47.71% 0.00% 0.00% 52 12,629

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 31.17% 4.13% 0.00% 588 169,072

 Hispanic of Any Race 39.34% 2.81% 0.00% 877 243,922

Immigration Status of Householder

 Native, US Citizen 40.66% 4.21% 0.13% 2,221 616,366

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 39.18% 4.31% 0.00% 699 208,593

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 33.02% 2.32% 0.00% 582 157,836

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 41.02% 4.10% 0.14% 420 119,193

 High School Graduate 35.41% 3.84% 0.18% 586 162,235

 Some College, No Bachelor's 40.23% 4.23% 0.12% 1,027 287,739

 Bachelor's and Above 39.28% 3.71% 0.00% 1,469 413,628

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 37.65% 6.69% 0.16% 1,175 325,555

 Low Income 38.63% 2.78% 0.08% 607 177,072

 Moderate Income 37.15% 4.16% 0.13% 405 112,913

 Higher Income 41.70% 2.03% 0.00% 1,321 370,912

 Low Income 38.21% 2.76% 0.08% 607 177,072

HUD-Assisted Households 35.60% 10.36% 1.10% 102 28,591

Very Low-Income Renters 32.37% 3.63% 0.16% 743 199,389

Worst Case Needs 26.42% 0.62% 0.00% 119 31,669
E-5

Table 11A. Birmingham MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

Birmingham MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 35.21% 4.74% 0.07% 3,680 501,908

Occupancy Status

 Renter-occupied 32.84% 3.86% 0.22% 905 115,603

 Owner-occupied 35.64% 5.54% 0.03% 2,179 309,736

 Vacant Unit 37.01% 1.46% 0.00% 547 72,102

 Seasonal Unit 44.05% 2.31% 0.00% 49 4,467

Monthly Housing Cost (Median=743.5)

 Above Median (in sample) 37.37% 5.38% 0.04% 1,542 216,267

 Below Median (in sample) 32.29% 4.77% 0.13% 1,542 209,072

Housing Price (Median=125000)

 Above Median (in sample) 37.64% 7.51% 0.05% 1,336 197,880

 Below Median (in sample) 32.68% 2.06% 0.00% 1,245 160,948

Building Size

 1 Unit 34.89% 4.58% 0.02% 3,057 420,333

 2-3 Units 52.56% 4.45% 0.00% 58 7,346

 4-49 Units 36.26% 5.24% 0.37% 526 70,239

 50+ Units 17.60% 12.10% 0.00% 39 3,990

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 37.13% 5.22% 0.08% 3,325 450,466

 Mobile home 19.13% 0.59% 0.00% 330 49,774

 Other 7.73% 0.00% 0.00% 25 1,668

Building Age

 Built before 1920 12.52% 1.85% 0.00% 52 8,589

 1920s 11.34% 0.94% 0.00% 98 17,767

 1930s 22.47% 2.32% 0.00% 163 21,516

 1940s 38.89% 1.25% 0.00% 244 31,653

 1950s 31.78% 2.38% 0.00% 467 62,150

 1960s 31.88% 1.37% 0.00% 447 65,697

 1970s 34.84% 1.97% 0.00% 650 79,788

 1980s 28.76% 5.71% 0.00% 479 77,210

 1990s 39.52% 8.99% 0.32% 611 81,045

 2000 or after 58.81% 11.10% 0.17% 469 56,493

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 28.81% 3.55% 0.16% 870 123,471

 Suburbs 37.23% 5.10% 0.05% 2,810 378,437

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 44.97% 11.29% 0.09% 795 105,785

 Any Resident < 18 34.77% 4.00% 0.00% 933 129,689

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 30.73% 2.40% 0.13% 1,421 199,236
E-6

Table 11A. Birmingham MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

(continued) 

Birmingham MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Household Composition

 Elderly, Living Alone 35.70% 6.61% 0.17% 379 52,666

 Other 34.77% 4.87% 0.07% 2,705 372,673

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 36.09% 4.96% 0.06% 2,041 282,391

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 34.34% 6.34% 0.15% 900 118,182

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 16.28% 0.00% 0.00% 26 3,900

 Hispanic of Any Race 28.77% 0.98% 0.00% 101 15,536

Immigration Status of Householder

 Native, US Citizen 35.47% 5.23% 0.09% 2,963 408,050

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 27.80% 0.00% 0.00% 44 5,536

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 18.03% 2.39% 0.00% 77 11,753

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 32.41% 2.81% 0.00% 515 70,417

 High School Graduate 33.79% 4.97% 0.17% 741 102,390

 Some College, No Bachelor's 35.60% 6.07% 0.00% 890 120,377

 Bachelor's and Above 36.36% 5.44% 0.13% 938 132,155

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 34.52% 4.64% 0.13% 1,028 136,229

 Low Income 31.40% 1.88% 0.00% 540 72,697

 Moderate Income 36.56% 6.06% 0.13% 506 68,097

 Higher Income 36.15% 6.63% 0.06% 1,010 148,316

 Low Income 31.37% 1.88% 0.00% 540 72,697

HUD-Assisted Households 28.75% 7.70% 0.81% 159 20,943

Very Low-Income Renters 32.03% 5.58% 0.26% 501 66,987

Worst Case Needs 31.19% 1.65% 0.00% 82 14,025
E-7

Table 11A. Buffalo MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

Buffalo MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 11.33% 1.67% 0.32% 3,351 518,839

Occupancy Status

 Renter-occupied 13.08% 1.58% 0.10% 1,071 170,010

 Owner-occupied 9.88% 1.87% 0.46% 1,869 293,360

 Vacant Unit 15.32% 0.45% 0.23% 382 52,103

 Seasonal Unit 4.17% 0.00% 0.00% 29 3,366

Monthly Housing Cost (Median=747)

 Above Median (in sample) 13.09% 2.06% 0.64% 1,475 234,817

 Below Median (in sample) 8.92% 1.47% 0.00% 1,465 228,553

Housing Price (Median=110000)

 Above Median (in sample) 10.63% 2.43% 0.77% 1,080 180,301

 Below Median (in sample) 10.65% 0.97% 0.00% 1,033 149,667

Building Size

 1 Unit 11.05% 1.66% 0.43% 2,117 335,606

 2-3 Units 6.57% 0.39% 0.09% 708 105,878

 4-49 Units 17.87% 1.68% 0.00% 431 61,296

 50+ Units 22.57% 10.54% 0.63% 95 16,059

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 11.45% 1.68% 0.33% 3,291 507,732

 Mobile home 6.38% 1.42% 0.00% 42 10,259

 Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 18 848

Building Age

 Built before 1920 5.08% 0.29% 0.00% 599 98,582

 1920s 5.95% 0.15% 0.00% 358 62,360

 1930s 9.81% 0.31% 0.00% 304 46,340

 1940s 10.63% 0.87% 0.00% 303 56,604

 1950s 16.48% 1.39% 0.00% 548 80,881

 1960s 13.57% 0.74% 0.00% 355 57,887

 1970s 14.99% 5.43% 0.00% 337 47,389

 1980s 15.93% 8.31% 5.94% 168 22,792

 1990s 13.29% 1.90% 0.00% 237 31,322

 2000 or after 18.85% 5.32% 1.69% 142 14,682

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 8.39% 0.27% 0.00% 983 180,167

 Suburbs 12.79% 2.37% 0.48% 2,368 338,672

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 16.98% 4.84% 1.34% 767 108,039

 Any Resident < 18 6.61% 0.00% 0.00% 815 126,076

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 10.58% 1.28% 0.04% 1,386 233,372
E-8

Table 11A. Buffalo MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features (continued) 

Buffalo MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Household Composition

 Elderly, Living Alone 19.44% 3.67% 0.15% 411 57,935

 Other 9.85% 1.50% 0.35% 2,529 405,435

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 12.24% 2.13% 0.42% 2,385 363,720

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 4.58% 0.40% 0.00% 368 66,057

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 2.80% 0.00% 0.00% 51 8,355

 Hispanic of Any Race 7.46% 1.11% 0.00% 100 17,594

Immigration Status of Householder

 Native, US Citizen 10.96% 1.77% 0.35% 2,773 435,715

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 14.56% 0.56% 0.00% 87 19,314

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 7.59% 4.53% 0.00% 80 8,341

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 14.26% 2.92% 0.00% 329 49,375

 High School Graduate 11.83% 2.43% 0.07% 830 130,030

 Some College, No Bachelor's 11.77% 1.84% 0.96% 928 139,818

 Bachelor's and Above 8.52% 0.71% 0.06% 853 144,147

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 12.29% 2.55% 0.05% 1,010 169,316

 Low Income 11.46% 1.69% 0.12% 500 71,033

 Moderate Income 9.02% 0.61% 0.00% 521 93,004

 Higher Income 10.66% 1.65% 1.03% 909 130,017

 Low Income 11.20% 1.65% 0.12% 500 71,033

HUD-Assisted Households 16.81% 4.56% 0.00% 206 33,563

Very Low-Income Renters 11.90% 1.77% 0.09% 602 101,065

Worst Case Needs 21.90% 0.82% 0.00% 88 11,414
E-9

Table11A. Charlotte MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

Charlotte MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 27.59% 2.46% 0.10% 3,390 746,475

Occupancy Status

 Renter-occupied 28.49% 2.17% 0.22% 1,018 224,435

 Owner-occupied 27.23% 2.52% 0.00% 1,976 445,597

 Vacant Unit 27.15% 3.19% 0.42% 365 70,575

 Seasonal Unit 24.78% 3.67% 0.00% 31 5,868

Monthly Housing Cost (Median=960)

 Above Median (in sample) 25.30% 1.84% 0.00% 1,498 335,160

 Below Median (in sample) 30.01% 2.97% 0.15% 1,496 334,872

Housing Price (Median=150000)

 Above Median (in sample) 25.39% 2.72% 0.00% 1,161 258,329

 Below Median (in sample) 29.09% 2.34% 0.00% 1,037 230,058

Building Size

 1 Unit 26.61% 2.23% 0.00% 2,721 604,964

 2-3 Units 37.57% 3.24% 0.00% 73 14,717

 4-49 Units 30.60% 3.37% 0.61% 550 117,036

 50+ Units 37.29% 5.15% 0.00% 46 9,758

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 28.27% 2.62% 0.10% 3,224 702,964

 Mobile home 15.48% 0.00% 0.00% 145 41,530

 Other 44.57% 0.00% 0.00% 21 1,981

Building Age

 Built before 1920 11.23% 2.98% 0.00% 36 7,718

 1920s 5.79% 0.00% 0.00% 32 7,130

 1930s 36.76% 1.41% 0.00% 71 15,408

 1940s 25.95% 4.85% 0.00% 143 30,434

 1950s 28.55% 3.24% 0.00% 240 51,854

 1960s 29.29% 2.62% 0.00% 322 70,933

 1970s 29.08% 2.26% 0.00% 418 92,663

 1980s 24.39% 2.44% 0.00% 496 112,145

 1990s 28.26% 2.19% 0.13% 731 156,910

 2000 or after 28.31% 2.35% 0.26% 901 201,280

Central City/Suburban Status

 South 27.30% 2.46% 0.10% 3,390 746,475

 Suburbs 27.59% 2.46% 0.10% 3,390 746,475

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 36.50% 6.28% 0.05% 583 130,707

 Any Resident < 18 26.23% 1.56% 0.19% 1,045 232,985

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 25.35% 1.42% 0.00% 1,403 314,623
E-10

Table11A. Charlotte MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features (continued) 

Charlotte MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Household Composition

 Elderly, Living Alone 37.46% 8.01% 0.10% 263 58,771

 Other 26.71% 1.87% 0.07% 2,731 611,261

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 28.07% 2.71% 0.07% 1,931 435,963

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 26.69% 2.27% 0.12% 741 161,949

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 24.77% 0.00% 0.00% 67 14,890

 Hispanic of Any Race 26.14% 1.03% 0.00% 228 51,116

Immigration Status of Householder

 Native, US Citizen 28.03% 2.56% 0.08% 2,670 597,663

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 24.83% 2.03% 0.00% 101 22,804

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 24.25% 0.54% 0.00% 223 49,565

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 31.14% 4.44% 0.29% 370 83,497

 High School Graduate 27.32% 3.08% 0.00% 612 136,470

 Some College, No Bachelor's 27.99% 2.11% 0.13% 923 206,283

 Bachelor's and Above 26.35% 1.58% 0.00% 1,089 243,782

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 30.08% 3.50% 0.21% 944 211,613

 Low Income 29.10% 2.04% 0.05% 521 115,478

 Moderate Income 26.90% 2.76% 0.00% 510 114,249

 Higher Income 25.05% 1.40% 0.00% 1,019 228,692

 Low Income 29.04% 2.04% 0.05% 521 115,478

HUD-Assisted Households 33.38% 7.97% 0.00% 68 14,143

Very Low-Income Renters 28.97% 2.90% 0.40% 499 110,083

Worst Case Needs 23.46% 2.20% 0.00% 90 19,995
E-11

Table 11A. Cincinnati MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

Cincinnati MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 25.53% 4.28% 0.07% 3,761 920,636

Occupancy Status

 Renter-occupied 24.49% 4.27% 0.23% 1,098 266,962

 Owner-occupied 26.35% 4.61% 0.00% 2,143 539,468

 Vacant Unit 21.47% 1.57% 0.00% 496 109,185

 Seasonal Unit 54.91% 4.54% 0.00% 24 5,021

Monthly Housing Cost (Median=861)

 Above Median (in sample) 23.57% 3.74% 0.06% 1,621 409,961

 Below Median (in sample) 28.01% 5.29% 0.09% 1,620 396,469

Housing Price (Median=135000)

 Above Median (in sample) 25.70% 3.54% 0.00% 1,219 297,748

 Below Median (in sample) 27.76% 5.42% 0.00% 1,207 304,316

Building Size

 1 Unit 26.49% 4.41% 0.00% 2,718 672,200

 2-3 Units 19.56% 1.15% 0.00% 213 58,632

 4-49 Units 19.33% 2.05% 0.01% 715 168,349

 50+ Units 57.75% 25.49% 2.96% 115 21,455

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 25.79% 4.39% 0.05% 3,615 888,587

 Mobile home 17.71% 0.00% 0.00% 126 30,086

 Other 31.94% 22.82% 15.00% 20 1,963

Building Age

 Built before 1920 15.78% 1.46% 0.24% 446 99,884

 1920s 9.67% 4.64% 0.00% 191 47,832

 1930s 15.60% 1.67% 0.00% 168 43,493

 1940s 25.85% 2.87% 0.00% 252 62,625

 1950s 35.65% 5.77% 0.00% 412 110,299

 1960s 32.95% 7.93% 0.00% 411 105,794

 1970s 24.97% 3.60% 0.00% 522 136,742

 1980s 28.10% 5.00% 0.00% 414 98,856

 1990s 24.74% 3.49% 0.32% 546 122,356

 2000 or after 26.11% 4.15% 0.01% 399 92,755

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 19.24% 4.57% 0.01% 816 189,173

 Suburbs 27.04% 4.20% 0.08% 2,945 731,463

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 39.39% 12.59% 0.32% 741 182,918

 Any Resident < 18 22.04% 2.30% 0.00% 1,117 266,966

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 21.73% 2.10% 0.00% 1,427 364,499
E-12

Table11A. Cincinnati MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features (continued) 

Cincinnati MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Household Composition

 Elderly, Living Alone 44.73% 16.46% 0.59% 365 99,516

 Other 23.03% 2.78% 0.00% 2,876 706,914

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 27.49% 5.10% 0.07% 2,638 656,537

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 19.30% 1.77% 0.14% 430 105,705

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 11.87% 0.00% 0.00% 46 11,941

 Hispanic of Any Race 13.25% 1.18% 0.00% 83 20,186

Immigration Status of Householder

 Native, US Citizen 25.86% 4.69% 0.08% 3,099 770,091

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 30.18% 0.89% 0.00% 72 15,613

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 17.70% 0.00% 0.00% 70 20,726

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 30.42% 5.77% 0.00% 401 94,126

 High School Graduate 27.21% 4.54% 0.06% 866 223,504

 Some College, No Bachelor's 26.10% 3.74% 0.00% 937 231,614

 Bachelor's and Above 22.40% 4.70% 0.18% 1,037 257,186

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 27.95% 7.26% 0.14% 1,099 254,064

 Low Income 27.03% 4.44% 0.17% 538 146,605

 Moderate Income 24.95% 1.51% 0.00% 506 129,523

 Higher Income 23.40% 3.40% 0.00% 1,098 276,238

 Low Income 26.89% 4.44% 0.17% 538 146,605

HUD-Assisted Households 24.59% 8.02% 0.34% 209 43,314

Very Low-Income Renters 25.85% 6.11% 0.24% 645 145,079

Worst Case Needs 25.07% 2.46% 0.00% 87 22,451
E-13

Table 11A. Cleveland MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

Cleveland MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 18.14% 2.40% 0.14% 3,618 958,408

Occupancy Status

 Renter-occupied 24.53% 2.09% 0.20% 1,039 272,929

 Owner-occupied 15.09% 2.63% 0.09% 2,073 586,498

 Vacant Unit 19.48% 1.54% 0.32% 488 92,589

 Seasonal Unit 11.30% 3.50% 0.00% 18 6,392

Monthly Housing Cost (Median=836)

 Above Median (in sample) 17.43% 1.93% 0.11% 1,559 426,276

 Below Median (in sample) 18.71% 3.00% 0.14% 1,553 433,151

Housing Price (Median=125000)

 Above Median (in sample) 16.44% 2.42% 0.09% 1,182 314,330

 Below Median (in sample) 14.04% 2.57% 0.07% 1,171 329,052

Building Size

 1 Unit 16.53% 1.94% 0.07% 2,650 717,232

 2-3 Units 9.07% 1.34% 0.00% 255 63,552

 4-49 Units 17.15% 2.71% 0.34% 445 114,961

 50+ Units 47.69% 8.27% 0.66% 268 62,663

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 18.31% 2.41% 0.14% 3,573 945,689

 Mobile home 3.42% 0.00% 0.00% 28 10,733

 Other 13.29% 7.08% 0.00% 17 1,986

Building Age

 Built before 1920 7.50% 0.14% 0.00% 308 95,688

 1920s 12.59% 1.05% 0.00% 364 82,290

 1930s 13.41% 0.38% 0.00% 237 66,434

 1940s 18.06% 3.24% 0.21% 352 80,595

 1950s 19.88% 1.01% 0.00% 685 197,918

 1960s 21.15% 2.42% 0.00% 479 136,030

 1970s 23.63% 3.98% 0.00% 470 139,499

 1980s 18.25% 5.06% 0.70% 229 57,338

 1990s 22.43% 5.63% 1.40% 260 52,943

 2000 or after 17.91% 4.72% 0.00% 234 49,673

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 12.24% 1.51% 0.08% 826 211,800

 Suburbs 19.75% 2.65% 0.15% 2,792 746,608

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 22.98% 6.06% 0.26% 907 263,421

 Any Resident < 18 14.94% 0.68% 0.00% 872 218,441

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 17.15% 1.04% 0.10% 1,381 390,525
E-14

Table 11A. Cleveland MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features (continued) 

Cleveland MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Household Composition

 Elderly, Living Alone 24.60% 8.48% 0.51% 454 135,724

 Other 16.85% 1.35% 0.05% 2,658 723,703

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 18.74% 2.72% 0.08% 2,276 628,646

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 15.12% 2.22% 0.34% 601 162,811

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 11.84% 0.00% 0.00% 56 14,571

 Hispanic of Any Race 21.99% 0.96% 0.00% 152 46,490

Immigration Status of Householder

 Native, US Citizen 18.26% 2.52% 0.13% 2,898 801,968

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 11.35% 2.66% 0.00% 138 35,429

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 21.69% 0.00% 0.00% 76 22,030

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 25.42% 3.50% 0.00% 361 93,484

 High School Graduate 19.94% 2.41% 0.09% 818 246,614

 Some College, No Bachelor's 14.17% 1.97% 0.12% 986 270,307

 Bachelor's and Above 17.66% 2.67% 0.21% 947 249,022

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 17.10% 2.53% 0.20% 961 286,439

 Low Income 23.01% 4.47% 0.14% 570 156,879

 Moderate Income 21.52% 2.37% 0.21% 509 140,213

 Higher Income 14.50% 1.30% 0.00% 1,072 275,896

 Low Income 22.97% 4.47% 0.14% 570 156,879

HUD-Assisted Households 23.07% 4.46% 0.78% 195 42,019

Very Low-Income Renters 20.78% 2.46% 0.21% 562 162,161

Worst Case Needs 30.94% 0.00% 0.00% 74 31,895
E-15

Table 11A. Columbus MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

Columbus MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 16.02% 2.03% 0.15% 3,745 798,454

Occupancy Status

 Renter-occupied 16.94% 2.86% 0.22% 1,207 293,326

 Owner-occupied 14.31% 1.51% 0.10% 2,024 389,270

 Vacant Unit 20.27% 1.58% 0.18% 496 113,806

 Seasonal Unit 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 18 2,052

Monthly Housing Cost (Median=931)

 Above Median (in sample) 11.98% 1.57% 0.08% 1,616 330,729

 Below Median (in sample) 18.73% 2.59% 0.21% 1,615 351,867

Housing Price (Median=135000)

 Above Median (in sample) 13.04% 1.48% 0.06% 1,159 231,364

 Below Median (in sample) 16.95% 1.41% 0.12% 1,127 212,566

Building Size

 1 Unit 14.71% 1.18% 0.09% 2,833 559,288

 2-3 Units 19.34% 2.13% 0.00% 148 34,562

 4-49 Units 16.59% 2.79% 0.23% 704 186,425

 50+ Units 60.01% 29.17% 1.77% 60 18,179

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 16.19% 2.06% 0.15% 3,661 780,407

 Mobile home 5.38% 0.00% 0.00% 69 15,433

 Other 58.76% 16.59% 0.00% 15 2,614

Building Age

 Built before 1920 13.30% 0.32% 0.00% 262 49,592

 1920s 6.92% 0.30% 0.00% 185 54,489

 1930s 15.69% 1.47% 0.00% 94 24,223

 1940s 14.72% 0.00% 0.00% 172 32,860

 1950s 20.25% 2.06% 0.36% 365 81,233

 1960s 19.36% 0.93% 0.11% 499 113,864

 1970s 12.39% 0.89% 0.01% 621 144,356

 1980s 16.12% 4.73% 0.00% 386 87,695

 1990s 16.77% 4.48% 0.38% 664 117,223

 2000 or after 19.68% 1.99% 0.33% 497 92,919

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 15.35% 1.28% 0.10% 1,847 479,309

 Suburbs 17.01% 3.14% 0.23% 1,898 319,145

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 28.79% 7.53% 0.32% 663 134,026

 Any Resident < 18 12.52% 0.78% 0.12% 1,088 220,301

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 11.79% 0.80% 0.09% 1,512 336,759
E-16

Table 11A. Columbus MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features (continued) 

Columbus MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Household Composition

 Elderly, Living Alone 31.34% 11.12% 0.63% 348 69,695

 Other 13.69% 1.10% 0.09% 2,883 612,901

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 15.12% 2.31% 0.19% 2,515 518,808

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 17.54% 0.86% 0.00% 465 118,392

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 20.90% 3.40% 0.00% 96 13,728

 Hispanic of Any Race 7.18% 1.26% 0.00% 108 23,285

Immigration Status of Householder

 Native, US Citizen 15.61% 2.11% 0.16% 2,970 625,895

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 15.41% 2.01% 0.00% 111 23,591

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 12.18% 1.69% 0.00% 150 33,110

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 25.49% 3.66% 0.00% 311 60,666

 High School Graduate 16.83% 2.23% 0.08% 851 178,573

 Some College, No Bachelor's 12.86% 1.84% 0.25% 911 195,842

 Bachelor's and Above 14.14% 1.82% 0.14% 1,158 247,515

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 20.17% 4.15% 0.30% 939 212,508

 Low Income 12.77% 1.43% 0.00% 544 105,261

 Moderate Income 14.05% 1.30% 0.00% 552 128,643

 Higher Income 13.18% 0.99% 0.16% 1,196 236,184

 Low Income 12.73% 1.43% 0.00% 544 105,261

HUD-Assisted Households 28.38% 6.93% 1.37% 136 29,016

Very Low-Income Renters 20.39% 5.03% 0.45% 588 141,703

Worst Case Needs 14.85% 7.48% 0.86% 101 29,054
E-17

Table 11A. Dallas MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

Dallas MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 49.41% 3.11% 0.13% 3,552 1,688,355

Occupancy Status

 Renter-occupied 37.36% 2.85% 0.07% 1,322 624,823

 Owner-occupied 59.27% 3.15% 0.00% 1,839 906,170

 Vacant Unit 39.27% 3.98% 1.38% 373 151,702

 Seasonal Unit 61.84% 3.84% 0.00% 18 5,660

Monthly Housing Cost (Median=1038)

 Above Median (in sample) 59.60% 3.38% 0.03% 1,581 772,598

 Below Median (in sample) 40.61% 2.66% 0.03% 1,580 758,395

Housing Price (Median=140000)

 Above Median (in sample) 64.07% 3.54% 0.00% 993 475,037

 Below Median (in sample) 53.22% 2.56% 0.00% 990 483,924

Building Size

 1 Unit 57.23% 3.03% 0.00% 2,416 1,163,199

 2-3 Units 54.31% 3.07% 0.00% 76 33,453

 4-49 Units 25.61% 1.71% 0.11% 925 425,821

 50+ Units 63.01% 13.82% 2.74% 135 65,882

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 50.43% 3.09% 0.14% 3,430 1,630,639

 Mobile home 15.04% 1.42% 0.00% 95 51,460

 Other 59.69% 30.22% 0.00% 27 6,256

Building Age

 Built before 1920 15.00% 0.00% 0.00% 19 9,164

 1920s 40.06% 0.00% 0.00% 22 14,010

 1930s 31.66% 5.22% 0.00% 83 43,542

 1940s 34.64% 0.77% 0.00% 139 69,957

 1950s 35.67% 1.27% 0.00% 263 115,184

 1960s 48.16% 4.94% 0.00% 397 178,216

 1970s 61.59% 3.05% 0.00% 550 280,306

 1980s 41.69% 3.10% 0.05% 782 427,698

 1990s 52.79% 1.85% 0.11% 561 235,830

 2000 or after 59.03% 4.14% 0.55% 736 314,448

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 37.90% 2.78% 0.29% 1,392 724,482

 Suburbs 57.89% 3.34% 0.02% 2,160 963,873

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 61.56% 8.76% 0.10% 533 255,437

 Any Resident < 18 50.76% 1.96% 0.00% 1,270 584,533

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 46.21% 1.86% 0.03% 1,409 712,173
E-18

Table 11A. Dallas MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features (continued) 

Dallas MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Household Composition

 Elderly, Living Alone 62.57% 10.67% 0.00% 229 102,051

 Other 49.44% 2.46% 0.03% 2,932 1,428,942

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 56.73% 3.78% 0.02% 1,594 805,558

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 49.88% 4.54% 0.00% 552 238,151

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 48.52% 1.28% 0.00% 206 96,875

 Hispanic of Any Race 37.94% 0.85% 0.07% 765 367,925

Immigration Status of Householder

 Native, US Citizen 53.11% 3.52% 0.04% 2,391 1,163,255

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 50.60% 2.58% 0.00% 283 128,849

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 36.41% 0.78% 0.00% 487 238,889

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 39.94% 1.34% 0.10% 575 263,462

 High School Graduate 46.80% 1.73% 0.07% 585 277,128

 Some College, No Bachelor's 49.76% 2.92% 0.00% 837 418,586

 Bachelor's and Above 57.20% 4.50% 0.00% 1,164 571,817

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 42.77% 2.99% 0.10% 1,019 480,487

 Low Income 45.10% 3.84% 0.00% 500 233,457

 Moderate Income 46.78% 2.94% 0.00% 487 255,735

 Higher Income 60.64% 2.76% 0.00% 1,156 562,676

 Low Income 44.61% 3.83% 0.00% 500 233,457

HUD-Assisted Households 42.56% 7.93% 0.00% 99 27,571

Very Low-Income Renters 36.62% 2.97% 0.16% 620 293,571

Worst Case Needs 27.11% 0.00% 0.00% 104 51,708
E-19

Table 11A. Denver MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

Denver MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 22.31% 2.76% 0.03% 3,380 1,065,613

Occupancy Status

 Renter-occupied 28.27% 4.63% 0.01% 1,187 373,405

 Owner-occupied 18.10% 1.59% 0.05% 1,904 619,338

 Vacant Unit 30.10% 3.46% 0.00% 244 62,220

 Seasonal Unit 17.84% 2.79% 0.00% 45 10,650

Monthly Housing Cost (Median=1162)

 Above Median (in sample) 19.21% 1.84% 0.00% 1,546 508,104

 Below Median (in sample) 24.78% 3.68% 0.07% 1,545 484,639

Housing Price (Median=221000)

 Above Median (in sample) 16.66% 1.25% 0.00% 1,028 340,602

 Below Median (in sample) 20.02% 2.01% 0.10% 1,023 315,280

Building Size

 1 Unit 18.16% 1.41% 0.00% 2,324 748,800

 2-3 Units 20.12% 4.46% 0.00% 87 30,168

 4-49 Units 24.92% 3.69% 0.00% 759 220,789

 50+ Units 62.09% 14.30% 0.52% 210 65,856

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 22.36% 2.73% 0.03% 3,295 1,043,255

 Mobile home 15.82% 1.85% 0.00% 49 17,577

 Other 36.02% 13.80% 0.00% 36 4,781

Building Age

 Built before 1920 13.77% 0.84% 0.00% 122 38,515

 1920s 24.66% 0.00% 0.00% 80 24,365

 1930s 23.14% 0.00% 0.00% 48 15,533

 1940s 26.25% 2.01% 0.00% 133 36,316

 1950s 29.52% 4.11% 0.00% 344 99,311

 1960s 28.22% 2.68% 0.00% 342 112,574

 1970s 22.27% 2.54% 0.14% 730 234,211

 1980s 17.68% 3.04% 0.01% 464 142,342

 1990s 18.53% 3.42% 0.00% 479 151,771

 2000 or after 22.30% 2.77% 0.00% 638 210,675

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 28.17% 3.25% 0.00% 980 288,043

 Suburbs 20.17% 2.58% 0.04% 2,400 777,570

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 28.96% 7.90% 0.17% 627 200,388

 Any Resident < 18 18.04% 1.49% 0.00% 1,029 336,057

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 21.54% 1.42% 0.00% 1,471 468,014
E-20

Table 11A. Denver MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features (continued) 

Denver MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Household Composition

 Elderly, Living Alone 38.84% 13.81% 0.00% 290 82,866

 Other 20.35% 1.73% 0.04% 2,801 909,877

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 21.12% 2.90% 0.05% 2,233 728,180

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 24.01% 5.50% 0.00% 164 49,978

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 14.02% 0.00% 0.00% 80 25,426

 Hispanic of Any Race 26.00% 1.46% 0.00% 563 172,329

Immigration Status of Householder

 Native, US Citizen 22.13% 2.98% 0.04% 2,690 866,608

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 20.66% 1.00% 0.00% 163 47,787

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 19.85% 0.84% 0.00% 238 78,348

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 28.80% 2.57% 0.00% 332 102,692

 High School Graduate 24.66% 5.01% 0.00% 532 168,702

 Some College, No Bachelor's 21.41% 3.03% 0.01% 926 298,189

 Bachelor's and Above 19.48% 1.65% 0.07% 1,301 423,160

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 27.18% 5.30% 0.01% 955 295,522

 Low Income 25.35% 3.59% 0.19% 525 164,695

 Moderate Income 20.60% 1.79% 0.00% 540 176,046

 Higher Income 16.64% 0.71% 0.00% 1,072 356,813

 Low Income 25.26% 3.58% 0.19% 525 164,695

HUD-Assisted Households 34.66% 17.38% 0.07% 126 29,447

Very Low-Income Renters 28.89% 6.47% 0.01% 604 186,372

Worst Case Needs 22.28% 6.20% 0.00% 100 35,890
E-21

Table 11A. Fort Worth MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

Fort Worth MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 62.10% 2.83% 0.23% 3,707 856,236

Occupancy Status

 Renter-occupied 50.72% 2.21% 0.59% 1,265 294,966

 Owner-occupied 70.52% 2.83% 0.00% 2,053 491,024

 Vacant Unit 50.30% 6.75% 0.48% 369 63,448

 Seasonal Unit 38.31% 0.00% 0.00% 20 6,798

Monthly Housing Cost (Median=989)

 Above Median (in sample) 72.36% 2.98% 0.38% 1,660 413,894

 Below Median (in sample) 52.87% 2.17% 0.04% 1,658 372,096

Housing Price (Median=124500)

 Above Median (in sample) 73.60% 2.98% 0.00% 1,113 265,892

 Below Median (in sample) 66.16% 3.06% 0.00% 1,113 256,683

Building Size

 1 Unit 69.22% 3.18% 0.26% 2,821 651,405

 2-3 Units 47.65% 1.39% 0.00% 78 16,637

 4-49 Units 37.91% 1.42% 0.08% 773 175,642

 50+ Units 40.18% 5.10% 0.95% 35 12,552

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 63.67% 2.84% 0.24% 3,525 815,362

 Mobile home 28.22% 2.61% 0.00% 163 38,746

 Other 68.66% 0.00% 0.00% 19 2,128

Building Age

 Built before 1920 13.51% 0.00% 0.00% 18 2,591

 1920s 28.30% 0.00% 0.00% 27 5,413

 1930s 27.26% 0.00% 0.00% 102 18,232

 1940s 62.06% 11.11% 0.00% 178 34,463

 1950s 50.28% 0.80% 0.00% 274 55,108

 1960s 61.93% 4.88% 0.14% 368 95,027

 1970s 67.91% 3.89% 0.00% 586 147,960

 1980s 59.73% 2.77% 0.92% 879 206,798

 1990s 66.49% 0.92% 0.00% 506 113,293

 2000 or after 66.01% 1.51% 0.00% 769 177,351

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 59.72% 2.83% 0.39% 1,692 479,235

 Suburbs 65.09% 2.82% 0.04% 2,015 377,001

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 74.11% 9.45% 1.22% 586 131,050

 Any Resident < 18 65.06% 1.80% 0.00% 1,231 289,061

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 58.29% 0.81% 0.04% 1,553 375,723
E-22

Table 11A. Fort Worth MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features (continued) 

Fort Worth MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Household Composition

 Elderly, Living Alone 68.31% 13.63% 2.57% 263 61,183

 Other 62.76% 1.67% 0.02% 3,055 724,807

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 68.60% 3.37% 0.36% 1,948 467,684

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 52.77% 1.46% 0.00% 470 106,291

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 44.08% 0.91% 0.00% 124 28,326

 Hispanic of Any Race 59.43% 1.57% 0.00% 734 170,841

Immigration Status of Householder

 Native, US Citizen 64.58% 3.05% 0.26% 2,721 656,780

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 53.78% 0.71% 0.00% 240 57,383

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 58.16% 0.05% 0.00% 357 71,827

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 52.77% 2.31% 0.00% 566 122,112

 High School Graduate 53.42% 0.94% 0.08% 728 163,926

 Some College, No Bachelor's 65.40% 3.55% 0.59% 1,067 266,393

 Bachelor's and Above 72.82% 2.81% 0.00% 957 233,559

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 53.30% 3.06% 0.06% 1,014 228,978

 Low Income 64.47% 4.67% 0.10% 620 151,435

 Moderate Income 61.47% 1.54% 0.00% 566 124,709

 Higher Income 71.11% 1.59% 0.51% 1,118 280,868

 Low Income 64.38% 4.66% 0.10% 620 151,435

HUD-Assisted Households 37.26% 7.01% 0.86% 94 15,833

Very Low-Income Renters 48.79% 1.65% 0.10% 584 137,618

Worst Case Needs 39.23% 0.77% 0.00% 95 19,057
E-23

Table 11A. Indianapolis MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

Indianapolis MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 28.40% 4.08% 0.12% 3,752 764,008

Occupancy Status

 Renter-occupied 28.77% 3.40% 0.12% 1,134 227,503

 Owner-occupied 28.66% 4.80% 0.14% 2,136 439,946

 Vacant Unit 25.89% 1.69% 0.00% 458 93,470

 Seasonal Unit 28.28% 1.42% 0.00% 24 3,089

Monthly Housing Cost (Median=869)

 Above Median (in sample) 24.79% 2.74% 0.15% 1,638 330,592

 Below Median (in sample) 32.60% 5.94% 0.12% 1,632 336,857

Housing Price (Median=125000)

 Above Median (in sample) 25.06% 3.55% 0.09% 1,209 243,535

 Below Median (in sample) 32.87% 5.79% 0.18% 1,171 239,717

Building Size

 1 Unit 27.80% 3.78% 0.13% 2,855 573,188

 2-3 Units 28.52% 3.99% 0.00% 100 22,877

 4-49 Units 28.56% 2.81% 0.11% 716 149,702

 50+ Units 47.21% 26.98% 0.12% 81 18,241

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 28.88% 4.11% 0.13% 3,648 745,179

 Mobile home 9.08% 2.41% 0.00% 91 17,730

 Other 19.46% 9.88% 0.00% 13 1,099

Building Age

 Built before 1920 15.22% 1.91% 0.00% 233 47,535

 1920s 28.25% 0.61% 0.00% 130 24,010

 1930s 15.07% 2.75% 0.00% 112 24,525

 1940s 20.06% 0.00% 0.00% 205 40,870

 1950s 34.34% 1.93% 0.00% 346 67,895

 1960s 28.32% 2.02% 0.01% 509 103,783

 1970s 33.70% 4.43% 0.23% 530 120,389

 1980s 30.65% 5.88% 0.25% 401 96,138

 1990s 31.22% 5.11% 0.17% 595 112,830

 2000 or after 25.62% 7.00% 0.17% 691 126,033

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 25.58% 3.03% 0.08% 1,919 373,608

 Suburbs 31.00% 5.03% 0.16% 1,833 390,400

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 42.01% 12.08% 0.38% 679 134,297

 Any Resident < 18 20.17% 1.20% 0.00% 1,124 222,709

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 29.35% 3.36% 0.12% 1,494 314,562
E-24

Table 11A. Indianapolis MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

(continued) 

Indianapolis MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Household Composition 41.82% 12.04% 0.38% 679 134,297

 Elderly, Living Alone 48.23% 14.94% 0.33% 323 60,898

 Other 26.73% 3.28% 0.12% 2,947 606,551

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 29.33% 5.13% 0.17% 2,478 505,506

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 26.99% 2.47% 0.00% 484 90,580

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 18.19% 1.75% 0.09% 60 12,172

 Hispanic of Any Race 27.92% 0.00% 0.00% 199 48,768

Immigration Status of Householder

 Native, US Citizen 29.09% 4.61% 0.15% 3,022 607,709

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 22.53% 3.45% 0.00% 91 17,222

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 25.46% 0.30% 0.03% 157 42,518

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 33.17% 7.18% 0.25% 433 91,831

 High School Graduate 28.79% 4.06% 0.10% 819 160,879

 Some College, No Bachelor's 31.43% 5.15% 0.25% 993 206,239

 Bachelor's and Above 23.99% 2.52% 0.00% 1,025 208,500

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 29.77% 6.96% 0.30% 949 192,309

 Low Income 31.18% 4.77% 0.00% 560 112,162

 Moderate Income 35.86% 4.18% 0.20% 587 118,390

 Higher Income 23.34% 2.19% 0.04% 1,174 244,588

 Low Income 30.67% 4.70% 0.00% 560 112,162

HUD-Assisted Households 24.94% 8.84% 1.30% 112 16,040

Very Low-Income Renters 27.04% 5.18% 0.17% 561 108,114

Worst Case Needs 22.82% 0.71% 0.00% 75 14,095
E-25

Table 15. Kansas City MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

Kansas City MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 27.17% 4.61% 0.26% 3,753 891,839

Occupancy Status

 Renter-occupied 27.50% 6.19% 0.18% 1,116 274,418

 Owner-occupied 27.58% 3.79% 0.35% 2,147 507,334

 Vacant Unit 23.51% 4.49% 0.00% 440 104,681

 Seasonal Unit 26.49% 2.80% 0.00% 50 5,406

Monthly Housing Cost (Median=940)

 Above Median (in sample) 26.29% 4.31% 0.00% 1,633 399,038

 Below Median (in sample) 28.89% 4.97% 0.60% 1,630 382,714

Housing Price (Median=135000)

 Above Median (in sample) 26.71% 3.83% 0.65% 1,236 271,517

 Below Median (in sample) 29.18% 3.75% 0.00% 1,149 285,130

Building Size

 1 Unit 26.46% 3.22% 0.27% 2,941 682,855

 2-3 Units 27.76% 1.48% 0.00% 125 32,019

 4-49 Units 25.35% 6.39% 0.12% 572 154,774

 50+ Units 61.78% 40.56% 1.51% 115 22,191

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 27.43% 4.63% 0.25% 3,620 864,947

 Mobile home 9.20% 1.80% 0.99% 78 18,000

 Other 50.35% 11.08% 0.00% 55 8,892

Building Age

 Built before 1920 13.25% 0.57% 0.00% 180 38,644

 1920s 14.21% 0.61% 0.00% 140 27,538

 1930s 20.06% 1.17% 0.00% 135 46,185

 1940s 29.85% 2.31% 0.00% 208 46,297

 1950s 35.74% 3.77% 0.00% 429 114,953

 1960s 27.55% 3.82% 0.00% 463 115,754

 1970s 26.48% 5.59% 0.08% 634 174,892

 1980s 26.96% 6.88% 0.00% 493 120,069

 1990s 23.51% 6.01% 0.16% 550 101,020

 2000 or after 31.70% 5.17% 1.80% 521 106,487

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 19.92% 3.41% 0.53% 1,050 350,486

 Suburbs 31.65% 5.34% 0.10% 2,703 541,353

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 37.43% 12.87% 1.15% 773 186,318

 Any Resident < 18 21.41% 0.90% 0.00% 1,059 248,990

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 26.56% 2.92% 0.04% 1,475 359,560
E-26

Table 11A. Kansas City MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

(continued) 

Kansas City MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Household Composition

 Elderly, Living Alone 38.76% 15.82% 2.05% 393 105,497

 Other 25.80% 2.94% 0.02% 2,870 676,255

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 30.05% 5.52% 0.37% 2,536 578,073

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 22.09% 2.77% 0.00% 406 112,679

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 5.90% 0.61% 0.00% 71 22,606

 Hispanic of Any Race 19.75% 1.21% 0.28% 191 49,648

Immigration Status of Householder

 Native, US Citizen 28.80% 4.97% 0.30% 3,040 718,336

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 11.05% 0.54% 0.00% 93 25,539

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 14.63% 0.83% 0.37% 130 37,877

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 28.69% 5.08% 0.39% 338 78,614

 High School Graduate 27.07% 5.94% 0.18% 821 195,020

 Some College, No Bachelor's 31.30% 6.15% 0.65% 1,004 247,718

 Bachelor's and Above 24.03% 2.10% 0.00% 1,100 260,400

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 31.00% 6.67% 0.80% 1,052 270,395

 Low Income 23.75% 4.18% 0.11% 580 148,386

 Moderate Income 26.17% 1.68% 0.00% 580 127,692

 Higher Income 26.84% 4.27% 0.00% 1,051 235,279

 Low Income 23.70% 4.17% 0.11% 580 148,386

HUD-Assisted Households 40.23% 18.85% 0.81% 179 37,990

Very Low-Income Renters 31.28% 8.68% 0.33% 606 153,422

Worst Case Needs 20.27% 2.75% 0.82% 74 24,074
E-27

Table 11A. Los Angeles MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

Los Angeles MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 36.79% 2.85% 0.07% 3,708 3,456,256

Occupancy Status

 Renter-occupied 33.59% 2.98% 0.07% 1,988 1,737,332

 Owner-occupied 40.63% 2.71% 0.07% 1,438 1,491,991

 Vacant Unit 31.80% 1.84% 0.00% 259 209,513

 Seasonal Unit 56.49% 10.67% 0.00% 23 17,420

Monthly Housing Cost (Median=1243)

 Above Median (in sample) 38.93% 2.53% 0.00% 1,715 1,708,429

 Below Median (in sample) 34.59% 3.23% 0.15% 1,711 1,520,894

Housing Price (Median=400000)

 Above Median (in sample) 40.18% 2.37% 0.00% 792 812,647

 Below Median (in sample) 41.40% 2.96% 0.13% 776 784,952

Building Size

 1 Unit 42.58% 2.64% 0.05% 2,031 2,008,606

 2-3 Units 27.54% 0.58% 0.00% 188 169,372

 4-49 Units 24.67% 1.77% 0.02% 1,160 1,009,209

 50+ Units 42.53% 10.86% 0.48% 329 269,069

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 37.02% 2.90% 0.07% 3,645 3,395,643

 Mobile home 24.47% 0.00% 0.00% 53 51,774

 Other 13.86% 0.00% 0.00% 10 8,839

Building Age

 Built before 1920 21.60% 2.96% 0.00% 83 75,800

 1920s 26.24% 2.94% 0.00% 261 241,487

 1930s 27.25% 1.88% 0.00% 223 203,383

 1940s 39.13% 2.51% 0.00% 428 403,114

 1950s 43.79% 2.80% 0.13% 793 767,826

 1960s 39.91% 2.52% 0.00% 580 539,861

 1970s 34.39% 2.67% 0.00% 601 556,481

 1980s 33.19% 3.88% 0.34% 368 329,694

 1990s 32.75% 2.15% 0.09% 193 168,195

 2000 or after 40.33% 5.22% 0.00% 178 170,415

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 33.03% 3.51% 0.07% 2,009 1,821,349

 Suburbs 40.78% 2.16% 0.06% 1,699 1,634,907

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 41.96% 5.89% 0.31% 823 752,021

 Any Resident < 18 37.38% 1.66% 0.00% 1,185 1,117,704

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 34.50% 2.10% 0.00% 1,506 1,448,938
E-28

Table 11A. Los Angeles MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

(continued) 

Los Angeles MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Household Composition 41.35% 5.84% 0.30% 823 752,021

 Elderly, Living Alone 44.30% 11.33% 0.06% 350 291,944

 Other 36.21% 2.03% 0.07% 3,076 2,937,379

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 35.85% 3.93% 0.00% 1,190 1,156,888

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 35.46% 3.55% 0.05% 331 297,690

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 32.59% 3.14% 0.24% 505 461,211

 Hispanic of Any Race 39.95% 1.70% 0.08% 1,346 1,262,424

Immigration Status of Householder

 Native, US Citizen 36.98% 3.07% 0.06% 1,882 1,818,374

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 37.35% 3.06% 0.15% 832 762,693

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 36.35% 1.94% 0.00% 712 648,256

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 41.12% 2.83% 0.03% 745 661,109

 High School Graduate 37.02% 2.85% 0.18% 641 589,393

 Some College, No Bachelor's 35.20% 3.52% 0.00% 871 827,532

 Bachelor's and Above 35.83% 2.38% 0.09% 1,169 1,151,289

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 38.64% 3.85% 0.09% 1,610 1,429,463

 Low Income 37.56% 3.15% 0.00% 537 525,978

 Moderate Income 32.01% 2.14% 0.00% 157 153,736

 Higher Income 36.03% 1.81% 0.09% 1,169 1,166,909

 Low Income 36.62% 3.09% 0.00% 537 525,978

HUD-Assisted Households 33.63% 7.63% 0.11% 297 147,495

Very Low-Income Renters 35.00% 3.57% 0.13% 1,187 984,875

Worst Case Needs 36.44% 2.96% 0.00% 202 190,831
E-29

Table 11A. Memphis MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

Memphis MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 46.86% 2.31% 0.17% 3,621 552,267

Occupancy Status

 Renter-occupied 37.01% 2.60% 0.31% 1,104 178,253

 Owner-occupied 55.51% 2.35% 0.12% 2,009 293,912

 Vacant Unit 36.74% 0.99% 0.00% 487 78,510

 Seasonal Unit 29.02% 4.84% 0.00% 21 1,592

Monthly Housing Cost (Median=898)

 Above Median (in sample) 57.74% 2.38% 0.14% 1,557 220,406

 Below Median (in sample) 40.27% 2.51% 0.24% 1,556 251,759

Housing Price (Median=120000)

 Above Median (in sample) 57.81% 3.06% 0.09% 1,154 134,520

 Below Median (in sample) 52.16% 1.83% 0.14% 1,101 193,464

Building Size

 1 Unit 51.70% 2.27% 0.12% 2,856 419,722

 2-3 Units 31.53% 3.25% 0.62% 102 14,636

 4-49 Units 30.59% 1.45% 0.00% 589 100,546

 50+ Units 35.36% 8.37% 2.50% 74 17,363

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 48.26% 2.35% 0.18% 3,470 523,902

 Mobile home 17.36% 1.87% 0.00% 105 22,449

 Other 35.56% 0.00% 0.00% 46 5,916

Building Age

 Built before 1920 18.92% 2.03% 2.03% 44 5,830

 1920s 8.08% 0.00% 0.00% 75 11,096

 1930s 27.77% 1.98% 0.00% 70 14,465

 1940s 22.67% 0.00% 0.00% 181 30,883

 1950s 45.45% 1.45% 0.00% 380 63,754

 1960s 47.64% 1.63% 0.28% 490 73,167

 1970s 42.74% 1.44% 0.07% 687 132,288

 1980s 52.42% 2.29% 0.25% 518 81,777

 1990s 55.05% 5.18% 0.29% 607 67,414

 2000 or after 63.55% 3.84% 0.17% 569 71,593

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 38.87% 1.38% 0.22% 1,682 296,156

 Suburbs 56.02% 3.31% 0.12% 1,939 256,111

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 47.34% 4.26% 0.32% 690 117,300

 Any Resident < 18 53.19% 1.53% 0.07% 1,094 159,635

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 45.44% 2.08% 0.21% 1,389 205,023
E-30

Table 11A. Memphis MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features (continued) 

Memphis MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Household Composition 46.05% 4.26% 0.32% 690 117,300

 Elderly, Living Alone 42.75% 4.17% 0.58% 338 64,666

 Other 49.37% 2.19% 0.13% 2,775 407,499

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 52.99% 3.00% 0.09% 1,508 204,193

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 44.43% 2.11% 0.31% 1,381 228,927

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 67.50% 1.88% 0.00% 44 5,973

 Hispanic of Any Race 44.25% 0.80% 0.00% 128 25,157

Immigration Status of Householder

 Native, US Citizen 48.72% 2.49% 0.21% 2,962 443,912

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 49.53% 4.10% 0.00% 54 9,319

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 42.38% 0.54% 0.00% 97 18,934

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 40.35% 2.51% 0.35% 570 90,538

 High School Graduate 47.53% 1.75% 0.32% 717 112,543

 Some College, No Bachelor's 51.55% 2.46% 0.08% 977 148,038

 Bachelor's and Above 51.80% 3.05% 0.09% 849 121,046

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 39.77% 2.54% 0.33% 1,071 183,806

 Low Income 47.99% 2.27% 0.24% 479 82,571

 Moderate Income 53.77% 1.37% 0.00% 470 74,185

 Higher Income 57.76% 3.10% 0.08% 1,095 131,799

 Low Income 47.92% 2.27% 0.24% 479 82,571

HUD-Assisted Households 47.15% 6.70% 1.83% 158 26,035

Very Low-Income Renters 34.59% 2.69% 0.49% 606 97,080

Worst Case Needs 25.94% 1.07% 0.00% 120 19,771
E-31

Table 11A. Milwaukee MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

Milwaukee MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 22.94% 5.12% 0.12% 3,984 673,979

Occupancy Status

 Renter-occupied 26.60% 8.28% 0.28% 1,548 231,197

 Owner-occupied 21.24% 3.53% 0.02% 2,088 392,029

 Vacant Unit 17.92% 2.43% 0.28% 317 47,939

 Seasonal Unit 34.56% 3.23% 0.00% 31 2,814

Monthly Housing Cost (Median=867.5)

 Above Median (in sample) 18.80% 4.30% 0.06% 1,818 312,192

 Below Median (in sample) 27.73% 6.29% 0.18% 1,818 311,034

Housing Price (Median=179000)

 Above Median (in sample) 21.91% 3.73% 0.04% 1,136 191,443

 Below Median (in sample) 20.65% 3.20% 0.00% 1,133 227,729

Building Size

 1 Unit 19.74% 2.97% 0.02% 2,237 401,518

 2-3 Units 11.26% 2.55% 0.28% 615 101,601

 4-49 Units 30.88% 8.68% 0.00% 921 134,309

 50+ Units 62.39% 23.02% 1.35% 211 36,551

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 23.04% 5.14% 0.13% 3,928 666,582

 Mobile home 12.37% 0.00% 0.00% 17 4,406

 Other 14.59% 10.56% 0.00% 39 2,991

Building Age

 Built before 1920 9.43% 1.38% 0.00% 477 79,710

 1920s 14.54% 3.50% 0.00% 316 55,608

 1930s 17.36% 1.58% 0.00% 254 39,776

 1940s 18.59% 3.11% 0.00% 241 54,334

 1950s 29.57% 4.66% 0.00% 622 104,893

 1960s 20.38% 1.66% 0.00% 499 103,730

 1970s 24.78% 3.77% 0.10% 552 99,342

 1980s 25.51% 12.55% 0.00% 274 46,207

 1990s 33.00% 11.69% 0.62% 433 57,260

 2000 or after 41.19% 16.58% 1.08% 316 33,119

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 19.15% 3.90% 0.13% 1,705 314,947

 Suburbs 26.13% 6.12% 0.12% 2,279 359,032

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 34.93% 10.66% 0.33% 816 162,945

 Any Resident < 18 15.41% 2.37% 0.00% 1,157 191,209

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 21.75% 4.01% 0.07% 1,696 275,045
E-32

Table 11A. Milwaukee MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features (continued) 

Milwaukee MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Household Composition

 Elderly, Living Alone 36.04% 13.17% 0.54% 445 88,244

 Other 21.13% 4.02% 0.05% 3,191 534,982

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 23.18% 4.89% 0.12% 2,649 454,223

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 24.68% 9.55% 0.21% 593 102,943

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 29.28% 1.52% 0.00% 73 14,438

 Hispanic of Any Race 20.50% 2.01% 0.00% 268 41,782

Immigration Status of Householder

 Native, US Citizen 23.13% 5.31% 0.13% 3,383 581,901

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 16.50% 7.30% 0.00% 113 21,176

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 32.87% 2.37% 0.00% 140 20,149

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 24.09% 6.16% 0.01% 457 82,740

 High School Graduate 25.69% 5.60% 0.27% 894 169,325

 Some College, No Bachelor's 22.45% 5.05% 0.05% 1,116 180,424

 Bachelor's and Above 21.38% 4.84% 0.09% 1,169 190,737

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 26.19% 7.83% 0.27% 1,303 213,011

 Low Income 26.13% 5.05% 0.00% 675 115,891

 Moderate Income 21.18% 3.17% 0.00% 585 99,966

 Higher Income 19.32% 3.79% 0.09% 1,073 194,358

 Low Income 25.93% 5.02% 0.00% 675 115,891

HUD-Assisted Households 48.90% 17.72% 1.17% 198 31,713

Very Low-Income Renters 26.43% 10.22% 0.43% 878 129,061

Worst Case Needs 8.57% 2.41% 0.42% 149 24,536
E-33

Table 11A. New Orleans MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

New Orleans MSA: All Housing 

Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 45.33% 3.16% 0.15% 3,670 545,543

Occupancy Status

 Renter-occupied 35.59% 2.73% 0.06% 1,153 171,034

 Owner-occupied 53.66% 3.88% 0.09% 1,905 288,990

 Vacant Unit 34.47% 0.96% 0.69% 561 79,281

 Seasonal Unit 45.40% 1.17% 0.00% 51 6,238

Monthly Housing Cost (Median=867)

 Above Median (in sample) 47.68% 2.92% 0.09% 1,530 220,948

 Below Median (in sample) 46.38% 3.95% 0.08% 1,528 239,076

Housing Price (Median=150000)

 Above Median (in sample) 50.01% 3.66% 0.06% 1,206 183,591

 Below Median (in sample) 52.87% 3.63% 0.13% 1,041 144,898

Building Size

 1 Unit 51.41% 3.49% 0.10% 2,633 391,575

 2-3 Units 23.51% 0.92% 0.00% 380 55,039

 4-49 Units 31.01% 0.62% 0.00% 549 79,841

 50+ Units 39.59% 12.53% 2.08% 108 19,088

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 46.61% 3.23% 0.15% 3,541 527,478

 Mobile home 7.61% 0.89% 0.00% 121 17,617

 Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 8 448

Building Age

 Built before 1920 9.77% 0.88% 0.00% 259 38,022

 1920s 4.33% 0.77% 0.00% 144 26,090

 1930s 16.49% 1.27% 0.00% 104 14,611

 1940s 21.94% 1.10% 0.00% 228 27,514

 1950s 48.27% 1.65% 0.00% 397 66,467

 1960s 57.38% 4.96% 0.24% 604 97,161

 1970s 54.96% 3.96% 0.21% 863 123,841

 1980s 58.54% 2.50% 0.15% 429 66,933

 1990s 51.39% 4.84% 0.34% 242 29,497

 2000 or after 43.09% 4.08% 0.17% 400 55,407

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 27.83% 1.59% 0.25% 1,348 199,747

 Suburbs 55.25% 4.04% 0.09% 2,322 345,796

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 55.45% 9.55% 0.31% 733 120,632

 Any Resident < 18 49.77% 1.46% 0.00% 940 150,642

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 40.20% 1.22% 0.00% 1,438 199,518
E-34

Table 11A. New Orleans MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

(continued) 

New Orleans MSA: All Housing 

Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Household Composition

 Elderly, Living Alone 49.16% 6.17% 0.16% 370 61,663

 Other 46.68% 3.02% 0.07% 2,688 398,361

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 47.91% 4.73% 0.08% 1,709 259,147

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 44.90% 1.88% 0.11% 993 157,147

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 51.97% 0.00% 0.00% 69 8,923

 Hispanic of Any Race 46.77% 1.64% 0.00% 237 29,667

Immigration Status of Householder

 Native, US Citizen 46.85% 3.66% 0.09% 2,811 428,302

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 63.02% 1.11% 0.00% 135 17,906

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 31.00% 0.00% 0.00% 112 13,816

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 45.53% 2.12% 0.00% 505 76,633

 High School Graduate 51.60% 6.21% 0.15% 801 128,938

 Some College, No Bachelor's 48.59% 2.39% 0.00% 904 135,553

 Bachelor's and Above 41.18% 2.50% 0.15% 848 118,900

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 43.06% 2.87% 0.06% 1,091 157,202

 Low Income 47.58% 3.16% 0.11% 547 81,741

 Moderate Income 45.72% 2.28% 0.14% 480 75,149

 Higher Income 51.49% 4.83% 0.05% 940 145,932

 Low Income 47.43% 3.15% 0.11% 547 81,741

HUD-Assisted Households 51.15% 6.30% 0.00% 183 29,687

Very Low-Income Renters 38.56% 3.38% 0.11% 606 90,133

Worst Case Needs 34.54% 1.29% 0.00% 129 20,961
E-35

Table 11A. Oakland MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

Oakland MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 28.21% 2.84% 0.09% 3,655 994,472

Occupancy Status

 Renter-occupied 28.25% 2.66% 0.16% 1,425 385,262

 Owner-occupied 28.40% 3.22% 0.03% 1,917 522,076

 Vacant Unit 26.11% 1.07% 0.19% 280 80,946

 Seasonal Unit 36.09% 2.03% 0.00% 33 6,188

Monthly Housing Cost (Median=1501)

 Above Median (in sample) 26.48% 2.16% 0.13% 1,672 440,852

 Below Median (in sample) 30.13% 3.78% 0.04% 1,670 466,486

Housing Price (Median=389500)

 Above Median (in sample) 25.72% 4.24% 0.00% 1,041 274,360

 Below Median (in sample) 30.44% 2.00% 0.09% 1,041 287,694

Building Size

 1 Unit 29.94% 2.80% 0.04% 2,483 662,712

 2-3 Units 28.89% 3.94% 0.00% 226 65,466

 4-49 Units 18.03% 1.27% 0.09% 744 206,039

 50+ Units 42.78% 7.68% 0.80% 202 60,255

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 28.57% 2.87% 0.09% 3,548 972,525

 Mobile home 7.34% 0.00% 0.00% 35 13,411

 Other 20.34% 3.52% 0.00% 72 8,536

Building Age

 Built before 1920 14.21% 0.31% 0.00% 167 49,166

 1920s 18.19% 0.00% 0.00% 183 45,935

 1930s 25.56% 3.14% 0.00% 194 57,573

 1940s 26.76% 3.88% 0.00% 327 104,118

 1950s 35.04% 1.40% 0.11% 508 134,972

 1960s 32.14% 2.88% 0.00% 595 160,081

 1970s 30.94% 2.84% 0.00% 565 188,496

 1980s 26.20% 1.85% 0.23% 467 126,100

 1990s 23.09% 4.03% 0.00% 340 68,068

 2000 or after 28.03% 8.97% 0.83% 309 59,963

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 17.90% 2.94% 0.12% 703 241,700

 Suburbs 31.41% 2.81% 0.08% 2,952 752,772

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 31.37% 8.15% 0.18% 854 251,638

 Any Resident < 18 30.36% 1.14% 0.00% 1,155 320,048

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 24.97% 1.19% 0.09% 1,414 355,426
E-36

Table 11A. Oakland MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features (continued) 

Oakland MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Household Composition

 Elderly, Living Alone 33.05% 10.56% 0.43% 350 103,234

 Other 27.74% 2.01% 0.04% 2,992 804,104

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 27.43% 3.44% 0.16% 1,640 459,039

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 23.47% 2.83% 0.00% 367 94,235

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 29.08% 1.91% 0.00% 648 164,775

 Hispanic of Any Race 34.50% 2.97% 0.00% 570 162,610

Immigration Status of Householder

 Native, US Citizen 26.87% 3.38% 0.12% 2,253 617,437

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 28.46% 1.68% 0.00% 679 163,377

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 35.26% 2.67% 0.00% 410 126,524

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 36.06% 2.68% 0.00% 361 93,647

 High School Graduate 28.71% 5.89% 0.10% 549 158,689

 Some College, No Bachelor's 26.75% 2.38% 0.18% 914 252,161

 Bachelor's and Above 27.40% 2.30% 0.03% 1,518 402,841

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 30.77% 4.15% 0.21% 1,068 294,590

 Low Income 26.33% 2.78% 0.14% 378 101,980

 Moderate Income 26.84% 2.74% 0.00% 698 195,770

 Higher Income 27.70% 2.15% 0.00% 1,198 314,998

 Low Income 26.10% 2.76% 0.14% 378 101,980

HUD-Assisted Households 43.43% 5.39% 0.31% 207 53,881

Very Low-Income Renters 32.32% 3.69% 0.35% 709 181,960

Worst Case Needs 20.32% 3.03% 1.16% 112 27,545
E-37

Table 11A. Phoenix MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

Phoenix MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 66.49% 8.01% 0.28% 3,513 1,822,003

Occupancy Status

 Renter-occupied 57.03% 4.78% 0.39% 1,096 553,504

 Owner-occupied 73.00% 9.58% 0.20% 1,722 970,769

 Vacant Unit 60.27% 7.07% 0.44% 539 240,767

 Seasonal Unit 70.81% 15.87% 0.00% 156 56,963

Monthly Housing Cost (Median=1000)

 Above Median (in sample) 71.98% 5.80% 0.36% 1,413 783,749

 Below Median (in sample) 62.17% 10.05% 0.18% 1,405 740,524

Housing Price (Median=150000)

 Above Median (in sample) 79.98% 8.38% 0.38% 1,132 592,467

 Below Median (in sample) 64.59% 11.54% 0.07% 1,010 563,537

Building Size

 1 Unit 72.85% 8.97% 0.16% 2,559 1,387,676

 2-3 Units 62.94% 1.93% 0.00% 71 24,642

 4-49 Units 44.79% 4.14% 0.16% 781 359,007

 50+ Units 43.68% 13.01% 5.15% 102 50,678

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 69.13% 7.96% 0.30% 3,262 1,702,024

 Mobile home 28.26% 8.48% 0.00% 213 113,188

 Other 46.07% 16.03% 0.00% 38 6,791

Building Age

 Built before 1920 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3 2,028

 1920s 50.37% 0.00% 0.00% 7 2,160

 1930s 55.87% 0.00% 0.00% 23 12,080

 1940s 55.46% 3.78% 0.00% 53 44,967

 1950s 80.77% 5.12% 0.00% 171 108,550

 1960s 72.44% 10.15% 0.00% 288 167,420

 1970s 66.27% 11.53% 0.00% 658 384,928

 1980s 60.39% 6.35% 0.10% 761 397,841

 1990s 68.05% 8.60% 0.85% 682 328,845

 2000 or after 66.53% 6.45% 0.49% 867 373,184

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 63.28% 5.75% 0.14% 1,588 1,094,320

 Suburbs 71.28% 11.43% 0.49% 1,925 727,683

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 75.44% 19.65% 0.55% 658 362,214

 Any Resident < 18 64.03% 3.82% 0.00% 979 516,488

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 65.35% 4.95% 0.31% 1,228 676,477
E-38

Table 11A. Phoenix MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features (continued) 

Phoenix MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Household Composition

 Elderly, Living Alone 68.60% 23.33% 1.73% 302 167,529

 Other 67.09% 5.96% 0.09% 2,516 1,356,744

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 71.43% 9.08% 0.34% 1,880 1,026,600

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 56.63% 3.26% 0.00% 152 78,069

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 64.92% 1.85% 0.00% 69 35,833

 Hispanic of Any Race 58.99% 6.37% 0.18% 640 343,184

Immigration Status of Householder

 Native, US Citizen 69.12% 8.22% 0.33% 2,290 1,237,599

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 68.11% 9.45% 0.00% 210 109,613

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 53.81% 4.25% 0.00% 318 177,061

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 58.90% 5.94% 0.00% 365 195,821

 High School Graduate 65.14% 9.01% 0.12% 560 286,745

 Some College, No Bachelor's 67.56% 9.22% 0.11% 996 555,073

 Bachelor's and Above 71.51% 6.36% 0.64% 897 486,634

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 59.29% 8.21% 0.15% 913 472,496

 Low Income 65.42% 11.17% 0.22% 466 260,104

 Moderate Income 65.90% 7.16% 0.12% 470 269,869

 Higher Income 76.04% 6.21% 0.47% 971 522,689

 Low Income 64.19% 10.97% 0.22% 466 260,104

HUD-Assisted Households 53.92% 9.97% 0.00% 71 31,980

Very Low-Income Renters 54.32% 4.74% 0.00% 538 275,914

Worst Case Needs 51.28% 3.25% 0.00% 103 56,577
E-39

Table 11A. Pittsburgh MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

Pittsburgh MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 24.49% 4.65% 0.08% 3,609 1,108,222

Occupancy Status

 Renter-occupied 22.08% 6.85% 0.12% 995 304,225

 Owner-occupied 25.78% 3.73% 0.00% 2,173 691,732

 Vacant Unit 17.45% 5.15% 0.82% 400 102,138

 Seasonal Unit 55.33% 0.00% 0.00% 41 10,127

Monthly Housing Cost (Median=743)

 Above Median (in sample) 24.73% 4.56% 0.03% 1,588 506,302

 Below Median (in sample) 24.59% 4.79% 0.04% 1,580 489,655

Housing Price (Median=120000)

 Above Median (in sample) 30.19% 4.60% 0.00% 1,288 410,429

 Below Median (in sample) 19.91% 2.53% 0.09% 1,184 359,147

Building Size

 1 Unit 23.84% 3.58% 0.04% 2,842 891,600

 2-3 Units 13.31% 0.27% 0.00% 238 71,455

 4-49 Units 25.52% 5.49% 0.34% 384 105,288

 50+ Units 56.89% 35.28% 0.46% 145 39,879

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 24.65% 4.77% 0.08% 3,440 1,055,521

 Mobile home 21.32% 2.78% 0.00% 119 43,912

 Other 21.46% 0.00% 0.00% 50 8,789

Building Age

 Built before 1920 9.85% 0.45% 0.00% 544 187,227

 1920s 9.82% 2.69% 0.00% 381 117,677

 1930s 11.52% 1.44% 0.00% 262 91,352

 1940s 17.54% 1.80% 0.00% 344 98,562

 1950s 49.98% 8.51% 0.00% 549 185,710

 1960s 33.91% 7.06% 0.00% 393 116,294

 1970s 23.11% 6.41% 0.00% 426 135,306

 1980s 19.44% 3.23% 0.22% 263 77,528

 1990s 30.24% 5.27% 0.88% 247 56,094

 2000 or after 35.74% 13.41% 0.44% 200 42,472

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 13.49% 2.46% 0.08% 616 200,436

 Suburbs 26.84% 5.13% 0.08% 2,993 907,786

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 32.65% 9.57% 0.12% 932 297,230

 Any Resident < 18 20.84% 2.86% 0.00% 860 276,234

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 22.07% 2.50% 0.00% 1,411 432,756
E-40

Table 11A. Pittsburgh MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features (continued) 

Pittsburgh MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Household Composition

 Elderly, Living Alone 36.76% 14.02% 0.22% 503 167,411

 Other 22.29% 2.88% 0.00% 2,665 828,546

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 25.35% 4.55% 0.04% 2,753 863,487

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 14.26% 3.29% 0.00% 281 90,328

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 36.71% 14.02% 0.00% 46 13,269

 Hispanic of Any Race 36.76% 8.27% 0.00% 61 19,500

Immigration Status of Householder

 Native, US Citizen 24.63% 4.72% 0.04% 3,045 950,554

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 17.36% 0.87% 0.00% 63 19,966

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 31.47% 5.80% 0.00% 60 25,437

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 25.66% 7.31% 0.00% 321 81,140

 High School Graduate 26.87% 7.12% 0.12% 933 302,894

 Some College, No Bachelor's 27.75% 3.24% 0.00% 904 295,769

 Bachelor's and Above 19.45% 3.00% 0.00% 1,010 316,154

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 29.67% 7.51% 0.12% 959 303,408

 Low Income 20.60% 2.82% 0.00% 539 172,321

 Moderate Income 22.85% 5.63% 0.00% 547 182,297

 Higher Income 23.33% 2.65% 0.00% 1,124 338,115

 Low Income 20.51% 2.82% 0.00% 539 172,321

HUD-Assisted Households 29.76% 16.32% 0.36% 218 52,474

Very Low-Income Renters 23.86% 8.58% 0.24% 525 156,693

Worst Case Needs 19.20% 0.98% 0.00% 66 21,959
E-41

Table 11A. Portland MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

Portland MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 28.09% 5.22% 0.09% 3,682 933,977

Occupancy Status

 Renter-occupied 32.50% 6.88% 0.04% 1,298 344,001

 Owner-occupied 24.15% 4.06% 0.06% 2,071 514,914

 Vacant Unit 37.01% 6.02% 0.74% 287 70,430

 Seasonal Unit 29.73% 5.95% 0.00% 26 4,632

Monthly Housing Cost (Median=1127)

 Above Median (in sample) 25.81% 3.15% 0.04% 1,685 404,459

 Below Median (in sample) 28.92% 7.05% 0.07% 1,684 454,456

Housing Price (Median=240000)

 Above Median (in sample) 22.74% 3.24% 0.06% 1,131 271,420

 Below Median (in sample) 26.59% 4.78% 0.06% 1,120 283,106

Building Size

 1 Unit 25.74% 4.14% 0.05% 2,667 659,176

 2-3 Units 30.90% 2.87% 0.00% 145 35,944

 4-49 Units 31.35% 6.93% 0.19% 704 200,589

 50+ Units 51.73% 18.51% 0.41% 166 38,268

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 28.66% 5.18% 0.08% 3,531 896,808

 Mobile home 12.07% 4.22% 0.00% 126 34,419

 Other 44.14% 31.75% 5.49% 25 2,750

Building Age

 Built before 1920 8.53% 0.03% 0.00% 180 37,656

 1920s 8.63% 0.41% 0.00% 159 41,291

 1930s 17.74% 6.47% 0.00% 114 47,818

 1940s 25.64% 3.97% 0.00% 236 72,343

 1950s 35.42% 4.06% 0.33% 321 91,674

 1960s 31.48% 6.90% 0.00% 355 98,848

 1970s 32.96% 4.12% 0.00% 697 176,790

 1980s 31.13% 9.46% 0.00% 372 100,238

 1990s 27.10% 5.11% 0.36% 705 145,365

 2000 or after 29.04% 6.52% 0.00% 543 121,954

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 22.23% 4.12% 0.04% 1,038 342,491

 Suburbs 31.36% 5.85% 0.12% 2,644 591,486

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 34.32% 12.74% 0.24% 746 188,830

 Any Resident < 18 27.76% 2.28% 0.00% 1,049 255,150

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 24.76% 3.54% 0.00% 1,613 425,157
E-42

Table 11A. Portland MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features (continued) 

Portland MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Household Composition

 Elderly, Living Alone 36.31% 11.91% 0.50% 366 95,394

 Other 26.35% 4.35% 0.00% 3,003 763,521

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 27.89% 5.63% 0.06% 2,783 706,041

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 24.02% 1.95% 0.00% 69 18,568

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 18.97% 4.69% 0.00% 160 39,170

 Hispanic of Any Race 26.89% 1.20% 0.00% 248 70,034

Immigration Status of Householder

 Native, US Citizen 27.63% 5.31% 0.06% 2,921 738,684

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 26.26% 5.93% 0.00% 218 50,311

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 26.23% 3.08% 0.00% 230 69,920

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 35.85% 5.97% 0.00% 273 69,763

 High School Graduate 26.26% 6.82% 0.00% 651 160,597

 Some College, No Bachelor's 28.48% 4.92% 0.10% 1,162 299,211

 Bachelor's and Above 25.27% 4.43% 0.05% 1,283 329,344

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 27.89% 7.17% 0.13% 923 237,602

 Low Income 33.49% 5.66% 0.00% 600 157,396

 Moderate Income 25.63% 4.50% 0.00% 632 161,117

 Higher Income 24.90% 3.76% 0.05% 1,214 302,800

 Low Income 33.22% 5.62% 0.00% 600 157,396

HUD-Assisted Households 36.95% 9.49% 0.00% 113 24,463

Very Low-Income Renters 32.28% 9.19% 0.10% 593 148,289

Worst Case Needs 32.00% 10.36% 0.00% 78 22,948
E-43

Table 11A. Providence MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

Providence MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 14.50% 3.48% 0.08% 3,868 583,022

Occupancy Status

 Renter-occupied 17.56% 6.29% 0.15% 1,358 212,908

 Owner-occupied 13.00% 1.92% 0.02% 2,071 308,888

 Vacant Unit 10.40% 1.82% 0.25% 339 44,843

 Seasonal Unit 13.79% 0.46% 0.00% 100 16,383

Monthly Housing Cost (Median=1022)

 Above Median (in sample) 14.84% 1.39% 0.03% 1,715 246,930

 Below Median (in sample) 14.82% 5.80% 0.11% 1,714 274,866

Housing Price (Median=225000)

 Above Median (in sample) 13.78% 1.18% 0.04% 1,193 172,970

 Below Median (in sample) 11.81% 2.42% 0.00% 1,161 179,287

Building Size

 1 Unit 14.29% 2.09% 0.00% 2,256 335,281

 2-3 Units 6.61% 0.78% 0.00% 837 121,570

 4-49 Units 12.43% 4.33% 0.47% 581 100,370

 50+ Units 64.37% 32.89% 0.04% 194 25,801

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 14.46% 3.50% 0.08% 3,820 575,112

 Mobile home 20.82% 2.16% 0.00% 36 5,846

 Other 6.55% 0.27% 0.27% 12 2,064

Building Age

 Built before 1920 7.69% 0.52% 0.00% 724 102,973

 1920s 6.58% 0.46% 0.00% 298 42,689

 1930s 5.39% 0.93% 0.00% 259 40,928

 1940s 7.82% 1.39% 0.00% 286 46,634

 1950s 18.00% 1.57% 0.00% 485 68,383

 1960s 21.46% 5.19% 0.00% 403 67,603

 1970s 19.80% 6.21% 0.17% 493 91,055

 1980s 21.35% 7.45% 0.22% 406 65,454

 1990s 16.03% 5.74% 0.44% 292 35,867

 2000 or after 14.30% 5.99% 0.00% 222 21,436

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 9.80% 2.19% 0.04% 1,021 171,458

 Suburbs 16.45% 4.02% 0.10% 2,847 411,564

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 17.83% 5.80% 0.16% 951 145,987

 Any Resident < 18 12.71% 0.71% 0.00% 967 129,050

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 14.07% 3.91% 0.06% 1,565 252,627
E-44

Table 11A. Providence MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features (continued) 

Providence MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Household Composition

 Elderly, Living Alone 18.39% 6.84% 0.33% 463 73,716

 Other 14.26% 3.16% 0.03% 2,966 448,080

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 16.08% 3.94% 0.09% 2,834 430,148

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 8.95% 5.31% 0.00% 153 25,918

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 6.18% 0.00% 0.00% 87 13,045

 Hispanic of Any Race 10.97% 1.52% 0.00% 322 44,321

Immigration Status of Householder

 Native, US Citizen 15.92% 4.11% 0.08% 2,917 447,326

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 6.67% 1.02% 0.00% 325 49,337

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 11.44% 0.83% 0.00% 187 25,133

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 17.66% 9.46% 0.17% 542 84,076

 High School Graduate 14.39% 4.01% 0.01% 921 136,291

 Some College, No Bachelor's 15.10% 2.41% 0.11% 926 144,504

 Bachelor's and Above 13.44% 1.39% 0.04% 1,040 156,925

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 17.55% 7.05% 0.16% 1,181 191,526

 Low Income 13.72% 2.42% 0.01% 581 90,557

 Moderate Income 12.77% 2.38% 0.08% 559 87,296

 Higher Income 13.31% 0.98% 0.00% 1,108 152,417

 Low Income 13.15% 2.36% 0.01% 581 90,557

HUD-Assisted Households 39.83% 22.60% 0.45% 316 37,105

Very Low-Income Renters 20.51% 8.99% 0.25% 790 119,519

Worst Case Needs 15.35% 3.41% 0.00% 89 14,003
E-45

Table 11A. Riverside MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

Riverside MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 61.54% 6.49% 0.17% 3,643 1,511,645

Occupancy Status

 Renter-occupied 54.86% 4.11% 0.15% 1,226 483,837

 Owner-occupied 65.52% 7.79% 0.14% 1,820 816,405

 Vacant Unit 61.34% 5.76% 0.29% 544 187,759

 Seasonal Unit 60.84% 12.63% 1.00% 53 23,644

Monthly Housing Cost (Median=1184)

 Above Median (in sample) 64.93% 6.98% 0.15% 1,524 699,934

 Below Median (in sample) 57.65% 5.79% 0.13% 1,522 600,308

Housing Price (Median=200000)

 Above Median (in sample) 69.98% 9.17% 0.31% 1,126 498,049

 Below Median (in sample) 61.72% 6.18% 0.00% 1,124 476,335

Building Size

 1 Unit 64.26% 6.98% 0.15% 2,951 1,239,532

 2-3 Units 69.57% 5.11% 0.69% 104 28,212

 4-49 Units 47.47% 2.80% 0.13% 499 217,365

 50+ Units 40.45% 16.44% 0.98% 89 26,536

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 64.31% 6.57% 0.18% 3,360 1,396,089

 Mobile home 27.16% 5.29% 0.00% 258 113,862

 Other 62.53% 22.29% 0.00% 25 1,694

Building Age

 Built before 1920 43.82% 0.00% 0.00% 18 10,285

 1920s 34.19% 0.00% 0.00% 26 18,226

 1930s 50.24% 2.37% 0.00% 59 20,818

 1940s 44.11% 4.29% 0.00% 134 59,264

 1950s 65.53% 6.11% 0.00% 267 111,580

 1960s 72.84% 3.04% 0.24% 439 186,384

 1970s 61.00% 6.04% 0.06% 653 320,166

 1980s 55.68% 7.57% 0.00% 854 353,823

 1990s 70.74% 9.87% 0.33% 491 196,814

 2000 or after 60.49% 7.11% 0.52% 702 234,285

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 60.04% 4.57% 0.08% 631 310,270

 Suburbs 61.93% 7.00% 0.19% 3,012 1,201,375

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 67.11% 15.73% 0.41% 686 305,803

 Any Resident < 18 57.78% 3.69% 0.03% 1,341 567,855

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 63.48% 3.98% 0.09% 1,111 458,649
E-46

Table 11A. Riverside MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features (continued) 

Riverside MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Household Composition

 Elderly, Living Alone 65.23% 13.42% 0.28% 244 96,390

 Other 61.29% 5.89% 0.13% 2,802 1,203,852

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 65.12% 8.60% 0.20% 1,374 620,971

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 52.71% 6.19% 0.00% 227 100,203

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 44.91% 3.06% 0.00% 190 71,521

 Hispanic of Any Race 62.29% 4.32% 0.13% 1,189 484,675

Immigration Status of Householder

 Native, US Citizen 63.56% 7.51% 0.15% 2,165 946,065

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 57.24% 5.38% 0.22% 451 190,837

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 55.15% 1.31% 0.00% 430 163,340

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 60.50% 5.83% 0.09% 571 213,204

 High School Graduate 65.75% 5.65% 0.11% 727 325,635

 Some College, No Bachelor's 61.30% 6.91% 0.22% 1,097 480,156

 Bachelor's and Above 57.99% 6.97% 0.09% 651 281,247

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 55.22% 6.40% 0.27% 1,070 422,293

 Low Income 59.54% 5.73% 0.00% 566 229,205

 Moderate Income 64.54% 7.65% 0.21% 370 172,619

 Higher Income 67.09% 6.35% 0.07% 1,045 477,258

 Low Income 59.32% 5.73% 0.00% 566 229,205

HUD-Assisted Households 56.09% 17.88% 0.83% 81 22,095

Very Low-Income Renters 52.93% 4.99% 0.30% 646 241,475

Worst Case Needs 51.83% 1.84% 0.00% 109 41,266
E-47

Table 11A. Sacramento MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

Sacramento MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 50.42% 7.49% 0.36% 3,618 882,585

Occupancy Status

 Renter-occupied 46.81% 8.79% 0.29% 1,328 334,827

 Owner-occupied 53.88% 7.14% 0.43% 1,862 454,045

 Vacant Unit 45.08% 2.90% 0.22% 398 89,194

 Seasonal Unit 57.88% 10.71% 0.00% 30 4,519

Monthly Housing Cost (Median=1180.5)

 Above Median (in sample) 54.98% 6.68% 0.24% 1,595 385,944

 Below Median (in sample) 46.95% 8.98% 0.51% 1,595 402,928

Housing Price (Median=230000)

 Above Median (in sample) 53.55% 6.71% 0.51% 1,064 261,475

 Below Median (in sample) 54.00% 7.09% 0.34% 1,057 245,735

Building Size

 1 Unit 53.96% 7.44% 0.40% 2,755 666,633

 2-3 Units 50.75% 2.34% 0.00% 103 26,421

 4-49 Units 35.75% 5.08% 0.32% 648 166,527

 50+ Units 50.78% 31.40% 0.00% 112 23,004

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 51.56% 7.66% 0.37% 3,422 851,509

 Mobile home 9.75% 1.05% 0.00% 111 23,584

 Other 51.34% 8.34% 0.00% 85 7,492

Building Age

 Built before 1920 8.26% 0.00% 0.00% 39 9,473

 1920s 11.75% 3.55% 0.00% 51 14,736

 1930s 14.51% 0.68% 0.00% 73 21,315

 1940s 28.78% 1.95% 0.00% 154 36,402

 1950s 52.80% 8.10% 0.00% 324 81,298

 1960s 42.85% 7.64% 0.00% 446 124,814

 1970s 54.91% 5.49% 0.15% 710 179,020

 1980s 50.98% 7.34% 0.10% 635 159,279

 1990s 61.58% 12.95% 1.64% 510 110,662

 2000 or after 58.22% 8.73% 0.64% 676 145,586

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 41.94% 7.30% 0.05% 848 267,069

 Suburbs 54.07% 7.57% 0.50% 2,770 615,516

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 57.45% 16.29% 1.21% 797 191,709

 Any Resident < 18 52.86% 7.98% 0.18% 1,075 262,613

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 46.01% 3.47% 0.04% 1,378 350,572
E-48

Table 11A. Sacramento MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

(continued) 

Sacramento MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Household Composition

 Elderly, Living Alone 53.92% 21.87% 0.89% 333 83,222

 Other 50.56% 6.22% 0.32% 2,857 705,650

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 50.82% 7.84% 0.54% 2,045 516,075

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 52.58% 15.74% 0.28% 218 55,244

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 53.88% 6.81% 0.00% 299 64,060

 Hispanic of Any Race 46.33% 4.50% 0.00% 495 122,902

Immigration Status of Householder

 Native, US Citizen 50.14% 7.45% 0.43% 2,563 635,708

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 59.19% 11.30% 0.26% 366 87,061

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 47.42% 6.98% 0.00% 261 66,103

Education 50.18% 7.44% 0.42% 2,563 635,708

 Non-High School Graduate 52.63% 11.20% 0.00% 323 83,807

 High School Graduate 52.96% 8.26% 0.28% 611 154,023

 Some College, No Bachelor's 49.55% 6.83% 0.45% 1,178 289,539

 Bachelor's and Above 50.66% 7.66% 0.46% 1,078 261,503

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 48.16% 9.04% 0.16% 1,051 253,216

 Low Income 53.30% 9.58% 0.36% 550 130,697

 Moderate Income 44.83% 7.48% 0.60% 489 136,842

 Higher Income 55.40% 6.08% 0.46% 1,100 268,117

 Low Income 53.14% 9.57% 0.36% 550 130,697

HUD-Assisted Households 48.53% 15.13% 0.00% 105 24,610

Very Low-Income Renters 45.73% 8.81% 0.09% 679 170,406

Worst Case Needs 56.19% 7.16% 0.00% 117 28,772
E-49

Table 11A. San Diego MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

San Diego MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 43.03% 3.76% 0.10% 3,784 1,185,126

Occupancy Status

 Renter-occupied 36.36% 2.25% 0.08% 1,673 529,487

 Owner-occupied 49.71% 4.67% 0.12% 1,794 570,778

 Vacant Unit 36.98% 6.15% 0.27% 256 71,140

 Seasonal Unit 45.21% 13.77% 0.00% 61 13,721

Monthly Housing Cost (Median=1411)

 Above Median (in sample) 46.88% 3.68% 0.12% 1,738 544,678

 Below Median (in sample) 39.86% 3.33% 0.08% 1,729 555,587

Housing Price (Median=375000)

 Above Median (in sample) 52.66% 5.72% 0.21% 1,010 320,924

 Below Median (in sample) 45.60% 4.19% 0.00% 970 300,273

Building Size

 1 Unit 47.92% 4.28% 0.11% 2,420 754,310

 2-3 Units 43.33% 4.93% 0.00% 158 44,487

 4-49 Units 30.89% 1.81% 0.00% 1,009 325,954

 50+ Units 45.18% 6.83% 0.70% 197 60,375

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 44.64% 3.75% 0.11% 3,592 1,126,615

 Mobile home 7.94% 2.01% 0.00% 123 42,662

 Other 26.03% 8.68% 0.00% 69 15,849

Building Age

 Built before 1920 58.45% 0.00% 0.00% 30 14,243

 1920s 30.39% 0.00% 0.00% 35 9,999

 1930s 34.49% 1.29% 0.00% 99 34,574

 1940s 39.52% 3.90% 0.00% 193 58,323

 1950s 46.67% 1.79% 0.00% 367 125,081

 1960s 49.22% 4.48% 0.00% 560 190,869

 1970s 43.55% 4.60% 0.07% 905 303,158

 1980s 41.50% 3.09% 0.08% 826 250,307

 1990s 35.87% 4.49% 0.21% 363 103,606

 2000 or after 40.31% 4.90% 0.66% 406 94,966

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 38.40% 4.13% 0.00% 1,738 605,345

 Suburbs 47.78% 3.37% 0.21% 2,046 579,781

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 46.08% 8.10% 0.24% 827 259,391

 Any Resident < 18 43.72% 1.66% 0.00% 1,176 370,629

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 41.82% 2.53% 0.09% 1,551 496,163
E-50

Table 11A. San Diego MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features (continued) 

San Diego MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Household Composition

 Elderly, Living Alone 42.65% 10.30% 0.22% 323 100,373

 Other 43.44% 2.85% 0.09% 3,144 999,892

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 44.89% 4.39% 0.16% 2,071 655,694

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 26.91% 4.49% 0.00% 171 56,126

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 53.54% 2.06% 0.00% 313 100,858

 Hispanic of Any Race 39.50% 1.43% 0.00% 827 258,165

Immigration Status of Householder

 Native, US Citizen 43.32% 3.94% 0.13% 2,550 810,102

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 48.43% 3.25% 0.00% 507 157,745

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 37.44% 1.14% 0.00% 410 132,418

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 42.11% 3.39% 0.16% 415 140,872

 High School Graduate 42.78% 3.39% 0.10% 619 195,248

 Some College, No Bachelor's 44.93% 2.40% 0.06% 1,089 340,349

 Bachelor's and Above 42.80% 4.49% 0.11% 1,344 423,796

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 41.35% 3.24% 0.13% 1,129 368,768

 Low Income 44.98% 2.93% 0.00% 629 200,021

 Moderate Income 36.89% 2.43% 0.13% 454 147,327

 Higher Income 47.00% 4.43% 0.10% 1,261 387,782

 Low Income 44.23% 2.89% 0.00% 629 200,021

HUD-Assisted Households 36.72% 5.20% 0.00% 147 48,227

Very Low-Income Renters 39.02% 2.88% 0.09% 767 244,341

Worst Case Needs 31.65% 2.41% 0.45% 139 48,964
E-51

Table 11A. San Francisco MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

San Francisco MSA: All Housing 

Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 24.47% 3.45% 0.08% 3,621 766,435

Occupancy Status

 Renter-occupied 24.01% 3.75% 0.09% 1,780 367,948

 Owner-occupied 25.31% 3.40% 0.00% 1,563 353,987

 Vacant Unit 22.83% 1.51% 1.15% 235 35,855

 Seasonal Unit 13.15% 0.00% 0.00% 43 8,645

Monthly Housing Cost (Median=1670)

 Above Median (in sample) 23.64% 3.00% 0.00% 1,672 360,874

 Below Median (in sample) 25.86% 4.20% 0.09% 1,671 361,061

Housing Price (Median=700000)

 Above Median (in sample) 26.74% 5.14% 0.00% 916 189,445

 Below Median (in sample) 23.42% 1.28% 0.05% 812 189,024

Building Size

 1 Unit 23.91% 3.35% 0.00% 1,797 380,189

 2-3 Units 22.98% 4.03% 0.00% 419 86,946

 4-49 Units 20.50% 1.91% 0.06% 1,063 242,257

 50+ Units 54.97% 11.51% 1.21% 342 57,043

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 24.63% 3.46% 0.09% 3,530 750,768

 Mobile home 14.36% 0.00% 0.00% 15 4,150

 Other 12.50% 4.40% 0.00% 76 11,517

Building Age

 Built before 1920 11.04% 0.38% 0.00% 423 72,158

 1920s 21.59% 6.76% 0.00% 328 75,034

 1930s 6.27% 0.32% 0.00% 321 72,959

 1940s 23.49% 2.48% 0.00% 463 100,918

 1950s 31.05% 3.16% 0.00% 625 124,590

 1960s 31.10% 3.04% 0.00% 468 117,921

 1970s 19.34% 3.25% 0.00% 437 99,675

 1980s 32.38% 8.98% 0.22% 231 46,136

 1990s 41.08% 7.46% 0.86% 176 37,030

 2000 or after 36.88% 3.65% 1.01% 149 20,014

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 18.12% 3.19% 0.09% 1,809 381,571

 Suburbs 30.05% 3.67% 0.08% 1,812 384,864

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 29.30% 7.31% 0.17% 889 194,263

 Any Resident < 18 22.16% 2.60% 0.00% 876 193,433

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 23.50% 2.44% 0.00% 1,652 348,218
E-52

Table 11A. San Francisco MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

(continued) 

San Francisco MSA: All Housing 

Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Household Composition

 Elderly, Living Alone 26.47% 7.38% 0.38% 393 86,261

 Other 24.45% 3.06% 0.00% 2,950 635,674

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 26.50% 4.90% 0.00% 1,878 407,442

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 23.37% 0.00% 0.00% 137 34,498

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 19.20% 1.16% 0.19% 733 163,289

 Hispanic of Any Race 26.79% 3.48% 0.00% 489 99,546

Immigration Status of Householder

 Native, US Citizen 26.20% 4.72% 0.04% 2,129 463,318

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 21.07% 1.91% 0.08% 808 170,139

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 23.86% 0.60% 0.00% 406 88,478

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 22.76% 3.07% 0.28% 330 56,924

 High School Graduate 26.24% 1.43% 0.00% 429 80,382

 Some College, No Bachelor's 23.54% 3.36% 0.00% 697 164,372

 Bachelor's and Above 25.08% 4.10% 0.04% 1,887 420,257

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 28.24% 4.67% 0.16% 1,101 224,589

 Low Income 18.40% 0.85% 0.00% 488 106,333

 Moderate Income 24.26% 3.79% 0.00% 515 125,210

 Higher Income 25.07% 3.73% 0.00% 1,242 267,410

 Low Income 17.27% 0.82% 0.00% 488 106,333

HUD-Assisted Households 30.23% 15.00% 0.67% 167 24,153

Very Low-Income Renters 26.66% 4.28% 0.22% 789 162,528

Worst Case Needs 32.03% 6.32% 0.00% 161 41,379
E-53

Table 11A. San Jose MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

San Jose MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 32.97% 2.78% 0.07% 3,818 655,536

Occupancy Status

 Renter-occupied 32.80% 2.79% 0.10% 1,589 273,726

 Owner-occupied 32.66% 2.51% 0.06% 2,014 352,119

 Vacant Unit 39.03% 8.38% 0.00% 178 24,805

 Seasonal Unit 37.65% 0.00% 0.00% 37 4,886

Monthly Housing Cost (Median=1750)

 Above Median (in sample) 32.93% 2.58% 0.06% 1,803 322,124

 Below Median (in sample) 32.49% 2.68% 0.09% 1,800 303,721

Housing Price (Median=580000)

 Above Median (in sample) 33.62% 3.45% 0.11% 1,067 175,480

 Below Median (in sample) 32.00% 2.18% 0.00% 1,057 188,805

Building Size

 1 Unit 33.81% 2.77% 0.02% 2,556 438,258

 2-3 Units 50.42% 2.96% 0.00% 93 16,239

 4-49 Units 26.42% 1.51% 0.00% 950 158,215

 50+ Units 42.37% 8.11% 1.02% 219 42,824

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 33.87% 2.81% 0.08% 3,654 630,771

 Mobile home 2.85% 1.53% 0.00% 110 19,977

 Other 43.82% 3.99% 0.00% 54 4,788

Building Age

 Built before 1920 28.90% 1.03% 0.00% 67 10,541

 1920s 28.33% 0.00% 0.00% 44 7,777

 1930s 36.42% 2.49% 0.00% 75 10,236

 1940s 40.25% 2.23% 0.00% 210 29,739

 1950s 40.33% 4.75% 0.11% 564 96,982

 1960s 31.32% 1.02% 0.00% 781 156,224

 1970s 30.67% 2.51% 0.00% 829 142,382

 1980s 31.20% 3.36% 0.31% 507 86,284

 1990s 25.71% 2.98% 0.19% 382 55,670

 2000 or after 36.97% 4.74% 0.00% 359 59,701

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 29.80% 2.54% 0.08% 1,874 343,672

 Suburbs 36.41% 3.03% 0.07% 1,944 311,864

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 41.22% 5.44% 0.32% 880 144,376

 Any Resident < 18 30.13% 1.88% 0.04% 1,331 249,265

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 30.32% 1.67% 0.00% 1,492 245,409
E-54

Table 11A. San Jose MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features (continued) 

San Jose MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Household Composition 40.92% 5.41% 0.32% 880 144,376

 Elderly, Living Alone 41.88% 9.75% 0.53% 322 51,378

 Other 31.90% 2.00% 0.04% 3,281 574,467

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 32.31% 2.41% 0.13% 1,644 274,296

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 25.54% 0.55% 0.00% 110 16,281

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 33.81% 3.79% 0.06% 1,037 180,680

 Hispanic of Any Race 33.39% 2.00% 0.00% 730 138,218

Immigration Status of Householder

 Native, US Citizen 35.86% 2.59% 0.14% 2,010 336,365

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 31.66% 4.03% 0.00% 970 167,982

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 25.41% 0.85% 0.00% 623 121,498

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 31.28% 3.02% 0.00% 380 63,121

 High School Graduate 31.79% 3.43% 0.19% 493 96,356

 Some College, No Bachelor's 29.79% 1.32% 0.06% 850 154,557

 Bachelor's and Above 34.74% 2.94% 0.06% 1,880 311,811

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 33.72% 3.21% 0.09% 1,148 202,787

 Low Income 32.96% 1.52% 0.11% 456 79,435

 Moderate Income 32.44% 2.68% 0.09% 671 112,478

 Higher Income 31.93% 2.52% 0.04% 1,328 231,145

 Low Income 32.82% 1.51% 0.11% 456 79,435

HUD-Assisted Households 42.81% 14.72% 0.69% 106 14,610

Very Low-Income Renters 30.94% 3.26% 0.15% 722 129,929

Worst Case Needs 22.75% 1.40% 0.00% 108 20,491
E-55

Table 11A. St. Louis MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

St. Louis MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 29.99% 3.11% 0.02% 3,626 1,244,015

Occupancy Status

 Renter-occupied 26.69% 4.19% 0.00% 975 322,182

 Owner-occupied 31.48% 2.75% 0.02% 2,174 785,413

 Vacant Unit 27.39% 2.25% 0.00% 432 127,697

 Seasonal Unit 46.29% 4.75% 0.00% 45 8,723

Monthly Housing Cost (Median=882)

 Above Median (in sample) 30.92% 2.52% 0.04% 1,576 557,816

 Below Median (in sample) 29.25% 3.82% 0.00% 1,573 549,779

Housing Price (Median=144000)

 Above Median (in sample) 32.46% 3.13% 0.05% 1,226 403,802

 Below Median (in sample) 31.02% 2.39% 0.00% 1,218 452,149

Building Size

 1 Unit 31.43% 2.89% 0.02% 2,760 967,312

 2-3 Units 13.82% 0.75% 0.00% 168 61,690

 4-49 Units 26.71% 2.09% 0.00% 601 189,040

 50+ Units 37.19% 25.18% 0.00% 97 25,973

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 30.55% 3.24% 0.02% 3,485 1,192,308

 Mobile home 16.23% 0.00% 0.00% 117 48,328

 Other 27.97% 0.00% 0.00% 24 3,379

Building Age

 Built before 1920 10.25% 1.19% 0.00% 268 90,093

 1920s 17.47% 2.79% 0.00% 251 82,211

 1930s 18.01% 0.38% 0.00% 159 73,664

 1940s 30.36% 2.50% 0.00% 240 75,919

 1950s 37.68% 5.70% 0.00% 452 177,051

 1960s 39.43% 2.70% 0.00% 569 198,424

 1970s 28.99% 3.13% 0.00% 510 183,975

 1980s 35.14% 3.28% 0.00% 414 144,205

 1990s 30.84% 2.48% 0.18% 391 109,219

 2000 or after 26.55% 3.96% 0.00% 372 109,254

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 13.80% 3.52% 0.00% 613 251,615

 Suburbs 33.94% 3.01% 0.02% 3,013 992,400

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 35.99% 7.63% 0.07% 791 281,903

 Any Resident < 18 28.48% 0.93% 0.00% 945 327,947

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 28.36% 2.17% 0.00% 1,450 510,706
E-56

Table 11A. St. Louis MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features (continued) 

St. Louis MSA: All Housing Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Household Composition

 Elderly, Living Alone 34.27% 7.83% 0.14% 385 145,483

 Other 29.47% 2.47% 0.00% 2,764 962,112

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 32.03% 3.67% 0.02% 2,333 825,183

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 23.29% 1.16% 0.00% 633 225,830

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 26.31% 0.00% 0.00% 66 18,477

 Hispanic of Any Race 28.67% 5.87% 0.00% 84 28,686

Immigration Status of Householder

 Native, US Citizen 30.05% 3.11% 0.02% 3,004 1,060,314

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 34.01% 2.27% 0.00% 71 19,214

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 29.22% 6.07% 0.00% 74 28,067

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 36.34% 3.38% 0.00% 357 120,970

 High School Graduate 33.42% 4.89% 0.00% 767 270,338

 Some College, No Bachelor's 27.49% 3.14% 0.00% 1,027 369,503

 Bachelor's and Above 28.12% 1.78% 0.06% 998 346,784

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 31.21% 3.22% 0.00% 990 332,574

 Low Income 32.02% 4.19% 0.00% 539 202,637

 Moderate Income 25.37% 3.67% 0.00% 538 190,138

 Higher Income 30.46% 2.33% 0.05% 1,082 382,246

 Low Income 31.94% 4.18% 0.00% 539 202,637

HUD-Assisted Households 30.53% 9.75% 0.00% 191 48,055

Very Low-Income Renters 31.06% 5.21% 0.00% 541 165,825

Worst Case Needs 33.80% 1.10% 0.00% 64 20,300
E-57

Table 11A. Virginia Beach MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

Virginia Beach MSA: All Housing 

Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Total Sample 24.50% 2.37% 0.07% 3,755 694,021

Occupancy Status

 Renter-occupied 26.44% 3.61% 0.09% 1,256 247,231

 Owner-occupied 22.39% 1.73% 0.04% 2,040 380,976

 Vacant Unit 31.99% 1.14% 0.21% 406 61,281

 Seasonal Unit 14.27% 1.82% 0.00% 53 4,533

Monthly Housing Cost (Median=1115.5)

 Above Median (in sample) 23.23% 1.49% 0.00% 1,648 312,989

 Below Median (in sample) 24.69% 3.43% 0.11% 1,648 315,218

Housing Price (Median=220000)

 Above Median (in sample) 20.33% 2.41% 0.07% 1,153 198,848

 Below Median (in sample) 24.15% 1.04% 0.00% 1,150 219,801

Building Size

 1 Unit 22.73% 1.70% 0.03% 2,874 533,631

 2-3 Units 32.27% 1.44% 0.00% 101 14,610

 4-49 Units 32.04% 3.30% 0.18% 689 118,490

 50+ Units 22.38% 11.87% 0.38% 91 27,290

Building Type

 House, apartment, flat 24.69% 2.39% 0.07% 3,631 672,634

 Mobile home 17.78% 0.00% 0.00% 83 17,826

 Other 22.17% 10.64% 0.00% 41 3,561

Building Age

 Built before 1920 2.60% 0.00% 0.00% 97 21,420

 1920s 14.41% 0.00% 0.00% 55 14,814

 1930s 25.84% 0.42% 0.00% 89 25,018

 1940s 25.35% 1.64% 0.00% 254 46,075

 1950s 25.68% 0.89% 0.00% 393 77,751

 1960s 30.99% 3.00% 0.00% 485 87,474

 1970s 29.33% 2.85% 0.00% 598 103,971

 1980s 26.83% 3.31% 0.16% 793 157,389

 1990s 18.44% 3.39% 0.23% 580 93,525

 2000 or after 17.82% 1.22% 0.00% 411 66,584

Central City/Suburban Status

 Central Cities 24.73% 2.30% 0.02% 2,257 480,415

 Suburbs 24.01% 2.52% 0.17% 1,498 213,606

Age of Residents

 Any Resident >= 65 28.88% 6.09% 0.25% 749 142,270

 Any Resident < 18 22.21% 1.70% 0.00% 1,044 203,857

 All Residents >= 18 and < 65 22.98% 1.18% 0.00% 1,559 292,773
E-58

Table 11A. Virginia Beach MSA: Percent of All Housing Units with Critical Accessibility Features 

(continued) 

Virginia Beach MSA: All Housing 

Units

Level 1: 

Potentially 

Modifiable

Level 2: 

Livable

Level 3: 

Wheelchair 

Accessible

Sample 

Size

Weighted 

Counts

Household Composition

 Elderly, Living Alone 31.01% 7.26% 0.32% 341 67,374

 Other 23.11% 1.88% 0.03% 2,955 560,833

Race/Ethnicity

 White (Non-Hisp.) 24.97% 2.59% 0.04% 2,015 380,213

 Black (Non-Hisp.) 23.48% 2.36% 0.11% 985 199,538

 Asian (Non-Hisp.) 21.13% 1.42% 0.00% 68 13,186

 Hispanic of Any Race 15.97% 2.50% 0.00% 149 24,850

Immigration Status of Householder

 Native, US Citizen 23.99% 2.48% 0.06% 3,100 600,743

 Foreign-Born, US Citizen 17.05% 1.96% 0.00% 123 14,757

 Foreign-Born, Non-US Citizen 30.72% 2.23% 0.00% 73 12,707

Education

 Non-High School Graduate 25.48% 3.83% 0.20% 316 59,698

 High School Graduate 28.87% 3.37% 0.06% 851 165,243

 Some College, No Bachelor's 25.96% 2.89% 0.07% 1,096 207,491

 Bachelor's and Above 17.31% 0.84% 0.00% 1,033 195,775

Income Limits

 Very Low Income 27.94% 4.79% 0.21% 882 176,588

 Low Income 21.46% 3.82% 0.00% 623 108,658

 Moderate Income 24.90% 1.00% 0.00% 609 117,588

 Higher Income 21.60% 0.77% 0.00% 1,182 225,373

 Low Income 21.46% 3.82% 0.00% 623 108,658

HUD-Assisted Households 38.33% 12.36% 0.30% 200 34,773

Very Low-Income Renters 30.36% 6.68% 0.20% 534 110,197

Worst Case Needs 38.83% 11.15% 0.45% 61 24,803