Census 2000 counted

35.7 million renteroccupied housing units,

or about one-third of the

nation’s 105.5 million

occupied housing units.

Renter-occupied units

consisted of those rented for cash payments

plus those occupied by

someone other than the

owner without payment

of cash rent; the latter

usually were rent-free

houses or apartments

provided by friends or

relatives, or for compensation for services to

resident managers, ministers, and tenant farmers. Almost all rental

units (95 percent) were

rented for cash rent.

This report, part of a

series that presents

population and housing

data collected from

Census 2000, examines

gross rent and gross

rent as a percentage of

household income in

1999 for specified

renter-occupied housing

units. It shows how

these measures vary

geographically (by

regions, states, and

large cities), by age of

the householder, by race

and Hispanic origin of

U S C E N S U S B U R E A U

Helping You Make Informed Decisions

U.S.Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Issued May 2003

C2KBR-21

Housing Costs of Renters: 2000

Census 2000 Brief

By 

Robert Bonnette

What are the annual costs of utilities and fuels for

this house, apartment, or mobile home? If you have

lived here less than 1 year, estimate the annual cost.

a. Electricity

Annual cost — Dollars

$ , .00

OR

Included in rent or in condominium fee

No charge or electricity not used

b. Gas

Annual cost — Dollars

Included in rent or in condominium fee

No charge or gas not used

c. Water and sewer

Annual cost — Dollars

Included in rent or in condominium fee

No charge

d. Oil, coal, kerosene, wood, etc.

Annual cost — Dollars

Included in rent or in condominium fee

No charge or these fuels not used

, .00

, .00

, .00

OR

OR

OR

$

$

$

Figure 1.

Reproduction of the Question on Housing 

Utilities and Fuels From Census 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 questionnaire.

45
2 U.S. Census Bureau

the householder, and by some

housing characteristics. This brief

also examines “meals included in

rent,” which is intended to gauge

the extent of congregate housing.

Congregate housing is generally

considered to be housing units

where the rent includes meals and

other services, such as transportation to shopping and recreation. 

Gross rent is the monthly amount

of rent plus the estimated average

monthly cost of utilities (electricity,

gas, water, and sewer) and fuels

(oil, coal, kerosene, wood, etc.).

Figures 1 and 2 reproduce the

Census 2000 questions about the

components of gross rent.

Medians in this report are computed for specified renter-occupied

units paying cash rent, which

exclude one-family houses on ten

or more acres.

The Census Bureau initially collected gross rent data for renter-occupied housing units in 1940, the first

Census of Housing. Beginning in

1950, the Census Bureau tabulated

gross rent as a percentage of

income to create a measure of

affordability. From 1950 to 1970,

income was defined as that of families and primary individuals; since

1980, the Census Bureau has used

household income. The question of

whether meals were included in

rent was first asked in 1990.

Rents rose in every decade

from 1950 to 2000.

According to Census 2000, the median monthly gross rent was $602 for

the United States as a whole, a 5.4

percent increase over the $571

median for 19901

, and more than

double the median (adjusted for

inflation) of $257 a month in 1950,

as shown in Figure 3.2 Much of this

increase may be attributed to the

increase in amenities included with

rental units. In 1960, for example,

over 90 percent of all rental housing

lacked air conditioning, about 40

percent lacked central heating, and

20 percent lacked complete plumbing facilities. By 1980, the last census to measure these three items,

almost half of all rental units had air

conditioning, slightly over 80 percent had central heating, and only 

3 percent lacked complete plumbing. 

Figure 2.

Reproduction of the Question on Housing 

Showing Rent Paid From Census 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 questionnaire.

Yes

Answer ONLY if you PAY RENT for this house,

apartment, or mobile home — All others skip to 47.

No

,

Monthly amount — Dollars

a. What is the monthly rent?

$ .00

b. Does the monthly rent include any meals?

46

1 1990 rent was adjusted to 2000 dollars

using CPI-U-RS factor 1.277636. Rents for

previous years were also adjusted to 2000

dollars using factors appropriate for those

years.

Figure 3.

Median Gross Rent: 1950 to 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial censuses: 1950 to 2000.

(In 2000 dollars. Data based on sample. For information on 

confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and 

definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

$602

$257

$350

$415

$481

$571

2 The estimates in this report are based

on responses from a sample of the population. As with all surveys, estimates may

vary from the actual values because of sampling variation or other factors. All statements made in this report have undergone

statistical testing and are significant at the

90-percent confidence level, unless otherwise noted.
Rents varied by race and

Hispanic origin.

Census 2000 allowed respondents

to choose more than one race.

With the exception of the Two or

more races group, all race groups

discussed in this report refer to

people who indicated only one

racial identity among the six major

categories: White, Black or African

American, American Indian and

Alaska Native, Asian, Native

Hawaiian and Other Pacific

Islander, and Some other race.3 The

use of the single-race population in

this report does not imply that it is

the preferred method of presenting

or analyzing data. The Census

Bureau uses a variety of approaches.4

Median gross rent was highest for

householders who classified themselves as Asian ($734), secondhighest for Pacific Islander renters

($690), and third-highest for those

of Two or more races ($637).5

Rents were high for the Asian and

Native Hawaiian and Pacific

Islander households because these

two groups were concentrated in

Hawaii and California, which registered median monthly rents far

above the U.S. median. In fact, 5

of the 7 racial groups shown in

Table 1 reported rents at or above

the U.S. median of $602; only

American Indian and Alaska Native

and Black households reported

rents below the national median.

U.S. Census Bureau 3

Table 1.

Median Gross Rent by Race and Hispanic Origin of

Householder: 2000

(Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error,

and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)

Race and Hispanic origin of householder

Specified renteroccupied units

paying cash rent

Median

gross rent

Total, all households .......................... 33,386,326 $602

White alone........................................ 22,239,892 $612

Black or African American alone...................... 6,156,870 $541

American Indian and Alaska Native alone . ............ 309,034 $518

Asian alone........................................ 1,415,812 $734

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone . ..... 50,694 $690

Some other race alone.............................. 2,206,431 $602

Two or more races . ................................ 1,007,593 $637

Hispanic or Latino (of any race) ...................... 4,810,020 $604

White alone, not Hispanic or Latino................... 20,068,338 $613

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3.

3 For further information on each of the 

six major race groups and the Two or more

races population, see reports from the Census

2000 Brief series (C2KBR/01), available on the

Census 2000 Web site at www.census.gov/

population/www/cen2000/briefs.html. 4 This report draws heavily on Summary

File 3, a Census 2000 product that can be

accessed through American FactFinder, available from the Census Bureau’s Web site,

www.census.gov. Information on people who

reported more than one race, such as “White

and American Indian and Alaska Native” or

“Asian and Black or African American,” is

forthcoming in Summary File 4, which will

also be available through American FactFinder

in 2003. About 2.6 percent of people reported more than one race. 5 Hereafter this report uses the term Black

to refer to people who are Black or African

American, the term Pacific Islander to refer to

people who are Native Hawaiian and Other

Pacific Islander, and the term Hispanic to refer

to people who are Hispanic or Latino. 

Because Hispanics may be of any race,

data in this report for Hispanics overlap with

data for racial groups. Based on Census 2000

sample data, the proportion Hispanic was 

8.0 percent for Whites, 1.9 percent for Blacks,

14.6 percent for American Indians and Alaska

Natives, 1.0 percent for Asians, 9.5 percent

for Pacific Islanders, 97.1 percent for those

reporting Some other race, and 31.1 percent

for those reporting Two or more races.

Figure 4.

Median Gross Rent by Age of Householder: 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3.

(Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality 

protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)

75 and

over

Under 25 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74

$491

$567

$641 $637 $613

$560

$479
Median gross rent paid by

Hispanics (who can be of any race)

was slightly above the national

average. Rents paid by nonHispanic Whites were also above

the national median.

Householders aged 25 to 34

paid the highest rents.

Monthly rents were relatively low

($567) for householders 15 to 24,

peaked among householders 25 to

34 ($641), and then declined

steadily to $479 for householders

65 to 74. For older householders,

aged 75 and over, rents rose slightly to $491 (see Figure 4).

The number of bedrooms was

a major factor in determining

rent. 

Median gross rent was $522 for

units with no bedroom (generally

efficiencies) and then rose to $542

for one-bedroom units, $620 for

two bedrooms, $698 for three bedrooms, and $786 for units with four

or more bedrooms, which were

almost always one-family homes.

Gross rent as a percentage of

household income in 1999 is a

measure of the affordability

of rental housing.

Nationally, renter households spent

a little over one-quarter of their pretax income on rent (median 

25.5 percent). This value was down

almost a full percentage point from

the median of 26.4 percent in 1990.

When gross rent equals or exceeds

30 percent of household income,

renters are often considered to be

financially burdened. In all states,

fewer than half of rental households

paid this percentage; but certain

subgroups of renter households had

medians at or above the 30-percent

level. These included renters where

the householder was under 25 (for

whom the median was 30.8 percent) and the oldest renters, those

4 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 2.

Median Gross Rent and Median Gross Rent as Percentage

of Household Income for the United States, Regions, and

States, and for Puerto Rico: 1990 and 2000

(Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error,

nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)

Area

1990 2000

Median

gross rent

Median

gross rent as

percentage

of household

income in 1989

Median

gross rent

Median

gross rent as

percentage

of household

income in 1999

United States ........... $571 26.4 $602 25.5

Region

Northeast................... $638 26.4 $651 25.9

Midwest ................... $506 25.4 $533 24.0

South ..................... $517 25.7 $559 25.0

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $684 27.9 $694 27.1

State

Alabama ................... $415 24.8 $447 24.8

Alaska ..................... $714 23.8 $720 24.8

Arizona .................... $560 27.5 $619 26.6

Arkansas ................... $418 26.5 $453 24.4

California ................... $792 29.1 $747 27.7

Colorado ................... $533 26.1 $671 26.4

Connecticut ................. $764 26.6 $681 25.4

Delaware ................... $634 24.7 $639 24.3

District of Columbia ........... $612 25.4 $618 24.8

Florida ..................... $613 28.0 $641 27.5

Georgia .................... $553 25.8 $613 24.9

Hawaii ..................... $830 27.4 $779 27.2

Idaho ...................... $422 23.8 $515 25.3

Illinois ..................... $569 25.9 $605 24.4

Indiana..................... $477 24.3 $521 23.9

Iowa....................... $429 24.1 $470 23.2

Kansas .................... $474 24.5 $498 23.4

Kentucky ................... $408 24.9 $445 24.0

Louisiana ................... $450 27.9 $466 25.8

Maine...................... $535 26.8 $497 25.3

Maryland ................... $700 25.4 $689 24.7

Massachusetts............... $741 26.8 $684 25.5

Michigan ................... $540 27.2 $546 24.4

Minnesota .................. $539 26.7 $566 24.7

Mississippi .................. $394 27.1 $439 25.0

Missouri .................... $470 25.2 $484 24.0

Montana ................... $396 25.0 $447 25.3

Nebraska ................... $445 23.7 $491 23.0

Nevada .................... $650 26.8 $699 26.5

New Hampshire.............. $701 26.4 $646 24.2

New Jersey ................. $756 26.3 $751 25.5

New Mexico................. $473 26.5 $503 26.6

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $620 26.3 $672 26.8

North Carolina ............... $488 24.4 $548 24.3

North Dakota ................ $400 23.9 $412 22.3

Ohio....................... $483 25.3 $515 24.2

Oklahoma .................. $434 25.4 $456 24.3

Oregon .................... $521 25.5 $620 26.9

Pennsylvania ................ $516 26.1 $531 25.0

Rhode Island ................ $625 27.5 $553 25.7

South Carolina............... $482 24.4 $510 24.4

South Dakota................ $391 24.6 $426 22.9

Tennessee .................. $456 25.0 $505 24.8

Texas...................... $505 24.6 $574 24.4

Utah....................... $471 23.8 $597 24.9

Vermont .................... $570 27.1 $553 26.2

Virginia .................... $632 25.8 $650 24.5

Washington ................. $569 25.7 $663 26.5

West Virginia ................ $387 26.8 $401 25.8

Wisconsin .................. $510 24.9 $540 23.4

Wyoming ................... $425 23.7 $437 22.5

Puerto Rico ................. $261 29.4 $297 27.0

Note: Adjusted to 2000 dollars, using CPI-U-RS factor 1.277636.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 census and Census 2000 Summary File 3.
U.S. Census Bureau 5

75 or over (33.7 percent). Two

other financially burdened groups,

with over half paying 30 percent or

more of their household income on

rent, were female householders living alone, and female householders,

with no husband present, who lived

with their own children under 18.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION

OF RENTAL COSTS

Median gross rents were

above the national level in the

West and the Northeast, while

below it in the South and the

Midwest.6

Median monthly gross rent was

highest in the West at $694, far

above the national median of $602

(see Table 2). The Northeast registered the second highest median

gross rent at $651, while the South

($559) and the Midwest ($533)

were below the national median.

Rents rose fastest in the

South and the Midwest from

1990 to 2000.

In this report, 1990 median gross

rents have been adjusted to constant 2000 dollars. Interestingly,

the two regions with the lowest

median gross rents in 2000 had

higher increases than the other

two regions from 1990 to 2000.

Median rent increases were highest

in the South (8.1 percent) and the

Midwest (5.3 percent), and lowest

in the Northeast (2.0 percent) and

the West (1.5 percent).

Hawaii continued to have the

highest median gross rent

among all states.

Median gross rent in Hawaii, at

$779, surpassed that in all other

states, just as it did in 1990. New

Jersey ($751) edged out California

($747) for second place; California

had been second-highest in 1990.

In 2000, half of the ten states with

the highest rents were located in

the West: Alaska, Colorado, and

Nevada joined California and

Hawaii in this group. In the

Northeast, Connecticut,

Massachusetts, New York, and 

New Jersey, were among the ten

highest-rent states nationally.

Maryland was the only southern

state among the national top ten. 

Median monthly rents were lowest

in West Virginia ($401). North

Dakota and South Dakota featured

the next lowest rents ($412 and

$426 respectively). Six of the ten

states with the lowest rents were

in the South: West Virginia,

Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky,

Mississippi, and Oklahoma. The

other two states with the lowest

monthly rents were in the West:

Montana and Wyoming ($447 and

$437, respectively).

From 1990 to 2000, rents rose

the most in three Rocky

Mountain states and

decreased the most in two

New England states.

In three states — Colorado, Idaho,

and Utah — median gross rent

increased over 20 percent between

1990 and 2000. In another four

states — Arizona, Montana,

Oregon, and Washington — rents

increased 10 percent or more. Big

increases in rents in these seven

western states were offset to some

degree by a 5.7-percent decline in

median rents in California’s huge

rental inventory, so that the West

as a whole registered only a small

increase (1.5 percent) in median

rents between 1990 and 2000.

Georgia, Mississippi, North

Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas

also recorded double-digit rent

increases from 1990 to 2000.7

Ten states posted rent decreases.

Seven of the nine states in the

Northeast, including every one in

New England, registered rent

decreases, with Connecticut and

Rhode Island the only states in the

United States posting double-digit

rent decreases. However, the

sheer size of the rental inventories

in New York and Pennsylvania, the

two states where rents increased in

the Northeast, prevented the

region as a whole from decreasing.

California, Hawaii, and Maryland

were the three states outside the

Northeast posting rent decreases

from 1990 to 2000.8

The proportion of household

income spent on rent

decreased in almost every

state between 1990 and 2000.

The few states registering increases were generally in the West —

for example, Alaska, Idaho,

Oregon, and Utah. States with

large decreases in median gross

rent as a percentage of household

income were more widely scattered, such as Michigan in the

Midwest; Arkansas, Louisiana, and

Mississippi in the South; and New

Hampshire in the Northeast.

Renters in California devoted the

largest share of their income to

rent (median 27.7 percent).

Renters in Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska,

6 The Northeast region includes the states

of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

The Midwest region includes the states of

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan,

Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota,

Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. The

South region includes the states of Alabama,

Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,

Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi,

North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina,

Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and

the District of Columbia, a state equivalent.

The West region includes the states of Alaska,

Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho,

Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah,

Washington, and Wyoming.

7 At the 90-percent confidence level, Iowa

showed an increase between 8.7 and 

10.3 percent, Nebraska between 9.4 and 

11.2 percent, and South Dakota between 

7.7 and 10.2 percent, so these three states

may also have experienced double-digit

increases. 8 At the 90-percent confidence level,

Alaska showed a 1990-2000 change of -0.5

to 2.1 percent, Delaware -0.2 to 2.1 percent,

and the District of Columbia -0.3 to 2.3 percent, so these states may also have experienced median rent decreases.
6 U.S. Census Bureau $685 or more $602 to $684 $485 to $601 Less than $485 Median Gross Rents: 2000 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3. American Factfinder at factfinder.census.gov provides census data and mapping tools. Median gross rent by state$602 or more $435 to $601 $355 to $434 Less than $355 U.S. median $602 U.S. median $602 Figure 5. 0 100 Miles 0 100 Miles 0 100 Miles 0 100 Miles Median gross rent by county Fewer than 300 cash renters (Data not shown) (Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf) 
North Dakota, South Dakota,

Wisconsin, and Wyoming spent the

lowest share of their income on

rent (23.4 percent or less).

High rents show distinct

clusters.

Rental units at or above the national median of $602 cluster in a few

areas, such as the BostonWashington corridor, the Pacific

coast of California, the southern

coasts of Florida, Puget Sound,

central Colorado, and around various large metropolitan areas like

Chicago, Atlanta, Detroit, and

Dallas. In about 10 percent of all

counties the median was at or

above the U.S. median. Countylevel data are mapped in Figure 5.

If the rental inventory were divided

into four equal groupings called

quartiles, the lowest group would

have rents below $436 (the lower

quartile), another one-quarter

between $436 and the median

($602), another quarter between

the median and the upper quartile

of $804, and the highest quarter

above $804. However, counties

were not equally divided into these

quartiles; in fact, in about 60 percent of all counties, median rents

were below the lower quartile of

$436. Higher rents, those at or

above the U.S. median, were concentrated in a few counties which

generally had a large number of

renters and relatively expensive

rental housing. Only about 

60 counties had median rents

above the upper quartile. 

Nine of the ten places of

100,000 or more people with

the highest rents were in

California.

The only one of these ten high rent

places not in California was

Stamford, Connecticut (see Table 3).

The ten places with the lowest

median gross rent are shown in

Table 4. Unlike the top ten, these

bottom ten were scattered across

the nation, in every region except

the West. Among places of

100,000 or more people in 2000,

Brownsville, Texas, and Erie,

Pennsylvania, had the lowest rents

($405 and $424, respectively).

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS

How did rents vary by type

and age of structure?

Median gross rent for one-family,

detached houses was $648, well

above the $602 for all specified

renter units. Rent was even higher

for one-family, attached units

($688), which were generally townhouses and rowhouses. For units

in apartment buildings of two to

four units, the median gross rent

was $573 and it rose to $608 for

those units in buildings with five

or more apartments.

U.S. Census Bureau 7

Table 4.

Places of 100,000 or More With the Lowest Median Gross

Rent: 2000

(Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)

Place

Specified renteroccupied units

paying cash rent

Median

gross rent

90-percent

confidence

interval

Brownsville, TX .................. 13,633 $405 $400 - $410

Erie, PA ......................... 17,153 $424 $416 - $432

St. Louis, MO . ................... 75,581 $442 $439 - $445

Louisville, KY .................... 51,102 $443 $438 - $448

Cincinnati, OH ................... 88,512 $444 $441 - $447

Birmingham, AL .................. 43,681 $446 $441 - $451

Dayton, OH...................... 30,787 $448 $442 - $454

Springfield, MO .................. 28,916 $452 $446 - $458

Evansville, IN .................... 20,079 $454 $448 - $460

Laredo, TX ...................... 15,425 $454 $446 - $462

Note: Because of sampling error, the estimates in this table may not be significantly different from

one another or from rates for geographic areas not listed in this table.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3.

Table 3.

Places of 100,000 or More With the Highest Median Gross

Rent: 2000

(The data are for specified renter-occupied housing units. Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see

www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)

Place

Specified renteroccupied units

paying cash rent

Median

gross rent

90-percent

confidence

interval

Irvine, CA ....................... 20,147 $1,272 $1,257 - $1,287

Sunnyvale, CA ................... 27,158 $1,270 $1,256 - $1,284

Santa Clara, CA.................. 20,337 $1,238 $1,219 - $1,257

Fremont, CA..................... 23,782 $1,196 $1,183 - $1,209

Thousand Oaks, CA .............. 10,007 $1,131 $1,109 - $1,153

San Jose, CA.................... 103,317 $1,123 $1,115 - $1,131

Daly City, CA . . .................. 11,964 $1,074 $1,062 - $1,086

Simi Valley, CA .................. 7,932 $1,058 $1,037 - $1,079

Stamford, CT .................... 19,283 $1,007 $986 - $1,028

Huntington Beach, CA ............ 28,514 $985 $980 - $990

Note: Because of sampling error, the estimates in this table may not be significantly different from

one another or from rates for geographic areas not listed in this table.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3.
Median gross rent for new housing

units — those built 1995 or later

— was $718. Older homes, those

built before 1940, commanded

much lower rents of $565.

Was rental housing more or

less affordable in 2000 than it

was 50 years earlier?

Median gross rent as a percentage

of income from 1950 to 2000 is

shown in Figure 6. The percentage

rose steadily until 1990, but then

declined a bit by 2000. Thus, in

2000, rental housing was less

affordable than in 1950 but more

affordable than in 1990. The

income measure used in1980,

1990, and 2000 was household

income. Income of families and

primary individuals was used from

1950 through 1970. The main

effect of the change was to include

income of all members of the

household. For example, only the

income of the person designated

as the householder would have

been used in the earlier censuses if

two or more unrelated people lived

in the same apartment.

Among householders of

different races and Hispanic

origin, were there significant

differences in the proportions

of household income spent on

rent and utilities?

Data on gross rent as a percentage

of household income by race and

Hispanic origin are presented in

Figure 7. Single-race Black householders and those with a householder classified as two or more

races paid the highest proportion of

their income (27.6 percent) for rent.

Single-race White householders, irrespective of Hispanic origin, paid the

lowest ( 24.8 percent). Hispanic or

Latino households spent a higher

percentage of their household

income for rent (27.0 percent) than

all specified renter households

nationally (25.5 percent).

Did the percentage of units

with meals included increase

during the 1990s? 

The 1990 census introduced a

question on whether meals were

included in the rent (see Figure 2).

This question was intended to

measure congregate housing, generally for older households. In

1990, 3.8 percent of householders

65 and over reported meals included with the rent, and for householders 75 and over, the figure

was 6.3 percent. By 2000, these

percentages had increased to 

8 percent for all householders 

65 and over and to 13 percent for

those 75 and over.

The largest number of elderly

households reporting meals included in the rent in 2000 were found

in California and Florida, but that

was not unexpected given the size

of the elderly population in those

two states. The highest percentage of elderly reporting meals

included in rent were found in

Oregon and Washington.

ABOUT CENSUS 2000

Why the Census Bureau collects

and tabulates rent data.

The U.S. Census Bureau collects

data on gross rent, which is the

sum of rent contracted for plus

amounts paid for utilities (electricity, gas, water, and sewer) and fuels

(oil, coal, kerosene, wood, etc.).

Federal uses include establishment

of Section 8 fair market rents by

the Department of Housing and

Urban Development and allocation

of funds by the Departments of

Health and Human Services and

Agriculture to help low- and moderate-income families whose rents

exceed 30 percent of their household income. Rent data are also

used by the Bureau of Economic

Analysis in its state per-capita

8 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 6.

Gross Rent as a Percentage of Income: 1950 to 2000

Note: Income of families and primary individuals for 1950-1970; and household 

income for 1980-2000.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population and Housing, decennial volumes.

(Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality 

protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

25.5

17.9

19.7

21.0

25.0

26.4
income estimates, which are used

in allocation formulas or eligibility

criteria of more than 20 federal

programs. Rent data are also

needed to distribute funds for

housing for low-income households under the Older Americans

Act and for home energy assistance to low-income individuals

and families.

Accuracy of the Estimates

The data contained in this report

are based on the sample of households who responded to the Census

2000 long form. Nationally,

approximately one out of every six

housing units was included in this

sample. As a result, the sample

estimates may differ somewhat

from the100-percent figures that

would have been obtained if all

housing units, people within those

housing units, and people living in

group quarters had been enumerated using the same questionnaires,

instructions, enumerators, and so

forth. The sample estimates also

differ from the values that would

have been obtained from different

samples of housing units, people

within those housing units, and

people living in group quarters.

The deviation of a sample estimate

from the average of all possible

samples is called the sampling

error. 

In addition to the variability that

arises from the sampling procedures, both sample data and 100-

percent data are subject to nonsampling error. Nonsampling error

may be introduced during any of

the various complex operations

used to collect and process data.

Such errors may include: not

enumerating every household or

every person in the population,

failing to obtain all required information from the respondents,

obtaining incorrect or inconsistent

information, and recording information incorrectly. In addition,

errors can occur during the field

review of the enumerators’ work,

during clerical handling of the census questionnaires, or during the

electronic processing of the questionnaires.

Nonsampling error may affect the

data in two ways: (1) errors that are

introduced randomly will increase

the variability of the data and,

therefore, should be reflected in the

standard errors; and (2) errors that

tend to be consistent in one direction will bias both sample and 

100-percent data in that direction.

For example, if respondents consistently tend to underreport their

incomes, then the resulting estimates of households or families by

income category will tend to be

understated for the higher income

categories and overstated for the

lower income categories. Such

biases are not reflected in the standard errors.

While it is impossible to completely

eliminate error from an operation

as large and complex as the decennial census, the Census Bureau

attempts to control the sources of

such error during the data collection and processing operations.

The primary sources of error and

the programs instituted to control

error in Census 2000 are described

in detail in Summary File 3

Technical Documentation under

Chapter 8, “Accuracy of the Data,”

located at www.census.gov/

prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf. 

All statements in this Census 2000

Brief have undergone statistical

testing and all comparisons are

significant at the 90-percent

U.S. Census Bureau 9

Figure 7.

Gross Rent as a Percentage of Household Income 

in 1999 by Race and Hispanic Origin of 

Householder: 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3.

(Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality 

protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)

White alone, not

Hispanic or Latino

Hispanic or Latino

(of any race)

Two or more races

Some other race alone

Native Hawaiian and

Pacific Islander alone

Asian alone

American Indian and

Alaska Native alone

Black or African

American alone

White alone

24.6

24.8

27.6

25.5

25.1

26.1

26.8

27.6

27.0
confidence level, unless otherwise

noted. The estimates in tables,

maps, and other figures may vary

from actual values due to sampling

and nonsampling errors. As a

result, estimates in one category

may not be significantly different

from estimates assigned to a different category. Further information on the accuracy of the data is

located at www.census.gov/

prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf. For

further information on the computation and use of standard errors,

contact the Decennial Statistical

Studies Division at 301-763-4242. 

For More Information

The Census 2000 Summary File 3

data are available from the

American Factfinder on the Internet

(factfinder.census.gov). They were

released on a state-by-state basis

during 2002. For information on

confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, sampling error, and

definitions, also see

www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/

doc/sf3.pdf or contact the

Customer Services Center at 

301-763-INFO (4636).

Information on population and

housing topics is presented in the

Census 2000 Brief series, located

on the Census Bureau’s Web site at

www.census.gov/population/www/

cen2000/briefs.html. This series,

which will be completed in 2003,

presents information on race,

Hispanic origin, age, sex, household type, housing tenure, and

social, economic, and housing

characteristics, such as ancestry,

income, and housing costs.

For additional information on housing, including reports and survey

data, visit the Census Bureau’s

Internet site on at www.census.gov/

hhes/www/housing.html. To find

information about the availability of

data products, including reports,

CD-ROMs, and DVDs, call the

Customer Services Center at 

301-763-INFO (4636), or e-mail 

webmaster@census.gov.

10 U.S. Census Bureau

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Washington, DC 20233

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use $300

FIRST-CLASS MAIL

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

U.S. Census Bureau

Permit No. G-58