DISCLAIMER

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

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

Development or the U.S. Government.
Characteristics of 

HUD-Assisted Renters 

and Their Units in 2015

Frederick J. Eggers

Econometrica, Inc. 

SP Group LLC

November 2019
i 

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSIONS (SECTION 7) ....................................................................................................ES-5

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

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

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

THE BIG PICTURE IN 2015 ............................................................................................................6

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

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

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

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

YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT ...........................................................................................................13

NUMBER OF BEDROOMS .............................................................................................................14

CLOSING THOUGHTS ..................................................................................................................15

SECTION 4: HOUSEHOLDER CHARACTERISTICS ..........................................................................17

RACE AND ETHNIC ORIGIN OF HOUSEHOLDER ...........................................................................17

AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER ..............................................................................................................18

EDUCATION OF HOUSEHOLDER ..................................................................................................19

YEARS IN SAME UNIT.................................................................................................................20

SECTION 5: HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS...............................................................................23

HOUSEHOLD INCOME .................................................................................................................23

INCOME SOURCES .......................................................................................................................24

HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION ........................................................................................................25

HOUSEHOLD SIZE .......................................................................................................................27

HOUSEHOLDS WITH A DISABLED MEMBER .................................................................................28
ii

HOUSING COST AS PERCENTAGE OF INCOME ..............................................................................28

CLOSING THOUGHTS ..................................................................................................................31

SECTION 6: UNIT QUALITY AND TENANT SATISFACTION ............................................................32

STRUCTURE TYPE .......................................................................................................................32

OVERALL ADEQUACY OF UNITS .................................................................................................33

TENANT SATISFACTION ..............................................................................................................38

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

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

SECTION 7: CONCLUSIONS—LOOKING ACROSS THE SECTIONS .................................................43

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX A: HOW HUD DETERMINES PHYSICAL ADEQUACY ............................................... A-1

HOUSING ADEQUACY .............................................................................................................. A-1

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

AND THEIR UNITS BASED ON AHS DATA ...................................................................................B-1

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................51
iii

List of Exhibits 

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

EXHIBIT 2-2. RENTER ELIGIBILITY AND HOUSING ASSISTANCE IN 2015 ...........................................6

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

TO NEED ...................................................................................................................7

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

AND CENSUS DIVISION, 2015 ..................................................................................10

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

NONMETROPOLITAN STATUS, 2015 ........................................................................11

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

HOUSEHOLDS BY REGION AND BY METROPOLITAN/ 

NONMETROPOLITAN STATUS, 1989–2015 ..............................................................12

EXHIBIT 3-4. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY YEAR 

BUILT, 2015 ............................................................................................................13

EXHIBIT 3-5. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY NUMBER 

OF BEDROOMS, 2015 ...............................................................................................14

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

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

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

ETHNICITY OF HOUSEHOLDER, 2015 .......................................................................17

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

BY RACE AND ETHNICITY OF HOUSEHOLDER ..........................................................18

EXHIBIT 4-3. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY AGE OF 

HOUSEHOLDER, 2015 ..............................................................................................19

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

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

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

ATTAINMENT OF HOUSEHOLDER, 2015 ...................................................................20

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

YEARS IN UNIT BY RACE, ETHNICITY, AND SENIOR AND DISABILITY 

STATUS, 2015 .........................................................................................................21

EXHIBIT 5-1. MEDIAN INCOME OF HOUSEHOLDS BY ASSISTANCE STATUS, 2015 ...........................23

EXHIBIT 5-2. TRENDS IN MEDIAN INCOME OF HOUSEHOLDS BY 

ASSISTANCE STATUS...............................................................................................24

EXHIBIT 5-3. INCOME SOURCES FOR RENTER HOUSEHOLDS BY 

ASSISTANCE STATUS, 2015 .....................................................................................25

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

HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION, 2015 ...........................................................................26

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

NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD, 2015.........................................................26
iv

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

HOUSING BY HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION ................................................................27

EXHIBIT 5-7. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY 

HOUSEHOLD SIZE, 2015 ..........................................................................................27

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

DISABILITY STATUS OF MEMBERS, 2015 ................................................................28

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

RATIO OF HOUSING COSTS TO INCOME, 2015 .........................................................29

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

HOUSING BY RATIO OF HOUSING COSTS TO INCOME ..............................................30

EXHIBIT 6-1. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY 

STRUCTURE TYPE, 2015 ..........................................................................................32

EXHIBIT 6-2. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY 

PHYSICAL ADEQUACY, 2015 ...................................................................................33

EXHIBIT 6-3. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY 

HEATING ADEQUACY, 2015 ....................................................................................34

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

FLUSH TOILET BREAKDOWNS, 2015 .......................................................................35

EXHIBIT 6-5. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY 

WATER LEAKS, 2015 ..............................................................................................36

EXHIBIT 6-6. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY 

SELECTED DEFICIENCIES, 2015 ...............................................................................37

EXHIBIT 6-7. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY 

ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS, 2015 ................................................................................37

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

COMPLETE KITCHEN FACILITIES, 2015 ...................................................................38

EXHIBIT 6-9. DISTRIBUTION OF HUD-ASSISTED HOUSING BY 

TENANT RATINGS AS “BEST” OR “WORST,” 2015 ...................................................39

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

PERCENT OF RECENT MOVERS, 2015 ......................................................................39

EXHIBIT 6-11. DISTRIBUTION OF RECENT MOVERS HUD-ASSISTED 

HOUSING BY KEY REASONS GIVEN FOR MOVE, 2015 .............................................40

EXHIBIT 6-12. DISTRIBUTION OF RECENT MOVERS HUD-ASSISTED 

HOUSING BY COMPARISON OF CURRENT AND PREVIOUS 

HOME AND NEIGHBORHOOD, 2015 .........................................................................41

EXHIBIT 6-13. KEY FINDINGS FROM EXHIBITS 6-3 THROUGH 6-8 ..................................................42
ES-1 

Executive Summary

In 2015, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provided rental 

subsidies to 4.475 million households under several programs, with total costs exceeding $36 

billion. This report uses data1 from the American Housing Survey (AHS) to describe key 

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

The 2015 AHS contained information collected from 5,346 HUD-assisted rental units; this report 

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

low-income (VLI) households2 (that is, by households with incomes not exceeding 50 percent of 

local median income, adjusted for household size). In most cases, the group of VLI households is 

eligible for HUD assistance.

HUD-Assisted Rental Housing (Section 2)

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

privately owned multifamily programs.

3

 Public housing and privately owned multifamily

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

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

who then selects the unit. 

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

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

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

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

subsidizes operating costs and capital improvements. In 2015, public housing assisted 1.015 

million households. 

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

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

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

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

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

error. The definitions and time periods used in this report may not be the same as used in U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) administrative data or other surveys (which have their own sources of 

error). Readers are advised to use caution when comparing the results in this report with documents based on other 

data sources, including HUD’s Picture of Subsidized Households. 2 Throughout this report, the term “very low-income households” refers to renter households eligible for HUD 

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

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

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

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

incomes at or below 50 percent of the HUD area median income. As of 2019, approximately 4 percent of HUDassisted households have incomes greater than 50 percent of the HUD area median income. 3 In discussing differences between individual HUD programs or between HUD-assisted housing and comparison 

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

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

are needed for manageable testing.
ES-2 

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

In 2015, the HCV program assisted 2.12 million households. 

Privately owned multifamily housing includes projects created under a collection of 

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

housing subsidies from HUD, in order to provide affordable housing to qualified tenants. The 

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

and move to another location. The single largest (approximately 87 percent) project-based 

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

the Section 8 voucher program. In 2015, privately owned multifamily programs assisted 1.34 

million households. 

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

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

households are called VLI households. In 2015, 19.976 million households in the United States 

were VLI and 4.575 million (approximately 22.5 percent) were in HUD-assisted units. 

The number of assisted rental units increased by only 11 percent during the past 24 years. 

In 1991, HUD assisted 4.036 million rental units, compared with 4.475 million in 2015. During 

the same period, the number of VLI households increased approximately 32 percent, from 

16.194 million to 19.876 million. As a result of a reduced rate of HUD assisting households with 

an increase in the number of VLI households, the percentage of VLI households receiving 

assistance fell from 24.9 to 22.5 percent. 

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

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

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

approximately 47 percent in 2015. During this period, the shares of public housing and privately 

owned multifamily housing each declined by approximately 11 percentage points; public 

housing decreased from approximately 33 percent to approximately 22 percent, and privately 

owned multifamily housing decreased from approximately 41 percent to approximately 30 

percent.

Characteristics That Affect Program Performance (Section 3)

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

done with local PHAs, and in the case of privately owned multifamily units, vouchers, and 

private landlords. When and where these agents get involved in the housing process and their 

preferences4 determine where the programs operate and who the programs serve. This is 

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

locality and a certain clientele for 40 years or more.

Project-based programs were most active prior to 1990; approximately two-thirds of 

public housing and privately owned multifamily housing was built between 1950 and 1989. This 

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

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

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

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

bedrooms built. 

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

multifamily programs heavily oriented toward building smaller units. In 2015, approximately 

37.6 percent of public housing units and approximately 62.8 percent of privately owned 

multifamily units were efficiencies or one-bedroom, whereas, for all renter households, the share 

was approximately 27.6 percent and approximately 33.2 percent for VLI households. This heavy 

concentration of efficiencies and one-bedroom units determined the size and composition of the 

households served by these programs in 2015. By comparison, approximately 27.4 percent of the 

units in the voucher program were efficiency or one-bedroom units. 

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

central cities of metropolitan areas in the United States, the percentage of public housing and 

privately owned multifamily rental housing is higher than the percentage of VLI households in 

these same areas. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

describe the characteristics of those HUD-assisted housing serves.

HUD-assisted rental housing generally serves the lowest income population. In 2015, the 

median income for VLI households not assisted by HUD was approximately $15,889, compared 

with those VLI households assisted by HUD: it was approximately $10,200 among public 

housing tenants, approximately $10,380 among tenants of privately owned multifamily units, and 

approximately $11,400 among voucher recipient households. Compared with all VLI

households, householders in HUD-assisted units had substantially lower educational attainment. 

Also, HUD-assisted households received wage and salary income less often and relied on 

welfare and Supplement Security Income (SSI) more often than all VLI households. HUDassisted households were less often married-couple households and more often female-headed 

households. HUD-assisted households, especially in privately owned multifamily projects, were 

more likely to contain members with disabilities (hereafter, referred to as disabled households). 

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

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

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

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

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

programs were historically concentrated in the Northeast and South and were constructed before 
ES-4 

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

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

Housing Costs, Unit Quality, and Tenant Satisfaction

(Sections 5 and 6) 

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

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

overall. 

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

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

show that approximately 44.1 percent of HUD-assisted household have excessive rent burdens. 

This percentage is substantially higher than expected because usually tenants’ rents in HUDassisted housing are set at 30 percent of income. Section 5 presents plausible reasons for this 

apparent program discrepancy. The bottom line is that excessive rent burdens are much less 

common among HUD-assisted households than all VLI households (approximately 69.1 

percent). 

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

whether an individual unit is adequate, moderately inadequate, or severely inadequate. In 2015, 

approximately 1.9 percent of all rental units were severely inadequate, and approximately 2.7 

percent of all VLI units and all HUD-assisted units were severely inadequate. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

units occupied by VLI households or from all rental units. This result is driven by the favorable 

ratings given by tenants in privately owned multifamily units. Public housing tenants are the 

least likely to be satisfied with their units and neighborhoods. With respect to neighborhoods, 

tenants in public housing appear to be less satisfied than tenants in the other groups; they have 

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

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

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

the HUD-assisted unit as better than their previous unit. When asked to compare their current 

neighborhood with their previous neighborhood, recent movers in the voucher program or in 

privately owned multifamily units were more likely to rate their current neighborhood as better 

than their previous neighborhoods. For public housing, however, recent movers did not tend to 

favorably view their current neighborhoods. 
ES-5 

Conclusions (Section 7)

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

questions. 

Who Do the Programs Serve?

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

More than one-half of all HUD-assisted households had a total income in 2015 of less than 

$11,400, compared with a median of $15,900 among unassisted VLI households. Other 

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

most in need. Approximately 70 percent of HUD-assisted households are female-headed, 

compared with approximately 55 percent among VLI households. HUD-assisted housing serves 

households with one or more disabled members at a rate (approximately 45.7 percent) 

substantially higher than the rate among either VLI renter units (approximately 31.8 percent) or 

all rental units (approximately 21.9 percent). 

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

households. Among HUD-assisted households, approximately 45 percent have Black 

householders and approximately 18 percent have Hispanic householders, compared with

approximately 27 percent and 23 percent, respectively, among all VLI households. 

What Benefits Do the Programs Provide? 

Excessive rent burdens are lower among HUD-assisted households (approximately 44 percent) 

compared with all VLI renters (approximately 69 percent). 

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

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

condition of units. AHS data show the American rental housing stock is in good condition and 

HUD-assisted units are as good as other rental units.

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

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

compared with all VLI movers and all renters. The neighborhood ratings are mixed, with public 

housing tenants rating their neighborhoods less favorably. 

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

Approximately 45 percent of privately owned multifamily householders are seniors, compared 

with approximately 22 percent of householders in public housing and approximately 18 percent 

in the voucher program. Approximately 39 percent of privately owned multifamily households 

include two or more persons, compared with approximately 55 percent in public housing and 

approximately 60 percent in the voucher program. Approximately 54 percent of privately owned 

multifamily households have a disabled member, compared with approximately 43 percent in

public housing and approximately 42 percent in the voucher program. 
ES-6 

Voucher households are the most mobile. Approximately 34 percent moved in the past 2 years, 

compared with approximately 28 percent among public housing tenants and approximately 30 

percent among privately owned multifamily tenants. Mobility is much higher among the 

comparison groups: Approximately 44 percent of VLI renters and approximately 48 percent of 

all renters moved in the past 2 years. 

How Have the Programs Evolved from 1989 Onwards?

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

to tenant-based assistance. From 1989 to 2015, the number of HUD-assisted units increased by 

approximately 400,000 units, but the program mix changed dramatically. The voucher program’s 

share grew from approximately 26 percent in 1989 to approximately 47 percent in 2015, while 

shares of public housing and privately owned multifamily housing each declined by 

approximately 11 percentage points.

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

cities have a larger share of HUD assistance, at approximately 32 percent in 2015 compared with 

approximately 26 percent in 1989. The share of senior householders in voucher units fell from 

approximately 35 percent to approximately 27 percent.
1 

Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters

and Their Units in 2015

Section 1: Introduction 

In 2015, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) subsidized 4.475 

million renter households under a variety of programs where total costs exceeded $36 billion. 

Using data from the 2015 American Housing Survey (AHS), this report describes the operations 

of these rental assistance programs and assesses their performance. This study examines the 

following questions: 

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

affect who the programs serve? 

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

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

household composition? 

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

aspects affect who the programs serve?

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

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

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

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

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

occupants. 

AHS is an ideal data source for these purposes. The 2015 AHS contained information 

collected from 5,346 HUD-assisted rental units; this report compares this group with two control 

groups, all rental units and all rental units occupied by VLI households (that is, households 

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

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

Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, which are not included in the AHS.

5 This report is the eighth 

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

stock and its occupants.6

 

This report contains seven sections and an executive summary: 

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

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

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

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

not prepared.
2 

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

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

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

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

determine who the programs serve. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

relationship between rent and other housing costs and income. 

• Section 6 focuses on unit quality and tenant satisfaction. It looks at structure type; 

equipment failures and other deficiencies; how well tenants rate their units and 

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

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

housing. 
3 

Section 2: HUD Rental Assistance Programs

Multiple Assistance Programs but Two Strategies

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

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

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

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

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

categories:

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

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

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

multifamily): project-based. 

Public housing consists of housing developments owned by local public housing 

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

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

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

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

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

percent) of their income. New tenants can select from vacant and available units owned and 

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

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

housing for “teachers and firemen”—in other words, working low-income families. The federal 

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

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

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

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

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

costs and capital improvements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

household’s income. Families are given the choice of renting units that are more expensive, but 

tenants must then pay the difference between the payment standard and the higher rent in 
4 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

there is a variant that allows PHAs to attach vouchers to units in a project. The “voucher” data in 

this report contain both the traditional voucher program and this variant. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

subsidy and move to another location. The single largest (87 percent) project-based program is

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

voucher program. This program allowed for new construction and substantial rehabilitation 

delivered through a wide variety of financing mechanisms. An important variant of project-based 

Section 8 was the Loan Management Set Aside (LMSA) program, which was provided in 

projects financed under Federal Housing Administration (FHA) programs that were not 

originally intended to provide deep subsidy rental assistance and which were in danger of 

foreclosure. Projects receiving these LMSA “piggyback” subsidies were developed under the 

Section 236 program, the Section 221(d)(3) Below Market Interest Rate (BMIR) program, and 

some others that were unassisted when originally developed.8 The Section 202 Supportive 

Housing for the Elderly program is another important privately owned multifamily program, 

accounting for 9 percent of the units in this category. 

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

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

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

due to problems with project-based housing. In public housing, concentrating low-income

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

abandonment and eventual demolition of Pruitt-Igo buildings in St. Louis, Missouri, and Cabrini 

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

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

FHA, which insured the mortgages on these programs.

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

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

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

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

characteristics, neighborhood amenities, and location. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

During the 1989–2015 period, the number of HUD-assisted units increased by 

approximately 400,000 units, but the program mix changed dramatically (exhibit 2-1). In this and 

all future exhibits, the term “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and 

privately owned multifamily units. The voucher program’s share grew from approximately 26 

percent in 1989 to approximately 47 percent in 2015, while the shares of public housing and 

privately owned assisted housing each declined by approximately 11 percentage points. Due to

differences in the way these programs are structured, sizable changes might be expected during 

this period in how HUD housing assistance affected American households. 

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

AHS Survey 

Year

All HUD-Assisted 

(Thousands)

Tenants in Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients (%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF (%)

1989 4,070 33.4 26.0 40.5

1991 4,036 28.4 28.3 43.3

1993 4,054 28.1 29.6 42.3

2003 4,280 25.6 42.1 32.4

2007 4,273 23.5 45.1 31.4

2009 4,426 22.6 46.8 30.6

2011 4,466 22.9 47.0 30.1

2013 4,490 22.9 46.8 30.2

2015 4,475 22.7 47.4 29.9

AHS = American Housing Survey. MF = multifamily.

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

Source: AHS 

It is important to note that not all housing assistance programs are assessed in this report.

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

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

programs. Estimates indicate that in fiscal year 2004, 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 does

not provide information on units available for occupancy under the U.S. Department of the 

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

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

incomes less than 60 percent of local area median income; HUD PD&R, 2019). Some of these

tax credit units may also receive HUD or USDA subsidies. 
6 

The Big Picture in 2015

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

2015, of the 43.991 million renter households, 19.876 million were eligible on the basis of 

income for HUD assistance.

Exhibit 2-2. Renter Eligibility and Housing Assistance in 2015

The term “Worst Case Needs Households” is used in exhibit 2-2 but is not further present 

in this report. “Worst-case needs” refers to renters who do not receive federal assistance, whose 

incomes fall below 50 percent of median family income in their area (as adjusted by HUD), and 

who spend more than one-half their income on rent and utilities or live in severely inadequate 

housing. Reports presenting estimates of worst-case needs households have been submitted to

Congress since 1991.9

HUD programs served 4.475 million (22.5 percent) of the VLI households. The voucher program 

helped 2.12 million households; another 1.34 million households lived in privately owned 

multifamily housing, and public housing provided housing to 1.015 million households.10 This 

left 15.401 million eligible households without any HUD housing assistance; of these, 8.326 

9

 These Worst-Case Needs publications are available online at 

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/affhsg/rha_main.html. 10 In the 2015 and previous AHS surveys that identified HUD-assisted units, HUD provided the U.S. Census Bureau 

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

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

million were judged to have worst-case housing needs. AHS data depict how housing assistance 

has evolved over the 26 years between the 1989 AHS and the 2015 AHS (exhibit 2-3).

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

AHS Survey 

Year

All Renters 

(Thousands)

All VLI Renters 

(Thousands)

All HUD-Assisted

(Thousands)

Percent of VLI

Assisted (%)

1989 33,767 13,808 4,070 29.5

1991 33,351 16,194 4,036 24.9

1993 33,472 15,795 4,054 25.7

2003 33,604 16,576 4,280 25.8

2007 35,032 16,494 4,273 25.9

2009 35,378 18,233 4,426 24.3

2011 38,816 19,824 4,466 22.5

2013 40,202 18,856 4,490 23.8

2015 43,991 19,876 4,475 22.5

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

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

Source: AHS.

During the 1991–2015 period, the number of renter households grew from approximately 

33.4 million to approximately 44.0 million, an increase of 32 percent.11 During the same time

period, the number of VLI households increased by 23 percent, while the number of HUDassisted units increased by only 11 percent. The percentage of VLI households receiving 

assistance fell from approximately 24.9 percent in 1991 to approximately 22.5 percent in 2015. 

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

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

incomes. Most of the decline in the percentage of VLI households receiving assistance occurred 

during the 2007–2011 period. The number of VLI renter households declined by approximately 1 

million between 2011 and 2013 but rose again by 2015. 

Interpreting the Data

There are three factors crucial for interpreting the data: 

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

stamps), and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), assisted housing is not 

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

assisted housing will receive housing assistance. Some households receive help, while 

others are placed on waiting lists. Such variations mean that the “who is helped” question 

is particularly relevant. In other words, individually and as a group, do the assisted 

housing programs overserve some populations and underserve others? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

means the location and type of units produced (such as one-bedroom units in central 

cities) determine who will be served for years to come (a one-bedroom unit cannot serve 

a larger family with multiple children, for example). 

A Note on Eligibility 

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

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

Things are more complicated than that, however. In one sense, 50 percent of adjusted local 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

programs. Finally, the Act eliminated the federal admission preference and allows PHAs to 

establish local preferences.
9 

Section 3: Location and Key Unit Characteristics

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

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

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

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

provided. 

Regional and Metropolitan Location

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

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

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

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

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

approximately 36.1 percent of all renters and approximately 34.8 percent of VLI renters live in 

the South. Since eligibility is relative to local income, this pattern is not surprising because highincome areas will have higher local median incomes.

How to Read a Current Characteristics Table 

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

distributions of groups of units or households by various characteristics of rental housing in 2015. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Unit or occupant characteristics;

2. All assisted units or households (4,475,000). This column contains the weighted sum of 

columns 3, 4, and 5;

3. Public housing units or households (1,015,000);

4. Voucher units or households (2,120,000);

5. Privately owned multifamily units or households (1,340,000);

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

(19,876,000);

7. All renter households (or units occupied by them), including assisted households (43,991,000).

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

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

indicates that 7.6 percent of the 4,475,000 HUD-assisted units are located in the New England Census 

Division. Percentages are rounded to one decimal place.
10 

Exhibit 3-1. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Region and Census Division, 2015

Regions and Divisions

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total VLI 

Renters (%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted (%)Tenants in Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients (%)

Tenants in 

Privately Owned 

MF (%)

United States (Units, in Thousands) 4,475 1,015 2,120 1,340 19,876 43,991

Northeast Region 27.6 35.8 24.2 26.9 21.0 19.1

New England Division:

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, 

New Hampshire, Rhode Island, 

Vermont

7.6 6.6 7.1 9.3 5.1 4.8

Middle Atlantic Division: New 

Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania 20.0 29.2 17.1 17.5 15.9 14.3

Midwest Region 21.9 19.6 19.5 27.5 21.0 19.6

East North Central Division:

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, 

Wisconsin

15.6 13.7 13.6 20.0 14.6 13.4

West North Central Division:

Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, 

Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota

6.4 5.9 5.8 7.5 6.4 6.2

South Region 32.8 36.2 32.6 30.5 34.8 36.1

South Atlantic Division: Delaware, 

Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West 

Virginia, District of Columbia

16.2 16.8 16.1 15.8 17.6 18.7

East South Central Division:

Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, 

Tennessee

7.0 10.0 5.5 7.1 6.2 5.6

West South Central Division:

Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas 9.7 9.4 11.1 7.6 11.0 11.8

West Region 17.7 8.6 23.7 15.0 23.2 25.2

Mountain Division: Arizona, 

Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New 

Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming

4.1 2.6 4.9 4.0 6.3 7.0

Pacific Division: Alaska, California, 

Oregon, Washington, Hawaii 13.6 6.0 18.8 11.0 17.0 18.2

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

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

Source: U.S. Census Bureau
11 

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

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

Approximately 19 percent of all renters and approximately 21 percent of VLI renters live in the 

Northeast, but approximately 28 percent of HUD-assisted housing is located there. Public 

housing is particularly concentrated in this region, but the percentage of voucher units and 

privately owned multifamily units are also higher than the percentages of all renters or all VLI 

renters. In 2015, the West contained approximately 25 percent of all renters and approximately 

25 percent of VLI renters, but only approximately 18 percent of HUD-assisted households. The 

shares of HUD-assisted renters found in the Midwest and South are closer to the geographic 

distributions of all renter households and all VLI households. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

metropolitan/nonmetropolitan distribution of HUD-assisted housing.

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

areas in 2015 is similar to that of all renter households and all VLI renter households (exhibit 

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

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

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

pronounced in public housing, but the voucher and privately owned multifamily programs also 

exhibit this imbalance to a lesser extent.

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

Nonmetropolitan Status, 2015 

Metropolitan/ 

Nonmetropolitan Areas

HUD-Assisted Renters Total 

VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters

(%)

All HUDAssisted (%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

(%)

Inside Metropolitan 

Statistical Areas 87.4 84.2 88.7 87.9 87.1 88.2

In Central Cities 56.3 61.6 55.0 54.3 49.6 47.4

Outside Central Cities 31.2 22.7 33.6 33.7 37.5 40.8

Outside Metropolitan 

Statistical Areas 12.6 15.8 11.3 12.1 12.9 11.8

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

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

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

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

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

HUD-assisted rental housing has not seen a significant change over time. The discussion in 
12 

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

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

distribution of HUD-assisted housing has changed little in the past 26 years. The 10 years 

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

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

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

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

declined over time.

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

and by Metropolitan/Nonmetropolitan Status, 1989–201512

Percentage of All HUDAssisted Renters by

Location 

AHS Survey Year

1989 1991 1993 2003 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Northeast 28 24a 27 28 28 28 28 28 28

Midwest 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22

South 34 37 35 34 32 32 33 33 33

West 16 17 15 17 18 18 18 18 18

Inside Metropolitan Statistical 

Areas 84 81 82 87 86 86 86 87 87

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

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

Outside Metropolitan 

Statistical Areas 16 19 18 13 14 14 14 13 13

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

suspicious. Research confirms these were the reported percentages. The 1991 regional percentages may be incorrect. 

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

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

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

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

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

and 2015, the proportion of assisted housing in metropolitan areas outside central cities grew 

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

percent; the proportion of assisted housing outside of metropolitan areas fell from 16 to 13 

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

There is a further technical reason as to why the continuity between 2013 and 2015 in 

exhibit 3-3 is surprising. From 1985 to 2013, AHS used the same boundaries between the central 

city and non-central city parts of metropolitan areas in its sample as their 1984 boundaries. In 

2015, AHS updated the sample, changing the boundaries between central cities and areas outside 

of central cities to those in 2015. This change, however, appears to have had little effect on the 

profile of the housing stock. In 2013, 47.8 percent of all renters lived in central cities; for 2015, 

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

whole percentages, whereas the table exhibits describing characteristics of HUD programs in 2015 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. 13 The 1989 numbers in this paragraph come from Table 3 on page 25 of Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters 

and Their Units in 1989. 
13 

this is 47.4 percent. The percentage of renters living outside central cities changed slightly more, 

from 39.7 percent in 2013 to 40.8 percent in 2015. 

Year Structure Built 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

can still determine what type of households can be served in 2015. 

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

renters. Almost one-half (approximately 49 percent) of VLI renters rent housing built prior to 

1970, compared with approximately 45 percent of all renters. Although the percentage of 

assisted renters is similar, with approximately 46 percent living in units built before 1970, the 

similarity between all HUD-assisted units and those occupied by VLI renters vanishes when one 

looks across the individual programs and all four periods. 

Exhibit 3-4. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Year Built, 2015 

Year Built

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters

(%)

All HUDAssisted (%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

(%)

1949 and Earlier 22.3 18.5 27.2 17.4 25.5 22.9

1950–1969 23.8 35.0 21.9 18.4 23.6 21.9

1970–1989 34.5 32.4 27.1 47.8 29.2 29.3

1990 or Later 19.3 14.1 23.7 16.3 21.7 25.9

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

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

Public housing began in 1937, and approximately 18.5 percent of today’s public housing 

units were built before 1950. More than 67 percent of public housing units were built between 

1950 and 1989, when HUD restructured its housing assistance programs to favor the voucher 

approach.14 The privately owned multifamily programs were most active between 1965 and 

1989; 66 percent of these units were constructed between 1970 and 1989. The 17 percent of 

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

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

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

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

by Table Creator.
14 

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 should more closely match the distribution of 

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

middle “Year Built” categories (1950–1969 and 1970–1989). Voucher households occupy more 

pre-1950 housing and less post-1989 housing than all renters, however. The percentages of 

voucher households living in pre-1950 and post-1989 units are higher than those of all VLI

households. 

Number of Bedrooms

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

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

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

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

the needs that PHAs and project owners choose to serve. 

Exhibit 3-5 contains the distribution of rental units by bedroom in 2015.15 

Exhibit 3-5. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Number of Bedrooms, 2015

Number of 

Bedrooms

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters

(%)

All HUDAssisted (%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

(%)

Efficiency/One 40.3 37.6 27.4 62.8 33.2 27.6

Two 31.9 30.9 36.3 25.7 39.2 39.8

Three 21.3 22.1 28.2 9.7 22.0 24.9

Four or More 6.5 9.4 8.1 1.8 5.5 7.7

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

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

As shown in exhibit 3-6, the distribution of units by number of bedrooms is 

approximately equal for total VLI renters and all renters, but the distribution across HUDassisted units are more heavily concentrated toward fewer bedrooms. Approximately 40 percent 

of HUD-assisted units are efficiencies or one-bedroom units, compared with approximately 33 

percent for all units occupied by VLI households and approximately 28 percent of all renters.

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

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

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

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

individual respondents. 
15 

Thirty-two percent of HUD-assisted units have two bedrooms, compared with 39 percent of VLI

households and 40 percent of all renters. 

Among units in privately owned multifamily projects, the percentage of one-bedroom 

units is nearly 63 percent. This characteristic will strongly determine who the privately owned 

projects serve in terms of household size and composition. In turn, project owners built smaller 

units because they envisioned serving senior households. Thirty-eight percent of public housing 

units are efficiency and one-bedroom units. 

Only the voucher program has a distribution of units similar to the distribution of all 

rental units. It has the same percentage of efficiency and one-bedroom units (approximately 27 

percent), a lower percentage of two-bedroom units (approximately 36 percent vs. approximately 

40 percent), and higher percentages of large units. Three-bedroom units make up approximately 

28 percent of the voucher program’s units, compared with approximately 25 percent of all rental 

units, and the voucher program sees a marginally higher percentage of four-or-more bedroom 

units, at approximately 8.1 percent versus approximately 7.7 percent for all renters. 

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

Bedrooms

Percent of Units by Number of 

Bedrooms

All HUD-Assisted Renters

1989 1991 1993 2003 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

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

Two 32 33 35 33 30 31 33 33 32

Three 20 20 19 22 22 23 23 22 21

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

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

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

bedrooms, but this movement has been modest and irregular. In 1989, approximately 76 percent 

of HUD-assisted units were either one- or two-bedroom units, while approximately 4 percent had 

three or more bedrooms; by 2015, the percentages were approximately 72 percent versus 

approximately 27 percent, respectively. This appears to be the result of the shift in the program 

mix toward the voucher program. 

Closing Thoughts 

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

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

presented in this section. 

The project-based programs were most active prior to 1990. Exhibit 3-4 confirms that 

approximately two-thirds of public housing and privately owned multifamily housing were built 

between 1950 and 1989, and thus were influenced by the demographics of that period, such as 

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

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

particular, what mix of bedrooms was built. Exhibit 3-5 shows that public housing and privately 

owned multifamily rental housing have a heavy concentration of efficiency and one-bedroom 
16 

units, which in turn determines the size and composition of the households served by these 

programs. 

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

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

multifamily rental housing is concentrated in the Northeast and in central cities.
17 

Section 4: Householder Characteristics

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

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

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

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

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

household.16 In a traditional household with two adults and a child or children, the householder 

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

assisted housing serves and compare those served with all renters or all VLI renters.

Race and Ethnic Origin of Householder

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

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

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

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

householder compared with all VLI households. 

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

Householder, 2015

Race and Ethnicity of 

Householder 

HUD-Assisted Renters Total 

VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters

(%)

All HUDAssisted

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

(%)

White Alone 47.1 40.4 44.2 56.8 64.0 69.8

Black Alone 44.8 51.4 48.1 34.4 27.3 21.2

Other Races Alone or Multiple 

Races 8.1 8.1 7.7 8.8 8.7 9.0

Hispanic (of Any Race) 17.5 18.5 18.5 15.0 23.0 19.3

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

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

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

public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units.

The percentage of HUD-assisted units with Black householders in 2015 was 

approximately 44.8 percent, while the percentage of all VLI renter households with Black 

householders was approximately 27.3 percent. The differentials were greatest for the public 

housing and voucher programs, where approximately 51.4 and 48.1 percent of units, 

respectively, were occupied by Black householders. One possible explanation for public housing 

is its high concentration in central cities. Privately owned multifamily units, however, have the 

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

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

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

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

to be . . . the householder. The householder is not necessarily the one answering the survey questions.”
18 

smallest differential (approximately 34.4 percent compared with the total VLI percentage of

27.3), and these units are also concentrated in central cities.

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

householders (17.5 percent) is smaller than the percentage of VLI households with Hispanic 

householders (23.0 percent). This conclusion applies to all three HUD programs and is most 

pronounced for privately owned multifamily housing (15.0 percent). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ethnicity of Householder

Percentage of Race and Ethnicity 

of Householder

All HUD-Assisted Renters

1989 1991 1993 2003 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

White Alone 54 61 54 54 52 48 49 49 47

Black Alone 40 35 40 40 41 46 44 44 45

Other Races Alone or Multiple 

Races 6 4 6 6 7 6 7 8 8 

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

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

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

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

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

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

not directly affect the collection of data on ethnicity.

Age of Householder

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

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

HUD-assisted housing programs were serving households with senior householders at a rate 

(approximately 27.0 percent) greater than their share (20.4 percent) of the population of VLI

renter households. The percentage of households with senior householders was particularly high 

among units in privately owned multifamily housing (approximately 45.3 percent). Owners of 

project-based multifamily projects appear to favor serving a senior population, either out of 

concern for seniors or because senior households present fewer management problems. One 

privately owned multifamily program, Section 202, was created strictly for seniors. Only the 

voucher program served seniors at a rate (approximately 17.5 percent) smaller than their share 

(20.4 percent) of VLI renter households. 
19 

Exhibit 4-3. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Age of Householder, 2015

Age of Householder

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters

(%)

All HUDAssisted (%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

(%)

Under 35 21.3 24.3 21.6 18.4 31.1 34.8

35 to 64 51.7 52.9 60.9 36.3 48.5 50.9

65 or Older 27.0 22.8 17.5 45.3 20.4 14.2

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

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

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

three HUD programs than the share of VLI renter households—24.3 percent in public housing, 

21.6 percent in the voucher program, and 18.4 percent in the project-based program compared 

with 31.1 percent for all VLI households. 

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

35 and 64 years old (approximately 60.9 percent) than the VLI renter population (approximately 

48.5 percent). Approximately 36.3 percent of households in privately owned multifamily units 

were in this age range. The voucher program focuses more on families.

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

fallen from approximately 35 percent in 1989 to approximately 27 percent in 2015, with most of 

the change taking place between 1993 and 2003. This results from the steady increase in 

importance of the voucher program and the decline in the number of privately owned 

multifamily projects. 

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

Householder

Percentage of Age of 

Householder 

All HUD-Assisted Renters

1989 1991 1993 2003 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Under 35 29 31 34 29 24 27 26 25 21

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

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

Education of Householder

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

renter households are much less educated than all renter households. Among VLI renter 

households, approximately 25.6 percent had householders without high school diplomas, 

compared with approximately 16.2 percent among all renter households; approximately 42.4 

percent of VLI households have householders with education beyond the high school level, 

compared with approximately 56.7 percent among all renter households.17

17 The Characteristics Report using the 2013 data analyzed educational attainment, controlling first for race and 

ethnicity and then for age. The extra analysis did not provide useful insights and was dropped from this report since 

this level of analysis is not obtainable with just Table Creator.
20 

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

Householder, 2015

Educational Attainment 

of Householder

HUD-Assisted Renters Total 

VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters

(%)

All HUDAssisted (%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

(%)

Less Than 9th Grade 8.7 9.3 6.9 11.0 8.4 5.2

9th to 12th Grade, 

No Diploma 22.0 24.1 20.8 22.5 17.2 11.0

High School Graduate 

(Includes Equivalency) 37.5 36.5 36.9 39.3 35.8 30.7

Additional Vocational 

Training 3.9 5.0 3.3 4.1 3.8 3.7

Some College, No Degree 16.9 14.1 19.9 14.3 18.6 18.6

Associate Degree 7.6 9.2 7.9 6.0 7.6 9.0

Bachelor's Degree 5.3 5.0 5.6 5.0 9.0 16.9

Graduate or Professional 

Degree 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 3.5 8.6

Percent High School 

Graduate or Higher 69.3 66.7 72.3 66.5 74.4 83.8

Percent Bachelor's Degree 

or Higher 7.3 7.0 7.6 6.9 12.4 25.4

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

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

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

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

multifamily units.

High school graduation rates are low in all three HUD programs (approximately 66.7 

percent in public housing, 72.3 percent in the voucher program, and 66.5 percent in privately 

owned multifamily), compared with approximately 74.4 percent among all VLI renter 

households and 83.8 percent among all renter households. These results are consistent with the 

finding in Section 5 that HUD-assisted households have lower incomes than VLI renter 

households overall. 

Years in Same Unit

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

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

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

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

and disability status.
21 

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

by Race, Ethnicity, and Senior and Disability Status, 2015 

Years in Unit, 2015

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total VLI 

Renters 

(%) 

All 

Renters 

(%) 

All HUDAssisted 

(%) 

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%) 

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

(%)

0 to 5 Years: All Householders 61.2 60.2 64.7 56.3 71.4 71.1

White, Non-Hispanic 59.7 67.5 58.6 57.3 71.7 76.7

Black, Non-Hispanic 64.0 57.1 70.9 56.8 71.8 74.6

Other Races 63.8 56.5 67.9 63.2 71.5 77.7

Hispanic 56.0 59.0 58.2 48.8 70.2 74.1

Under 65 67.8 66.7 70.0 63.7 76.7 79.6

Over 65 43.4 38.5 39.7 47.4 50.8 53.5

Without a Disabled Person 66.5 66.7 67.8 63.7 75.2 78.7

With a Disabled Person 54.8 51.5 60.3 50.1 63.3 65.6

6 to 10 Years: All Householders 19.0 15.6 18.9 21.9 13.6 14.9

White, Non-Hispanic 20.3 13.1 20.6 23.2 12.9 11.6

Black, Non-Hispanic 17.8 16.7 17.0 20.6 13.5 12.5

Other Races 17.1 17.4 15.0 19.8 12.8 10.4

Hispanic 20.2 14.9 21.9 21.9 15.1 14.0

Under 65 16.7 14.2 17.2 18.4 12.3 11.1

Over 65 25.3 20.3 27.0 26.2 18.3 18.5

Without a Disabled Person 17.7 13.9 17.7 21.0 12.3 11.2

With a Disabled Person 20.7 17.7 20.5 22.8 16.3 15.5

11 to 15 Years: 

All Householders 9.0 10.7 8.1 9.2 6.4 6.3

White, Non-Hispanic 9.9 11.2 10.7 8.5 6.5 5.1

Black, Non-Hispanic 7.9 9.2 6.0 10.7 5.9 5.4

Other Races 13.7 21.7 12.9 9.4 8.2 6.3

Hispanic 7.9 10.1 7.4 7.0 6.3 5.5

Under 65 7.7 9.1 7.0 7.9 5.4 4.6

Over 65 12.6 16.5 13.2 10.7 10.6 9.9

Without a Disabled Person 7.0 8.4 6.6 6.5 5.6 4.6

With a Disabled Person 11.3 13.8 10.1 11.4 8.3 7.7

More Than 15: All Householders 10.8 13.5 8.3 12.5 8.6 7.7

White, Non-Hispanic 10.1 8.2 10.1 10.9 8.8 6.7

Black, Non-Hispanic 10.2 16.9 6.2 11.6 8.9 7.5

Other Races 5.1 2.9 4.3 7.5 7.4 5.6

Hispanic 15.6 15.4 12.5 21.9 8.4 6.3

Under 65 7.8 10.1 5.9 10.0 5.6 4.8

Over 65 18.7 24.7 20.0 15.7 20.3 18.1

Without a Disabled Person 8.8 10.8 7.8 8.9 7.0 5.4

With a Disabled Person 13.1 16.8 9.2 15.6 12.1 11.2

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

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

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

also identified themselves as Hispanic are listed in row four, Hispanic. This inconsistency arose because this exhibit 

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

tabulate “Years in Unit;” rather, it reports the year the household moved into the unit in 5-year blocks. For 2015, the 

blocks include 2000–2004, 2005–2009, and 2010–2015. 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 2015 results cannot be compared with any of the previous match studies.

“All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units.
22 

Householders who have lived in the unit fewer than 6 years constitute approximately 71.4

percent of VLI renter households and approximately 71.1 percent of all renters, compared with 

approximately 61.2 percent of all HUD-assisted renters. There are notable differences between 

the two assistance paradigms—the public housing and privately owned multifamily programs, in 

which the subsidy attaches to the unit, and the voucher program, in which the subsidy generally 

remains with the tenant. The voucher program has a higher percentage of “recently” moved 

householders at approximately 64.7 percent, compared with approximately 60.2 percent of 

householders in public housing and approximately 56.3 percent in privately owned multifamily 

housing. 

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

approximately 8.3 percent of voucher householders have lived in their units more than 15 years, 

approximately the same percentage as all VLI householders (8.6 percent). By comparison, 

approximately 13.5 percent of public housing householders and approximately 12.5 percent of 

householders in privately owned HUD-subsidized units have lived in their units for more than 15 

years. The voucher program does not match the turnover pattern among all renters, likely due to 

the expense of moving in both time and effort and the fact that voucher participants can carry 

their subsidies only to units where landlords will participate in the program. 

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

turnover.18 This is best understood by looking down the columns within each “Years in Unit” 

category. In the all renters and VLI columns, the differences across race and ethnicity are minor. 

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

much lower turnover—that is, lower rates of short tenure (0–5 years) and higher rates of long 

tenures (more than 15 years). 

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

who classified themselves as White and no other race, regardless of whether they classified themselves as Hispanic.
23 

Section 5: Household Characteristics

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

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

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

units and turnover among existing assisted units can alter the mix of households. The 24-year 

1991-to-2015 period saw an increase in the number of assisted units of only 11 percent, and the 

previous section showed that turnover is low. 

Household Income

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

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

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

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

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

limited number of units available at a given time. 

In 2015, the median income of all renters nationally was $32,640, based on AHS data 

(exhibit 5-1). The median income of voucher recipients was substantially lower at approximately 

34.9 percent of the median income for all renters, whereas ratios were even lower in public 

housing (approximately 31.3 percent) and privately owned multifamily housing (approximately 

31.8 percent). The median income for VLI households who are not assisted was $15,889, or 

approximately 48.7 percent of the all-renter median. Individually and jointly, HUD programs 

generally serve households from the lower end of the distribution of renter households. 

Exhibit 5-1. Median Income of Households by Assistance Status, 2015 

Median Household Income

HUD-Assisted Renters

Total VLI

Rentersa

All 

Renters All HUDAssisted

Tenants 

in Public 

Housing

Voucher 

Recipients

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF

Median Household Income N/A $10,200 $11,400 $10,380 N/A $32,640 

As a Percentage of the Median 

Income of All Renter Households N/A 31.3% 34.9% 31.8% N/A 100%

MF = multifamily. N/A = data not available. VLI = very low income.

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

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

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

Exhibit 5-2 reveals no clear income trend in how median incomes of tenants in HUDassisted housing programs have changed in relation to the median income of all renters. The ratio 

of median incomes among program participants and all renter households dropped sharply 

between 2013 and 2015. Prior to that, ratios of the median incomes of households served by the 

public housing and the voucher program have remained relatively flat, with a higher voucher 

ratio than public housing ratio. The ratio of median income in the privately owned multifamily

stock to the median income of all renters declined steadily from 1989 to 2009. During that 

period, the stock of privately owned multifamily housing decreased by approximately 300,000. 

Section 2 explained that some components of the privately owned multifamily rental stock had 

rents that could be greater than 30 percent of tenant income. In recent years (particularly from 
24 

1995 to 2005), many of these units—rent supplements, Section 236, and the old Section 202 

programs—left the programs, which may explain the downtrend in the ratio of median incomes 

among households in the privately owned stock. 

Exhibit 5-2. Trends in Median Income of Households by Assistance Status

Group Median Income as a 

Percentage of Renter Median Income 1989 1991 1993 2003 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

All HUD-Assisted 41 39 38 39 36 37 37 N/A N/A 

Tenants in Public Housing 37 36 35 37 33 32 36 36 31

Voucher Recipients 42 39 39 40 38 42 43 39 35

Tenants in Privately Owned Housing 43 42 40 39 37 34 34 34 32

N/A = data not available.

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

The sharp drop in median income ratios between 2013 and 2015 is puzzling. The 

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

and all renters. This could be the result of AHS drawing a new sample in 2015; this is the first 

time that suspicion has arisen in this report.

Income Sources

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

income. Exhibit 5-3 shows that approximately 39.3 percent of HUD-assisted households receive

wage and salary income, compared with approximately 55.2 percent of VLI renter households 

and approximately 73.1 percent of all renters. Tenants in privately owned multifamily projects

have the lowest percentage of households with wage and salary income (27.2 percent), which is 

almost surely the result of the greater percentage of senior householders in this program. 

Although cited as sources of household income less often, the same pattern appears for 

self-employment income and income from interest, dividends, and rent. HUD-assisted 

households report these sources less frequently than all VLI households, which, in turn, report 

them less frequently than all renter households.

The results are somewhat different for the “Social Security and Railroad Retirement” row 

and the “Retirement or Survivors’ Pensions” row. The high proportion of senior households 

among the public housing and privately owned multifamily populations make these sources 

important for HUD’s clientele. Among the six columns, the proportion of households receiving 

Social Security (46.1 percent) is the highest by far for privately owned multifamily households. 

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

ratios that HUD programs serve those with the lowest incomes of the low-income population. 

For example, approximately 12.3 percent of HUD-assisted households reported receiving 

welfare, compared with approximately 7.9 percent of VLI households and approximately 4.2 

percent of all renter households. Similarly, approximately 23.2 percent of all HUD-assisted 

households received SSI compared with approximately 12.7 percent among all VLI renter 

households and 7.1 percent among all renters.
25 

Exhibit 5-3. Income Sources for Renter Households by Assistance Status, 2015

Income Sources of Families

and Primary Individuals

HUD Assisted Renters All VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters

(%)

All HUDAssisted

(%)

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Voucher

(%)

Privately 

Owned MF 

(%)

Wages and Salaries 39.3 43.3 44.9 27.2 55.2 73.1

Self-Employment 2.9 3.1 3.6 1.6 5.8 7.9

Interest, Dividends, and Rental

Income 2.6 2.7 1.6 4.3 4.4 8.6

Social Security or Railroad Retirement 33.5 29.3 27.5 46.1 24.6 17.5

Retirement or Survivors’ Pensions 6.3 7.3 3.9 9.4 6.4 7.1

SSI 23.2 21.6 23.5 24.1 12.7 7.1

Public Assistance or Public Welfare 12.3 10.3 13.3 12.2 7.9 4.2

Other Income

(Worker's Compensation, Alimony,

and Any Other Income Not Previously

Reported)

20.6 22.2 24.4 13.5 15.7 13.1

MF = multifamily. SSI = Supplemental Security Income. VLI = very low income.

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

Household Composition

Exhibit 5-4 presents the distribution of households from various renter groups by household 

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

different from the typical renter household. In 2015, approximately 27.3 percent of all renter 

households consisted of married couple households, while the percentage among all VLI renter 

households was approximately 18.8 percent, and the percentage across all HUD programs ranged 

between 9.3 and 10.7 percent. Privately owned multifamily units served the lowest percentage of 

married couple households. 

Combining the seventh (Other Female Householder) and the 16th (Female Householder) 

rows of exhibit 5-4 provide some additional insight into who HUD programs serve. 

Approximately 70 percent of HUD-assisted households are female-headed, compared with 

approximately 55 percent of VLI households and 42 percent of all renter households. The 

program percentages are approximately equal, but the ages of the female householder differ. The 

voucher program serves the highest percentage of female householders under 65 (approximately 

60 percent) and the privately owned multifamily program serves the lowest (approximately 37 

percent). Twenty-nine percent of the units in privately owned multifamily projects were 

occupied by senior, single females, almost three times the rate among VLI households and five 

times the rate among all renter households. 

Exhibit 5-4 reveals other important differences across HUD programs in the households 

served. Approximately 44 percent of all voucher recipient households were two-or-more-person, 

female-headed households (almost twice the rate among all renter households), compared with

approximately 26 percent of households in privately owned multifamily units. As previously 

noted, the privately owned multifamily housing program serves senior households at a much 

higher rate than their share of the VLI renter household population. 
26 

Exhibit 5-4. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Household Composition, 

2015 

Household Composition by 

Age of Householder

HUD-Assisted Renters All VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters

(%)

All HUDAssisted

(%)

Public 

Housing

(%)

Vouchers

(%)

Privately 

Owned MF (%)

Two-or-More-Person 

Households 52.2 54.5 59.6 38.7 57.4 63.8

Married-Couple Families,

No Nonrelatives 10.1 10.1 10.7 9.3 18.8 27.3

Other Male Householder 4.1 3.7 4.7 3.4 9.2 12.9

Under 45 Years Old 2.2 2.6 2.2 1.8 5.9 9.0

45 to 64 Years Old 1.3 1.1 1.7 0.9 2.6 3.2

65 Years Old and Over 0.6 0.1 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.6

Other Female Householder 38.0 40.6 44.2 26.1 29.4 23.6

Under 45 Years Old 25.0 26.5 28.2 19.0 19.8 15.8

45 to 64 Years Old 11.2 12.6 14.0 5.7 7.7 6.4

65 Years Old and Over 1.8 1.5 2.1 1.5 2.0 1.4

One-Person Households 47.8 45.5 40.4 61.3 42.6 36.2

Male Householder 15.1 16.8 11.7 19.1 17.3 17.6

Under 45 Years Old 2.7 2.2 2.9 3.0 6.8 8.4

45 to 64 Years Old 6.6 8.2 6.3 5.9 6.1 6.0

65 Years Old and Over 5.8 6.5 2.5 10.3 4.4 3.1

Female Householder 32.7 28.7 28.6 42.2 25.3 18.7

Under 45 Years Old 3.7 3.1 4.4 2.9 5.8 6.0

45 to 64 Years Old 12.5 13.4 13.8 9.9 8.7 6.4

65 Years Old and Over 16.5 12.2 10.5 29.3 10.8 6.3

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

Notes: The “Two-or-More-Person Households” and the “One-Person Households” rows sum to 100 percent, except 

for rounding. Within these two groups, the next level subgroups sum up to the group percentages. “All HUDAssisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units.

Exhibit 5-5 presents the distribution of households by the presence or absence of children 

under 18. 

Exhibit 5-1. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Number of Children in 

Household, 2015 

Households by 

Number of Children 

HUD-Assisted Renters All VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters

(%)

All HUDAssisted

(%)

Public 

Housing 

(%)

Vouchers 

(%)

Privately 

Owned MF (%)

None 62.7 60.0 56.7 74.3 63.7 67.3

One 14.5 15.1 16.4 11.2 13.9 14.3

Two 12.1 13.4 13.1 9.4 12.2 10.8

Three 6.4 7.0 8.2 3.3 6.7 5.1

Four 2.7 3.3 3.3 1.4 2.3 1.7

Five 1.1 1.0 1.7 0.3 0.8 0.5

Six or More 0.4 0.3 0.8 0.1 0.4 0.2

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

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

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

serves households with children at a rate similar to their share of the VLI renter population. 
27 

Overall, approximately 37.3 percent of assisted households have children, compared with

approximately 36.3 percent of all VLI renter households and approximately 32.7 of all renter 

households. Among voucher households, approximately 43.3 percent contain children, while 

approximately 25.7 percent of assisted households in the privately owned multifamily program 

have children. The percentage of households with three or more children is higher in the voucher 

program (approximately 13.9 percent) than among all VLI renter households (approximately 

10.2 percent). Despite the observed program differences and the noted change in program mix 

over time, there has been virtually no change during the past 24 years in the type of households 

served by all three HUD programs combined. Exhibit 5-6 appears to contain only random 

movements.

Exhibit 5-6. Trends in the Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Household 

Composition

Percentage of Household 

Composition 

AHS Survey Year

1989 1991 1993 2003 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Two-or-More-Person Households 57 56 58 54 53 55 57 55 52

Married Couple Families, No 

Nonrelatives 13 15 13 11 10 9 11 10 10

Other Male Householder 4 4 3 2 4 3 5 4 4 

Other Female Householder 39 36 42 41 40 42 41 40 38

One-Person Households 43 44 42 46 47 45 43 45 48

Male Householder 10 13 13 14 13 13 14 15 15

Female Householder 33 32 29 32 34 33 29 30 33

AHS = American Housing Survey.

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

Household Size

AHS data on household size highlight the differences among the HUD programs (exhibit 5-7). 

Compared with all VLI renter households, HUD-assisted households include a higher percentage 

of one-person households (approximately 47.8 percent vs. approximately 42.6 percent, 

respectively) and a lower percentage of two-to-four-person households (approximately 43.7 

percent vs. approximately 47.3 percent, respectively). Households with five or more persons 

account for approximately 8.5 percent of HUD-assisted households and approximately 10.1 

percent of VLI households. 

Exhibit 5-7. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Household Size, 2015

Number of Persons in 

Household 

HUD-Assisted Renters Total 

VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

(%)

One Person 47.8 45.5 40.4 61.2 42.6 36.2

Two–Four Persons 43.7 45.9 48.8 33.9 47.3 54.6

Five or More Persons 8.5 8.6 10.8 4.8 10.1 9.2

Overcrowded 2.7 1.9 3.5 2.0 3.9 3.9

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

Note: “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned multifamily units.
28 

Taken individually, HUD-assisted programs have notably different household size 

distributions. The privately owned multifamily program has the highest percentage of one-person 

households (approximately 61.2 percent), and the voucher program serves the highest percentage 

of large (five-or-more-person) households (approximately 10.8 percent); this percentage is 

similar to that of VLI renters (approximately 10.1 percent) and all renters (approximately 9.2 

percent).

Overcrowding, defined as more than one person per room. In recent years, overcrowding 

has not been a serious problem in the American housing stock; in 2015, approximately 3.9 

percent of both VLI renters and all renters were considered as overcrowded. HUD-assisted stock 

generally experiences even lower rates of overcrowding, at approximately 2.7 percent for all 

HUD-assisted renters in 2015. HUD rules determine how many persons can occupy units of 

different bedroom sizes.

Households with a Disabled Member

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

members at a rate (approximately 45.7 percent) substantially higher than among either VLI

renter households (approximately 31.8 percent) or all renter households (approximately 21.9 

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

households with a disabled member at approximately 53.7 percent. 

Exhibit 5-8. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Disability Status of 

Members, 2015

Households by Disability 

Status of Members

HUD-Assisted Renters Total 

VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

(%)

With a Disabled Member 45.7 43.4 41.7 53.7 31.8 21.9

Without a Disabled Member 52.5 54.5 56.2 45.2 66.3 76.0

Not Reported 1.7 2.1 2.0 1.0 1.9 2.0

2013 Percent “With a Disabled 

Member” 37.8 38.2 34.3 42.9 25.9 17.5

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

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

The same table for the 2013 Characteristics Report showed different percentages for the 

program groups. Table Creator verified the numbers for 2013. These higher percentages in 2015 

over 2013 could result from having a new sample, but more likely result from changes in how 

the disability question is asked.19

Housing Cost as Percentage of Income

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

households. Section 6 examines the decent part of the objective; this section finishes with a look 

19 The questions were identical but may have been asked differently.
29 

at the affordable part. The traditional measure of affordability is the ratio of monthly housing 

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

A ratio of 0.3 is generally considered acceptable, while a ratio greater than 0.4 is considered 

excessive (Eggers and Moumen, 2008). 

The percentages reported in exhibit 5-9 ignore cases where respondents pay no cash rent 

and cases where respondents report zero or negative income. Among all renters, approximately 

4.9 percent reported no cash rent, while approximately 2.6 percent reported zero or negative 

income; the percentages for all HUD-assisted renters were approximately 1.9 and 4.7, 

respectively. 

Exhibit 5-9. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Ratio of Housing Costs to 

Income, 2015 

Monthly Housing Costto-Income Ratio

HUD-Assisted Renters Total 

VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%) 

All HUDAssisted (%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

(%)

Less Than 20% 12.8 16.7 11.5 11.7 5.4 23.8

40% or More 44.1 35.5 54.9 33.5 69.1 36.6

Median Rent Burden20 N/A 31 43 32 N/A 31

MF = multifamily. N/A = data not available. VLI = very low income.

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

The rent-to-income data from the 2015 AHS clearly illustrated why housing assistance is 

needed. Among VLI renter households, approximately 69 percent report excessive rent 

burdens—that is, ratios greater than 40 percent. Excessive rent burdens affect approximately 44 

percent of HUD-assisted households. While this is substantially less than that of all VLI renter 

households, this rate is still surprisingly high. The corresponding rate for all renter households is 

36.6 percent.

In all previous analyses of HUD-assisted housing using AHS data, this table has 

generated unnecessary confusion because AHS data on how HUD programs function appear to 

be at odds with program rules. Since the early 1980s, HUD has generally required tenants to 

contribute 30 percent of their income toward rent and related expenses. No such uniformity 

exists in the above table. According to AHS data, a number of households in each of the HUD 

programs spend considerably less than 30 percent, and a number spend considerably more than 

30 percent. 

The reported results should not be considered surprising: First, HUD rules allow for 

variation with regard to the 30-percent figure. Approximately 13 percent of households in 

privately owned multifamily housing do not pay rent based on the 30 percent of income 

requirement. Another important exception applies to the voucher program, in which recipient 

households are allowed to rent units more expensive than the HUD-established payment standard 

if the households incur all of the added rental costs. Public housing allows PHAs to establish

20 The bottom row in this table is the median of the individual ratios of housing cost to income, not a ratio of 

medians.
30 

minimum rent contributions that can exceed 30 percent of income for families with very small 

incomes. 

Further, 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 

HUD-mandated process is more formal and detailed and focuses solely on determining program 

eligibility and setting tenant rent. HUD agents require households to present collaborating 

information on income, while AHS collects data on income and rent within an instrument that 

also gathers information on other household characteristics and unit and neighborhood 

characteristics. The AHS interview may be separated by as much as a year from the income 

recertification process carried out by HUD agents. Measurement errors, misreporting, and 

month-to-month variation in both income and housing-related expenses affect both HUD agents 

and AHS data. A recent HUD-funded study showed that the rent-to-income ratio can vary 

substantially between surveys for the same household and demonstrated how normal variation 

and measurement error might account for a large portion of the survey-to-survey variation 

(Eggers and Moumen, 2010). 

Exhibit 5-10 examines how the median rent-to-income ratio has varied over time among 

different components of the rental housing stock. The numbers in the table are all medians, 

meaning that one-half 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. 

Exhibit 5-10. Trends in the Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Ratio of 

Housing Costs to Income

Median Monthly Housing 

Cost-to-Income Ratio (%)

AHS Survey

1989 1991 1993 2003 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

All HUD-Assisted 30 31 29 32 34 35 34 N/A N/A 

Tenants in Public Housing 30 30 29 27 30 35 30 30 31

Voucher Recipients 32 34 32 40 39 40 39 39 43

Tenants in Privately 

Owned MF Housing 30 31 28 32 31 30 32 30 32

Total VLI Renters 39 36 38 45 51 52 55 N/A N/A 

All Renters 28 27 28 30 33 34 35 33 31

AHS = American Housing Survey. MF= multifamily N/A = data not available. VLI = very low income.

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

For all renter households as a group, the ratio of rent to income increased steadily from

1991 until 2013, when it declined slightly and then fell again in 2015. More than one-half VLI

renters began to experience excessive rent burdens sometime between 1993 and 2003, a majority 

that remained through 2011, the most recent year for which a median for this group is 

available.21 Throughout the seven periods for which comparable data are available, the median 

ratios in each of the HUD programs were substantially lower than the median reported for all 

VLI renter households. Consistent with the special voucher exception, the voucher program had 

the highest median ratio among the HUD programs in all nine periods. 

21 The 81 percent median rent burdens for all eligible households in 2003 seems to be an anomaly.
31 

Closing Thoughts

Taken together, Sections 4 and 5 provide strong evidence that HUD-assisted rental housing 

generally serve the lowest-income population. The median incomes of households participating 

in the three broad HUD programs in 2015 were less than one-third of the median income of the 

typical renter. Householders in HUD-assisted units have substantially lower educational 

attainment, and HUD-assisted households received wage and salary income less often and relied 

more often on welfare and SSI. HUD-assisted households were less often married-couple 

households and more often female-headed households. HUD-assisted households, especially in 

privately owned multifamily projects, were more likely to contain members with disabilities.

The deviations in characteristics between HUD-assisted households and householders 

and the VLI population generally relate to when and where programs began operation. HUD 

householders are more often Black than those in the VLI renter population because HUD 

programs operate more often in central cities of metropolitan areas. HUD householders are 

somewhat less likely to be Hispanic, likely because project-based programs were historically 

concentrated in the Northeast and South and were constructed before the rapid growth of the 

Hispanic population. Similarly, HUD householders are more often seniors because PHAs and the 

owners of subsidized multifamily projects favored this clientele.

While the ratio of total housing costs to income reported in AHS are higher than 

expected, there are plausible reasons for this apparent program discrepancy. The bottom line is 

that excessive rent burdens are much less common among HUD-assisted households than all VLI

households. Section 6 will look at the quality of the housing provided by the HUD programs. 

This report has uncovered two areas where the 2015 characteristics are so different from 

their 2013 counterparts that it can be suspected these differences more likely relate to the AHS

redesign than a shift in program characteristics. The turnover among HUD-assisted units is too 

low to believe the population changed that much within 2 years. The two areas are the ratios of 

program median income to all renters’ median income and the proportion in all six renter groups 

of households containing a disabled member. 
32 

Section 6: Unit Quality and Tenant Satisfaction

This section examines the quality of housing provided in the assisted housing programs. It begins 

by comparing the types of structures containing the units available through HUD-assisted rental 

housing programs with (1) structures housing all renters and (2) structures housing all VLI

renters. The next comparison focuses on the overall physical adequacy of units using an index 

devised by HUD and the Census Bureau. The appendix lists the criteria used to define the three 

categories of adequacy: severely inadequate, moderately inadequate, and adequate. The 

examination of overall adequacy is followed by a series of comparisons involving specific 

features of units and structures that go into the determination of adequacy. Then, using the 

subsample of recent movers, the section examines the reasons for moving into assisted housing. 

The section ends with comparisons of tenants’ satisfaction ratings with their units and 

neighborhoods. 

Concerns about privacy limit the comparisons that can be generated using the Census 

Bureau’s Table Creator. Only in a few places has HUD been asked for assistance in retrieving 

information from the internal use file kept at the Census Bureau, as accessing this file is useful 

only when categories can be collapsed to produce counts large enough to protect privacy. Most 

of the information on housing quality are yes/no questions that cannot be collapsed. 

Structure Type 

Exhibit 6-1 provides percentage distributions by structure type for the six groups followed in this 

report. Mobile homes and single-family detached units are combined because there are so few

mobile homes in HUD-assisted housing programs that reporting them separately would violate 

the Census Bureau’s disclosure rules. “Other” includes boats, tents, and caves—rare structure 

types that are not permitted in HUD-assisted housing. 

Exhibit 6-1. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Structure Type, 2015 

Structure Type

HUD-Assisted Renters Total 

VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUD 

Assisted (%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

(%)

Mobile Homes, SingleFamily Detached, Other 15.2 6.1 27.5 2.5 28.3 32.8

Single-Family Attached 11.6 14.9 12.4 7.8 10.8 10.8

2 to 4 19.1 24.3 21.3 11.8 18.9 17.3

5 to 9 12.5 11.7 11.5 14.7 11.5 10.9

10 to 19 9.6 7.5 9.1 12.0 10.1 9.9

20 to 49 8.4 5.4 8.4 10.8 8.3 8.0

50 or More 23.6 30.0 9.9 40.3 12.1 10.2

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

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

Structure type can affect quality of life, but households differ in what they consider the most 

desirable structure type. Senior and small renter households generally favor units in garden or 

high-rise apartments that are safe and low maintenance, whereas households with children 

generally favor single-family units, whether detached or attached (for example, townhouses). 
33 

The most important distinction between HUD-assisted housing and both VLI rental 

housing and all rental housing is the far lower reliance on single-family detached units and 

mobile homes in HUD-assisted housing. Only 15.2 percent of HUD-assisted units fall into this 

category, approximately one-half the percentage found among households in VLI units or all 

rental units. The second most important distinction is the greater reliance on large buildings 

(those with 50 or more units) among the HUD-assisted units at approximately 23.6 percent, 

compared with 12.1 percent among units occupied by VLI households and 10.2 percent among 

all renters.

These two distinctions are even sharper when the focus is restricted to public housing or 

units in privately owned multifamily projects: Approximately 30 percent of public housing 

tenant households and approximately 40.3 percent of households in privately owned multifamily

projects live in buildings with 50 or more units. The voucher distribution is most similar to the 

distribution among all renters. 

Overall Adequacy of Units

For many years, HUD and the Census Bureau have used AHS data to assess the physical 

condition of each unit and categorize it into one of three groups: severely inadequate, moderately 

inadequate, and adequate. Appendix A explains how this determination is made; over time, 

definitions of the categories and the variables used to define them have changed.22

By these adequacy standards, approximately 90 percent of all units are judged to be 

adequate, with trivial differences among HUD programs and between HUD programs and the 

comparison groups (exhibit 6-2). Units in the voucher program have the highest percentage of 

severely inadequate units, but even so, only approximately 3.3 percent qualify as such.

Exhibit 6-2. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Physical Adequacy, 2015

Housing Adequacy 

HUD-Assisted Renters Total 

VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted (%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

(%)

Severely Inadequate 2.7 3.1 3.3 1.6 2.7 1.9

Moderately Inadequate 7.3 8.7 7.0 6.6 8.3 6.7

Adequate 90.0 88.3 89.7 91.7 89.1 91.4

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

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

Compared with 2013, the percentage of severely inadequate units is the same or lower for 

all groups, but the differences are small. HUD rules help ensure good performance on these 

measures. HUD oversees conditions in both public housing and privately owned projects, and 

voucher units are subject to inspection before being approved for participation. 

The suppression of data by the Census Bureau to avoid disclosure prevented looking at 

the following features that would contribute to a unit being classified as severely inadequate: 

22 The definition last changed with the 2009 AHS.
34 

• Complete bathrooms. 

• Electric or wiring problems. 

• Upkeep problems. 

Data on the heating adequacy are not suppressed. AHS tables classify the factors that

determine a unit to be moderately inadequate into two categories: Upkeep and Other. Table 

Creator does not suppress data on these two categories. 

This report does not analyze the three factors for which data are suppressed. Instead, to 

the extent that data are not suppressed, it analyzes conditions that feed into these factors. For 

example, to be inadequate because of heating issues, a household must have been uncomfortably 

cold last winter for 24 hours or more and the heating equipment must have broken down at least 

three times, for a period of at least 6 hours each time. The Census Bureau provides data on being 

uncomfortably cold and having a heating breakdown but, once assisted status is introduced into 

the analysis, Table Creator suppresses data on the number of breakdowns. 

Heating Adequacy

Exhibit 6-3 shows that HUD-assisted units are more likely to have heating equipment than units 

occupied by VLI renters or all renters. HUD-assisted households are also more likely to have 

experienced periods of cold discomfort lasting 24 hours or more, however, although tenants in 

privately owned multifamily are an exception to this generalization. Inadequate heating capacity 

is cited more often in voucher housing. 

Exhibit 6-3. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Heating Adequacy, 2015

Heating Adequacy 

HUD-Assisted Renters Total 

VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

(%)

With heating equipment and

occupied last winter 93.1 94.0 92.3 93.9 89.6 89.6

Not uncomfortably cold for 24

hours or more

78.6 77.5 76.0 83.4 76.9 78.3

Uncomfortably cold for 24

hours or more

13.6 15.3 15.3 9.5 11.6 10.1

Utility interruption 0.9 0.8 1.2 0.6 0.8 0.8

Inadequate heating

capacity 3.0 2.3 3.8 2.4 2.3 1.9

Inadequate insulation 2.9 2.3 3.8 2.0 2.4 2.1

Cost of heating 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.6 1.1 0.9

Other 1.4 1.8 1.5 1.0 1.4 1.3

Discomfort not reported 1.0 1.3 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

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

Toilet Breakdowns

The number of toilet breakdowns within a 3-month period enters into the determination of 

moderately inadequate. Data on the number of breakdowns are suppressed, but exhibit 6-4 tells 

whether a breakdown did occur. Breakdowns are rare for all groups (in the 3 to 6 percent range) 

and the differences among HUD programs and between HUD programs and either comparison 
35 

group are trivial. The “none working” percentages are higher in 2015 than in 2013; for all HUDassisted households, the difference is 5.7 in 2015 vs. 3.9 percent in 2013. 

Exhibit 6-4. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Flush Toilet Breakdowns, 

2015

Flush Toilet Breakdowns

HUD-Assisted Renters Total 

VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

(%)

With one or more flush toilets 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

With at least one toilet

working at all times in last 3 

months

93.8 93.2 93.2 95.4 94.6 95.6

None working some time in

last 3 months 5.7 6.1 6.4 4.3 4.4 3.5

Breakdowns not reported 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.3 1.0 0.9

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

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

Water Leakage

Having a water leak, whether from indoors or outdoors, enters into the determination of both 

severely and moderately inadequate. Exhibit 6-5 reports on water leaks from both inside and 

outside the unit. Indoor water leaks are slightly more likely in public housing and slightly less 

likely in privately owned multifamily units. Overall, HUD-assisted households are about as 

likely to have indoor water leaks as VLI renters or all renters. With respect to water leaks from 

outside, there are only minor differences across all six groups. Looking at the possible sources of 

leaks, no major differences across groups are apparent.
36 

Exhibit 6-5. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Water Leaks, 2015

Water Leaks

HUD-Assisted Renters Total 

VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

(%)

No leakage from inside

structure 88.3 84.1 88.4 91.3 88.3 88.7

With leakage from inside

structure 11.3 15.2 11.1 8.5 11.2 10.7

Fixtures backed up or

overflowed 3.2 3.0 3.7 2.5 2.8 2.7

Pipes leaked 5.1 7.9 4.7 3.7 5.1 4.9

Broken water heater 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.4 0.9 0.8

Other or unknown 

(includes not reported) 3.6 4.9 2.9 3.7 3.3 3.1

Interior leakage not reported 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.6 0.7

No leakage from outside

structure 90.6 91.3 89.3 92.2 89.9 90.3

With leakage from outside

structure 8.9 7.7 10.3 7.6 9.5 9.0

Roof 4.2 3.2 5.3 3.4 5.2 4.9

Basement 1.0 0.8 1.6 0.4 1.1 1.2

Walls, closed windows, or

doors 3.4 3.1 3.5 3.5 2.9 2.7

Other or unknown 

(includes not reported) 1.1 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.0

Exterior leakage not reported 0.4 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.6 0.7

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

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

Water leakages were reported in the Characteristics Report using the 2013 AHS. For both 

inside and outside leakages, the incidence for all HUD-assisted units and all rental units are 

higher in 2015, but the percentage point differences are small. 

Selected Deficiencies

AHS reports a variety of quality problems under the title “Selected Deficiencies.” Most of these 

problems, except for signs of cockroaches, enter into the determination of being severely or 

moderately inadequate. None of the listed deficiencies would be considered serious enough to 

cause a unit to be labeled severely inadequate or moderately inadequate but can produce either 

designation when discovered in combination with each other or other problems such as water 

leaks. Exhibit 6-6 reports on these items.
37 

Exhibit 6-6. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Selected Deficiencies, 2015

Selected Deficiencies

HUD-Assisted Renters Total 

VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

(%)

Signs of mice or rats inside

home in last 12 months 12.9 13.1 14.7 10.0 11.9 10.1

Signs of cockroaches in last 12

months 20.8 31.9 20.0 13.7 19.6 17.0

Holes in floors 2.2 3.2 3.0 0.2 2.7 2.0

Open cracks or holes (interior) 8.7 10.7 9.4 6.0 9.5 7.9

Broken plaster or peeling paint

(interior) 4.8 8.1 4.2 3.3 4.0 3.3

Exposed wiring 3.6 4.4 3.5 3.3 4.2 3.5

Rooms without electric outlets 3.0 2.6 3.0 3.3 3.8 3.2

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

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

Except for signs of cockroaches, the incidence of such problems is generally low and 

there are no substantial differences across the six groups. With the exception of rooms without 

outlets, privately owned multifamily units have the lowest incidence of any of these deficiencies 

across the three HUD program variants.

All items, except for signs of cockroaches, were reported in the Characteristics Report 

using the 2013 AHS. In every case, the incidence for all HUD-assisted units and all rental units 

are higher in 2015, but the percentage point differences are small. 

Electricity and Blown Fuses or Tripped Circuit Breakers

A unit without electricity is considered severely inadequate. The frequency of blown fuses or 

tripped circuit breakers enter into the determinations of both severely and moderately inadequate. 

Exhibit 6-7 provides information on the availability of electricity and experiencing blown fuses 

or tripped circuit breakers in units, but not the frequency of these latter conditions. 

Exhibit 6-7. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Electrical Problems, 2015

Electrical Problems 

HUD-Assisted Renters Total 

VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters

(%)

All HUDAssisted

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

(%)

With electrical wiring 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.9 99.8 99.8

No fuses or breakers blown in

last 3 months 92.9 90.1 92.3 96.1 91.6 90.7

With fuses or breakers blown in

last 3 months 6.3 8.6 6.8 3.7 7.5 8.3

Problem not reported or don't

know 0.6 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.8 0.9

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

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

Fewer than 0.3 percent of all rental units lack electricity. Surprisingly, the frequency of 

blown fuses or tripped circuit breakers is higher among all renters than among VLI renters, 
38 

voucher holders, or tenants in privately owned HUD-assisted housing; the highest incidence 

occurred in public housing. These differences are small. 

Complete Kitchens

If a unit lacks complete kitchen facilities (sink, refrigerator, stove, or burners) or if the household 

shares kitchen facilities, it is classified as moderately inadequate. Exhibit 6-8 provides 

information on the completeness of kitchens. With the exception of units in privately owned 

multifamily projects, fewer HUD units fail the complete kitchen test than all rental units (second 

row of exhibit 6-8) The lack of complete kitchen facilities among units occupied by all VLI

households is higher than such an incidence in every HUD program. 

Exhibit 6-8. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Complete Kitchen Facilities, 

2015

Complete Kitchens

HUD-Assisted Renters Total 

VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

(%)

With complete kitchen 97.0 97.4 97.4 96.0 95.7 96.6

Lacking complete kitchen

facilities 3.0 2.6 2.6 4.0 4.3 3.4

Kitchen sink 99.6 99.9 99.7 99.1 98.7 99.1

Refrigerator 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.6 98.8 99.2

Cooking stove or range 99.0 99.1 99.1 99.0 96.6 97.8

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

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

Exhibit 6-8 also provides information on three of the necessary elements of a complete 

kitchen (sinks, refrigerators, and stoves) but not on burners or the necessity of sharing kitchen 

facilities.

Tenant Satisfaction 

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

where 10 is considered the best. Exhibit 6-9 presents a capsulized summary of these ratings. So 

few residents rate their units or neighborhood at the bottom of the scale that the analysis had to 

combine the bottom five ratings to avoid possible disclosure. 
39 

Exhibit 6-9. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Tenant Ratings as “Best” or 

“Worst,” 2015 

Overall Opinion

HUD-Assisted Renters Total 

VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted (%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

(%)

Structure

1–5 Rating 17.4 22.0 17.0 14.6 16.6 13.4

9–10 Rating 37.6 34.5 35.1 43.8 33.4 31.3

Neighborhood

1–5 Rating 21.5 26.4 20.1 20.1 17.4 13.5

9–10 Rating 33.9 29.1 33.2 38.7 35.1 35.4

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

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

A higher percentage of respondents from HUD-assisted units gave their units a score of 9 

or 10 than did respondents from units occupied by VLI households or from all rental units. This 

result is driven by the favorable ratings given by tenants in privately owned multifamily. 

The neighborhood ratings in exhibit 6-9 tell a different story. Tenants in public housing 

appear to be less satisfied than tenants in the other groups; they have the lowest percentage of 9 

or 10 ratings and the highest percentage of 1–5 ratings. 

Recent Movers

AHS gathers additional information on households in which the respondent has moved into the 

unit during the past 2 years.23 Section 4 confirmed that householders tended to remain in assisted 

units much longer than householders in VLI households or all renters. The same pattern holds 

when one looks at recent movers: Approximately 31.5 percent of HUD-assisted units are 

occupied by recent mover households, compared with approximately 48.5 percent of all renter 

households (exhibit 6-10). The voucher program has the highest percent of recent movers.

Exhibit 6-10. Distribution of HUD-Assisted Housing by Percent of Recent Movers, 

2015 

Recent Mover Households

HUD-Assisted Renters Total 

VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

(%)

Respondent moved during past

2 years

31.5 28.4 34.0 30.1 44.1 48.5

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

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

AHS asks a detailed series of question about why recent mover respondents moved into 

their current units. Exhibit 6-11 discusses some key reasons given by respondents. Respondents 

23 In AHS surveys prior to 2015, recent movers were defined as respondents who moved into their unit within the 

past year.
40 

could give more than one answer and, thus, the percentages add to more than 100 percent; on 

average, recent movers gave two reasons.

Some of the differences between the reasons given by recent movers into HUD-assisted 

housing and those given by all renters are large and reflect the lower ability of the VLI

population to afford to move, as well as the reluctance among HUD-assisted households to 

move. For example, approximately 17.1 percent of all renters cited a new job or transfer, 

compared with approximately 9.7 percent of VLI renters; approximately 2.9 of HUD-assisted 

households cite the same reason. The percentage of voucher holders that gave this response was 

a surprisingly low 1.5 percent. The pattern is the same for “to reduce commuting time.” On the 

other hand, “to reduce housing costs” was a reason given by approximately 30.3 percent of 

HUD-assisted renters, but only approximately 18.5 percent of all renters.

Exhibit 6-11. Distribution of Recent Movers HUD-Assisted Housing by Key 

Reasons Given for Move, 2015 

Reasons for Moving

HUD-Assisted Renters Total 

VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

(%)

Forced to move 9.5 9.7 10.1 8.2 8.6 7.5

New job or job transfer 2.9 4.2 1.5 4.5 9.7 17.1

To form own household 29.6 37.8 24.3 33.3 29.3 27.9

To be closer to family 27.9 27.8 26.8 30.0 24.7 21.2

Change in household or family

size 15.3 20.5 11.8 17.9 14.6 15.1

To reduce commuting time 6.4 9.4 6.3 4.5 9.7 13.1

Wanted a larger or betterquality home 30.4 31.6 32.9 25.1 25.1 26.3

To reduce housing costs 30.3 36.8 26.7 32.0 21.4 18.5

Wanted a more desirable 

neighborhood 30.4 26.4 31.8 30.8 24.2 25.9

Other 16.9 12.5 17.5 18.9 21.9 19.7

Not reported 4.9 3.5 6.0 4.0 6.6 5.8

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

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

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

respondents in HUD-assisted units were more likely to rate the HUD-assisted unit as better than 

their previous unit than all renters or all VLI renters. 
41 

Exhibit 6-12. Distribution of Recent Movers HUD-Assisted Housing by 

Comparison of Current and Previous Home and Neighborhood, 2015 

Comparison of Current and 

Previous Home and 

Neighborhood 

HUD-Assisted Renters Total 

VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

(%)

Current Home

Better 58.8 56.3 62.2 54.9 48.5 46.7

Worse 16.2 18.6 16.2 14.4 18.6 18.8

Current Neighborhood

Better 47.2 39.1 51.5 45.3 42.3 40.7

Worse 18.2 26.0 16.3 16.3 17.2 15.1

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

Notes: The similar numbers in the 2013 report are wrong; the responses were divided by all units and not units 

occupied by recent movers. “All HUD-Assisted” encompasses public housing, vouchers, and privately owned 

multifamily units.

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

recent movers in the voucher program or in privately owned multifamily units were more likely 

to rate their current neighborhood as better than their previous neighborhoods. Recent movers 

into public housing, however, did not tend to view their current neighborhoods as favorably. The 

differences between public housing and the other programs are large. 

Closing Thoughts

The main conclusion from Section 6 is that the American housing stock and the HUD-assisted 

stock is high quality, with few units experiencing major problems. AHS has an overall measure 

of housing quality that detects whether an individual unit is adequate, moderately inadequate, or 

severely inadequate. In 2015, approximately 1.9 percent of all rental units were severely 

inadequate; the percentages among both all VLI units and all HUD-assisted units were

approximately 2.7 percent. 

This section examined separately various indicators of housing problems: heating 

problems, toilet breakdowns, water leaks, other deficiencies, electrical problems, and having 

complete kitchen facilities. Exhibit 6-13 pulls together key rows from exhibits 6-3 through 6-8. 

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

all rental units and generally slightly better than all VLI units. 
42 

Exhibit 6-13. Key Findings From Exhibits 6-3 Through 6-8 

Various Components of 

Adequate Housing

HUD-Assisted Renters Total 

VLI 

Renters 

(%)

All 

Renters 

(%)

All HUDAssisted 

(%)

Tenants in 

Public 

Housing (%)

Voucher 

Recipients 

(%)

Tenants in 

Privately 

Owned MF 

(%)

Uncomfortably cold for 24

hours or more

13.6 15.3 15.3 9.5 11.6 10.1

No toilets working some time

in last 3 months 5.7 6.1 6.4 4.3 4.4 3.5

With water leakage from

inside structure 11.3 15.2 11.1 8.5 11.2 10.7

With water leakage from

outside structure 8.9 7.7 10.3 7.6 9.5 9.0

Signs of mice or rats inside

home in last 12 months 12.9 13.1 14.7 10.0 11.9 10.1

Holes in floors 2.2 3.2 3.0 0.2 2.7 2.0

Exposed wiring 3.6 4.4 3.5 3.3 4.2 3.5

With fuses or breakers blown

in last 3 months 6.3 8.6 6.8 3.7 7.5 8.3

Lacking complete kitchen 

facilities

3.0 2.6 2.6 4.0 4.3 3.4

MF = multifamily. VLI = very low income.

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

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

percentage of respondents from HUD-assisted units gave their units a score of 9 or 10 than did 

respondents from units occupied by VLI households or from all rental units. This result is driven 

by the favorable ratings given by tenants in privately owned multifamily. Public housing tenants 

are the least likely to be satisfied with their units and neighborhoods. With respect to 

neighborhoods, tenants in public housing appear to be less satisfied than tenants in the other 

groups; they have the lowest percentage of ratings of 9 or 10 and the highest percentage of 1 

through 5 ratings. 

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

respondents in HUD-assisted units were more likely to rate the HUD-assisted unit as better than 

their previous unit than all renters or all VLI renters. When asked to compare their current 

neighborhood with their previous neighborhood, recent movers in the voucher program or in 

privately owned multifamily units were more likely to rate their current neighborhood as better 

than their previous neighborhoods. Recent movers into public housing, however, did not tend to 

view their current neighborhoods as favorably. 
43 

Section 7: Conclusions—Looking Across the Sections

The previous sections use the information from the 2015 AHS to examine the characteristics of 

HUD-assisted units (their location, year built, size, structure type, and quality) and the 

characteristics of their occupants (race and ethnicity, age, education, income, household 

composition, and satisfaction with their living environment). This section looks across these 

earlier sections to assess HUD’s rental assistance. 

The assessment focuses on four questions: 

1. Who do the programs serve? 

2. What benefits do the programs provide? 

3. How do the programs differ with respect to recipients and benefits? 

4. How have the programs evolved from 1989 onwards? 

Who Do the Programs Serve? 

Several characteristics attest that HUD-assisted housing serves VLI households: 

• More than one-half all HUD-assisted households had a total income in 2015 of less than 

$11,400, compared with a median of $15,900 among unassisted households whose 

income would still qualify them to participate in the program. The median income of all 

renters was $32,640, whereas the median income of all renter households was $50,300.

• Approximately 40 percent of HUD-assisted households receive wage and salary income, 

compared with approximately 73 percent of all renters.

• Approximately 70 percent of HUD-assisted households are female-headed, compared 

with approximately 55 percent among VLI households and 42 percent among all renter 

households. 

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

(approximately 45.7 percent) substantially higher than the rate among either units rented 

to VLI households (31.8 percent) or all renter households (21.9 percent). 

• Approximately 31 percent of householders in HUD-assisted households did not graduate 

from high school, compared with approximately 16 percent of householders among all 

renters.

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

• Among HUD-assisted households, approximately 45 percent have Black householders, 

compared with approximately 27 percent among VLI households. 

• Among HUD-assisted households, approximately 18 percent have Hispanic 

householders, compared with approximately 23 percent among VLI households. 

• Among HUD-assisted households, approximately 27 percent have senior householders 

(classified as householders 65 or older), compared with approximately 20 percent among 

VLI households. 
44 

• Approximately 48 percent of HUD-assisted households have only one person, compared 

with approximately 43 percent among VLI renters and 36 percent among all renters.

The report attributes these differences to where the programs function and when they 

originally began operation. Units constructed for public housing and other project-based 

programs can last 40 years or more—the original purpose and location of these units determines 

who lives in them. For example, one-bedroom units cannot serve families. 

• Approximately 56 percent of HUD-assisted units are located in central cities, while 

approximately 50 percent of units occupied by VLI renters are in central cities.

• Public housing began in 1937, and approximately 18.5 percent of public housing units 

were built before 1950. More than 67 percent of public housing units were built between 

1950 and 1989, during the period HUD restructured its housing assistance programs to 

favor the voucher approach. Privately owned housing programs were most active 

between 1965 and 1989; approximately 66 percent of these units were constructed 

between 1970 and 1989. 

• Approximately 40 percent of HUD-assisted units are efficiencies or one-bedroom units, 

compared with approximately 33 percent of all units occupied by VLI households and 28 

percent of all rental units. Among units in privately owned multifamily projects, the 

percentage of one-bedroom units is nearly 63 percent. 

What Benefits Do the Programs Provide? 

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

housing for needy households. AHS provides extensive information on the quality and condition 

of units. AHS data show the American rental housing stock is in good condition and HUDassisted units are as good as other rental units.

• By the AHS quality index, approximately 90 percent of HUD-assisted units, 89 percent 

of units occupied by all VLI households, and 91 percent of all rental units are considered 

adequate.

• Approximately 14 percent of HUD-assisted households experienced one of more periods 

of at least 24 hours being uncomfortably cold last winter, compared with approximately 

11 percent of all VLI households and approximately 10 percent of all renters.

• In the previous 3 months, approximately 6 percent of HUD-assisted units had at least one 

period with no working toilets, compared with approximately 4 percent of units with VLI

households and approximately 4 percent of all rental units. 

• Approximately 11 percent of HUD-assisted housing had water leaks originating inside 

the unit, compared with approximately 11 percent of units with VLI renters and 

approximately 11 percent of all rental units.

• Approximately 9 percent of HUD-assisted housing had water leaks originating outside 

the unit, compared with approximately 10 percent of units with VLI renters and 

approximately 9 percent of all rental units.
45 

• Approximately 6 percent of HUD-assisted housing experienced one or more blown fuses 

or tripped circuit breakers in the last 3 months, compared with approximately 8 percent of 

units with VLI renters and approximately 8 percent of all rental units. 

• Among households that moved into their units within the past 2 years, approximately 59 

percent of HUD-assisted householders rate their new homes as better than their old ones, 

compared with approximately 48 percent of all VLI households and approximately 47 

percent of all renters.

• Among households that moved into their units within the past 2 years, approximately 47 

percent of HUD-assisted householders rate their new neighborhoods as better than their 

old ones, compared with approximately 42 percent of all VLI households and 

approximately 41 percent of renters.

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

household income, where housing costs include both rent and utility expenses. A ratio of 0.3 is 

generally considered acceptable, while a ratio greater than 0.4 is considered excessive. By this 

standard, program participants are better off than the typical VLI household: 

• Approximately 44 percent of HUD-assisted households pay more than 40 percent of their 

income for rent, utilities, and related expenses, compared with approximately 69 percent 

of all VLI renters.

Section 5 discusses why AHS records so many HUD-assisted households paying more 

than 30 percent of their income, which is the general requirement in HUD programs. Program 

rules differ, allowing higher ratios in some cases—this is particularly important in regard to the 

voucher program and AHS income and cost numbers may differ from HUD administrative 

records.

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

The most important differences among the HUD programs are the following: 

• A higher percentage of public housing units are located in central cities (approximately 

62 percent) than voucher units (approximately 55 percent) or privately owned 

multifamily units (approximately 54 percent).

• Approximately 34 percent of privately owned multifamily households have Black 

householders, compared with approximately 51 percent in public housing and 

approximately 48 percent in the voucher program. 

• Approximately 45 percent of privately owned multifamily householders are seniors, 

compared with approximately 22 percent of householders in public housing and 

approximately 18 percent in the voucher program. 

• Approximately 39 percent of privately owned multifamily households are two-or-morepersons households, compared with approximately 55 percent in public housing and 

approximately 60 percent in the voucher program. 
46 

• Approximately 54 percent of privately owned multifamily households have a disabled 

member, compared with approximately 43 percent in public housing and approximately 

42 percent in the voucher program. 

• Voucher households had the highest median incomes in 2015 at approximately $11,400, 

compared with approximately $10,380 among privately owned multifamily households 

and approximately $10,200 among public housing tenants. 

• Approximately 55 percent of voucher households pay more than 40 percent or more of 

their income on housing, compared with approximately 36 percent of public housing 

tenants and approximately 34 percent of privately owned multifamily tenants.

• Voucher households are the most mobile. Approximately 34 percent moved in the past 2 

years, compared with approximately 28 percent among public housing tenants and

approximately 30 percent among privately owned multifamily tenants. Mobility is much 

higher among the comparison groups: Approximately 44 percent of VLI renters and 

approximately 48 percent of all renters moved in the past 2 years. 

• More recent movers in voucher households rate their new units as better: approximately 

62 percent said that their new unit was better than the old one, compared with

approximately 56 percent of public housing tenants and approximately 55 percent of 

privately owned multifamily tenants.

• More recent movers in public housing rate their neighborhood as worse: approximately 

26 percent said that their new neighborhood was worse than their old one, compared with

approximately 16 percent among both voucher and privately owned multifamily recent 

movers. 

How Have the Programs Evolved Since 1989?

This report is the ninth compilation of AHS data on HUD-assisted rental housing; it uses 

information from the previous studies to track changes in the HUD programs. 

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

assistance to tenant-based assistance. From 1989 to 2015, the number of HUD-assisted 

units increased by approximately 400,000 units, but program mix changed dramatically. 

The voucher program’s share grew from approximately 26 percent in 1989 to 

approximately 47 percent in 2015, while shares of public housing and privately owned 

multifamily housing each declined by approximately 11 percentage points. 

• The metropolitan areas outside of central cities have a larger share of HUD assistance, at 

approximately 32 percent in 2015 compared with approximately 26 percent in 1989, 

probably because of the growth of the voucher program. 

• The share of householders who are Black rose from approximately 40 percent to 

approximately 45 percent; the share who are Hispanic rose from approximately 10 

percent to approximately 17 percent. 

• The share of senior householders fell from approximately 35 percent to approximately 27 

percent with the decline of the privately owned multifamily program.
47 

• In the voucher program, the median ratio of housing costs to income rose from 32 to 43. 

Although the nine studies cover the 1989–2015 timeframe, the studies are clustered at the front 

(1989, 1991, 1993) and back (2003, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015) ends of the period. Although 

the shift in program composition was generally smooth over the 26-year period, there were 

marked changes in the share of households with a Hispanic householder, the share of households 

with a senior householder, and the median ratio of housing costs to income in the voucher 

program between the “1993 and earlier” era and the “2003 and later” era. Due to the back- and 

front-end clustering, the report cannot rule out a sharp change during the 1993–2003 gap. 
A-1 

Appendix A: How HUD Determines Physical Adequacy

At the request of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the U.S. 

Census Bureau provided this cogent explanation of the adequacy measures. 

Housing Adequacy

HUD measures housing quality by creating a measure called housing adequacy. The housing 

adequacy measure was classified into three degrees of severity: “severely inadequate,” 

“moderately inadequate,” and “adequate.” Each sample unit has to meet the conditions defined 

below to be classified in one of these three categories.

Severely Inadequate

Units are classified as “severely inadequate” if at least one of the following conditions is met: 

• Plumbing. Lacking hot or cold piped water, lacking a full bathroom, or sharing a 

bathroom with non-household members. 

• Heating. Having been uncomfortably cold last winter for 24 hours or more because the 

heating equipment broke down, and the heating equipment broke down at least three

times last winter for at least 6 hours each time.

• Electricity. Having no electricity. 

• Wiring. Having all of the following electric problems: exposed wiring, a room with no 

working wall outlet, and three blown fuses or tripped circuit breakers in the last 3 

months. 

• Upkeep. Having at least five of the following six maintenance problems:

1. Water leaks from the outside in the last 12 months, such as from the roof, 

basement, windows, or doors. 

2. Leaks from inside structure in the last 12 months, such as pipes or plumbing 

fixtures. 

3. Holes in the floors. 

4. Holes or open cracks (wider than a dime) in the walls or ceilings. 

5. More than 8 by 11 inches of peeling paint or broken plaster. 

6. Signs of rats in the last 12 months.

Moderately Inadequate

Units are classified as “moderately inadequate” if at least one of the following conditions is met: 

• Upkeep. Having only three or four of the six problems listed under “Severely Inadequate 

– Upkeep.” 

• Other. Having any one of the following conditions: 
A-2 

1. On at least three occasions during the last 3 months, all the flush toilets were 

broken down at the same time for 6 hours or more. 

2. Having unvented gas, oil, or kerosene heaters as the main heating equipment. 

3. Lacking a kitchen sink, lacking a working refrigerator, lacking cooking equipment 

(stove, burners, or microwave oven), or shares the kitchen with non-household 

members.

Adequate

A unit is deemed “adequate” if it does not meet the definitions of “severely inadequate” or 

“moderately inadequate.” 
B-1 

Appendix B: Previous Studies of the Characteristics on HUDAssisted Renters and Their Units Based on AHS Data

Casey, Connie H. 1992. Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters and Their Units in 1989. 

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

Development and Research. 

———. 1997. Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters and Their Units in 1991. Washington, 

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

Research. 

Eggers, Frederick J. 2017a. Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters and Their Units in 2009. 

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

Development and Research.

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

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

Research.

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

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

Research.

McGough, Duane T. 1997. Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters and Their Units in 1993. 

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

Development and Research.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Policy Development and 

Research (PD&R), Housing and Demographic Analysis Division (HDAD). 2008. Characteristics 

of HUD-Assisted Renters and Their Units in 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. 
51 

References

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

30-Percent-of-Income Standard. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. 

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

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

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

Development and Research. https://www.census.gov/programssurveys/ahs/research/publications/High_rent_burdens_v2.html. 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Office of Policy Development and 

Research (PD&R). 2019. Low-Income Housing Tax Credits. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. 

http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/lihtc.html. 

Weicher, John C., Frederick J. Eggers, and Fouad Moumen. 2017. The Long-Term Dynamics of 

Affordable Rental Housing. Washington, DC: The Hudson Institute. 

https://www.hudson.org/research/13339-the-long-term-dynamics-of-affordable-rental-housing.