Characteristics of 

HUD-Assisted Renters and 

Their Units in 2013

July 2017
Characteristics of 

HUD-Assisted Renters and 

Their Units in 2013

Prepared for

U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development

Office of Policy Development & Research

Prepared by

Frederick J. Eggers

Econometrica, Inc.

July 2017
i 

Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source of the Data....................................................................................................................... 4 

The Big Picture.............................................................................................................................. 5 

Location and Key Unit Characteristics ...................................................................................... 8 

Regional and Metropolitan Location .......................................................................................... 8 

Year Structure Built.................................................................................................................. 10 

Number of Bedrooms ................................................................................................................ 10 

Householder Characteristics...................................................................................................... 12 

Race and Ethnic Origin of Householder ................................................................................... 12 

Age of Householder .................................................................................................................. 13 

Education of Householder ........................................................................................................ 14 

Years in Same Unit................................................................................................................... 16 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References .................................................................................................................................... 48 
ii

Tables and Figures

Table 2-1: Trends in HUD-Assisted Rental Housing, Relative to Need ........................................ 6

Table 2-2: Trends in HUD-Assisted Housing by Program Type.................................................... 6

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

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

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

2013................................................................................................................................................. 9

Table 3-3: Trends in the Distribution of HUD-Assisted Households by Region and by 

Metropolitan/Nonmetropolitan Status ............................................................................................ 9

Table 3-4: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Year Built, 2013 ..................................... 10

Table 3-5: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Number of Bedrooms, 2013 ................... 11

Table 3-6: Trends in the Distribution of HUD-Assisted Households by Number of Bedrooms.. 11

Table 4-1: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Race and Ethnicity of Householder, 

2013............................................................................................................................................... 12

Table 4-2: Trends in the Distribution of HUD-Assisted Households by Race and Ethnicity of 

Householder.................................................................................................................................. 13

Table 4-3: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Age of Householder, 2013...................... 14

Table 4-4: Trends in the Distribution of HUD-Assisted Households by Age of Householder .... 14

Table 4-5: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Education Attainment of Householder by 

Race and Ethnicity, 2013 .............................................................................................................. 15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

stock has changed over the past three decades. Because separate reports are available for all 

but the 2007 effort, this Executive Summary focuses on the characteristics of the HUD-assisted 

units and households in 2013, highlighting occasionally how HUD rental assistance has 

evolved.

HUD Programs

Since 1937, HUD and its predecessor agencies have run a number of rental subsidy programs.

These programs fall into two broad categories—project-based assistance and tenant-based 

assistance. In project-based assistance, the subsidy goes to the housing unit, and households 

apply for admission to those units. Public housing is the oldest of these programs. In this report, 

we group the other project-based programs into one category, privately owned project-based. In 

tenant-based assistance, households apply for the subsidy and then search for a unit that will 

accept the subsidy. The Housing Choice Voucher program is the tenant-based assistance 

program.

In 2013, the United States had 40.2 million renter households. According to the AHS, 18.9 

million of these households qualified based on income for assistance through one of HUD’s

rental assistance programs. Combined, public housing, housing choice vouchers, and privately 

owned HUD-assisted housing served 4.5 million households, 23.8 percent of those eligible.

During the 1991-to-2013 period, the number of renter households grew from 33.3 million to 40.2 

million, an increase of 21 percent. Over the same period, the number of households eligible for 

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

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

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

During the 1991-to-2013 period, the number of HUD-assisted units increased by roughly 

400,000, but the program mix changed dramatically. The voucher program’s share grew from 

28.3 percent in 1991 to 46.8 percent in 2013. The privately owned assisted share fell from 43.3 

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

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

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

2011 before falling by 1.0 million by 2013.

Location and Unit Size

This report is interested mainly in who receives HUD assistance and in the assistance provided.

More than one-half of the 2013 assisted units are project-based units, and the percentage of 
v

project-based units was higher in previous years. Project-based units are clumps of capital in 

specific locations that last many years. Who receives assistance is dependent on where the 

programs operate and the types of units provided.

When compared with either all renter households or all renter households eligible for assistance 

(including those already assisted), HUD assistance in 2013 was more concentrated in the 

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

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

Northeast. In 2013, the West contained 28 percent of all renters and 25 percent of eligible renters 

but only 18 percent of HUD-assisted households. The shares of HUD-assisted renters in the 

Midwest and South are similar to the geographic distributions of all renter households and all 

income-eligible renter households.

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

this imbalance. Public housing authorities also administer most vouchers, the newest HUD 

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

households but still has a higher percentage in the Northeast and a lower percentage in the West.

Overall, HUD-assisted housing is more concentrated in metropolitan areas and less concentrated 

in nonmetropolitan areas than either all renter households or all income-eligible renter 

households. Within metropolitan areas, HUD-assisted housing is more concentrated in central 

cities and less concentrated in suburbs than either all renter households or all income-eligible 

renter households. The central city-suburb disparity is most pronounced in public housing, but 

the privately owned housing programs also exhibit this imbalance. Once again, the voucher 

program presents the distribution closest to that of all renter households or all income-eligible 

renter households.

Despite the growth in the voucher program, the overall distribution of HUD-assisted housing has 

changed little in the past 24 years. The percentage of assisted housing in suburbs has increased 

slightly, accompanied by a slight decrease in the percentage in central cities. The percentage 

outside of metropolitan areas has declined over time.

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

served. Overall, HUD-assisted housing has a higher percentage of one-bedroom units and a 

lower percentage of two-bedroom units than the percentage among all renter households or all 

income-eligible renter households. This disparity is sharpest among privately owned subsidized 

housing and probably results from a focus on elderly households among several of the programs 

in this category (including both older Section 202 direct loans with project-based Section 8 

assistance and newer Section 8 capital grant project built after 1990) and from the preferences of 

developers in the regular Section 8 program. Public housing displays a similar distribution of 

unit sizes but to a lesser degree. Not surprisingly, the bedroom distribution among voucher units 

closely resembles the distribution among all renters.

The combined bedroom distribution for all three HUD-assisted housing programs has definitely 

shifted over time. The percentage of units with three or four or more bedrooms increased from 

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

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

Householder and Household Characteristics

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

providing information, for example, on household size, the presence or absence of children, or 

family status. For other characteristics, such as age or race, the Census Bureau takes these 

characteristics from one individual, the householder. The householder is any responsible member 

of the household who is competent to answer questions about the household. The next few 

paragraphs start with householder characteristics and then move on to household characteristics.

The percentage of HUD-assisted units with Black householders in 2013 was 43.5 percent, 

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

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

Black householders occupied 46.8 and 46.3 percent of units, respectively. With respect to 

ethnicity, the percentage of all HUD-assisted households with Hispanic householders is smaller 

than the percentage of income-eligible households with Hispanic householders.

The percentage of households with Black householders rose sharply in 2009; the percentage of 

units with Hispanic householders rose between 1993 and 2003, reflecting in part the rising 

Hispanic share of the population.

Combined, HUD-assisted housing programs were serving households with elderly householders 

at a rate greater than their share of the population of income-eligible renter households (28.0 

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

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

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

percent). As the relative importance of the voucher program increased over time, the share of all 

HUD-assisted units with elderly householders fell relatively steadily from 35 percent in 1989 to 

28 percent in 2013.

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

assistance to be reluctant to move if moving means giving up assistance. Approximately 15 

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

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

program has the most turnover; for example, only 9.5 percent of householders have lived in their 

units more than 13 years, roughly the same as all income-eligible householders. Among all 

households, the differences in turnover across race and ethnicity are minor, but elderly 

householders and householders with a disabled person in the household display lower turnover.

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

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

White alone householders.

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

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

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

their units for 13 years or more.

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

income of all renters nationally was $30,200, based on AHS data. Households in HUD programs 

had median incomes substantially less than that of all renters. The median income of voucher 

recipients was 39.4 percent of that for all eligible renters, although the ratios were even less in 
vii

public housing (35.8 percent) and privately owned subsidized housing (34.1 percent). 

Individually, HUD programs generally serve households from the lower end of the distribution 

of renter households.

HUD-assisted households differ substantially from other households in how they obtain their 

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

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

elderly households, the percentage receiving social security income differs little between assisted 

renters and either eligible renters or all renters. However, the percentage of elderly households 

receiving income from private pensions or survivor benefits varies by assistance status. Only 

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

19.8 percent among eligible renters and 29.2 percent among all renters. The income source 

information reinforces the inference drawn from the median income ratios that HUD programs 

serve the poorer of the poor. For example, 11.6 percent of HUD-assisted households reported 

receiving welfare compared with 9.4 percent of income-eligible households and 4.0 percent of all 

renter households. In addition, 52.6 percent of HUD-assisted households reported receiving food 

stamps compared with 34.0 percent of income-eligible households and 16.7 percent of all renter 

households.

Household composition provides further evidence that HUD-assisted housing programs serve a 

clientele different from the typical renter household. In 2013, 26.5 percent of renter households 

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

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

and 11.6 percent. With the exception of the privately owned housing program, HUD-assisted 

housing serves households with children at a higher rate than their share of the population. 

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

renter households. Nearly one-half of voucher households contain children under 18. In addition, 

the percentage of households with three or more children is higher in public housing (11.6 

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

households (10.9 percent).

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

virtually no change during the past 24 years in the type of households served by all three HUD 

programs combined.

HUD-assisted housing serves households with one or more disabled members at a rate (37.8 

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

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

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

Finally, rent-to-income ratio data from the 2013 AHS clearly illustrate why housing assistance is 

needed. Among income-eligible renter households, 61 percent have excessive rent burdens; that 

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

households, a rate less than that for all renter households (39 percent). By the same rent-toincome measure, the HUD-assisted housing programs have made housing more affordable for 

clients. Nearly 60 percent of all HUD renter households have ratios less than or equal to 34 

percent compared with 22 percent for income-eligible renters.
viii

Unit Quality and Tenant Satisfaction

HUD and the Census Bureau use AHS data to construct two indices of physical problems—one 

reports the incidence of severe physical problems, and one reports the incidence of moderate 

physical problems. On the index of severe physical problems, HUD-assisted housing has a 

slightly lower incidence of problems than units occupied by all income-eligible households but a 

higher incidence than all occupied rental units. On the index of moderate physical problems, 

HUD-assisted housing has a lower incidence than either all income-eligible renters or all renters. 

Within HUD-assisted housing, public housing units have the highest incidence of both severe 

physical problem and moderate physical problems. 

When we examine specific unit deficiencies, we find that HUD-assisted units have rates of 

occurrence that are similar to those among all eligible renters but slightly higher in general than 

among all renters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

households in public housing report the highest incidence. However, voucher recipients report 

the highest incidence of problems with fuses and circuit breakers.

The AHS asks respondents to rate their structures and neighborhoods on a scale from 1 to 10, 

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

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

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

subsidized units. The worst rating of 1 was also more common among HUD-assisted households, 

but the differences in percentages are small. Public housing tenants had the highest percentage of 

1 ratings.

Although assisted households overall were more likely to rate their neighborhoods a 10 than 

either income-eligible renters or all renters, public housing households were the least likely of all 

groups to do so, and 4.6 percent of public housing tenants gave their neighborhoods the worst 

rating.

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

HUD-assisted units were more likely to rate the HUD-assisted unit as better and less likely to 

rate the HUD-assisted unit as worse than their previous unit. When asked to compare their 

current neighborhood with their previous neighborhood, recent mover respondents in HUDassisted units were more likely to rate their current neighborhoods as better than their previous 

neighborhoods.
1

1. Introduction

This report is the sixth in a series of reports providing information on the size, composition, and 

quality of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-assisted housing 

stock and the characteristics of its occupants (Casey, 1992, 1997; McGough, 1997; HUD, 

2008).

1 These reports are intended for the use of policymakers, analysts, and proponents of 

housing assistance for low-income households. HUD obtains this information by identifying 

assisted households that are also surveyed in the biennial national American Housing Survey 

(AHS).

The 2013 data reported here represent assisted households and units in all 50 states and the 

District of Columbia but exclude households and units in Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin 

Islands, which are not included in the AHS. The 2013 data are a statistically valid description of 

assisted households. These data are available only for the United States as a whole, with simple 

tabulations for the four census regions. Because of sample limitations, data are not available for 

states or smaller areas.

In this report, we compare HUD-assisted households with all income-eligible renters using the 

same AHS survey data set. Another series of HUD-produced reports and data sets focuses only 

on assisted households using information gleaned from administrative records. These reports and 

databases have been published under the series title Picture of Subsidized Households and are 

posted at http://www.huduser.org/datasets/assthsg.html.

HUD Rental Assistance Programs

HUD rental housing assistance for low-income families and individuals falls into three basic 

categories.

1. Conventional public housing (hereafter referred to as public housing).

2. Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (hereafter referred to as voucher).

3. Privately owned assisted housing (hereafter referred to as privately owned housing).

Public housing consists of housing developments owned by local public housing authorities 

(PHAs) or Indian housing authorities; HUD makes payments to the authorities to cover the 

development, rehabilitation, and operating costs of the housing units. Housing units in these 

developments are then rented to selected low-income families and individuals at below-market 

rents. Because the HUD payments cover the development and maintenance of the project, public 

housing is referred to as project based. The amount of rent low-income families pay is generally 

a fraction (30 percent) of their income. New tenants can select from vacant and available units 

owned and operated by the local authorities. Tenants must live in units owned by the local 

housing authority.

The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program involves selected low-income households 

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

located and approved by the local housing authority, a subsidy payment is made to the privatesector landlord on behalf of the tenant household. The program is designed so that the out-ofpocket amount that tenants pay is 30 percent of the household’s income, if the housing unit rents 

 

1 The 2011 report is being revised using improved matched data.
2

for less than the Fair Market Rent, or FMR, established by HUD for the area and household size. 

Families are given the choice of renting units that are more expensive, but tenants then pay 30 

percent of their income plus the difference between the higher rent and the payment standard. 

Because the payment is made on behalf of the tenant and the payment follows the tenant 

household if the household decides to move, the Section 8 voucher program is referred to as 

tenant-based assistance.

The third program category consists of privately owned projects containing housing units that are 

rented to low-income households at subsidized rents. HUD provides assistance to encourage the 

development of affordable housing. The following HUD programs are included in this third 

category—Rent Supplement, Section 221(d)(3) Below Market Interest Rate, Section 202 

Supportive Housing for the Elderly, Project-Based Section 8, Moderate Rehabilitation, and some 

other smaller programs. Data on tenants in privately owned housing may not be altogether 

comparable with data on public housing tenants or voucher recipients. The public housing and 

voucher programs are deeply subsidized, with nearly all tenants paying income-based tenant 

rents. Only about three-fourths of the households in privately owned housing pay income-based 

tenant rents. The other tenants pay rents that do not vary by income; the project is subsidized 

through initial financing without additional subsidy, and the rents are uniformly reduced for all 

tenants. For these units, individual household income determines only eligibility, not the amount 

by which the rent is reduced. As a consequence, about one-fourth of tenants in privately owned 

housing may pay differing proportions of their income for rent and also may differ in other 

characteristics from the other assisted tenants.

Income-eligible renters are those households that would qualify for admission to assisted 

housing because their income is within the HUD-determined income limit of 50 percent or less 

of Median Family Income for their area, adjusted for family size. In HUD terminology, these 

households are “very-low-income renters” and are eligible for assisted housing based on 

income alone.

2 Another term used in the report is “worst case households.” “Worst case 

needs”3 means renters who do not receive federal assistance, who have incomes below 

 

2 All families with incomes below 50 percent of HUD-adjusted Median Family Income generally are eligible for

housing assistance. The number of income-eligible families is a lower bound to the total number of eligible families,

because other families with higher incomes (up to 80 percent of median income) are eligible if they also meet

additional (nonincome) criteria. These additional criteria include being displaced from certain HUD-assisted

projects, having been previously assisted, being nonpurchasing tenants in certain homeownership programs, or 

meeting public housing agency-specified criteria. 3 Reports presenting estimates of worst case needs households have been submitted to Congress since 1991. HUD’s 

previous reports to Congress are Priority Problems and “Worst Case” Needs in 1989 (June 1991, HUD-1314-PDR); 

The Location of Worst Case Needs in the Late 1980s (December 1992, HUD-1387-PDR); Worst Case Needs for 

Housing Assistance in the United States in 1990 and 1991 (June 1994, HUD-1481-PDR); Rental Housing Assistance 

at a Crossroads: A Report to Congress on Worst Case Housing Needs (March 1996); Rental Housing Assistance—

The Crisis Continues (April 1998); Rental Housing Assistance—The Worsening Crisis: A Report to Congress on 

Worst Case Housing Needs (March 2000); A Report on Worst Case Housing Needs in 1999: New Opportunity Amid 

Continuing Challenges, Executive Summary (January 2001); Trends in Worst Case Needs for Housing, 1978–1999

(December 2003); Affordable Housing Needs: A Report to Congress on the Significant Need for Housing (December 

2005); Affordable Housing Needs 2005: Report to Congress (May 2007); Housing Needs of Persons With 

Disabilities: Supplemental Findings to the Affordable Housing Needs 2005 Report; Worst Case Housing Needs 

2007: A Report to Congress (May 2010); Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: A Report to Congress (February 2011); 
3

50 percent of Median Family Income in their area, as adjusted by HUD, and who pay more 

than one-half their income for rent and utilities or live in severely substandard housing.4

Readers should be aware that not all housing assistance programs are identified in this report. 

Other renter households are receiving housing assistance from U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) programs or state or local rental assistance programs. Estimates indicate that in fiscal 

year 2004, about 464,000 units were available under the Rural Housing Service (formerly known 

as the Farmers Home Administration) Section 515 Rental Assistance Program. About 264,000 of 

the available units received deep subsidies under the Section 521 Rental Assistance Program. 

The report also does not include units available for occupancy under the Department of 

Treasury’s Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program; from 1987 through 2013, 40,502 projects 

containing 2.6 million units were placed in service for low-income households (those with 

incomes less than 60 percent of local Area Median Income; HUD, 2016). Some of these tax 

credit units may also receive HUD or USDA subsidies.

Organization of the Report and Data Tables

The Bigger Picture through the Unit Quality and Tenant Satisfaction sections of the report 

contain short topical tables with accompanying commentary. These topical tables are derived 

from five detailed summary tables contained in the Detailed Summary Tables section. The 

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

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

growth of HUD-assisted housing from 1989 to 2013.

• The Location and Key Unit Characteristics section examines where HUD-assisted units are 

located, when they were built, and how many bedrooms they contain; it is based on Summary 

Table 1.

• The Householder Characteristics section and Summary Table 2 look at the characteristics of 

householders.

• The Household Characteristics section and Summary Table 3 summarize the composition 

and financial characteristics of households.

• The Unit Quality and Tenant Satisfaction section and Summary Tables 4 and 5 summarize 

the condition of units and tenants’ opinions of their units and neighborhoods.

• Detailed Summary Tables.

 

Worst Case Housing Needs 2011: Report to Congress (August 2013); Worst Case Housing Needs: 2015 Report to 

Congress (April 2015). These publications are available online at http://www.huduser.org. 4 A unit is severely substandard if it has any of five physical problems: (1) lacks complete plumbing, (2) is

uncomfortably cold for 24 hours or more in the winter due to frequent heating equipment breakdowns, (3) has no

electricity or three specified electrical problems, (4) has any five of six serious maintenance problems, and (5) the

public areas of the apartment building have four serious maintenance problems. For more detail, see “Appendix A:

Definitions and Questionnaire, American Housing Survey for the United States, Current Housing Reports H150,”

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

Office of Policy Development and Research.
4

Each topical table contains information for six categories of renter households: all HUD-assisted

households, public housing tenants, voucher recipients, tenants in privately owned subsidized 

units, all income-eligible households, and all renter households. The five detailed tables in the 

Detailed Summary Tables section contain two additional renter household categories: all 

unassisted, income-eligible renters and unassisted renters identified as having worst case needs.

Source of the Data

The national AHS collects detailed information on housing units and their occupants every 

2 years. Unfortunately, although this large sample contains many assisted units, it has been 

impossible to determine reliably, using the self-reported data of the AHS, which units are HUDassisted units. In earlier reports, HUD undertook two complementary manual matching efforts to 

overcome this difficulty. One involved a manual matching of AHS renter respondents’ addresses 

with a list of addresses HUD developed for public housing and privately owned assisted housing 

projects. In the second match, which focused on voucher recipients, Census Bureau data 

collectors compared names and addresses of AHS-sampled renters in an area with the records 

that local housing authorities kept for voucher recipients.

Since the earlier reports, HUD has developed information on basic tenant demographic and 

financial characteristics and limited data on unit characteristics from program administrative 

records. In particular, the Public and Indian Housing Information Center (PIC) provides data for 

the public housing and voucher programs, and the Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System 

(TRACS) provides data for privately owned housing. Some differences exist between data from 

program administrative systems and similar information from the AHS. PIC and TRACS were 

designed to be 100-percent reporting systems and not scientific samples; thus, when reporting 

falls substantially below 100 percent, the results will not be wholly accurate. In addition, the 

small samples available for program data from the AHS will result in variability of results. Users

should therefore make comparisons across different data systems with great caution.

For this report and the 2011 report, specialists at the Census Bureau matched records from the 

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

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

including first name, last name, date of birth, and detailed addresses (street number, street name, 

street direction/location [for example, North, South, Northwest, Southeast]), unit or apartment 

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

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

housing and privately owned subsidized units that was conducted as a part of the 2013 AHS.
5

2. The Big Picture

HUD spends approximately $40 billion a year on assisted housing (Weicher, 2012).

5 The 

matched AHS sample used in this report provides important information on how these 

expenditures affected American households in 2013. Before reviewing the data, we call the 

reader’s attention to three factors that are crucial for interpreting the data.

• Unlike Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, assisted 

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

requirements for assisted housing will receive housing assistance. Some households receive 

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

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

assisted housing programs overserve some populations and underserve others?

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

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

administer the privately owned housing programs. The motivations of these agents and where 

and when they function greatly affect how these programs operate.

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

owned, project-based housing—provide assisted housing by first producing the housing.

Housing units are clumps of capital and land that have long life spans. As a result, the 

location and type of units produced determine who will be served for years to come.

HUD and the Census Bureau have matched administrative data on assisted housing with eight

AHS surveys (1989, 1991, 1993, 2003, 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013). Including this document, 

the results of those matches have been presented in five reports (Casey, 1992, 1997; McGough, 

1997; HUD, 2008).

6

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

match and the 2013 match. During the 1991-to-2013 period, the number of renter households 

grew from 33.3 million to 40.2 million, an increase of 21 percent.7 During the same time period, 

the number of households eligible for housing assistance increased by 16 percent, although the 

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

households receiving assistance fell from 24.9 percent in 1991 to 22.5 percent in 2011, before 

rising to 23.8 percent in 2013.

The financial crisis and recession that began in 2007 caused a sharp increase in the number of 

renter households and an even sharper increase in the number of renter households with incomes 

that qualify them for housing assistance. Most of the decline in the percentage of eligible 

households receiving assistance occurred during the 2007-to-2011 period. The number of eligible 

renter households declined by approximately 1 million between 2011 and 2013, resulting in the 

observed increase in the percentage of eligible households being served (Table 2-1). 

 

5 See Table 4-4. 6 Reports on the 2009 and 2011 matches are planned for 2017.

7 The percentages reported in this and the following two sentences are based on the 1991-to-2013 period. In 1991, 

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

over count of the housing stock in the 1989 AHS of more than a million units. Adjustments to the weights in 2003 

and 2013 for subsequent censuses did not reveal any major problems in housing stock counts. 
6

Table 2-1: Trends in HUD-Assisted Rental Housing, Relative to Need

AHS Survey Year All Renters (000s) All Eligible 

Renters (000s)

All HUD-Assisted 

(000s)

Percent of Eligible 

Assisted (%)

1989 33,767 13,808 4,070 29.5

1991 33,351 16,194 4,036 24.9

1993 33,472 15,795 4,054 25.7

2003 33,604 16,576 4,280 25.8

2007 35,032 16,494 4,273 25.9

2009 35,378 18,233 4,426 24.3

2011 38,814 19,737 4,168 21.1

2013 40,202 18,856 4,490 23.8

AHS = American Housing Survey. HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

During the 1989-to-2013 period, the number of HUD-assisted units increased by roughly 

400,000 units, but program mix changed dramatically. The voucher program’s share grew from 

26 percent in 1989 to 47 percent in 2013, although the shares of public housing and privately 

owned assisted housing each declined by approximately 10 percentage points. Because of 

differences in the way these programs are structured, one could expect to see big changes in how 

HUD housing assistance affects American households during this period (Table 2-2).

Table 2-2: Trends in HUD-Assisted Housing by Program Type

AHS Survey Year All HUD-Assisted 

(000s)

Tenants in Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients (%)

Tenants in 

Privately Owned 

Housing (%)

1989 4,070 33.4 26.0 40.5

1991 4,036 28.4 28.3 43.3

1993 4,054 28.1 29.6 42.3

2003 4,280 25.6 42.1 32.4

2007 4,273 23.5 45.1 31.4

2009 4,426 22.6 46.8 30.6

2011 4,168 23.7 48.7 27.7

2013 4,490 22.9 46.8 30.2

AHS = American Housing Survey. HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Figure 2-1 explains how HUD-assisted housing fits into the overall rental housing market. In 2013, 

the U.S. housing market had 40,202,000 renter households; 18,856,000 of these households were 

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

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

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

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

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

 

8 As in previous reports, HUD provided the Census Bureau with estimates of the number of HUD-assisted units by 

program. The Census Bureau used these estimates to adjust the weights of the matched units so that the weighted 

counts matched program totals. 
7

Figure 2-1. Renters—Eligibility and Housing Assistance
8

3. Location and Key Unit Characteristics

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

of housing is provided. The factors are what agents choose to work with HUD to provide 

housing assistance, where these agents are located, and what their objectives are. For this reason, 

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

units provided. This section summarizes information found in Summary Table 1.

Regional and Metropolitan Location

When compared with either all renter households or all renter households eligible for assistance

(including those already assisted), the HUD programs as a group are more concentrated in the 

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

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

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

percent of HUD-assisted households. The share of HUD-assisted renters found in the Midwest 

and South is similar to the geographic distributions of all renter households and all incomeeligible renter households (Table 3-1).

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

Regions

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total 

Eligible 

Renters (%)

All Renters

(%) All HUDAssisted (%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned 

Housing (%)

Northeast 27.8 35.8 24.3 27.0 20.9 19.0

Midwest 21.6 19.4 19.1 27.2 20.1 18.0

South 32.9 36.4 32.8 30.4 34.3 33.7

West 17.7 8.4 23.8 15.3 24.7 28.4

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

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

this imbalance. Vouchers, the newest HUD program, are also administered mostly by PHAs. The 

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

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

imbalance is a function of the age of the programs. Communities in the Northeast created active 

PHAs in the early years of the public housing program, whereas PHAs in the West became more 

active in the years when HUD moved toward voucher assistance. During this period, the nation’s 

population also shifted toward the West. Similar patterns appear in the metropolitan/

nonmetropolitan distribution of HUD-assisted housing.

Overall, the proportion of HUD-assisted housing in metropolitan areas and nonmetropolitan 

areas matches the proportion of all renter households or all income-eligible renter households.

Within metropolitan areas, HUD-assisted housing is more concentrated in central cities and less 

concentrated in suburbs than either all renter households or all income-eligible renter 

households. The central city/suburb disparity is most pronounced in public housing, but the 

privately owned housing programs also exhibit this imbalance. Once again, the voucher program 

presents the distribution closest to that of all renter households or all income-eligible renter 

households. Table 3-2 does not include similar programs administered by USDA’s Rural 

Housing Service or Rural Development programs.
9

Table 3-2: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Metropolitan/Nonmetropolitan Status, 2013

Metropolitan/

Nonmetropolitan Areas

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total 

Eligible 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned 

Housing 

(%)

Inside metropolitan 

statistical areas 87.4 84.1 89.5 87.5 88.1 87.5

In central cities 55.2 61.8 52.4 49.5 47.2 47.8

In suburbs 32.2 22.2 37.2 37.9 40.9 39.7

Outside metropolitan 

statistical areas 12.6 16.0 10.5 12.5 11.9 12.5

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

In The Big Picture section, we called attention to the shifting importance of the voucher program 

in HUD’s overall housing assistance between 1989 and 2013. Despite the growth in the voucher 

program, the overall distribution of HUD-assisted housing has changed little in the past 24 years.

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

by a slight decrease in the percentage in central cities. The percentage outside of metropolitan 

areas has declined over time.

Of course, the distribution of all renters and eligible renters has also changed over time. The 

previously mentioned shift in the proportion of assisted housing from central city to suburbs and 

the observed decline outside of metropolitan areas followed similar changes in broader renter 

populations. Between 1989 and 2013, the proportion of assisted housing in suburbs grew from 26 

to 32 percent, although the proportion of all renter households grew from 38 to 40 percent; the 

proportion of assisted housing outside of metropolitan areas fell from 16 to 13 percent, although

the proportion of all renters fell from 16 percent to 12 percent (Table 3-3).

Table 3-3: Trends in the Distribution of HUD-Assisted Households by Region and by 

Metropolitan/Nonmetropolitan Status

All HUD-Assisted 

Renters/Location

AHS Survey Year

1989 1991 1993 2003 2007 2009 2011 2013

Northeast 28 24 27 28 28 28 28 28

Midwest 22 22 22 22 22 22 19 22

South 34 37 35 34 32 32 32 33

West 16 17 15 17 18 18 20 18

Inside metropolitan 

statistical areas 84 81 82 87 86 86 84 87

In central cities 58 53 56 54 52 52 54 55

In suburbs 26 27 26 33 34 34 30 32

Outside 

metropolitan 

statistical areas

16 19 18 13 14 14 16 13

AHS = American Housing Survey. HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Note: The tables in this document that describe trends during all eight matched data studies report 

percentages as whole percentages, whereas the tables describing characteristics of HUD programs in 

2013 report percentages to one-tenth of a percentage point. The published matched data for 1989, 1991, 

and 1993 are available only as whole percentages, so the data for subsequent years are rounded to 

whole percentages.
10

Year Structure Built

Public housing and HUD’s privately owned subsidized housing programs work by creating new 

rental units and then filling these units with eligible households. The types of units built 

determine what types of families are served. PHAs and private developers, with HUD approval, 

choose what type of units to construct or renovate, and that choice is based on their objectives 

and the needs at the time when building takes place. Decisions made at one point in time become 

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

unassisted, HUD-insured project in the suburbs outside Minneapolis and Saint Paul. The project 

was constructed in the early 1970s to accommodate all the baby boomers entering the job market 

and consisted entirely of one-bedroom units; after experiencing declining demand, the project 

was being renovated at the time of his visit to serve a family market (Table 3-4).

Table 3-4: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Year Built, 2013

Year Built

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total 

Eligible 

Renters (%)

All Renters

(%) All HUDAssisted (%)

Tenants in 

Public

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned 

Housing (%)

1949 and earlier 19.5 15.0 27.7 10.3 25.2 23.9

1950–1969 21.7 35.0 20.4 13.6 21.8 20.9

1970–1984 38.5 36.4 28.0 56.4 31.1 28.4

1985 or later 20.3 13.7 24.0 19.7 22.0 26.8

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

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

More than 70 percent of public housing units were built between 1950 and 1985 when HUD 

restructured its housing assistance programs to favor the voucher approach. The privately owned 

housing programs were most active between 1965 and 1985; 57.4 percent of these units were 

constructed between 1970 and 1984. The 9.6 percent of privately owned units reportedly built 

before 1950 results from a combination of rehabilitating older buildings for use as assisted 

housing and errors on the part of AHS respondents in identifying the year built.

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

participate, its distribution by year built closely matches the distribution of all renter households.

Number of Bedrooms

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

served. Overall, HUD-assisted housing has a higher percentage of one-bedroom units than the 

percentage among all renter households or all income-eligible renter households and a lower 

percentage of two-bedroom units. This disparity is sharpest among privately owned subsidized 

housing and probably results from a focus on elderly households among several of the programs 

in this category (including both older Section 202 direct loans with project-based Section 8 

assistance and newer Section 8 capital grant projects built after 1990) and the preferences of 

developers in the regular Section 8 program. Public housing displays a similar distribution of 

unit sizes but to a lesser degree. Not surprisingly, the bedroom distribution among voucher units 

closely resembles the distribution among all renters. The voucher program has the highest 
11

percentage of units with three or four or more bedrooms among the HUD-assisted programs,

probably reflecting the fact that vouchers can also be used to rent single-family rentals including 

townhouses or rowhouses; these percentages are actually higher than the percentage among 

income-eligible renter households (Table 3-5).

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

Number of 

Bedrooms

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total 

Eligible 

Renters (%)

All Renters

(%) All HUDAssisted (%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned 

Housing (%)

Efficiency 1.3 1.9 0.4 2.1 2.2 1.7

One 37.7 37.8 25.1 57.1 31.6 26.9

Two 33.2 33.5 37.7 25.9 39.1 39.2

Three 22.3 21.7 28.7 12.7 21.0 24.6

Four or more 5.5 5.0 8.0 2.1 6.1 7.6

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

The combined bedroom distribution for all three HUD-assisted housing programs has definitely 

shifted over time. The percentage of units with three or four or more bedrooms has increased 

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

The percent of one-bedroom units decreased slightly from 39 percent to 38 percent (Table 3-6).

Table 3-6: Trends in the Distribution of HUD-Assisted Households by Number of Bedrooms

Percent of 

Units by 

Number of 

Bedrooms

All HUD-Assisted Renters

1989 1991 1993 2003 2007 2009 2011 2013

Efficiency 5 5 4 3 3 1 2 1

One 39 40 38 38 40 37 35 38

Two 32 33 35 33 30 31 34 33

Three 20 20 19 22 22 23 24 22

Four or 

more

4 3 4 4 4 7 6 6

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

With this background on where HUD programs function and the types of units they provide, we 

will examine whom the programs serve in the Householder Characteristics and Household 

Characteristics sections. In the Unit Quality and Tenant Satisfaction section, we will discuss the 

quality of housing provided and tenant satisfaction; the Unit Quality and Tenant Satisfaction 

section will include information on the type of structure. More detailed information on location 

and other unit characteristics can be found in Summary Table 1.
12

4. Householder Characteristics

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

providing information, for example, on household size, the presence or absence of children, or 

family status. For other characteristics, such as age or race, the Census Bureau takes these 

characteristics from one individual, the householder. The householder is any responsible member 

of the household who is competent to answer questions about the household.9 In a traditional 

household with a father, a mother, and children, the householder could be either the father or 

mother. This section draws information from Summary Table 2.

Race and Ethnic Origin of Householder

The percentage of HUD-assisted units with Black householders in 2013 was 43.5 percent,

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

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

which Black householders occupied 46.8 and 46.3 percent of units, respectively. One possible 

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

subsidized units, however, have the smallest differential (36.8 versus 26.8 percent), and these 

units are also disproportionally concentrated in central cities (Table 4-1).

Table 4-1: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Race and Ethnicity of Householder, 2013

Race and Ethnic 

Origin of 

Householder

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total 

Eligible 

Renters (%)

All Renters 

(%) All HUDAssisted (%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned 

Housing (%)

White alone 48.5 46.0 46.6 53.4 64.4 70.4

Black alone 43.5 46.8 46.3 36.8 26.8 21.0

Other races alone 

or multiple races 8.0 7.2 7.2 9.9 8.8 8.7

Hispanic (of any 

race) 17.4 21.3 17.1 14.9 22.9 19.4

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

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

householders is smaller than the percentage of income-eligible households with Hispanic 

householders.

Table 4-2 traces how the racial and ethnic distribution of HUD-assisted renters has changed over 

time. Unfortunately, the results from the 1989, 1991, and 1993 surveys are not strictly 

comparable with those from the 2003, 2007, 2009, and 2013 surveys because HUD and other 

 

9 The Census Bureau defines the householder as follows: “The householder is the first household member listed on 

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

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

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

to be ... the householder. The householder is not necessarily the one answering the survey questions.”
13

federal agencies changed how they collect data on race in 2001. Prior to that year, survey

respondents were forced to choose between four racial groups or an “other” category. Starting in 

2001, respondents could choose more than one racial category. Thus, “other” in the later surveys 

consists of those who reported two or more races, and White is really White alone after 2001.

Table 4-2: Trends in the Distribution of HUD-Assisted Households by Race and Ethnicity of 

Householder

Percent of All HUDAssisted Renters by 

Race and Ethnic 

Origin of 

Householder

AHS Survey Year

1989 1991 1993 2003 2007 2009 2011 2013

White 54 61 54 54 52 48 49 49

Black 40 35 40 40 41 46 44 44

Other races 6 4 6 6 7 6 7 8

Hispanic (of any race) 10 10 10 18 15 17 18 17

AHS = American Housing Survey. HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

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

with Black householders rose sharply in 2009, long after the change in the race question. The 

percentage of units with Hispanic householders rose between 1993 and 2003, reflecting in part 

the rising Hispanic share of the population. The change in the race question did not directly 

affect the collection of data on ethnicity.

Age of Householder

Combined HUD-assisted housing programs were serving households with elderly householders 

at a rate greater than their share of the population of income-eligible renter households (28.0

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

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

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

households (16.9 percent).

The share of households with householders under 35 years old is less in all three HUD programs 

than their share of income-eligible renter households. The voucher program has a higher 

proportion of households with householders between 35 and 64 years old than the share of such 

households in the overall renter population, 58.6 compared with 48.8 percent. Only 31.1 percent 

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

The median age data highlight how the privately owned subsidized housing programs have 

concentrated on serving an elderly population. The median age in these programs is 62 years 

compared with 51 in public housing and 47 in the voucher program.

As the relative importance of the voucher program increased over time, the share of all HUDassisted units with elderly householders has fallen nearly steadily from 35 percent in 1989 to 28

percent in 2013 (Table 4-4).
14

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

Age of 

Householder

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total 

Eligible 

Renters (%)

All Renters 

(%) All HUDAssisted (%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned 

Housing (%)

Under 35 24.7 28.0 24.6 22.5 34.2 38.4

35 to 64 47.3 45.3 58.6 31.1 47.1 48.8

65 or older 28.0 26.6 16.9 46.3 18.8 12.8

Median age NA 51 47 62 NA 40

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

Notes: The tables in this document were created using the Table Creator tool available for 2013 American 

Housing Survey on the Census Bureau website. The “all assisted renters” and “total eligible renters” 

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

available for these categories.

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

All HUD-Assisted 

Renters/Age of 

Householder

AHS Survey Year

1989 1991 1993 2003 2007 2009 2011 2013

Under 35 29 31 34 29 24 27 28 25

35 to 64 36 33 34 43 48 45 47 47

65 or older 35 36 32 28 28 28 25 28

Median age (in years) 50 50 44 48 50 49 NA NA

AHS = American Housing Survey. HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. NA = 

data not available.

Education of Householder

The last two columns in Table 4-5 emphasize the link between education and income. Incomeeligible renter households are much less educated than all renter households. Among incomeeligible renter households, 27.0 percent had householders without high school degrees compared 

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

householders with education beyond the high school level compared with 52.2 percent among all 

renter households. Because of this important linkage, we present data on educational attainment 

by race and ethnicity.

The high school graduation rates are low in all three HUD programs (63.5 percent in public 

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

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

among all renter households. These results are consistent with the finding in the Household 

Characteristics section that HUD-assisted households have lower incomes than income-eligible 

renter households overall.
15

Table 4-5: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Education Attainment of Householder by Race 

and Ethnicity, 2013

Educational Attainment of 

Householder by Race and Ethnicity

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total 

Eligible 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned 

Housing 

(%)

Less than 9th grade—all households 10.5 11.9 8.4 12.7 9.5 5.8

White alone 14.1 14.1 13.5 15.0 11.5 6.7

Black alone 5.2 8.3 3.0 6.4 4.2 3.1

Other races 17.5 21.6 10.6 23.1 10.8 5.7

Hispanic 23.5 18.7 22.6 30.2 24.5 18.6

9th to 12th grade, no diploma—all 

households 22.3 24.6 21.3 22.2 17.5 11.5

White alone 20.7 20.7 21.2 19.9 17.1 11.0

Black alone 24.8 28.4 22.7 25.5 20.5 14.8

Other races 18.7 25.7 13.2 20.9 11.2 7.2

Hispanic 26.2 26.9 25.6 26.2 24.5 18.5

High school graduation (includes 

equivalency)—all households 36.8 37.8 36.1 37.2 34.5 30.5

White alone 35.9 41.1 32.4 37.2 33.5 30.0

Black alone 38.8 35.7 39.5 40.7 38.2 34.9

Other races 31.2 27.0 39.1 24.6 30.6 24.4

Hispanic 28.7 33.8 29.5 21.8 29.7 30.7

More than high school graduation—all 

households 30.3 25.7 34.1 27.9 38.5 52.2

White alone 29.2 23.8 32.9 27.9 37.9 52.4

Black alone 31.2 27.6 34.8 27.5 37.1 47.2

Other races 32.3 23.0 38.4 30.6 47.4 62.7

Hispanic 21.7 20.5 22.6 21.3 21.3 32.3

High school graduate—all households 67.1 63.5 70.2 65.1 73.0 82.7

White alone 65.2 65.0 65.3 65.1 71.3 82.4

Black alone 70.0 63.3 74.3 68.1 75.3 82.1

Other races 63.5 50.0 77.5 55.2 78.0 87.1

Hispanic 50.4 54.3 52.1 43.1 51.0 63.0

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

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

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

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

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

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

more elderly population in privately owned assisted housing. One puzzling finding is the very 
16

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

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

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

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

graduates, 77.5 percent. This discrepancy should not be given too much attention, as it is based 

on only 74 other race householders in the public housing sample.

Years in Same Unit

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

to be reluctant to move if moving means giving up assistance. Table 4-6 supports that presumption.

The bolded rows report the percentages for all householders, regardless of race, ethnicity, age, or 

disability. Householders who have lived in the unit fewer than 4 years constitute 60.7 percent of 

income-eligible renter households, compared with 45.7 percent in public housing, 49.5 percent 

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

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

13 years compared with 9.8 percent among income-eligible renter households. Both incomeeligible renters and all renters show shorter tenancies than assisted households. 

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

and Elderly and Disability Status, 2013

Years in Unit, 2013

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total 

Eligible 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned 

Housing 

(%)

0 to 3—All householders 47.0 45.7 49.5 44.1 60.7 65.6

White alone 45.1 40.0 48.5 43.2 60.8 66.0

Black alone 50.3 46.1 56.3 48.0 60.2 63.9

Other races 41.1 44.6 52.4 34.6 57.0 66.9

Hispanic 44.3 40.2 53.1 38.6 60.9 62.7

Under 65 53.5 52.0 56.7 51.9 67.1 70.0

Over 65 30.4 28.5 27.9 38.1 33.1 36.2

Without a disabled person 50.9 51.0 55.2 48.4 63.8 68.0

With a disabled person 40.5 37.0 46.7 38.6 51.5 54.4

4 to 8—All householders 28.6 26.3 28.7 30.1 21.5 19.9

White alone 28.3 22.1 30.8 30.2 21.4 19.8

Black alone 28.0 19.7 29.2 29.4 22.1 20.8

Other races 32.7 23.2 35.0 31.6 18.7 18.6

Hispanic 29.8 24.7 31.2 36.1 22.4 22.1

Under 65 28.9 27.2 30.0 30.4 20.8 19.2

Over 65 27.7 23.7 32.6 27.8 24.3 24.6

Without a disabled person 27.7 25.1 29.3 30.0 21.1 19.5

With a disabled person 29.8 27.8 32.4 30.4 22.5 21.8
17

Years in Unit, 2013

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total 

Eligible 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned 

Housing 

(%)

9 to 13—All householders 12.4 12.7 12.3 12.2 8.0 6.7

White alone 13.8 11.6 15.0 13.8 7.9 6.6

Black alone 10.3 9.5 11.5 7.8 7.7 6.7

Other races 14.8 14.3 9.8 19.5 8.7 7.1

Hispanic 10.5 12.3 11.3 8.4 7.8 7.4

Under 65 9.8 11.0 10.4 8.3 6.4 5.7

Over 65 18.9 17.9 27.9 11.4 15.0 13.7

Without a disabled person 10.7 11.1 11.7 9.8 6.9 6.0

With a disabled person 14.9 15.2 15.8 14.9 11.1 9.9

More than 13—All 

householders 12.1 15.2 9.5 13.7 9.8 7.8

White alone 12.7 26.3 5.7 12.8 9.9 7.6

Black alone 11.4 24.6 2.9 14.8 10.0 8.7

Other races 11.5 17.9 2.8 14.3 15.6 7.4

Hispanic 15.4 22.8 4.5 16.8 8.9 7.8

Under 65 7.8 9.8 2.9 9.4 5.7 5.2

Over 65 23.1 29.9 11.7 22.7 27.6 25.5

Without a disabled person 10.6 12.7 3.8 11.9 8.1 6.5

With a disabled person 14.8 20.0 5.2 16.1 14.9 13.9

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

Note: The U.S. Census Bureau does not tabulate “years in unit”; rather, it reports the year the household 

moved into the unit in 5-year blocks. For 2013, the blocks include 2000–2004, 2005–2009, and 2010–

2013. This presentation translates into 0 to 3 years, 4 to 8 years, 9 to 13 years, and more than 13 years 

categories for years in unit. Because the size of the initial category depends on the survey year, the 2013 

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

As one might expect, differences exist between the two assistance paradigms—the public housing 

and privately owned program in which the subsidy attaches to the unit and the voucher program in 

which the subsidy moves with the tenant. The voucher program has the most turnover; for 

example, only 9.5 percent of householders have lived in their units more than 13 years, roughly the 

same as all income-eligible householders. The voucher program does not match the turnover 

pattern among all renters probably because moving is expensive and voucher participants can carry 

their subsidies only to unit whose landlords will participate in the voucher program. 

The race, ethnicity, age, and disability breakouts are best understood by looking down the 

columns within each “years in unit” category. In the all renters and the income eligible columns, 

the differences across race and ethnicity are minor but elderly householders and householders 

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

tenure (0–3 years) and higher rates of long tenures (more than 13 years.).
18

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

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

White alone householders.

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

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

less in 2013 than in either 1993 or 2003; that is, fewer householders have moved within the past

3 years and more have lived in their units for 13 years or more.

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

Householder

Years in Unit All HUD-Assisted Renters

1993 (%) 2003 (%) 2013 (%)

0 to 3 53.8 53.2 47.0

4 to 8 25.6 26.2 28.6

9 to 13 11.8 10.5 12.4

More than 13 8.8 10.1 12.1

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

Notes: More detailed information on householder characteristics can be found in Summary Table 2 in the 

Detailed Summary Tables section. Years in unit are derived from year-moved-in data. For assisted units, 

year moved in is reported in decade or one-half-decade intervals. For the 1993, 2003, and 2013 surveys, 

the first of these intervals corresponds to 0–3 years in units. For the 1991 and 2001 surveys, the first of 

these intervals corresponds to 0–1 year in unit.
19

5. Household Characteristics

The Household Characteristics section describes key characteristics of HUD-assisted households, 

focusing primarily on characteristics that relate to need for housing assistance. This section 

draws on information from Summary Table 3. One should not expect significant year-to-year 

changes in the characteristics of HUD households or householders. Only new units and turnover 

among assisted units can alter the mix of households. In the 22 years covered by these studies, 

the number of assisted units has increased by only 11 percent, and the previous section showed 

that turnover is low.

Household Income

Eligibility for assisted housing is based primarily on household income. Eligibility is determined 

by comparing household income with Median Family Income in the locality; typically, a 

household is eligible if it earns less than 50 percent of the median income of families in that 

locality adjusted for family size. Within a group of lower-income households, HUD agents may 

in some circumstances look at additional criteria, such as being homeless or displaced, in 

prioritizing households for the limited number of units available at a given time.

In 2013, the median income of all renters nationally was $30,200, based on AHS data.

Households in HUD programs had median incomes substantially less than that of all renters. The 

median income of voucher recipients was 39.4 percent of that for all eligible renters, although

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

housing (34.1 percent). Individually the HUD programs are generally serving households from 

the lower end of the distribution of renter households. See Table 5-1.

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

Median 

Household 

Income

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total 

Eligible 

Renters 

All Renters All HUDAssisted 

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing

Voucher 

Recipients 

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned 

Housing 

Median 

household 

income

NA $10,800 $11,900 $10,284 NA $30,200

Percent of all 

renter 

households

NA 35.8 39.4 34.1 NA 100.0

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

Table 5-2 reveals no clear overall trend in how HUD-assisted housing programs functioned

during the 1989-to-2013 period. The ratios of the median incomes of households served by the 

public housing and voucher programs to renter median income have remained relatively flat 

during the period, with the voucher ratio being higher than the public housing ratio. The ratio of 

median income in the privately owned assisted stock to the median income of all renters declined 

steadily from 1989 to 2009. During that period, the stock of privately owned assisted housing 

decreased by approximately 300,000. The Introduction noted that some components of the 

privately owned assisted rental stock had rents that could be greater than 30 percent of tenant 
20

income. In recent years, particularly 1995 to 2005, many of these units—rent supplements, 

Section 236, and the old 202 program—left the programs, a fact that may explain the downtrend 

in the ratio of median incomes among households in the privately owned stock.

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

Group Median 

Income as Percent 

of Renter Median 

Income

AHS Survey Year

1989 1991 1993 2003 2007 2009 2011 2013

All HUD-assisted 41 39 38 39 36 37 NA NA

Tenants in public 

housing 37 36 35 37 33 32 37 36

Voucher recipients 42 39 39 40 38 42 43 39

Tenants in privately 

owned housing 43 42 40 39 37 34 37 34

AHS = American Housing Survey. HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. NA = 

data not available.

Income Sources

HUD-assisted households differ substantially from other households in how they obtain their 

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

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

Controlling for the age of the householders does not eliminate this difference, with 48.1 percent 

of assisted households with householders under 65 having wage and salary income compared 

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

renters.

Among elderly households, the percentage receiving social security income differs little between 

assisted renters and either eligible renters or all renters. However, the percentage of elderly 

households receiving income from private pensions or survivor benefits varies by assistance 

status. Only 15.5 percent of elderly assisted households receive income from these sources 

compared with 19.8 percent among eligible renters and 29.2 percent among all renters.

The income source information reinforces the inference drawn from the median income ratios 

that HUD programs serve the poorer of the poor. For example, 11.6 percent of HUD-assisted 

households reported receiving welfare compared with 9.4 percent of income-eligible households 

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

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

16.7 percent of all renter households. Controlling for the age of householders alters the observed 

percentages but not the difference between assisted renters and either all income-eligible renters 

or all renters. For example, 31.6 percent of elderly renters and 20.7 percent of nonelderly renters 

in assisted housing received supplement security income compared with 14.3 percent and 6.5 

percent respectively among all renter households (Table 5-3).
21

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

2013

Income 

Sources

HUD-Assisted Renters Total 

Eligible 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted (%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned 

Housing (%)

Wages and 

salaries 38.1 41.3 44.0 26.5 53.0 71.8

Under 65 48.8 51.7 50.1 42.9 62.2 79.0

Over 65 10.7 13.5 13.8 7.6 13.4 22.5

Social security 

income 31.4 30.4 23.4 44.7 22.9 16.3

Under 65 12.8 14.0 12.8 11.5 9.2 6.4

Over 65 79.3 75.9 75.6 83.0 82.5 83.2

Retirement or 

survivors 

pensions

6.0 5.1 4.9 8.3 5.3 5.8

Under 65 2.2 1.6 2.7 1.6 2.0 2.3

Over 65 15.5 14.6 15.2 16.1 19.8 29.2

Supplemental 

security 

income

23.7 24.0 23.4 24.0 13.3 7.5

Under 65 20.7 19.2 21.1 21.2 12.0 6.5

Over 65 31.6 36.5 34.6 27.7 18.8 14.3

Welfare 11.6 12.0 12.9 9.4 7.5 4.0

Under 65 13.7 14.8 13.7 12.5 8.3 4.1

Over 65 6.4 4.7 9.0 5.7 4.1 3.2

Food stamps 52.6 55.4 52.4 50.7 34.0 16.7

Under 65 57.5 58.7 55.1 62.0 35.8 16.5

Over 65 40.1 46.7 38.8 38.1 26.0 18.1

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

Household Composition

Household composition provides further evidence that HUD-assisted housing programs serve a 

clientele different from the typical renter household. In 2013, 26.5 percent of renter households 

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

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

9.6 and 11.6 percent.

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

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

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

households and 42 percent among all renter households.
22

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

Household 

Composition

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total 

Eligible 

Renters (%)

All Renters

(%) All HUDAssisted (%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned 

Housing (%)

Two-or-moreperson 

households

54.6 56.9 62.6 40.4 58.7 63.8

Married couple 

families, no 

nonrelatives

10.2 11.6 9.9 9.6 19.8 26.5

Other male 

householder 4.2 3.4 5.1 3.5 8.9 13.2

Other female 

householder 40.2 42.0 47.6 27.3 29.9 24.0

One-person 

households 45.4 43.1 37.4 59.6 41.3 36.2

Male 

householder 15.2 15.3 11.9 20.3 17.8 18.2

Female 

householder 30.2 27.8 25.5 39.3 23.5 18.1

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

Finally, Table 5-4 reveals some important differences across HUD programs in the households 

served. Approximately one-half of all voucher recipient households were two-or-more-person, 

female-headed households (twice the rate among all renter households), although only 27.3

percent of households in privately owned subsidized units were. In the previous section, we 

noted that the privately owned subsidized housing program served elderly households at a much 

higher rate than their share of the income-eligible renter household population.

With the exception of the privately owned housing program, HUD-assisted housing serves 

households with children at a higher rate than their share of the population. Overall 43.0 percent 

of assisted households have children compared with 35.5 percent of all renter households. Nearly

one-half of voucher households contain children under 18, although 28.2 percent of assisted 

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

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

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

Table 5-5.

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

has been virtually no change during the past 24 years in the type of households served by all 

three HUD programs combined. All the rows in Table 5-6 appear to contain only random 

movements.
23

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

Number of 

Single Children 

Under 18 Years

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total 

Eligible 

Renters (%)

All Renters 

(%) All HUDAssisted (%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned 

Housing 

(%)

None 59.9 61.5 51.5 71.8 61.9 65.6

One 15.8 17.2 17.7 11.7 14.6 15.0

Two 12.9 9.7 16.5 9.7 12.6 11.2

Three 7.6 7.2 9.6 4.7 7.0 5.4

Four 2.1 2.6 2.3 1.5 2.7 1.9

Five 1.0 1.1 1.5 0.4 0.8 0.6

Six or more 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.2

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

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

Household Composition AHS Survey Year

1989 1991 1993 2003 2007 2009 2011 2013

Two-or-more-person 

households 57 56 58 54 53 55 58 55

Married couple families, 

no nonrelatives 13 15 13 11 10 9 11 10

Other male householder 4 4 3 2 4 3 5 4

Other female householder 39 36 42 41 40 42 42 40

One-person households 43 44 42 46 47 45 42 45

Male householder 10 13 13 14 13 13 14 15

Female householder 33 32 29 32 34 33 28 30

AHS = American Housing Survey. HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Household Size and Overcrowding

The AHS data on household size highlights the differences among the HUD programs. Overall,

HUD-assisted households have a household size distribution similar to that of all income-eligible 

renter households but with slightly more smaller households. Assisted households include a higher 

percentage of one-person households (45.4 versus 41.3 percent) and a lower percentage of two-tofour-person households (45.7 versus 47.6 percent). Households with five or more persons account 

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

Taken individually, the programs have sharply different household size distributions. The 

privately owned housing program has by far the highest percentage of one-person households; 

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

the highest percentage of large (five-or-more-person) households.
24

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

Overcrowding, 2013

Household 

Size

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total 

Eligible 

Renters (%)

All Renters

(%) All HUDAssisted (%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned 

Housing (%)

One person 45.4 43.1 37.4 59.6 41.3 36.2

Two to four 

persons

45.7 48.4 50.8 35.7 47.6 53.8

Five or more 

persons

8.8 8.4 11.7 4.6 11.1 9.9

Overcrowded 2.8 2.6 3.3 2.1 5.1 4.1

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

One problem that assisted housing is intended to address is overcrowded housing conditions. For 

purposes of this report, an overcrowded house is defined as one in which more persons live in the 

households than the units have rooms. Nationally, 4.1 percent of renter households were 

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

households, where 5.1 percent were overcrowded.

HUD-assisted households experienced less overcrowding than either income-eligible households

or all renter households. Among HUD-assisted households, overcrowding was highest among 

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

(11.7 percent).

Households With a Disabled Member

Table 5-8 shows that HUD-assisted housing serves households with one or more disabled 

members at a rate (37.8 percent) substantially higher than the rate among either income-eligible 

renter households or all renter households. Income-eligible renter households were more likely 

than a typical renter household to contain a disabled member, 25.9 percent compared with 17.5 

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

households with a disabled member, 42.9 percent.

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

Households by 

Disability Status 

of Members

HUD-Assisted Renters Total 

Eligible 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned 

Housing (%)

With a disabled 

member 37.8% 38.2% 34.3% 42.9% 25.9% 17.5%

Without a disabled 

member 61.7% 61.7% 65.1% 56.4% 73.4% 81.7%

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
25

Housing Cost as Percent of Income

The primary objective of assisted housing is to make decent housing affordable for needy 

households. The traditional measure of affordability is the ratio of monthly housing costs to 

monthly household income, where housing costs include both rent and utility expenses. A ratio 

of 0.3 is generally considered acceptable, although a ratio greater than 0.4 is considered 

excessive (Eggers and Moumen, 2008).

The rent-to-income data from the 2013 AHS clearly illustrated why housing assistance is needed.

Among income-eligible renter households, 61 percent have excessive rent burdens; that is, ratios 

greater than 40 percent. Excessive rent burdens affect 36 percent of HUD-assisted households, a 

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

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

Monthly Housing Costto-Income Ratio

HUD-Assisted Renters Total 

Eligible 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned 

Housing (%)

Less than 20% 11 14 10 12 4 18

40% or more 36 30 44 30 61 37

Median rent burden NA 30 39 30 NA 33

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

Note: The bottom row in this table is the median of the individual ratios of housing cost to income, not a 

ratio of medians.

By the same rent-to-income measure, the HUD-assisted housing programs have made housing 

more affordable for their clients. Nearly 60 percent of all HUD renter households have ratios less 

than or equal to 34 percent compared with 22 percent for income-eligible renters.

10

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

unnecessary confusion. The AHS data on how HUD programs function appear to be at odds with 

program rules. Since the early 1980s, HUD has generally required tenants to contribute 30 

percent of their income toward rent and related expenses. No such uniformity exists in Table 5-9.

According to AHS data, a number of households in each of the HUD programs spend 

considerably less than 30 percent, and a number spend considerably more than 30 percent.

The reported results should not be considered surprising. For one thing, HUD rules allow for 

some variation around 30 percent. As noted previously, approximately one-quarter of households 

in privately owned subsidized housing do not pay rent based on the 30 percent of income 

requirement. Another important exception applies to the voucher program, in which recipient 

households are allowed to rent units more expensive than the payment standard if the households 

incur all the added rental costs. Finally, public housing also enables PHAs to establish minimum

rent contributions that can exceed 30 percent of income for families with very small incomes.

 

10 Derived from Table 3 in the Detailed Summary Tables section.
26

Second, one should never expect the AHS data collection process to correspond to the process by 

which HUD agents collect information on tenant incomes and set tenant rents. The HUDmandated process is more formal and detailed and is focused solely on determining program 

eligibility and setting tenant rent. HUD agents require households to present collaborating 

information on income. The AHS collects data on income and rent within an instrument that also 

gathers information on other household characteristics and unit and neighborhood characteristics.

The AHS interview may be separated by as much as a year from the income recertification 

process carried out by HUD agents. Measurement errors, misreporting, and month-to-month 

variation in both income and housing-related expenses affect both HUD agents and the AHS.

A recent HUD-funded study showed the rent-to-income ratio can vary significantly between

surveys for the same household and demonstrated how normal variation and measurement error 

might account for a large portion of the survey-to-survey variation (Eggers and Moumen, 2010).

Table 5-10 examines how the median rent-to-income ratio varied over time among various 

components of the rental housing stock. The numbers in Table 5-10 are all medians, meaning 

that one-half of the renters in that category had ratios less than or equal to the reported ratio and 

one-half had ratios greater than or equal to the reported ratio.

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

Income

Median Monthly 

Housing Cost-toIncome Ratio

AHS Survey

1989 1991 1993 2003 2007 2009 2011 2013

All HUD-assisted 30 31 29 32 34 35 NA NA

Tenants in public 

housing 30 30 29 27 30 35 30 30

Voucher recipients 32 34 32 40 39 40 39 39

Tenants in privately 

owned housing 30 31 28 32 31 30 32 30

Total incomeeligible renters 39 36 38 81 51 52 NA NA

All renters 28 27 28 30 33 34 35 33

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

Note: More detailed information on household characteristics can be found in Summary Table 3 in the 

Detailed Summary Tables section.

For all renter households as a group, the ratio of rent to income increased steadily from 1991

until 2013, when it declined slightly. Among income-eligible renters, more than one-half of the 

group began to experience excessive rent burdens of more than 40 percent sometime between 

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

a median for this group is available.11 Throughout the six periods for which comparable data are 

available, the median ratios in each of the HUD programs were substantially less than the median 

reported for all income-eligible renter households. Finally, consistent with the special voucher 

exception, the voucher program had the highest median ratio among the HUD programs in all 

eight periods.

 

11 The 81 percent median rent burdens for all eligible households in 2003 seems an anomaly.
27

6. Unit Quality and Tenant Satisfaction

The preceding two sections show that HUD-assisted housing programs serve households that, for 

the most part, have substantially lower incomes than all renter households and serve elderly 

households, female-headed households, and larger households at a rate higher than their share of 

all either income-eligible renter or all renter households. HUD-assisted households experience 

lower rent-to-income ratios than all income-eligible households. This section examines the 

quality of the housing provided in the assisted housing programs. The section presents 

information from Summary Tables 4 and 5; it also reports some information found in Summary 

Table 1.

Structure Type 

Structure type can affect quality of life, but households differ in what they consider the most 

desirable structure type. Elderly people and small renter households generally favor units in 

garden or highrise apartments that are safe and low maintenance, although households with 

children generally favor single-family units, either detached or attached (for example, 

townhouses). See Table 6-1.

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

Structure Type

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total 

Eligible 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted (%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned 

Housing 

(%)

Single-family 21.6 16.6 33.5 6.8 29.3 35.5

Detached 14.8 6.2 26.8 2.7 23.3 29.0

Attached 6.8 10.4 6.8 4.1 6.1 6.4

2 to 4 units 21.9 28.8 24.8 12.3 21.0 19.1

5 to 9 units 14.4 13.4 12.9 17.3 13.6 12.5

10 to 19 units 10.5 7.4 11.4 11.3 11.5 11.9

20 to 49 units 9.3 8.8 7.0 13.3 9.1 8.4

50 or more units 21.1 24.6 7.9 39.0 10.9 8.8

Manufactured/mobile 

home or trailer 1.2 0.5 2.4 0.0 4.6 3.9

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

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

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

lesser extent, public housing (40.8 percent). The voucher program, on the other hand, had a 

distribution of structure types that has an even higher distribution of units in housing with four or 

fewer units than the distribution of units occupied by all renter households (58.3 versus 54.5 

percent) reflecting the fact that vouchers can be used to access single family housing that rents at 

or below the voucher payment standard.
28

Equipment Failures

The AHS collects detailed information about deficiencies in individual sample units. A series of 

questions focuses on breakdowns in various housing systems. Although one should be careful 

about drawing conclusions from small differences in 1 survey year, some interesting patterns 

appear in Table 6-2.

Table 6-2: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Breakdowns in Housing Systems, 2013

Breakdowns in 

Housing Systems

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total 

Eligible 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned 

Housing 

(%)

Equipment failures in last 3 months

Water supply 

stoppage 3.6 5.2 2.6 3.9 3.6 3.6

Flush toilet—none 

working 3.9 5.9 2.7 4.2 3.6 2.9

Public sewage 

disposal 

breakdowns

1.8 1.6 2.0 1.6 1.6 1.4

Electric fuse and 

circuit breaker 

failures

6.1 6.3 6.9 4.8 7.0 7.3

Heating equipment 

breakdown last 

winter

4.0 5.0 3.7 3.8 3.2 2.7

Water leakage

Leakage from 

inside structure 10.8 12.9 11.0 9.1 9.3 9.4

Leakage from 

outside structure 6.8 6.0 8.0 5.6 7.8 7.4

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

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

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

of problems was higher for HUD-assisted units as a group than for all rental units. In three of the 

four categories (leaking water from inside the unit being the exception), the incidence of 

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

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

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

For problems with fuses and circuit breakers, the highest incidence appears among all renters and 

was smallest among renters in privately owned assisted units. For leakages from outside the 

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

privately owned assisted housing. The leakages from outside results are not surprising given the 

high percentage of voucher households living in detached single-family detached structures and 

the concentration of privately owned assisted units in large structures (see Table 6-1).
29

In general, households in privately owned subsidized units report a lower incidence of problems 

than households in other assisted programs, although households in public housing report the 

highest incidence. However, voucher recipients report the highest incidence of problems with 

fuses and circuit breakers. Differences in structure type probably account for some of the 

variation across program types. For example, privately owned assisted housing frequently serves 

elderly households in small units, although the voucher program frequently serves larger 

households in single-family structures. Single-family structures are more likely to have multiple 

bathrooms and therefore less likely to have no working toilets.

Selected Deficiencies

When we examine specific unit deficiencies, we find that HUD-assisted units have rates of 

occurrence that are similar to those among all eligible renters but slightly higher in general than 

among all renters. Except for exposed wiring, Table 6-3 of selected deficiencies shows the

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

For three of the five deficiencies, the incidence among voucher recipients and households in 

privately owned subsidized units is less than the incidence among all income-eligible renter 

households.

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

Selected 

Deficiencies

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total 

Eligible 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned 

Housing 

(%)

Signs of mice in last 

12 months 10.0 12.2 9.7 8.8 9.5 8.3

Holes in floors 1.8 2.6 1.6 1.5 2.0 1.4

Open cracks or holes 

(interior) 7.8 10.4 8.0 5.5 7.4 6.2

Broken plaster or 

peeling paint (interior) 3.8 6.5 3.0 2.9 3.4 2.6

Exposed wiring 2.1 2.0 2.3 1.8 2.5 2.0

Rooms without electric 

outlets 1.9 2.6 1.8 1.6 2.3 2.0

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

 

12 Because of the large samples, some of the differences across programs are statistically significance, for example, 

the difference between public housing and privately owned assisted housing with respect to open cracks and holes. 
30

Indices of Physical Problems

HUD and the Census Bureau use AHS data to construct two indices of physical problems—one 

reports the incidence of severe physical problems, and one reports the incidence of moderate 

physical problems.13 Over time the structure of the indices and the variables used to construct 

them have changed.14,15

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

of problems than units occupied by all income-eligible households but a higher incidence than all 

occupied rental units. On the index of moderate physical problems, HUD-assisted housing has a 

lower incidence than either all income-eligible renters or all renters. Within HUD-assisted 

housing, public housing units have the highest incidence of both severe physical problem and 

moderate physical problems (Table 6-4).

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

Physical Problems

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total 

Eligible 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned 

Housing 

(%)

Severe physical 

problems 3.5 4.1 3.3 3.3 3.6 2.9

Moderate physical 

problems 5.9 7.3 5.8 5.0 7.3 6.2

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

Because the definitions of severely inadequate and moderately inadequate have changed over

time, one cannot use the indices to see whether the adequacy of HUD-assisted housing has 

improved or worsened. However, one can use the indices to assess whether HUD-assisted 

housing has improved or worsened relative to other rental housing. Because a unit cannot be 

 

13 A unit is considered severely inadequate if any of the following criteria apply: (1) unit does not have hot and cold 

running water; (2) unit does not have a bathtub or shower; (3) unit does not have a flush toilet; (4) unit shares 

plumbing facilities; (5) unit was cold for 24 hours or more and more than two breakdowns of the heating equipment 

have occurred that lasted longer than 6 hours; (6) electricity is not used; (7) unit has exposed wiring, not every room 

has working electrical plugs, and the fuses have blown more than twice; (8) unit has five or six of the following 

structural conditions: (a) unit has had outside water leaks in the past 12 months, (b) unit has had inside water leaks 

in the past 12 months, (c) unit has holes in the floor, (d) unit has open cracks wider than a dime, (e) unit has an area 

of peeling paint larger than 8 by 11 inches, (f) rats have been seen recently in the unit. A unit is considered 

moderately inadequate room if the unit has not been identified as being severely inadequate and meets one of the 

following conditions: (1) there have been more than two breakdowns of the toilet that lasted longer than 6 hours; 

(2) the main heating equipment is unvented heaters burning kerosene, gas, or oil; or (3) the unit is lacking complete 

kitchen facilities.

14 The definition changed with the 2009 AHS. See the AHS Codebook Interactive Tool at 

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/tech-documentation/codebooks.html. 15 For a discussion of the index of severe physical problems and what deficiencies cause units to be classified as 

severely inadequate, see Eggers and Moumen (2013).
31

classified as both severely inadequate and moderately inadequate, Table 6-5 reports the 

percentage of units that are either severely inadequate or moderately inadequate for a given 

survey.

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

Severe or 

Moderate 

Physical 

Problems

AHS Survey Year

1989 1991 1993 2003 2007 2009 2011 2013

All HUD-assisted 10 10 7 8.8 9.0 9.7 10.8 9.4

Tenants in public 

housing 12 14 12 10.0 8.7 15.4 14.0 11.4

Voucher recipients 13 11 9 8.6 8.4 9.6 9.8 9.0

Tenants in 

privately owned 

housing

7 6 4 8.1 10.1 5.8 9.7 8.3

Total incomeeligible renters 16 13 10 12.2 11.3 11.0 12.0 10.9

All renters 12 11 10 10.6 9.9 9.2 9.8 9.1

AHS = American Housing Survey. HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Note: In previous tables using all eight surveys, we have not reported percentages to one-tenth of a 

percentage point because that level of precision is not available for the first three surveys. Because of the 

smallest of the percentages, we use tenths of a percentage point in this table for the surveys when that 

level of precision was available.

Prior to the change in definitions of inadequacy in 2009, the percentage of units that were either 

severely inadequate or moderately inadequate was lower among HUD-assisted units as group 

than among all rental units and markedly lower than the percentage among units occupied by all 

income-eligible renter households. In 2009, 2011, and 2013, HUD-assisted units still have a 

lower incidence of inadequacy than units occupied by income-eligible households, but their 

incidence is higher than that of all occupied rental units.

Previous research has shown that inadequacy is not a persistent characteristic (Eggers, 2013) for 

occupied units as a group, but there has been no study of the persistence of inadequacy among 

HUD-assisted households.

Tenant Satisfaction

The AHS asks respondents to rate their structure and their neighborhood on a scale from 1 to 10,

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

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

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

subsidized units. The worst rating of 1 was also more common among HUD-assisted households,

but the differences in percentages are small. Public housing tenants had the highest percentage of 

“worst” ratings (Table 6-6).
32

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

Overall Opinion

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total 

Eligible 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned 

Housing 

(%)

Structure

10 (best) 29.4 27.3 27.8 33.5 24.1 21.0

1 (worst) 1.7 2.5 1.6 1.3 1.4 0.9

Neighborhood

10 (best) 25.0 21.8 24.5 28.2 24.2 22.9

1 (worst) 3.4 4.6 2.9 3.2 2.0 1.3

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

Although assisted households overall were more likely to rate their neighborhoods a 10 than 

either income-eligible renters or all renters, public housing households were the least likely of all 

groups to do so, and 4.6 percent of public housing tenants gave their neighborhood the worst 

rating.

Recent Movers

The AHS gathers additional information on households in which the respondent has moved into 

the unit during the past year. In the Householder Characteristics section, we saw that 

householders tended to remain in assisted units much longer than householders in incomeeligible households or all renters. The same pattern holds when we look at recent movers. Recent 

mover households occupy only 22.6 percent of HUD-assisted units compared with 34.2 percent 

of all renter households (Table 6-7).

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

Recent Mover 

Households

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total 

Eligible 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted (%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned 

Housing 

(%)

Respondent moved 

during past year 22.6 22.2 24.1 20.7 32.6 34.2

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

The AHS asks a detailed series of question about why recent-mover respondents moved into the 

units. Table 6-8 discusses some key reasons given by respondents; Summary Table 5 reports all 

the reasons given.
33

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

Move, 2013

Reasons for Moving

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total 

Eligible 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned 

Housing 

(%)

Displaced 5.3 3.2 3.9 8.9 6.0 4.9

New job, closer to job, 

school, and so on

17.3 14.0 17.4 19.3 28.0 33.7

To establish own 

household

18.0 23.1 13.7 21.5 14.8 13.2

Needed larger house 

or apartment

12.5 14.0 15.1 7.4 10.8 10.5

Wanted better home 11.1 8.6 11.4 12.2 9.7 8.9

Change from owner to 

renter

0.0 0.0 0.7 1.1 0.6 1.0

Wanted lower rent or 

maintenance

10.9 12.9 11.8 8.1 6.8 6.5

Other housing-related 

reasons

8.0 8.6 7.9 7.8 6.9 6.2

Other 28.4 28.5 29.0 28.5 30.3 27.5

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

“Displaced,” the first reason listed, means the recent mover was forced to leave the previous unit 

by private action, government action, fire, natural disaster, or eviction. Between 3 and 9 percent 

of recent movers were displaced across all the groups, and the percentages were lowest among 

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

say their move result from a new job or transfer, a desire to be closer to an existing job or to a 

school, or another financial or employment reason. Among HUD-assisted households, 

respondents gave the location-related reasons at a much lower rate.

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

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

Reflecting the greater flexibility of tenant-based assistance, voucher respondents were the most 

likely to give an improved housing reason, namely “needed larger house or apartment.”

When asked to compare their current units with previous homes, recent mover respondents in 

HUD-assisted units were more likely to rate the HUD-assisted unit as better and less likely to 

rate the HUD-assisted unit as worse than their previous units (Table 6-9).
34

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

and Previous Home and Neighborhood, 2013

Comparison of 

Current and 

Previous Home and 

Neighborhood

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total 

Eligible 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned 

Housing 

(%)

Current home

Better 47.6 47.8 46.2 49.6 44.5 42.8

Worse 15.2 13.4 16.0 15.2 20.1 20.0

Current neighborhood

Better 40.5 35.5 43.4 39.3 37.3 35.2

Worse 14.5 19.9 13.9 11.9 15.2 14.8

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

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

mover respondents in HUD-assisted units were more likely to rate their current neighborhood as 

better than their previous neighborhoods. Recent movers in public housing units were more 

likely to rate their neighborhood as worse.

More detailed results on unit quality can be found in Summary Table 4 and on tenant satisfaction 

in Summary Table 5.
35

7. Detailed Summary Tables

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

households. The five tables are—

Summary Table 1: 2013 Structural Characteristics.

Summary Table 2: 2013 Householder Characteristics.

Summary Table 3: 2013 Household Characteristics.

Summary Table 4: 2013 Unit Conditions.

Summary Table 5: 2013 Tenant Opinions.

The eight columns in each table contain counts by—

1. All assisted households.

2. Public housing tenants.

3. Voucher recipients.

4. Tenants in privately owned assisted housing units.

5. Eligible (income at or below 50 percent of Area Median Income) but not subsidized 

households.

6. All income-eligible renters.

7. Total renters.

8. Worst case needs households.

Previous reports (1989, 1991, 1993, 2003, 2005, and 2009) contained special tabulation prepared 

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

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

Table Creator.

16

 

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

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

_filterGroup2=g1. 
36

Summary Table 1. 2013 Structural Characteristics

All Assisted 

Renters

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing

Voucher 

Recipients

Tenants in 

Privately Owned 

Housing

Eligible 

Unassisted 

Renters

Total Eligible 

Renters All Renters

Worst Case 

Needs 

Households

Total units 4,490 1,030 2,103 1,357 14,366 18,856 40,202 7,935

Number of units in structure

One, detached 663 64 563 36 3,722 4,385 11,666 2,053

One, attached 305 107 142 56 838 1,143 2,586 511

2 to 4 985 297 521 167 2,983 3,968 7,666 1,572

5 to 9 645 138 272 235 1,913 2,558 5,009 1,003

10 to 19 470 76 240 154 1,695 2,165 4,766 957

20 to 49 419 91 148 180 1,294 1,713 3,389 754

50 or more 949 253 167 529 1,102 2,051 3,555 681

Manufactured/mobile home or trailer 55 5 50 0 819 874 1,565 405

Year structure built

2010 to 2014 24 2 13 9 148 172 503 82

2005 to 2009 165 25 110 30 478 643 1,893 309

2000 to 2004 192 27 125 40 558 750 2,094 333

1995 to 1999 170 30 79 61 639 809 1,969 356

1990 to 1994 145 26 65 54 468 613 1,469 248

1985 to 1989 217 31 113 73 942 1,159 2,828 553

1980 to 1984 441 84 107 250 960 1,401 2,706 536

1975 to 1979 634 102 252 280 1,803 2,437 4,732 930

1970 to 1974 653 189 229 235 1,374 2,027 3,998 739

1960 to 1969 550 213 222 115 1,836 2,386 4,823 980

1950 to 1959 426 148 208 70 1,291 1,717 3,576 727

1940 to 1949 270 86 159 25 1,076 1,346 2,595 601

1930 to 1939 184 27 136 21 811 995 2,088 456

1920 to 1929 183 18 131 34 806 989 2,003 435

1919 or earlier 239 23 156 60 1,176 1,415 2,924 650

Regions

Northeast 1,247 369 511 367 2,697 3,944 7,638 1,581

New England 342 69 147 126 657 999 1,867 356

Middle Atlantic 905 300 364 241 2,040 2,945 5,771 1,225

Midwest 970 200 401 369 2,813 3,783 7,871 1,428

East North Central 687 140 279 268 1,960 2,647 5,458 1,014

West North Central 283 60 122 101 853 1,136 2,413 414

South 1,478 375 690 413 4,996 6,474 14,272 2,675

South Atlantic 729 173 338 218 2,519 3,248 7,394 1,368

East South Central 313 104 116 93 790 1,103 2,245 407

West South Central 436 98 236 102 1,687 2,123 4,633 900

West 794 87 500 207 3,861 4,655 10,421 2,252

Mountain 183 27 100 56 1,008 1,191 2,825 558

Pacific 611 60 400 151 2,853 3,464 7,596 1,694

Metropolitan/nonmetropolitan areas

Inside metropolitan statistical areas 3,925 866 1,883 1,176 12,570 16,495 35,416 7,039

In central cities 2,477 637 1,101 739 6,864 9,341 18,989 3,958
37

All Assisted 

Renters

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing

Voucher 

Recipients

Tenants in 

Privately Owned 

Housing

Eligible 

Unassisted 

Renters

Total Eligible 

Renters All Renters

Worst Case 

Needs 

Households

In suburbs 1,448 229 782 437 5,706 7,154 16,427 3,081

Outside metropolitan statistical areas 565 165 220 180 1,794 2,359 4,786 895

In micropolitan areas 376 88 164 124 1,158 1,534 3,150 581

Outside micropolitan areas 189 77 56 56 636 825 1,636 314

Number of bedrooms

None 57 20 9 28 357 414 688 222

One 1,692 389 528 775 4,275 5,967 10,832 2,350

Two 1,490 345 793 352 5,881 7,371 15,752 3,167

Three 1,001 224 604 173 2,958 3,959 9,870 1,719

Four or more 248 51 169 28 895 1,143 3,060 477

Number of complete bathrooms

None 10 4 4 2 143 153 235 125

One 3,475 912 1,400 1,163 9,821 13,296 24,509 5,223

One and one-half 487 68 275 144 1,364 1,851 4,181 779

Two or more 515 45 423 47 3,039 3,554 11,277 1,809
38

Summary Table 2. 2013 Householder Characteristics

All Assisted 

Renters

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing

Voucher 

Recipients

Tenants in 

Privately Owned 

Housing

Eligible 

Unassisted 

Renters

Total Eligible 

Renters All Renters

Worst Case 

Needs 

Households

Total households 4,490 1,030 2,103 1,357 14,366 18,856 40,202 7,935

Race and origin of householder

White alone 2,178 474 979 725 9,965 12,143 28,283 5,432

Non-Hispanic 1,510 293 671 546 6,779 8,289 21,324 3,746

Hispanic 669 181 309 179 3,187 3,856 6,959 1,686

Black alone 1,954 482 973 499 3,093 5,047 8,434 1,781

Non-Hispanic 1,883 457 939 487 2,898 4,781 7,973 1,654

Hispanic 71 25 34 12 195 266 460 127

American Indian or Alaska Native 

alone

70 16 36 18 222 292 486 117

Asian alone 158 30 53 75 716 874 2,014 412

Pacific Islander alone 8 2 4 2 76 84 188 43

Two or more races 123 26 58 39 293 416 797 150

Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 780 219 359 202 3,533 4,313 7,799 1,897

Age of householder

Under 25 years old 284 100 75 109 1,946 2,230 4,345 1,109

25 to 29 years old 382 82 175 125 1,718 2,100 5,573 873

30 to 34 years old 445 106 267 72 1,671 2,116 5,519 873

35 to 44 years old 654 120 420 114 2,545 3,199 7,858 1,435

45 to 54 years old 768 165 478 125 2,260 3,028 6,688 1,261

55 to 64 years old 700 182 335 183 1,946 2,646 5,060 1,094

65 to 74 years old 615 145 194 276 1,124 1,739 2,677 633

75 years old and over 643 129 162 352 1,156 1,799 2,483 658

Educational attainment of the 

householder

Less than 9th grade 472 123 177 172 1,320 1,792 2,342 686

9th to 12th grade, no diploma 1,002 253 448 301 2,297 3,299 4,611 1,301

High school graduate (includes 

equivalency)

1,654 389 760 505 4,852 6,506 12,269 2,601

Additional vocational training 183 43 89 51 491 674 1,373 283

Some college, no degree 797 171 415 211 2,897 3,694 7,871 1,612

Associate’s degree 277 48 168 61 976 1,253 3,290 565

Bachelor’s degree 205 34 98 73 1,521 1,726 6,675 865

Graduate or professional degree 82 12 36 34 504 586 3,144 306

Percent high school graduate or 

higher

199 64 70 65 150 349 83 75

Percent bachelor’s degree or higher 19 5 6 8 28 47 24 15

Citizenship of Householder

Citizen of the United States 4,231 970 1,993 1,268 11,953 16,184 35,193 6,712

Naturalized citizen of the United 373 64 155 154 1,099 1,472 2,878 597

Not citizen of the United States 258 60 110 88 2,413 2,671 5,010 1,223
39

All Assisted 

Renters

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing

Voucher 

Recipients

Tenants in 

Privately Owned 

Housing

Eligible 

Unassisted 

Renters

Total Eligible 

Renters All Renters

Worst Case 

Needs 

Households

Year householder moved into unit

2010 to 2014 2,109 471 1,040 598 9,329 11,438 26,378 5,288

2005 to 2009 1,283 271 604 408 2,768 4,051 8,008 1,517

2000 to 2004 555 131 259 165 954 1,509 2,684 488

1995 to 1999 232 68 84 80 498 730 1,268 271

1990 to 1994 152 34 67 51 274 426 714 147

1985 to 1989 64 20 16 28 182 246 410 68

1980 to 1984 31 9 7 15 114 145 241 47

1975 to 1979 25 2 13 10 75 100 177 29

1970 to 1974 25 12 11 2 62 87 134 37

1960 to 1969 9 8 1 0 54 63 101 27

1950 to 1959 4 4 0 0 23 27 52 6

1940 to 1949 0 0 0 0 19 19 23 8

1939 or earlier 0 0 0 0 13 13 13 3
40

Summary Table 3. 2013 Household Characteristics

All Assisted 

Renters

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing

Voucher 

Recipients

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned 

Housing

Eligible 

Unassisted 

Renters

Total Eligible 

Renters All Renters

Worst Case 

Needs 

Households

Total households 4,490 1,030 2,103 1,357 14,366 18,856 40,202 7,935

Household composition

Two-or-more-person households 2450 586 1,316 548 8610 11,060 25637 4624

Married couple families, no nonrelatives 457 119 208 130 3278 3,735 10659 1607

Under 25 years 19 7 10 2 223 242 531 94

25 to 29 years 17 4 11 2 453 470 1448 217

30 to 34 years 50 16 31 3 520 570 1884 233

35 to 44 years 83 14 41 28 820 903 2732 419

45 to 64 years 142 41 76 25 928 1,070 3138 481

65 years and older 145 36 39 70 335 480 926 163

Other male householder 190 35 107 48 1489 1,679 5326 767

Under 45 years 115 18 71 26 1019 1,134 3877 509

45 to 64 years 61 12 29 20 395 456 1247 224

65 years and older 15 5 8 2 76 91 203 34

Other female householder 1803 433 1,000 370 3844 5,647 9651 2251

Under 45 years 1227 292 656 279 2606 3,833 6614 1547

45 to 64 years 479 101 316 62 972 1,451 2466 558

65 years and older 97 40 28 29 264 361 571 145

One-person households 2040 444 787 809 5756 7,796 14565 3311

Male householder 683 158 250 275 2678 3,361 7308 1512

Under 45 years 116 28 49 39 1254 1,370 3625 704

45 to 64 years 317 85 137 95 986 1,303 2612 556

65 years and older 252 45 65 142 439 691 1071 252

Female householder 1356 286 537 533 3078 4,434 7257 1799

Under 45 years 137 30 66 41 985 1,122 2583 566

45 to 64 years 470 108 256 106 926 1,396 2285 536

65 years and older 750 149 215 386 1167 1,917 2390 697

Number of persons in household

One person 2,040 444 787 809.0 5,756 7,796 14,565 3311.0

Two persons 950 260 436 254.0 3,197 4,147 10,945 1720.0

Three persons 658 147 375 136.0 2,051 2,709 6,179 1127.0

Four persons 445 92 258 95.0 1,668 2,113 4,524 899.0

Five persons 218 55 139 24.0 944 1,162 2,350 477.0

Six persons 103 21 50 32.0 467 570 1,013 259.0

Seven persons or more 76 11 58 7.0 284 360 626 142.0

Number of persons per room

0.50 or fewer 3,042 684 1,329 1029 8,527 8,527 25,581 4830

0.51 to 1.00 1,323 319 704 300 4,883 4,883 12,972 2595

1.01 to 1.50 118 26 65 27 812 812 1,412 432

1.51 or more 7 1 5 1 143 143 237 78

Number of single children under 18 years

None 2,690 633 1,083 974.0 8,983 11,673 26,359 5068.0
41

All Assisted 

Renters

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing

Voucher 

Recipients

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned 

Housing

Eligible 

Unassisted 

Renters

Total Eligible 

Renters All Renters

Worst Case 

Needs 

Households

One 708 177 372 159.0 2,041 2,749 6,045 1052.0

Two 578 100 346 132.0 1,794 2,372 4,518 949.0

Three 340 74 202 64.0 985 1,325 2,175 559.0

Four 96 27 49 20.0 417 513 781 220.0

Five 47 11 31 5.0 112 159 230 64.0

Six or more 30 7 20 3.0 35 65 94 24.0

Households with children

Children in household with one adult or None 1,096 253 592 251 1,752 2,848 3,909 1,070

Persons not spouse or children

With relatives 320 89 176 55 1,175 1,495 3,079 620

With nonrelatives 208 41 121 46 2,008 2,216 6,974 1,078

Median household income NA 10,800 11,900 10,284

Median monthly housing costs (excludes no 

cash rent)

NA

Monthly housing costs as percentage of current 

income

Less than 5% 45 11 19 15 24 69 278 0

5 to 9% 103 26 31 46 60 163 1,144 7

10 to 14% 145 49 56 40 103 248 2,318 1

15 to 19% 213 62 94 57 137 350 3,617 13

20 to 24% 388 124 141 123 307 695 4,320 22

25 to 29% 646 162 228 256 539 1,185 4,194 28

30 to 34% 512 103 219 190 706 1,218 3,313 28

35 to 39% 290 67 143 80 861 1,151 2,464 19

40 to 49% 387 61 241 85 1,940 2,327 3,848 52

50 to 59% 222 56 119 47 1,579 1,801 2,413 1,430

60 to 69% 127 11 93 23 1,266 1,393 1,755 1,199

70 to 99% 229 45 135 49 1,827 2,056 2,569 1,704

100% or more 667 132 336 199 3,224 3,891 4,325 3,057

Zero or negative income 219 67 95 57 937 1,156 1,581 204

No cash rent 295 53 155 87 855 1,150 2,063 170

Median (excludes 2 previous lines) NA 30 39 30 NA NA 33 83

Median (excludes 3 lines before medians) NA 29 34 29 NA NA 30 65

Income sources of families and primary 

individuals

Wages and salaries 1,710 425 926 359 8,290 10,000 28,854 4,396

Self-employment 129 24 74 31.0 852 981 3,061 501.0

Interest 113 22 46 45.0 629 742 2,905 350.0

Dividends 24 7 5 12.0 189 213 1,135 128.0

Rental income 17 7 6 4.0 105 122 622 61.0

Social security or railroad retirement 1,411 313 492 606.0 2,907 4,318 6,540 1714.0

Retirement or survivor pensions 268 53 102 113.0 740 1,008 2,325 438.0

Supplementary security income (SSI) 1,066 247 493 326.0 1,437 2,503 3,002 929.0
42

All Assisted 

Renters

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing

Voucher 

Recipients

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned 

Housing

Eligible 

Unassisted 

Renters

Total Eligible 

Renters All Renters

Worst Case 

Needs 

Households

Child support or alimony 365 62 226 77.0 756 1,121 2,020 466.0

Public assistance or public welfare 523 124 272 127.0 889 1,412 1,609 576.0

Food stamp benefits 2,362 571 1,103 688.0 4,042 6,404 6,731 2650.0

Food Stamps

Income of $25,000 or less

Household members received food stamps 2,362 571 1,103 688.0 4,042 6,404 6,731 2650.0

Did not receive food stamps 1,269 259 536 474.0 7,381 8,650 10,979 4183.0

Not reported 185 39 98 48.0 838 1,023 1,272 478.0

NA = data not available.
43

Summary Table 4. 2013 Unit Conditions

All Assisted 

Renters

Tenants in 

Public Housing

Voucher 

Recipients

Tenants in 

Privately Owned 

Housing

Eligible 

Unassisted 

Renters

Total Eligible 

Renters All Renters

Worst Case 

Needs 

Households

Total households 4,490 1,030 2,103 1,357 14,366 18,856 40,202 7,935

Equipment failures in last 3 months

Water supply stoppage 161 54 54 53 525 686 1,446 296

Flush toilet—none working 174 61 56 57 509 683 1,160 284

Public sewage disposal breakdowns 80 16 42 22 215 295 562 129

Electric fuse and circuit breaker 

failures

275 65 145 65 1,036 1,311 2,953 555

Heating equipment breakdown last winter 181 52 77 52 427 608 1,080 321

Water leakage

Leakage from inside structure 487 133 231 123 1,263 1,750 3,783 734

Leakage from outside structure 307 62 169 76 1,172 1,479 2,994 656

Selected deficiencies

Signs of rats in last 12 months 52 21 22 9 230 282 461 156

Signs of mice in last 12 months 449 126 204 119 1345 1,794 3343 754

Signs of rodents, not sure which kind, 

in last 12 months 59 15 26 18 143 202 320 70

Holes in floors 80 27 33 20 290 370 578 173

Open cracks or holes (interior) 350 107 169 74 1054 1,404 2502 663

Broken plaster or peeling paint 

(interior) 170 67 64 39 468 638 1031 268

No electrical wiring 17 4 9 4 36 53 77 22

Exposed wiring 93 21 48 24 378 471 814 239

Rooms without electric outlets 86 27 37 22 352 438 802 209

Severe physical problems 156 42 69 45 521 677 1,157 521

Plumbing 74 16 32 26 339 413 725 339

Heating 71 24 29 18 153 224 366 153

Electric 7 2 5 0 21 28 40 21

Upkeep 11 1 8 2 23 34 47 23

Hallways

Moderate physical problems 264 75 121 68 1,105 1,369 2,505 549

Plumbing 18 4 8 6 72 90 147 37

Heating 10 2 2 6 212 222 390 98

Upkeep 69 21 38 10 266 335 545 142

Kitchen 176 48 79 49 619 795 1,528 312
44

Summary Table 5. 2013 Tenant Opinions

All Assisted 

Renters

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing

Voucher 

Recipients

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned 

Housing

Eligible 

Unassisted 

Renters

Total Eligible 

Renters All Renters

Worst Case 

Needs 

Households

Total households 4,490 1,030 2,103 1,357 14,366 18,856 40,202 7,935

Overall opinion of structure

1 (worst) 77 26 34 17 188 265 368 128

2 30 8 8 14 80 110 174 54

3 65 13 33 19 184 249 399 118

4 83 23 44 16 362 445 774 197

5 401 96 209 96 1,255 1,656 2,942 694

6 261 56 129 76 1,156 1,417 3,026 624

7 643 169 304 170 2,335 2,978 7,231 1,262

8 969 206 463 300 3,477 4,446 10,514 1,912

9 462 112 209 141 1,430 1,892 4,550 809

10 (best) 1,321 281 585 455 3,229 4,550 8,454 1,775

Not reported 175 40 84 51 669 844 1,769 362

Overall opinion of neighborhood

1 (worst) 153 47 62 44 227 380 525 142

2 75 26 19 30 142 217 347 92

3 101 24 43 34 251 352 569 146

4 118 31 53 34 407 525 968 200

5 474 131 222 121 1,382 1,856 3,281 755

6 272 59 137 76 999 1,271 2,799 555

7 611 142 289 180 2,084 2,695 6,076 1,186

8 884 189 442 253 3,115 3,999 9,529 1,665

9 473 110 222 141 1,567 2,040 4,995 907

10 (best) 1,123 225 516 382 3,440 4,563 9,196 1,876

No neighborhood 19 2 9 8 28 47 61 9

Not reported 184 43 88 53 726 910 1,856 403

Respondent moved during past year 887 186 431 270 5,013 5,900 13,447 2,904

Reasons for leaving previous unit

Private displacement 27 4 10 13 157 184 353 113

Owner to move into unit 12 0 6 6 40 52 113 25

To be converted to condominium or 

cooperative

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Closed for repairs 3 3 0 0 2 5 9 2

Other 12 1 4 7 113 125 227 84

Not reported 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2

Government displacement 5 1 1 3 19 24 57 16

Government wanted building or land 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0

Unit unfit for occupancy 1 0 1 0 5 6 7 3

Other 4 1 0 3 14 18 41 13

Not reported 0 0 0

Disaster loss (fire, flood, and so on.) 10 0 4 6 67 77 122 45

New job or job transfer 24 1 6 17 326 350 1,666 194
45

All Assisted 

Renters

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing

Voucher 

Recipients

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned 

Housing

Eligible 

Unassisted 

Renters

Total Eligible 

Renters All Renters

Worst Case 

Needs 

Households

To be closer to work/school/other 50 2 39 9 727 777 1,868 413

Other, financial/employment related 79 23 30 26 447 526 992 256

To establish own household 160 43 59 58 715 875 1,772 401

Needed larger house or apartment 111 26 65 20 529 640 1,412 307

Married 0 0 2 1 44 47 154 16

Widowed, divorced, or separated 11 4 5 2 98 109 294 59

Other family-/person-related reasons 86 19 44 23 568 654 1,268 322

Wanted better home 98 16 49 33 473 571 1,191 285

Change from owner to renter 0 0 3 3 29 35 129 22

Change from renter to owner NA NA NA NA 0 0 NA NA

Wanted lower rent or maintenance 97 24 51 22 307 404 869 153

Other housing-related reasons 71 16 34 21 338 409 837 209

Evicted from residence 5 1 2 2 62 67 121 36

Other 133 22 64 47 688 821 1,638 413

Not reported 22 8 10 4 135 157 343 69

Choice of Present Home

Financial reasons

70

4

15

5

33

3

21

6

3,7

53

4,4

57

9,6

78

2,14

3

Room layout/design

46

2

75 25

4

13

3

2,5

07

2,9

69

7,5

42

1,54

2

Size

54

5

10

8

28

5

15

2

2,8

28

3,3

73

8,2

61

1,72

1

Exterior appearance

34

6

53 19

4

99 1,7

58

2,1

04

5,3

36

1,08

5

Yard/trees/view

31

1

58 15

7

96 1,5

78

1,8

89

4,8

16

961

Quality of construction

28

2

59 13

9

84 1,5

56

1,8

38

4,8

00

964

Only one available

31

5

67 14

1

10

7

1,5

45

1,8

60

3,4

91

914

Neighborhood

42

4

71 23

0

12

3

2,5

02

2,9

26

7,2

65

1,48

2

Other

58 13 19 26 398 45

6

99

3

205

Not reported

46 16 22 8 232 27

8

57

3

131

Main Reason for Choice of Present Home

All reported reasons equal

20

0

29 10

8

63 1,1

02

1,3

02

3,2

77

645

Financial reasons

41

0

98 17

6

13

6

2,0

96

2,5

06

5,0

82

1,16

7

Room layout/design

32 6 19 7 233 26

5

81

1

160
46

All Assisted 

Renters

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing

Voucher 

Recipients

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned 

Housing

Eligible 

Unassisted 

Renters

Total Eligible 

Renters All Renters

Worst Case 

Needs 

Households

Size

51 5 39 7 300 35

1

93

8

193

Exterior appearance 2 0 0 2 23 25 48 18

Yard/trees/view

2 0 2 0 43 45 16

5

25

Quality of construction 0 0 0 0 24 24 46 11

Only one available

48 12 23 13 268 31

6

60

0

158

Neighborhood

43 8 26 9 274 31

7

86

7

173

Other

26 4 10 12 250 27

6

58

7

128

Not reported

71 22 28 21 399 47

0

1,0

27

225

Choice of present neighborhood

Convenient to job 258 64 145 49 2,267 2,525 7,058 1,309

Convenient to friends or relatives 453 95 213 145 2,595 3,048 6,824 1,483

Convenient to amenities 408 89 198 121 2,473 2,881 7,076 1,450

Convenient to public transportation 317 71 163 83 1,758 2,075 4,013 1,050

Good schools 276 65 149 62 2,004 2,280 4,687 1,195

Other public services 341 85 156 100 1,911 2,252 4,937 1,093

Looks/design of neighborhood 321 52 172 97 1,989 2,310 5,985 1,215

House was most important 

consideration 547 100 281 166 3,051 3,598 8,745 1,850

Other 137 37 49 51 636 773 1,580 347

Not reported 45 15 22 8 212 257 544 122

Main reason for choice of present 

neighborhood

All reported reasons equal 187 33 81 73 936 1,123 2,698 564

Convenient to job 58 9 44 5 814 872 2,779 480

Convenient to friends or relatives 170 27 82 61 735 905 1,791 413

Convenient to amenities 17 5 9 3 100 117 198 58

Convenient to public transportation 26 7 13 6 108 134 365 75

Good schools 4 1 2 1 76 80 183 45

Other public services 62 8 33 21 270 332 712 156

Looks/design of neighborhood 40 14 12 14 202 242 447 106

House was most important 

consideration

94 14 56 24 431 525 1,245 258

Other 99 32 31 36 485 584 1,032 267

Not reported 76 28 32 16 334 410 811 163
47

All Assisted 

Renters

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing

Voucher 

Recipients

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned 

Housing

Eligible 

Unassisted 

Renters

Total Eligible 

Renters All Renters

Worst Case 

Needs 

Households

Recent mover comparison to previous 

home

Better home 422 89 199 134 2,201 2,623 5,749 1,289

Worse home 135 25 69 41 1,051 1,186 2,686 601

About the same 275 52 140 83 1,487 1,762 4,279 857

Not reported 55 20 23 12 273 328 733 156

Recent mover comparison to previous 

neighborhood

Better neighborhood 359 66 187 106 1,839 2,198 4,732 1,059

Worse neighborhood 129 37 60 32 765 894 1,994 447

About the same 292 55 130 107 1,865 2,157 5,353 1,087

Same neighborhood 47 10 24 13 234 281 599 134

Not reported 61 18 31 12 309 370 769 175

NA = data not available.
48

8. References

Casey, Connie H. 1992. Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters and Their Units in 1989. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy 

Development and Research.

———. 1997. Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters and Their Units in 1991. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and 

Research.

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

30-Percent-of-Income Standard.”

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

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

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

———. 2013. American Housing Survey: Housing Adequacy and Quality As Measured by the 

AHS. Report prepared for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy 

Development and Research. Washington, DC: Econometrica, Inc.

McGough, Duane T. 1997. Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters and Their Units in 1993. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy 

Development and Research.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 2008. Characteristics of HUDAssisted Renters and Their Units in 2003. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

———. 2016. “Low-Income Tax Credit Housing Tax Credits.” 

http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/lihtc.html#data.

Weicher, John C. 2012. Housing Policy at a Crossroads. Washington, DC: AEI Press.