Characteristics of 

HUD-Assisted Renters and 

Their Units in 2009

December 2017
Characteristics of 

HUD-Assisted Renters and 

Their Units in 2009

Prepared for

U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development

Office of Policy Development & Research

Prepared by

Frederick J. Eggers

Econometrica, Inc.

December 2017
ii

Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ v

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

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

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

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

Relationship to Other Studies ..................................................................................................... 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 ................................................................................................................... 15

Household Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 17

Household Income .................................................................................................................... 17

Income Sources ......................................................................................................................... 18

Household Composition ........................................................................................................... 19

Household Size and Overcrowding .......................................................................................... 21

Households With a Disabled Member ...................................................................................... 21

Housing Cost as Percent of Income .......................................................................................... 22

Unit Quality and Tenant Satisfaction ............................................................................................ 25

Structure Type ........................................................................................................................... 25

Equipment Failures ................................................................................................................... 26

Selected Deficiencies ................................................................................................................ 27

Indices of Physical Problems .................................................................................................... 27

Tenant Satisfaction ................................................................................................................... 29

Recent Movers .......................................................................................................................... 29

Detailed Summary Tables ............................................................................................................. 32

References ..................................................................................................................................... 44 
iii

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

Table 3-1: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Region, 2009 ............................................. 8

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

2009................................................................................................................................................. 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, 2009 ..................................... 10

Table 3-5: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Number of Bedrooms, 2009 ................... 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, 2009 .... 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, 2009 ...................... 13

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, 2009 .............................................................................................................. 15

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

Ethnicity, and Elderly Status, 2009 ............................................................................................... 16

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

Householder .................................................................................................................................. 16

Table 5-1: Median Income of Households by Assistance Status, 2009 ........................................ 17

Table 5-2: Trends in Median Income of Households by Assistance Status ................................. 18

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

2009............................................................................................................................................... 19

Table 5-4: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Household Composition, 2009 ............... 19

Table 5-5: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Number of Children in Household, 2009 ..... 20

Table 5-6: Trends in the Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Household Composition ... 20

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

Overcrowding, 2009 ..................................................................................................................... 21

Table 5-8: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Disability Status of Members, 2009 ....... 22

Table 5-9: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Ratio of Housing Costs to Income, 2009....... 22

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

Income........................................................................................................................................... 23
iv

Table 6-1: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Structure Type, 2009 .............................. 25

Table 6-2: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Breakdowns in Housing Systems, 2009 .... 26

Table 6-3: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Selected Deficiencies, 2009 .................... 27

Table 6-4: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Indices of Physical Problems, 2009 ........ 28

Table 6-5: Trends in the Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Indices of Physical Problems .. 28

Table 6-6: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Tenant Ratings as Best or Worst, 2009 .. 29

Table 6-7: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Percent of Recent Movers, 2009 ............. 29

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

for Move, 2009.............................................................................................................................. 30

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

Current and Previous Home and Neighborhood, 2009 ................................................................. 30

Summary Table 1. 2009 Structural Characteristics ...................................................................... 33

Summary Table 2. 2009 Householder Characteristics .................................................................. 34

Summary Table 3. 2009 Household Characteristics ..................................................................... 35

Summary Table 4. 2009 Unit Conditions ..................................................................................... 38

Summary Table 5. 2009 Tenant Opinions .................................................................................... 39

Summary Table 6. Breakdown of Householder and Household Characteristics by Race, 

Ethnicity, and Elderly Status ......................................................................................................... 41

Figure 1. Renters—Eligibility and Housing Assistance ................................................................. 7
v

Executive Summary

The 2009 American Housing Survey (AHS) was the joint product of the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Census Bureau. At HUD’s request, the 

Census Bureau used addresses provided by HUD to identify units in its regular AHS sample that 

are subsidized by HUD. The 2009 AHS contains 4,426 assisted sample units. This report uses 

information on those units to characterize the 4.4 million rental units assisted by HUD in 2009.

Address matches previously had been done for the 1989, 1991, 1993, and 2007 AHS surveys. 

In addition, 2011 and 2013 AHS surveys contain supplemental surveys of rental units from 

HUD-administered programs. This report uses information from these efforts to analyze the

ways in which the HUD-assisted rental stock has changed during the past 3 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 2009, 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 2009, the United States had 35.4 million renter households. According to the AHS, 18.2

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 4.4 million households, 24.3 percent of those eligible.

During the 1991-to-2009 period, the number of renter households grew from 33.4 million to 35.4

million, an increase of only 6 percent. During the same period, the number of households eligible 

for housing assistance increased 13 percent, although the number of HUD-assisted units 

increased 10 percent. Therefore, the percentage of the eligible households receiving assistance 

fell from 24.9 percent in 1991 to 24.3 percent in 2009.

During the 1991-to-2009 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 2009. The privately owned assisted share fell from 43.3 

to 30.6 percent, and the public housing share fell from 28.4 to 22.6 percent.

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

households fluctuated more, notably increasing by 1.7 million households between 2007 and 2009.

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 2009 assisted units are project-based units, and the percentage of 

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.
vi

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

(including those already assisted), HUD assistance in 2009 was more concentrated in the 

Northeast and less concentrated in the West. Only 20 percent of all renters and 22 percent of 

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

Northeast. In 2009, the West contained 25 percent of all renters and 22 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 slightly more concentrated in metropolitan areas and slightly 

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 incomeeligible 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 incomeeligible 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 projects 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 30 percent in 2009 despite a decline in the number of large families. The 

percentage of one-bedroom units decreased slightly from 39 to 37 percent.

Householder and Household Characteristics

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

providing information such as 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 one of the responsible 
vii

members 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 2009 was 46.0 percent, although

the percentage of all income-eligible renter households with Black householders was 30.0 percent. 

The differentials were greatest for the public housing and voucher programs, in which Black 

householders occupied 59.9 and 44.3 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 (17.4 versus 20.3 percent).

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 (27.9

versus 19.2 percent). The percentage of households with elderly householders was particularly 

high among units in privately owned subsidized housing (45.6 percent). The voucher program 

served elderly people at a rate (16.6 percent) similar to their share of income-eligible renter 

households. 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 2009.

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 14

percent of public housing households have householders who lived in the unit for more than 15

years compared with 8.6 percent among income-eligible renter households. The voucher 

program has the most turnover; for example, only 6.5 percent of householders have lived in their 

units more than 15 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 display lower turnover. The same patterns are apparent among householders in the 

assisted housing programs.

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

compare only the 1989 and 2009 studies. The comparison of turnover patterns showed that, in 

2009, more householders had moved in within the past 5 years but more had also lived in their 

units for 15 years or more than in 1989.

Eligibility for assisted housing is based primarily on household income. In 2009, the median 

income of all renters nationally was $28,400, 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 42.3 percent of that for all eligible renters, and the ratios were even less in public 

housing (31.7 percent) and privately owned subsidized housing (33.5 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 40.2 percent of HUD-assisted households have wage and salary income compared 

with 54.3 percent of income-eligible renter households and 72.6 percent of all renters. Among 
viii

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 

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

21.5 percent among eligible renters and 30.9 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 8.0 percent of income-eligible households and 4.2 percent of all 

renter households. In addition, 44.4 percent of HUD-assisted households reported receiving food 

stamps compared with 29.7 percent of income-eligible households and 14.3 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 2009, 24.9 percent of renter households 

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

households was 16.6 percent, whereas the percentage across HUD programs ranged between 8.3

and 10.1 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, 41.9 percent of assisted households have children compared with 34.9 percent of all 

renter households. Slightly more than one-half of voucher households have children under 18. In 

addition, the percentage of households with three or more children is higher in the voucher 

program (17.5 percent) than among all income-eligible renter households (11.1 percent).

Despite observed program differences and the change in program mix over time, virtually no 

change has occurred 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 (36.2

percent) substantially higher than the rate among either income-eligible renter households (26.2

percent) or all renter households (17.6 percent). The privately owned assisted housing programs 

contained the highest percentage of households with a disabled member, 47.2 percent.

Finally, rent-to-income ratio data from the 2009 AHS clearly illustrate why housing assistance is 

needed. Among income-eligible renter households, 59 percent have excessive rent burdens; that 

is, ratios greater than 40 percent. Excessive rent burdens affect 38 percent of HUD-assisted 

households, a rate equal to that for all renter households. By the same rent-to-income 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

33 percent of income-eligible renters.

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 higher incidence of problems than units occupied by all income-eligible households and 

also 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 and moderate physical problems.
ix

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 usually slightly higher than 

among all renters.

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

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

breakdowns, heating equipment breakdowns, leaking water from inside unit, and leaking water 

from outside structure), the incidence of problems was higher for HUD-assisted units as a group 

than for all renters. The differences are small. In most but not all categories, households in 

privately owned subsidized units report a lower incidence of problems than households in other 

assisted programs. 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, on 

which 10 is considered the best. Households receiving HUD assistance generally gave their units 

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

Households in privately owned subsidized units gave the 10 rating most frequently. 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 6.4 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 than either all eligible renters or all 

renters. When asked to compare their current neighborhood with their previous neighborhood, 

recent mover respondents among voucher recipients and in privately owned HUD-assisted units 

were more likely to rate their current neighborhoods as better than their previous neighborhoods.

Only 6.3 percent of recent movers in public housing rated their neighborhood as better. 

Other Related Studies

This report documents one of three studies (Eggers, 2017a, 2017b; Eggers and Moumen,

2017)—identical in structure and focus—that use the AHS to assess HUD-assisted rental 

housing. These studies cover HUD-assisted rental housing in 2009, 2011, and 2013 respectively. 

Readers who find a particular finding important are urged to consult the same table for the other 

2 survey years. As a careful reading of all three Executive Summaries suggests, most of the 

interesting findings are consistent in all three reports. 
1

Introduction

This report is the seventh 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; Eggers, 2017a, 2017b; Eggers 

and Moumen, 2017; HUD, 2008; McGough, 1997). These reports are intended for use by

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 2009 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 2009 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 were 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 household 

locates a housing unit and the local housing authority grants approval, a subsidy payment is 

made to the private-sector landlord on behalf of the tenant household. The program is designed 

so that the out-of-pocket amount that tenants pay is 30 percent of the household’s income, if the 

housing unit rents 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 
2

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 approximately 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, approximately 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. Units in these programs 

are also considered project based.

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.

1 Another term used in the report is “worst case households.” Worst case needs2

means renters who do not receive federal assistance, who have incomes below 50 percent of 

 

1 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. 2 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); 

Worst Case Housing Needs 2011: Report to Congress (August 2009); Worst Case Housing Needs: 2015 Report to 

Congress (April 2015). These publications are available online at 

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/Worst-Case-Housing-Needs.html.
3

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.3

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, approximately 464,000 units were available under the Rural Housing Service 

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

Approximately 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 U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program; from 1987 

through 2009, 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 Big 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 six

detailed summary tables contained in the Detailed Summary Tables section. The structure of 

these sections follows the organization of the six detailed tables.

• The Big Picture section uses information from all eight matched surveys to track the growth of 

HUD-assisted housing from 1989 to 2009.

• 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 Table 6 contains special breakouts of the data in Summary Tables 2 and 3. 

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 six detailed tables in the 

 

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

Office of Policy Development and Research.
4

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, specialists at the Census Bureau matched records from the AHS and the two 

HUD administrative record systems using computerized matching algorithms and techniques.

Relationship to Other Studies

This report documents one of three studies (Eggers, 2017a, 2017b; Eggers and Moumen, 

2017)—identical in structure and focus—that use the AHS to assess HUD-assisted rental 

housing. These studies cover HUD-assisted rental housing in 2009, 2011, and 2013 respectively. 

Because the universe of HUD-assisted rental housing underwent only marginal changes between 

2009 and 2013, one should expect the findings to be nearly identical in all three studies and, for 

the most part, they are. Some differences exist because the economy experienced a major swing 

between 2009 and 2013 (June 2009 was the trough of the major 2007–2009 recession), because 

the sample of HUD units was selected differently in each of the 3 years, and because respondents 

sometimes answer the same question differently at different times due either to changes in 

objective conditions or pure randomness. Readers who find a particular finding important are 

urged to consult the same table for the other 2 survey years. As a careful reading of all three 

Executive Summaries suggests, most of the interesting findings are consistent in all three reports. 
5

The Big Picture

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

4 The 

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

expenditures affected American households in 2009. 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 seven reports (Casey, 1992, 1997; Eggers, 

2017a, 2017b; Eggers and Moumen, 2017; HUD, 2008; McGough, 1997).

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

the 2013 matches. 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.5 During the same time period, the number 

of households eligible for housing assistance increased 16 percent, although the number of HUDassisted units increased only 11 percent. The percentage of the eligible households receiving 

assistance fell from 24.9 percent in 1991 to 21.1 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 served (Table 2-1). 

 

4 See Table 4-4. 5 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 2009 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 1 explains how HUD-assisted housing fits into the overall rental housing market. In 2009, 

the U.S. housing market had 35,378,000 renter households; 18,233,000 of these households were 

eligible on the basis of income for HUD assistance. HUD programs served 4,426,000 of the 

eligible households (24.3 percent), leaving 13,807,000 eligible households without any HUD 

housing assistance; of these, 6,895,000 were judged to have worst case housing needs. The 

voucher program helped 2,073,000 households; another 1,354,000 households lived in privately 

owned, project-based housing, and public housing provided housing to 999,000 households.6

 

6 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 1: Renters—Eligibility and Housing Assistance
8

Location and Key Unit Characteristics

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

housing provided. The factors are which 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 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 20 percent of all renters and 22 percent of 

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

In 2009, the West contained 25 percent of all renters and 22 percent of eligible renters but 18 

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

South is similar to the geographic distributions of all renter households and all income-eligible 

renter households (Table 3-1).

Table 3-1: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Region, 2009

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 36.1 24.5 26.9 22.1 20.0

Midwest 22.1 19.0 20.1 27.4 21.2 20.1

South 32.4 35.9 31.8 30.8 34.2 35.0

West 17.6 8.9 23.6 14.9 22.5 24.9

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, 2009

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 86.4 86.0 87.7 84.9 84.4 84.4

In central cities 52.4 60.2 49.3 51.6 46.6 41.9

In suburbs 34.0 25.8 38.4 33.3 37.9 42.4

Outside metropolitan 

statistical areas 13.6 14.1 12.4 15.1 15.6 15.6

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

In the section, The Big Picture, 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. 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.

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.

Notes: 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 2009 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 types of units to construct or renovate, and that choice is based on their objectives 

and the needs at the time 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, 2009

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 21.1 25.5 26.8 9.1 26.0 25.7

1950–1969 22.3 40.2 19.9 12.9 22.5 21.6

1970–1984 39.3 27.2 29.1 63.8 32.6 29.0

1985 or later 17.3 6.9 24.3 14.3 19.0 23.7

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

Public housing began in 1937, and 25.5 percent of public housing units were built before 1950. 

Approximately 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; 63.8 percent of these units 

were constructed between 1970 and 1984. The 9.1 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 

resembles the distribution among all renters but with a lower percentage of two-bedroom units 

and a higher percentage three-bedroom units. The voucher program has the highest percentage of 

units with three or four or more bedrooms among the HUD-assisted programs, probably 
11

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

townhomes 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, 2009

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 0.4 1.1 2.3 2.7 2.1

One 37.1 29.5 25.4 60.6 32.5 27.5

Two 31.3 35.1 34.6 23.3 38.3 40.1

Three 23.5 25.8 29.1 13.1 20.7 23.6

Four or more 6.9 9.2 9.8 0.7 5.8 6.7

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 increased from 

24 percent in 1989 to 28 percent in 2009 despite a decline in the number of large families. The 

percentage of one-bedroom units decreased slightly from 39 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 is in Summary Table 1.
12

Householder Characteristics

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

providing information such as 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.7 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 2009 was 46.0 percent,

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

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

which Black householders occupied 59.9 and 44.3 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 (38.5 versus 30.0 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, 2009

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 47.9 35.9 49.9 53.8 63.0 71.2

Black alone 46.0 59.9 44.3 38.5 30.0 21.0

Other races alone 

or multiple races 6.0 4.3 5.8 7.7 7.0 7.7

Hispanic (of any 

race) 17.4 24.4 16.3 14.0 20.3 17.8

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 2009 surveys because HUD and other 

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 

 

7 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

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 alone 54 61 54 54 52 48 49 49

Black alone 40 35 40 40 41 46 44 44

Other races alone or 

multiple 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 (27.9

versus 19.2 percent). The percentage of households with elderly householders was particularly 

high among units in privately owned subsidized housing (45.6 percent). Only the voucher 

program served elderly people at a rate (16.6 percent) similar to their share of income-eligible 

renter households.

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, 53.3 compared with 46.1 percent. Only 31.9 percent 

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

Table 4-3: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Age of Householder, 2009

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 27.3 27.8 30.1 22.6 37.0 40.8

35 to 64 44.8 44.8 53.3 31.9 43.8 46.1

65 or older 27.9 27.4 16.6 45.6 19.2 13.1

Median age 48 46 43 62 42 39

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
14

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 46 in public housing and 43 in the voucher program.

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

in 2013 (Table 4-4).

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 48 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, 28.9 percent had householders without high school degrees compared 

with 18.9 percent among all renter households; 34.5 percent of income-eligible households have 

householders with education beyond the high school level compared with 48.0 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 (58.1 percent in public 

housing, 68.0 percent in the voucher program, and 63.9 percent in privately owned housing) 

compared with 71.1 percent among all income-eligible renter households and 81.1 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.

The reports for 2011 and 2013 contain disaggregation of the education attainment data by White 

alone, Black alone, other races, and Hispanic. For 2009, the available data permit disaggregation 

only by Black alone and Hispanic. Educational attainment is lower for the Hispanic population in 

assisted housing than for the Black alone population (some of whom are Hispanic by ethnicity). 

Similar patterns are found in the 2011 and 2013 data. However, the pattern among Hispanics in 

assisted housing resembles the pattern among Hispanics in the income-eligible population more 

so than the same comparison among the Black alone population.
15

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

and Ethnicity, 2009

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 9.3 10.7 8.7 9.3 9.6 6.3

Black alone 5.3 9.4 2.8 5.0 5.1 3.7

Hispanic 26.9 29.9 24.9 27.0 26.4 20.5

9th to 12th grade, no 

diploma—all households 26.2 31.2 23.3 26.9 19.3 12.6

Black alone 29.5 29.4 28.0 32.6 23.4 16.7

Hispanic 25.5 31.6 22.2 23.8 25.0 20.5

High school graduation 

(includes equivalency)—all 

households

37.9 33.9 39.6 38.2 36.6 33.1

Black alone 36.4 30.4 40.7 35.3 39.1 37.6

Hispanic 29.8 23.4 34.6 29.6 30.0 32.2

More than high school 

graduation—all households 26.6 24.1 28.5 25.7 34.5 48.0

Black alone 28.9 30.8 28.5 27.3 32.5 41.9

Hispanic 17.7 15.2 18.6 19.6 18.6 26.7

High school graduate—all 

households 64.5 58.1 68.0 63.9 71.1 81.1

Black alone 65.3 61.2 69.2 62.6 71.6 79.5

Hispanic 47.5 38.5 53.3 49.2 48.6 58.9

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

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 6 years constitute 69.5 percent of 

income-eligible renter households, compared with 56.8 percent in public housing, 70.0 percent 

among voucher recipients, and 53.8 percent in privately owned housing. Approximately 14 

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

15 years compared with 8.6 percent among income-eligible renter households. Both incomeeligible renters and all renters show shorter tenancies than assisted households.

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 6.5 percent of householders have lived in their units more than 15 

years, roughly the same as all income-eligible householders. The voucher program has slightly 

lower turnover than the pattern among all renters, probably because moving is expensive, and 

voucher participants can carry their subsidies only to units whose landlords will participate in the 

voucher program.
16

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

and Elderly Status, 2009

Years in Unit, 2009

HUD-Assisted Renters Total 

Eligible 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants 

in Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned 

Housing (%)

0 to 5—All householders 62.1 56.8 70.0 53.8 69.5 73.4

Black alone 65.4 57.2 73.8 60.1 69.0 72.5

Hispanic 53.6 37.7 71.6 42.3 68.4 73.8

Over 65 35.2 18.6 42.6 38.5 37.3 39.6

6 to 10—All householders 18.8 16.4 18.4 21.0 15.5 14.0

Black alone 18.5 18.1 18.2 19.4 16.2 14.5

Hispanic 17.6 14.3 15.1 26.5 15.8 14.2

Over 65 24.1 24.1 24.3 23.8 23.2 22.8

11 to 15—All householders 9.7 12.5 5.1 14.8 6.5 5.4

Black alone 7.6 11.2 3.6 10.6 6.4 5.1

Hispanic 11.0 13.5 5.6 17.5 6.4 5.1

Over 65 18.8 19.7 11.3 22.8 14.4 13.1

More than 15—All householders 9.5 14.3 6.5 10.4 8.6 7.1

Black alone 8.6 13.7 4.4 10.0 8.4 7.9

Hispanic 17.7 34.4 7.7 13.8 9.5 6.9

Over 65 21.7 37.6 21.7 14.9 25.1 24.6

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

Notes: The Census Bureau does not tabulate “years in unit”; rather, it reports the year the household moved into the unit in 5-year 

blocks. For 2009, the blocks include 2000–2004, 2005–2009, and 2010–2009. This presentation translates into 0 to 5 years, 6 to 10

years, 11 to 15 years, and more than 15 years categories for years in unit. Because the size of the initial category depends on the 

survey year, the 2009 results can be compared only with tabulations from the 2003 and the 1993 match studies.

The race, ethnicity, and age 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 display lower turnover, that is, 

lower rates of short tenure (0–5 years) and higher rates of long tenures (more than 15 years).

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

exception. In public housing and privately owned housing, Hispanic householders have lower 

turnover than all householders.

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

across the 1989 and 2009 studies (see Table 4-7 note). The comparison of turnover patterns 

showed that in 2009 more householders had moved in within the past 5 years but more had lived 

in their units for 15 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

1989 (%) 2009 (%)

0 to 5 years 60.6 62.1

6 to 10 years 20.7 18.8

11 to 15 years 10.1 9.7

More than 15 8.5 9.5

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

Notes: More detailed information on householder characteristics can be found in Summary Tables 2 and 6 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 onehalf-decade intervals. For the 1989 and 2009 surveys, the first of these intervals corresponds to 0–5 years in units. For the 1991 and 

2011 surveys, the first of these intervals corresponds to 0–2 years in unit.
17

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 2009, the median income of all renters nationally was $28,400, 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 42.3 percent of that for all eligible renters, and the 

ratios were even lower in public housing (31.8 percent) and privately owned subsidized housing 

(33.5 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, 2009

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 $10,600 $9,000 $12,000 $9,516 $14,000 $28,400

Percent of all 

renter households 37.3 31.7 42.3 33.5 49.3 100.0

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-2009 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 

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.
18

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 40.2 percent of HUD-assisted households have wage and salary income compared 

with 54.3 percent of income-eligible renter households and 72.6 percent of all renters.

Controlling for the age of the householders does not eliminate this difference, with 6.4 percent of 

assisted households with householders over 65 having wage and salary income compared with 

10.0 percent among elderly eligible households and 20.1 percent among all elderly 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 17.3 percent of elderly assisted households receive income from these sources 

compared with 21.5 percent among eligible renters and 30.9 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 8.0 percent of income-eligible households 

and 4.2 percent of all renter households. In addition, 44.4 percent of HUD-assisted households 

reported receiving food stamps compared with 29.7 percent of income-eligible households and

14.3 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, 29.5 percent of elderly renters in assisted housing received 

supplement security income compared with 19.3 percent and 13.3 percent respectively among all 

elderly renter households (Table 5-3).
19

Table 5-3: Income Sources for Renter Households by Assistant Status and by Elderly Status, 2009

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 40.2 41.1 49.1 25.8 54.3 72.6

Over 65 6.4 10.6 4.6 5.5 10.0 20.1

Social Security income 33.1 31.7 25.1 46.3 23.8 16.5

Over 65 83.3 83.2 86.4 81.6 84.6 85.0

Retirement or survivors 

pensions 7.2 9.2 3.8 10.9 5.7 6.0

Over 65 17.3 17.9 13.3 19.3 21.5 30.9

Supplemental Security 

Income 21.1 21.8 20.0 22.2 12.5 6.6

Over 65 29.5 39.4 30.7 24.4 19.3 13.3

Welfare 11.6 9.1 14.7 8.6 8.0 4.2

Over 65 4.3 0.0 13.0 1.3 3.5 2.6

Food stamps 44.4 45.1 45.7 41.9 29.7 14.3

Over 65 26.6 15.0 32.8 28.5 19.2 12.8

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 2009, 24.9 percent of renter households 

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

households was 16.6 percent, whereas the percentage across all HUD programs ranged between 

8.3 and 10.1 percent.

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

provides some additional insight to whom HUD programs serve. Approximately 75 percent of 

HUD-assisted households are female-headed compared with 57 percent among income-eligible 

households and 43 percent among all renter households.

Table 5-4: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Household Composition, 2009

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-more-person 

households 54.6 58.3 64.0 37.6 57.0 62.3

Married couple families, 

no nonrelatives 9.3 10.1 9.6 8.3 16.6 24.9

Other male householder 3.1 0.8 4.0 3.4 8.8 13.2

Other female 

householder 42.3 47.4 50.4 25.9 31.6 24.2

One-person households 45.4 41.7 36.0 62.4 43.0 37.7

Male householder 12.6 7.9 11.2 18.1 17.5 18.6

Female householder 32.8 33.8 24.8 44.3 25.5 19.1

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
20

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 25.9

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. Approximately 42

percent of assisted households have children compared with 35.9 percent of all renter 

households. Slightly more than one-half of voucher households contain children under 18,

although 24.5 percent of assisted households in privately owned housing have children. In 

addition, the percentage of households with three or more children is higher the voucher program 

(17.5 percent) than among all income-eligible renter households (11.1 percent). See Table 5-5.

Table 5-5: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Number of Children in Household, 2009

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 58.1 53.3 49.1 75.5 60.2 65.1

One 13.9 16.5 16.3 8.2 15.4 15.1

Two 16.0 19.5 17.1 11.6 13.3 11.6

Three 7.4 6.8 9.8 4.3 7.2 5.4

Four 2.4 1.3 4.5 — 2.4 1.8

Five 1.6 1.9 2.2 0.4 1.0 0.6

Six or more 0.6 0.8 1.0 — 0.5 0.3

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. — = less than 0.1 percent.

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

virtually no change has occurred 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.

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.
21

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 smaller households. Assisted households include a higher 

percentage of one-person households (45.4 versus 43.0 percent) and approximately the same 

percentage of two-to-four-person households (46.7 versus 46.8 percent). Households with five or 

more persons account for 7.9 percent of HUD-assisted households and 10.2 income-eligible 

households (Table 5-7).

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

Overcrowding, 2009

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 41.7 36.0 62.4 43.0 37.7

Two to four persons 46.7 51.6 51.2 36.4 46.8 53.2

Five or more persons 7.9 6.8 12.8 1.2 10.2 9.1

Overcrowded 1.8 1.5 2.4 1.0 5.2 4.2

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

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.

The voucher program has the highest percentage of large (five-or-more-person) households.

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, 4.2 percent of renter households were 

overcrowded in 2009. Overcrowding was more prevalent among income-eligible renter 

households, of which 5.2 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 (2.4 percent), which also had a higher percentage of larger households 

(12.8 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 (36.2 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, 26.2 percent compared with 17.6

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

households with a disabled member, 47.2 percent.
22

Table 5-8: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Disability Status of Members, 2009

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 36.2 29.5 32.3 47.2 26.2 17.6

Without a disabled member 63.4 69.8 67.3 52.5 73.1 81.6

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

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, whereby 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 2009 AHS clearly illustrated why housing assistance is needed.

Among income-eligible renter households, 59 percent have excessive rent burdens; that is, ratios 

greater than 40 percent. Excessive rent burdens affect 38 percent of HUD-assisted households, a 

rate equal to that for all renter households. See Table 5-9.

Table 5-9: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Ratio of Housing Costs to Income, 2009

Monthly Housing 

Cost-to-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% 9 5 9 12 4 17

40% or more 38 36 46 28 59 38

Median rent burden 35 35 40 30 52 34

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

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 33 percent for income-eligible renters.

8

In all previous analyses of HUD-assisted housing using AHS data, Table 5-9 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.

 

8 Derived from Table 3 in the Detailed Summary Tables section.
23

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.

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 corroborating

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 32 34

Tenants in public 

housing 30 30 29 27 30 35 28 30

Voucher recipients 32 34 32 40 39 40 34 39

Tenants in privately 

owned housing 30 31 28 32 31 30 31 31

Total incomeeligible renters 39 36 38 81 51 52 37 52

All renters 28 27 28 30 33 34 32 33

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

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 2009, 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 
24

1993 and 2003 and remained greater than one-half through 2009, the most recent year for which 

a median for this group is available.9 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.

 

9 The 81-percent median rent burdens for all eligible households in 2003 seems an anomaly.
25

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 

either all 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, 2009

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 NA NA 37.3 4.3 27.3 33.3

Detached NA NA 31.1 1.0 21.4 27.6

Attached NA NA 6.3 3.2 5.9 5.7

2 to 4 units NA NA 18.0 8.9 21.0 19.8

5 to 9 units NA NA 13.8 21.9 15.2 13.1

10 to 19 units NA NA 9.7 9.2 11.1 11.8

20 to 49 units NA NA 10.2 12.0 9.2 8.9

50 or more units NA NA 8.8 43.6 12.3 9.1

Manufactured/mobile 

home or trailer NA NA 2.2 0.0 3.9 4.0

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

Notes: The special Census tabulations used for this table have erroneous data for public housing, which, in turn, are incorporated 

into the Census tabulations for “All HUD-Assisted.” The percentage of public housing units in buildings with 10 or more units was 45 

percent in 2013 and 40 percent in 2011.

In 2009, structure type varied markedly across HUD-assisted housing programs. Large buildings 

(10 or more units) dominated the privately owned subsidized program (64.8 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 (55.3 versus 53.1 percent), reflecting the fact that vouchers can be used to 

access single-family housing that rents at or below the voucher payment standard.
26

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, 2009

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 4.3 5.5 3.4 4.7 4.4 4.5

Flush toilet—none 

working 4.0 3.6 4.6 3.5 4.0 3.4

Public sewage 

disposal breakdowns 2.5 3.4 2.8 1.4 1.9 1.5

Electric fuse and 

circuit breaker failures 7.4 5.5 10.5 4.1 8.1 8.7

Heating equipment 

breakdown last winter 4.0 4.4 5.1 2.0 4.1 3.2

Water leakage

Leakage from inside 

structure 12.2 15.3 12.0 10.4 11.3 10.8

Leakage from outside 

structure 9.2 7.6 10.6 8.0 8.6 8.8

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

For five of the reported system breakdowns (no working flush toilets, public sewage disposal 

breakdowns, heating equipment breakdowns, leaking water from inside unit, and leaking water 

from outside structure), the incidence of problems was higher for HUD-assisted units as a group

than for all rental units. The differences are small from a substantive perspective, but the sample 

sizes are large enough for some (for example, leaking water from inside unit) to qualify as 

statistically significant.

For both problems with fuses and circuit breakers and leakages from outside the structure, the 

highest incidence appears among voucher units and was smallest among renters in privately

owned assisted units. 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).

In most but not all categories, households in privately owned subsidized units reported a lower 

incidence of problems than households in other assisted programs. 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.
27

Selected Deficiencies

When we examine specific unit deficiencies, we find that HUD-assisted units as a group have 

rates of occurrence that are similar to those among both all eligible renters and all renters. The

differences are substantively small.10 For four 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 (see Table 6-3).

Table 6-3: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Selected Deficiencies, 2009

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 6.2 9.2 5.5 5.1 6.7 6.0

Holes in floors 2.1 1.4 2.5 2.1 2.1 1.6

Open cracks or holes 

(interior) 8.4 10.6 7.9 7.5 8.3 6.8

Broken plaster or 

peeling paint (interior) 3.3 6.0 3.1 1.6 4.0 3.2

Exposed wiring 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.4

Rooms without 

electric outlets 1.2 0.5 1.5 1.4 1.9 1.8

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

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.11 Over time the structure of the indices and the variables used to construct 

them have changed.12,13

 

10 Because of the large samples, some of the differences across programs are statistically significant, for example, 

the difference between public housing and privately owned assisted housing with respect to open cracks and holes. 11 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.

12 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. 13 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 (2009).
28

On the index of severe physical problems, HUD-assisted housing has a slightly higher incidence 

of problems than units occupied by all income-eligible households and also 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 HUDassisted housing, public housing units have the highest incidence of both severe physical 

problems and moderate physical problems (Table 6-4).

Table 6-4: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Indices of Physical Problems, 2009

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 3.6 5.3 3.8 2.0 3.5 2.8

Moderate physical problems 6.1 10.1 5.7 3.8 7.5 6.4

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 

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 income-eligible 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.

Notes: In previous tables using all eight surveys, we did not report 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 a 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 no study of the persistence of inadequacy among HUD-assisted 

households has been conducted.
29

Tenant Satisfaction

The AHS asks respondents to rate their structure and their neighborhood on a scale from 1 to 10,

on which 10 is considered the best. Except for tenants in public housing, households receiving 

HUD assistance gave their units a 10 more frequently than either all income-eligible renter 

households or all renter households. Households in privately owned subsidized units gave the 10 

rating most frequently. The worst rating of 1 was also more common among HUD-assisted 

households. Public housing tenants had the highest percentage of “worst” ratings (Table 6-6).

Table 6-6: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Tenant Ratings as Best or Worst, 2009

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) 28.0 20.8 26.4 36.0 22.8 19.6

1 (worst) 2.7 4.1 2.4 2.1 1.6 0.9

Neighborhood

10 (best) 23.6 14.6 24.1 29.2 22.3 21.4

1 (worst) 3.9 6.4 2.7 4.0 2.5 1.4

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 6.4 percent of public housing tenants gave their neighborhood the worst 

rating.

Recent Movers

The AHS gathers additional information on households in which the respondent had 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 24.7 percent of HUD-assisted units compared with 36.3 percent 

of all renter households (Table 6-7).

Table 6-7: Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Percent of Recent Movers, 2009

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 24.7 18.9 31.9 18.0 34.2 36.3

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

The AHS asks a detailed series of questions 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.
30

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

Move, 2009

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 6.7 0.0 7.4 9.8 5.8 5.2

New job, closer to job, school, or 

other financial/employment reasons 11.7 0.0 14.7 12.7 22.5 29.0

To establish own household 12.6 41.3 6.4 7.0 13.1 11.3

Needed larger house or apartment 11.8 4.8 11.3 18.0 9.8 10.6

Wanted better home 14.3 7.9 18.9 7.0 10.1 10.0

Change from owner to renter 0.5 NA 0.9 NA 0.8 1.4

Wanted lower rent or maintenance 10.4 16.9 7.4 13.1 9.0 8.7

Other housing-related reasons 9.6 3.2 13.6 3.7 7.1 6.4

Other 35.8 32.8 32.1 48.4 33.5 30.8

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

“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. With the exception of 

public housing tenants, between 5 and 10 percent of recent movers were displaced across all the 

groups, and the percentages were lowest among public housing and voucher recent movers. 

Thirty percent of respondents from the all renters group say their move resulted 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.

Reflecting the greater flexibility of tenant-based assistance, voucher respondents were the most 

likely to give an improved housing reason, namely “wanted better home.”

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).

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

Previous Home and Neighborhood, 2009

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 62.3 56.1 63.5 63.5 50.5 48.2

Worse 15.7 19.0 14.2 17.6 20.1 20.8

Current neighborhood

Better 38.5 6.3 43.4 50.0 38.7 38.6

Worse 17.1 31.7 15.6 9.8 16.7 15.2

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
31

When asked to compare their current neighborhoods with their previous neighborhoods, recent 

mover respondents among voucher recipients and tenants in privately owned 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.
32

Detailed Summary Tables

This section contains six tables that present detailed information on eight sets of rental 

households. The six tables are—

Summary Table 1: 2009 Structural Characteristics.

Summary Table 2: 2009 Householder Characteristics.

Summary Table 3: 2009 Household Characteristics.

Summary Table 4: 2009 Unit Conditions.

Summary Table 5: 2009 Tenant Opinions.

Summary Table 6: Breakdown of Householder and Household Characteristics by Race, 

Ethnicity, and Elderly Status.

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, and 2005) contained special tabulation prepared by 

the Census Bureau. The 2009, 2011, and 2013 reports do not contain these Census Bureau 

tabulations.
33

Summary Table 1. 2009 Structural Characteristics

2009 Structural 

Characteristics

(000s)

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 4,426 999 2,073 1,354 13,807 18,233 35,378 6,895

Number of units 

in structure

One, detached 720 62 644 14 3,173 3,893 9,755 1,634

One, attached 380 206 130 44 701 1,081 2,021 374

2 to 4 809 314 373 121 3,029 3,838 6,998 1,474

5 to 9 806 225 286 296 1,960 2,767 4,637 975

10 to 19 383 57 202 125 1,640 2,024 4,178 839

20 to 49 385 11 211 163 1,297 1,681 3,131 653

50 or more 899 125 183 590 1,345 2,243 3,237 648

Manufactured/ 

mobile home or 

trailer

45 – 45 – 661 706 1,421 299

Year structure 

built

2005 to 2009 75 12 58 5 346 421 1,283 205

2000 to 2004 202 31 146 25 502 704 1,731 299

1995 to 1999 149 – 108 40 546 695 1,603 325

1990 to 1994 104 12 47 45 420 524 1,280 196

1985 to 1989 236 14 145 78 881 1,118 2,489 485

1980 to 1984 498 124 93 281 815 1,313 2,179 417

1975 to 1979 639 55 259 325 1,881 2,519 4,364 928

1970 to 1974 602 93 251 258 1,503 2,105 3,718 714

1960 to 1969 624 270 234 119 1,822 2,446 4,409 891

1950 to 1959 364 132 178 55 1,288 1,652 3,243 590

1940 to 1949 314 156 143 15 976 1,290 2,322 512

1930 to 1939 164 18 128 18 814 979 1,924 397

1920 to 1929 187 46 97 44 764 951 1,811 331

1919 or earlier 269 35 188 46 1,248 1,518 3,021 605

Median year 1972 1964 1971 1977 1970 1971 1971 1971

Regions

Northeast 1,232 361 507 364 2,799 4,031 7,073 1,371

Midwest 978 190 417 371 2,879 3,857 7,119 1,299

South 1,436 359 659 417 4,807 6,244 12,392 2,421

West 781 89 490 202 3,321 4,102 8,794 1,805

Metropolitan/

nonmetropolitan 

areas

Inside 

metropolitan 

statistical areas

3,825 859 1,817 1,149 11,567 15,392 29,846 5,956

In central cities 2,321 601 1,021 699 6,169 8,490 14,837 3,188

In suburbs 1,504 258 796 451 5,398 6,902 15,009 2,768

Outside 

metropolitan 

statistical areas

602 141 257 205 2,240 2,841 5,532 939

Number of 

bedrooms

None 56 4 22 31 439 495 744 228

One 1,643 295 527 821 4,289 5,933 9,720 2,008

Two 1,384 351 718 316 5,602 6,986 14,200 2,812

Three 1,038 258 604 177 2,732 3,770 8,359 1,442

Four or more 305 92 203 10 745 1,049 2,354 405

Number of 

complete 

bathrooms

None 12 – 12 – 140 152 229 101

One 3,422 871 1,366 1,185 9,909 13,330 22,894 4,699

One and one-half 522 91 287 145 1,257 1,779 3,575 653

Two or more 470 38 408 24 2,502 2,972 8,680 1,443

NA = data not available. – represents or rounds to 0. 
34

Summary Table 2. 2009 Householder Characteristics

2009 Householder 

Characteristics

(000s)

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 4,426 999 2,073 1,354 13,807 18,233 35,378 6,895

Race and origin of 

householder

White alone 2,122 359 1,034 729 9,369 11,491 25,202 4,649

Non-Hispanic 1,458 151 747 561 6,668 8,127 19,427 3,215

Hispanic 664 208 287 169 2,700 3,364 5,775 1,434

Black alone 2,038 598 919 521 3,424 5,462 7,446 1,745

Non-Hispanic 1,948 562 882 503 3,303 5,251 7,195 1,677

Hispanic 91 36 36 18 120 211 252 68

American Indian or 

Alaska Native alone 26 – 16 10 200 226 466 94

Asian alone 128 3 49 77 498 626 1,487 247

Pacific Islander 

alone 17 9 5 4 57 74 140 33

Two or more races 95 31 51 13 260 355 637 127

Hispanic or Latino (of 

any race) 772 244 338 189 2,936 3,707 6,300 1,558

Age of householder

Under 25 years 455 132 156 167 2,461 2,915 4,799 1,374

25 to 29 377 91 213 74 1,630 2,007 5,072 820

30 to 34 375 55 256 65 1,446 1,822 4,561 677

35 to 44 798 206 464 128 2,425 3,223 6,976 1,206

45 to 54 634 103 413 119 2,103 2,737 5,762 979

55 to 64 551 139 227 185 1,482 2,033 3,585 719

65 to 74 550 164 169 217 985 1,535 2,120 472

75 years and older 687 110 176 401 1,274 1,961 2,503 648

Median 48 46 43 62 40 42 39 39

Educational 

attainment of the 

householder

Less than 9th grade 413 107 181 126 1,343 1,756 2,232 712

9th to 12th grade, no 

diploma 1,158 312 482 364 2,354 3,512 4,455 1,170

High school 

graduate (includes 

equivalency)

1,676 339 820 517 5,000 6,677 11,724 2,398

Additional 

vocational training 181 62 60 60 452 633 1,144 221

Some college, no 

degree 683 160 363 160 2,696 3,379 6,924 1,408

Associate’s degree 196 38 98 60 794 990 2,522 356

Bachelor’s degree 239 43 93 104 1,194 1,434 5,183 647

Graduate or 

professional degree 60 – 36 24 425 485 2,338 204

Percent high school 

graduate or higher 64.5 58.1 68.0 63.9 73.2 71.1 81.1 72.7

Percent bachelor’s 

degree or higher 6.8 4.3 6.2 9.5 11.7 10.5 21.3 12.3

Year householder 

moved into unit

2005 to 2009 2,747 567 1,451 728 9,921 12,667 25,982 5,131

2000 to 2004 830 164 381 285 1,999 2,829 4,970 938

1995 to 1999 431 125 106 200 746 1,177 1,914 353

1990 to 1994 209 55 85 69 438 647 1,057 178

1985 to 1989 83 37 16 30 239 322 482 96

1980 to 1984 79 34 10 35 134 213 312 70

1975 to 1979 31 8 18 5 101 132 244 43

1970 to 1974 17 9 6 2 73 90 151 29

1960 to 1969 – – – – 87 87 158 40

1950 to 1959 – – – – 44 44 70 18

1940 to 1949 – – – – 13 13 23 –

1939 or earlier – – – – 12 12 17 –

Median year 2006 2005 2007 2005 2007 2007 2007 2007

NA = data not available. – represents or rounds to 0. 
35

Summary Table 3. 2009 Household Characteristics

2009 Household 

Characteristics

(000s)

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 4,426 999 2,073 1,354 13,807 18,233 35,378 6,895

Number of persons in 

household

One person 2,008 417 746 845 5,831 7,839 13,331 3,000

Two persons 860 227 420 213 2,977 3,837 9,453 1,449

Three persons 744 179 340 225 1,996 2,740 5,345 966

Four persons 465 109 301 55 1,499 1,964 4,016 772

Five persons 200 41 157 3 874 1,074 1,910 413

Six persons 65 19 46 – 382 447 780 173

Seven persons or more 84 8 63 13 247 331 543 123

Number of persons per 

room

0.50 or fewer 2,814 634 1,180 1,000 8,357 11,171 22,394 4,303

0.51 to 1.00 1,534 350 843 341 4,580 6,114 11,484 2,182

1.01 to 1.50 75 15 47 13 690 765 1,220 333

1.51 or more 3 – 3 – 180 183 279 78

Number of single 

children under 18 years

None 2,571 532 1,018 1,022 8,402 10,973 23,026 4,229

One 614 165 337 111 2,198 2,811 5,349 1,120

Two 708 195 355 157 1,713 2,421 4,106 811

Three 329 68 203 58 991 1,320 1,928 489

Four 107 13 94 – 336 443 632 156

Five 70 19 45 6 108 177 222 62

Six or more 28 8 21 – 59 87 115 29

Household composition

Two-or-more-person 

households 2,418 582 1,327 509 7,975 10,394 22,047 3,895

Married couple families, 

no nonrelatives 412 101 199 112 2,620 3,031 8,808 1,173

Under 25 years 10 – 10 – 303 313 707 127

25 to 29 years 52 21 27 5 413 465 1,313 221

30 to 34 years 31 – 31 – 407 438 1,497 157

35 to 44 years 73 19 46 7 628 701 2,168 297

45 to 64 years 107 6 53 48 611 719 2,329 278

65 years and older 138 55 31 53 257 395 793 93

Other male householder 137 8 83 46 1,470 1,607 4,673 683

Under 45 years 96 – 60 36 1,072 1,168 3,629 532

45 to 64 years 37 8 19 10 350 387 895 136

65 years and older 4 – 4 – 48 53 150 15

Other female 

householder 1,870 474 1,045 351 3,885 5,756 8,565 2,039

Under 45 years 1,454 398 772 284 2,835 4,289 6,119 1,524

45 to 64 years 334 52 245 37 847 1,181 2,030 416

65 years and older 82 23 29 30 203 285 417 99

One-person households 2,008 417 746 845 5,831 7,839 13,331 3,000

Male householder 556 79 232 245 2,641 3,197 6,588 1,315

Under 45 years 114 6 64 43 1,291 1,405 3,540 657

45 to 64 years 247 35 122 90 854 1,102 2,112 421

65 years and older 195 38 46 111 496 690 936 237

Female householder 1,452 338 514 600 3,191 4,643 6,743 1,686

Under 45 years 175 39 78 58 1,014 1,189 2,434 563

45 to 64 years 460 140 200 119 922 1,382 1,981 446

65 years and older 817 158 236 424 1,255 2,072 2,328 677

Households with 

children 1,855 468 1,055 332 5,404 7,260 12,352 2,666

Children in household 

with one adult 1,219 349 614 256 2,245 3,464 4,185 1,168

Disabilities

Households without a 

disabled person 2,804 698 1,395 711 10,516 13,320 28,856 5,241

Households with a 

disabled person 1,604 295 670 639 3,168 4,772 6,234 1,590

Disability not reported 18 7 8 4 123 141 288 64
36

2009 Household 

Characteristics

(000s)

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

Persons not spouse or 

children

With relatives 795 163 482 150 2,332 3,127 6,202 1,124

With nonrelatives 212 15 155 42 1,938 2,151 5,901 1,012

Percentage with one 

adult 65.7 74.6 58.2 77.1 41.5 47.7 33.9 43.8

Median household 

income $10,600 $9,000 $12,000 $9,516 $15,000 $14,000 $28,400 $10,800

Income sources of 

families and primary 

individuals

Wages and salaries 1,779 411 1,017 350 8,129 9,908 25,683 3,842

Wages and salaries were 

majority of income 1,541 358 882 301 7,409 8,950 24,023 3,490

Two or more people each 

earned more than 20% of 

wages and salaries

111 39 56 16 609 720 3,191 260

Self-employment 83 5 59 20 842 925 2,578 474

Interest 187 46 44 98 830 1,017 3,517 459

Dividends 13 5 – 8 214 227 1,100 121

Rental income 9 – 9 – 92 101 487 45

Social Security or 

Railroad Retirement 1,465 317 521 627 2,880 4,345 5,843 1,385

Retirement or survivor 

pensions 317 92 78 147 722 1,040 2,122 336

Supplementary Security 

Income (SSI) 932 218 414 300 1,350 2,282 2,350 751

Child support or alimony 447 101 275 71 794 1,240 1,922 413

Public assistance or 

public welfare 512 91 304 117 943 1,455 1,490 613

Food stamp benefits 1,967 451 948 568 3,457 5,424 5,050 1,967

Disability payments, 

workers’ compensation, 

veterans’ disability, other 

disability

379 50 236 93 735 1,114 1,606 394

Other income (VA 

payments, 

unemployment, royalty, 

estates, and more)

156 34 102 20 913 1,069 2,370 475

Food Stamps

Income of $25,000 or 

less 3,779 873 1,680 1,225 11,983 15,762 17,650 6,462

Household members 

received Food Stamps 1,967 451 948 568 3,457 5,424 5,050 1,967

Did not receive Food 

Stamps 1,692 395 678 619 7,832 9,524 11,592 4,101

Not reported 120 28 54 38 694 814 1,009 395

Median monthly 

housing costs 

(excludes no cash rent)

$385 $341 $525 $274 $720 $655 $808 $832

Monthly housing costs 

as percentage of 

current income

Less than 5% 15 – 7 8 29 44 162 –

5 to 9% 58 7 21 30 36 94 721 –

10 to 14% 110 13 52 45 101 211 1,964 –

15 to 19% 216 34 105 77 198 414 3,224 6

20 to 24% 416 121 171 125 331 747 3,682 7

25 to 29% 580 72 251 257 622 1,202 3,608 21

30 to 34% 544 173 184 187 836 1,380 2,956 16

35 to 39% 347 147 134 66 944 1,290 2,317 24

40 to 49% 352 62 198 92 1,744 2,096 3,322 72

50 to 59% 271 61 158 52 1,450 1,721 2,210 964

60 to 69% 122 41 81 – 993 1,115 1,423 904

70 to 99% 214 24 147 42 1,765 1,979 2,415 1,650
37

2009 Household 

Characteristics

(000s)

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

100% or more 741 169 379 193 3,055 3,796 4,076 2,865

Zero or negative income 158 31 60 67 780 937 1,261 181

No cash rent 283 44 127 112 923 1,206 2,037 186

Median (excludes 2 

previous lines) 35 35 40 30 58 52 34 89

Median (excludes 3 lines 

before medians) 31 33 33 29 47 43 31 67

NA = data not available. – represents or rounds to 0. 
38

Summary Table 4. 2009 Unit Conditions

2009 Unit Conditions

(000s)

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 4,426 999 2,073 1,354 13,807 18,233 35,378 6,895

Severe physical problems 159 53 79 27 474 633 994 474

Plumbing 79 23 41 15 286 364 656 286

Heating 77 30 35 12 169 246 300 169

Electric – – – – 7 7 13 7

Upkeep 3 – 3 – 24 27 44 24

Moderate physical problems 271 101 119 52 1,095 1,366 2,269 437

Plumbing 15 – 10 5 47 63 101 24

Heating 9 – 9 – 213 223 404 73

Upkeep 65 20 38 7 303 368 560 143

Kitchen 192 88 64 40 590 782 1,293 224

Selected deficiencies

Signs of rats in last 3 months 26 8 6 12 147 173 258 87

Signs of mice in last 3 months 276 92 115 69 949 1,225 2,138 472

Signs of rodents, not sure 

which kind, in last 3 months 41 14 24 3 81 122 189 51

Holes in floors 93 14 51 29 285 378 560 152

Open cracks or holes (interior) 370 106 163 101 1,144 1,514 2,416 612

Broken plaster or peeling paint 

(interior) 146 60 64 22 577 724 1,132 344

No electrical wiring – – – – 3 3 26 3

Exposed wiring 12 – 5 7 54 66 134 42

Rooms without electric outlets 55 5 32 19 283 338 624 150

Equipment failures in last 3 

months

Water supply stoppage 189 55 70 64 618 806 1,601 338

Flush toilet—none working 179 36 96 47 543 722 1,210 330

Public sewage disposal 

breakdowns 112 34 59 19 227 339 521 132

Electric fuse and circuit breaker 

failures 328 55 218 56 1,152 1,481 3,082 619

Heating equipment 

breakdown last winter 177 44 106 27 570 747 1,144 385

Water leakage

Leakage from inside structure 542 153 249 141 1,518 2,060 3,836 797

Leakage from outside structure 405 76 220 108 1,169 1,574 3,121 598

Street noise or traffic

Street noise or traffic 

bothersome 1,535 384 710 440 4,345 5,880 10,158 2,235

Neighborhood crime 

bothersome 1,263 434 520 309 3,114 4,376 7,650 1,627

Odor conditions bothersome 357 62 161 134 989 1,346 2,156 509

With other problems 1,026 411 381 233 2,270 3,296 5,517 1,166

Other buildings vandalized or 

with interiors exposed 627 253 277 97 1,497 2,124 3,036 757

Near buildings with bars on 

windows 941 271 460 211 2,736 3,678 6,025 1,429

Trash, litter, or junk on 

streets or properties 844 275 378 191 2,326 3,170 4,852 1,225

NA = data not available. – represents or rounds to 0. 
39

Summary Table 5. 2009 Tenant Opinions

2009 Tenant Opinions

(000s)

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 4,426 999 2,073 1,354 13,807 18,233 35,378 6,895

Overall opinion of structure

1 (worst) 119 41 49 29 171 290 327 121

2 51 15 7 29 89 139 209 51

3 69 20 33 17 234 304 436 124

4 38 13 21 4 329 367 708 193

5 370 111 182 77 1,290 1,660 2,910 683

6 265 58 134 73 1,061 1,326 2,553 497

7 702 197 387 118 2,236 2,937 6,146 1,058

8 1,030 196 499 335 3,506 4,535 9,625 1,747

9 411 121 150 139 1,423 1,834 4,217 719

10 (best) 1,241 208 547 487 2,910 4,151 6,941 1,430

Not reported 132 21 66 45 559 691 1,306 271

Overall opinion of 

neighborhood

1 (worst) 174 64 55 54 287 460 499 176

2 91 43 37 10 159 249 348 64

3 111 54 25 31 243 354 543 121

4 84 17 54 13 433 517 867 228

5 575 202 245 128 1,399 1,974 2,976 724

6 312 62 173 76 1,020 1,332 2,465 499

7 625 163 299 163 1,882 2,507 5,164 874

8 836 140 418 278 3,168 4,004 8,986 1,618

9 430 78 197 155 1,587 2,018 4,563 784

10 (best) 1,043 146 500 396 3,027 4,071 7,575 1,504

No neighborhood 6 3 – 3 15 21 29 11

Not reported 139 26 68 45 588 726 1,362 294

Respondent moved during 

past year 1,094 189 661 244 5,148 6,242 12,840 2,844

Reasons for leaving previous 

unit

Private displacement 26 – 12 14 174 200 393 91

Owner to move into unit 7 – 7 – 41 47 129 26

To be converted to 

condominium or cooperative – – – – 13 13 20 1

Closed for repairs – – – – 11 11 17 9

Other 19 – 5 14 108 127 225 55

Not reported – – – – 2 2 2 –

Government displacement 37 – 27 10 47 83 138 32

Government wanted building or 

land – – – – 14 14 21 9

Unit unfit for occupancy 7 – 7 – 2 10 13 2

Other 29 – 19 10 30 60 105 21

Not reported – – – – – – – –

Financial/employment related

New job or job transfer 38 – 38 – 290 328 1,326 159

To be closer to 

work/school/other 26 – 20 6 695 720 1,711 409

Other, financial/employment 

related 64 – 39 25 290 354 690 166

Family/person related

Married – – – – 51 51 141 27

Widowed, divorced, or 

separated 28 – 14 14 113 141 292 45

Other family-/person-related 

reasons 139 22 61 56 551 690 1,218 319

Housing related

To establish own household 138 78 42 17 679 816 1,445 369

Needed larger house or 

apartment 129 9 75 44 484 613 1,362 271

Wanted better home 156 15 125 17 473 630 1,279 259

Change from owner to renter 6 – 6 – 41 47 180 7

Wanted lower rent or 

maintenance 114 32 49 32 450 563 1,120 222
40

2009 Tenant Opinions

(000s)

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

Other housing-related 

reasons 105 6 90 9 339 444 828 189

Evicted from residence 17 – 17 – 99 115 169 53

Disaster loss (fire, flood, etc.) 10 – 10 – 69 79 132 38

Other 198 25 128 45 749 947 1,831 418

Not reported 27 15 9 3 233 260 472 112

Recent mover comparison to 

previous home

Better home 682 106 420 155 2,472 3,153 6,192 1,358

Worse home 172 36 94 43 1,085 1,257 2,676 587

About the same 214 32 142 39 1,363 1,577 3,498 782

Not reported 25 15 4 6 229 254 474 117

Choice of present 

neighborhood

Convenient to job 155 7 142 6 1,259 1,414 4,069 672

Convenient to friends or 

relatives 231 13 173 45 1,370 1,601 3,009 754

Convenient to leisure activities 79 – 49 30 305 384 972 176

Convenient to public 

transportation 98 7 65 26 352 450 753 197

Good schools 94 – 92 2 654 748 1,370 352

Other public services 77 11 40 26 221 299 544 127

Looks/design of neighborhood 178 6 129 43 676 855 2,046 419

House was most important 

consideration 206 37 122 47 548 754 1,523 315

Other 347 111 154 82 1,299 1,646 2,931 725

Not reported 32 15 14 3 244 276 493 123

Main reason for choice of 

present neighborhood

All reported reasons equal 123 – 109 14 497 620 1,354 274

Convenient to job 96 7 83 6 878 975 2,924 479

Convenient to friends or 

relatives 144 7 99 38 991 1,136 1,915 555

Convenient to leisure activities 17 – 2 15 80 97 244 32

Convenient to public 

transportation 21 7 7 7 123 144 237 76

Good schools 48 – 48 – 388 436 798 222

Other public services 50 5 19 26 83 133 185 38

Looks/design of neighborhood 94 – 75 19 369 463 1,163 217

House was most important 

consideration 137 37 67 33 358 494 964 198

Other 330 111 137 82 1,137 1,468 2,563 630

Not reported 32 15 14 3 244 276 493 123

Recent mover comparison to 

previous neighborhood

Better neighborhood 421 12 287 122 1,995 2,416 4,953 1,132

Worse neighborhood 187 60 103 24 855 1,042 1,955 451

About the same 435 102 248 85 1,839 2,274 4,916 1,012

Same neighborhood 26 – 19 7 228 253 520 129

Not reported 25 15 4 6 232 257 496 120

NA = data not available. – represents or rounds to 0. 
41

Summary Table 6. Breakdown of Householder and Household Characteristics by Race, Ethnicity, 

and Elderly Status

2009 Householder and 

Household Characteristics by 

Race, Ethnicity, and Elderly 

Status (000s)

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 4,426 999 2,073 1,354 13,807 18,233 35,378 6,895

White alone 2,122 359 1,034 729 9,369 11,491 25,202 4,649

Black alone 2,038 598 919 521 3,424 5,462 7,446 1,745

Hispanic 91 36 36 18 120 211 252 68

Over 65 1,237 274 345 618 2,259 3,496 4,623 1,120

Educational attainment of the 

householder

All householders

Less than 9th grade 413 107 181 126 1,343 1,756 2,232 712

9th to 12th grade, no diploma 1,158 312 482 364 2,354 3,512 4,455 1,170

High school graduate (includes 

equivalency) 1,676 339 820 517 5,000 6,677 11,724 2,398

Additional vocational training 181 62 60 60 452 633 1,144 221

Some college, no degree 683 160 363 160 2,696 3,379 6,924 1,408

Associate’s degree 196 38 98 60 794 990 2,522 356

Bachelor’s degree 239 43 93 104 1,194 1,434 5,183 647

Graduate or professional degree 60 0 36 24 425 485 2,338 204

Percent high school graduate or 

higher 64.5 58.1 68.0 63.9 73.2 71.1 81.1 72.7

Percent bachelor’s degree or 

higher 6.8 4.3 6.2 9.5 11.7 10.5 21.3 12.3

Black Alone 2,038 598 919 521 3,424 5,462 7,446 1,745

Less than 9th grade 107 56 26 26 169 276 279 93

9th to 12th grade, no diploma 602 176 257 170 676 1,278 1,247 351

High school graduate (includes 

equivalency) 741 182 374 184 1,392 2,133 2,801 708

Additional vocational training 104 38 31 36 127 231 273 59

Some college, no degree 385 137 173 75 752 1,137 1,624 372

Associate’s degree 89 7 48 34 191 280 539 94

Bachelor’s degree 98 40 27 30 181 279 728 98

Graduate or professional degree 17 0 14 3 64 81 228 29

Percent high school graduate or 

higher 65 61 69 63 75 141 80 75

Percent bachelor’s degree or 

higher 6 7 4 6 7 13 13 7

Hispanic 772 244 338 189 2,936 3,707 6,300 1,558

Less than 9th grade 208 73 84 51 771 979 1,294 429

9th to 12th grade, no diploma 197 77 75 45 730 927 1,294 396

High school graduate (includes 

equivalency) 230 57 117 56 882 1,112 2,029 429

Additional vocational training 31 13 18 0 64 95 142 32

Some college, no degree 75 12 48 15 291 366 807 159

Associate’s degree 35 25 1 8 109 144 286 52

Bachelor’s degree 14 0 9 5 123 137 433 71

Graduate or professional degree 13 0 5 9 30 43 155 22

Percent high school graduate or 

higher 48 39 53 49 49 97 59 47

Percent bachelor’s degree or 

higher 4 0 4 7 5 9 9 6

Year householder moved into 

unit

All households 4,426 999 2,073 1,354 13,807 18,233 35,378 6,895

2005 to 2009 2,747 567 1,451 728 9,921 12,667 25,982 5,131

2000 to 2004 830 164 381 285 1,999 2,829 4,970 938

1995 to 1999 431 125 106 200 746 1,177 1,914 353

1990 to 1994 209 55 85 69 438 647 1,057 178

1985 to 1989 83 37 16 30 239 322 482 96

1980 to 1984 79 34 10 35 134 213 312 70

1975 to 1979 31 8 18 5 101 132 244 43

1970 to 1974 17 9 6 2 73 90 151 29

1960 to 1969 0 0 0 0 87 87 158 40

1950 to 1959 0 0 0 0 44 44 70 18

1940 to 1949 0 0 0 0 13 13 23 0
42

2009 Householder and 

Household Characteristics by 

Race, Ethnicity, and Elderly 

Status (000s)

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

1939 or earlier 0 0 0 0 12 12 17 0

Black alone 2,038 598 919 521 3,424 5,462 7,446 1,745

2005 to 2009 1,333 342 678 313 2,436 3,769 5,401 1,264

2000 to 2004 377 108 167 101 508 885 1,076 248

1995 to 1999 155 67 33 55 194 349 382 91

1990 to 1994 119 51 34 33 128 247 272 57

1985 to 1989 14 5 0 9 61 75 98 34

1980 to 1984 20 9 6 5 34 54 87 27

1975 to 1979 13 8 0 5 29 42 66 18

1970 to 1974 9 9 0 0 12 21 24 4

1960 to 1969 0 0 0 0 14 14 28 3

1950 to 1959 0 0 0 0 2 2 6 0

1940 to 1949 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 0

1939 or earlier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hispanic 772 244 338 189 2,936 3,707 6,300 1,558

2005 to 2009 414 92 242 80 2,123 2,537 4,649 1,170

2000 to 2004 136 35 51 50 448 584 896 218

1995 to 1999 85 33 19 33 152 236 324 55

1990 to 1994 59 27 15 17 78 137 178 49

1985 to 1989 39 32 7 0 45 85 91 21

1980 to 1984 39 25 4 9 34 73 69 21

1975 to 1979 0 0 0 0 31 31 54 8

1970 to 1974 0 0 0 0 11 11 22 9

1960 to 1969 0 0 0 0 6 6 7 1

1950 to 1959 0 0 0 0 7 7 11 4

1940 to 1949 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0

1939 or earlier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Over 65 1,237 274 345 618 2,259 3,496 4,623 1,120

2005 to 2009 435 51 147 238 869 1,305 1,829 445

2000 to 2004 298 66 84 147 512 810 1,052 267

1995 to 1999 233 54 39 141 271 504 606 138

1990 to 1994 111 32 33 47 172 283 356 68

1985 to 1989 53 37 8 8 113 166 204 48

1980 to 1984 74 34 10 30 87 162 166 53

1975 to 1979 23 0 18 5 55 77 108 28

1970 to 1974 8 0 6 2 52 61 88 24

1960 to 1969 0 0 0 0 70 70 124 32

1950 to 1959 0 0 0 0 35 35 55 18

1940 to 1949 0 0 0 0 11 11 18 0

1939 or earlier 0 0 0 0 12 12 17 0

Income sources of families 

and primary individuals

All households

Wages and salaries 1,779 411 1,017 350 8,129 9,908 25,683 3,842

Wages and salaries were 

majority of income 1,541 358 882 301 7,409 8,950 24,023 3,490

Two or more people each 

earned more than 20% of 

wages and salaries

111 39 56 16 609 720 3,191 260

Self-employment 83 5 59 20 842 925 2,578 474

Interest 187 46 44 98 830 1,017 3,517 459

Dividends 13 5 – 8 214 227 1,100 121

Rental income 9 – 9 – 92 101 487 45

Social Security or Railroad 

Retirement 1,465 317 521 627 2,880 4,345 5,843 1,385

Retirement or survivor pensions 317 92 78 47 722 1,040 2,122 336

Supplementary Security Income 932 218 414 300 1,350 2,282 2,350 751

Child support or alimony 447 101 275 71 794 1,240 1,922 413

Public assistance or public 

welfare 512 91 304 117 943 1,455 1,490 613

Food stamp benefits 1,967 451 948 568 3,457 5,424 5,050 1,967

Disability payments, workers’

compensation, veterans’

disability, other disability

379 50 236 93 735 1,114 1,606 394
43

2009 Householder and 

Household Characteristics by 

Race, Ethnicity, and Elderly 

Status (000s)

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

Other income (VA payments, 

unemployment, royalty, estates, 

and more)

156 34 102 20 913 1,069 2,370 475

Over 65 

Wages and salaries 79 29 16 34 271 349 928 105

Wages and salaries were 

majority of income 54 29 7 19 133 188 571 53

Two or more people each 

earned more than 20% of 

wages and salaries

27 23 0 4 47 74 200 20

Self-employment 2 0 0 2 41 44 127 13

Interest 81 26 2 52 307 388 873 169

Dividends 8 0 0 8 100 108 329 63

Rental income 0 0 0 0 22 22 78 6

Social Security or Railroad 

Retirement 1,030 228 298 504 1,928 2,958 3,929 918

Retirement or survivor pensions 214 49 46 119 537 751 1,430 244

Supplementary Security Income 

(SSI) 365 108 106 151 307 673 615 148

Child support or alimony 5 0 0 5 8 13 22 2

Public assistance or public 

welfare 53 0 45 8 68 121 121 38

Food stamp benefits 329 41 113 176 342 671 594 145

Disability payments, workers’

compensation, veterans’

disability, other disability

65 6 35 23 88 153 195 47

Other income (VA payments, 

unemployment, royalty, estates, 

and more)

6 0 0 6 44 50 134 17

NA = data not available. – represents or rounds to 0. 
44

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. 2013. American Housing Survey: A Measure of (Poor) Housing Quality. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy 

Development and Research.

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/ahsrep/AHS_hsg_quality.html.

———. 2017a. Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters and Their Units in 2013. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and 

Research.

———. 2017b. Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters and Their Units in 2011. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and 

Research.

Eggers, Frederick J., and Fouad Moumen. 2008. “Trends in Housing Costs: 1985–2005 and the 

30-Percent-of-Income Standard.”

http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/ahsrep/trends_inhousing.html.

———. 2009. 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.

———. 2010. “Investigating Very High Rent Burdens Among Renters in the American Housing 

Survey.” http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/ahsrep/investing_veryhigh.html.

———. 2017. Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters and Their Units in 2009. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and 

Research.

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.