TRENDS IN

WORST CASE NEEDS

FOR HOUSING, 

1978–1999

___________________________ 

A Report to Congress on 

Worst Case Housing Needs

Plus Update on Worst

Case Needs in 2001

December 2003 

Office of Policy Development and Research 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Analysts contributing to this report are Kathryn P. Nelson, 

David A. Vandenbroucke, Jeffrey M. Lubell, Mark D. Shroder, and Arthur J. Rieger 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary......................................................................................................... ix 

Worst Case Needs for Housing and Shortages of Affordable Housing in 2001...... xix 

Chapter 1 Worst Case Needs in 1999 and Changes in Housing Problems in the 

United States Between 1978 and 1999......................................................1 

Worst case needs for rental assistance among very-low-income renters.............................2 

Housing problems among all renters and owners by income ..............................................9 

Chapter 2 Who Has Worst Case Needs, Where?....................................................19 

Worst case needs and rental assistance among renters in different income ranges...........19 

Worst case needs, housing problems, and rental assistance by type of household............25 

The share of worst case households with earnings continued to increase .........................33 

Worst case needs by race and ethnicity .............................................................................37 

The location of households with worst case needs............................................................43 

Chapter 3 The Continuing Challenge: Severe and Worsening Shortages of

Housing Affordable to Extremely-Low-Income Renters .....................51 

Shortages of affordable units are worst for renters with extremely low incomes .............51 

During the 1990s, numbers of affordable units dropped and shortages worsened ............57 

Shortages of affordable housing were worst in the suburbs and central cities of the West 

and Northeast .....................................................................................................................63 

Units with rents below local FMRs are least available in metropolitan areas in the West 

and Northeast .....................................................................................................................69 

Summary............................................................................................................................77 

Chapter 4 Measuring Housing Needs: Considerations for Future Research.......78 

Limitations of the worst case needs measure.....................................................................79 

Desirable improvements ....................................................................................................81 

iii 
Next steps...........................................................................................................................85 

Appendix A: Data on Housing Problems and Supplies of Affordable Housing.............A–1 

Appendix B: Glossary...................................................................................................A–37 

Appendix C: Procedures Used To Provide the Most Accurate Estimates of Worst Case

Needs in 1999 Possible From 1999 American Housing Survey Data .....A–43 

Appendix D: Procedures Used To Estimate Comparable Trend Data on Housing Needs 

and Rental Affordability by Relative Income Between 1978 and 1999 From 

Annual and American Housing Survey Data...........................................A–53 

Appendix E: Sensitivity Analysis of Measures of Affordable Units per 100 

Renters .....................................................................................................A–59 

iv 
Exhibits 

Exhibit 1–1 Almost 60 percent of the 10.9 million persons with worst case needs in 1999 

were elderly, children, or disabled .........................................................................3 

Exhibit 1–2 In 1997–99, income outpaced rents among very-low-income renters for the first 

time since 1987–89.................................................................................................4 

Exhibit 1–3 After rising for 10 years, worst case needs dropped by at least 440,000 between 

1997 and 1999 ........................................................................................................6 

Exhibit 1–4 In 1999, only 33 percent of very-low-income renters, and 4.7 percent of US 

households, had worst case needs ..........................................................................7 

Exhibit 1–5 From 1978 to 1999, worst case needs reflected severe rent burdens more and 

severely inadequate units less.................................................................................8 

Exhibit 1–6 Very-low-income renters and owners most often have housing problems ..........13 

Exhibit 1–7 Over time, the incidence of severe problems has risen most among owners, yet 

unassisted extremely-low-income renters remain much more likely to have

severe problems than other renters and owners....................................................15 

Exhibit 1–8 Between 1978 and 1999, severe housing cost burdens rose more for owners than 

for renters .............................................................................................................16 

Exhibit 1–9 Among both owners and renters, the 1978–99 increase in the incidence of severe 

problems was largest in the West.........................................................................17 

Exhibit 2–1 The 1997–99 fall in worst case renters was concentrated among extremely-lowincome households...............................................................................................20 

Exhibit 2–2 Over time, more than three-fourths of worst case renters have had extremely low 

incomes.................................................................................................................23 

Exhibit 2–3 Renters with income below 30 percent of median most often have severe housing

problems...............................................................................................................24 

Exhibit 2–4 Between 1978 and 1999, shares reporting rental assistance rose at all income

levels.....................................................................................................................25 

Exhibit 2–5 Between 1997 and 1999, worst case needs fell most quickly among “other” 

families.................................................................................................................26 

Exhibit 2–6 For the elderly, worst case needs in 1999 were lower than in either 1987 

 or 1978..................................................................................................................27 

v 
Exhibit 2–7 In 1999, at least 22 percent of worst case households had nonelderly adults with 

disabilities.............................................................................................................31 

Exhibit 2–8 Worst case households with disabled adults were more likely than others to 

report receiving outside help with regular household expenses...........................32 

Exhibit 2–9 Between 1987 and 1999, worst case needs and assistance rose most among

nonfamily households...........................................................................................33 

Exhibit 2–10 Among worst case families with children, shares relying on earnings rose 

between 1987 and 1999........................................................................................34 

Exhibit 2–11 More than 70 percent of unassisted working renters with worst case needs have

extremely low incomes.........................................................................................36 

Exhibit 2–12 From 1987 to 1999, more extremely-low-income worst case families worked, and 

fewer received welfare .........................................................................................37 

Exhibit 2–13 In 1999, worst case needs were lowest for Hispanics and highest for blacks......38 

Exhibit 2–14 From 1978 to 1999, worst case needs rose most among Hispanics and 

 other races ............................................................................................................39 

Exhibit 2–15 In 1999, over half with worst case needs were non-Hispanic whites...................41 

Exhibit 2–16 Within regions, worst case needs are more common in cities and suburbs..........43 

Exhibit 2–17 Worst case needs fell between 1997 and 1999 in all regions, but they rose most in 

the West and the South between 1987 and 1999..................................................45 

Exhibit 2–18 Between 1987 and 1999, worst case needs rose most in western and southern 

suburbs .................................................................................................................46 

Exhibit 2–19 Within regions, very-low-income renters least often are assisted in 

 the suburbs............................................................................................................46 

Exhibit 2–20 Between 1987 and 1999, numbers assisted rose most in western and southern 

suburbs .................................................................................................................47 

Exhibit 2–21 Between 1978 and 1999, both worst case needs and assistance rose most in the 

West......................................................................................................................48 

Exhibit 3–1 1999 indicators of shortages of housing affordable to extremely-low-income

 renters...................................................................................................................52 

Exhibit 3–2 Most extremely-low-income renters needing three or more bedrooms do not have

them, and even fewer can afford them .................................................................53 

Exhibit 3–3 Only for income below 30 percent of AMI is there a real shortage of affordable 

units......................................................................................................................54 

vi 
Exhibit 3–4 Shortages of affordable housing are worst for renters with extremely low 

 incomes.................................................................................................................55 

Exhibit 3–5 Shortages of affordable and available units are worse but also occur only among

units affordable to incomes below 30 percent of AMI.........................................56 

Exhibit 3–6 Only for incomes below 60 percent of AMI were there fewer affordable and 

available units than renters...................................................................................57 

Exhibit 3–7 Losses in units affordable to extremely-low-income renters accelerated between 

1997 and 1999 ......................................................................................................58 

Exhibit 3–8 During the 1990s, units affordable to very low incomes fell, whereas those 

affordable to low incomes increased in number...................................................59 

Exhibit 3–9 During the 1990s, shortages of units affordable and available to extremely-lowincome renters worsened......................................................................................60 

Exhibit 3–10 From 1991 to 1999, affordable and available units per 100 renters dropped fastest 

(–20 percent) below 30 percent of AMI...............................................................61 

Exhibit 3–11 Changes in affordable units and renters by income in 1985 and 1999 show rent 

burdens increasing only for renters with incomes 0 to 30 percent of AMI..........63 

Exhibit 3–12 Shortages of affordable housing were worst in 1999 in the West and 

 Northeast ..............................................................................................................64 

Exhibit 3–13 Shortages of affordable and available housing were also worst for extremely-lowincome renters in the West and Northeast............................................................65 

Exhibit 3–14 Within each region, shortages of housing affordable to extremely-low-income

renters are worst in central cities..........................................................................66 

Exhibit 3–15 Except in the South, shortages of housing affordable and available to extremelylow-income renters were worst in the suburbs.....................................................67 

Exhibit 3–16 Shortages of affordable housing available to extremely-low-income renters were 

worst in the West during the 1990s but worsened more elsewhere......................68 

Exhibit 3–17 Shortages of affordable housing available to extremely-low-income renters 

worsened most in metropolitan areas 1991–99 ....................................................69 

Exhibit 3–18 Vacancy rates for units with below-FMR rents were low in the West and 

Northeast in 1999, particularly among units with three or more bedrooms.........70 

Exhibit 3–19 In 1999, below-FMR vacancy rates were lowest in suburbs and cities in the West 

and Northeast........................................................................................................71 

Exhibit 3–20 Across U.S. MSAs, 2002 FMRs were affordable to very different incomes as a 

percentage of area median income .......................................................................72 

vii 
Exhibit 3–21 Almost one-half of the US population, and three-fourths of the nonmetropolitan 

population, lives where 2002 FMRs are affordable to incomes below 50 percent 

of AMI..................................................................................................................74 

Exhibit 3–22 FMRs are high in relation to AMI in MSAs in the Northeast and West, and rental 

vacancy rates are lowest in areas with high FMRs...............................................75 

Exhibit 4–1 Comparison of AHS and census data suggests that owners are more likely to 

underreport income on the AHS and that the AHS shows fewer renters with rent 

burdens above 30 percent or 50 percent of income than does the census............83 

viii 
Executive Summary

Trends in Worst Case Needs for Housing, 1978–1999 

After having increased by one-fifth over the previous 10 years, between 1997 and 1999 the 

number of U.S. households with worst case needs for rental assistance fell significantly, by at 

least 8 percent, to 4.86 million. This reduction in worst case needs resulted from increases in 

income among very-low-income renters, but not from increases in the number of rental units 

affordable to them. Instead, the trend of decline in the number of rental units affordable to 

extremely-low-income households accelerated between 1997 and 1999. 

The findings detailed in this report thus represent both good and bad news. Real, significant 

drops in numbers of households with severe rent burdens reduced the share of U.S. 

households with worst case needs in 1999 to 4.7 percent, a record low for the past two 

decades, and this marked improvement shows that progress can be made in addressing the 

nation’s most serious housing problems. Worsening shortages of housing affordable and 

available to extremely-low-income renters, however, show that the underlying gap between 

demand and supply continues. 

This report also looks more generally at trends over the past two decades in housing

problems among both owners and renters at all income levels. The most notable changes are

increases in affordability problems among low-income owners. Although severe affordability

problems remain more common among very-low-income renters than other renters or owners 

at any income level, over the past two decades the number and share of very-low-income 

owners with affordability problems have risen more rapidly. 

A brief section following this executive summary updates the trends studied in the body of 

the report by giving an overview of changes between 1999 and 2001. Over this two-year 

period, the number of households with worst case needs for rental assistance rose slightly, 

but insignificantly, to 5.07 million. The number of units affordable to extremely-low-income 

renters remained stable, so that—for the first time in the past decade—shortages of housing

affordable and available to extremely-low-income renters did not worsen.

Worst case needs fell between 1997 and 1999 but rose over the past two 

decades 

In 1999, an estimated 4.86 million unassisted very-low-income renter households, containing

10.9 million people, had worst case needs for rental assistance. “Worst case” needs are 

defined as unassisted renters with very low incomes (below 50 percent of area median 

income) who pay more than half of their income for housing or live in severely substandard 

housing.

• Severe rent burdens were by far the most common problem underlying worst case 

needs. In 1999, almost 94 percent of those with worst case needs paid more than half 

of their reported income for housing, while only 11 percent lived in units with severe 

physical problems. For over three-fourths of those with worst case needs, 3.7 million, 

ix
a severe rent burden was their only housing problem, since they lived in uncrowded 

housing that had neither severe nor moderate physical problems. 

The number of worst case renters fell by at least 440,000 households between 1997 and 

1999, a significant decrease of at least 8 percent over this 2-year period. 

• The 1997–99 drop in worst case needs resulted from a reduction in the number of 

very-low-income renters paying more than half of their income for rent and utilities. 

The number of households living in severely inadequate units did not change. 

• Worst case needs fell significantly between 1997 and 1999 because income growth 

among very-low-income renters exceeded increases in the rents they paid. 

The significant decline in worst case needs between 1997 and 1999 was the first drop 

observed after 10 years of increasing need. Between 1987 and 1997, the number of 

households with worst case needs rose from 4.5 million to a record high of 5.4 million in 

1997. Between 1978 and 1985, worst case needs had also increased. 

• In 1999, the 4.9 million worst case households represented only 14.3 percent of 

renters, and 4.7 percent of U.S. households, the lowest shares observed in the 21 

years for which comparable worst case data are available. 

• Over the two decades between 1978 and 1999, worst case needs rose in number but 

fell as a share of very-low-income renters. During this period, the number of 

unassisted very-low-income renters with severe rent burdens rose from 3.2 to 4.6 

million. By contrast, the number living in severely inadequate units fell by half, to 

525,000. 

Housing problems among all renters and owners

Very-low-income renters are much more likely to have housing problems, especially

severe problems of severely inadequate housing or paying more than half of income for 

housing, than higher income renters. They are also more likely to have one or more 

moderate or severe housing problems (of rent burden, physically inadequate housing, or 

crowding) than very-low-income owners or higher income owners. Paying more than 30 

percent of income for housing was by far the most common problem among all groups of 

low- and moderate-income renters and owners. 

• Between 1997 and 1999, the drop in worst case needs was not due to changes in 

the number of renters reporting assistance. Instead, severe rent burdens fell among

all very-low-income renters, including assisted renters, and among all renters. 

• In 1999, 44 percent of very-low-income renters had severe problems, and another 

34 percent had “moderate” problems, which include paying 31–50 percent of 

income for housing or living in housing that is moderately inadequate or crowded. 

Among very-low-income owners, 33 percent had severe problems and 25 percent 

had moderate problems. 

x 
• Housing problems were much less common among renters and owners with “low” 

incomes between 51 and 80 percent of median. In this income group, 6 percent of 

renters and 9 percent of owners had severe problems, while 31 percent of renters 

and 26 percent of owners had other problems. 

• Very few households with moderate incomes (81–120 percent of median) had 

severe problems. In this income group, only 3 percent of renters and 4 percent of 

owners had severe problems, while 14 percent of renters and 17 percent of owners 

had moderate problems. 

Although severe problems remain uncommon among owners with low and moderate 

incomes, over the past two decades these groups experienced faster growth in severe 

problems, from a smaller base, than renters. Despite growth in numbers with problems, 

the incidence of severe problems was lower in 1999 for unassisted renters with incomes 

between 60 and 120 percent of median income than it had been in 1978. 

• Between 1978 and 1999, housing payments requiring an unaffordable share of 

income rose more rapidly among owners than among renters. The share of all

owners paying more than half of income for housing rose from 3.3 percent to 8.5 

percent, while the share of renters paying more than half of income for housing

rose from 13.6 percent to 18.5 percent. 

• For owners as for renters, affordability problems were much more common than

living in inadequate or crowded housing. Among all households, 11.8 percent 

paid more than half of income for housing, and another 15.4 percent paid 31–50 

percent of income for housing. By contrast, 2 percent lived in housing with severe 

physical problems and another 4.7 percent had housing with moderate problems. 

Nationally, only 2.5 percent of households were crowded. 

Worst case needs and rental assistance among renters by income

The 1997–99 fall in the number of households with worst case needs for rental assistance all 

occurred among renters with extremely low incomes [below 30 percent of HUD-adjusted 

area median family income (HAMFI)], as income growth caused the number of such

households to fall from 9 to 8.6 million. 

• Yet extremely-low-income renters remained much more likely to have worst case

housing problems than those with higher incomes. Over two-thirds (68 percent) of 

unassisted extremely-low-income renters—some 3.7 million households—had worst 

case housing needs in 1999. 

• Renters with the lowest incomes much more often have severe housing problems than 

those with higher incomes. For example, over three-fourths of unassisted renters with 

incomes between 0 and 20 percent of HAMFI had severe problems in 1999, 

compared to 28 percent of unassisted renters with incomes between 31 and 40 percent 

of HAMFI and only 8 percent among unassisted renters with incomes between 51 and 

60 percent of HAMFI. 

xi
By 1999, over one-third of extremely-low-income renters reported rental assistance, up 

from one-fourth in 1978, as rental assistance rose among low-income renters. 

Nonetheless, in both years, over two-thirds of the extremely-low-income renters without 

assistance had worst case problems. 

Worst case needs, housing problems, and rental assistance by type of 

household 

Needs fell most rapidly among the elderly, families with children, and “other” families. The

1997–99 drop in worst case needs was greatest among “other families,” that is, nonelderly

households with related family members but no children. Declines were also above average 

among the elderly and families with children, two groups often helped by rental assistance. 

Worst case needs did not drop among the remaining two household types identified in this 

report: households with disabled nonelderly adults or households containing only one or 

more single adults younger than 62. 

Between 1997 and 1999, needs among the elderly fell by an above-average drop of 12 

percent to 1.0 million households. Among families with children, worst case needs fell by 10 

percent to 1.8 million. Among these two household types, the 1997–99 drops more than 

offset the decade’s earlier slow growth in worst case needs. 

• Despite this improvement, the likelihood of having worst case problems remained 

high for very-low-income elderly and families with children without assistance. In

1999, 51 percent of unassisted elderly very-low-income renters, and 42 percent of 

unassisted very-low-income renter families with children, had worst case problems. 

• Elderly worst case renters were the very-low-income renters most likely to have 

only a severe rent burden, while worst case families with children more often paid 

more than half of their income and lived in inadequate or crowded housing.

• Among both the elderly and families with children, four-fifths of the households 

with worst case problems had extremely low incomes (800,000 elderly and 1.4 

million families with children). 

The 1997–99 fall in worst case needs was fastest among “other” families, who are nonelderly

households with related family members but no children. The drop of 31 percent offset the 

increases in needs recorded earlier in the decade. By 1999, unmet needs were 230,000, 

effectively the same as the 1987 and 1989 levels of 220,000. 

• This household type was least likely to have worst case problems: in 1999, only 36 

percent of unassisted families without children had worst case needs for assistance. 

Worst case needs did not fall among very-low-income renter households with disabled adult 

members, who also receive priority for rental assistance. Although an improved American 

Housing Survey (AHS) proxy for the disabled suggests that almost half of this group receive 

rental assistance, three-fifths of the unassisted disabled have worst case problems, the highest 

rate of any household type. 

xii 
• The improved proxy suggests that at least 1.1 million very-low-income renter 

households with worst case needs had adults with physical or mental disabilities. 

The number of households with worst case needs did not change between 1997 and 1999 

among the residual group of single adults less than 62 years old who live alone or with other 

unrelated singles. 

• Some of these 1.2 million households are probably disabled. Others may be 

temporarily experiencing a severe rent burden since, on average, this group is 

younger and better educated than the other household types. 

The share of worst case households with earnings continues to increase 

Working continued to increase among those with worst case problems. Although the number 

of worst case households with workers fell slightly because of the large decline in the total 

number with worst case needs, the share of nonelderly, nondisabled worst case households 

who had earnings as their primary income source rose from 73 percent in 1997 to 77 percent 

in 1999. This change continues the rise observed since 1991, when 67 percent of such worst 

case renters had earnings as their main source of income. 

• Among very-low-income worst case families with children, the number with earnings 

as primary source of income remained at 1.2 million even though the total number of 

households with worst case needs fell. Among all very-low-income renters with 

children, the share relying on earnings rose from 66 percent to 74 percent between 

1997 and 1999, both substantially above the rate of 59 percent observed in 1991. 

• Among extremely-low-income worst case families with children, the share relying on 

earnings rose from 56 percent to 64 percent between 1997 and 1999, while the share 

reporting any welfare income dropped from 36 percent to 31 percent. 

Worst case needs by race and ethnicity

Worst case problems dropped most sharply between 1997 and 1999 among Hispanics (16 

percent) and non-Hispanic whites (14 percent). But worst case needs rose significantly for 

non-Hispanic blacks, increasing by 11 percent to a record high of 1.2 million. 

Between 1991 and 1997, Hispanics experienced the fastest growth in worst case problems, 

but the 1997–99 drop offset half of the earlier rise. Between 1987 and 1999, the two recent 

lows in worst case needs, needs among Hispanics increased by 44 percent. Although this rate 

of growth in worst case problems exceeded that for either blacks or whites, it nonetheless 

lagged the 63-percent growth in total number of Hispanic very-low-income renters. 

• In 1999, Hispanics had a lower rate of severe problems among unassisted very-lowincome renters (41 percent) than any other racial/ethnic group. They were also the 

racial/ethnic group least likely to receive rental assistance (25 percent). 

Among non-Hispanic whites, worst case needs fell by 14 percent, or 400,000, between 1997 

and 1999. In 1999, they stood at a record low over the 1978–99 period of 2.5 million, well 

xiii 
below the 1987 level of 2.8 million. Still, 47 percent of unassisted white very-low-income 

renters had worst case problems in 1999. 

Non-Hispanic blacks, with needs at a record high of 1.2 million in 1999, were the only

racial/ethnic group with growth in worst case needs between 1997 and 1999. That growth 

occurred mainly among nonelderly single persons. 

• In 1999, blacks had the highest rate of severe needs among unassisted very-lowincome renters—49 percent. They were also the racial/ethnic group most likely to 

receive assistance (37 percent). 

Between 1978 and 1999, worst case needs grew most rapidly among other minorities—

Asian-Americans and Native Americans. In 1999, however, the housing problems of 

these minorities did not differ significantly in type or incidence from those of other

racial/ethnic groups. 

The location of households with worst case needs 

In 1999, households with worst case needs were most numerous in the South (1.5 million) 

and the West (1.4 million). But very-low-income renters most often had worst case problems 

in the West and the Northeast (48 percent and 47 percent of unassisted very-low-income 

renters, respectively). 

More than half of worst case renters (2.5 million) lived in central cities, and the likelihood of 

having worst case problems was highest there (48 percent of unassisted very-low-income 

renters). Few worst case renters lived outside of metropolitan areas (650,000), and needs 

among unassisted very-low-income renters were least likely there (40 percent). The 1.7 

million worst case renters in suburbs represented 46 percent of the unassisted very-lowincome renters living there.

Regionally, decreases in worst case problems between 1997 and 1999 were greatest in the 

Northeast, where needs fell by 18 percent. Needs dropped least in the Midwest (2 percent) 

and South (4 percent), and these small drops were not statistically significant. 

In 1999, very-low-income renters were least likely to receive rental assistance in suburbs (25 

percent) and most likely to be assisted in nonmetropolitan areas (32 percent). 

• These differentials held throughout the 1990s, although both worst case needs and the 

numbers of renters receiving assistance grew most quickly in western and southern 

suburbs during this period. 

Between 1978 and 1999, numbers of very-low-income renters, renters with worst case needs, 

and renters receiving rental assistance all increased most rapidly in the West. During this

period, the West shifted from having the lowest incidence of unassisted very-low-income 

renters with worst case problems (42 percent in 1978) to the highest (48 percent in 1999). 

• Between 1978 and 1999, the incidence of worst case problems fell in the Northeast 

(from 54 percent to 47 percent). 

xiv
• In both the South and the Midwest, the share of unassisted very-low-income renters 

having worst case problems was the same in 1999 as it had been in 1978 (45 percent 

in the South; 43 percent in the Midwest).

Shortages of affordable units compared to numbers of renters needing them 

were worst for renters with extremely low incomes 

Worst case needs were highest among extremely-low-income renters because there were 

severe shortages of housing affordable to them, only 78 units per 100 renters in 1999. 

Moreover, many of the 6.7 million units “affordable” to households with incomes at 30 

percent of local median were occupied by higher income renters. Because of this, there were 

only 42 units both affordable and potentially “available” for every 100 extremely-lowincome renters. Nationally, this represents a deficit of 4.9 million units.1

• Shortages of affordable housing, and of affordable and available housing, only

occurred for extremely-low-income renters. Nationally, below all higher income

cutoffs, there were more affordable units than renters. In particular, the 5.8-million 

surplus of units affordable to renters with incomes between 30 and 50 percent of 

median greatly outweighed the 1.8-million-unit shortage of units affordable to 

households with incomes below 30 percent of median. Therefore, cumulatively there 

were more units affordable to households with incomes below 50 percent of median 

income than renters: 127 units per 100 very-low-income renters. 

• In 1999, fully 89 percent of U.S. rental units—33 million units—had rents affordable 

to households with incomes below 80 percent of median, whereas only two-thirds of 

renters—22 million households—had these “low” incomes. Thus, there was a large 

surplus of units affordable to households with low incomes, 150 affordable units for 

every 100 low-income renters. There was also a surplus of units both affordable and 

available to households with incomes below 80 percent of median—106 units per 100 

renters. 

• When other relevant factors—the number of bedrooms needed, the location of units 

and renters, and whether a unit’s rent is less than 30 percent of the occupant’s 

income—are considered, local shortages can be worse than these national summary

measures imply. Nationally, shortages of housing affordable and available to renters 

with extremely low incomes were most severe for units with three or more bedrooms. 

During the 1990s, numbers of affordable units fell and shortages worsened 

Between 1997 and 1999, past decline in the number of units affordable to households with 

extremely low incomes accelerated, continuing a national pattern of loss observed since 

1991. During the 1990s, the number of such units fell by 1.6 million, a drop of 19 percent. 

 

1

 Units “affordable” to an income range have rents less than or equal to 30 percent of the highest income in

the range. Affordable units that are “available” to an income range are vacant for rent or occupied by

households with incomes in or below the income range. 

xv
• Units with rents affordable to households with incomes between 30 and 50 percent of 

HAMFI also dropped in number between 1997 and 1999. During the 1990s, these 

units declined by 670,000, a 5-percent rate of loss. 

• By contrast, the number of units with rents affordable to households with incomes 

between 51 and 80 percent of HAMFI grew in number during the 1990s. The increase 

of 1.7 million units represented growth of 12 percent during the 1990s. 

Although numbers of extremely-low-income renters fell between 1997 and 1999, shortages 

of rental housing affordable and available to extremely-low-income renters worsened. 

• Between 1991 and 1999, the national shortage of units affordable and available to 

extremely-low-income renters worsened appreciably. The number of such units fell 

from 52 per 100 renters with incomes below 30 percent of median income to only 42 

units per 100 renters. 

• The expansion of 1.7 million during the 1990s in the number of units affordable to 

incomes between 51 and 80 percent of median greatly outpaced a small increase in

renters in this income range. The large surplus of affordable units widened slightly

from 147 such units per 100 low-income renters in 1991 to 150 units in 1999. The 

national surplus of units affordable and available to low-income renters was stable, 

changing only from 108 units per 100 renters in 1991 to 106 units in 1999. 

Between 1985 and 1999, the median rent burden for renters with incomes below 30 percent 

of median in those 2 years rose slightly, to almost 58 percent of income. By contrast, median 

rent burdens fell for all other income groups, and in both years they were below 25 percent of 

income for all groups with incomes above 60 percent of median. These results confirm the 

persistence over time of severe shortages of units affordable to extremely-low-income

renters, but show little or no need for rental subsidies for households with incomes above 60 

percent of median income. 

Shortages of affordable housing were most severe in the suburbs and central 

cities of the West and Northeast 

Among the four census regions, shortages of affordable housing were worst in the West. In

1999, the West had only 31 affordable and available units for every 100 extremely-lowincome renters. Regionally, shortages were least pressing in the Midwest, where there were 

48 such units per 100 renters. The Northeast had 42 such units, and the South 46 units, for 

every 100 renters. 

• Both nationally and within regions, shortages of affordable housing were consistently

worse in cities and suburbs than they were outside of metropolitan areas. Shortages of 

units affordable and available to extremely-low-income renters were most pressing in 

the suburbs. Nationally, there were only 36 units available for every 100 renters; in 

western suburbs, there were only 27 units per 100 renters. 

• Surpluses of housing affordable and available to households with incomes below 80 

percent of median were greatest in the Midwest, where there were 110 units per 100 

xvi
renters. There were also surpluses of such housing in the nonmetropolitan parts of all 

four regions. 

Declines during the 1990s in the number of units affordable to households with incomes 

below 30 percent and below 50 percent of median income were greatest in the Midwest and 

South and in suburban parts of metropolitan areas. The West, by contrast, gained units 

affordable to households with incomes below 50 percent of median income during the 1990s. 

Housing with rents below local fair market rents are least often available in 

metropolitan areas in the West and Northeast; there, since fair market rents 

tend to be high in relation to area median incomes, more renters could benefit 

from vouchers, but vouchers are harder to use. 

Vacancy rates for units with rents below local fair market rents (FMRs) were low in the West

and Northeast in 1999, particularly among units with three or more bedrooms. In the West, 5 

percent of units with below-FMR rents were vacant, and in the Northeast, 6 percent of such 

units were vacant. In the Midwest, vacancy rates were a high 11 percent for units with belowFMR rents, and in the South, vacancy rates for such units were 10 percent.

• Among units with three bedrooms and below-FMR rents, only 3 percent were vacant 

in the West, and only 4 percent in the Northeast. Vacancy rates among such units

were higher in the Midwest (7 percent) and South (8 percent). 

• Below-FMR vacancy rates were lowest in the suburbs and central cities of the West 

and Northeast. 

Across the country, 2002 FMRs vary widely in terms of their affordability to households 

with different incomes in relation to area median income. In the tightest markets FMRs can

be affordable to households with incomes as high as 76 percent of area median income 

(AMI), while in the loosest markets they may be affordable to households with incomes as 

low as 35 percent of AMI. 

• Almost half of the U.S. population (46 percent) lived where FMRs were affordable to 

households with incomes below 50 percent of AMI. In nonmetropolitan areas, fully

three-fourths of the population lived in areas where FMRs were affordable to 

households with incomes below 50 percent of AMI.

• FMRs were most likely to be affordable to households with incomes that were 

relatively high in relation to AMI in northeastern and western metropolitan statistical

areas (MSAs). In MSAs in the South and Midwest, by contrast, FMRs were on 

average affordable to households with incomes that were almost as low in relation to 

AMI as they were outside of metropolitan areas. 

• In all regions and metropolitan areas, vacancy rates tended to be lowest in the 

locations where FMRs were affordable to households with incomes that were highest 

in relation to AMI.

xvii 
Very-low-income renter households were most likely to have worst case problems in the 

locations with the worst shortages of housing both affordable and available to extremelylow-income renters. These locations—especially suburbs in the West and Northeast—are 

also those with the lowest below-FMR vacancy rates and the highest FMRs in terms of 

affordability to incomes in relation to AMI. By all the measures considered in this 

report—the shares of unassisted very-low-income renters with worst case problems, 

shortages of housing affordable and available to renters with extremely low incomes, and 

shortages of housing with rents below local FMRs—housing problems and housing

market conditions are worst in metropolitan areas, particularly in the West and Northeast, 

and least severe outside of metropolitan areas. 

Summary

The continuing shortage of units affordable without rental assistance to the income 

groups most likely to have worst case problems implies that the reduction in worst case 

needs observed between 1997 and 1999 could prove temporary. Continued progress 

depends crucially on whether income growth can continue to exceed rent increases and 

whether the number of units affordable and available to extremely-low-income renters 

can increase more quickly than the number of such renters. In view of the worsening

shortages of units affordable to extremely-low-income renters during the 1990s, rents at 

the lower end of the rental distribution might well again rise at above-average rates of 

growth. If so, any slowing of income growth among very-low-income renters in 

economic downturns could easily cause worst case needs to rise again. 

Examined over the past two decades, the number of households with worst case needs 

has grown, but more slowly than either all households or all very-low-income renters. 

This relative success has been achieved in large part by increasing the number and share 

of very-low-income renters that receive assistance. At the same time, however, growing

shares of those reporting assistance also report excessive rent burdens. In addition, 

although housing problems among owners continue to be less common or severe in every

income range than problems among renters, the number and share of very-low- and lowincome owners reporting housing cost burdens have risen over the past two decades. 

Because of such evidence about growing housing problems among households other than 

unassisted very-low-income renters, the final chapter of this report considers the

implications of these trends and of evolving policy questions for future research to

improve estimates of severe housing and neighborhood problems among American 

households. 

xviii 
Worst Case Needs for Housing and Shortages of Affordable 

Housing in 2001 

In 2001, an estimated 5.07 million very-low-income renter households had worst case needs 

for rental assistance in the U.S. The difference between this number and the 4.86 million 

households estimated to have had worst case needs in 1999 is not statistically significant. 

Although worst case needs rose slightly among unassisted white and elderly very-lowincome renters, both housing problems in general, and worst case needs in particular, 

changed very little among very-low-income renters between 1999 and 2001. 

Shortages of affordable rental housing also did not change greatly between 1999 and 2001. 

Shortages remained most severe for units affordable to renters with extremely low incomes, 

with only 42 units affordable and available in 2001 for every 100 renters with incomes below 

30 percent of area median income (AMI). The number of units affordable to renters with 

incomes below 50 percent of AMI, however, fell by a statistically significant 4 percent 

between 1999 and 2001, thus slightly worsening shortages of units affordable in this income 

range. Yet there remained large surpluses of housing affordable to renters with incomes 

above 60 percent of AMI.

Worst case needs did not change significantly between 1999 and 2001. 

In 2001, an estimated 5.07 million unassisted very-low-income renter households had worst 

case needs for rental assistance. “Worst case” needs are defined as unassisted renters with

very low incomes (below 50 percent of AMI) who pay more than half of their income for 

housing or live in severely substandard housing. 

• Paying more than half of reported income remained by far the most common problem 

underlying worst case needs. Over 94 percent of those with worst case needs had 

these severe rent burdens, while fewer than 10 percent lived in units with severe

physical problems. Over three-fourths of those with worst case needs had a severe 

rent burden as their only housing problem, since they lived in physically adequate and 

uncrowded housing.

• Three-fourths of those with worst case needs had extremely low incomes (below 30 

percent of AMI), as has generally been the case over the past two decades. 

• By household type, the number of households with worst case needs rose to 1.2 

million among the elderly. This increase of 14 percent brought the number of elderly

with worst case needs back to the 1997 level. Worst case needs fell by 16 percent 

among non-elderly single adults living alone or with other singles. Needs did not 

change significantly for families with children, other families, or households with 

disabled non-elderly adults. 

xix 
• Worst case needs dropped slightly, but insignificantly, among minority renters with 

very low incomes. They rose significantly, by almost 10 percent, to 2.8 million 

households among non-Hispanic white renters. 

• Worst case needs rose most, albeit insignificantly, in the Northeast. In 2001, 

unassisted very-low-income renters were still most likely to have worst case problems 

in the West and the Northeast. In both regions, 50 percent of unassisted renters had 

these severe problems, compared to 44 percent in the South and Midwest regions. 

Severe housing problems did, however, rise significantly between 1999 and 

2001 among owners with very low incomes and low incomes.

• The number of low and moderate income owners and renters with critical housing

needs rose to 14.46 million between 1999 and 2001, a significant increase of 9 

percent. Critical housing needs, an extension of the worst case concept, are defined 

to include all households with incomes below 120 percent of AMI, including renters 

reporting assistance, that have severe cost burdens or severely inadequate housing. 

• The increase in critical housing needs was caused by significant rises in severe cost 

burdens among low-income owners. The number of owners with incomes below 80 

percent of AMI who paid more than half of their reported income for housing rose by

one million. The number of households with severe cost burdens did not rise 

significantly among other owners or renters in any income range. 

Shortages of rental housing affordable and available to renters with very low

incomes worsened slightly between 1999 and 2001, but for incomes above 60 

percent of AMI, surpluses of affordable and available housing continued. 

Shortages of housing remained most severe for units affordable and available to renters 

with extremely low incomes. In 2001, there were still only 42 units affordable and 

available for every 100 renters with income below 30 percent of AMI, a shortage of 4.9 

million units. The number of units affordable to renters with incomes below 50 percent 

of AMI, however, fell by a statistically significant 4 percent between 1999 and 2001, thus 

slightly worsening shortages of units affordable in this income range. Nationally there

remained a surplus of units affordable and available to renters with incomes below 80 

percent of AMI, with 105 units per 100 renters. 

• Between 1999 and 2001, shortages of housing affordable to renters with incomes 

below 30 percent of AMI remained most severe, but they did not worsen. Neither 

the number of renters with extremely low incomes nor the number of units 

affordable to them changed significantly between 1999 and 2001. The number of 

units affordable and available to renters with extremely low incomes also 

remained steady. In 2001 as in 1999, there were only 42 units affordable and 

available for every 100 renters with incomes below 30 percent of AMI, a national 

shortage of 4.9 million units. 

xx 
• The number of units affordable to renters with incomes below 50 percent of AMI

fell by 760,000 between 1999 and 2001, a statistically significant decline of 4 

percent. In addition, more of the units in this affordability range were occupied by

higher-income renters. For these reasons, the shortage of units affordable and 

available below 50 percent of AMI fell slightly, from 78 units to 76 units per 100 

renters. 

• As occurred earlier in the decade, the number of units affordable to renters with

incomes between 50 percent and 80 percent of AMI rose slightly between 1999 

and 2001. Nationally, the surplus of affordable units remained greatest for 

incomes below 80 percent of AMI, with 148 units per 100 renters. The national 

surplus of units affordable and available to renters with incomes below 80 percent 

of AMI also was essentially stable, slipping from 106 units to 105 units per 100 

renters. Above this income cutoff, surpluses of affordable and available housing

rose slightly. 

• Regionally, declines in numbers of units affordable to renters with incomes below 

50 percent of AMI were greatest in the West, and only significant there. The West 

was also the only region to experience a net decline in units affordable to incomes 

between 50 percent and 60 percent of AMI. Altogether, the total number of units 

affordable to renters with incomes below 60 percent of AMI fell in the West by a

highly significant 600,000, or 12 percent, between 1999 and 2001, thus offsetting

the increase in affordable units experienced in the West during the 1990s. 

Although the number of renters in this income range also dropped, the greater 

decline in number of units caused the shortage of units affordable and available to 

renters with incomes below 60 percent of AMI to fall from 85 units to 80 units per 

100 renters in the West. 

xxi
Chapter 1

Worst Case Needs in 1999 and Changes in Housing Problems in 

the United States Between 1978 and 1999 

After having increased by one-fifth over the previous 10 years, between 1997 and 1999 the 

number of U.S. households with worst case needs for rental assistance fell significantly, by at 

least 8 percent, to 4.86 million. This reduction in worst case needs resulted from increases in 

income among very-low-income renters, not increases in the number of rental units 

affordable to them. Instead, the long-term trend of drops in the number of rental units 

affordable to extremely-low-income households accelerated between 1997 and 1999. 

The findings detailed in this report thus represent both good and bad news. Real, significant 

drops in housing problems have reduced the share of U.S. households with worst case needs 

to 4.7 percent, a record low for the past two decades, and this marked improvement shows 

that progress can be made in addressing the nation’s most serious housing problems. Severe 

and worsening shortages of housing affordable and available to extremely-low-income 

renters, however, suggest that the recent improvement may well prove vulnerable to

economic downturns. 

The findings of this report are presented in three chapters. This chapter answers basic 

questions about worst case needs: how many renter households had these severe needs for 

rental assistance in 1999, and how the number and share of households with worst case needs 

have changed since 1978. It also places worst case needs in a broader context by examining

both severe and moderate housing problems over the past two decades among all U.S. renters 

and owners in different income ranges. 

Severe and Moderate Housing Problems

Severe housing problems—Housing or rental costs exceed 50 percent of reported 

income, or there are severe physical problems in the plumbing, heating, electrical system, 

upkeep, or hallways of the unit. 

Moderate housing problems—Housing or rental costs exceed 30 percent of reported 

income but are no more than 50 percent of income, or there are moderate physical 

problems in the unit, or the unit is overcrowded. See Appendix D for definitions of severe 

and moderate physical problems. 

The second chapter examines the characteristics of renters with worst case needs in more 

detail—the types of households affected; their income, age, race, ethnicity, and work effort; 

and their location within the four census regions and the city, suburban, and nonmetropolitan 

parts of those regions. The third chapter examines the supply of housing at different rent 

levels, highlighting the severe and worsening shortages of rental housing affordable and 

1
available to renters with extremely low incomes. The final chapter identifies some limitations 

of worst case needs as the current measure of the nation’s most severe housing problems and 

discusses additional dimensions of housing and neighborhood problems that future research 

might consider.1

Worst case needs for rental assistance among very-low-income renters 

In 1999, 4.86 million unassisted renter households had worst case needs for rental assistance. 

Households with worst case needs are defined as unassisted renters with incomes below 50 

percent of the local HUD-adjusted area median family income (HAMFI) who pay more than 

half of their income for housing or live in severely substandard housing.

2

 According to the

best estimates available from the 1999 American Housing Survey (AHS), 4.86 million renter 

households who did not receive rental assistance had these “very low” incomes3

 and severe 

housing problems. They represented 32.8 percent of all very-low-income renters and 46 

percent of unassisted very-low-income renters. 

The 4.86 million households with worst case needs in 1999 included 10.9 million people, 

among them 3.6 million children, 1.4 million elderly, and some 1.1 million disabled 

adults. One-third of those with worst case needs were children. Indeed, as Exhibit 1–1 

illustrates, almost three-fifths of the 10.9 million people with worst case needs in 1999 

were elderly, children, or disabled.4

 Another one-fourth of the people with worst case 

needs were adults living with children. Around 4 percent of the elderly persons with 

worst case needs were heads of households with children present. 

 1

 HUD’s previous reports to Congress are: Priority Problems and “Worst Case” Needs in 1989 (June 1991, 

HUD–1314–PDR), The Location of Worst Case Needs in the Late 1980s (December 1992, HUD–1387–PDR), 

Worst Case Needs for Housing Assistance in the United States in 1990 and 1991 (June 1994, HUD–1481–

PDR), Rental Housing Assistance at a Crossroads: A Report to Congress on Worst Case Housing Needs

(March 1996), Rental Housing Assistance—The Crisis Continues (April 1998), and Rental Housing 

Assistance—The Worsening Crisis (March 2000). The 1994, 1996, 1998, and 2000 reports are available online 

at http://www.huduser.org under the Publications heading. 2

 Although the homeless by definition have “substandard” housing and should therefore be included in any count 

of worst case needs, the homeless are omitted from this and earlier reports’ counts of worst case needs because 

the AHS surveys and counts only persons in housing units. 3

 Appendix B details the statutory adjustments underlying HUD’s official “very low” and “low” income cutoffs. 4

 The estimate of numbers of disabled adults living in households with worst case needs is more uncertain than

the counts of elderly and children drawn directly from AHS data. This occurs because the AHS does not directly

count persons who would qualify for programs that serve persons with physical or mental disabilities. Instead, as 

discussed in Chapter 2, the estimate is based on an improved AHS proxy for households with disabilities 

developed from analysis of households reporting permanent physical disabilities on the Physical Modifications

Supplement of the 1995 American Housing Survey, supplemented by comparisons with data on persons

receiving Supplemental Disability Income.

2
Exhibit 1–1 Almost 60 percent of the 10.9 million persons with worst case 

needs in 1999 were elderly, children, or disabled. 

13%

33%

11%

26%

17%

Elderly

Children

Disabled

Adults with

children

Other adults

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

13%

33%

11%

26%

17%

Elderly

Children

Disabled

Adults with

children

Other adults

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

The number of worst case renters fell significantly, by at least 8 percent, between 1997 

and 1999 

When the effects of procedural changes are controlled for, worst case needs are estimated 

to have dropped by at least 440,000 households between 1997 and 1999,5

 a statistically

significant fall of 8 percent.6

 

The 1999 estimate of 4.86 million households with worst case needs is not directly

comparable to the 1997 record high of 5.4 million households reported in the March 2000 

worst case report to Congress, Rental Housing Assistance—The Worsening Crisis. To 

identify substantive change in worst case needs over the 1997–99 period, real change was 

distinguished from differences in counts that resulted from changed procedures.7

 

 5

 As detailed in Appendix C, which discusses procedural changes in the AHS and their effects on changes in

worst case needs, the “real” decline in worst case needs is some number between 440,000 and 660,000, a 

decline of 8 to 12 percent. All of the estimates of 1997–99 worst case declines presented in this report

conservatively assume that only 440,000 of the total drop is real rather than procedural. 6

 The components of change break down as follows: In 1997, there were 5.38 million households with worst 

case needs. When very-low-income renters are defined using 1995 income limits in both 1997 and 1999, 

adjusted only for inflation (to ensure comparability across time), the number of worst case needs in 1999 

represents a “real” decline of at least 440,000 and a “procedural” decline of no more than 220,000 since 1997. 

Using 1999 income limits to reflect the real growth in income between 1995 and 1999, however, increases the 

number of worst case needs by 140,000. In sum, 5.38 million households in 1997 minus 440,000 minus 220,000 

plus 140,000 = 4.86 million households with worst case needs in 1999. 7

 As Appendix C details, new questions on the AHS questionnaire probably reduced the 1999 estimate of

households with severe rent burdens, while a new procedure, adopted for this report to approximate HUD’s

official 1999 income limits as closely as possible, slightly raised 1999 estimates of worst case needs. 

3
Income growth drove the 1997-99 decline in worst case needs 

Worst case needs fell significantly between 1997 and 1999 because during this period 

income growth among very-low-income renters exceeded increases in the rents they paid. 

In the preceding years, by contrast, rents rose faster than incomes. Among all renters, 

rents rose less than incomes between 1997 and 1999: median gross rents paid increased 

by 6 percent between 1997 and 1999, while median income rose by 8.5 percent. Among

very-low-income renters, median rents paid also rose by 6 percent, but median income 

rose by an above-average 14 percent. 

As Exhibit 1–2 shows, during most of the 1990s the median gross rents paid by very-lowincome renters rose at faster rates over each 2-year period than did their incomes. Between 

1997 and 1999, however, median incomes of very-low-income renters rose by 14 percent, 

well above the rise of 6 percent in the median rent for this group. This faster income growth 

among very-low-income renters is consistent with the decline in national poverty rates from 

11.8 to 10.6 percent observed over this 2-year period.8

 

Exhibit 1–2 In 1997–99, income outpaced rents among very-low-income 

renters for the first time since 1987–89. 

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 T

w

o-year percenta

g

e chan

g

e f

or

very-lo

w-income renters

Change in

median

income

Change in

median rent

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1985, 1987, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 T

w

o-year percenta

g

e chan

g

e f

or

very-lo

w-income renters

Change in

median

income

Change in

median rent

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1985, 1987, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

 8

 HUD tabulations of the Current Population Survey similarly revealed faster real income growth among the 

bottom quintile of the household income distribution between 1997 and 1999. Over that period, real median

income grew by 6.2 percent, while mean income of the lowest quintile grew by 7.9 percent. 

4
Fewer worst case renters had severe rent burdens

Between 1997 and 1999, the number of very-low-income renters paying more than half of 

their income for rent and utilities declined, while the number of households living in 

severely inadequate units remained constant. The 8-percent decline in worst case needs 

between 1997 and 1999 resulted solely from a drop in the number of very-low-income 

renters with severe rent burdens. Among all households with worst case needs in 1999, 

only 527,000 had housing with severe physical problems, far below the 4.55 million with 

severe rent burdens. 

By definition, unassisted very-low-income renters have worst case needs for rental assistance 

if they pay more than half of their gross income for housing (a “severe” rent burden) or live in 

severely inadequate housing. In 1999, 94 percent of worst case renters paid more than half of 

their income for rent, while 11 percent lived in severely inadequate housing (5 percent had 

both problems). 

In 1999, over three-fourths of worst case renters (77 percent) had a severe rent burden as their 

only housing problem, since they lived in adequate, uncrowded housing. For these 

households, paying more than half of their reported income for housing was their only

housing problem. This finding implies that a large share of households with worst case needs 

could use vouchers in their current housing units to alleviate the severe rent burden that is 

their only housing problem. 

The drop in worst case needs was the first since 1987 

The significant decline in worst case needs between 1997 and 1999 was the first drop 

observed after 10 years of increasing numbers of households with worst case needs. 

Between 1987 and 1997, the number of households with worst case needs had risen from 

4.5 million to a record high of 5.4 million in 1997. 

Exhibit 1–3 summarizes changes in the number of very-low-income renter households 

with worst case needs between 1978 and 1999. 9 In 1997, the number of households with 

worst case needs was higher, at 5.4 million, than at any earlier time. 

According to Annual Housing Survey data and 1970 census weights, worst case needs 

mushroomed between 1978 and 1983, rising more than 25 percent in those 5 years, from 

4.0 to 5.1 million. Partial data show that worst case needs among elderly and family

households had also risen earlier in the 1970s.10

Between 1985 and 1987, the number of households with worst case needs fell by a 

statistically significant 400,000. However, this drop was followed by a steady rise, from 

 9

 Although the Annual Housing Survey was first taken in 1973, before 1978 data on household income was not

collected for nonfamily households, making it impossible to estimate worst case needs for all very-low-income 

renters as is now the convention. 10 According to the first report to Congress on worst case needs, Priority Housing Problems and ‘Worst Case’ 

Needs in 1989, before 1978 the number of elderly and family very-low-income renters with worst case needs

increased from 2.5 million in 1974 to 3 million in 1978 (Figure 4 and Table 6). 

5
4.5 to 5.4 million, over the 10 years between 1987 and 1997.11 The drop in needs of at 

least 440,000 households between 1997 and 1999 is thus larger than the only significant 

drop previously observed. 

In addition to showing the significant 1997–99 drop, Exhibit 1–3 also shows the best 

estimate for 1999 of 4.86 million worst case renters. This is shown separately because it 

is not directly comparable to the earlier data.

12

Exhibit 1–3 After rising for 10 years, worst case needs dropped by at least 

440,000 between 1997 and 1999. 

4,856

3,600

4,100

4,600

5,100

5,600

1978

19811983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

*data from Annual Housing Survey

V

ery-low-income r

enter

s with 

w

orst case 

needs (th

o

usan

d

s)

1970

weights*

1980

weights

1990

weights

Best 1999

estimate

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1978, 1981, and 1983 Annual Housing Surveys and of the

1985, 1987, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

4,856

3,600

4,100

4,600

5,100

5,600

1978

19811983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

*data from Annual Housing Survey

V

ery-low-income r

enter

s with 

w

orst case 

needs (th

o

usan

d

s)

1970

weights*

1980

weights

1990

weights

Best 1999

estimate

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1978, 1981, and 1983 Annual Housing Surveys and of the

1985, 1987, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

Worst case needs at relative lows 

In 1999, the 4.9 million worst case households represented 14.3 percent of all U.S. 

renters, or one in seven renters. Yet they comprised only 4.7 percent of U.S. households, 

the lowest share observed in the 21 years for which comparable worst case data are 

available. 

The significantly lower number of households with worst case needs in 1999 is 

particularly impressive when considered as shares of all very-low-income renters, of 

unassisted very-low-income renters, or of all U.S. households. As Exhibit 1–4 details, in 

1999 households with worst case needs represented less than one-third (32.8 percent) of 

very-low-income renters. This is not only a marked drop from the 1997 share of 36.3 

 11 As the exhibit shows, in 1991 worst case needs estimated with 1990 weights were some 100,000 households

lower than estimates with 1980 weights, so the true rise in needs between 1987 and 1997 was closer to 1 million

than 900,000. Note also that the estimates of worst case needs given for 1985 through 1995 in this exhibit and in

the appendix are lower than the time series estimates presented in Table A–4 of Rental Housing Assistance—

The Crisis Continues. As discussed in Appendix C, worst case estimates in this report exclude households

reporting assistance from state and local programs in all years in order to be comparable to post-1997 estimates. 12 See footnote 6 above. 

6
percent and far below the 1983 high of 42 percent, but it is also a record low over the two 

decades with comparable data. 

Some of this long-term drop occurred because the share of very-low-income renters 

participating in rental assistance programs increased over the past two decades, albeit

slowly in recent years. Whereas only 20 percent of very-low-income renters reported 

being assisted by federal, state, or local programs in 1978, 28 percent reported being

assisted in 1991 and 29 percent in 1999. 

But the incidence of worst case needs also fell among unassisted renters. In 1983, almost 

55 percent of unassisted very-low-income renters had worst case needs for rental

assistance, and in both 1995 and 1997, over half of unassisted very-low-income renters 

had worst case problems. By 1999, however, only 46 percent of unassisted very-lowincome renters experienced worst case problems, matching the previous low in 1978. 

Notably, in 1999, households with worst case problems comprised a lower share of all 

U.S. households than ever observed previously. The 4.7-percent share in 1999 fell below 

the previous lows of 5.0 percent in 1987 and 5.1 percent in 1978. Thus, even though 

numerically the number of households with worst case needs grew from 4.0 million in 

1978 to 4.9 million in 1999, over this period worst case needs grew more slowly than did 

the total number of U.S. households. 

Exhibit 1–4 In 1999, only 33 percent of very-low-income renters, and 4.7 

percent of U.S. households, had worst case needs. 

1978 1983 1987 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

All households 77,389 84,841 90,887 93,146 94,723 97,694 99,487 102,802

All renters 26,919 29,952 32,724 33,351 33,472 34,150 34,000 34,007

Very-low-income renters 10,682 12,138 13,273 14,002 14,738 14,549 14,801 14,803

 Worst case renters 3,966 5,120 4,535 4,842 5,198 5,203 5,379 4,856

As percentage of all verylow-income renters:

 Worst case 37.1% 42.2% 34.2% 34.6% 35.3% 35.8% 36.3% 32.8%

 Other problems 28.9% 23.0% 24.9% 24.8% 24.2% 23.3% 23.4% 26.1%

 Assisted 19.6% 22.8% 29.0% 28.1% 28.7% 29.4% 28.7% 28.7%

As percentage of

unassisted very-lowincome renters:

 Worst case 46.2% 54.6% 48.1% 48.1% 49.5% 50.7% 51.0% 46.0%

As percentage of all

renters:

 Worst case 14.7% 17.1% 13.9% 14.5% 15.5% 15.2% 15.8% 14.3%

As percentage of all

households:

 Worst case 5.1% 6.0% 5.0% 5.2% 5.5% 5.3% 5.4% 4.7%

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1978 and 1983 Annual Housing Surveys and of the 1987, 1991, 1993,

1995, 1997, and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

7
Since 1978, the number of worst case households with severely inadequate units fell by 

half a million, but those with severe rent burdens rose by 1.4 million

Over the two decades between 1978 and 1999, the number of unassisted very-low-income 

renters living in severely inadequate units fell from 960 to 460 thousand. But this drop in 

severe physical housing problems was more than offset by increases in severe rent burdens, 

as the number paying more than half of income for rent rose from 3.2 to 4.6 million. 

Thus worst case needs shifted to reflect severe rent burdens much more frequently than

severely inadequate housing. As Exhibit 1–5 illustrates, the share of worst case households 

living in severely inadequate units fell markedly between 1978 and 1999, from 24 percent in 

1978 to 17 percent in 1983, 12 percent in 1991, and 7 percent in 1995.13 A more precise 

definition of severely inadequate units introduced in 1997 counted 9 percent of worst case 

renters as living in severely inadequate housing in both 1997 and 1999, but the apparent 

increase between 1995 and 1997 may well reflect the new definition rather than a real rise. 

Over this period, the share of worst case renters paying more than half of reported income for 

housing rose from 81 percent in 1978 to fluctuate between 93 percent and 95 percent after 

1987. Because the “moderate” problems of crowding and moderately inadequate units also 

became less common over these 20 years, the share of worst case households whose only

housing problem was a severe rent burden increased from 65 percent in 1978 to 76 percent in 

1987 and 79 percent in 1995. With the more precise definition of severely inadequate units, 

77 percent of worst case needs households had only a severe rent burden in 1999. 

Exhibit 1–5 From 1978 to 1999, worst case needs reflected severe rent

burdens more and severely inadequate units less. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1978 1983 1987 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

P

ercent

a

g

e of w

orst case

s

with proble

m

s

Severe rent burden

(50%+ of income for

housing)

Rent burden only 

(unit adequate and

uncrowded)

Severe physical

problems

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1978 and 1983 Annual Housing Surveys and of the

1987, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1978 1983 1987 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

P

ercent

a

g

e of w

orst case

s

with proble

m

s

Severe rent burden

(50%+ of income for

housing)

Rent burden only 

(unit adequate and

uncrowded)

Severe physical

problems

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1978 and 1983 Annual Housing Surveys and of the

1987, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

 13 The 9 percent shown for 1987 is not comparable to the other values shown because units lacking plumbing

were undercounted by the AHS in 1985 and 1987. 

8
Housing problems among all renters and owners by income 

The concept of worst case needs was developed in the mid-1980s to estimate how many

very-low-income renters not already receiving rental assistance had the severe housing

problems that then gave them “federal preferences” for admission to the deeplysubsidized rental assistance programs of public housing, tenant-based vouchers, and 

privately owned projects.14 

Although these federal preferences for admission to rental assistance were replaced by

income targeting in 1998,15 the concept of worst case needs remains useful for tracking

the extent of severe housing problems among unassisted very-low-income renter 

households. But while the share of all renters that are unassisted and have severe housing

problems has fallen slightly over the past two decades, decreasing from 17.4 to 16.4 

percent, the share of owners experiencing severe housing problems has almost doubled, 

rising from 5 percent in 1978 to 9.6 percent in 1999 (see Appendix table A–2). Before 

looking in more detail in Chapter 2 at the characteristics and location of unassisted verylow-income renters with worst case needs, this chapter summarizes what is known about 

all housing problems, both severe problems and other “moderate” problems, among all 

renters and owners in different income groups during the 1978–99 period. 

 14 In these programs, assisted households pay rents that are a percentage of their adjusted income—usually 30 

percent. These “deep” subsidies allow even the poorest households to afford assisted housing. 15 As Exhibit 5 of Rental Housing Assistance—The Worsening Crisis summarizes, the Quality Housing and

Work Responsibility Act of 1998 replaced federal preferences with requirements that each rental assistance 

program annually admit at least minimum shares of households with “extremely” low incomes. Managers and

owners of public housing and project-based Section 8 buildings are required to reserve at least 40 percent of all 

units that become available for occupancy for families with incomes at or below 30 percent of local HAMFI. 

Those administering Section 8 tenant-based vouchers must give at least 75 percent of vouchers becoming 

available to families with extremely low incomes. 

9
Income Categories Used in Housing Programs

For many HUD programs and housing programs of other federal agencies, eligible households 

have incomes below a specific percentage of the median family income for the area in which the 

household lives. HUD estimates median family income for each metropolitan area and 

nonmetropolitan county each year, and official limits vary by location and household size. 

In contrast, poverty status compares income with national poverty thresholds that vary by

household size but not location. Because HUD’s income limits use smaller adjustments per 

person, they are not directly comparable to federal poverty lines. Averaged across the United 

States, however, 30 percent of area median income approximates poverty thresholds. 

The number of households below a specified percentage of HUD’s area median income varies

over time and with local income distributions. In 1999, almost half (45 percent) of U.S.

households and 65 percent of U.S. renters had incomes below 80 percent of their area median 

income. Some 28 percent of U.S. households had incomes below 50 percent of HAMFI. 

The upper limits of income categories used in housing programs and in this report are as follows: 

80 percent of area median income. Defined as lower income by the U.S. Housing Act for many

rental and homeownership programs. 

60 percent of area median income. Used as low income for the low-income housing tax credit 

and HOME programs. 

50 percent of area median income. Defined as very low income by the U.S. Housing Act and 

used for many rental programs. 

30 percent of area median income. Defined as extremely low income in the Quality Housing

and Work Responsibility Act of 1998, which for each rental housing assistance program requires

that at least a minimum share of entrants have extremely low incomes.

The table below shows U.S. renter households by income groups relevant to housing programs in 

1999. To suggest the overlap between HUD income groups and poverty, it also gives the share of

each income group whose cash income fell below the poverty line or below 150 percent of the 

poverty line, the eligibility cutoff for the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Stamp program. 

This report frequently refers to specific income groups as ranges of percentages of area median 

income because official terms are so complex. For example, incomes 51 to 80 percent of area 

median are officially “low but not very low” incomes. 

Percent of U.S. households

 % of HUD-Adjusted Share of in group with income below:

Area Median Family U.S. Renters 

Income (HAMFI) 1999 Poverty Level 150% of Poverty

 0–30 25% 83 99 

 31–50 18% 8 50 

 51–60 8% 0 8 

 61–80 13% 0 1 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations from the 1999 American Housing Survey.

10
Extremely Low, Very Low, and Low Income: Examples for Nine Metropolitan 

Areas of HUD’s 1999 Section 8 Income Limits for Four-Person Households* 

 Extremely Very Low Area 

 Low Income Income Low Income Median

 (30 percent (50 percent (80 percent Family

 of median) of median) of median)** Income

Los Angeles $15,400 $25,650 $41,050 $51,300 

New York $16,000 $26,700 $42,700 $53,400 

Chicago $19,150 $31,900 $47,800 $63,800 

Philadelphia $16,700 $27,800 $44,500 $55,600 

Detroit $18,150 $30,250 $47,800 $60,500 

Washington, D.C. $23,600 $39,350 $47,800 $78,900 

Boston $18,800 $31,350 $47,800 $62,700 

Houston $16,250 $27,050 $43,300 $54,100 

Atlanta $17,950 $29,950 $47,800 $59,900

*Adjustments for household size are as follows: 1 person, 70 percent of the 4-person limit; 

2 persons, 80 percent; 3 persons, 90 percent; 5 persons, 108 percent; 6 persons, 116 percent; plus an additional 

8 percent for each additional person. 

**The “80 percent of median” limits for each area cannot exceed the national median of $47,800, unless

justified by unusually high housing costs in the local area.

 

Source: HUD Section 8 income limits, fiscal year 1999. 

Between 1997 and 1999, severe rent burdens also fell among all very-low-income renters 

and among all renters 

Because the concept of worst case needs is defined to include only unassisted very-lowincome renters, it is technically possible that worst case needs could decline only because 

more renters reported receiving assistance. However, the evidence shows that this is not

the explanation. 

Data showing a significant fall in severe rent burdens among unassisted very-low-income 

renters between 1997 and 1999 are reinforced by similar drops in the number and 

percentage paying more than half of their income for housing among all very-low-income 

renters including those reporting assistance. In 1999 as in 1997, 1.4 million assisted 

renters reported severe rent burdens.16 Between 1997 and 1999, severe rent burdens also 

 16 The prior worst case report highlighted a sharp rise in the number of assisted households with severe rent

burdens between 1995 and 1997 and noted that the increase may have resulted from changes in the questions

used to identify whether households receive rental assistance. The rise was disturbing in two respects: If the 

change in definition of those assisted overcounted (as assisted) some truly unassisted renters who had severe rent

burdens in 1997, worst case needs were being underreported. If, on the other hand, assisted renters were counted 

11
dropped in both number and percentage among all renters, regardless of income. In 1997, 

19.2 percent of all renters (6.7 million households) paid more than half of income for 

rent, an all-time high. By 1999, the share of renters with severe rent burdens had dropped 

to 18.5 percent and the number to 6.3 million (see Appendix table A–2). 

Despite the 1997–99 drop in problems, the incidence of affordability problems among all 

renters in 1999 (18.5 percent) remained well above that of 1978, when only 13.6 percent 

of renters (3.7 million households) paid more than half of their income for rent. Over 

these 21 years, the share of renters with moderate rent burdens (31 to 50 percent of 

income) rose slightly as well, from 18 to 20 percent. But housing quality improved among

all renters, with the share of renters in severely inadequate units dropping from 6.2 to 3.5 

percent between 1978 and 1999, while moderately inadequate units continued to trouble 8 

percent of renters. Crowding among renters also dropped over the long term, from 5.8 to 

4.9 percent. 

Very-low-income renters remain much more likely to have housing problems, particularly 

severe problems, than other renters or owners 

Despite improvements in the 1997–99 period, the share of unassisted households having a 

housing problem in 1999 remained much higher among very-low-income renters than 

among higher income renters or very-low-income owners. As Exhibit 1–6 summarizes, 

33 percent of the 14.8 million very-low-income renters had worst case needs, since they

had severe housing problems but did not receive rental assistance. Another 26 percent of 

these renters were also unassisted and had at least one of the “other” moderate problems 

of paying 31 to 50 percent of income for housing or of living in housing that had 

moderate physical problems or was overcrowded. In addition, more than half of the verylow-income renters who reported rental assistance had some moderate or severe housing

problem: 11 percent of very-low-income renters were assisted but had severe housing

problems, most often a severe rent burden, and another 8 percent were assisted and had a 

moderate housing problem. Less than one-fourth (22 percent) of very-low-income renters 

had no housing problems at all. 

 

accurately, the implication that as many as 1.4 million of renters aided by assistance programs paid more than

half of their income for housing raised basic questions about the efficacy of assistance programs in solving

affordability problems. 

12
Exhibit 1–6 Very-low-income renters and owners most often have housing 

problems. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

121+121+

Renters by income Owners by income

P

erc

e

nta

g

e of groups

with probl

e

m

s

Asst'd

other

Asst'd

severe

Other

Severe

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

121+121+

Renters by income Owners by income

P

erc

e

nta

g

e of groups

with probl

e

m

s

Asst'd

other

Asst'd

severe

Other

Severe

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

Housing problems were less common among very-low-income owners 

As the exhibit shows, housing problems were less common among the 14 million verylow-income owners. More very-low-income owners (42 percent) had no housing

problems than was the case for very-low-income renters (22 percent). Still, housing

problems were frequent among very-low-income owners. One-third (33 percent) of this 

group had severe problems, typically a severe cost burden, and another one-fourth had 

one or more moderate problems. 

The 18 million households with “low” incomes (51 to 80 percent of HAMFI) were 

markedly less likely than very-low-income households to have any housing problem, and 

very few had severe problems. Only two-fifths of unassisted renters and one-third of 

owners in this income group had problems, and very few had severe problems. As the 

exhibit shows, only 6 percent of low-income renters and 9 percent of low-income owners 

had a severe problem, most often paying more than half of income for housing and 

utilities. 

Both housing problems generally and severe problems specifically were very uncommon 

for households with incomes above 80 percent of HAMFI. Only one-fifth of the 21 

million renters and owners with incomes 81 to 120 percent of HAMFI had any housing

problem, with only 4 percent having severe problems. Fewer than 1 in 10 of the 35 

million households with incomes above 120 percent of median had any housing problem. 

The much greater incidence of housing problems, particularly severe problems, among

very-low-income households can be summarized as follows: Although the 14.8 million 

13
very-low-income renters represented only 14 percent of U.S. households in 1999, they

accounted for over one-third (34 percent) of households with any housing problems and 

almost half (47 percent) of those with severe problems. Similarly, only 28 percent of all 

households have very low incomes, but these renters and owners together suffer 58 

percent of all housing problems and fully 80 percent of all severe problems. 

Low- and moderate-income owners rarely have severe housing problems 

Increases in severe problems over the past two decades have been greatest among owners 

with low and moderate incomes because of large percentage growth in the number of 

owners paying more than half of their income for housing. But low- and moderate-income 

owners remain much less likely than very-low-income renters to have severe problems. 

Concern has been expressed recently that severe housing problems have grown sharply

among groups with incomes above the very-low-income cutoff. Between 1997 and 1999, 

the number of extremely-low-income households with severe problems dropped among

both unassisted renters and owners. As renters and owners shifted into higher income

brackets because of real income growth, however, the number with severe problems 

increased at above-average rates (from very small bases) for households with low and 

moderate incomes (between 50 and 120 percent of area median income). 

Examination over the past two decades reveals that long-term growth in severe problems 

among relatively higher income groups has been concentrated among owners. As Exhibit 

1–7 documents, in 1999 the incidence of severe problems was lower for unassisted 

renters with incomes 61 to 80 percent of HAMFI than it had been in 1978, falling from 6 

percent to 5 percent. For renters with incomes below 50 percent of HAMFI, 1999 values 

were lower than they had been in 1987. Thus for renters, recent growth in severe 

problems among low and moderate-income households still leaves the incidence of 

severe problems in 1999 no higher than that observed in 1978. 

For owners, however, severe problems have become more common since 1978 at each 

income level. Although severe problems remain less common for owners with incomes 

below 50 percent of HAMFI than for renters with these very low incomes, the incidence

of severe problems rose markedly among such owners between 1978 and 1999, 

increasing from 35 to 49 percent among extremely-low-income owners. And among

owners with incomes 50 to 120 percent of HAMFI, the incidence of severe problems 

doubled or even tripled over the past decade, to the point that owners in these income 

groups are now more likely to have severe problems than renters of the same income. 

Yet despite the increasing incidence of severe problems among low- and moderateincome owners over the past two decades, low-income owners remain much less likely to

have severe housing problems than extremely-low-income owners or renters. Indeed, the 

incidence of severe problems among extremely-low-income owners (49 percent) is more 

than four times the 12-percent rate of severe problems among owners with incomes 51 to 

60 percent of HAMFI. And as Exhibit 1–7 details, severe housing problems remain most 

common, by far, among unassisted extremely-low-income renters. 

14
Exhibit 1–7 Over time, the incidence of severe problems has risen most

among owners, yet unassisted extremely-low-income renters 

remain much more likely to have severe problems than other 

renters and owners. 

1978 1987 1999

Income:

Unassisted renters 0–30% AMI 67% 71% 68%

31–50% 23% 24% 22%

51–60% 7% 8% 8%

61–80% 6% 4% 5%

81–100% 4% 2% 4%

101–120% 3% 1% 3%

Owners 0–30% AMI 35% 37% 49%

31–50% 10% 11% 18%

51–60% 4% 6% 12%

61–80% 3% 3% 7%

81–100% 2% 2% 5%

101–120% 1% 1% 4%

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1978 Annual Housing Survey and of the

1987 and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

Housing payments as a percentage of income rose more among owners than among 

renters between 1978 and 1999 

Among owners as well as renters, the increase in severe problems resulted from a rise in 

severe housing cost burdens. While the shares of all renters paying more than half of 

income for rent rose by 5 percentage points over this 20-year period, from 14 to 19 

percent, shares of owners paying more than half of income for housing rose similarly but 

from a lower base, from 3 to 8 percent. Owners also experienced a steep rise in moderate

cost burdens during this period, from 5 percent in 1978 to 13 percent in 1999. The rise in 

severe cost burdens among owners was particularly noticeable among very-low-income 

owners. As Exhibit 1–8 shows, by 1999, 31 percent of very-low-income owners reported 

paying more than half of their income for housing, compared to 17 percent in 1978. And 

by 1999, another 1.5 million owners with higher incomes had severe housing cost 

burdens. Appendix table A–3 provides more detail on changes in housing problems 

among owners and renters of different incomes between 1978 and 1999. 

15
Exhibit 1–8 Between 1978 and 1999, severe housing cost burdens rose 

more for owners than for renters. 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Very-lowincome

renters

 Other renters Very-lowincome

owners

H

 Other owners

ous

ehold

s pa

ying 5

0

%

+ of i

n

c

o

m

e

for housing (millions)

1978

1999

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1978 Annual Housing Survey and of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Very-lowincome

renters

 Other renters Very-lowincome

owners

H

 Other owners

ous

ehold

s pa

ying 5

0

%

+ of i

n

c

o

m

e

for housing (millions)

1978

1999

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1978 Annual Housing Survey and of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

* * * 

As the next chapter will show, the growth in the number of households with worst case 

problems over the past two decades primarily resulted from increases in the West in the 

number and share of very-low-income renters experiencing severe rent burdens. The same 

regional differences underlie the sharp growth in severe housing cost burdens among

owners with very low or low incomes. As Exhibit 1–9 documents, between 1978 and 

1999, the incidence of severe housing problems rose most quickly among very-low- and 

low-income owners in the West, followed by the Northeast. Among unassisted renters 

with very low or low incomes, increases in severe problems were also greatest in the 

West, but the total increase was much less than for owners. 

16
Exhibit 1–9 Among both owners and renters, the 1978–99 increase in the 

incidence of severe problems was largest in the West. 

Unassisted renters Owners

1978 1999 1978 1999

0–50% AMI U.S. total 46% 46% 22% 33%

Northeast 54% 47% 30% 36%

Midwest 43% 43% 17% 30%

South 45% 45% 23% 30%

West 42% 48% 20% 39%

51–80% AMI U.S. total 6% 6% 3% 9%

Northeast 9% 10% 3% 12%

Midwest 4% 4% 3% 6%

South 7% 6% 4% 8%

West 5% 7% 3% 13%

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1978 Annual Housing Survey and of the

1999 American Housing Survey.

17
 18
Chapter 2 

Who Has Worst Case Needs, Where?

This chapter examines the types of households and the locations with the highest incidence of 

worst case needs in 1999, and identifies those most benefiting from the drop in worst case 

needs between 1997 and 1999. The chapter also examines longer-term changes since 1978. 

Although the share of very-low-income renters that had worst case needs was lower in 1999 

at 33 percent than it had been at any time in the previous 20 years, the number has risen with 

growth in households from 4 million in 1978 to 4.86 million in 1999, and the characteristics 

and location of those with worst case problems have changed over time. 

The 1997–99 drop in worst case needs occurred in large part because income growth reduced 

the number of extremely-low-income renter households, those with incomes below 30 

percent of HUD-adjusted area median family income (HAMFI). Declines in worst case needs 

were greatest for the elderly, families with children, and “other families,” and for Hispanics 

and non-Hispanic whites. Reflecting the nation’s economic growth, employment—as 

measured by reliance on earnings—increased among worst case households whose heads 

were neither elderly nor disabled. 

In 1999, the likelihood of having worst case problems remained highest among unassisted 

renters with the lowest incomes, among households with disabled adults, and among nonHispanic blacks. Regionally, worst case needs were most frequent among very-low-income 

renters in the West and the Northeast, and within regions, they were most common in central 

cities and suburbs. 

Over the past two decades, between 1978 and 1999, the share of renters receiving rental 

assistance increased at all income levels, but throughout this period, over three-fourths of 

those with worst case needs have had extremely low incomes. Over this longer time frame, 

rates of growth in worst case needs were highest among Hispanic renters and renters with 

Asian-Pacific or Native American origins. Regionally, numbers with worst case needs rose 

most in the West between 1978 and 1999, with growth particularly high in western suburbs. 

Worst case needs and rental assistance among renters in different income 

ranges 

The 1997–99 fall in the number of households with worst case needs for rental assistance all 

occurred among renters with extremely low incomes (below 30 percent of HAMFI)

Because of income growth, there were fewer extremely-low-income renters in 1999 than 

in 1997. Similarly, the fall in worst case renters occurred among these households with 

incomes below 30 percent of area median.

The number of very-low-income renter households fell by 1.2 million between 1997 and 

1999, from 14.8 to 13.6 million. As Exhibit 2–1 shows, all of this decrease occurred among

extremely-low-income renters. The number of extremely-low-income renters fell by 1.3 

million, or 14 percent, to 7.7 million. Between 1997 and 1999, the number of households 

with worst case needs fell only in the category of extremely-low-income renters, dropping by

 19
620,000, or 15 percent, to 3.5 million. But because both renters with worst case needs and the 

base of extremely-low-income renters dropped at similar rates, the share of all extremelylow-income renters who had worst case problems remained unchanged at 46 percent. 

As renters shifted into higher income categories because of real income growth, the number 

of renters having incomes between 31 and 80 percent of HAMFI rose by 700,000. Real 

income growth reduced the number of renters with incomes below each of the income

cutoffs—30, 50, and 80 percent of HAMFI—used in determining eligibility or priority for 

HUD rental assistance programs. 

Income Targeting in Housing Assistance and Affordable Housing Programs 

Under three “deeply subsidized” rental assistance programs, assisted households

pay rents that are a percentage of their adjusted income—usually 30 percent. 

Public housing. Produced from 1937 to the mid-1980s, 1.1 million occupied units of 

public housing are owned by local public housing agencies (PHAs). PHAs must reserve 

at least 40 percent of all units that become available for rent in any year for families with 

incomes at or below 30 percent of the local area median income. To “facilitate mixed

income communities and decreasing concentrations of poverty,” PHAs must develop 

admissions policies to provide for deconcentration of poverty and income-mixing.

Project-based assisted housing. From 1974 to the early 1980s, several programs 

supported the construction and rehabilitation of 1.4 million rental units owned by forprofit and nonprofit sponsors and now occupied by low-income households. Since then, 

HUD has continued to build deeply subsidized units for the elderly and disabled under 

Sections 202 and 811. Owners of buildings that receive project-based assistance must 

reserve at least 40 percent of all units that receive Section 8 assistance and become

available for occupancy in any year for families with extremely low incomes. 

Tenant-based assisted housing. These programs provide direct rental assistance to 1.6 

million renter households to enable them to find their own housing on the open market. 

The maximum subsidy is the difference between the tenant contribution and the local fair 

market rent (FMR), an average rent for standard quality housing in the area. Begun in 

1974, this type of assistance has accounted for most of the incremental units of assisted 

housing since the mid-1980s. PHAs and other entities administering the Section 8 tenantbased program must reserve at least 75 percent of all vouchers that become available in 

any year, either through new appropriations or through “turnover” of existing vouchers, 

for families with extremely low incomes. 

In a number of other federal housing programs, renters are charged fixed or flat 

rents, with the maximum determined by program rules. Households pay the 

established rent rather than a percentage of their income. Without an additional subsidy,

the poorest households often cannot afford this housing:

 20
The Low Income Housing Tax Credit. This tax credit program subsidizes the capital 

costs of units that must bear rents affordable to households with incomes at or below 60 

percent of area median income. Through 1999, HUD estimates that this program has 

produced more than 700,000 units since its enactment in 1986. Of these units, about 

675,000 have rents at or below 30 percent of 60 percent of area median income. 

The HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) program. This formula grant to states 

and local governments can be used to assist existing homeowners, first-time homebuyers, 

or renters. Between 1992 and August 1999, HOME produced 203,000 affordable rental 

units. Qualifying rents must be affordable to households with incomes at or below 65 

percent of area median income, or below local FMRs if, as is often the case, the local 

FMRs are lower than rents affordable at 65 percent of area median income. 

Older rental subsidy programs. The Section 221(d)(3) below market interest rate 

(BMIR) program and the Section 236 program were active from the early 1960s through 

the early 1970s. They were designed to produce housing affordable by families with 

incomes above the public housing income limits. Over time many projects or portions of 

projects in these programs became “project-based assisted housing” rather than “rental 

subsidy” as deep rental subsidies were attached to the units. There remain 300,000 units 

subsidized by these older programs that do not have deep rental subsidies. 

In the short term between 1997 and 1999, therefore, real income growth clearly increased 

income resources among very-low-income renters and reduced the number of renters 

with severe rent burdens. 

Exhibit 2–1 The 1997–99 fall in worst case renters was concentrated 

among extremely-low-income households. 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Extremelylow-income

worst case

Extremelylow-income

other

Very-lowincome worst

case

Very-lowincome other

Income/worst case or not

Milli

o

n

s of re

nters

1997

1999

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1997 and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Extremelylow-income

worst case

Extremelylow-income

other

Very-lowincome worst

case

Very-lowincome other

Income/worst case or not

Milli

o

n

s of re

nters

1997

1999

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1997 and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

 21
Extremely-low-income renters were much more likely to have worst case housing problems 

than those with higher incomes 

Although there were fewer renters with extremely low incomes in 1999 than in 1997, this 

group remained most likely to have worst case needs. In 1999, 68 percent of unassisted 

extremely-low-income renters had worst case problems. By contrast, only 22 percent of 

unassisted renters with incomes between 31and 50 percent of HAMFI had severe housing

problems in 1999, as did 6 percent of renters with incomes between 51 and 80 percent of 

HAMFI. Over three-fourths (77 percent) of the 1999 total with worst case needs had 

extremely low incomes. 

Throughout the past two decades, over two-thirds of unassisted renters with incomes 

below 30 percent of HAMFI have had severe housing problems, compared to one-fourth 

or less of unassisted renters with incomes between 31 and 50 percent of HAMFI. Indeed, 

in 1999, only 22 percent of unassisted renters with incomes between 31 and 50 percent of 

HAMFI had severe problems, representing a new low. 

Despite publicity about fast growth in severe rent burdens among households with 

incomes 51 to 80 percent of HAMFI between 1997 and 1999, only 6 percent of renters in 

this income group had severe housing problems in 1999. As Exhibit 1–8 in the previous 

chapter documented, for renters in this income group, the incidence of severe problems 

has been low throughout the past two decades, although severe problems have risen 

among low-income owners. 

Because of the much higher likelihood of worst case problems among extremely-lowincome households, they make up the vast majority of the worst case needs group. As 

Exhibit 2–2 illustrates, over time the share of worst case renters who had extremely low 

incomes has been remarkably constant. In both 1978 and 1987, 76 percent of worst case 

renters had incomes below 30 percent of HAMFI. Between 1991 and 1995, the share 

slipped to 75 percent, but in both 1997 and 1999, 77 percent of those with worst case 

needs for housing assistance had extremely low incomes. 

 22
Exhibit 2–2 Over time, more than three-fourths of worst case renters have

had extremely low incomes. 

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

1978 1983 1987 1991 1995 1997 1999

P

erc

e

nta

g

e of w

orst case re

nter

s

with income <

30% A

MI Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1978 and 1983 Annual Housing Surveys and of the

1987, 1991, 1995, 1997, and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

1978 1983 1987 1991 1995 1997 1999

P

erc

e

nta

g

e of w

orst case re

nter

s

with income <

30% A

MI Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1978 and 1983 Annual Housing Surveys and of the

1987, 1991, 1995, 1997, and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

Renters with the lowest incomes have the most severe housing problems 

The pattern of more serious and more frequent problems at lower incomes also holds within 

narrower income ranges. Renters with the lowest incomes remain much more likely to have

severe housing problems than those with somewhat higher incomes. Over three-fourths of 

unassisted renters with incomes 0 to 20 percent of area median income (HAMFI) had worst 

case problems in 1999, compared to 28 percent of unassisted renters with incomes 31 to 40 

percent of HAMFI and only 8 percent of unassisted renters with incomes 51 to 60 percent of 

HAMFI. 

As Exhibit 2–3 details, 76 percent of unassisted renters with incomes 0 to 20 percent of 

HAMFI had priority problems in 1999 compared to 57 percent of those with incomes 21 

to 30 percent of HAMFI. Renters with these extremely low incomes are the only income

groups more likely than not to have severe housing problems. Fewer than one-third (28 

percent) of unassisted renters with incomes 31 to 40 percent of HAMFI have severe 

problems, while among renters with incomes 41 to 50 percent of HAMFI, only 15 percent 

have severe housing problems. 

Those very-low-income renters who do not have severe housing problems are likely to 

have other “moderate” problems, most often paying 31 to 50 percent of their income for 

housing. As the exhibit shows, over 80 percent of unassisted renters with incomes below 

40 percent of HAMFI have either moderate or severe housing problems, as do 72 percent 

of those with incomes 41 to 50 percent of median. 

Among renters with income above 50 percent of HAMFI, even moderate problems drop 

rapidly with higher income. Among unassisted renters with incomes 51 to 60 percent of 

HAMFI, 8 percent have severe problems and 45 percent have moderate problems. For 

 23
those with incomes 71 to 80 percent of HAMFI, only 4 percent have severe problems, 

and 25 percent have moderate problems. 

Exhibit 2–3 Renters with income below 30 percent of median most often 

have severe housing problems. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

101+

Household income as percentage of HAMFI, 1999

P

erc

e

ntage of una

s

sisted 

rent

ers wit

h proble

m

s

Moderate

Severe

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

101+

Household income as percentage of HAMFI, 1999

P

erc

e

ntage of una

s

sisted 

rent

ers wit

h proble

m

s

Moderate

Severe

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

By 1999, over one-third of extremely-low-income renters reported rental assistance, up 

from one-fourth in 1978; yet in both years, over two-thirds of those without assistance 

had worst case problems 

Substantial growth in rental assistance over the past two decades played an important role

in returning worst case needs to their 1978 rates. As Exhibit 2–4 shows, at each income 

level the share of renters reporting rental assistance was decidedly higher in 1999 than in 

1978. By 1999, 37 percent of the lowest income range—below 20 percent of median—

participated in rental assistance programs, up from 24 percent in 1978. Assistance rose by

8 percentage points in the next two income groups, from 25 to 33 percent among those 

with incomes 21 to 30 percent of HAMFI, and from 15 percent to 23 percent for renters 

with incomes 31 to 40 percent of HAMFI. Assistance increased least among renters with

incomes 41 to 50 percent of HAMFI, from 13 percent to 16 percent of the group. 

Although receipt of rental assistance remains less common for renters with incomes 

above 50 percent of HAMFI, over the past two decades assistance has increased most 

rapidly for renters in these income ranges. Among renters with income 51 to 60 percent 

of HAMFI, the share assisted more than doubled, from 7 to 15 percent of the group, and 

the share receiving assistance also doubled among those with incomes 60 to 100 percent 

of HAMFI (from 5 to 10 percent). Because most of the increase in assistance among

these relatively higher income groups occurred during the 1990s, it apparently reflects the 

effective shift of incremental assistance from deeply subsidized programs (such as 

 24
vouchers) to programs (like the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and HOME) that 

produce housing for which renters are charged fixed rents rather than contributions to 

rent based on income, such as 30 percent of adjusted income.

1

Exhibit 2–4 Between 1978 and 1999, shares reporting rental assistance 

rose at all income levels. 

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

0–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 51–60 61–70 71–80 81–100 101+

Household income as percentage of HAMFI

P

ercenta

g

e of renters i

n i

nco

m

e

gro

u

p rep

ortin

g assistance

1978

1999

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1978 Annual Housing Survey and of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

0–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 51–60 61–70 71–80 81–100 101+

Household income as percentage of HAMFI

P

ercenta

g

e of renters i

n i

nco

m

e

gro

u

p rep

ortin

g assistance

1978

1999

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1978 Annual Housing Survey and of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

Worst case needs, housing problems, and rental assistance by type of 

household 

Between 1997 and 1999, needs fell most rapidly among the elderly, families with children, 

and other families. The 1997–99 drop in worst case needs was greatest among other families, 

that is, nonelderly households with related family members but no children. Above-average

declines also occurred among the elderly and families with children, two groups often helped 

by rental assistance. Worst case needs did not drop among the other two types of households 

identified in this report—households with disabled nonelderly adults and households 

containing only one or more single adults younger than 62. 

Between 1997 and 1999, the category of households identified as other families 

experienced the most dramatic drop in worst case needs. As Exhibit 2–5 shows, their 

needs fell by almost one-third. Needs also dropped at above-average rates among the 

elderly and families with children. The expanded American Housing Survey (AHS)

proxy for households with disabled adults, however, suggests that between 1997 and 

1999, worst case needs remained essentially unchanged—and relatively highest—among

 

1

 The increase in the 1990s may also reflect the 1997 procedural change in assistance questions. 

 25
these very-low-income renters. Needs were also unchanged among the residual group of 

nonfamily, nonelderly households, who are predominantly individuals living alone. This 

household type is least likely to be assisted by federal rental programs. 

Exhibit 2–5 Between 1997 and 1999, worst case needs fell most quickly

among "other" families. 

-35%

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

Percentage change in worst case needs, 1997–99

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1997 and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

Elderly Children Other family Disabled Nonfamily

-35%

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

Percentage change in worst case needs, 1997–99

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1997 and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

Elderly Children Other family Disabled Nonfamily

Worst case housing needs fell among the elderly and families with children 

Needs among the elderly fell by 140,000 (an above-average drop of 12 percent) to 1.0 

million between 1997 and 1999, and needs among families with children fell by 210,000 (or 

10 percent) to 1.8 million. Among these two household types, the 1997–99 drops more than 

offset the decade’s earlier slow growth in worst case needs. 

For the elderly

2

 and families with children, above-average drops in worst case needs 

between 1997 and 1999 reduced the numbers of households with worst case problems in 

1999 to levels below or near those experienced in 1987, when total worst case needs were 

at their previous low of 4.5 million. Indeed, as Exhibit 2–6 details, for the elderly, worst 

case needs were lower in 1999, at 1.0 million, than their previous lows of 1.1 million in 

1987 and 1978. 

Among the elderly, the record 1999 low in worst case needs results in part from a marked 

drop in the number qualifying as very-low-income renters, with only 3.2 million in 1999 

compared to 3.7 million in 1987 and 3.5 million in 1978. This trend undoubtedly reflects 

continued declines in poverty among the elderly, such as the drop from 14 percent in 

 

2

 For HUD rental assistance programs, elderly households are defined, as here, as those where either the head or

spouse is age 62 or older. 

 26
1978 to 10.5 percent in 1998.3

 It also reflects increasing homeownership among the 

elderly as more affluent cohorts turn 62. Even among elderly households with very low 

incomes, ownership rates rose markedly over this period, from 62 percent in 1978 to 67 

percent in 1999. 

Among families with children, 1.8 million very-low-income renters had worst case needs 

for assistance in 1999, well below their 1993 peak of 2.2 million and equal to the 1987 

level. The number of families with children experiencing worst case problems in 1999, 

however, remained above its 1978 low of 1.4 million. 

Exhibit 2–6 For the elderly, worst case needs in 1999 were lower than in 

either 1987 or 1978.

Elderly With children

Very-low-income renters, 1999 3,190 6,223

 worst case 1,028 1,793

 assisted 1,172 1,910

 % assisted 37% 31%

worst case as % unassisted 51% 42%

Very-low-income renters, 1987 3,727 5,558

 worst case 1,110 1,793

 assisted 1,381 1,796

 % assisted 37% 32%

worst case as % unassisted 47% 48%

Very-low-income renters, 1978 3,455 4,166

 worst case 1,140 1,383

 assisted 1,209 962

 % assisted 35% 23%

worst case as % unassisted 51% 43%

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1978 Annual Housing Survey

and of the 1987 and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

Despite this improvement, the likelihood of having worst case problems remained high for 

very-low-income elderly and families with children without rental assistance 

In 1999, 51 percent of unassisted elderly very-low-income renters, and 42 percent of 

unassisted very-low-income renter families with children, had unmet worst case problems. 

The share of very-low-income elderly renters receiving rental assistance rose slightly over 

the 1978–99 period, from 35 percent to 37 percent (see Appendix table A–5). Among the 

elderly without assistance, the share with worst case needs fell from 56 percent to 51 percent 

between 1997 and 1999. Nevertheless, at 51 percent the probability of worst case needs 

among unassisted elderly renters remained higher than it had been from 1987–93 and equal 

to its 1978 rate. 

In sharp contrast to the elderly, the number of very-low-income renter families with 

children grew markedly between 1978 and 1999, rising by 49 percent to outpace the 39-

percent increase in total very-low-income renters. That sharp growth in numbers of very-

 

3

 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2000, Poverty and Income Trends: 1998, p. 29. 

 27
low-income renter families with children makes the return of worst case needs to the

1987 level of 1.8 million especially notable. As Exhibit 2–6 showed, this success was in 

no small measure due to increasing assistance, as the number of very-low-income renter 

families with children who received rental assistance doubled between 1978 and 1999, 

rising from 960,000 to 1.9 million. 

Because most of this increase in assistance occurred before 1987, however, the 1997–99 

reduction in needs must be attributed in large part to economic growth or other external 

factors. Indeed, although the share of very-low-income renter families with children 

receiving assistance dropped slightly between 1987 and 1999, the incidence of worst case 

needs among unassisted very-low-income renter families with children fell from rates 

near 47 percent earlier in the 1990s to 42 percent in 1999, below the 1978 rate of 43 

percent.

Elderly worst case renters were the very-low-income renters most likely to have a severe 

rent burden and no other housing problem 

In 1999, the elderly remained more likely than other worst case renters to have only a 

rent burden. Almost all (97 percent) elderly households with worst case needs paid more 

than half of their income for rent, and most (86 percent) had no other housing problem. 

Only 12 percent of the elderly worst case total had more than one housing problem, 

mainly the 8 percent living in moderately inadequate housing. None were crowded: 

almost three-fourths (73 percent) lived alone, while the remaining households had on 

average 2.2 persons. One-fifth were husband-wife households, while another three-fifths 

(62 percent) had female heads. Less than one-third (31 percent) of the elderly households 

were minorities. More than half of the elderly household heads with worst case problems 

were over 75 years old.4

 

The elderly were the most likely of the five household types identified in this report to 

rate their housing (78 percent) and neighborhoods (77 percent) as good or excellent. 

Conversely, fewer than 4 percent judged their housing or neighborhoods to be of poor 

quality. As is typical for the elderly, rates of mobility were low, with only 8 percent 

moving in the past year. The general absence of problems other than severe rent burden, 

high rates of satisfaction with current housing and neighborhood, and low rates of 

mobility imply that most elderly worst case renters could be helped by vouchers to afford 

their current housing. Elderly renters with worst case problems most often lived in the 

Northeast (30 percent) or the South (30 percent). Over two-fifths (44 percent) lived in 

central cities, and another 42 percent lived in suburbs. 

Worst case families with children more often paid more than half of their income for 

housing and lived in inadequate or crowded housing 

Unlike the elderly, but like the disabled, worst case families with children often had more

than one housing problem. While almost all (92 percent) paid more than half of their 

income for rent, 28 percent reported two or more housing problems. Over one-fifth (21 

 

4

 For more detail on characteristics of worst case renters and very-low-income renters by household type, see 

Appendix tables A–6 through A–8.

 28
percent) lived in housing with moderate or severe physical problems, and 14 percent 

lived in crowded housing. On average, worst case families with children had 3.6 persons 

and 2 children each. Three in eight (37 percent) were husband-wife families, half were

headed by women without husbands present, and almost two-thirds (64 percent) were 

minorities. For a small fraction (4 percent), the household head was 62 or older. 

Reflecting their more common housing problems, only three-fifths of worst case families 

with children rated either their housing or neighborhood good or excellent, while over 

one-tenth considered them of poor quality. Mobility rates during the previous year were 

high (30 percent). For many of the 70 percent of worst case families with children whose

only housing problem was a severe rent burden, vouchers could solve their only problem 

in their current home. However, the relatively high levels of crowding and of 

dissatisfaction with current housing and neighborhoods suggest that many worst case 

families with children might need and prefer to move to better housing with more 

bedrooms. More than half (51 percent) of worst case families with children lived in 

central cities, and more than one-third (36 percent) lived in suburbs. Mirroring recent 

trends in population and shortages of affordable housing, more worst case families with 

children (34 percent) lived in the West than in any other region. 

Four-fifths of the elderly and families with children who had worst case needs had 

extremely low incomes 

Among both the elderly and families with children, four-fifths of the households with 

worst case needs had extremely low incomes (800,000 elderly and 1.4 million families 

with children). 

As found among all household types, the elderly and families with children who had 

incomes below 30 percent of HAMFI were much more likely to have worst case

problems than households with incomes 31 to 50 percent of HAMFI, even though these 

extremely-low-income households were more likely to receive assistance. Among both 

household types, two-fifths of extremely-low-income renters received housing assistance, 

but over two-thirds of those without assistance had worst case needs for assistance. 

Families with children were more likely to be poor or extremely poor than other verylow-income renters with worst case problems. While 78 percent of worst case families 

with children were poor, over one-third (35 percent) had incomes below 50 percent of the 

official poverty cutoffs, and essentially all (95 percent) had incomes below 150 percent of 

poverty. Among the elderly with worst case needs, half (54 percent) were poor, and 81 

percent had incomes below 150 percent of the poverty level. The higher rates of poverty

and extreme poverty among worst case families with children reflect their larger family

size and the fact that HUD’s income limits have smaller per-person adjustments for 

household size than the poverty thresholds do. 

In 1999, a new AHS supplement asked renters with incomes below $10,000 and severe 

rent burdens whether they received outside help with household expenses. Among the 

extremely-low-income renters with worst case needs, almost half of elderly renters and of 

families with children were asked if they received financial help from others. Although 

among all household types fewer than 10 percent of the households asked these questions 

 29
reported receiving financial assistance, 28 percent of the elderly worst case renters and 40 

percent of families with children said that persons outside the household helped with 

some regular household expenses.

The 1997–99 fall in worst case needs was fastest among other families 

The 1997–99 fall in worst case needs was fastest among other families, who are nonelderly

households with related family members but no children. The drop of 31 percent offset the 

increases in needs recorded earlier in the decade: by 1999, unmet needs were 230,000, 

effectively back to the 1987 and 1989 levels of 220,000. This was the household type least 

likely to have worst case problems: in 1999, only 36 percent of unassisted families without 

children had worst case needs for assistance. 

As their household composition might well predict, nonelderly families without children 

benefited more from economic and employment growth during the late 1990s than other 

very-low-income renters. The total number of very-low-income renters of this household 

type fell by 17 percent between 1997 and 1999, a greater decline than any other 

household type. Among the remaining very-low-income other families, 37 percent earned 

more than full-time minimum wage in 1999, more than in 1997. In 1999, 55 percent of 

these families were married couples, 30 percent had female heads, and 15 percent had 

male heads. Almost three-fourths (71 percent) of the heads were high school graduates, 

and one-fifth had completed 2 or more years of college. Almost half of the heads were in 

their 30s or 40s; one-third were below 30, and one-fourth were aged 50–61. 

Like the elderly, almost all “other” families with worst case problems had a severe rent 

burden (97 percent), which was the only housing problem for most (81 percent). This 

may reflect the fact that other families were less likely than other household types to have 

extremely low incomes or to be poor. None were crowded, but 10 percent lived in 

severely inadequate housing, and an additional 8 percent lived in units with moderate 

physical problems. Reflecting this higher incidence of physical problems, these 

households were less satisfied with their housing than the elderly were, with only twothirds rating their housing or neighborhoods good or excellent. But they were more 

mobile, with 24 percent having moved in the past year. In 1999, other families with worst 

case problems were more likely to live in the West (41 percent) than other household 

types, and they were the group most likely (90 percent) to live in metropolitan areas. 

Worst case needs were most likely among disabled renters 

Worst case needs did not fall between 1997 and 1999 among households with disabled 

members. Although an improved AHS proxy for the disabled suggests that almost half of this 

group receives rental assistance, three-fifths of the unassisted disabled have worst case 

problems, a higher rate than that of any other household type. 

As Appendix C discusses, some 1.1 million disabled nonelderly adults are estimated to have 

had worst case needs in 1999.5

 Some 240,000 of the disabled worst case persons live in 

 

5

 To evaluate how many disabled households there were in 1999, the extent to which they received rental 

assistance, and the incidence of needs among the unassisted, this report uses an expanded AHS proxy for 

 30
families with children, with the rest in other family or nonfamily households. Altogether 

(Exhibit 2–7), over one-fifth (22 percent) of worst case households contain a nonelderly adult 

with disabilities, 5 percent of them in families with children. Another 27 percent of worst 

case households are families with children, and 21 percent are elderly.

Exhibit 2–7 In 1999, at least 22 percent of worst case households had 

nonelderly adults with disabilities. 

27%

21%

30%

17%

5%

Families with children

Elderly, no children

Other, no children

Other disabled

Disabled in family

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey, adjusted with

information from Supplemental Security Income program data.

27%

21%

30%

17%

5%

Families with children

Elderly, no children

Other, no children

Other disabled

Disabled in family

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey, adjusted with

information from Supplemental Security Income program data.

Some 45 percent of disabled very-low-income renters are assisted, yet some 59 percent of 

unassisted, disabled, very-low-income renters have worst case problems. Thus, the 

disabled remain the household type most likely to have worst case needs if they are not 

assisted. 

The new AHS proxy for disabled nonelderly renters provides a consistent estimate of 

how needs changed over time among disabled renters. As Appendix C discusses, it shows 

no drop between 1997 and 1999 but a marked drop of 18 percent between 1995 and 1997. 

Indeed, the 1997 and 1999 estimates of worst case needs among proxy households are 

quite close in both magnitude and incidence to the 1987, 1991, and 1993 estimates. This 

pattern suggests that the 1993–95 rise in worst case needs among the disabled that was 

highlighted in the 1998 worst case report6

 was reversed between 1995 and 1997, so that 

the total number with needs in 1999 is similar to that observed for 1993. Thus, the more 

detailed analysis done for this report implies that the number of nonelderly disabled worst 

 

households with persons with disabilities. Appendix C discusses the new proxy for the disabled and reasons 

why even this new proxy also produces low estimates of disabled adults. The estimates reported here inflate the 

proxy to correspond to estimates derived from Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program data, and also seek

to include very-low-income households with incomes above SSI levels. For the best estimate of change over 

time, this report uses both proxy and SSI changes. For household characteristics and housing problems of the 

disabled, the only information available comes from the AHS proxy. 6

 See Finding 6, page 30, of Rental Housing Assistance—The Crisis Continues.

 31
case households was close to 1.1 million in both 1997 and 1999 rather than in the 1.1–1.4 

million range previously estimated for 1997. 

Disabled worst case renters have the most serious housing problems. Over one-fourth (28 

percent) have multiple housing problems, all because they pay more than half of their 

income for inadequate housing. Altogether, almost one-third (32 percent) of disabled 

worst case renters live in housing that is either moderately or severely inadequate.7

Despite their relatively high rates of physically inadequate housing, two-thirds of 

disabled worst case persons have only a severe rent burden and no other problem. 

According to the proxy, 70 percent live alone, three-fifths are high school graduates, and 

half are minorities. 

The disabled were the worst case household type most likely to have extremely low 

incomes or to be poor or extremely poor. Over 80 percent had extremely low incomes in 

1999, and three-quarters were poor. As Exhibit 2–8 shows, the worst case disabled were 

more likely than other household types to report financial assistance from nonhousehold 

members. Over half (54 percent) of the extremely-low-income households identified by

the disabled proxy reported receiving such help. 

Exhibit 2–8 Worst case households with disabled adults were more likely

than others to report receiving outside help with regular 

household expenses.

Elderly With

children

Other

family

Disabled Other

nonfamily

Percentage asked about

outside help*

43% 42% 39% 53% 41%

Percentage reporting help 12% 17% 13% 28% 22%

Received help as percentage

of those asked question

28% 40% 33% 54% 53%

* Questions about outside financial help with expenses were asked in the 1999 AHS of households with incomes

below $10,000 that reported paying more than half of their income for housing.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

Needs were unchanged among single adults 

The number of households with worst case needs did not change between 1997 and 1999 

among the residual group of single adults less than 62 years old who live alone or with other 

unrelated singles, but remained at 1.2 million in 1999. 

The estimates of worst case needs among the disabled summarized in Exhibit 2–7 imply

that some 850,000 nonfamily households have disabled members. By subtraction, the 

remaining 1.2 million households with worst case needs were single adults. 

Although this is the only household type among whom worst case needs rose substantially

between 1987 and 1999, several indicators suggest that many may have high rent burdens 

 

7

 These data on physically inadequate housing do not include housing that is physically adequate but 

inappropriate in some way, in light of its resident’s disabilities.

 32
temporarily: 83 percent are high school graduates, 29 percent have 2 years of post-highschool education, and 52 percent are younger than 30. Over half of those asked the question 

report receiving outside help with household expenses. 

As Exhibit 2–9 shows, this type of household had the fastest growth in worst case needs 

between 1987 and 1999, but its growth of 36 percent in needs was still less than the 

growth of 47 percent observed among all very-low-income renters of this household type. 

Moreover, this group also had by far the largest increase in the number of households 

who report receiving rental assistance (239 percent). The high share of these residual 

singles reporting rental assistance and the similarly high share reporting outside financial 

help (see Exhibit 2–8) are consistent with the assumption that many in this residual group 

are actually disabled but not identified by the AHS proxy (see Appendix D). 

Exhibit 2–9 Between 1987 and 1999, worst case needs and assistance rose 

most among nonfamily households. 

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

P

Elderly With children Other family Disabled Other nonfamily

ercenta

g

e chan

g

e, 1987–99

Very-low-income renters Worst case Assisted

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1987 and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

P

Elderly With children Other family Disabled Other nonfamily

ercenta

g

e chan

g

e, 1987–99

Very-low-income renters Worst case Assisted

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1987 and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

The share of worst case households with earnings continued to increase 

Work effort continued to increase among those with worst case problems. Although the 

number of worst case households with workers fell slightly between 1997 and 1999 because 

of the large decline in the total number with worst case needs, the share of nonelderly, 

nondisabled worst case households who had earnings as their primary income source rose 

further, from 73 percent to 77 percent. This change continues the rise in work effort observed 

since 1991, when 67 percent of such worst case renters had earnings as their main source of 

income. 

Of the 4.9 million households with worst case needs for rental assistance in 1999, 2.8 

million (58 percent) had earnings as their main income source. Among the 5.4 million 

 33
worst case households in 1997, earnings were the main income source for 2.9 million (55 

percent). 

As Exhibit 2–10 illustrates, among the worst case households that were neither elderly

nor disabled, reliance on earnings rose from 73 percent in 1997 to 77 percent in 1999.8

The long-term increase in work effort from 63 percent relying on earnings in 1987 to 77 

percent in 1999 was primarily due to steady increases in reliance on earnings among

worst case families with children. As the exhibit shows, nearly 90 percent of other

families and single individuals with worst case problems had earnings as their main 

source of income, but for these households, the shares relying on earnings fluctuated over 

the past 12 years rather than steadily increasing. 

Exhibit 2–10 Among worst case families with children, shares relying on 

earnings rose between 1987 and 1999. 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Age 18–61,

not disabled

With children Other family Nonfamily

1987

1991

1997

1999

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1987 and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Age 18–61,

not disabled

With children Other family Nonfamily

1987

1991

1997

1999

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1987 and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

Earnings among very-low-income families with children 

Among very-low-income worst case families with children, the number with earnings as their

primary source of income remained at 1.2 million, even though the total number of worst 

case families fell. Among all very-low-income renters with children, the share relying on 

earnings rose from 66 percent to 74 percent between 1997 and 1999, both substantially above 

the rate of 59 percent observed in 1991. 

As employment rose among all very-low-income renters, it became almost as common 

for those with severe housing problems as for the others without severe problems. Among

all very-low-income worst case families with children, the share relying on earnings (i.e., 

those with earnings as their primary source of income) rose from 61 percent to 68 percent 

 

8

 These percentages are slightly lower than those reported in the previously published January 2001

 executive summary of this report because they do not exclude elderly heads of families with children 

 from the base. 

 34
between 1997 and 1999, both substantially above the rate of 46 percent observed in 1987. 

As reliance on earnings increased among worst case families with children, the receipt of 

income from welfare or SSI dropped markedly. Only 27 percent of worst case families 

with children reported income from welfare or SSI in 1999, well below the 49 percent 

with welfare or SSI income in 1987.9

The increased reliance on earnings was accompanied by real increases in the amount of 

earnings over these 12 years. The share of worst case families with children that earned 

more than what one would receive for half-time work at the 1999 minimum wage rose 

from 38 percent in 1987 to 56 percent in 1999, while the share with earnings exceeding

the total from full-time minimum-wage employment rose from 19 percent in 1987 to 34 

percent in 1999. 

Among the 230,000 other families and 1.4 million nonfamily households with worst case 

needs, work effort was even higher. Almost all (94 percent of other families and 85 

percent of unrelated individuals) depended on earnings in 1999. Yet these earnings were 

often too low to allow households to afford prevailing rents: only 43 percent of other 

families and 28 percent of individuals earned more than the total from full-time work at

the minimum wage. 

Earnings were up, and welfare down, among extremely-low-income worst case families 

Among extremely-low-income worst case families with children, the share relying on 

earnings rose from 56 percent to 64 percent between 1997 and 1999, while the share 

reporting any welfare income dropped from 36 percent to 31 percent. 

Despite the significant drop in numbers of extremely-low-income renters with worst case

needs between 1997 and 1999, almost three-fourths of the working households with 

worst case problems in 1999 had extremely low incomes. As Exhibit 2–11 shows, over 

900,000 of these households were families with children. 

Among extremely-low-income worst case families with children, the share relying on 

earnings rose from 56 percent to 64 percent between 1997 and 1999. As Exhibit 2–12 

illustrates, this increase in work effort continues a trend that has been under way since the 

late 1980s. Between 1987 and 1999, the share of extremely-low-income worst case 

families with children relying on earnings rose from 40 percent to 64 percent. Real

earnings in constant dollars also rose: the share of families earning more than half-time

work at the 1999 minimum wage rose from 29 percent to 48 percent, and those earning

more than full-time work at the 1999 minimum wage rose from 9 percent to 22 percent. 

Over this 12-year period, the share of extremely-low-income worst case families with 

children reporting any welfare income dropped from 54 percent to 31 percent. 

Not all of these families may have adults who are able to work. A small fraction have

elderly heads—perhaps grandparents raising children—and others, such as the 8 percent 

reporting Social Security income in 1999, may have disabled children or adults in the 

 

9

 As implied by the results of the 1995 Housing Modification Supplement discussed in Appendix C, some of

these families may be receiving SSI for disabled family members rather than welfare income. 

 35
household. Child care concerns may also restrict the hours that can be worked: in 1999, 

over half of these families had children under 6, and almost four-fifths had children under 

12. 

Yet three other developments between 1987 and 1999 each may have facilitated 

employment among extremely-low-income worst case families with children: a drop in 

the average number of children per family; an increasing share of husband-wife families; 

and a higher share living in suburbs, where employment opportunities have been growing

more rapidly. Because this group of worst case households has shifted toward the West 

(as is generally true), the rising shares of husband-wife families and of minorities among

extremely-low-income worst case families with children each may reflect the past two 

decades’ growth in worst case needs among Hispanic households. Regardless of the 

explanation, the rise in work effort among extremely-low-income families with children 

underscores their increasing efforts to take responsibility for their families. 

Exhibit 2–11 More than 70 percent of unassisted working renters with

worst case needs have extremely low incomes. 

914 986

312

449

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

With children Other nonelderly

heads

Worst case households by

family type and income, 1999

T

h

o

usan

d

s of w

orst case 

hous

eholds with

e

arnings a

s

m

ain in

c

o

m

e

s

o

urc

e

0–30%

AMI

31–50%

AMI

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

914 986

312

449

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

With children Other nonelderly

heads

Worst case households by

family type and income, 1999

T

h

o

usan

d

s of w

orst case 

hous

eholds with

e

arnings a

s

m

ain in

c

o

m

e

s

o

urc

e

0–30%

AMI

31–50%

AMI

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

 36
Exhibit 2–12 From 1987 to 1999, more extremely-low-income worst case 

families worked, and fewer received welfare. 

1987 1999

Worst case, in thousands 1,483 1,439

 Earnings main source 40% 64%

 Half-time, minimum wage 29% 48%

Full-time, minimum wage 9% 22%

Welfare or SSI income 54% 31%

Social Security income 10% 8%

 Head age 62+ 4% 4%

Head age 18–29 45% 41%

Head age 31–50 48% 50%

Children under 12 — 78%

Children under 6 — 55%

Children per family 2.2 2.0

Husband-wife family 27% 36%

Suburbs 27% 36%

West 20% 34%

Minority 56% 67%

Source: HUD-PDR tabulations of the 1987 and

1999 American Housing Surveys.

Worst case needs by race and ethnicity

Worst case needs dropped most among Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites 

Worst case problems dropped most quickly between 1997 and 1999 among Hispanics (16 

percent) and non-Hispanic whites (14 percent). But for non-Hispanic blacks, worst case 

needs rose significantly, increasing by 11 percent to a record high of 1.2 million. 

As the previous report to Congress noted, between 1991 and 1997, worst case housing

needs became more concentrated among minorities, with growth highest among

Hispanics and blacks. But between 1997 and 1999, a 16-percent decrease in needs among

Hispanic very-low-income renters left them the racial/ethnic group least likely to have 

worst case problems in 1999 (Exhibit 2–13). The incidence of worst case problems in 

1999 was slightly higher among Asian-Americans and Native Americans than among

Hispanics, but for neither group are such differences from other racial/ethnic groups 

statistically significant.10 But unassisted blacks were significantly more likely to have

worst case needs for assistance in 1999 than either non-Hispanic whites or Hispanics. 

Examined over the two decades from 1978 to 1999, worst case needs for rental assistance 

did expand more quickly among minorities, as Exhibit 2–14 shows. The number of non-

 

10 These estimates for Asian-Americans and Native Americans are included because they have been requested 

by readers of previous reports. However, because of small sample sizes for these groups, the estimates have

high standard errors. The confidence interval for the rate of worst case needs among very-low-income AsianAmerican renters, for example, is 33 percent + 7 percent. 

 37
Hispanic whites with worst case problems shrank slightly, falling from 2.6 million in 

1978 to 2.5 million in 1999. Among blacks, needs grew by 28 percent, from 0.9 million 

in 1978 to 1.2 million in 1999. Among Hispanics, worst case needs more than doubled, 

growing from 360 to 840 thousand. And among Asian-Americans and Native Americans 

combined, needs more than tripled, exploding from 90 to 290 thousand.11 

For each group, the numbers of households with worst case needs grew more slowly over 

this 21-year period than either total households or very-low-income renters. Among all 

racial/ethnic groups, this relative success occurred because very-low-income renters 

reporting rental housing assistance rose more quickly than the numbers of either total 

households or very-low-income renters. 

Exhibit 2–13 In 1999, worst case needs were lowest for Hispanics and 

highest for blacks. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

NonHispanic

White

NonHispanic

Black

Hispanic Asian/

Pacific

Islander

Native

P

American ercenta

g

e of very-lo

w-income 

re

nters 

with w

orst case needs, 1999

All Unassisted

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

NonHispanic

White

NonHispanic

Black

Hispanic Asian/

Pacific

Islander

Native

P

American ercenta

g

e of very-lo

w-income 

re

nters 

with w

orst case needs, 1999

All Unassisted

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

 

11 Although these estimates for other races have large confidence intervals, as noted above, the change over two

decades is nevertheless highly significant. 

 38
Exhibit 2–14 From 1978 to 1999, worst case needs rose most among 

Hispanics and other races. 

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

Non-Hisp.

White

Non-Hisp.

Black

Hispanic Other

P

ercenta

g

e chan

g

e i

n

w

orst case 

need

s

1978–99 1997–99

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1978 Annual Housing Survey and of the

1997 and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

Non-Hisp.

White

Non-Hisp.

Black

Hispanic Other

P

ercenta

g

e chan

g

e i

n

w

orst case 

need

s

1978–99 1997–99

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1978 Annual Housing Survey and of the

1997 and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

Hispanics were least likely to have worst case needs despite rapid growth

Between 1991 and 1997, Hispanics had the fastest growth in worst case problems, but the 

substantial 1997–99 drop offset half of the decade’s earlier rise. Between 1987 and 1999, the 

two recent years of lows in worst case needs, needs among Hispanics increased by 44 

percent. Although this rate of growth in worst case problems exceeded that for either blacks 

or whites, it lagged the 63-percent growth in Hispanic very-low-income renters. In 1999, 

Hispanics had a lower rate of severe problems among unassisted very-low-income renters (41 

percent) than any other racial/ethnic group, and they were the racial/ethnic group least likely

to receive rental assistance (25 percent). 

Three-fifths of the Hispanic renters with worst case problems, 480,000 households, are 

families with children, a higher share than that in any other racial/ethnic group. 

Reflecting this predominance of families with children, Hispanic worst case households 

were also slightly bigger on average, with 3 persons and 1.3 children. Almost one-third 

(30 percent) of Hispanic worst case families had multiple housing problems, with over 16 

percent living in crowded housing and 23 percent living in inadequate housing. Nine of 

10 had a severe rent burden, and two-thirds had only a severe rent burden. Half of 

Hispanic worst case renters lived in the West, and one-fourth lived in the South. Over 

half (55 percent) lived in central cities, and another one-third lived in urbanized suburbs. 

The Hispanic worst case families with children, on average, had 4.1 persons and 2.2 

children. Almost all of them (88 percent) had extremely low incomes. Crowding was 

quite common (29 percent), and 24 percent had inadequate housing, even though 90 

percent paid more than half of their income for housing. Because almost two-fifths had 

 39
multiple housing problems, Hispanic worst case families with children were least likely

(57 percent) to have only a severe rent burden. Hispanic worst case families with children 

often were husband-wife families (56 percent). They also had younger heads than other 

worst case families with children, with 44 percent of the heads aged below 30, compared 

to 39 percent among all worst case families with children. 

Although Hispanic worst case heads with children had the lowest rate of high school 

graduation and over three-fifths had children under 6, over three-fourths depended on 

earnings, and only one-fourth reported any welfare or SSI income. A relatively high

share, two-fifths of those asked, reported receiving some outside help with household 

expenses. Three-fifths of Hispanic worst case families with children live in the West, and 

three-fifths live in central cities. Only about three-fifths rate either their housing or their 

neighborhood good. 

Elderly households with worst case problems were uncommon among Hispanics. There 

were only 100,000, almost 90 percent of them with only a severe rent burden. They also 

live predominantly in cities but are only half as likely as families with children to live in 

the West. Barely any Hispanic worst case households are identified by the AHS proxy as 

likely to have persons with disabilities. Because the proxy is based on receipt of Social 

Security or SSI income, this may reflect recent immigration rather than fewer disabilities. 

One-fourth (200,000) of the Hispanic worst case households are either families without 

children or single individuals, one-fourth of them husband-wife families and three-fifths 

persons living alone. Over half of these households had heads aged 31–50 years, and 

virtually all of the heads worked. Less than half were poor. 

Worst case needs among whites fell to a record low in 1999 

Among non-Hispanic whites, worst case needs fell by 14 percent, or 400,000, between 1997 

and 1999. In 1999, they stood at a record low over the 1978–99 period of 2.5 million, well 

below the 1987 level of 2.8 million. Still, 47 percent of unassisted, white, very-low-income 

renters had worst case problems in 1999. White renters with worst case needs were evenly

distributed across the four regions, with approximately one-fourth in each region. Compared 

to minorities with worst case needs, they were also less likely to live in central cities (43 

percent) and more likely to live outside of nonmetropolitan areas (18 percent). 

As Exhibit 2–15 shows, in 1999 the 2.5 million non-Hispanic whites with worst case 

needs comprised over half of the 4.9 million total. Of the household types identified in 

this report, the largest worst case group among whites was elderly (710,000), followed by

645,000 families with children. Over half of the white worst case households (54 percent) 

were individuals living alone, over half of them women. Because of the high number of 

elderly and nonfamily households, non-Hispanic white worst case renters had the 

smallest households, averaging only 1.9 persons. They also were least likely to have 

multiple housing problems and most likely (84 percent) to have only a severe rent 

burden. 

Of the 710,000 elderly whites with worst case needs, 89 percent had only a severe rent 

burden. One-fifth were married couples, 64 percent were women living alone, and the 

rest were single men. Less than half were poor, and three-fourths had incomes below 150 

 40
percent of poverty. (By contrast, more than two-thirds of the 300,000 minority elderly

households with worst case problems were poor, and essentially all had incomes below 

150 percent of poverty.) Four-fifths rated their homes and neighborhoods as good or 

excellent. One-fourth of those asked about outside help reported assistance with 

household expenses. 

Of the 645,000 worst case white families with children, over four-fifths (81 percent) had 

only a severe rent burden, while 10 percent lived in severely inadequate housing. Threefourths were poor, and 73 percent had extremely low incomes. One-third were husbandwife families, while 52 percent were headed by a woman with no husband present. Onehalf of those asked about outside help reported assistance with household expenses. 

Two-thirds of the white worst case families with children had heads who were high

school graduates, and two-thirds reported earnings as their main source of income. Seven 

of 10 had children younger than 12, and almost half had children 6 or younger. Over onethird lived in central cities, and 43 percent lived in suburban areas, but white worst case 

families with children were more likely (22 percent) to live in nonmetropolitan counties 

than other worst case families with children (12 percent). 

Exhibit 2–15 In 1999, over half with worst case needs were non-Hispanic 

whites. 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Non-Hisp.

White

Non-Hisp.

Black

Hispanic Asian Native

American

1999 w

orst case needs (th

o

usan

d

s)

Children Elderly Disabled Other

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Non-Hisp.

White

Non-Hisp.

Black

Hispanic Asian Native

American

1999 w

orst case needs (th

o

usan

d

s)

Children Elderly Disabled Other

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

Among blacks, worst case needs rose to a record high in 1999 

Non-Hispanic blacks, with needs at a record numerical high of 1.2 million in 1999, were the 

only racial/ethnic group with growth in worst case problems (11 percent) between 1997 and 

1999. In 1999, they had the highest rate of severe needs among unassisted very-low-income 

renters (49 percent). They were also the racial/ethnic group most likely to report receiving

 41
assistance (37 percent). Despite the record high number of black households with worst case 

problems, over the past two decades the long-term increase in black households was greater 

than growth in the number of such households with worst case needs. Between 1978 and 

1999, the share of total black households that had worst case problems dropped from 12 

percent to 9 percent. 

Reflecting their historic population concentration, half of black worst case renters lived in the 

South in 1999. Almost two-thirds of the total lived in central cities. 

The record high in 1999 resulted from 1997–99 growth in worst case problems among

nonelderly singles, many of whom were probably disabled. Worst case needs for rental 

assistance among blacks were highest by far for disabled blacks: almost three of four 

unassisted very-low-income black renters identified by the AHS proxy as disabled (72 

percent) had worst case problems. Among black very-low-income elderly renters and 

families with children, half of the unassisted households had worst case problems. 

As Exhibit 2–15 clearly shows, almost half of black worst case households were families 

with children. Over four-fifths of these 550,000 households had extremely low incomes, 

and almost one-third had more than one housing problem. Although 95 percent paid more 

than half of their income for housing, one-fourth lived in inadequate units and 1 of 10 

were crowded. On average, each family had 2.1 children, and half had at least one child 6 

or younger. Seven of 10 black worst-case families with children had female heads 

without husbands present, two-thirds of the heads were high-school graduates, and 

earnings were the main source of income for two-thirds of the families. 

Other minorities had the fastest long-term growth in worst case needs 

Worst case needs grew most rapidly among other minorities between 1978 and 1999, but 

their housing problems do not otherwise differ significantly from those of other 

racial/ethnic groups. 

Because of their relatively low numbers and correspondingly high sample error, little can 

be said about Asian-American and Native American very-low-income renters. In 1999, 

their rates of worst case problems and their shares of assisted renters were not 

significantly different from the averages for all very-low-income renters. Among both of 

these groups, the households with worst case needs were slightly poorer than the other 

three racial/ethnic groups, with higher shares of worst case households having extremely

low incomes. Each experienced higher rates of growth in worst case needs during 1987–

99 than those for the other groups, but the differences were not statistically significant. 

Over the longer period 1978–99, however, the growth of 220 percent in worst case needs 

among “other races,” which category represents these two groups combined, was 

significantly faster than that among Hispanics or non-Hispanic whites or blacks. 

Nevertheless, for all racial/ethnic groups, the numbers of households with worst case 

needs rose less rapidly than total household growth.

 42
The location of households with worst case needs 

In 1999, households with worst case needs were most numerous in the South (1.5 million) 

and the West (1.4 million). However, very-low-income renters most often had worst case 

problems in the West and the Northeast (48 percent and 47 percent of unassisted renters, 

respectively). As the next chapter will show, these were also the regions with the worst 

shortages of housing affordable and available to extreme-low-income renters. 

In 1999, the Midwest had the fewest households with worst case problems (900,000), and it 

was also the region in which the fewest unassisted very-low-income renters (44 percent) had 

worst case needs. The likelihood of having worst case problems was also relatively low in the 

South, affecting 45 percent of unassisted very-low-income renters. In the Northeast, 1 million 

households had worst case needs. 

Very-low-income renters were most likely to have worst case needs in central cities 

More than half of worst case renters lived in central cities in 1999, and the likelihood, among

unassisted very-low-income renters, of having worst case problems was highest (48 percent) 

there. The fewest worst case renters lived outside of metropolitan areas (650,000), and needs 

were least likely (40 percent) there as well. 

As Exhibit 2–16 shows, within each geographic region, worst case needs were most likely

among unassisted renters living in central cities. On average, almost half (48 percent) of

unassisted very-low-income renters in central cities had worst case problems, with the city

rate highest in the Northeast (49 percent) and lowest in the Midwest (45 percent). Nationally, 

2.5 million households with worst case needs, just over half of the total, lived in central 

cities. Southern and western cities each had 700,000 households with worst case problems. 

Exhibit 2–16 Within regions, worst case needs are more common in cities 

and suburbs. 

49%

45% 48% 48%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

P

Northeast Midwest South West erc

e

nta

g

e of una

s

sisted v

ery-lowin

c

ome renters with w

orst case 

n

e

e

ds, 1999

Cities Suburbs Nonmetro

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

49%

45% 48% 48%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

P

Northeast Midwest South West erc

e

nta

g

e of una

s

sisted v

ery-lowin

c

ome renters with w

orst case 

n

e

e

ds, 1999

Cities Suburbs Nonmetro

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

 43
Needs were also common in suburbs 

Worst case needs were almost as common among unassisted very-low-income renters in the 

suburbs (46 percent) as in central cities (48 percent), on average. In the West, 48 percent of 

unassisted very-low-income renters had worst case problems in both the suburbs and the 

cities, and worst case needs also affected 48 percent of suburbanites in the Northeast. Among

suburbanites, worst case problems were least likely in the Midwest (42 percent), 3 percentage

points less than the rate in midwestern cities (45 percent). Across the United States, 1.7 

million, or 35 percent, of those with worst case needs lived in suburban parts of metropolitan 

areas. Most of those households (30 percent of the 35 percent) lived in urbanized parts of the 

suburbs. Indeed, worst case needs are actually more common among unassisted renters in 

urbanized suburbs (49 percent) than in cities or any other type of location. By contrast, 

unassisted renters were least likely to have worst case problems in rural parts of suburban 

counties (36 percent). 

Needs were least likely in nonmetropolitan locations 

In the nation and in every region, worst case problems were less frequent in 1999 outside of 

metropolitan areas than in central cities or suburban counties. Nationally, only 40 percent 

(650,000) of unassisted very-low-income renters in nonmetropolitan areas have severe 

problems. Nonmetropolitan worst case problems were least likely in the Northeast (31 

percent of unassisted renters) and most common in the West (44 percent). Within 

nonmetropolitan locations, worst case needs were more likely in towns and urban areas (42 

percent) than in rural locations (37 percent). 

1997–99 drops in worst case needs were only significant in the Northeast, while longer term 

growth was fastest in the West and in suburbs 

Regionally, decreases in worst case problems between 1997 and 1999 were greatest in the 

Northeast, where needs fell by 18 percent. Needs decreased least in the Midwest (2 percent)

and the South (4 percent). Between 1987 and 1999, worst case needs also fell in the Midwest 

but rose in the West and the South. As Exhibit 2–17 details, worst case needs fell between 

1997 and 1999 in each of the four census regions. Only in the Northeast, however, was the 

drop large enough to be statistically significant. 

Between 1987, when worst case problems were at their previous national low of 4.6 million, 

and 1999, the number of households with worst case needs rose in every region except the 

Midwest. The rise during that 12-year period was greatest (23 percent) in the West, where 

needs rose from 1.1 to 1.4 million. The increase was also significant and slightly above 

average in the South (14 percent). In the Northeast, needs in 1999 were not significantly

different from their level of 1 million in 1987. As discussed below, during this period the 

incidence of worst case needs rose in the West, fell in the Northeast, and was stable in the 

South and the Midwest. 

Looking more closely at changes within regions, Exhibit 2–18 shows that in every region, 

1987–99 growth in worst case needs was greatest in the suburbs. The rate of growth of worst 

case needs in the suburbs was highest in the West (56 percent) and the South (24 percent). 

Needs also grew (by 19 percent) in northeastern suburbs, whereas worst case problems 

 44
dropped by a third in northeastern locations outside of metropolitan areas. In the Midwest, 

similarly, drops in worst case problems were largest in nonmetropolitan locations. The West 

was the only region in which the number of worst case problems grew (slightly) outside of 

metropolitan areas between 1987 and 1999. 

Exhibit 2–17 Worst case needs fell between 1997 and 1999 in all regions, 

but they rose most in the West and the South between 1987 

and 1999. 

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Northeast Midwest South West P

ercenta

g

e chan

g

e in

w

orst case need

s

1987–99 1997–99

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the

.

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Northeast Midwest South West P

ercenta

g

e chan

g

e in

w

orst case need

s

1987–99 1997–99

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1987, 1997 and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

Exhibit 2–18 Between 1987 and 1999, worst case needs rose most in 

western and southern suburbs. 

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Northeast Midwest South West

P

erc

e

ntage

c

h

ange in worst c

a

s

e ne

e

d

s,

1987–9

9

Cities Suburbs Nonmetro

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1987 and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Northeast Midwest South West

P

erc

e

ntage

c

h

ange in worst c

a

s

e ne

e

d

s,

1987–9

9

Cities Suburbs Nonmetro

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1987 and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

 45
Reflecting these regional decreases in needs in nonmetropolitan areas, the probability of 

having worst case problems in nonmetropolitan areas dropped among unassisted very-lowincome renters, from 42 percent in 1987 to 40 percent in 1999. Worst case needs also became 

less likely in central cities, dropping from 51 percent to 48 percent of unassisted very-lowincome renters. Suburban growth in worst case problems mirrored population growth there, 

as the share of unassisted very-low-income renters with worst case problems remained 

essentially constant at 46 percent in both 1987 and 1999. 

Renters were least likely to be assisted in suburbs, most likely in nonmetropolitan areas 

In 1999, very-low-income renters were least likely to receive rental assistance in suburbs (25 

percent) and most likely to be assisted outside of nonmetropolitan areas (32 percent). In

central cities, 30 percent of these renters were assisted. These differentials were observed 

throughout the 1990s, although, like worst case needs, the numbers of renters receiving

assistance grew most quickly in western and southern suburbs during this period. 

As Exhibit 2–19 suggests, the continuing high incidence of worst case problems in suburban 

areas may reflect the fact that fewer very-low-income renters receive federal, state, or local

rental assistance in suburban locations than in central cities or nonmetropolitan areas. In

1999, suburban renters were those least likely to be assisted in all regions of the country. 

Assistance reached the fewest renters in western suburbs, where only one-fifth of very-lowincome renters were assisted; in northeastern suburbs, 30 percent of these renters were 

assisted. 

Exhibit 2–19 Within regions, very-low-income renters least often are 

assisted in the suburbs. 

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Northeast Midwest South West

P

erc

e

ntage of v

ery-low-incom

e

renters with assista

n

ce, 1999

Cities Suburbs Nonmetro

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Northeast Midwest South West

P

erc

e

ntage of v

ery-low-incom

e

renters with assista

n

ce, 1999

Cities Suburbs Nonmetro

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

 46
In all regions but the South, renters were most likely to be assisted outside of metropolitan 

areas. In the South, city renters were most likely to receive assistance, while in the other 

three regions, the shares of city renters with assistance fell below the assistance rates in

nonmetropolitan locations but above those in suburban rings. 

Appendix tables A–11 and A–12 reveal that these locational differences in assistance are 

long-standing. Throughout the 1990s, very-low-income renters have been most likely to 

receive assistance if they lived outside of metropolitan areas but least likely if they lived in 

the suburbs. 

Nonetheless, trends from 1987 to 1999 show assistance shifting among locations in 

directions generally paralleling shifts in worst case needs. This finding is reassuring in 

suggesting that the formulas used to allocate additional assistance across the country were 

responding to a certain extent to population migration and changing locations of serious 

problems, at least at this level of aggregation. As Exhibit 2–20 compared with Exhibit 2–18 

shows, the numbers of households receiving assistance grew most rapidly in western suburbs 

and secondly in southern suburbs, the two locations with the highest growth in worst case 

needs. There were anomalies, however: the growth rate for assistance was third highest in

western cities, where needs did not greatly increase, and also high in northeastern

nonmetropolitan areas, where needs fell sharply.

Exhibit 2–20 Between 1987 and 1999, numbers assisted rose most in 

western and southern suburbs. 

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Northeast Midwest South West

P

ercenta

g

e chan

g

e i

n assisted re

nter

s,

1987–99

Cities Suburbs Nonmetro

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1987 and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Northeast Midwest South West

P

ercenta

g

e chan

g

e i

n assisted re

nter

s,

1987–99

Cities Suburbs Nonmetro

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1987 and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

 47
Over the long term, worst case needs grew fastest in the West 

Over the two decades between 1978 and 1999, numbers of very-low-income renters, renters 

with worst case needs, and renters receiving rental assistance all increased most rapidly in the 

West. During this period, the West shifted from having the lowest incidence of unassisted 

very-low-income renters with worst case problems (42 percent in 1978) to the most (48 

percent) in 1999. The incidence of worst case problems fell in the Northeast (from 51 percent 

to 47 percent). In both the South (45 percent) and the Midwest (43 percent), the shares of 

such renters with worst case problems were essentially the same in 1999 as they had been in 

1978. 

Changes for cities, suburbs, and nonmetropolitan areas cannot be examined for longer time 

periods than 1985 to 1999 because only since 1985 have those areas been consistently

defined (based on the redefinition of metropolitan statistical areas done in 1983 based on 

1980 census results). Over the period between 1978 and 1999, however, changes at the 

regional level show the number of households receiving assistance approximately doubling

in each region (Exhibit 2–21), with growth lowest in the South (88 percent over the 21 years) 

and highest in the West (124 percent). 

Exhibit 2–21 Between 1978 and 1999, both worst case needs and 

assistance rose most in the West. 

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

Northeast Midwest South West

P

ercenta

g

e chan

g

e, 1978–99

Very-low-income renters Worst case Assisted

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1978 Annual Housing Survey and of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

Northeast Midwest South West

P

ercenta

g

e chan

g

e, 1978–99

Very-low-income renters Worst case Assisted

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1978 Annual Housing Survey and of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

 48
In each region, the number assisted grew at faster rates than either all very-low-income 

renters or renters with worst case needs. Indeed, in the Northeast, the number of unassisted 

very-low-income renters with worst case needs fell by 10 percent over these two decades, 

even though the base of very-low-income renters rose by one-fourth. As a result, in the 

Northeast, the share of unassisted very-low-income renters having worst case needs fell from

54 percent in 1978 to 47 percent in 1999. In the Midwest and the South, the incidence of 

worst case needs in 1999 was essentially the same as in 1978, 43 percent and 45 percent, 

respectively. Although the number assisted grew more rapidly in the West than in the other 

three regions, its growth did not keep up with the relocation of very-low-income renters, and 

the West was the only region in which worst case needs rose more quickly than very-lowincome renters, almost doubling from 750,000 to 1.4 million. As a result, in the West, the 

share of unassisted renters having worst case needs rose from 42 percent (the lowest regional 

incidence in 1978) to 48 percent, which was the highest regional rate in 1999. 

The next chapter discusses losses in the stock of rental housing affordable to extremely-lowincome households during the 1990s and shows how regional and subregional variations in 

shortages of affordable and available housing contributed to this regional shift in worst case 

needs. 

 49
 50
Chapter 3 

The Continuing Challenge: Severe and Worsening Shortages of 

Housing Affordable to Extremely-Low-Income Renters 

A key factor contributing to the prevalence of worst case needs among extremely-low-income

households is the shortage of units both affordable and available to them. Averaged across 

the nation, in 1999 there were at most 78 affordable units for every 100 extremely-lowincome renter households needing them. Moreover, almost half of these most affordable units 

were occupied by renters with incomes above 30 percent of area median income, leaving

fewer units both affordable and available to extremely-low-income renters. Shortages of 

affordable and available units were most pressing for extremely-low-income renters needing

three or more bedrooms for their families. Across the United States, shortages of affordable

housing were worst in cities and suburbs in the West and Northeast, the locations with the 

highest incidence of worst case needs among unassisted very-low-income renters. 

Despite the welcome 1997–99 decreases in numbers of extremely-low-income renters and of 

households with worst case needs, shortages of housing affordable and available to 

extremely-low-income renters continued to worsen during this 2-year period. This occurred 

because losses in the number of units affordable to renters with extremely low incomes 

accelerated. In 1999, below-fair market rent (FMR) vacancy rates, like shortages of housing

affordable and available to extremely-low-income renters, were lowest in suburbs in the 

Northeast and cities and suburbs in the West. These were also the locations where FMRs in 

2002 were highest in relation to area median income (AMI). Although almost half the U.S. 

population, and three-fourths of the population outside metropolitan areas, lived where FMRs 

were affordable to incomes below 50 percent of AMI, in the tightest, most expensive,

metropolitan housing markets FMRs equaled 30 percent of incomes that ranged as high as 76 

percent of AMI.

Looking over a longer time frame, between 1985 and 1999 the number of units redefined by

rising income limits as affordable to extremely-low-income renters almost equaled the added 

number of such renters, leaving the severe shortage of units affordable to renters with 

extremely low incomes essentially unchanged. Over the same period, however, a 3.8-millionunit increase in units affordable to incomes between 30 percent and 60 percent of AMI was 

almost three times as large as the number of renter households added in these income ranges. 

This added surplus of relatively affordable units allowed median rent burdens to fall between 

1985 and 1999 for every income group except extremely-low-income renters. This analysis 

confirms the ongoing severe need for more housing affordable to renters with incomes below 

30 percent of AMI, while demonstrating no comparable need for additional rental units 

affordable to families with incomes above 60 percent of AMI.

Shortages of affordable units are worst for renters with extremely low

incomes 

Extremely-low-income renters often pay excessive rent burdens because there are marked 

shortages of units with rents that they could afford. The extent of such shortages has 

51
conventionally been measured by comparing numbers of renters below an income cutoff with 

numbers of units affordable1

 to households with incomes at or below that cutoff. As Exhibit 

3–1 shows, in 1999 there were 8.5 million renters nationwide with incomes at or below 30 

percent of AMI but only 6.7 million occupied or vacant-for-rent units with rents affordable to 

households with incomes at or below 30 percent of AMI. A “mismatch” ratio of 78 occupied 

or vacant affordable units for every 100 renters thus represents a shortage of 22 units per 100 

extremely-low-income renters, or 1.8 million units. 

Exhibit 3–1 1999 indicators of shortages of housing affordable to extremelylow-income renters 

Shortage of

affordable units

Absolute

Per 100

renters

“Mismatch” ratio

Affordable units

per 100 renters

Renters with incomes 0–30%

of AMI (in thousands) 8,513

Units with rents 30% of

0–30% of AMI (in thousands) 6,681

-1,832 -22 78

Affordable units occupied by

renters with income>30% AMI 3,111

Units affordable and available

to income 0–30% AMI 3,570

-4,943 -58 42

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

Is affordable housing available? As detailed in prior worst case reports, however,2

 such a 

national summary comparing all extremely-low-income renter households with all units 

affordable to incomes at or below the 30 percent of median cutoff has several weaknesses. 

First, it ignores the reality that many of the units with rents affordable to households with 

incomes at or below 30 percent of AMI—in 1999, 3.1 million of these units—were occupied 

by households with incomes above that cutoff, as the exhibit shows. The shortage of units 

that are both affordable and actually available to extremely-low-income renters is thus much

more serious. Nationally, there were only 42 affordable units potentially available for every

100 renters with incomes below 30 percent of AMI, resulting in a shortfall of 58 units per 

100 extremely-low-income renters, or 4.9 million units. As used here, “available” means 

either vacant for rent or already occupied by an extremely-low-income household. 

 1

 Because assisted renters must contribute 30 percent of their income for housing, this approach assumes that 

spending 30 percent of income for housing is “affordable.” Using this approach for incomes ranging from 0 to

30 percent of AMI overestimates the number of units that are actually affordable to their occupants, however, 

because it includes units with rents affordable to incomes near 30 percent of AMI that are occupied by renters

with much lower incomes. Appendix E shows alternative measures of the relationship between the affordable 

stock and extremely-low-income renters; a more conservative approach gives a mismatch ratio of 64. 2

 See “Measures of Housing Mismatch,” HUD 1996, pp. 36–37. 

52
Does the unit have enough bedrooms? A second real-life complication occurs because of 

mismatches by size: many units are either too small or too large for the households occupying

them. When units are too small, the households living in them are crowded (and would not be 

allowed to use a voucher for the unit, even if they wished to); when units have more 

bedrooms than the occupant requires, they are not available for larger households that need 

more bedrooms. In 1999, almost two-fifths of the units with rents affordable to extremely low 

incomes were occupied by households that had more bedrooms than they needed, and many

of these households paid less than 30 percent of their income for rent. As a result, as Exhibit 

3–2 illustrates, more than half of the 1.3 million extremely-low-income families who needed 

three or more bedrooms had fewer bedrooms than they needed. And even fewer of the 

extremely-low-income families needing large units had ones that were both affordable and 

large enough. As the rightmost bar of the exhibit shows, only 4 percent of the extremely-lowincome families needing four or more bedrooms had both enough bedrooms and a rent less 

than 30 percent of their income, as did only 16 percent of those needing three bedrooms. 

Thus, shortages of truly affordable and available housing are most pressing by far among

large units affordable to extremely low incomes. Vacancy rates for extremely-low-rent units

support this conclusion, since in 1999 average national rates ranged from 10 percent for units 

with zero to one bedroom down to only 5 percent for units with four or more bedrooms. 

Exhibit 3–2 Most extremely-low-income renters needing three or more 

bedrooms do not have them, and even fewer can afford them. 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

0–1 2 3 4+

Bedrooms needed

B

edroom

s oc

cupie

d

Enough+

Too few

Enough+can

afford

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

0–1 2 3 4+

Bedrooms needed

B

edroom

s oc

cupie

d

Enough+

Too few

Enough+can

afford

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

Are affordable available units in the right locations? Location is the final dimension that is 

not considered in any national comparison of affordable units against households needing

them, even though it is critical to measuring local shortages and devising policies to reduce 

shortages and make truly affordable housing available where it is needed. Available 

53
affordable units in North Dakota are useless to families needing them in California. The

discussion below only hints at the importance of this factor by showing that shortages vary

greatly by region and by city, suburb, or nonmetropolitan location within region. Once data 

from the 2000 decennial census become available, examining shortages at the level of state 

and local housing markets will be essential for understanding the local dimensions of the 

problem and developing appropriate and cost-effective policy responses. 

Shortages of affordable housing only occurred for extremely-low-income renters 

For federal rental assistance programs, “low” incomes are defined as incomes below 80 

percent of AMI. Yet as Exhibit 3–3 illustrates, when the numbers of renters with incomes 

in four low-income ranges relevant to rental housing policy are compared to the numbers 

of units affordable to households with incomes in those ranges, an overall shortage of 

affordable rental housing in 1999 existed at the national level only for households with 

incomes below 30 percent of AMI. In every other low-income group, there were many

more units than renters. In the income range of 31–50 percent of AMI, for example, there 

were 12 million affordable units but only 6.2 million renters, resulting in a 5.8 million 

unit surplus. In the 51–60 and 61–80 percent of AMI ranges, there were another 6.9 

million more units than renters, as the exhibit shows. 

Exhibit 3–3 Only for income below 30 percent of AMI is there a real shortage 

of affordable units. 

-5

0

5

10

15

Income as Percentage of Area Median Income

R

e

nter

s, affordable u

nits,

shortage or

s

urplu

s, 1

9

9

9

(millio

n

s)

Renters Affordable units Shortage?

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

-5

0

5

10

15

Income as Percentage of Area Median Income

R

e

nter

s, affordable u

nits,

shortage or

s

urplu

s, 1

9

9

9

(millio

n

s)

Renters Affordable units Shortage?

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

When renters in each income range are compared to units affordable to each range, below 

every income cutoff except 30 percent of AMI there are clearly more affordable units than

54
renters. In addition to detailing the number of renter households and affordable units in 

each income range in 1999, Exhibit 3–4 summarizes whether, cumulatively, there is a 

shortage or surplus of affordable units below each income cutoff shown. Because the 5.8 

million surplus of units in the 31–50 percent of AMI range far outnumbers the 1.8-

million-unit shortage of units affordable to incomes below 30 percent of median, 

nationally there were more units affordable below 50 percent of AMI than renters in that 

income category: 127 units per 100 very-low-income renters, or a cumulative surplus of 

27 units per 100 renters. 

Exhibit 3–4 Shortages of affordable housing are worst for renters with 

extremely low incomes. 

Shortage or Surplus Shortage or Surplus

Income range

Renter

households

Affordable

units In range

Cumulative

per 100

renters

Affordable

and

available

units* In range

Cumulative

per 100

renters

“Mismatch”

ratio

0-30% HAMFI 8,513 6,681 -1,832 -22 3,570 -4,943 -58 42

30.1-50% 6,243 12,092 5,848 27 7,907 1,664 -22 78

50.1-60% 2,787 6,948 4,161 47 4,916 2,129 -7 93

60.1-80% 4,483 7,274 2,790 50 6,925 2,442 6 106

80.1-100% 3,743 2,271 -1,472 37 4,523 780 8 108

100.1-120% 2,938 678 -2,259 25 3,172 234 8 108

120.1%+ 5,299 1,073 -4,226 9 6,005 706 9 109

 Total 34,007 37,017 3,011 9 37,017 3,011 9 109

* Units defined as available to any income range are those vacant or occupied by renters with income below the range's upper

cutoff.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

Because there are also more affordable units than renters in the ranges between 50 and 80 

percent of AMI, the cumulative national surplus of units over renters becomes greater as 

units and renters are added in through this range. The surplus of affordable units 

compared to renters is greatest at and below incomes of 80 percent of AMI, where there 

were 150 units of affordable housing for every 100 renters. This wide surplus of 50 units 

per 100 renters occurs because in 1999 almost all rental units (89 percent of the U.S.

total) had rents that are less than 30 percent of their area’s low-income (80 percent of 

AMI) cutoff, whereas only 64 percent of renters had these “low” incomes. Below 60 

percent of AMI, the highest rent level funded by the LIHTC program, the surplus of 

affordable units over renters—47 units per 100 renters—was almost as great as the 

surplus of 50 units per 100 renters with incomes below 80 percent of AMI. 

In income ranges above 80 percent of AMI, there were more renters in 1999 than units for 

which they would pay 30 percent of income. Therefore, as middle and upper income 

renters and units affordable to them are added in, the cumulative measure of affordable

units per renters becomes less, dropping at incomes above 120 percent of AMI to a 

surplus of 9 units per 100 renters overall, which reflects the national rental vacancy rate. 

But the excess of renters over units within middle and upper income ranges does not

mean that more units affordable above 80 percent of AMI are needed. Instead, almost all 

55
renters with incomes above 80 percent are living in units with lower rents and paying less 

than 30 percent of their incomes for housing. In 1999, for example, the median renter 

with income 80–100 percent of AMI paid only 20 percent of income for gross rent. 

Shortages of affordable and available housing also only occurred for extremely-low-income 

renters 

As discussed in the previous section, nationally the shortage of units that are both 

affordable and available to extremely-low-income renters was decidedly worse than the 

shortage of affordable housing alone. Nonetheless, as Exhibit 3–5 illustrates, even when 

this more stringent standard of availability is considered, again nationally there is only a 

shortage of available units compared to renters for incomes below 30 percent of AMI. In

sharp contrast to the deficit of 4.9 million units affordable and available to extremelylow-income renters, in each higher income range there are more affordable and available 

units than renters.3

 

 Exhibit 3–5 Shortages of affordable and available units are worse but also 

occur only among units affordable to incomes below 30 percent of 

AMI. 

-5

0

5

10

Income as Percentage of Area Median Income

Renters, affordable an

d

availa

ble u

nits, sh

orta

g

e or

s

urplu

s, 1

9

9

9 (

millions)

Renters Available units Shortage/Surplus

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

-5

0

5

10

Income as Percentage of Area Median Income

Renters, affordable an

d

availa

ble u

nits, sh

orta

g

e or

s

urplu

s, 1

9

9

9 (

millions)

Renters Available units Shortage/Surplus

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

Because the shortage of 4.9 million units affordable and available to extremely-lowincome renters is absolutely so much larger than the surpluses of units affordable and 

available to higher income ranges, cumulatively below 60 percent of AMI there are still 

 3

 A unit is defined as both affordable and available to a given income range if its rent is 30 percent of the 

incomes in that range and it is either vacant or occupied by a renter with income below the top of the range. For 

units in income ranges above 30 percent of AMI, available units thus include not only those occupied by renters

in that income range, but also those with renters with incomes below the particular range. 

56
fewer available units than renters (93 units per 100 renters or a modest shortage of 7 units 

per 100 renters, as shown in the right panels of Exhibit 3–4). Above 60 percent of AMI,

however, even cumulatively there are not shortages of affordable and available rental

housing. As Exhibit 3–4 details, at incomes above the 60 percent of AMI cutoff there 

were consistently more available and affordable units in the nation than renters. The 

mismatch ratios of 108 or 109 found consistently at rents affordable to incomes above 80 

percent of AMI imply that national vacancy rates were a loose 8 or 9 percent among these 

higher rent units. 

Exhibit 3–6 summarizes the severe mismatches between affordable and available units 

that face renters with extremely low incomes. Only for incomes below 60 percent of AMI

were there nationally fewer affordable and available units than renters needing such units, 

with the shortage by far most pressing for renters with incomes below 30 percent of AMI.

For incomes above 60 percent of AMI there were more units than renters, even though 

many of these renters live in less expensive units. 

Exhibit 3–6 Only for incomes below 60 percent of AMI were there fewer 

affordable and available units than renters. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Households by income Available and affordable

units by rent

120.1%+

100.1–120%

80.1–100%

60.1–80%

50.1–60%

30.1–50%

0–30% HAMFI

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

Millions of households or 

u

nits

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Households by income Available and affordable

units by rent

120.1%+

100.1–120%

80.1–100%

60.1–80%

50.1–60%

30.1–50%

0–30% HAMFI

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

Millions of households or 

u

nits

During the 1990s, numbers of affordable units dropped and shortages 

worsened 

Between 1997 and 1999, the loss in number of units affordable to households with extremely 

low incomes accelerated, speeding a pattern of decline observed since 1991 

Numbers of affordable units declined throughout the 1990s. As Exhibit 3–7 shows, units with 

rents affordable to incomes at 30 percent of 1999 AMI dropped by a highly significant 11 

57
percent (–820,000) between 1997 and 1999.4

 This decline was almost double the previous 2-

year record loss of 440,000 units (6 percent) in 1993–95. Compared to 1991, there were 1.6 

million fewer units with rents affordable to incomes below 30 percent of AMI in 1999. Thus, 

almost one-fifth of these most affordable units had rent increases or were withdrawn from the 

rental inventory in the 8 years between 1991 and 1999. 

Exhibit 3–7 Losses in units affordable to extremely-low-income renters 

accelerated between 1997 and 1999. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Million

s of r

ent

al unit

s

Rent affordable

to income <50%

median

Rent affordable

to income <30%

median

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

0

5

10

15

20

25

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Million

s of r

ent

al unit

s

Rent affordable

to income <50%

median

Rent affordable

to income <30%

median

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

Reversing the slight 1995–97 increase, the number of units affordable to incomes between 31 

percent and 50 percent of AMI also dropped between 1997 and 1999, falling by 340,000, or a 

marginally significant 3 percent. Taken together, in the 2 years between 1997 and 1999 the 

total number of units with rents affordable to incomes below 50 percent of AMI dropped by

1.2 million, a significant loss of 6 percent. And over the 8 years between 1991 and 1999, 

units with rents affordable to incomes at and below 50 percent of AMI declined by 2.2 

million, a drop of 11 percent. 

But numbers of units with rents affordable to incomes between 51 and 80 percent of AMI 

rose appreciably during the 1990s 

In contrast to declines in the numbers of rental units affordable to incomes below 30 

percent and 50 percent of AMI, during the 1990s, numbers of units affordable to lowincome renters rose by more than one-fifth. As Exhibit 3–8 summarizes, increases were 

greatest among units with rents affordable to incomes between 60 and 80 percent of AMI.

Between 1991 and 1999, the number of units with rents in this range rose by 1.3 million, 

 4

 To evaluate recent changes in numbers of units by 1999 rent categories, as is most appropriate for assessing

current trends in different rent ranges, these data categorize units by rent in relation to 1999 income limits

adjusted only for inflation. They exclude variation in income limits over time due to changes in real income. 

58
an increase of 22 percent. Almost half of this increase, 600,000 units, occurred in the 2 

years between 1997 and 1999. 

The number of units with rents affordable to incomes 51 to 60 percent of AMI also rose 

during the 1990s. This rent range added 460,000 units, an increase of 7 percent. Such net 

increases in numbers of units affordable to households with low incomes results from rent 

increases among existing units earlier affordable to incomes below 50 percent of AMI as

well as from new construction. 

Exhibit 3–8 During the 1990s, units affordable to very low incomes fell, 

whereas those affordable to low incomes increased in number. 

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

Rents as percentage of AMI to which affordable

C

h

ange in unit

s

(thous

ands)

0–30% 31–50%

51–60% 61–80%

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1991 and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

Rents as percentage of AMI to which affordable

C

h

ange in unit

s

(thous

ands)

0–30% 31–50%

51–60% 61–80%

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1991 and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

Units with rents affordable only to incomes above 80 percent of AMI also increased in 

number during the 1990s. Those with rents affordable to incomes 81–100 percent of AMI

rose by 180,000, an increase of 9 percent. Units with rents affordable above HUD’s 

adjusted median incomes increased markedly, although from a very small base. Over 1 

million units were added between 1991 and 1999, representing growth of more than 70 

percent in this highest rent range. 

Despite the 1997–99 drop in numbers of extremely-low-income renters, shortages of rental 

housing both affordable and available to them worsened 

As discussed in earlier chapters, the numbers of renters with extremely low incomes and with 

very low incomes fell between 1997 and 1999 because of income growth. The number of 

renters with incomes below 30 percent of the 1999 AMI dropped by 1.2 million, and this 

decrease was greater than the fall of 820,000 in numbers of units affordable to them. Because 

59
the reduction in renters exceeded the fall in units, the relative shortage of affordable units

eased slightly. Between 1997 and 1999, the “mismatch” ratio of affordable units per 100 

extremely-low-income renters rose marginally from 77 units per 100 renters in 1997 to 78 

units per 100 renters in 1999. Despite this slight improvement over the latest 2-year period, 

however, during the 1990s the ratio dropped by over one-tenth, falling from 89 units per 100 

renters in 1991 (Exhibit 3–9). 

Exhibit 3–9 During the 1990s, shortages of units affordable and available to

extremely-low-income renters worsened. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

A

1991 1995 1997 1999 ffordable r

e

ntal u

nits p

er 100 r

e

nters 

with i

ncomes <30% AMI

Affordable units

Affordable and

available

(occupied by

extremely-lowincome renters

or vacant for

rent)

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

A

1991 1995 1997 1999 ffordable r

e

ntal u

nits p

er 100 r

e

nters 

with i

ncomes <30% AMI

Affordable units

Affordable and

available

(occupied by

extremely-lowincome renters

or vacant for

rent)

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

More seriously, between 1997 and 1999, the numbers of units both affordable to extremelylow-income renters and available to them (either vacant for rent or already occupied by

extremely-low-income renters) continued to decline in number more rapidly than renters, as 

had occurred throughout the 1990s. By 1999, for every 100 renter households with incomes 

below 30 percent of AMI, there were only 42 units both affordable to and available for rent 

by them, a decrease from the 1997 ratio of 44 units per 100 households. This was well below 

the 47 units per 100 households observed in 1995. Moreover, it represented a 20-percent 

decline during the 1990s from 1991’s 52 units per 100 households. 

Because of this worsening shortage of units affordable and available to extremely-lowincome renters during the 1990s, below all low-income cutoffs the numbers of units both 

affordable and available dropped compared to renters. But as Exhibit 3–10 shows, the 

decline of 20 percent in units affordable and available below 30 percent of AMI was 

greater than the relative declines below any other income limit. By 1999, for every 100 

renter households with incomes below 50 percent of AMI, there were only 78 units both 

affordable to and available for rent by them, 10 percent below the 87 units per 100 

60
households observed in 1991. Units affordable and available to incomes below 60 percent 

of AMI dropped from 99 to 93 units per 100 renters between 1987 and 1999, a drop of 6 

percent. Among units affordable and available to incomes below 80 percent of AMI there 

was more stability, with the mismatch ratio declining only from 108 to 106 units per 100 

renters. 

Exhibit 3–10 From 1991 to 1999, affordable and available units per 100 renters 

dropped fastest (–20 percent) below 30 percent of AMI. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Af

1991 1995 1999

fordable an

d availa

ble u

nits 

p

er 

100 renters <in

c

o

me cutoff

<80% AMI

<60% AMI

<50% AMI

<30% AMI

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1991, 1995, and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Af

1991 1995 1999

fordable an

d availa

ble u

nits 

p

er 

100 renters <in

c

o

me cutoff

<80% AMI

<60% AMI

<50% AMI

<30% AMI

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1991, 1995, and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

To summarize, when the changing numbers of affordable units are compared to numbers 

of renters in the income groups needing these units, as they should be to evaluate the net 

impact of recent changes in both supply and demand, the picture of shortages during the 

1990s is one of continued deterioration, especially among units that are both affordable 

and available to extremely-low-income renters. Despite the welcome 1997–99 drop in 

numbers of renters with incomes below 30 percent of the 1999 AMI, during the 1990s 

shortages of affordable and available housing worsened most for this lowest income 

group. 

61
Is increased low- and moderate-income rental supply needed? 

These results confirm the persistence over time of severe needs for more units affordable

to renters with incomes below 30 percent of AMI. But they reveal little, if any, need for

additional units with rents affordable to incomes above 60 percent of AMI.

Recently, the Millennial Housing Commission (MHC) highlighted decreases between 

1985 and 1999 in the number of rental units affordable to low- and moderate-income 

households.5

 The MHC interpreted these reductions as demonstrating “the importance of 

producing many more units for working families with incomes between 60 percent and 

120 percent of area medians.” But further analysis of their data does not demonstrate a 

need for increased housing supply affordable to renters in this income range. 

The MHC did not consider two critical aspects of the 1985–99 changes. 

• Their focus on the 2.8-million drop in units affordable between 60 and 120 

percent of AMI ignored the greater rise in more affordable units. The MHC 

overlooked the fact that low-income renters may occupy units affordable to yet 

lower incomes, and often do so. As Exhibit 3–11 summarizes, the number of units 

affordable to incomes below 60 percent of AMI rose by 4.2 million, more than 

offsetting the drop in higher rent units. As the second line shows, cumulatively the 

number of affordable units rose below each of the MHC’s income cutoffs. 

• The MHC spotlighted changes in supply without considering changes in 

demand. While the cumulative supply of rental units affordable to low-income 

renters rose, the number of low-income renters grew more slowly. The 3.4-million 

increase in number of units affordable to incomes below 80 percent of AMI was 

almost half again as large as the 2.3 million renters added in these income ranges. 

When both these factors are considered, the data reveal modest improvement for all 

renters with incomes above 30 percent of AMI. Rather than needing more units affordable 

to incomes between 60 percent and 120 percent of AMI, renters with these incomes paid 

lower shares of income for rent in 1999 than were paid by equivalent renters in 1985. As 

the last panel of the exhibit documents, over this 14-year period, median rent burdens fell 

for all renters except those with incomes below 30 percent of AMI. For renters with 

incomes over 80 percent of AMI, burdens dropped by 8 to 12 percent.

 5 Meeting Our Nation’s Housing Challenges, report of the Bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission (2002), 

pp. 17–18 and Appendix table 2, p. 86. Rather than examining changes in units and renters classified by

inflation-adjusted 1999 income limits, as done here, the MHC report measured changes between 1985 and 1999 

in affordable rental units by adjusting income limits for both price inflation and real income growth. Because

substantial real income growth raised income limits over this period, this approach reclassifies many units as

more “affordable” in 1999 than they had been in 1985. 

62
Exhibit 3–11 Changes in affordable units and renters by income in 1985 and 

1999 show rent burdens increasing only for renters with incomes 

0 to 30 percent of AMI. 

Income as percent of HUD-adjusted area median income

0–30%

31–

50%

51–

60%

61–

80%

81–

100%

101–

120% 121%+

1985–99 change in units

affordable to income

limits in 1985 and 1999:

-in each income

category 396 2,700 1,060 (779) (1,561) (516) 571

-cumulative below upper

income cutoff 396 3,096 4,156 3,377 1,816 1,300 1,871

1985–99 change in

renters by income limits

in those years:

-in each income

category 366 1,096 262 556 14 163 (729)

-cumulative below upper

income cutoff 366 1,462 1,724 2,280 2,294 2,456 1,727

Median rent burden

within income group—

1985 57.2% 35.6% 29.3% 24.8% 21.9% 18.6% 14.2%

Median rent burden

within income group—

1999 57.6% 35.0% 28.2% 23.7% 20.2% 16.4% 12.5%

Percent change in rent

burden 0.7% -1.7% -3.8% -4.4% -7.8% -11.8% -12.0%

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1985 and 1999 American Housing Surveys done for the

Millennial Housing Commission.

Shortages of affordable housing were worst in the suburbs and central 

cities of the West and Northeast

Among the four census regions, shortages of affordable housing were worst in the West 

In 1999, shortages were worst in the West and Northeast at all rent levels. As Exhibit 3–12 

summarizes, in every region of the country there were fewer units affordable to households 

with income below 30 percent of AMI than there were renter households with these incomes. 

In the West, there were only 60 affordable units per 100 extremely-low-income renters, well 

below the national average of 79 units per 100 renters. The West also had the lowest regional 

ratio of affordable housing units compared to renters with incomes below 50 percent of area 

median (99 units per 100 renters). For incomes below 60 percent of AMI, the West—like the 

nation—had more affordable units than renters, a ratio of 128 units per 100 renters. But this 

was the lowest regional average.

In the Northeast, there were 78 affordable units per 100 extremely-low-income renters, a 

regional shortage near the national average ratio of 79. The region had more affordable 

63
units than renters with incomes below 50 percent of area median (117 units per 100 

renters), but this ratio was below the national average of 127 units per 100 renters. Below 

60 percent of AMI, there was a clear surplus, with 137 affordable units per 100 renters. 

Exhibit 3–12 Shortages of affordable housing were worst in 1999 in the West 

and Northeast. 

78 87 87

60

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Af

Northeast Midwest South West

ford

a

ble u

nits p

er 100 renters 

<in

com

e c

utoff, 1

9

9

9

Income

<30% AMI

Income

<50% AMI

Income

<60% AMI

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

78 87 87

60

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Af

Northeast Midwest South West

ford

a

ble u

nits p

er 100 renters 

<in

com

e c

utoff, 1

9

9

9

Income

<30% AMI

Income

<50% AMI

Income

<60% AMI

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

Shortages of affordable units were least pressing in the Midwest and South. Both regions 

had above-average numbers of affordable units compared to renters with incomes below 

30 percent of median (87 units each per 100 extremely-low-income renters). Both regions 

had sizeable surpluses of affordable units compared to renters with incomes below 50 

percent of AMI: 162 units per 100 very-low-income renters in the Midwest, and 135 units 

per 100 renters in the South. And the Midwest’s surplus of units per renters at the lowincome cutoff of 60 percent of AMI was, at 172, decidedly above the national average of 

147 units per 100 renters. 

Shortages of housing affordable and available to extremely-low-income renters were also 

worse in the West and Northeast 

As in the nation, in 1999 all four regions had more severe shortages of rental units both 

affordable and available to extremely-low-income renters, as well as to very-low-income 

renters. By this more realistic measure, shortages remained most pressing in the West and 

Northeast. 

In the West, as Exhibit 3–13 details, for every 100 renter households with incomes below 

30 percent of AMI there were only 31 units both affordable to them and available for rent

by them, well below the national average of 42 units. And for every 100 renter 

households with incomes below 50 percent of AMI in the West, there were only 64 units 

both affordable and available for rent to them. Cumulatively, the West still had shortages 

64
of affordable and available housing below 60 percent of AMI, with only 85 units per 100 

renters. For incomes below 80 percent of AMI, however, the supply of affordable and 

available units roughly balanced demand, with 101 units per 100 renters. 

Exhibit 3–13 Shortages of affordable and available housing were also worst 

for extremely-low-income renters in the West and Northeast. 

42 48 46

31

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Northeast Midwest South West

Affordable a

n

d availa

ble 

u

nits p

er 100 

re

nters 

<in

c

o

me c

utoff, 1

9

9

9

Income

<30% AMI

Income

<50% AMI

Income

<60% AMI

Income

<80% AMI

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

42 48 46

31

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Northeast Midwest South West

Affordable a

n

d availa

ble 

u

nits p

er 100 

re

nters 

<in

c

o

me c

utoff, 1

9

9

9

Income

<30% AMI

Income

<50% AMI

Income

<60% AMI

Income

<80% AMI

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

In the Northeast as in the nation, there were 42 affordable and available units for every

100 renter households with incomes below 30 percent of AMI. Below incomes of 50 and 

60 percent of AMI, the Northeast had shortages slightly worse than the national averages, 

with 74 and 90 units per 100 renters, respectively. Like the West, the supply of available 

units affordable to incomes at 80 percent of AMI approximated demand, with 101 units 

per 100 renters. 

Considering both affordability and availability, shortages were again least severe in the 

Midwest. In 1999, it had 48 affordable and available units for every 100 renter 

households with incomes below 30 percent of AMI, and 94 units for every 100 renter 

households with incomes below 50 percent of AMI. For incomes at 60 and 80 percent of 

AMI, there were not shortages, but instead more units than renters. 

With 46 units per 100 renters, the South’s shortage of available units affordable to renters 

with incomes below 30 percent of AMI was similar to that in the Midwest. At higher

incomes, however, the ratios of affordable and available units per 100 renters were lower 

in the South than in the Midwest. For incomes at 80 percent of AMI, the surplus of 

available units was almost as large as in the Midwest, with 109 units per 100 renters.

Within regions, shortages of affordable housing were consistently worse in cities and 

suburbs; by contrast, outside of metropolitan areas there were surpluses of housing 

affordable to extremely-low-income renters in all four regions 

65
As Appendix table A–15 documents for 1999, on average across the nation, shortages of 

affordable units were worst in central cities, where there were only 62 affordable units per

100 extremely-low-income renters. Shortages also characterized suburbs, where there were 

75 affordable units per 100 extremely-low-income renters. These shortages within 

metropolitan areas stood in marked contrast to conditions outside metropolitan areas, where 

there were large surpluses of affordable units in every region. On average across the nation, 

there were 141 affordable units per 100 extremely-low-income renters in nonmetropolitan 

areas. 

Within regions, Western cities and suburbs had the most severe shortages of units affordable 

to incomes below 30 percent of AMI, with 48 and 51 units per 100 renters (Exhibit 3–14). 

Shortages were almost as severe in cities in the South, with 62 units per 100 renters. Outside 

metropolitan areas, large surpluses of units affordable to incomes below 30 percent of AMI

occurred in all four regions, varying from 134 units per 100 renters in the Midwest to 163 

units per 100 renters in the West. 

Exhibit 3–14 Within each region, shortages of housing affordable to 

extremely-low-income renters are worst in central cities. 

70 68 62

48

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Northeast Midwest South West

Affordable u

nits p

er 100 re

nters with

income <

30% AMI, 1999

Cities

Suburbs

Nonmetro

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

70 68 62

48

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Northeast Midwest South West

Affordable u

nits p

er 100 re

nters with

income <

30% AMI, 1999

Cities

Suburbs

Nonmetro

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

Shortages of rental housing both affordable and available to extremely-low-income 

renters were also more serious within metropolitan areas than outside them (Exhibit 

3–15). Shortages of housing affordable and available to incomes below 50 and 60 percent 

of AMI were also markedly worse in metropolitan areas. When both the availability and 

affordability of units are accounted for, shortages were worse in suburbs than in cities 

both nationally and in most regions. This suggests that housing demand is higher relative 

to supply in suburbs than in cities, giving higher income households more incentive to 

live in lower rent units. Vacancy rates among units at different affordability levels clearly

support this interpretation in both the Northeast and Midwest. In these two regions, 

66
vacancy rates were consistently lowest in the suburbs, whereas the pattern is more mixed 

in the South and West. Absolutely, vacancy rates were lowest—generally at or below 5 

percent—in northeastern suburbs and western suburbs and cities. This is consistent with 

the greater shortages of affordable and available housing, and the higher incidence of 

worst case needs, found there. 

Exhibit 3–15 Except in the South, shortages of housing affordable and 

available to extremely-low-income renters were worst in the 

suburbs. 

45 46 42

29

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Northeast Midwest South West

Affordable an

d a

v

aila

ble u

nits 

p

er 1

0

0

re

nter

s

with income <30

% AMI, 1999

Cities

Suburbs

Nonmetro

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

45 46 42

29

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Northeast Midwest South West

Affordable an

d a

v

aila

ble u

nits 

p

er 1

0

0

re

nter

s

with income <30

% AMI, 1999

Cities

Suburbs

Nonmetro

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

Although shortages of affordable and available housing were most severe in the West 

throughout the 1990s, during this period shortages worsened more in the three other 

regions 

As Exhibit 3–16 shows, the 1991–99 deterioration in shortages of units affordable and 

available to incomes below 30 percent of AMI occurred in all regions outside the West. 

Conditions worsened most in the South, where the ratio of available units per 100 renters 

with incomes below 30 percent of AMI fell from 61 in 1991 to 46 in 1999. In both the 

Midwest and Northeast, units per renter declined by some 10 units during these 8 years, from 

57 to 48 in the Midwest and from 52 to 42 in the Northeast. Although shortages of these units 

were clearly worst in the West throughout this period, the ratio of available units per 100 

extremely-low-income renters was quite stable there, dropping only from 33 to 31 during the 

1990s. 

In the 1990s, the absolute shortages of units affordable to extremely low incomes worsened 

only in metropolitan areas. In both 1991 and 1999, shortages of affordable units compared to 

renters were worst in cities in all four regions. Ratios of affordable units per 100 renters were 

lowest in Western cities in both 1991 and 1999 (falling from 53 to 48 units per 100 renters). 

Over the decade, shortages worsened most in northeastern suburbs, where the ratio 

67
plummeted from 89 to 74, and in midwestern cities, where the ratio fell from 83 to 68. Ratios 

of affordable units per 100 renters also fell in metropolitan areas for incomes below 50 

percent and 60 percent of AMI.

Exhibit 3–16 Shortages of affordable housing available to extremely-lowincome renters were worst in the West during the 1990s but

worsened more elsewhere. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

 Af

1991 1995 1999

fordable an

d availa

ble u

nits p

er 

100 re

nters with i

ncome <30% AMI

Northeast

Midwest

South

West

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1991, 1995, and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

 Af

1991 1995 1999

fordable an

d availa

ble u

nits p

er 

100 re

nters with i

ncome <30% AMI

Northeast

Midwest

South

West

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1991, 1995, and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

Outside of metropolitan areas, by contrast, there was nationally a surplus of 130 units per 100 

extremely-low-income renters in 1991, and by 1999 that surplus had grown to 141 units per 

100 renters. The extent of this nonmetropolitan surplus widened in all regions except the 

South, shooting up most in the Northeast (from 103 to 152). Surpluses of units compared to 

renters were even larger in 1991 for nonmetropolitan units affordable to incomes below 50 

percent and 60 percent of AMI (161 and 157 units per 100 renters, respectively) and also 

widened over the decade. The increases were greatest in the Midwest and Northeast,

suggesting overproduction there of units in this rent range. 

During this period, as Exhibit 3–17 summarizes, shortages of housing affordable and 

available to incomes below 30 percent of AMI worsened both within and outside 

metropolitan areas. Shortages were worst in the suburbs in both 1991 and 1999, but the 

supply relative to demand deteriorated most quickly in central cities and least in 

nonmetropolitan areas. As Appendix table A–16 details, the central-city fall was greatest in 

southern and midwestern cities. Among units in higher rent ranges, ratios of units per renters 

fell less dramatically during the 1990s, but shortages were also greatest in suburban parts of 

metropolitan areas. At all rent levels and in all regions, shortages of affordable housing were 

least serious outside of metropolitan areas. 

68
This information on increasing shortages in metropolitan areas in all regions shows clearly

that affordable housing became even less available during the 1990s for those extremely-lowincome and very-low-income households who did not receive rental assistance. To evaluate 

the availability of units for those who receive vouchers, an examination follows of the supply

of units with rents below local fair market rents (FMRs). 

Exhibit 3–17 Shortages of affordable housing available to extremely-lowincome renters worsened most in metropolitan areas 1991–99. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

A

U.S. Cities Suburbs Nonmetro fford

a

ble and a

v

ailable units per

100 r

e

nters with i

ncome <

30% AMI

1991

1999

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1991 and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

A

U.S. Cities Suburbs Nonmetro fford

a

ble and a

v

ailable units per

100 r

e

nters with i

ncome <

30% AMI

1991

1999

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1991 and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

Units with rents below local FMRs are least available in metropolitan areas in 

the West and Northeast; in such locations, FMRs also tend to be high in 

relation to area median incomes 

Vacancy rates for units with rents below FMRs are lowest for units with three or more

bedrooms, especially in the West and Northeast 

In 1999, some 22.4 million rental units, three-fifths of the rental stock, had rents at or below 

local FMRs.

6

 One-fifth of this number were inadequate, although only 4 percent were 

severely inadequate. Another 6.4 million units had rents between the FMR and 120 percent of 

 6

 Because FMRs for different areas are defined as the 40th (or in some locations, 50th) percentile of the rents in

nonluxury adequate units occupied by recent movers, some expect that the share of the rental stock falling below

the FMR must equal either 40 or 50 percent by definition. This, however, is unlikely to be the case. Units with

long-time occupants frequently have below-average rents, as do inadequate units. Moreover, based on program

experience that landlords charge a premium for larger families and that such families have the most difficulty

finding units eligible for participation in the program, FMRs for three-bedroom and larger units are set at abovenormal market relationships for any given payment standard level (e.g., 40th or 50th percentile). These estimates 

of below-FMR vacancies from the 1999 AHS are based on 1995 FMRs updated only for inflation. Nationally, 

the increase in average FMRs between 1995 and 1999 was quite similar to inflation during that period as

measured by the Consumer Price Index.

69
the FMR. Because HUD can approve payment standards as high as 120 percent of FMR (or 

even higher) in tight markets or areas with particularly high rents, this means that almost twothirds of the rental stock is adequate and potentially available for use with vouchers. Yet 

agencies that administer vouchers have reported that increasing numbers of searchers with 

vouchers are unable to find units that qualify. This may occur in part because vacancy rates 

among units with below-FMR rents are low in the West and Northeast, particularly among

the multibedroom units needed by families. As Exhibit 3–18 shows, in 1999, vacancy rates 

were 10 percent or higher for all unit sizes except large units in the Midwest and South. In the 

West and Northeast, however, total vacancy rates among units with rents below local FMRs

were only 5 percent and 6 percent, respectively, implying that this submarket is quite tight. 

And vacancy rates there were particularly low—only 3 or 4 percent—among units with three 

or more bedrooms. 

Exhibit 3–18 Vacancy rates for units with below-FMR rents were low in the 

West and Northeast in 1999, particularly among units with three 

or more bedrooms. 

Northeast Midwest South West U.S.

Units with below-FMR rents

(in thousands) 5,460 4,363 7,099 5,469 22,390

 % vacant 6% 11% 10% 5% 8%

0–1 bedrooms 2,141 1,394 1,684 1,836 7,056

 % vacant 7% 12% 12% 7% 9%

2 bedrooms 2,069 1,819 3,074 2,181 9,143

 % vacant 6% 11% 11% 5% 8%

3+ bedrooms 1,250 1,149 2,341 1,452 6,192

 % vacant 4% 7% 8% 3% 6%

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

In terms of location within regions, vacancy rates for units with below-FMR rents were 

lowest in suburbs and cities in the West and the Northeast (Exhibit 3–19). In 1999, belowFMR vacancy rates were lowest in northeastern suburbs (4 percent) and also quite low (5 

percent) in western suburbs and cities. In every region, suburbs had the lowest below-FMR 

vacancy rates. Below-FMR vacancy rates were highest, a very loose 12 percent, in the 

nonmetropolitan parts of the South and West. 

Thus the locations with lowest vacancy rates among units with rents below local FMRs

were also those where shortages of housing both affordable and available to extremelylow-income renters were worst. These are also the locations where very-low-income 

renters were most likely to have worst case problems. 

70
Exhibit 3–19 In 1999, below-FMR vacancy rates were lowest in suburbs and 

cities in the West and Northeast. 

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

Northeast Midwest South West

Vacan

c

y r

ates, u

nits

with rents

<1995 40t

h

p

ercentile F

MRs

City

Suburb

Non

metro

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

Northeast Midwest South West

Vacan

c

y r

ates, u

nits

with rents

<1995 40t

h

p

ercentile F

MRs

City

Suburb

Non

metro

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

Across the United States, FMRs were affordable to incomes ranging from 35 to 76 percent of 

area median income in 2002 

These vacancy rates imply that in 1999 there were serious shortages of below-FMR units in 

metropolitan areas in the West and Northeast.7

 In all locations, units with three or more

bedrooms were most needed. Needs for additional units were less pressing in other locations 

and for units with two or fewer bedrooms. 

At present, the two federal programs subsidizing production or rehabilitation of rental units 

are the low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) and HOME. HOME units must have rents 

that are the lesser of the FMR or rents affordable to incomes at 65 percent of AMI. Thus 

additional units produced with HOME funds should always augment the supply of belowFMR units. Rents for the LIHTC must, at the decision of the owner, be affordable to incomes 

at 50 percent or 60 percent of AMI, but they are not required to be at or below the FMR. In

locations where FMRs are affordable to incomes below 50 percent of AMI, LIHTC units are 

not likely to increase supplies of units with below-FMR rents. 

 7

 The analysis uses FMRs based on the 40th percentile of the distribution of rents in nonluxury, adequate units 

occupied by recent movers. In response to evidence of tightening supply, in 2001 HUD raised FMRs to the 50th

percentile of this rent distribution in 39 tight metropolitan markets. 

71
Exhibit 3–20 Across U.S. MSAs, 2002 FMRs were affordable to very different

incomes as a percentage of area median income. 

MSAs with highest ratios*

% of HAMFI where

2-bedroom FMR =

30% of income

Barnstable-Yarmouth, MA 76.3%

San Francisco, CA PMSA 76.3%

Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA 74.0%

Yuma, AZ 72.5%

New York, NY PMSA 71.3%

San Jose, CA PMSA 71.2%

Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc, CA 70.5%

Miami, FL PMSA 70.4%

Atlantic-Cape May, NJ PMSA 69.1%

Vallejo-Fairfield-Napa, CA PMSA 68.3%

Santa Rosa, CA PMSA 68.0%

Oakland, CA PMSA 67.7%

Chico-Paradise, CA MSA 67.2%

Medford-Ashland, OR MSA 67.1%

Jersey City, NJ PMSA 67.0%

San Diego, CA MSA 66.8%

San Luis Obispo-Atascadero-Paso Robles, CA MSA 66.6%

Nassau-Suffolk, NY PMSA 66.2%

Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ 66.1%

El Paso, TX MSA 65.6%

Dutchess County, NY PMSA 65.4%

* excludes MSAs in Puerto Rico

The relationship between local FMRs and AMIs varies greatly across the United States.8

 As 

Exhibit 3–20 illustrates, in some MSAs the 2002 FMRs are affordable to incomes as high as 

76 percent of AMI. The MSAs where FMRs are only affordable to incomes above 65 percent 

of AMI are predominantly located in California and around New York City. In other MSAs, 

however, mainly ones in the Midwest, FMRs equal 30 percent of income for incomes as low 

as 35 percent of AMI.

 8

 The ratio of FMR to AMI represents the percentage of the AMI at which a two-bedroom FMR equals 30 

percent of the income of a three-person household. If the local payment standard is set at the FMR, this ratio

may be interpreted as the point in the local income distribution above which a family with a voucher would no

longer receive a rental subsidy.

72
Exhibit 3–20 (continued)

MSAs with lowest ratios

% of HAMFI where

2-bedroom FMR =

30% of income

Wichita, KS MSA 40.2%

Wausau, WI MSA 39.9%

Anniston, AL MSA 39.8%

Owensboro, KY MSA 39.8%

Decatur, IL MSA 39.3%

Dothan, AL MSA 39.2%

St. Joseph, MO MSA 39.2%

Appleton-Oshkosh-Neenah, WI MSA 39.0%

Des Moines, IA MSA 38.9%

Huntsville, AL MSA 38.9%

Topeka, KS MSA 38.7%

Lincoln, NE MSA 38.7%

Bloomington-Normal, IL MSA 38.6%

Columbia, MO MSA 38.5%

Decatur, AL MSA 38.4%

St. Louis, MO-IL MSA 38.2%

Springfield, IL MSA 38.1%

Dubuque, IA MSA 37.9%

Rochester, MN MSA 37.9%

Sheboygan, WI MSA 37.0%

Cedar Rapids, IA MSA 34.5%

Source: Calculated from 2002 official FMRs and 60 percent of HAMFI used to define

LIHTC Difficult Development Areas.

Almost half the U.S. population, and three-fourths of the nonmetropolitan population, lived 

where FMRs were affordable to incomes below 50 percent of AMI 

The distribution of U.S. population in relation to the ratio between FMRs and AMI (Exhibit 

3–21) shows that, in 2002, two-bedroom FMRs were on average affordable to incomes 

around 50 percent of AMI. Approximately half of the U.S. population (54 percent) lived 

where FMRs were affordable to incomes higher than 50 percent of AMI, and 46 percent 

where FMRs were affordable to income below 50 percent of AMI. 

FMRs tended to be higher in relation to AMI in metropolitan areas. In MSAs, 39 percent of

the population lived where FMRs were affordable to incomes below 50 percent of AMI,

while in nonmetropolitan locations, almost three-fourths of the population lived where FMRs 

were affordable to incomes below 50 percent of AMI. Fully four-fifths of the U.S.

population, and 90 percent of the nonmetropolitan population, lived in locations where FMRs 

were affordable to incomes at or below 60 percent of AMI.

73
Exhibit 3–21 Almost one-half of the U.S. population, and three-fourths of the 

nonmetropolitan population, lives where 2002 FMRs are 

affordable to incomes below 50 percent of AMI. 

Percentage of population living where

FMRs are < %AMI cutoff at left:

% of HAMFI where

2-bedroom FMR =

30% of income Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan U.S. total

75% 98% 99% 98%

70% 92% 97% 93%

65% 87% 95% 88%

60% 77% 92% 80%

55% 61% 84% 66%

50% 39% 74% 46%

45% 17% 52% 24%

40% 3% 27% 7%

35% 0% 4% 1%

30% 0% 0% 0%

Population, 1990 229,192,634 56,240,403 285,433,037

Source: Calculated from 2002 official FMRs and 60 percent of HAMFI used to define LIHTC Difficult

Development Areas.

Northeastern and western MSAs had the highest FMRs in relation to AMI, while in MSAs in 

the South and Midwest, FMRs were almost as low in relation to AMI as they were outside of 

metropolitan areas

In 1999, before the 2001 increase in FMRs, the distribution of rental units also showed that 

FMRs were low relative to AMIs in nonmetropolitan areas. And when regional distributions 

are distinguished, FMRs in metropolitan areas in the South and Midwest were almost as low 

as nonmetropolitan FMRs. 

FMRs were highest in relation to AMI in MSAs in the Northeast and West. As Exhibit 3–22 

shows, in the Northeast, there were no rental units in MSAs with FMRs affordable to 

incomes below 50 percent of AMI, and in the West only 11 percent of rental units were in 

MSAs with such affordable FMRs. In the Northeast, one-third of rental units were in MSAs 

with FMRs affordable to incomes above 65 percent of AMI, and almost half were in MSAs 

with FMRs affordable above 60 percent of AMI. In the West, one fifth (22 percent) of rental 

units were in MSAs with FMRs affordable to incomes above 65 percent of AMI, and twofifths were in MSAs with FMRs affordable above 60 percent of AMI.

In metropolitan areas in the South and Midwest, by contrast, over half (55 percent) of rental

units were in areas where FMRs were affordable to incomes below 50 percent of AMI, and 

almost all (93 percent) were located where FMRs were affordable below 60 percent of AMI.

In nonmetropolitan areas (which are predominantly also in the South and Midwest) the 

distribution of FMRs in relation to AMI was essentially the same as in southern and 

midwestern metropolitan areas: again 55 percent of rental units were in areas where FMRs 

74
were affordable to incomes below 50 percent of AMI, and even more (95 percent) were 

located where FMRs were affordable below 60 percent of AMI.

Exhibit 3–22 FMRs are high in relation to AMI in MSAs in the Northeast and 

the West, and rental vacancy rates are lowest in areas with high 

FMRs. 

Metropolitan areas by region

Locations where FMR =

30% income at % of AMI Northeast West

South and

Midwest

Nonmetro

areas U.S. total

0–50%

 share of location stock 0% 11% 55% 55% 39%

 % vacant NA 10% 14% 16% 12%

51–60%

 share of location stock 55% 46% 38% 40% 40%

 % vacant 9% 8% 13% 15% 11%

61–65%

 share of location stock 13% 21% 7% 5% 10%

 % vacant 9% 6% 11% 11% 9%

> 65%

 share of location stock 32% 22% 0% 0% 11%

 % vacant 4% 5% NA NA 5%

All units

 share of location stock 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

 % vacant 7% 7% 12% 15% 10%

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

In each type of location, vacancy rates were lowest where FMRs were highest in relation to 

AMI

Examining locations in terms of their FMR-AMI ratios reveals that vacancy rates were lowest

in the housing markets where FMRs were highest in relation to AMI. As discussed above, 

metropolitan areas in the Northeast and West had the most severe shortages of housing

affordable and available to extremely-low-income renters and the lowest vacancy rates 

among units with rents below the FMR. As the bottom row of Exhibit 3–22 shows, total 

rental vacancy rates were also lowest there in 1999. 

In each of the FMR-AMI ranges identified, vacancy rates are lower in MSAs in the North and 

West than they are in MSAs in the South and Midwest. But only in the highest range shown, 

where FMRs are affordable only at 65 percent or more of the local AMI, are vacancy rates 

very tight, averaging 5 percent or less. Although this regional summary should be 

investigated further with data from the 2000 census for individual MSAs and 

nonmetropolitan counties, this relationship suggests strongly that needs for additional rental 

supply, particularly units with rents below the FMR or affordable to extremely-low-income 

75
renters, are greatest where FMRs are highest in relation to AMI. Although particular 

locations may differ from these subregional averages, the fact that FMR-AMI ratios are not

high in nonmetropolitan locations and in MSAs in the South and Midwest, combined with 

uniformly high vacancy rates in these places, suggests that additional rental supply is less 

needed there. 

Summary

To conclude, continuing and worsening shortages of units affordable without rental 

assistance to the income groups most likely to have worst case problems imply that the 

welcome reduction in worst case needs observed between 1997 and 1999 could all too 

easily prove temporary. Continued progress depends on whether income growth can 

continue to exceed rent increases. In view of the worsening shortages of units affordable

and available to extremely-low-income renters, rents at the lower end of the rent

distribution might well again rise at above-average rates of growth. If so, any slowing of 

income growth among very-low-income renters, especially in economic downturns, could 

easily cause worst case needs to rise again. 

Close examination suggests that housing problems, and needs for additional affordable 

rental units, are particularly pressing in metropolitan areas in the Northeast and West. 

These locations not only have the highest prevalence of worst case needs among verylow-income renters, but they also have the most severe shortages of housing affordable 

and available to extremely-low-income renters, together with very low vacancy rates 

among all rental units and among units with rents below the local fair market rent. 

76
77 
Chapter 4 

Measuring Housing Needs: 

Considerations For Future Research 

Housing affordability remains a serious problem for millions of Americans. This report 

tracks severe affordability problems by presenting consistent estimates of worst case

needs for rental assistance over the past two decades. This indicator counts unassisted 

very-low-income renters paying more than half of their reported income on housing or 

living in severely inadequate housing. The concept of worst case needs was developed 

during the 1980s to estimate the number of households eligible at that time for federal 

preferences in admission to public housing or Section 8 rental assistance. The estimates 

shown here rely on data available from the biennial national American Housing Survey

(AHS) sponsored by HUD. 

Estimates of the numbers of households with worst case needs were first made in the 

mid-1980s, and information on the incidence of these severe housing problems by

household income informed deliberations on the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 

Housing Act of 1990. In the FY 1991 appropriation bill, the Senate Appropriations 

Committee instructed HUD to report annually to Congress on worst case housing needs. 

The Committee also strongly urged HUD to develop a strategic plan that “outlines how 

the Federal Government, despite limited fiscal resources, can help to eliminate or

substantially reduce the number of families and individuals ... in this worst case needs 

category.”

1

 

Over the past decade, HUD’s reports to Congress on worst case needs have raised 

awareness of the extent and severity of housing affordability problems among very-lowincome renters, and of their concentration among extremely-low-income renters. This

information has helped inform program and policy changes that more explicitly target

assistance to extremely-low-income households. In 1998, federal preferences were 

replaced by requirements for targeting three-fourths of housing vouchers to extremelylow-income renters while encouraging better income-mixing in public housing and 

assisted projects. These policy changes have weakened the correlation between 

households with worst case needs and households qualifying for rental assistance. This is 

one of several reasons to consider expanding or otherwise revising the indicators of 

severe housing problems regularly tracked by HUD. 

There are other reasons to expand the scope of measures of housing needs. Increasing

affordability problems among very-low-income renters reporting housing assistance and 

among very-low- and low-income owners, both groups excluded by definition from worst 

case needs, reinforce the desirability of developing and regularly assessing meaningful 

measures of housing need that include all households rather than only unassisted verylow-income renters. In addition, because the national housing goal reaffirmed by

Congress in 1990 is that “every American family be able to afford a decent home in a 

 

1

 Senate Report 101–474, p. 37. 

78 
suitable environment,” it would be desirable for measures of housing need also to 

consider the external social environment that comes with the housing and is a function of 

its location, such as access to educational and employment opportunities. 

Given limited federal resources and a desire to increase the effectiveness of housing

assistance programs, it is important to clearly define and measure the needs that federal 

housing programs should address. The current worst case housing needs measure is one 

of many possible approaches to the complex analytical exercise of measuring housing

needs and affordability. The measure was intended to capture the number of unassisted

income-eligible renters with the most severe housing problems, and thus the most 

pressing needs for rental assistance. But it has its limitations. Any single measure of

housing affordability—particularly a point-in-time measure—can be misleading because 

there are many different types of households, and their relative needs will vary as their 

circumstances change. There is also the question of how to define “affordability.”

Whereas the current measure of worst case needs was based on program parameters in 

the early 1980s, including the expectation that even poor households can contribute 30 

percent of their income to housing, in reality there are no simple answers to the questions 

of what level of resources different households can “afford” to spend on housing, how 

household income should be measured, and what housing and neighborhood quality

standards should be set. Moreover, the intersection of specific housing and neighborhood 

problems that are most severe and should receive priority may well vary with family type 

and specific housing program. 

Limitations of the worst case needs measure 

Because the worst case needs concept was developed based on program parameters for 

rental assistance programs in the early 1980s, it focuses only on the renter households 

then eligible for preference in those programs. Estimates of qualifying households thus 

exclude not only very-low-income renters who report already receiving housing

assistance—a self-identification that is not always accurate—but also higher income 

renters and all owners regardless of their housing problems. Because the former federal 

preferences no longer govern admission to HUD’s rental housing programs, the rationale 

for grouping severe rent burdens and severely inadequate housing together in a single 

measure is less clear. The estimates of worst case needs prepared from AHS data are also 

flawed because of known and unknown data problems. 

 

Conceptually, the worst case needs measure is arguably somewhat arbitrary in combining

rent burden and poor physical conditions, housing problems that suggest quite different 

policy responses. Housing with severe physical inadequacies, a composite AHS measure 

developed to indicate that rehabilitation would not be cost-effective, forms a small and 

declining proportion of total worst case need estimates, hovering recently below 500,000 

units. Some jurisdictions offer local preferences to households that are crowded, but this 

housing problem is not included in the current measure. The primary component of 

current worst case needs estimates, by far, is paying more than half of gross income for

housing. This arguably is not strictly a housing problem but an indirect measure of 

poverty and/or high rent levels. Rent burden can vary for reasons other than the 

79 
relationship between incomes and market rents. Some poor households, especially those 

who believe they are temporarily poor, may prefer to pay more of their limited income 

for rent to obtain better housing or neighborhoods. High rent burden may then reflect 

housing that scores better on such location-related dimensions. 

On the measurement side, each of the variables used to produce the worst case needs 

estimate is subject to some degree of measurement error. These variables (income of

renters, rent levels, physical conditions of housing, and receipt of government assistance) 

have limitations related to the imprecision associated with self-reported survey

instruments. Deriving reliable income data from surveys is problematic because of the 

underreporting of income, which in the AHS has been estimated to be as high as 14 

percent.

2

 So while the AHS provides valuable information on the state of housing in the 

country and consistent changes in housing problems over time, it may give an erroneous 

picture of income levels. As a result, the number of households with very low incomes 

and the number with excessive rent burdens may both be somewhat overstated by AHS 

data.3

 On the other hand, the exclusion of homeless households from worst case needs 

estimates—because they are not measured in the AHS or any other current data source—

reflects an important omission that can lead to an understatement of worst case problems. 

Another measurement issue with AHS income data is that many households report no 

cash income at all, while others report negative income. In the 1999 AHS, 9 percent of 

households fell into this category. It is puzzling to decide what to do with these 

households. The estimates in this report do not include households with zero or negative 

income as rent burdened and do not include certain households with negative income as 

having very low income; arguably, both should be included. 

Other potential problems in the affordability measure occur because the income data in 

the AHS are calculated before taxes and do not include non-cash benefits. Approximately

19 million working families receive the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which for 

some increases gross income after they pay their taxes. The precise impact of the failure 

to count the effects of the EITC on household income is unknown, but one recent study

estimates it inflates the overall worst case need estimate by 7 percent.4

 Also, non-cash 

benefits, such as food stamps, that increase a household’s standard of living are not 

counted toward income. Households that do not get these benefits are obviously less able 

than other households with comparable income to shoulder their housing cost burdens. 

In terms of estimating potential demand for rental assistance, it is also problematic that

AHS estimates of rent burden provide only a snapshot of a dynamic phenomenon. 

 

2 Rameswar P. Chakrabarty, American Housing Survey: A Quality Profile. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development and Bureau of the Census, H121/95–1, July 1996. The

comparison between national GNP income accounts and AHS estimates summarized, however, is based on

1983 data and thus does not reflect the improved questions on nonwage income added to the AHS in 1993. 3

 Eric Belsky and Zhu Xiao Di. “How Great are the Nation’s Worst Housing Needs? A Plea for Cautious 

Interpretation.” Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University, April 2002. 4 Michael Stegman, Walter Davis, and Roberto Quercia. “How Severe is the Housing Affordability Crisis?

Using the EITC to Re-evaluate Critical Housing Needs.” Brookings Institution, 2002.

80 
Research with the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) has shown that between onethird and one-half of the instances of severe rent burden among poor families ended each 

year during the 1970s and early 1980s, primarily because their income increased.5

 Over 

the same period, the share of families developing severe rent burdens each year also 

increased, causing the overall point-in-time estimate to rise.

6

 While consistent estimates 

of worst case needs in different years still may provide a good sense of the extent to 

which affordability problems are getting better or worse over time, the snapshot nature of

the worst case needs measure may well overstate the number of households with 

chronically high rent burdens at any particular time. 

A technical issue weakening the worst case needs measure is that past analysis of AHS 

data suggests substantial misreporting of HUD assistance. This may result from 

misunderstanding of the assistance questions by households or from household 

unwillingness to disclose assistance. Because the original intent of the worst case needs 

measure was to estimate the number eligible for preference in admission to federal rental

assistance programs, renters reporting any federal, state, or local housing assistance are 

excluded from the worst case needs estimates regardless of their housing quality or rent 

burden. Analysis comparing AHS data to HUD records suggests that the errors go both 

ways: HUD-assisted households report on the AHS that they are unassisted, and 

households not assisted by HUD report that they are receiving federal assistance.7

 Some

of the households reporting assistance may participate in Department of Agriculture, 

state, or local housing programs or live in military housing or Low-Income Housing Tax

Credit projects, but the HUD-assisted households who report they are unassisted are 

clearly in error. For such reasons, confusion about assistance is problematic for a measure 

of severe problems that depends upon knowing a household’s subsidy status.8

 Including

households who report housing assistance in calculating worst case needs would have the 

effect of increasing the number of very-low-income renters with worst case needs in 1999 

by 1.4 million. 

Desirable improvements

The limitations described above suggest some directions for improvement and further 

research. Expanding the universe to assess housing problems and their severity among all 

households, both owners and renters, is highly desirable. In doing so, groups should be 

distinguished in terms of income-eligibility for housing programs, and the particular 

 

5

 Terry K. Adams. “Poor High-Rent Status: A Preliminary Investigation of the Incidence and Persistence of

High Rent Burden among Poor Renter Households,” 1989. Paper prepared for OMB at the University of

Michigan Institute for Social Research. 6

 HUD is supporting research with the PSID to evaluate the persistence of severe rent burden among renter 

households in all different income categories, rather than only the poor, during the 1990s as well as the 

1970s and 1980s. 7

 Mark Shroder, Appendix A on reliability of self-reported housing assistance status in surveys, in “Does 

housing assistance perversely affect self-sufficiency? A review essay” Journal of Housing Economics 11 

(2002) pp. 381–417. 

8

 HUD is currently conducting research to determine whether different questions on housing subsidy status

could lead to more accurate results. 

81 
problems or combinations of problems that are judged to be severe might be rethought. 

Because affordability problems are most common and have been growing, added 

attention is needed to improving current measures of affordability and exploring others. 

To the extent possible, tradeoffs among affordable housing, housing condition, and 

location and neighborhood conditions should be explored. 

Recently, the Center for Housing Policy has produced a series of reports examining the 

extent of “critical housing needs” among households with incomes below 120 percent of 

area median income.

9

 This concept represents one possible expansion of the worst case 

needs universe, in that it is defined to include all owner and renter households (including

renters reporting assistance) with incomes below 120 percent of AMI that have “worst 

case” problems, i.e., that either pay more than half of their income for housing or live in 

severely inadequate housing. In 1999, 13.2 million such households had these problems, 

84 percent of which had very low incomes. The Center also discusses households with 

excessive commuting times, although households with this problem are not included in 

their estimates of critical housing needs. 

With regard to AHS estimates of numbers of households falling below such income 

eligibility criteria as the “low” income cutoff of 80 percent of AMI, comparison with the

2000 census and other surveys with more detailed questions on sources of income would 

be highly desirable. In particular, because the special “CHAS” tabulations of 1990 and 

2000 census data categorize households responding to the census by comparing their 

income to the exact HUD income cutoffs for each household’s location,10 it is instructive

to compare AHS data for the previous calendar year to the decennial census data.

11

Comparison between data from the 1989 AHS and the 1990 census suggested that 

underreporting of income was more common among owners than renters. As the first 

panel of Exhibit 4–1 summarizes, when the share of all households falling below 

different income cutoffs was examined, the 1990 census counted fewer households as 

having extremely low or very low incomes (13 percent and 24 percent, respectively) than 

the AHS (14 percent and 26 percent). If the census data are assumed to be correct, the 

AHS/census ratio at the right implies that the AHS overcounted the number of 

households in these low-income categories by some 10 percent. However, when the same 

comparison is restricted to renters, the census and AHS income distributions are much 

more similar, as the second and fourth columns show: the ratio comparison suggests that 

the AHS overcounts renters with extremely low or low incomes by only a factor of 2 to 3 

percent. This evidence that owners are more likely than renters to underreport income on 

the AHS is consistent with evidence that income from interest, private pensions, and 

dividends is most underreported.12

 

9

 Michael Stegman, Roberto Quercia, and George McCarthy 2000, Housing America’s Working Families,

Washington DC: Center for Housing Policy; Barbara J. Lipman 2002, America’s Working Families and the 

Housing Landscape, 1997–2001, Washington, D.C.: Center for Housing Policy. 10 For AHS tabulations, by contrast, incomes are compared to pooled averages of HUD income cutoffs for 

all sample cases outside the 141 MSAs explicitly identified in the AHS public use data. 11 The decennial census data, gathered on April 1 of 1990 and 2000, request information on income for the 

previous calendar year. Households surveyed by the AHS in the fall (3 months centering on November) of

1989 and 1999 were asked about their income in the previous 12 months. 12 Chakrabarty, 1996, Table 9.1. 

82 
Exhibit 4–1 Comparison of AHS and census data suggests that owners 

are more likely to underreport income on the AHS and that the 

AHS shows fewer renters with rent burdens above 30 percent 

or 50 percent of income than does the census. 

omparing AHS data with the 1990 census also suggests that AHS estimates of the 

he

y

he concept of affordability employed by the worst case needs measure relies upon a 

ome,

a

1990 Census 1989 AHS Ratio: AHS/Census

All Renters All Renters All Renters

Share of households

with income below:

 30% AMI 13% 23% 14% 23% 1.11 1.03

 50% AMI 24% 39% 26% 40% 1.10 1.02

 80% AMI 40% 59% 43% 60% 1.07 1.02

 95% AMI 48% 68% 55% 72% 1.13 1.06

 All households 100% 100% 100% 100% 1.00 1.00

Share of renters with

cost burden over:

30% of

income

50% of

income

30% of

income

50% of

income

30% of

income

50% of

income

Income as percentage

of AMI:

 30% or less 73% 58% 72% 51% 0.98 0.88

 31–50% 69% 23% 63% 19% 0.91 0.81

 51–80% 36% 4% 33% 2% 0.90 0.53

 80–95% 16% 1% 15% 0% 0.95 0.14

 Above 95% 4% 0% 2% 0% 0.55 0.11

 Total 38% 18% 36% 15% 0.96 0.87

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1989 American Housing Survey and the 1990 Comprehensive

Housing Affordability Strategy database.

C

number of renters with excessive rent burdens may well be low rather than high. As t

second panel of Exhibit 4–1 shows, in each income category the 1989 AHS shows fewer

renters paying more than 30 percent or 50 percent of their income than does the census. 

For the renters with incomes below 50 percent of AMI that would be included as worst 

case, this comparison suggests that the AHS may undercount the number of renters with

severe rent burden by 12 percent or more. More detailed comparison of 1999 AHS data 

with special tabulations of the 2000 census should clearly be done, but these results impl

that AHS estimates of income-eligible renters and of severe rent burdens may be more

robust than those concerned about AHS income underreporting have feared. 

 

T

threshold percentage of income spent on securing housing services. No distinction is 

made between families that minimally or greatly exceed the defined threshold. In

addition, a family that crosses a specific threshold—whether it is 30 percent of inc

50 percent of income, or some other fraction—may face no more absolute or relative 

hardship than a family that does not. For example, a family with an income of $15,000

83 
year paying $5,000 in housing costs may not be considered a worst case needs household,

but a family with an annual income of $25,000 paying $15,000 for their housing may be 

considered as having an affordability problem. Yet both families have the same amount 

of post-housing resources, and the family that spends more on housing may be better off

if it has secured housing services in a location with beneficial amenities. 

ather than defining housing affordability as a specific ratio of housing costs to income, 

ch

holds

dship

owever “unaffordable” may be defined, rather than focusing only on unaffordable 

e

oning

p

 may also be useful to consider expanding the range of measures to address policy

nd

g

 

R

it may be useful to examine measures that look at other aspects of this relationship, such 

as approaches that focus on income available for housing services after meeting other 

basic needs. As with both current and recommended definitions of poverty, this approa

depends on defining a basic-needs threshold that varies with household size and 

composition.13 One advantage of this approach is that it would not exclude house

with extremely low incomes that spend 30 percent or less of their resources on housing

but still experience significant hardship. Conversely, higher on the income distribution, 

households may choose to spend a greater portion of their resources on housing to gain 

proximity to other services or opportunities they desire. Under this approach, such 

households would be excluded from a measure estimating housing affordability har

if they have the residual income available to adequately cover their non-housing costs 

relative to other families.14 

H

payments for housing among households, a complementary approach estimates the 

supply of housing affordable to households at different income levels, comparing th

supply and demand for such units in different housing markets. One advantage of this

approach is recognizing that housing costs are determined in a market setting, although

markets are influenced by public policies. This approach recognizes that affordability is 

affected by restrictions on supply in addition to suppression of demand, and these 

influences extend well beyond the federal government. For example, exclusionary z

policies, set at the local level, artificially restrict the supply of land and lead to higher 

housing prices, and similarly, locally imposed impact fees and growth controls drive u

housing costs for renters and homeowners alike. 

It

concerns beyond affordability. For example, although it would present challenging

measurement issues, it would be instructive to regularly examine the extent to which 

housing assistance helps nonelderly, nondisabled households increase their earnings a

employment rates, or move to areas offering better employment and educational 

opportunities. The quality of housing provided by the different subsidized housin

13 "Rethinking Priority Needs for Rental Assistance: Limitations of 'Worst Case Needs'" (Kathryn P.

Nelson and F. Stevens Redburn, mid-year meeting of the American Real Estate and Urban Economics

Association, Washington, D.C., 1994) estimates how worst case needs would change if severe affordability

problems were redefined based on the National Research Council’s recommendations for Measuring 

Poverty (Constance F. Citro and Robert T. Michael, Eds., Washington, D.C. National Academy Press

1995). Although the number with worst case needs is quite similar under the two approaches, more families 

with children and fewer small households have worst case needs under the alternate approach. 14 For example, in calculating “core” housing needs, Canada excludes households that could afford standard 

housing in their area.

84 
programs should also be examined and contrasted. It would also be useful to more c

examine the issues facing low-income homeowners, including the extent to which lowincome homeowners experience increases in equity and avoid defaults. 

losely

ext steps 

ecause of interest in improving and extending measures of housing need, this report has 

o better understand the limitations of AHS estimates of worst case needs, HUD is 

e

e

N

B

examined trends in adequacy, affordability, and crowding for all households, not just 

unassisted very-low-income renters. Its comparisons of housing affordable to different

income groups with numbers of renters in Chapter 3 also seek to supplement the worst 

case focus on the number of renter households with severe affordability or adequacy

problems by identifying basic disparities between supply and demand. 

T

supporting research on the persistence of severe cost burdens and the impact of incom

underreporting, as well as a more general review of alternative measures of housing

needs. HUD welcomes general discussion of how measures of need can and should b

improved. 

85 
Appendix A

Data on Housing Problems and Supplies of Affordable Housing 

Table A–1 Housing Conditions of U.S. Renters and Owners by Relative Income, 1999 

Table A–2 Housing Conditions of All Renters and Owners, 1978, 1987, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, and 1999 

Table A–3 Housing Conditions of Low- and Moderate-Income Renters and Owners, 1978, 1989, and 1999 

Table A–4 Housing Conditions of Renters with Extremely Low, Very Low, and Low Incomes, 1978, 1987, 1991, 

1995, 1997, and 1999 

Table A–5 Housing Problems of Very-Low-Income Renters by Household Type, 1987, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, and 

1999 

Table A–5a Housing Problems of Extremely-Low-Income Renters by Household Type, 1987, 1991, 1993, 1995, 

1997, and 1999 

Table A–6 Housing Problems and Characteristics of Very-Low-Income Renters by Household Type, 1999 

Table A–6a Housing Problems and Characteristics of Extremely-Low-Income Renters by Household Type, 1999 

Table A–7 Housing Problems and Characteristics of Worst Case Renters by Household Type, 1999 

Table A–7a Housing Problems and Characteristics of Extremely-low-Income Worst Case Renters by Household 

Type, 1999 

Table A–8 Detailed Housing Problems of Worst Case Renters by Household Type, 1987, 1995, 1997, and 1999 

Table A–9 Housing Problems Among Very-Low-Income Renters by Race and Ethnicity, 1978, 1987, 1991, 1993, 

1995, 1997, and 1999 

Table A–10 Housing Problems Among Very-Low-Income Renters by Region, 1978, 1987, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, 

and 1999 

Table A–11 Housing Problems Among Very-Low-Income Renters by Metropolitan Location, 1987, 1991, 1993, 

1995, 1997, and 1999 

Table A–12 Assistance and Worst Case Needs Among Very-Low-Income Renters by Region and Location, 1987 and 

1999 

Table A–13 Housing Problems, Characteristics, and Earnings of Nonelderly Renters by Relative Income and 

Household Type, 1999 

Table A–14 Rental Units Categorized by Incomes to Which They Are Affordable, by Region, 1991, 1995, and 1999 

Table A–15 Mismatch Ratios by Region: Numbers of Affordable Units per 100 Renters With Incomes Below 30%, 

50%, 60%, or 80% of 1999 HAMFI, 1991, 1995, and 1999 

Table A–16 Mismatch Ratios by Region and Metropolitan Location: Numbers of Affordable Units per 100 Renters 

with Incomes below 30%, 50%, and 60% of 1999 HAMFI, 1991 and 1999 

Table A–17 Households and Affordable Units by Income as Percentages of HAMFI, Affordable Units per Household, 

and Median Cost/Income Ratio, by Tenure and Relative Income, 1985 and 1999 

Table A–18 Renter Households And Affordable Units By Income as Percentages of HAMFI, Affordable Units per 

Household, and Median Rent/Income Ratio, by Relative Income and Region, 1985 and 1999 

A–1 
Table A–1 

Housing Conditions of U.S. Renters and Owners by Relative Income, 1999 

Household Income as Percentage of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income 

(0–50%) (51–80%) (81–120%) (121%+)

All 

Incomes

Number of Renter 

Households With (Thousands): 14,803 7,279 6,653 5,272 34,007 

Rent Burden 50%+ of Income 5,936 257 93 15 6,301

Rent Burden 30–49% of Income 4,565 1,964 496 114 7,139

Severely Inadequate Housing 723 207 146 108 1,184

Moderately Inadequate Housing 1,463 556 447 303 2,769

Crowded Housing 1,111 285 162 108 1,677

Multiple Problems* 2,101 243 64 7 2,416

No Problems 3,302 4,259 5,372 4,631 17,564

Assisted# 4,253 903 583 464 6,203

Priority Problems** 4,856 411 211 112 5,590

Other Problems*** 3,863 2,272 954 470 7,560

Unassisted, No Problems 1,831 3,692 4,905 4,226 14,654

Housing Rated Poor 1,127 364 327 232 2,050

Neighborhood Rated Poor 1,461 494 413 236 2,603

Number of Owner 

Households With (Thousands): 13,964 10,702 14,008 30,120 68,794

Cost Burden 50%+ of Income 4,350 787 465 242 5,843

Cost Burden 30–49% of Income 3,115 2,346 1,933 1,325 8,718

Severely Inadequate Housing 334 154 159 221 869

Moderately Inadequate Housing 796 391 371 497 2,056

Crowded Housing 267 234 220 184 905

Multiple Problems 706 196 108 63 1,073

No Problems 5,832 6,991 10,968 27,713 51,505

Priority Problems 4,594 932 621 460 6,608

Other Problems 3,538 2,778 2,418 1,946 10,681

Housing Rated Poor 336 185 159 232 913

Neighborhood Rated Poor 581 274 337 519 1,711

Percent of Renter 

Households With: 

Rent Burden 50%+ of Income 40 4 1 0 19

Cost Burden 30–49% of Income 31 27 7 2 21

Severely Inadequate Housing 5 3 2 2 3

Moderately Inadequate Housing 10 8 7 6 8

Crowded Housing 8 4 2 2 5

Multiple Problems 14 3 1 0 7

No Problems 22 59 81 88 52

Assisted 29 12 9 9 18

Priority Problems 33 6 3 2 16

Other Problems 26 31 14 9 22

Unassisted, No Problems 12 51 74 80 43

Housing Rated Poor 8 5 5 4 6

Neighborhood Rated Poor 10 7 6 4 8

A–2 
Table A–1 (continued) 

Household Income as % of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income 

(0–50%) (51–80%) (81–120%) (121%+)

All 

Incomes

Percent of Owner 

Households With:

Cost Burden 50%+ of Income 31 7 3 1 8

Cost Burden 30–49% of Income 22 22 14 4 13

Severely Inadequate Housing 2 1 1 1 1

Moderately Inadequate Housing 6 4 3 2 3

Crowded Housing 2 2 2 1 1

Multiple Problems 5 2 1 0 2

No Problems 42 65 78 92 75

Priority Problems 33 9 4 2 10

Other Problems 25 26 17 6 16

Housing Rated Poor 2 2 1 1 1

Neighborhood Rated Poor 4 3 2 2 2

* Two or three of the following: cost burden >30 percent of income, severe or moderate physical problems, and 

overcrowding.

** Housing costs >50 percent of income or severely inadequate housing among unassisted households.

*** Housing costs 31–50 percent of income, moderate physical problems, or overcrowding, but no priority problems

among unassisted households.

# The four headings that are italicized –priority problems, other problems, unassisted with no problems, and assisted—

sum to 100 percent. The heading “No problems” includes both assisted and unassisted renters with none of the 

problems of inadequacy, crowding or excessive cost burden calculated here.

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

A–3 
Table A–2 

Housing Conditions of All Renters and Owners, 

1978, 1987, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, and 1999 

1978 1987 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Number of Households 

With (Thousands): 77,389 90,887 93,147 94,723 97,694 99,487 102,802

Burden >50% 5,696 8,434 8,925 9,725 11,158 12,223 12,141

Burden 31–50% 7,669 12,888 14,145 14,333 15,481 15,115 15,862

Severely Inadequate Housing 2,778 1,227 2,874 1,901 2,022 1,797 2,056

Moderately Inadequate Housing 4,295 5,181 4,531 4,225 4,348 5,191 4,821

Crowded 3,266 2,436 2,527 2,386 2,554 2,807 2,570

Priority Problems 7,692 8,180 10,430 10,350 11,744 12,206 12,203

Other Problems 11,877 15,969 16,612 16,399 17,693 17,900 18,237

Unassisted, No Problems 54,714 61,939 61,302 62,950 63,023 63,682 66,163

Assisted 3,103 4,790 4,801 5,025 5,230 5,697 6,168

Number of Renter

Households With (Thousands): 26,919 32,724 33,351 33,472 34,150 34,000 34,007

Burden >50% 3,664 5,638 5,478 5,947 6,236 6,686 6,301

Burden 31–50% 4,765 6,852 6,964 7,157 7,424 6,778 7,141

Severely Inadequate Housing 1,677 861 1,347 909 849 1,072 1,183

Moderately Inadequate Housing 2,100 2,831 2,375 2,254 2,277 3,021 2,768

Crowded 1,548 1,512 1,644 1,503 1,673 1,891 1,666

Priority Problems 4,695 5,075 5,580 5,671 5,777 6,024 5,591

Other Problems 5,976 7,428 7,342 7,287 7,651 7,451 7,560

Unassisted, No Problems 13,519 15,429 15,627 15,489 15,492 14,827 14,657

Assisted 2,730 4,794 4,801 5,025 5,230 5,697 6,203

Number of Owner 

Households With (Thousands): 50,470 58,163 59,796 61,251 63,544 65,487 68,795

Burden >50% 1,645 2,798 3,447 3,778 4,922 5,537 5,841

Burden 31–50% 2,428 6,037 7,181 7,176 8,057 8,337 8,716

Severely Inadequate Housing 939 349 1,527 992 1,173 725 867

Moderately Inadequate Housing 2,054 2,356 2,156 1,971 2,071 2,170 2,064

Crowded 1,625 931 883 883 881 916 894

Priority Problems 2,524 3,112 4,850 4,678 5,967 6,182 6,604

Other Problems 5,501 8,538 9,270 9,112 10,042 10,449 10,684

No Problems 42,445 46,531 45,675 47,461 47,531 48,855 51,507

A–4 
Table A–2 (continued) 

1978 1987 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Percent of Households With:

Burden >50% 7.4% 9.3% 9.6% 10.3% 11.4% 12.3% 11.8%

Burden 31–50% 9.9% 14.2% 15.2% 15.1% 15.8% 15.2% 15.4%

Severely Inadequate Housing 3.6% 1.4% 3.1% 2.0% 2.1% 1.8% 2.0%

Moderately Inadequate Housing 5.6% 5.7% 4.9% 4.5% 4.5% 5.2% 4.7%

Crowded 4.2% 2.7% 2.7% 2.5% 2.6% 2.8% 2.5%

Priority Problems 9.9% 9.0% 11.2% 10.9% 12.0% 12.3% 11.9%

Other Problems 15.3% 17.6% 17.8% 17.3% 18.1% 18.0% 17.7%

Unassisted, No Problems 70.7% 68.2% 65.8% 66.5% 64.5% 64.0% 64.4%

Assisted 4.0% 5.3% 5.2% 5.3% 5.4% 5.7% 6.0%

Percent of Renter Households With:

Burden >50% 13.6% 17.2% 16.4% 17.8% 18.3% 19.7% 18.5%

Burden 31–50% 17.7% 20.9% 20.9% 21.4% 21.7% 19.9% 21.0%

Severely Inadequate Housing 6.2% 2.6% 4.0% 2.7% 2.5% 3.2% 3.5%

Moderately Inadequate Housing 7.8% 8.7% 7.1% 6.7% 6.7% 8.9% 8.1%

Crowded 5.8% 4.6% 4.9% 4.5% 4.9% 5.6% 4.9%

Priority Problems 17.4% 15.5% 16.7% 16.9% 16.9% 17.7% 16.4%

Other Problems 22.2% 22.7% 22.0% 21.8% 22.4% 21.9% 22.2%

Unassisted No Problems 50.2% 47.2% 46.9% 46.3% 45.4% 43.6% 43.1%

Assisted 10.1% 14.7% 14.4% 15.0% 15.3% 16.8% 18.2%

Priority/Unassisted 19.4% 18.2% 19.5% 19.9% 20.0% 21.3% 20.1%

Percent of Owner Households With:

Burden >50% 3.3% 4.8% 5.8% 6.2% 7.7% 8.5% 8.5%

Burden 31–50% 4.8% 10.4% 12.0% 11.7% 12.7% 12.7% 12.7%

Severely Inadequate Housing 1.9% 0.6% 2.6% 1.6% 1.8% 1.1% 1.3%

Moderately Inadequate Housing 4.1% 4.1% 3.6% 3.2% 3.3% 3.3% 3.0%

Crowded 3.2% 1.6% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3%

Priority Problems 5.0% 5.4% 8.1% 7.6% 9.4% 9.4% 9.6%

Other Problems 10.9% 14.7% 15.5% 14.9% 15.8% 16.0% 15.5%

No Problems 84.1% 80.0% 76.4% 77.5% 74.8% 74.6% 74.9%

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1978, 1987, 1991, 1995, and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

A–5 
Table A–3 

 Housing Conditions of Low- and Moderate-Income Renters and Owners, 

1978, 1989, and 1999 

Renters Owners

1978 1989 1999 1978 1989 1999

Income 0–50% of HAMFI 

Number of Households

With (Thousands):

 10,682 13,378 14,803 9,525 10,997 13,964 

Burden >50% 30.2% 37.8% 40.1% 17.1% 23.3% 31.2%

Burden 31–50% 23.4% 30.2% 30.8% 18.3% 23.0% 22.3%

Severely Inadequate Housing 9.0% 6.6% 4.9% 5.4% 4.2% 2.4% 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 6.5% 10.1% 9.9% 8.7% 7.6% 5.7% 

Crowded 4.1% 7.6% 7.5% 3.1% 2.7% 1.9%

Priority Problems 37.1% 35.0% 32.8% 22.0% 26.7% 32.9%

Other Problems 28.9% 23.6% 26.1% 27.7% 27.5% 25.3%

Unassisted, No Problems 14.4% 12.0% 12.4% 50.3% 45.8% 41.8%

Assisted 19.6% 29.4% 28.7% NA NA NA

No Problems At All 24.8% 24.4% 22.3% 50.3% 45.8% 41.8% 

Income 51–80% of HAMFI 

Number of Households

With (Thousands):

 6,088 6,880 7,279 9,081 8,881 10,702 

Burden >50% 1.5% 2.0% 3.5% 1.2% 4.0% 7.4%

Burden 31–50% 21.3% 30.9% 27.0% 6.3% 15.3% 21.9%

Severely Inadequate Housing 4.4% 4.2% 2.8% 2.0% 3.1% 1.4% 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 6.7% 7.3% 7.6% 5.7% 4.5% 3.7% 

Crowded 4.4% 5.8% 3.9% 4.6% 3.1% 2.2%

Priority Problems 5.9% 5.7% 5.6% 3.2% 7.0% 8.7%

Other Problems 30.6% 38.0% 31.2% 15.8% 20.9% 26.0%

Unassisted, No Problems 57.1% 49.2% 50.7% 81.0% 72.1% 65.4%

Assisted 6.3% 7.0% 12.4% NA NA NA

No Problems At All 61.9% 54.1% 58.5% 81.0% 72.1% 65.4%

Income 81–120% of HAMFI 

Number of Households

With (Thousands): 5,531 7,209 6,653 12,033 13,537 14,008 

Burden >50% 0.2% 0.1% 1.4% 0.3% 1.4% 3.3%

Burden 31–50% 3.7% 10.4% 7.5% 1.4% 10.5% 13.8%

Severely Inadequate Housing 3.9% 3.5% 2.2% 1.1% 2.3% 1.1% 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 6.5% 4.4% 6.7% 3.3% 2.4% 2.6% 

Crowded 3.4% 2.6% 2.4% 3.7% 1.5% 1.6%

Priority Problems 4.1% 3.5% 3.2% 1.4% 3.7% 4.4%

Other Problems 13.2% 15.6% 14.3% 8.0% 13.9% 17.3%

Unassisted, No Problems 79.6% 77.5% 73.7% 90.6% 82.5% 78.3%

Assisted 3.0% 3.4% 8.8% NA NA NA

No Problems At All 82.2% 80.3% 80.7% 90.6% 82.5% 78.3% 

A–6 
Table A–3 (continued) 

Renters Owners

1978 1989 1999 1978 1989 1999

Income >120% of HAMFI 

Number of Households

With (Thousands):

 4,617 6,303 5,272 19,830 26,501 30,120 

Burden >50% 0 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.8%

Burden 31–50% 0.5% 1.1% 2.2% 0.3% 4.0% 4.4%

Severely Inadequate Housing 3.1% 2.2% 2.0% 0.8% 2.0% 0.7% 

Moderately Inadequate Housing 4.2% 4.4% 5.7% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 

Crowded 1.8% 1.7% 2.0% 1.8% 0.7% 0.6%

Priority Problems 3.1% 2.6% 2.1% 1.0% 2.2% 1.5%

Other Problems 6.4% 6.7% 8.9% 3.6% 6.1% 6.5%

Unassisted, No Problems 88.8% 88.7% 80.2% 95.4% 91.7% 92.0%

Assisted 1.8% 2.0% 8.8% NA NA NA

No Problems At All 90.4% 90.5% 87.8% 95.4% 91.7% 0.8% 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1978 Annual Housing Survey and of the 1989 and 1999 American 

Housing Surveys. 

A–7 
Table A–4 

Housing Conditions of Renters With Extremely Low, Very Low, and Low Incomes, 

1978, 1987, 1991, 1995, 1997, and 1999 

Number of Households (Thousands) As Percent of Households 

1978 1987 1991 1995 1997 1999 1978 1987 1991 1995 1997 1999

Income 0–30% HAMFI 5,905 7,764 8,232 8,598 9,003 8,553

Priority Problems 3,019 3,454 3,622 3,886 4,168 3,750 51% 44% 44% 45% 46% 44%

 Severe Physical Problems 642 494 387 232 333 325 11% 6% 5% 3% 4% 4%

 Rent Burden >50% 2,581 3,311 3,457 3,774 3,988 3,609 44% 43% 42% 44% 44% 42%

 Rent Burden Only 2,011 2,609 2,634 3,044 3,178 2,882 34% 34% 32% 35% 35% 34%

Other Problems 969 849 930 748 927 1,061 16% 11% 11% 9% 10% 12%

 Moderate Physical Problems 292 311 296 172 315 274 5% 4% 4% 2% 4% 3%

 Rent Burden 31–50% 799 655 757 636 693 864 14% 8% 9% 7% 8% 10%

 Crowded 165 96 132 146 216 239 3% 1% 2% 2% 2% 3%

 Rent Burden Only 485 535 456 459 599 NA 6% 7% 5% 5% 7%

No Problems, Total 1,210 1,497 1,934 1,978 1,720 1,671 20% 19% 24% 23% 19% 20%

No Problems, Unassisted 488 554 659 679 774 710 8% 7% 8% 8% 9% 8%

Assisted 1,428 2,907 3,021 3,284 3,133 3,028 24% 37% 37% 38% 35% 35%

 Priority As % Unassisted 67% 71% 70% 73% 71% 68%

Income 31–50% HAMFI 4,777 5,509 5,771 5,951 5,799 6,250

Priority Problems 944 1,080 1,221 1,315 1,212 1,106 20% 20% 21% 22% 21% 18%

 Severe Physical Problems 320 160 190 137 130 130 7% 3% 3% 2% 3% 3%

 Rent Burden >50% 645 931 1,056 1,184 1,067 944 14% 17% 18% 20% 18% 15%

 Rent Burden Only 585 848 946 1,071 974 856 12% 15% 16% 18% 17% 14%

Other Problems 2,118 2,457 2,545 2,642 2,546 2,800 44% 45% 44% 44% 44% 45%

 Moderate Physical Problems 399 419 346 393 429 438 8% 8% 6% 7% 7% 7%

 Rent Burden 31–50% 1,700 2,126 2,227 2,321 2,215 2,450 36% 39% 39% 39% 38% 39%

 Crowded 305 331 312 399 342 369 6% 6% 5% 7% 6% 6%

 Rent Burden Only 1,774 1,916 1,922 1,815 2,056 NA 32% 33% 32% 31% 33%

No Problems, Total 1,435 1,432 1,552 1,506 1,397 1,631 30% 26% 27% 25% 24% 26%

No Problems, Unassisted 1,046 1,030 1,091 994 928 1,119 22% 19% 19% 17% 16% 18%

Assisted 666 942 912 994 1,119 1,225 14% 17% 16% 17% 19% 20%

 Priority As % Unassisted 23% 24% 25% 27% 26% 22%

Income 51–80% HAMFI 6,088 6,766 6,833 7,158 6,433 7,279

Priority Problems 359 345 425 336 380 411 6% 5% 6% 5% 6% 6%

 Severe Physical Problems 268 135 246 107 180 184 4% 2% 4% 2% 3% 3%

 Rent Burden >50% 94 203 178 236 206 233 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%

 Rent Burden Only 89 196 171 215 187 218 1% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%

Other Problems 1,863 2,571 2,542 2,863 2,393 2,271 31% 38% 37% 40% 37% 31%

 Moderate Physical Problems 408 548 403 437 425 502 7% 8% 6% 6% 7% 7%

 Rent Burden 31–50% 1,297 1,955 1,968 2,324 1,801 1,681 21% 29% 29% 32% 28% 23%

 Crowded 268 304 342 265 354 240 4% 5% 5% 4% 6% 3%

 Rent Burden Only 1,789 1,831 2,205 1,666 1,558 NA 26% 27% 31% 26% 21%

No Problems, Total 3,768 3,674 3,724 3,815 3,448 4,258 62% 54% 55% 53% 54% 59%

No Problems, Unassisted 3,476 3,322 3,375 3,458 3,036 3,690 57% 49% 49% 48% 47% 51%

Assisted 384 521 492 501 624 903 6% 8% 7% 7% 10% 12%

 Priority As % Unassisted 6% 6% 7% 5% 7% 6%

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1978 Annual Housing Survey and of the 1987, 1991, 1995, and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

A–8 
Table A–5 

Housing Problems of Very-Low-Income Renters by Household Type, 

1987, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, and 1999 

Number of Households (Thousands) As Percent of Households 

1987 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 1987 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Elderly 3,727 3,574 3,631 3,336 3,321 3,190

Priority Problems 1,111 1,102 1,142 1,050 1,180 1,028 30% 31% 31% 31% 36% 32%

 Severe Physical Problems 89 126 95 67 86 63 2% 4% 3% 2% 3% 2%

 Rent Burden >50% 1,032 1,015 1,085 999 1,120 991 28% 28% 30% 30% 34% 31%

 Rent Burden Only 939 923 989 933 1,005 884 25% 26% 27% 28% 30% 28%

Other Problems 704 675 665 508 521 608 19% 19% 18% 15% 16% 19%

 Moderate Physical Problems 164 155 132 108 111 106 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3%

 Rent Burden 31–50% 622 599 588 453 465 572 17% 17% 16% 14% 14% 18%

 Crowded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

 Rent Burden Only 544 520 534 400 410 502 15% 15% 15% 12% 12% 16%

No Problems, Total 1,167 1,065 1,028 1,081 926 858 31% 30% 28% 32% 28% 27%

No Problems, Unassisted 529 461 476 447 415 383 14% 13% 13% 13% 13% 12%

Assisted 1,379 1,334 1,348 1,332 1,205 1,172 37% 37% 37% 40% 36% 37%

 Priority As % Unassisted 47% 49% 50% 52% 56% 51%

Families With Children 5,558 6,134 6,648 6,502 6,352 6,223

Priority Problems 1,792 1,941 2,174 2,015 2,051 1,793 32% 32% 33% 31% 32% 29%

 Severe Physical Problems 172 189 165 127 179 216 3% 3% 2% 2% 3% 3%

 Rent Burden >50% 1,690 1,836 2,083 1,933 1,918 1,658 30% 30% 31% 30% 30% 27%

 Rent Burden Only 1,206 1,242 1,525 1,412 1,430 1,250 22% 20% 23% 22% 23% 20%

Other Problems 1,473 1,608 1,662 1,706 1,749 1,867 27% 26% 25% 26% 28% 30%

 Moderate Physical Problems 333 264 266 256 321 303 6% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5%

 Rent Burden 31–50% 1,150 1,299 1,382 1,416 1,448 1,528 21% 21% 21% 22% 23% 25%

 Crowded 411 426 435 521 511 587 7% 7% 7% 8% 8% 9%

 Rent Burden Only 828 973 1,039 1,012 991 1,078 15% 16% 16% 16% 16% 17%

No Problems, Total 989 1,497 1,880 1,481 1,152 1,273 18% 24% 28% 23% 18% 20%

No Problems, Unassisted 495 630 620 629 575 654 9% 10% 9% 10% 9% 11%

Assisted 1,795 1,952 2,185 2,151 1,976 1,910 32% 32% 33% 33% 31% 31%

 Priority As % Unassisted 48% 46% 49% 46% 47% 42%

Nonelderly Disabled

(Expanded) 

1,047 1,088 1,065 1,127 1,093 1,170

Priority Problems 356 381 364 459 374 371 34% 35% 34% 41% 34% 32%

 Severe Physical Problems 49 81 74 47 32 56 5% 7% 7% 4% 3% 5%

 Rent Burden >50% 328 347 314 431 353 342 31% 32% 30% 38% 32% 29%

 Rent Burden Only 248 278 262 329 267 250 24% 26% 25% 29% 24% 21%

Other Problems 165 180 193 137 141 155 16% 17% 18% 12% 13% 13%

 Moderate Physical Problems 38 50 31 32 43 45 4% 5% 3% 3% 4% 4%

 Rent Burden 31–50% 141 165 184 120 120 130 13% 15% 17% 11% 11% 11%

 Crowded 3 2 3 6 3 6 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%

 Rent Burden Only 125 128 162 104 98 104 12% 12% 15% 9% 9% 9%

No Problems, Total 212 269 277 252 253 286 20% 25% 26% 22% 23% 24%

No Problems, Unassisted 56 77 91 74 46 88 5% 7% 9% 7% 4% 8%

Assisted 470 450 417 457 531 555 45% 41% 39% 41% 49% 47%

 Priority As % Unassisted 62% 60% 56% 69% 67% 60%

A–9 
Table A–5 (continued) 

Number of Households (Thousands) As Percent of Households 

1987 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 1987 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Other Households 2,941 3,206 3,401 3,583 4,035 4,220

Priority Problems 1,275 1,420 1,518 1,679 1,774 1,664 43% 44% 45% 47% 44% 39%

 Severe Physical Problems 108 185 120 128 192 192 4% 6% 4% 4% 5% 5%

 Rent Burden >50% 1,198 1,309 1,424 1,598 1,665 1,561 41% 41% 42% 45% 41% 37%

 Rent Burden Only 1,058 1,138 1,281 1,440 1,451 1,350 36% 35% 38% 40% 36% 32%

Other Problems 962 1,010 1,050 1,044 1,059 1,234 33% 31% 31% 29% 26% 29%

 Moderate Physical Problems 190 172 167 170 268 257 6% 5% 5% 5% 7% 6%

 Rent Burden 31–50% 873 920 963 971 876 1,084 30% 29% 28% 27% 22% 26%

 Crowded 10 9 25 19 24 17 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0%

 Rent Burden Only 760 829 866 861 772 968 26% 26% 25% 24% 19% 23%

No Problems, Total 553 659 630 666 782 885 19% 21% 19% 19% 19% 21%

No Problems, Unassisted 504 582 527 521 660 706 17% 18% 15% 15% 16% 17%

Assisted 205 198 305 338 542 615 7% 6% 9% 9% 13% 15%

 Priority As % Unassisted 47% 47% 49% 52% 51% 46%

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1978 Annual Housing Survey and of the 1987, 1991, 1995, and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

A–10 
Table A–5a 

Housing Problems of Extremely-Low-Income Renters by Household Type, 

1987, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, and 1999 

Number of Households (Thousands) As Percent of Households 

1987 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 1987 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Elderly 2,270 2,255 2,291 2,144 2,221 2,034

Priority Problems 762 761 819 772 884 806 34% 34% 36% 36% 40% 40%

 Severe Physical Problems 50 88 64 45 63 47 2% 4% 3% 2% 3% 2%

 Rent Burden >50% 726 704 783 738 843 782 32% 31% 34% 34% 38% 38%

 Rent Burden Only 646 629 708 686 746 685 28% 28% 31% 32% 34% 34%

Other Problems 267 246 218 159 182 207 12% 11% 10% 7% 8% 10%

 Moderate Physical Problems 91 80 76 54 50 55 4% 4% 3% 3% 2% 3%

 Rent Burden 31–50% 216 207 174 135 164 187 10% 9% 8% 6% 7% 9%

 Crowded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

 Rent Burden Only 176 165 143 104 132 153 8% 7% 6% 5% 6% 8%

No Problems, Total 686 677 634 654 591 476 30% 30% 28% 31% 27% 23%

No Problems, Unassisted 257 232 261 234 244 167 11% 10% 11% 11% 11% 8%

Assisted 985 1,015 992 980 911 854 43% 45% 43% 46% 41% 42%

 Priority As % Unassisted 59% 61% 63% 66% 67% 68%

Families With Children 3,332 3,673 4,068 3,886 3,750 3,554

Priority Problems 1,483 1,551 1,819 1,606 1,691 1,439 45% 42% 45% 41% 45% 40%

 Severe Physical Problems 103 123 110 68 116 124 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 3%

 Rent Burden >50% 1,439 1,506 1,779 1,583 1,620 1,386 43% 41% 44% 41% 43% 39%

 Rent Burden Only 996 974 1,261 1,114 1,166 1,008 30% 27% 31% 29% 31% 28%

Other Problems 346 427 390 392 435 552 10% 12% 10% 10% 12% 16%

 Moderate Physical Problems 123 127 126 66 112 110 4% 3% 3% 2% 3% 3%

 Rent Burden 31–50% 263 340 304 334 345 456 8% 9% 7% 9% 9% 13%

 Crowded 93 123 122 144 189 230 3% 3% 3% 4% 5% 6%

 Rent Burden Only 167 206 182 210 172 257 5% 6% 4% 5% 5% 7%

No Problems, Total 470 808 919 838 525 604 14% 22% 23% 22% 14% 17%

No Problems, Unassisted 117 175 128 194 165 206 4% 5% 3% 5% 4% 6%

Assisted 1,385 1,521 1,730 1,692 1,462 1,358 42% 41% 43% 44% 39% 38%

 Priority As % Unassisted 76% 72% 78% 73% 74% 66%

Nonelderly Disabled

(Expanded) 

801 789 732 853 844 858 

Priority Problems 307 323 302 373 319 322 38% 41% 41% 44% 38% 38%

 Severe Physical Problems 38 63 49 34 23 41 5% 8% 7% 4% 3% 5%

 Rent Burden >50% 289 301 277 357 307 306 36% 38% 38% 42% 36% 36%

 Rent Burden Only 217 237 228 276 225 221 27% 30% 31% 32% 27% 26%

Other Problems 73 65 55 44 64 51 9% 8% 7% 5% 8% 6%

 Moderate Physical Problems 26 29 12 9 23 8 3% 4% 2% 1% 3% 1%

 Rent Burden 31–50% 59 57 49 39 51 45 7% 7% 7% 5% 6% 5%

 Crowded 2 2 2 0 3 6 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

 Rent Burden Only 47 35 42 36 41 37 6% 5% 6% 4% 5% 4%

No Problems, Total 149 197 183 188 187 175 19% 25% 25% 22% 22% 20%

No Problems, Unassisted 22 37 37 44 25 31 3% 5% 5% 5% 3% 4%

Assisted 400 364 337 392 435 454 50% 46% 46% 46% 52% 53%

 Priority As % Unassisted 76% 76% 77% 81% 78% 80%

A–11 
Table A–5a (continued)

Number of Households (Thousands) As Percent of Households 

1987 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 1987 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Other Households 1,361 1,515 1,631 1,715 2,187 2,107

Priority Problems 902 988 1,086 1,135 1,274 1,179 66% 65% 67% 66% 58% 56%

 Severe Physical Problems 302 113 79 84 131 114 22% 7% 5% 5% 6% 5%

 Rent Burden >50% 856 946 1,033 1,101 1,219 1,136 63% 62% 63% 64% 56% 54%

 Rent Burden Only 750 794 915 968 1,041 968 55% 52% 56% 56% 48% 46%

Other Problems 163 193 148 154 246 251 12% 13% 9% 9% 11% 12%

 Moderate Physical Problems 71 60 48 43 129 101 5% 4% 3% 3% 6% 5%

 Rent Burden 31–50% 117 153 124 132 134 176 9% 10% 8% 8% 6% 8%

 Crowded 1 7 2 5 24 3 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%

 Rent Burden Only 95 127 103 106 114 151 7% 8% 6% 6% 5% 7%

No Problems, Total 193 253 270 298 416 415 14% 17% 17% 17% 19% 20%

No Problems, Unassisted 159 214 193 207 340 306 12% 14% 12% 12% 16% 15%

Assisted 137 122 203 220 324 361 10% 8% 12% 13% 15% 17%

 Priority As % Unassisted 74% 71% 76% 76% 68% 68%

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1987, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

A–12 
Table A–6 

Housing Problems and Characteristics of Very-Low-Income 

Renters by Household Type, 1999 

Total 

Other 

Families

Elderly, Nonfamily

No 

Children

Families 

 With 

 Children

Reporting 

SSI Income 

Other 

Nonfamily

Total Households (Thousands) 14,803 3,190 6,223 753 1,170 3,467

Number of Children 13,090 0 13,090 0 0 0 

Number of Persons 35,248 4,100 23,266 1,766 1,674 4,442 

Children/Household .88 .00 2.10 .00 .00 .00

Persons/Household 2.38 1.29 3.74 2.34 1.43 1.28

Number of Households With:

Priority Problems 4,856 1,028 1,793 226 371 1,438

 Severe Physical Problems 526 63 216 24 56 167 

 Rent Burden >50% of Income 4,553 991 1,658 219 342 1,343 

 Rent Burden Only 3,737 884 1,250 183 250 1,169 

 Multiple Problems 969 120 499 43 104 202

Other Problems 3,863 608 1,866 237 155 997

 Moderate Physical Problems 711 106 303 51 45 205 

 Rent Burden 31–50% of Income 3,313 572 1,527 203 129 881 

 Rent Burden Only 2,652 502 1,078 177 104 791 

 Crowded 609 0 587 11 6 5 

 Multiple Problems 710 70 496 28 25 90 

No Problems at All 3,302 858 1,273 191 286 694 

Unassisted, No Problems 1,831 382 654 157 88 549

In Assisted Housing 4,253 1,172 1,910 133 555 482

One Person in Household 6,030 2,408 120 0 805 2,697 

Husband-Wife Family 3,522 588 2,277 416 127 115

Female Head 7,733 1,938 3,388 222 585 1,599

Minority Head 7,537 1,016 4,130 454 531 1,406

AFDC/SSI Income 2,814 491 1,543 0 781 0

Social Security Income 3,880 2,813 479 0 588 0 

Income Below 50% Poverty 3,138 435 1,543 128 194 838 

Income Below Poverty 7,514 1,326 3,624 292 772 1,501 

 Income Below 150% of Poverty 11,592 2,325 5,396 537 1,021 2,312 

High School Graduate 9,458 1,544 3,816 534 706 2,858 

Two+ Years Post High School 2,034 295 595 148 129 867 

Earnings at Minimum Wage: 

 At Least Half Time 7,940 417 4,300 605 236 2,382 

 At Least Full Time 6,115 195 3,499 518 122 1,782 

Earnings Main Source of Income 8,729 394 4,618 649 238 2,830 

Housing Rated Poor 1,770 231 807 118 131 483 

Housing Rated Good+ 10,108 2,599 3,978 435 799 2,298 

Neighborhood Rated Poor 1,461 135 810 107 135 274 

Neighborhood Rated Good+ 9,779 2,492 3,850 449 768 2,220 

In Central Cities 7,487 1,428 3,193 375 636 1,855 

Suburbs 4,903 1,173 2,115 251 283 1,082

Northeast 3,422 1,018 1,238 157 338 671

South 4,632 882 1,998 248 315 1,189

West 3,765 604 1,874 238 221 827

A–13 
Table A–6 (continued) 

Total 

Elderly,

No 

Children

Families 

 With 

 Children

Other 

Families

Nonfamily

Reporting 

SSI Income 

Other 

Nonfamily

Percentage of Households With:

Priority Problems 33 32 29 30 32 41

 Severe Physical Problems 4 2 3 3 5 5 

 Rent Burden >50% of Income 31 31 27 29 29 39 

 Rent Burden Only 25 28 20 24 21 34 

 Multiple Problems 7 4 8 6 9 6

Other Problems 26 19 30 31 13 29

 Moderate Physical Problems 5 3 5 7 4 6 

 Rent Burden 31–50% of Income 22 18 25 27 11 25 

 Rent Burden Only 18 16 17 23 9 23 

 Crowded 4 0 9 2 0 0 

 Multiple Problems 5 2 8 4 2 3 

No Problems at All 22 27 20 25 24 20 

Unassisted, No Problems 12 12 11 21 8 16

In Assisted Housing 29 37 31 18 47 14

One Person in Household 41 75 2 0 69 78 

Husband-Wife Family 24 18 37 55 11 3

Female Head 52 61 54 30 50 46

Minority Head 51 32 66 60 45 41

AFDC/SSI Income 19 15 25 0 67 0

Social Security Income 26 88 8 0 50 0 

Income Below 50% of Poverty 21 14 25 17 17 24 

Income Below Poverty 51 42 58 39 66 43 

 Income Below 150% of Poverty 78 73 87 71 87 67 

High School Graduate 64 48 61 71 60 82 

Earnings at Minimum Wage: 

 At Least Half Time 54 13 69 80 20 69 

 At Least Full Time 41 6 56 69 10 51 

Earnings Main Source of Income 59 12 74 86 20 82 

Housing Rated Poor 12 7 13 16 11 14 

Housing Rated Good+ 68 81 64 58 68 66 

Neighborhood Rated Poor 10 4 13 14 12 8 

Neighborhood Rated Good+ 66 78 62 60 66 64 

In Central Cities 51 45 51 50 54 54 

Suburbs 33 37 34 33 24 31

Northeast 23 32 20 21 29 19

South 31 28 32 33 27 34

West 25 19 30 32 19 24

Head Age 75+ 11 52 0 0 0 0 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey .

A–14 
Table A–6a 

Housing Problems and Characteristics of Extremely-Low-Income 

Renters by Household Type, 1999 

Total 

Elderly,

No 

Children

Families 

 With 

 Children

Other 

Families

Nonfamily

Reporting 

SSI Income 

Other 

Nonfamily

Total Households (Thousands) 8,553 2,034 3,554 328 858 1,779

Number of Children 7,749 0 7,749 0 0 0 

Number of Persons 19,874 2,565 13,162 762 1,126 2,259 

Children/Household .91 .00 2.18 .00 .00 .00

Persons/Household 2.32 1.26 3.70 2.32 1.31 1.27

Number of Households With:

Priority Problems 3,750 806 1,439 156 322 1,027

 Severe Physical Problems 325 47 124 11 41 103 

 Rent Burden >50% of Income 3,608 782 1,387 156 305 978 

 Rent Burden Only 2,883 685 1,008 129 221 840 

 Multiple Problems 790 107 415 27 90 151

Other Problems 1,064 208 552 56 51 198

 Moderate Physical Problems 276 55 111 15 8 87 

 Rent Burden 31–50% of Income 866 187 456 44 46 133 

 Rent Burden Only 596 153 257 38 37 111 

 Crowded 242 0 230 6 6 0 

 Multiple Problems 292 34 218 8 9 22 

No Problems at All 1,671 476 604 66 175 349 

Unassisted, No Problems 721 166 206 51 31 258 

In Assisted Housing 3,026 854 1,357 65 454 297 

One Person in Household 3,720 1,574 98 0 654 1,393 

Husband-Wife Family 1,714 354 1,066 170 69 55 

Female Head 4,894 1,246 2,192 106 477 873 

Minority Head 4,582 727 2,500 220 385 750 

AFDC/SSI Income 2,218 390 1,208 0 619 0

Social Security Income 2,433 1,744 299 0 390 0 

Income Below 50% of Poverty 3,138 435 1,543 128 194 838 

Income Below Poverty 7,028 1,317 3,228 255 745 1,483 

 Income Below 150% of Poverty 8,454 1,966 3,542 326 858 1,763 

High School Graduate 5,052 891 1,966 228 515 1,453 

Two+ Years Post High School 1,017 177 254 57 79 449 

Earnings at Minimum Wage: 

 At Least Half Time 2,896 103 1,771 196 52 775 

 At Least Full Time 1,489 37 1,067 123 13 250 

Earnings Main Source of Income 3,819 143 2,139 244 73 1,220 

Housing Rated Poor 1,125 163 501 51 95 315 

Housing Rated Good+ 5,732 1,630 2,216 198 581 1,107 

Neighborhood Rated Poor 928 80 528 46 101 173 

Neighborhood Rated Good+ 5,519 1,574 2,097 192 570 1,086 

In Central Cities 4,487 961 1,912 178 482 954 

Suburbs 2,742 750 1,150 112 190 539

Northeast 2,025 668 717 61 261 317

South 2,743 593 1,185 110 216 639

West 2,051 356 1,008 115 154 419

A–15 
Table A–6a (continued)

Total 

Elderly,

No 

Children

Families 

 With 

 Children

Other 

Families

Nonfamily

Reporting 

SSI Income 

Other 

Nonfamily

Percentage of Households With:

Priority Problems 44 40 40 47 38 58

 Severe Physical Problems 4 2 3 3 5 6 

 Rent Burden >50% of Income 42 38 39 47 36 55 

 Rent Burden Only 34 34 28 39 26 47 

 Multiple Problems 9 5 12 8 11 8

Other Problems 12 10 16 17 6 11

 Moderate Physical Problems 3 3 3 5 1 5 

 Rent Burden 31–50% of Income 10 9 13 13 5 7 

 Rent Burden Only 7 8 7 12 4 6 

 Crowded 3 0 6 2 1 0 

 Multiple Problems 3 2 6 3 1 1 

No Problems at All 20 23 17 20 20 20

Unassisted, No Problems 8 8 6 16 4 14

In Assisted Housing 35 42 38 20 53 17

One Person in Household 43 77 3 0 76 78 

Husband-Wife Family 20 17 30 52 8 3 

Female Head 57 61 62 32 56 49

Minority Head 54 36 70 67 45 42

AFDC/SSI Income 26 19 34 0 72 0

Social Security Income 28 86 8 0 46 0 

Income Below 50% of Poverty 37 21 43 39 23 47 

Income Below Poverty 82 65 91 78 87 83 

 Income Below 150% of Poverty 99 97 100 99 100 99 

High School Graduate 59 44 55 70 60 82 

Earnings at Minimum Wage: 

 At Least Half Time 34 5 50 60 6 44 

 At Least Full Time 17 2 30 37 1 14 

Earnings Main Source of Income 45 7 60 74 9 69 

Housing Rated Poor 13 8 14 15 11 18 

Housing Rated Good+ 67 80 62 60 68 62 

Neighborhood Rated Poor 11 4 15 14 12 10 

Neighborhood Rated Good+ 65 77 59 58 67 61 

In Central Cities 52 47 54 54 56 54 

Suburbs 32 37 32 34 22 30 

Northeast 24 33 20 19 30 18 

South 32 29 33 33 25 36

West 24 17 28 35 18 24

Head Age 75+ 12 51 0 0 0 0 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey .

A–16 
Table A–7 

Housing Problems and Characteristics of Worst Case Renters 

 With 

SSI Income

Nonby Household Type, 1999 

Total

Elderly,

No 

Children

Families

 Children

Other 

Families

Nonfamily

Reporting 

Other 

family

Households With Priority

Problems (Thousands) 4,856 1,028 1,793 226 371 1,438

Number of Children 3,646 0 3,636 0 0 0

Number of Persons 10,881 1,357 6,520 530 512 1,962

Children/Household .75 .00 2.03 .00 .00 .00

Persons/Household 2.24 1.32 3.64 2.34 1.38 1.36

Number of Households With:

Severe Physical Problems 526 63 216 24 56 167

Rent Burden >50% of Income 4,553 991 1,658 219 342 1,343

 Rent Burden Only 3,737 884 1,250 183 250 1,160

Multiple Problems 969 120 499 43 104 202

One Person in Household 2,116 750 62 0 260 1,045

Husband-Wife Family 1,078 209 656 117 31 65

Female Head 2,489 637 921 75 203 651

Minority Head 2,324 316 1,149 131 184 545

AFDC/SSI Income 849 122 477 0 250 0

Social Security Income 1,247 924 152 0 171 0

Income Below 50% of Poverty 1,441 230 632 52 102 426

Income Below Poverty 3,240 552 1,398 128 287 875

 Income Below 150% of Poverty 4,286 831 1,697 202 355 1,201

High School Graduate 3,258 571 1,094 180 214 1,199

Two+ Years Post High School 782 121 165 44 42 410

Earnings at Minimum Wage: 

 At Least Half Time 2,189 76 1,035 174 36 868

 At Least Full Time 1,371 38 720 121 10 482

Earnings Main Source of Income 2,807 101 1,225 213 47 1,221

Housing Rated Poor 679 96 289 28 61 206

Housing Rated Good+ 3,234 799 1,102 148 225 960

Neighborhood Rated Poor 423 38 193 26 45 120

Neighborhood Rated Good+ 3,193 787 1,107 143 217 940

In Central Cities 2,504 457 919 115 215 799

Suburbs 1,703 435 642 88 89 449

Northeast 1,035 310 328 38 102 257

South 1,548 309 544 69 123 504

West 1,373 213 605 93 76 386

A–17 
Table A–7 (continued) 

Total

Elderly,

No 

Children

Families

 With 

 Children

Other 

Families

Nonfamily

Reporting 

SSI Income

Other 

Nonfamily

Percentage of Worst Case 

Households With:

Severe Physical Problems 11 6 12 11 15 12 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 94 96 92 97 92 93 

 Rent Burden Only 77 86 70 81 67 81 

Multiple Problems 20 12 28 19 28 14

One Person in Household 44 73 3 0 70 73 

Husband-Wife Family 22 20 37 51 8 5 

Female Head 51 62 51 33 55 45

Minority Head 48 31 64 58 50 38

AFDC/SSI Income 17 12 27 0 67 0 

Social Security Income 26 90 8 0 46 0 

Income Below 50% of Poverty 30 22 35 23 27 30 

Income Below Poverty 67 54 78 57 77 61 

 Income Below 150% of Poverty 88 81 95 89 96 84 

High School Graduate+ 67 56 61 80 58 83 

Earnings at Minimum Wage: 

 At Least Half Time 45 7 58 77 10 60 

 At Least Full Time 28 4 40 53 3 34 

Earnings Main Source of Income 58 10 68 94 13 85 

Housing Rated Poor 14 9 16 12 16 14 

Housing Rated Good+ 67 78 61 65 61 67 

Neighborhood Rated Poor 9 4 11 12 12 8 

Neighborhood Rated Good+ 66 77 62 63 59 65 

In Central Cities 52 44 51 51 58 56 

Suburbs 35 42 36 39 24 31

Northeast 21 30 18 17 28 18

South 32 30 30 30 33 35

West 28 21 34 41 20 27

Head Age 75+ 11 53 0 0 0 0 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey .

A–18 
Table A–7a 

Housing Problems and Characteristics of Extremely-Low-Income 

Worst Case Renters by Household Type, 1999 

Total

Elderly,

No 

Children

Families

 With 

 Children

Other 

Families

Nonfamily

Reporting 

SSI Income

Other 

Nonfamily 

Households With Priority

Problems (Thousands) 3,750 806 1,439 156 322 1,027 

Number of Children 2,995 0 2,995 0 0 0 

Number of Persons 8,534 1,064 5,287 369 432 1,381 

Children/Household .80 .00 2.08 .00 .00 .00

Persons/Household 2.28 1.32 3.67 2.37 1.34 1.35

Number of Households With:

Severe Physical Problems 325 47 124 11 41 103 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 3,608 782 1,387 156 305 978 

 Rent Burden Only 2,883 685 1,008 129 221 840 

Multiple Problems 790 107 415 27 90 151

One Person in Household 1,627 589 55 0 233 750 

Husband-Wife Family 824 167 519 83 19 35 

Female Head 1,978 508 758 44 180 488

Minority Head 1,891 266 969 93 157 406

AFDC/SSI Income 797 115 451 0 231 0

Social Security Income 961 711 118 0 132 0 

Income Below 50% of Poverty 1,441 230 632 52 102 426 

Income Below Poverty 3,140 550 1,326 119 282 862 

Income Below 150% of Poverty 3,704 774 1,436 156 322 1,016 

High School Graduate+ 2,415 423 822 120 185 865 

Two+ Years Post High School 527 84 102 25 29 287 

Earnings at Minimum Wage: 

 At Least Half Time 1,375 39 720 109 14 494 

 At Least Full Time 629 13 418 60 0 137 

Earnings Main Source of Income 1,998 73 914 147 25 839 

Housing Rated Poor 579 88 245 19 55 171 

Housing Rated Good+ 2,425 619 854 102 195 656 

Neighborhood Rated Poor 352 34 161 15 41 101 

Neighborhood Rated Good+ 2,380 603 851 99 190 637 

In Central Cities 1,960 381 744 80 196 560 

Suburbs 1,301 325 520 65 69 323

Northeast 79735 257 258 23 91 168 

South 1,170 251 412 38 111 358

West 1,034 155 484 72 57 266

A–19 
Table A–7a (continued)

Total

Elderly,

No 

Children

Families

 With 

 Children

Other 

Families

Nonfamily

Reporting 

SSI Income

Other 

Nonfamily

Percentage of Worst Case 

Households With:

Priority Problems 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Severe Physical Problems 9 6 9 7 13 10 

Rent Burden >50% of Income 96 97 96 100 95 95 

 Rent Burden Only 77 85 70 83 69 82 

Multiple Problems 21 13 29 17 28 15

One Person in Household 43 73 4 0 72 73 

Husband-Wife Family 22 21 36 53 6 3 

Female Head 53 63 53 28 56 48 

Minority Head 50 33 67 60 49 40 

AFDC/SSI Income 21 14 31 0 72 0 

Social Security Income 26 88 8 0 41 0 

Income Below 50% of Poverty 38 29 44 33 32 41 

Income Below Poverty 84 68 92 76 88 84 

 Income Below 150% of Poverty 99 96 100 100 100 99 

High School Graduate 64 52 57 77 58 84 

Earnings at Minimum Wage: 

 At Least Half Time 37 5 50 70 4 48 

 At Least Full Time 17 2 29 39 0 13 

Earnings Main Source of Income 53 9 64 95 8 82 

Housing Rated Poor 15 11 17 12 17 17 

Housing Rated Good+ 65 77 59 65 60 64 

Neighborhood Rated Poor 9 4 11 10 13 10 

Neighborhood Rated Good+ 63 75 59 64 59 62 

In Central Cities 52 47 52 51 61 55 

Suburbs 35 40 36 42 21 31

Northeast 21 32 18 15 28 16

South 31 31 29 25 34 35 

West 28 19 34 46 18 26

Head Age 75+ 11 52 1 0 0 0 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey .

A–20 
Table A–8 

Detailed Housing Problems of Worst Case Renters by Household Type, 

1987, 1995, 1997, and 1999 

1987 1995 1997 1999

Elderly

Severe Physical Problems 

 Only 59 5% 29 3% 42 4% 24 2%

 And Rent Burden >50% Income 13 1% 15 1% 26 2% 27 3%

 And Other Problem(s) 18 2% 22 2% 18 2% 13 1%

Rent Burden >50% Income

 Only 939 85% 933 89% 1,005 85% 884 86%

 And Moderate Physical Problems

 but Uncrowded 

78 7% 50 5% 86 7% 81 8%

 And Moderate Physical 

 Problems and Crowded 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

 And Crowded but Adequate 2 0% 1 0% 3 0% 0 0%

Total 1,110 100% 1,050 100% 1,180 100% 1,028 100%

Families With Children

Severe Physical Problems 

 Only 37 2% 22 1% 53 3% 44 2%

 And Rent Burden >50% Income 69 4% 45 2% 46 2% 81 5%

 And Other Problem(s) 65 4% 60 3% 80 4% 91 5%

Recent Burden >59% Income

 Only 1,206 67% 1,412 70% 1,430 70% 1,250 70%

 And Moderate Physical Problems 

 but Uncrowded 

201 11% 160 8% 138 7% 127 7%

 And Moderate Physical Problems 

 and Crowded 

75 4% 42 2% 49 2% 31 2%

 And Crowded but Adequate 140 8% 274 14% 254 12% 169 9%

Total 1,792 100% 2,015 100% 2,051 100% 1,793 100%

Disabled 

Severe Physical Problems 

 Only 12 3% 13 3% 13 3% 17 4%

 And Rent Burden >50% Income 21 6% 18 4% 10 3% 27 7%

 And Other Problem(s) 16 4% 16 3% 9 2% 12 3%

Rent Burden >50% Income

 Only 249 70% 329 72% 267 71% 250 67%

 And Moderate Physical Problems 

 but Uncrowded 

54 15% 73 16% 68 18% 58 16%

 And Moderate Physical Problems 

 and Crowded 

2 1% 10 2% 8 2% 5 1%

 And Crowded but Adequate 2 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 1%

Total 356 100% 459 100% 374 100% 371 100%

A–21 
Table A–8 (continued) 

1987 1995 1997 1999

Other Households 

Severe Physical Problems 

 Only 54 4% 35 2% 59 3% 66 4%

 And Rent Burden >50% Income 25 2% 49 3% 84 5% 89 5%

 And Other Problem(s) 29 2% 45 3% 50 3% 36 2%

Rent Burden >50% Income

 Only 1,063 83% 1,439 86% 1,451 82% 1,352 81%

 And Moderate Physical Problems 

 but Uncrowded 

101 8% 104 6% 131 7% 119 7%

 And Moderate Physical Problems 

 and Crowded 

0 0% 4 0% 0 0% 2 0%

 And Crowded but Adequate 2 0% 2 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Total 1,275 100% 1,678 100% 1,774 100% 1,664 100%

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1987, 1991, 1993, 1995, and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

A–22 
Table A–9 

Housing Problems Among Very-Low-Income Renters by Race and Ethnicity, 

 1978, 1987, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, and 1999 

Number of Households (Thousands) As Percent of Households 

1978 1987 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 1978 1987 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Non-Hispanic White 6,673 7,849 7,908 8,127 7,579 7,564 7,266

Priority Problems 2,602 2,765 2,888 2,971 2,851 2,947 2,532 39% 35% 37% 37% 38% 39% 35%

 Severe Physical Problems 500 177 329 231 163 203 214 7% 2% 4% 3% 2% 3% 3%

 Rent Burden >50% 2,215 2,645 2,690 2,825 2,731 2,812 2,391 33% 34% 34% 35% 36% 37% 33%

 Rent Burden Only 1,928 2,371 2,347 2,528 2,453 2,486 2,115 29% 30% 30% 31% 32% 33% 29%

Other Problems 1,915 1,994 1,925 2,037 1,755 1,737 1,790 29% 25% 24% 25% 23% 23% 25%

 Moderate Physical Problems 314 338 278 243 265 333 291 5% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4% 4%

 Rent Burden 31–50% 1,682 1,774 1,732 1,855 1,604 1,517 1,603 25% 23% 22% 23% 21% 20% 22%

 Crowded 133 133 90 130 97 91 100 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1%

 Rent Burden Only 1,538 1,566 1,679 1,407 1,338 1,420 NA 20% 20% 21% 19% 18% 20%

No Problems, Total 1,701 1,892 2,111 2,043 1,974 1,664 1,754 25% 24% 27% 25% 26% 22% 24%

No Problems, Unassisted 1,088 1,162 1,215 1,183 1,102 1,042 1,097 16% 15% 15% 15% 15% 14% 15%

Assisted 1,068 1,931 1,847 1,930 1,857 1,838 1,846 16% 25% 23% 24% 25% 24% 25%

 Priority As % Unassisted 46% 47% 48% 48% 50% 51% 47%

Non-Hispanic Black 2,643 3,275 3,525 3,725 3,676 3,624 3,889

Priority Problems 936 1,021 973 1,070 1,109 1,087 1,194 35% 31% 28% 29% 30% 30% 31%

 Severe Physical Problems 367 164 135 99 107 130 130 14% 5% 4% 3% 3% 4% 4%

 Rent Burden >50% 655 920 886 1,001 1,041 1,004 1,128 25% 28% 26% 27% 28% 28% 29%

 Rent Burden Only 423 622 622 762 789 756 838 16% 19% 18% 20% 21% 21% 22%

Other Problems 673 671 771 743 698 704 911 25% 20% 22% 20% 19% 19% 23%

 Moderate Physical Problems 256 269 245 228 154 194 229 10% 8% 7% 6% 4% 5% 6%

 Rent Burden 31–50% 484 501 616 609 608 566 772 18% 15% 17% 16% 17% 16% 20%

 Crowded 119 78 92 80 80 88 96 5% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2%

 Rent Burden Only 373 448 466 486 429 614 NA 11% 13% 13% 13% 12% 16%

No Problems, Total 645 668 893 1,026 882 831 821 24% 20% 25% 28% 24% 23% 21%

No Problems, Unassisted 285 219 298 283 273 318 325 11% 7% 8% 8% 7% 9% 8%

Assisted 748 1,362 1,471 1,627 1,594 1,515 1,458 28% 42% 42% 44% 43% 42% 37%

 Priority As % Unassisted 49% 53% 47% 51% 53% 52% 49%

Hispanic Origin 1,123 1,690 2,010 2,214 2,584 2,762 2,754

Priority Problems 358 582 724 872 940 1,036 837 32% 34% 36% 39% 36% 38% 30%

 Severe Physical Problems 88 65 91 100 81 128 138 8% 4% 5% 5% 3% 5% 5%

 Rent Burden >50% 292 529 681 809 900 953 758 26% 31% 34% 37% 35% 35% 28%

 Rent Burden Only 192 338 426 557 638 661 551 17% 20% 21% 25% 25% 24% 20%

Other Problems 420 519 634 630 773 814 930 37% 31% 32% 28% 30% 29% 34%

 Moderate Physical Problems 108 95 86 100 115 177 153 10% 6% 4% 5% 4% 6% 6%

 Rent Burden 31–50% 279 409 521 505 600 653 746 25% 24% 26% 23% 23% 24% 27%

 Crowded 190 174 223 211 342 325 364 17% 10% 11% 10% 13% 12% 13%

 Rent Burden Only 281 354 354 366 373 468 NA 17% 18% 16% 14% 14% 17%

No Problems, Total 226 274 346 376 476 460 516 20% 16% 17% 17% 18% 17% 19%

No Problems, Unassisted 118 159 181 185 233 266 286 11% 9% 9% 8% 9% 10% 10%

Assisted 227 430 473 527 638 645 700 20% 25% 24% 24% 25% 23% 25%

 Priority As % Unassisted 40% 46% 47% 52% 48% 49% 41%

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1978 Annual Housing Survey and of the 1987, 1991, 1995, 1997, and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

A–23 
Table A–10 

Housing Problems Among Very-Low-Income Renters by Region, 

 1978, 1987, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, and 1999 

Number of Households (Thousands) As Percent of Households 

1978 1987 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 1978 1987 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Northeast 2,723 3,068 3,062 3,278 3,305 3,369 3,422

Priority Problems 1,147 1,034 1,061 1,218 1,229 1,286 1,033 42% 34% 35% 37% 37% 38% 30%

 Severe Physical Problems 288 102 166 136 120 153 154 11% 3% 5% 4% 4% 5% 5%

 Rent Burden >50% 956 966 973 1,143 1,158 1,195 934 35% 31% 32% 35% 35% 35% 27%

 Rent Burden Only 762 784 787 925 976 1,001 801 28% 26% 26% 28% 30% 30% 23%

Other Problems 665 641 568 598 549 573 770 24% 21% 19% 18% 17% 17% 23%

 Moderate Physical Problems 99 87 83 47 70 98 106 4% 3% 3% 1% 2% 3% 3%

 Rent Burden 31–50% 597 561 519 574 508 497 684 22% 18% 17% 18% 15% 15% 20%

 Crowded 84 61 57 59 42 72 93 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 3%

 Rent Burden Only 505 430 502 445 410 582 NA 16% 14% 15% 13% 12% 17%

No Problems, Total 644 668 780 765 752 723 794 24% 22% 25% 23% 23% 21% 23%

No Problems, Unassisted 312 291 339 306 270 343 387 11% 9% 11% 9% 8% 10% 11%

Assisted 599 1,103 1,094 1,156 1,257 1,167 1,232 22% 36% 36% 35% 38% 35% 36%

 Priority As % Unassisted 54% 53% 54% 57% 60% 58% 47%

Midwest 2,373 3,183 3,342 3,446 3,014 2,967 2,984

Priority Problems 834 999 961 1,126 976 939 898 35% 31% 29% 33% 32% 32% 30%

 Severe Physical Problems 172 73 124 91 80 98 75 7% 2% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3%

 Rent Burden >50% 695 953 879 1,065 916 876 858 29% 30% 26% 31% 30% 30% 29%

 Rent Burden Only 611 802 738 934 793 742 728 26% 25% 22% 27% 26% 25% 24%

Other Problems 643 733 849 754 637 673 766 27% 23% 25% 22% 21% 23% 26%

 Moderate Physical Problems 41 80 74 79 79 125 98 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 4% 3%

 Rent Burden 31–50% 589 662 787 683 570 571 686 25% 21% 24% 20% 19% 19% 23%

 Crowded 54 71 66 75 42 63 52 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2%

 Rent Burden Only 595 714 613 524 490 620 NA 19% 21% 18% 17% 17% 21%

No Problems, Total 695 828 947 985 862 782 783 29% 26% 28% 29% 29% 26% 26%

No Problems, Unassisted 458 452 516 487 404 411 402 19% 14% 15% 14% 13% 14% 13%

Assisted 439 999 1,017 1,079 997 944 917 18% 31% 30% 31% 33% 32% 31%

 Priority As % Unassisted 43% 46% 41% 48% 48% 46% 43%

South 3,327 4,266 4,535 4,768 4,534 4,602 4,632

Priority Problems 1,211 1,371 1,474 1,491 1,446 1,635 1,547 36% 32% 33% 31% 32% 36% 33%

 Severe Physical Problems 429 179 174 133 109 150 148 13% 4% 4% 3% 2% 3% 3%

 Rent Burden >50% 859 1,241 1,350 1,385 1,370 1,530 1,464 26% 29% 30% 29% 30% 33% 32%

 Rent Burden Only 599 932 1,045 1,155 1,110 1,240 1,186 18% 22% 23% 24% 24% 27% 26%

Other Problems 1,057 1,231 1,288 1,326 1,194 1,143 1,269 32% 29% 28% 28% 26% 25% 27%

 Moderate Physical Problems 472 469 376 380 311 336 349 14% 11% 8% 8% 7% 7% 8%

 Rent Burden 31–50% 705 943 1,002 1,057 991 912 1,024 21% 22% 22% 22% 22% 20% 22%

 Crowded 171 137 151 132 161 114 153 5% 3% 3% 3% 4% 2% 3%

 Rent Burden Only 674 800 853 765 708 820 NA 16% 18% 18% 17% 15% 18%

No Problems, Total 711 924 1,169 1,258 1,184 992 1,016 21% 22% 26% 26% 26% 22% 22%

No Problems, Unassisted 416 546 590 619 659 617 607 12% 13% 13% 13% 15% 13% 13%

Assisted 642 1,118 1,169 1,332 1,235 1,209 1,209 19% 26% 26% 28% 27% 26% 26%

 Priority As % Unassisted 45% 44% 44% 43% 44% 48% 45%

A–24 
Table A–10 (continued)

Number of Households (Thousands) As Percent of Households 

1978 1987 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 1978 1987 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

West 2,192 2,756 3,062 3,246 3,696 3,863 3,765

Priority Problems 747 1,130 1,347 1,362 1,552 1,519 1,373 34% 41% 44% 42% 42% 39% 36%

 Severe Physical Problems 75 63 117 94 60 88 148 3% 2% 4% 3% 2% 2% 4%

 Rent Burden >50% 692 1,083 1,292 1,313 1,518 1,455 1,298 32% 39% 42% 40% 41% 38% 34%

 Rent Burden Only 598 937 1,011 1,044 1,235 1,169 1,024 27% 34% 33% 32% 33% 30% 27%

Other Problems 707 702 766 891 1,016 1,082 1,058 32% 25% 25% 27% 28% 28% 28%

 Moderate Physical Problems 83 88 109 92 105 184 156 4% 3% 4% 3% 3% 5% 4%

 Rent Burden 31–50% 588 618 672 803 893 930 919 27% 22% 22% 25% 24% 24% 24%

 Crowded 162 153 164 197 300 306 312 7% 6% 5% 6% 8% 8% 8%

 Rent Burden Only 486 508 630 644 662 631 NA 18% 17% 19% 17% 17% 17%

No Problems, Total 574 508 594 576 682 614 708 26% 18% 19% 18% 18% 16% 19%

No Problems, Unassisted 335 293 305 305 339 327 435 15% 11% 10% 9% 9% 8% 12%

Assisted 401 630 645 689 789 936 898 18% 23% 21% 21% 21% 24% 24%

 Priority As % Unassisted 42% 53% 56% 53% 53% 52% 48%

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1978 Annual Housing Survey and of the 1987, 1991, 1993, 1995,1997 and 1999 American Housing

Surveys.

A–25 
Table A–11 

Housing Problems Among Very-Low-Income Renters by Metropolitan Location, 

1987, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, and 1999 

Number of households (Thousands) As Percent of Households 

1987 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 1987 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Central Cities 6,938 7,157 7,419 7,260 7,479 7,487

Priority Problems 2,442 2,474 2,759 2,666 2,719 2,504 35% 35% 37% 37% 36% 33%

 Severe Physical Problems 202 295 272 199 300 326 3% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4%

 Rent Burden >50% 2,319 2,305 2,591 2,550 2,530 2,316 33% 32% 35% 35% 34% 31%

 Rent Burden Only 1,825 1,777 2,076 2,066 2,028 1,822 26% 25% 28% 28% 27% 24%

Other Problems 1,679 1,766 1,698 1,650 1,745 1,990 24% 25% 23% 23% 23% 27%

 Moderate Physical Problems 357 316 277 263 407 364 5% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5%

 Rent Burden 31–50% 1,445 1,528 1,499 1,440 1,453 1,700 21% 21% 20% 20% 19% 23%

 Crowded 208 262 239 298 323 341 3% 4% 3% 4% 4% 5%

 Rent Burden Only 1,180 1,217 1,234 1,138 1,081 1,348 17% 17% 17% 16% 14% 18%

No Problems, Total 1,352 1,643 1,634 1,549 1,479 1,512 19% 23% 22% 21% 20% 20%

No Problems, Unassisted 638 724 683 642 725 749 9% 10% 9% 9% 10% 10%

Assisted 2,181 2,192 2,281 2,302 2,290 2,246 31% 31% 31% 32% 31% 30%

 Priority As % Unassisted 51% 50% 54% 54% 52% 48%

Suburbs 3,854 4,352 4,766 4,855 4,847 4,903

Priority Problems 1,357 1,660 1,735 1,831 1,881 1,703 35% 38% 36% 38% 39% 35%

 Severe Physical Problems 88 165 110 95 100 108 2% 4% 2% 2% 2% 2%

 Rent Burden >50% 1,300 1,569 1,663 1,762 1,820 1,648 34% 36% 35% 36% 38% 34%

 Rent Burden Only 1,131 1,313 1,444 1,512 1,556 1,451 29% 30% 30% 31% 32% 30%

Other Problems 1,054 1,150 1,303 1,239 1,132 1,272 27% 26% 27% 26% 23% 26%

 Moderate Physical Problems 182 133 173 153 190 186 5% 3% 4% 3% 4% 4%

 Rent Burden 31–50% 903 1,015 1,170 1,102 976 1,133 23% 23% 25% 23% 20% 23%

 Crowded 158 119 183 198 186 207 4% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4%

 Rent Burden Only 732 906 980 909 783 905 19% 21% 21% 19% 16% 18%

No Problems, Total 832 1,009 1,116 1,155 994 1,106 22% 23% 23% 24% 21% 23%

No Problems, Unassisted 497 587 616 646 602 696 13% 13% 13% 13% 12% 14%

Assisted 944 955 1,112 1,139 1,232 1,231 25% 22% 23% 23% 25% 25%

 Priority As % Unassisted 47% 49% 47% 49% 52% 46%

Nonmetropolitan 2,480 2,493 2,553 2,433 2,475 2,413

Priority Problems 735 708 704 706 779 648 30% 28% 28% 29% 31% 27%

 Severe Physical Problems 130 121 71 75 89 93 5% 5% 3% 3% 4% 4%

 Rent Burden >50% 624 633 652 650 706 590 25% 25% 26% 27% 29% 24%

 Rent Burden Only 501 490 538 537 568 462 20% 20% 21% 22% 23% 19%

Other Problems 574 555 570 507 594 601 23% 22% 22% 21% 24% 25%

 Moderate Physical Problems 186 193 146 149 147 160 7% 8% 6% 6% 6% 7%

 Rent Burden 31–50% 437 440 450 419 481 480 18% 18% 18% 17% 19% 20%

 Crowded 60 56 41 50 47 59 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

 Rent Burden Only 345 329 385 329 407 400 14% 13% 15% 14% 16% 17%

No Problems, Total 742 838 834 775 639 680 30% 34% 33% 32% 26% 28%

No Problems, Unassisted 449 439 416 384 370 388 18% 18% 16% 16% 15% 16%

Assisted 722 791 834 837 733 774 29% 32% 33% 34% 30% 32%

 Priority As % Unassisted 42% 42% 41% 44% 45% 40%

A–26 
Table A–11 (continued)

Number of households (Thousands) As Percent of Households 

1987 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 1987 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

U.S. Total 13,273 14,002 14,738 14,549 14,801 14,803

Priority Problems 4,535 4,842 5,198 5,203 5,379 4,856 34% 35% 35% 36% 36% 33%

 Severe Physical Problems 420 581 453 369 489 527 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 4%

 Rent Burden >50% 4,242 4,507 4,906 4,962 5,056 4,553 32% 32% 33% 34% 34% 31%

 Rent Burden Only 3,457 3,580 4,058 4,114 4,153 3,735 26% 26% 28% 28% 28% 25%

Other Problems 3,307 3,471 3,571 3,396 3,470 3,863 25% 25% 24% 23% 23% 26%

 Moderate Physical Problems 724 641 596 565 743 711 5% 5% 4% 4% 5% 5%

 Rent Burden 31–50% 2,784 2,983 3,119 2,961 2,910 3,312 21% 21% 21% 20% 20% 22%

 Crowded 426 437 464 545 556 607 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4%

 Rent Burden Only 2,257 2,452 2,599 2,377 2,271 2,653 17% 18% 18% 16% 15% 18%

No Problems, Total 2,926 3,490 3,584 3,479 3,112 3,298 22% 25% 24% 24% 21% 22%

No Problems, Unassisted 1,584 1,750 1,714 1,672 1,697 1,833 12% 12% 12% 11% 11% 12%

Assisted 3,847 3,938 4,227 4,278 4,254 4,251 29% 28% 29% 29% 29% 29%

 Priority As % Unassisted 48% 48% 49% 51% 51% 46%

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations from the 1987, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

A–27 
Table A–12 

Assistance and Worst Case Needs Among Very-Low-Income Renters 

by Region and Location, 1987 and 1999 

% of Worst Case 

Assisted Worst Case 

VeryLowIncome 

Renters

Thousands Percent Thousands Percent

With Rent 

Burden Only

As % of

UVLIRs*

1999

Northeast 3,422 1,230 36% 1,035 30% 78% 47%

 Central Cities 1,983 749 38% 607 31% 70% 49%

 Suburbs 1,114 337 30% 371 33% 90% 48%

 Nonmetro 324 144 44% 56 17% 80% 31%

Midwest 2,984 917 31% 899 30% 82% 44%

 Central Cities 1,547 447 29% 497 32% 76% 45%

 Suburbs 778 216 28% 237 30% 89% 42%

 Nonmetro 659 254 39% 165 25% 87% 41%

South 4,632 1,208 26% 1,548 33% 76% 45%

 Central Cities 2,142 600 28% 739 35% 76% 48%

 Suburbs 1,445 348 24% 500 35% 87% 46%

 Nonmetro 1,046 261 25% 310 30% 61% 39%

West 3,765 898 24% 1,373 36% 75% 48%

 Central Cities 1,815 452 25% 661 36% 70% 48%

 Suburbs 1,567 330 21% 596 38% 79% 48%

 Nonmetro 383 116 30% 117 30% 80% 44%

United States 14,803 4,253 29% 4,856 33% 77% 46%

 Central Cities 7,487 2,248 30% 2,504 33% 73% 48%

 Suburbs 4,903 1,230 25% 1,703 35% 85% 46%

 Nonmetro 2,413 775 32% 648 27% 72% 40%

1987

Northeast 3,068 1,102 36% 1,034 34% 76% 53%

 Central Cities 1,853 703 38% 608 33% 71% 53%

 Suburbs 918 280 31% 339 37% 83% 53%

 Nonmetro 297 119 40% 87 29% 81% 49%

Midwest 3,183 999 31% 999 31% 80% 46%

 Central Cities 1,662 556 33% 544 33% 78% 49%

 Suburbs 726 208 29% 234 32% 84% 45%

 Nonmetro 795 235 30% 220 28% 84% 39%

South 4,266 1,117 26% 1,371 32% 68% 44%

 Central Cities 2,027 596 29% 648 32% 71% 45%

 Suburbs 1,213 249 20% 402 33% 80% 42%

 Nonmetro 1,025 273 27% 320 31% 48% 43%

West 2,756 629 23% 1,130 41% 83% 53%

 Central Cities 1,396 326 23% 641 46% 80% 60%

 Suburbs 997 207 21% 382 38% 87% 48%

 Nonmetro 363 96 26% 108 30% 80% 41%

United States 13,273 3,847 29% 4,534 34% 76% 48%

 Central Cities 6,938 2,181 31% 2,441 35% 75% 51%

 Suburbs 3,854 944 25% 1,357 35% 83% 47%

 Nonmetro 2,480 723 29% 735 30% 68% 42%

* Unassisted very-low-income renters

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1987 and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

A–28 
Table A–13 

Housing Problems, Characteristics, and Earnings of Nonelderly

Renters by Relative Income and Household Type, 1999 

Total 0–20% 21–30% 31–50% 51–60% 61–80%

80–

100%

101–

120% 121%+

Renters With Children (Thousands) 12,326 2,171 1,462 2,669 1,090 1,658 1,173 731 1,373

Children/Household 1.91 2.17 2.17 2.00 1.76 1.76 1.77 1.66 1.59

Persons/Household 3.70 3.57 3.84 3.79 3.55 3.64 3.72 3.75 3.73

Percent Of Households With:

Priority Problems 16 43 35 13 4 5 4 3 1

 Severe Physical Problems 3 3 4 3 2 3 2 2 1 

 Rent Burden >50% of Income 14 42 32 10 2 2 1 0 0 

 Rent Burden Only 11 30 25 9 2 2 1 0 0 

 Multiple Problems 4 13 9 3 1 1 1 1 0 

Other Problems 26 6 28 49 39 25 18 13 12 

 Moderate Physical Problems 5 2 4 7 7 6 6 5 5 

 Rent Burden 31–50% Of Income 17 3 26 40 26 13 6 4 2 

 Rent Burden Only 13 2 15 31 24 12 6 4 2 

 Crowded 8 3 12 13 9 8 7 5 6 

 Multiple Problems 5 2 12 10 4 1 1 0 0 

No Problems At All 46 20 17 25 50 66 77 82 85 

Unassisted, No Problems 37 8 6 17 39 57 68 76 78

In Assisted Housing 21 42 31 21 18 13 11 7 8

One-Person Household 2 4 2 1 1 1 1 0 1

Husband-Wife Family 49 24 39 45 46 55 63 70 75

Female Head 41 67 52 45 43 33 24 17 14

Minority Head 54 70 69 61 50 45 42 37 33

AFDC/SSI Income 15 38 26 13 10 5 4 4 4

Social Security Income 6 7 9 7 6 4 3 3 4 

Income Below 50% Of Poverty 13 73 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Income Below Poverty 30 100 78 15 0 0 0 0 0 

 Income Below 150% Of Poverty 46 100 99 69 17 4 0 0 0 

High School Graduate 72 53 58 69 78 81 81 86 88 

Two+ Years Post High School 18 7 8 13 17 21 26 27 41 

Earnings At Minimum Wage: 

 At Least Half Time 83 25 85 95 98 97 97 98 97 

 At Least Full Time 76 6 63 91 96 97 97 98 97 

Earnings Main Source Income 84 43 82 93 96 95 94 96 92 

Head Age <30 37 44 43 39 38 35 36 32 23 

Head Age 31–50 56 47 48 54 57 60 59 64 69 

Head Age 51+ 7 8 9 7 5 6 5 4 8 

Children Age 6–12 26 24 25 26 27 30 29 26 27 

Children Age <6 52 54 59 55 50 49 49 50 48 

Housing Rated Poor 12 15 14 11 12 9 11 9 11 

Housing Rated Good+ 66 61 64 66 65 69 67 69 73 

Neighborhood Rated Poor 10 16 13 11 8 7 6 6 4 

Neighborhood Rated Good 66 56 64 66 72 69 69 74 75 

In Central Cities 44 54 53 48 41 38 36 33 34 

Suburbs 38 32 33 36 40 42 47 46 42

A–29 
Table A–13 (continued)

Total 0–20% 21–30% 31–50% 51–60% 61–80%

80–

100%

101–

120% 121%+

Other Nonelderly Renters 15,304 1,663 690 2,113 1,234 2,377 2,200 1,658 3,369

Persons/Household 1.57 1.40 1.49 1.51 1.51 1.58 1.53 1.64 1.74

Percent of Households With:

Priority Problems 14 48 57 23 8 5 3 3 2

 Severe Physical Problems 3 4 6 4 3 3 2 2 2 

 Rent Burden >50% of Income 11 46 53 20 6 2 1 1 0 

 Rent Burden Only 10 40 45 18 5 2 1 1 0 

 Multiple Problems 2 7 10 3 2 1 0 0 0 

Other Problems 21 6 22 46 38 28 17 11 8

 Moderate Physical Problems 6 4 4 7 6 8 8 6 5 

 Rent Burden 31–50% of Income 16 2 21 43 35 21 10 5 2 

 Rent Burden Only 14 2 18 39 32 20 9 5 2 

 Crowded 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 

 Multiple Problems 1 0 3 4 3 2 1 0 0 

No Problems At All 61 36 10 22 48 64 77 85 89 

Unassisted, No Problems 55 29 7 19 44 57 71 78 81

In Assisted Housing 10 17 15 12 9 9 8 8 9

One-Person Household 55 70 61 62 58 54 55 50 42

Husband-Wife Family 20 9 16 14 15 19 18 22 34

Female Head 35 46 44 40 42 40 36 30 21

Minority Head 34 44 49 42 36 31 31 29 26

Income Below 50% Poverty 8 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Income Below Poverty 13 100 48 3 0 0 0 0 0 

 Income Below 150% of Poverty 20 100 97 36 2 0 0 0 0 

High School Graduate 89 81 80 81 85 91 94 90 95 

Two+ Years Post High School 39 26 23 24 27 35 44 45 59 

Earnings at Minimum Wage: 

 At Least Half Time 90 21 90 95 99 99 99 99 99 

 At Least Full Time 85 1 52 91 98 98 99 99 99 

Earnings Main Source Income 92 51 90 95 98 98 98 98 96 

Head Age <30 42 46 39 44 49 46 40 41 34 

Head Age 31–50 44 39 45 39 40 40 47 46 52 

Head Age 51+ 14 15 17 17 11 13 13 13 15 

Housing Rated Poor 9 19 15 11 9 7 7 7 7 

Housing Rated Good+ 72 62 62 68 71 75 73 75 76 

Neighborhood Rated Poor 7 10 11 8 8 7 7 6 5 

Neighborhood Rated Good 70 59 62 66 69 70 70 73 77 

In Central Cities 48 52 56 52 51 45 46 47 43 

Suburbs 38 32 28 32 38 36 43 38 44

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1999 American Housing Survey.

A–30 
Table A–14 

Rental Units Categorized by Incomes to Which They Are Affordable, 

by Region, 1991, 1995, and 1999 

(Number of units in thousands)

Income as percentage of 1999 HAMFI 

<30% 31–50% 51–60% 61–80% 81–100%

1991 

U.S. total 8,262 12,756 6,493 5,981 2,092 

Northeast 1,747 2,426 1,316 1,333 589 

Midwest 2,187 3,682 1,205 661 186 

South 3,088 4,447 2,153 1,766 421 

West 1,239 2,202 1,819 2,221 895 

1995 

U.S. total 7,454 12,310 7,105 6,959 2,242 

Northeast 1,683 2,361 1,447 1,423 606 

Midwest 1,833 3,371 1,397 828 179 

South 2,708 4,066 2,270 2,411 593 

West 1,231 2,512 1,991 2,297 863 

1999 

U.S. total 6,681 12,092 6,948 7,274 2,271 

Northeast 1,572 2,408 1,425 1,418 422 

Midwest 1,506 3,307 1,286 1,048 211 

South 2,382 3,853 2,178 2,750 763 

West 1,222 2,525 2,059 2,058 875 

* Units affordable to an income range have rents equaling 30 percent of the range's 

incomes. 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1991, 1995, and 1999 American Housing 

Surveys.

A–31 
Table A–15 

Mismatch Ratios by Region: Numbers of Affordable Units per 100 Renters 

With Incomes Below 30%, 50%, 60%, or 80% of 1999 HAMFI,

1991, 1995, and 1999

Affordable* units

per 100 renters with income 

(percentage below HAMFI)

Affordable and available** units

per 100 renters 

(percentage below HAMFI)

<30% <50% <60% <80% <30% <50% <60% <80%

1991 

U.S. total 89 136 150 147 52 87 99 108

Northeast 81 123 138 141 52 82 94 104

Midwest 97 160 164 145 57 100 106 109

South 101 151 164 156 61 96 106 113

West 66 100 127 144 33 63 84 103

1995 

U.S. total 79 126 145 145 47 82 96 107

Northeast 71 114 132 136 48 78 91 102

Midwest 89 160 171 149 52 95 107 109

South 97 139 155 155 54 89 101 110

West 54 94 122 138 31 65 87 104

 

1999 

U.S. total 78 127 147 150 42 78 93 106

Northeast 78 117 137 142 42 74 90 101

Midwest 87 162 172 156 48 94 106 112

South 87 135 152 159 46 81 95 109

West 60 99 128 140 31 64 85 101

* Units affordable to an income range have rents equaling 30 percent of the range's incomes. 

** Units available to an income range are vacant or occupied by renters with income below the range's upper cutoff. 

Source: HUD-PD&R Tabulations of the 1991, 1995, and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

A–32 
Table A–16 

Mismatch Ratios by Region and Metropolitan Location: Numbers of 

Affordable Units per 100 Renters with Incomes below 30%, 50%, and 60% of

1999 HAMFI, 1991 and 1999

Affordable* units

per 100 renters with income 

(percentage below HAMFI)

Affordable and available** 

units per 100 renters 

(percentage below HAMFI)

 <30% <50% <60% <30% <50% <60%

1999 

Northeast 78 117 137 42 74 90

Central Cities 70 113 131 45 77 91 

Suburbs 74 115 143 31 64 84 

Nonmetro 152 152 151 68 93 100 

Midwest 87 162 172 48 94 106

Central Cities 68 146 156 46 96 108 

Suburbs 89 169 188 46 86 104 

 Nonmetro 137 190 190 56 99 106 

South 87 135 152 46 81 95

Central Cities 62 124 144 42 79 96 

 Suburbs 93 135 154 43 74 89 

Nonmetro 134 157 165 60 95 101 

West 60 99 128 31 64 85

Central Cities 48 94 121 29 63 85 

Suburbs 51 91 126 27 59 82 

Nonmetro 163 158 171 59 86 103 

United States 79 127 147 42 78 93

Central Cities 62 118 138 41 78 94 

Suburbs 75 122 148 36 69 88 

Nonmetro 141 166 171 60 95 103 

1991 

Northeast 81 123 138 52 82 94 

Central Cities 75 120 134 53 85 96 

Suburbs 89 128 146 47 73 88 

Nonmetro 103 132 140 56 91 100 

Midwest 98 160 164 57 100 106

Central Cities 83 147 153 55 101 108 

Suburbs 100 176 185 55 96 106 

Nonmetro 126 172 162 63 100 103 

South 101 151 164 61 96 106

Central Cities 83 144 160 59 98 109 

Suburbs 98 153 172 52 89 102 

Nonmetro 141 166 160 77 103 108 

West 66 100 128 33 64 84

Central Cities 53 95 124 33 64 85 

Suburbs 60 92 124 27 57 79 

Nonmetro 140 145 153 54 83 98 

United States 89 136 150 52 87 99 

Central Cities 75 128 144 52 89 100 

Suburbs 86 134 156 45 78 93 

 Nonmetro 132 161 157 67 97 104 

* Units affordable to an income range have rents equaling 30 percent of the range's incomes. 

** Units available to an income range are vacant or occupied by renters with income below the range's 

upper cutoff. 

Source: HUD-PD&R Tabulations of the 1991 and 1999 American Housing Surveys.

A–33 
Table A–17 

Households and Affordable Units by Income as Percentages of HAMFI, Affordable Units per 

Household, and Median Cost/Income Ratio, by Tenure and Relative Income, 1985 and 1999 

1985 1999 

Affordable 

Units

(Thousands) 

Households 

(Thousands) 

Cumulative

Affordable 

Units per 

Household 

Median 

Cost/ 

Income 

Burden

Affordable 

Units

(Thousands)

Households 

(Thousands) 

Cumulative

Affordable 

Units per 

Household 

Median 

Cost/ 

Income 

Burden

Owners

LTE 30% AMI 3,624 4,509 0.80 47% 5,538 6,410 0.86 50%

30.1–50% AMI 5,954 5,767 0.93 27% 8,344 7,138 1.02 25%

50.1–60% AMI 4,534 2,960 1.07 22% 6,624 3,609 1.20 22%

60.1–80% AMI 10,407 5,641 1.30 19% 13,871 7,071 1.42 20%

80.1–100% AMI 11,119 6,679 1.39 18% 12,041 7,326 1.47 18%

100.1–120% AMI 7,961 6,336 1.37 15% 7,588 6,958 1.40 16%

120%+ AMI 14,214 24,253 1.03 12% 16,243 30,283 1.02 13%

All 57,813 56,145 1.03 17% 70,248 68,796 1.02 17%

Renters 

LTE 30% AMI 6,285 8,147 0.77 57% 6,681 8,513 0.78 58%

30.1–50% AMI 9,392 5,148 1.18 36% 12,092 6,243 1.27 35%

50.1–60% AMI 5,888 2,524 1.36 29% 6,948 2,787 1.47 28%

60.1–80% AMI 8,053 3,928 1.50 25% 7,274 4,483 1.50 24%

80.1–100% AMI 3,832 3,729 1.42 22% 2,271 3,743 1.37 20%

100.1–120% AMI 1,194 2,775 1.32 19% 678 2,938 1.25 16%

120%+ AMI 502 6,029 1.09 14% 1,073 5,300 1.09 12%

All 35,147 32,280 1.09 25% 37,018 34,007 1.09 25%

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of 1985 and 1999 American Housing Survey data done for the Millennial Housing Commission. 

A–34 
Table A–18 

Renter Households And Affordable Units By Incomes as Percentage Of HAMFI, Affordable Units per 

Household, and Median Rent/Income Ratio, by Relative Income and Region, 1985 and 1999 

1985 1999 

Affordable 

Units

(Thousands) 

Households 

(Thousands) 

Cumulative

Affordable 

Units per 

Household 

Median 

Rent/ 

Income 

Burden

Affordable 

Units

(Thousands)

Households 

(Thousands) 

Cumulative

Affordable 

Units per 

Household 

Median 

Rent/ 

Income 

Burden

Northeast

LTE 30% AMI 1,454 2,195 0.66 57% 1,572 2,013 0.78 55%

30.1–50% AMI 2,284 1,147 1.12 35% 2,408 1,380 1.17 35%

50.1–60% AMI 1,250 536 1.29 29% 1,425 555 1.37 28%

60.1–80% AMI 1,510 700 1.42 23% 1,418 864 1.42 24%

80.1–100% AMI 828 827 1.36 22% 422 772 1.30 21%

100.1–120% AMI 247 616 1.26 17% 170 601 1.20 17%

120%+ AMI 165 1,360 1.05 13% 343 1,129 1.06 12%

All 7,739 7,382 1.05 25% 7,757 7,314 1.06 26%

Midwest

LTE 30% AMI 1,582 2,058 0.77 58% 1,505 1,727 0.87 58%

30.1–50% AMI 2,936 1,158 1.40 34% 3,307 1,251 1.62 33%

50.1–60% AMI 1,536 632 1.57 28% 1,286 562 1.72 26%

60.1–80% AMI 1,530 992 1.57 23% 1,048 1,033 1.56 22%

80.1–100% AMI 397 853 1.40 19% 211 788 1.37 18%

100.1–120% AMI 86 638 1.27 17% 64 575 1.25 14%

120%+ AMI 26 1,140 1.08 12% 108 856 1.11 11%

All 8,092 7,469 1.08 24% 7,529 6,791 1.11 24%

South 

LTE 30% AMI 2,302 2,438 0.94 52% 2,384 2,732 0.87 56%

30.1–50% AMI 2,721 1,655 1.23 34% 3,850 1,885 1.35 35%

50.1–60% AMI 1,808 767 1.41 30% 2,178 918 1.52 28%

60.1–80% AMI 2,868 1,320 1.57 26% 2,750 1,476 1.59 24%

80.1–100% AMI 1,163 1,172 1.48 22% 763 1,207 1.45 20%

100.1–120% AMI 406 844 1.37 19% 210 1,015 1.31 17%

120%+ AMI 177 2,009 1.12 14% 300 1,976 1.11 13%

All 11,446 10,205 1.12 24% 12,436 11,209 1.11 24%

West

LTE 30% AMI 948 1,455 0.65 61% 1,222 2,041 0.60 61%

30.1–50% AMI 1,451 1,187 0.91 42% 2,525 1,727 0.99 37%

50.1–60% AMI 1,294 590 1.14 31% 2,059 752 1.28 30%

60.1–80% AMI 2,145 916 1.41 27% 2,058 1,110 1.40 26%

80.1–100% AMI 1,444 877 1.45 24% 875 976 1.32 22%

100.1–120% AMI 455 677 1.36 20% 235 747 1.22 17%

120% AMI + 134 1,520 1.09 16% 322 1,339 1.07 14%

All 7,870 7,223 1.09 27% 9,296 8,692 1.07 27%

Source: HUD/PD&R tabulations of 1985 and 1999 American Housing Survey data. 

A–35 
Appendix B 

Glossary

Household and family types 

Family—The “families” eligible for HUD programs have traditionally included 

households with relatives, households with children, elderly single persons age 62 or 

older, and single persons with disabilities. The Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable

Housing Act of 1990 broadened the statutory definition of “family” in a way that makes 

all households eligible for rental programs, including households comprised only of 

nonelderly singles living alone or with other singles to whom they are not related. In this 

report, however, the term “family” refers only to “family households” in which one or 

more persons in the household are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or 

adoption. 

Families with children—Households with a child under age 18 present. 

Elderly—Household in which the householder or spouse is age 62 or older, and no 

children are present.

Other families –Households with a nonelderly householder and no children in which at 

least one person is related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption; or with 

subfamilies whose members are related to each other by birth, marriage, or adoption. 

Nonfamily households—Households with a single nonelderly person living alone or 

only with nonrelatives. 

Households having adult members with disabilities—This category should include all 

nonelderly households with adults with significant physical or mental disabilities. 

Unfortunately, no available data source counts these households perfectly. The American 

Housing Survey (AHS) proxy used in previous reports was an underestimate because it 

counted only nonelderly single persons living alone or with nonrelatives who report 

receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) income. Based on research with the 1995 

AHS supplement on physical disabilities, this report uses an expanded proxy, as 

discussed in Appendix C, but it too undercounts disabled households. HUD program data 

show appreciably more households (without children) having members with disabilities 

receiving rental assistance than does the expanded AHS proxy. Social Security

Administration data on SSI recipients who are blind or have other disabilities provide a

basis for making more complete estimates of very-low-income renters with SSI income

who receive HUD assistance or have a severe rent burden. But even the SSA data are 

incomplete because they exclude very-low-income persons with disabilities who have 

incomes above SSI cutoffs. The estimate of 1.1 million worst case households with 

persons with disabilities is made by increasing the new AHS proxy estimates to account 

for both known sources of undercount. 

A–37 
Types of income 

Income—Income in the AHS is based on the respondent’s reply to questions about 

income during the 12 months prior to interview. It includes amounts reported for wage

and salary income, net self-employment income, Social Security or railroad retirement 

income, public assistance or welfare payments, and all other money income, prior to 

deductions for taxes or any other purpose. Comparison to independent sources of data on 

total household income in 1983 suggests that AHS respondents underreport income by

some 10 to 15 percent, with income from interest and dividends most likely to be 

underreported. Comparisons between 1990 census data and 1989 AHS data summarized 

in Chapter 4 of this report suggest that owners are more likely than renters to underreport 

income. In 1993, the AHS began asking more detailed questions on nonwage income, and 

the share of households reporting nonwage income rose from 63 percent in 1991 to 77 

percent in 1993. Following HUD rules for income eligibility, the first three worst case 

reports also included imputed income from equity in an owned home as income for 

owners, but imputed income from equity is not included as income in this report. 

Following HUD rules, however, the earnings of teenagers 17 and younger are not 

counted as income when determining income eligibility for HUD programs. 

Family income—Reported income from all sources for the householder (the first 

household member 18 years or older who is listed as an owner or renter of the housing

unit) and other household members related to the householder. 

Household income—Reported income from all sources for all household members 18 or 

older. 

Housing problems 

Overcrowding—The condition of having more than one person per room in a residence. 

Rent or cost burden—Ratio between payments for housing (including utilities) and 

reported household income. The calculation used in this report is based on gross income 

reported for the previous 12 months, minus the adjustments to income required by

housing assistance programs before percentage-of-income rents are determined. To the 

extent that respondents underreport total income, the AHS estimates may overcount the 

number of households with cost burden. However, the comparison between 1989 AHS 

data and 1990 census data reported in Chapter 4 suggests that the AHS may count fewer 

households with rent burden than did census data. 

Moderate rent or cost burden—Housing costs over 30 percent but less than or equal to 

50 percent of reported income. 

Severe cost burden—Housing costs exceeding 50 percent of reported income. 

Households reporting zero or negative income are defined as having no cost burden. 

A–38 
Inadequate housing—Housing with severe or moderate physical problems, as defined in 

the AHS since 1984. The definitions are presented in Appendix A of the AHS published 

volumes in detail and in Appendix D of this report. Briefly, a unit is defined as having

severe physical problems if it has severe problems in any of five areas: plumbing, 

heating, electrical system, upkeep, and hallways. It has moderate problems if it has 

problems in plumbing, heating, upkeep, hallways, or kitchen, but no severe problems. As 

Appendix D of this report details, some of the specific questions underlying definitions of 

inadequate housing were changed in the 1997 questionnaire. 

“Priority” or severe housing problems—Problems qualifying for federal preference in 

admission to assisted housing programs between 1988 and 1996: paying more than onehalf of income for rent (severe rent burden), living in severely substandard housing

(including being homeless or in a homeless shelter), or being involuntarily displaced. 

Because the AHS sample tracks housing units and thus cannot count the homeless, AHS

estimates of priority problems in this report include only households with cost burdens 

greater than 50 percent of income or in housing units with severe physical problems. 

Income categories 

HUD-adjusted area median family income (HAMFI)—In 1974, Congress defined 

“low income” and “very low income” for HUD rental programs as incomes not 

exceeding 80 and 50 percent, respectively, of the area median family income, as adjusted 

by HUD. Statutory adjustments in 1999 included upper caps and lower floors for areas 

with low or high ratios of housing costs to income and, for each nonmetropolitan county,

a lower floor equal to its state’s nonmetropolitan average. Estimates of the median family

income and the official income cutoffs for each metropolitan area and nonmetropolitan 

county are made once each decade based on the most recent decennial census results and 

are then updated each year by HUD. (As discussed in Appendixes C and D, however, in 

most years HUD’s AHS tabulations have not used the official yearly updates of HAMFI.) 

It should be noted that HUD continues to base these estimates on median family income, 

not median household income. Each base income cutoff is assumed to apply to a 

household of four, and official cutoffs are further adjusted by household size: one person, 

70 percent of base; two persons, 80 percent; three persons, 90 percent; five persons, 108 

percent; six persons, 116 percent; and so on. 

Low income—Reported income not in excess of 80 percent of HAMFI or, if lower, the 

national median family income. In 1999, 42 percent of AHS households reported incomes 

that fell below the low-income cutoffs. 

Very low income—Income not in excess of 50 percent of HAMFI. In 1999, 25 percent 

of AHS households reported income below the very-low-income cutoffs. 

Extremely low income—Income not in excess of 30 percent of HAMFI. In 1999, 13 

percent of AHS households reported income below 30 percent of HAMFI, a marked drop 

from the 16 percent reported in 1997. 

A–39 
Poor—Household income below the national poverty cutoffs for the United States for 

that household size. (As discussed in Appendix A of the Census Bureau’s AHS 

publications, AHS poverty estimates differ from official poverty estimates made from the 

Current Population Survey in using income of households rather than income of families 

or individuals, and because AHS income questions are much less detailed and refer to

income during the past 12 months rather than a fixed period.) The poverty cutoff for a 

family of four approximates 33 percent of HAMFI. In 1999, 51 percent of very-lowincome households and 83 percent of extremely-low-income households were poor. 

Middle income—For this report, incomes between 81 and 120 percent of HAMFI. Onefifth of households (20 percent) were in this category in 1999. 

Upper income—For this report, households with income above 120 percent of HAMFI. 

Almost two-fifths of U.S. households (38 percent) were in this category in 1999. 

Rental affordability categories 

Several federal rental programs define “affordable” rents as those requiring not more than 

30 percent of an income cutoff defined in relation to HAMFI. Under the Low Income 

Housing Tax Credit, for example, housing units with rents up to (30 percent of) 60 

percent of HAMFI qualify as affordable and eligible for the credit. This report 

generalizes the approach developed to define LIHTC maximum rents for units of 

different size to categorize units as affordable to incomes at or below 30 percent of 

HAMFI, above 30 and up to 50 percent of HAMFI, and above 50 percent of HAMFI. 

Gross rents for each unit, including payments for utilities, are compared to 30 percent of 

HUD’s 30 percent and 50 percent of HAMFI income limits. The income limits are 

adjusted for number of bedrooms using the formula codified at U.S.C. 42(g)(2)(C): no 

bedrooms, 70 percent of base; one bedroom, 75 percent; two bedrooms, 90 percent; three 

bedrooms, 104 percent; four bedrooms, 116 percent, plus 12 percent of base for every

additional bedroom. This formula assumes that an efficiency houses 1 person, a onebedroom unit houses 1.5 persons, and each additional bedroom houses another 1.5 

persons. For vacant units, the costs of any utility that would be paid by an occupant were 

allocated using a hot deck technique with a matrix of structure type, AHS climate code, 

and eight categories of gross rent. 

Housing assistance status

Receiving assistance—As discussed further in Appendix C of this report, to more

accurately identify households participating in housing assistance programs, the order 

and content of the AHS questions about housing assistance were changed in 1997, but 

HUD’s published counts of 1997 assisted units differed from those produced by the 

Census Bureau. In this report, assisted households are identified as those with affirmative 

answers to any of the following questions: As part of your rental agreement, do you need 

to answer questions about your income whenever your lease is up for renewal? (If so,) do 

you report your income to either “a building manager or landlord” or “a public housing

authority or a state or local housing agency”? Do you pay a lower rent because the 

A–40 
government is paying part of the cost of the unit? Is the building owned by a public 

housing authority? 

 

Because state and local assistance are not separately identified by these post-1997 AHS

questions, the revised estimates of assisted households done in this report for the years 

between 1985 and 1995 added those households responding that “a state or local 

government pay[s] some of the cost of the unit” to the pre-1997 estimates given in earlier 

reports that were based only on the questions: “Is the building owned by a public housing

authority? Does the federal government pay some of the cost of the unit? Do the people 

living here have to report the household’s income to someone every year so they can set 

the rent?”

Through 1983, the Annual Housing Survey questions about rental assistance did not 

distinguish federal from state or local assistance. Therefore, the 1978 and 1983 data on 

assisted households in this report should be comparable to the expanded estimates of 

assistance developed here for all years since 1985. 

Worst case needs for rental assistance—Unassisted very-low-income renters with the 

priority housing problems that formerly gave them preference for admission to federal 

rental assistance programs. Because AHS questions do not distinguish federal from state 

or local assistance, however, in this report, as in Rental Housing Assistance—The 

Worsening Crisis, assisted renters include those with state or local assistance. 

Location 

(Standard) Metropolitan Statistical Area—From 1973 to 1983, the definitions of 

metropolitan location in Annual Housing Survey data corresponded to the 243 Standard 

Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) used in the 1970 census. Since 1984, 

metropolitan location in the AHS has referred to the MSAs defined in 1983, based on the 

1980 census. 

Region—The four census regions are the Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. 

A–41 
A–42 
Appendix C 

Procedures Used To Provide the Most Accurate 

Estimates of Worst Case Needs in 1999 Possible 

From 1999 American Housing Survey Data 

To estimate worst case needs for federal rental assistance from American Housing Survey

data as accurately as is possible from survey data, we should determine whether 

household incomes fall below HUD’s official very-low-income limits [50 percent of 

HUD-adjusted area median family income (HAMFI)], whether a household already

receives federal housing assistance, and whether an unassisted income-eligible household 

has one or more of the priority problems that formerly conferred preference in tenant 

selection (rent burdens exceeding 50 percent of income, substandard housing, or being

involuntarily displaced). As discussed in this appendix, the best point-in-time estimates 

of income-eligible households in 1999 include all households with incomes below 

HUD’s 1999 income limits and also make use of the more accurate responses about 

income and rent elicited by questions on outside financial support with household 

expenses that were first asked on the 1999 AHS. Based on research with the 1995 AHS 

supplement on physical modifications of housing and physical disabilities of household 

members, the AHS estimates in this report also use an improved and more complete

proxy to identify households with disabled adults. 

The procedures used in estimating 1999 worst case needs for this report thus differ in 

four respects from the practice in previous reports. 

• The 1997 and 1999 definition of rental assistance was slightly revised following

review of differences between HUD and Census Bureau counts of assisted 

households in 1997. This definition does not distinguish federal from state or 

local assistance programs. 

• New 1999 AHS questions on outside help with household expenditures led some 

households to correct their original responses on income and/or housing expenses. 

• The official HUD income limits used to categorize households as having very low 

incomes in 1999 (or any other income category) were estimated by adjusting the 

1995 income limits to reflect real income growth since 1995 as well as inflation. 

• The AHS proxy used to identify households with adults with disabilities was 

improved based on research with the 1995 AHS Housing Modification 

Supplement. 

This appendix discusses each of these changes and their cumulative impact on counts of 

worst case needs. Because several of these procedural changes also make it more difficult

to identify real changes in worst case needs between 1997 and 1999, the appendix closes 

by discussing the methods used to distinguish between procedural and real changes. 

 

A–43 
Receiving rental assistance 

As discussed in Appendixes B and C of HUD’s previous worst case report to Congress, 

Rental Housing Assistance—The Worsening Crisis, in 1997 the AHS questions intended 

to identify households receiving rental assistance were changed in both content and order 

from those used earlier. Between 1985 and 1995, the worst case reports classified as 

“assisted” those households responding “yes” to any of the following AHS questions: “Is 

the building owned by a public housing authority? Does the federal government pay

some of the cost of the unit? Do the people living here have to report the household’s 

income to someone every year so they can set the rent?” Because the worst case concept

was developed to measure the number and characteristics of households having priority

for federal rental assistance, households responding that “a state or local government 

pay[s] some of the cost of the unit” were not included as receiving (federal) rental

assistance. 

In 1997, the AHS questions were changed to first ask “As part of your rental agreement 

do you need to answer questions about your income whenever your lease is up for 

renewal?” If so, “To whom do you report your income?” Depending on the answers to 

those two questions, households were next asked “Do you pay a lower rent because the 

government is paying part of the cost of the unit?” or questions about specific forms of 

subsidy such as “Is the building owned by a public housing authority?” and “Did a public 

housing authority, or some similar agency, give you a certificate or voucher to help pay

the rent for this unit?” Households responding “no” or “don’t know” to these questions 

were then asked whether their rent was limited by rent control or adjusted by the unit’s 

owner. These new questions no longer attempt to identify state or local rental assistance. 

For the published 1997 AHS volume, the Census Bureau tabulated 5.3 million occupied 

units with affirmative responses to these questions in three categories: owned by a public 

housing authority, government subsidy, and other income verification. Using part of the 

coding recommended by the Census Bureau, HUD’s worst case report on 1997 data 

counted 5.6 million households as assisted. Subsequent investigation of the disparity

between 5.3 and 5.6 million revealed that it arose from different treatment of households 

asked questions about rent control or rent reductions by owner. 

Although assisted households may live in rent controlled units, prior to 1997 AHS 

questions about rent control or owner rent reductions were only asked of renters who had 

answered “No” to both the rental subsidy and income verification questions. With the 

change in question content and order in 1997, some households reporting income 

verification were also asked the rent control and owner reduction questions and then 

tallied in these latter categories in the Census Bureau’s published 1997 AHS volume. 

After careful review, HUD and the Census Bureau decided that the following procedure 

would provide counts of assisted units that are more comparable to pre-1997 data than 

either the counts published by the Census Bureau in 1997 national and 1998 metropolitan 

area reports or the count of 5.6 million assisted units published by HUD in Rental 

Housing Assistance. This alternative procedure results in an estimate of 5.7 million 

assisted households for 1997, and 6.2 million assisted households in 1999. 

A–44 
• Units are “owned by a public housing authority” if the respondent answers yes to “Is 

the building owned by a public housing authority?”

• Otherwise, units receive “government subsidy” if the respondent was assigned to that 

unit or answers yes that “a public housing authority, or some similar agency, [gave 

them] a certificate or voucher to help pay the rent for the unit.” 

• Finally, “other, income verification” units include all others responding yes to “As 

part of your rental agreement do you need to answer questions about your income 

whenever your lease is up for renewal?” and, as a follow-up saying that they report 

their income to either “a building manager or landlord” or “a public housing authority

or a state or local housing agency.” A follow-up answer likely to reflect some type of 

public subsidy was deemed necessary because the income verification is now the 

first, rather than last, question about potential assistance asked in the sequence and 

thus is more subject to misinterpretation. 

The effect of new questions on outside assistance with household 

expenditures 

Although the 1999 national AHS was essentially identical to the 1997 survey in both 

content and procedures in almost all respects, it did ask several new questions of poorer 

renters with high rent burdens. These supplemental questions asked whether persons 

outside the household contributed to household expenses such as rent, food, and child 

care. The new battery of questions was asked of assisted renters who paid more than 35 

percent of their reported income for rent, and of unassisted renters with household 

income below $10,000 who paid more than 50 percent of their income for rent. 

When they were asked these additional questions at the end of the interview, a small 

number of renters corrected their earlier income and/or rent responses. Analysis by the 

Census Bureau shows that respondents representing at most 250,000 unassisted very-lowincome renters changed either their income or rent responses in ways that would tend to 

reduce their rent burden. Although the revised responses about incomes and rents that 

resulted from the Census Bureau’s new 1999 questions about whether any persons 

outside their household provided any financial help with household expenditures should 

provide more accurate estimates of worst case needs as well, the new procedures mean 

that these new estimates are not directly comparable to earlier worst case estimates. 

To estimate the maximum possible impact of the new questions on counts of households 

with worst case needs, this report assumes that all of the 250,000 renters changing their 

responses would otherwise have had severe rent burdens. 

Estimates of official 1999 income limits that account for both inflation and 

income growth 

As Appendix D discusses in more detail, PD&R has prepared estimates of official income

limits to use with the geography available on AHS sample data only for the 3 years—

1977, 1986, and 1995—in which official income limits were developed based on data 

newly available from the most recent decennial census of housing. AHS estimates for 

A–45 
years other than these three have used these limits adjusted for inflation rather than the

actual income limits developed by HUD for program eligibility each year. Because real 

median family income did not grow greatly between 1978 and 1995, this approach 

provides estimates of the number of households below various income limits that should 

not greatly differ from the actual numbers, and moreover, has the advantage that changes 

over time in the number of households in different income categories should reflect real 

differences in income. Between 1995 and 1999, however, median family incomes grew 

appreciably. Reflecting this real income growth, HUD income limits increased, on 

average, by 8.8 percent more than inflation during this 4-year period. Because an accurate 

estimate of the number of households with worst case needs in 1999 should include all 

households qualifying under the 1999 income limits, the 1999 estimates of households in 

different income categories presented in this report are all based on the 1995 income 

limits adjusted both for inflation between 1995 and 1999 and also by real 1995–99 

income growth of 8.8 percent. 

Estimating the number of households with nonelderly adults with 

disabilities 

For this report, information on persons with permanent physical limitations from the

1995 AHS Housing Modification supplement was used to develop a more complete and 

robust proxy for households with nonelderly disabled adults than earlier worst case 

reports used with AHS data. As done in previous reports, estimates prepared with this 

new proxy were increased to be consistent with Social Security Administration (SSA)

data on persons receiving Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) payments and 

paying more than half of their income for rent. In addition, drawing on information from 

the modification supplement, they were further adjusted to account for the fact that SSDI

maximum benefits fall well below HUD’s very-low-income cutoffs. Information from 

both the new AHS proxy and data on SSDI recipients was then used to estimate changes 

over time in numbers of disabled households. Only the AHS proxy gives information on 

the household characteristics and housing problems of nonelderly disabled adults. 

Improving the AHS proxy. Based on research with the 1978 AHS Housing Modification 

Supplement, the AHS proxy for households with nonelderly disabled persons in previous 

worst case reports was nonelderly singles living alone or with other singles who reported 

receiving income from welfare or SSI. From its inception, this proxy was known to 

undercount total households with disabled persons because it excluded households with 

adults who received SSI because of disabilities but who lived in families with children. 

(They were excluded because the AHS question on SSI income lumps welfare and SSI

income together, and we wished to identify families with children who received welfare 

income rather than assuming that all families with children who reported either welfare or

SSI income received SSI income). As the 1996 worst case report showed (p. 28), 

comparison between 1993 AHS results using this proxy and the 1994 SSI Stewardship 

Review sample (SRS) confirmed that the AHS proxy was much too low: it counted 

144,000 households as worst case while the SSI SRS showed that over 820,000 renters 

receiving SSI because of disabilities paid more than half of their income for rent. 

A–46 
In 1995, the AHS included a second Housing Modifications Supplement (AHS-HMS). It

identified over 850,000 very-low-income nonelderly renter households as having persons 

with permanent physical limitations, 280,000 of them with worst case needs.1

 As the first

panel of Exhibit C–1 shows, the original AHS proxy for persons with disabilities used in 

past worst case reports did differentially identify households with persons with physical 

disabilities in 1995: 20 percent of all proxy households and 25 percent of assisted proxy

households had persons with physical disabilities, both higher rates than those observed 

for other nonelderly household types. Nonetheless, the proxy badly undercounted 

nonelderly households with physical disabilities, since it included only 110,000 (or 13 

percent) of the 850,000 total found on the AHS-HMS. Further investigation showed that 

families with children reporting “Social Security” income and other nonelderly

households reporting either SSI/welfare or “Social Security” income also had much 

higher rates of persons with physical limitations than households not reporting these 

income sources, as the second panel of the exhibit illustrates. 

Because of this evidence that nonelderly households reporting either SSI/welfare or 

“Social Security” income had high rates of physical disabilities, this report expands the

proxy for disabled households to include positive responses to either of these questions 

among all nonelderly households without children. As the second panel of the exhibit 

shows, this expanded proxy includes 276,000 very-low-income renters with physical 

disabilities, or 64 percent of the total identified among nonelderly households without 

children, a decided improvement over the earlier AHS proxy for disabled households. 

And one-fourth of the proxy households had physical disabilities, compared to fewer than 

5 percent of the other nonelderly households without children. 

Yet this improved proxy clearly still misses many disabled nonelderly individuals. 

According to the Housing Modification supplement, some 6 percent of worst case 

families with children, and 3 to 7 percent of the remaining nonfamily households with 

worst case problems, had persons with physical disabilities. If rates of physical disability

among family households and other nonelderly worst case households were the same in 

1999 as observed in the supplement in 1995, in 1999 at least 563,000 worst case 

households had [physically] disabled adults. Moreover, since over half of the SSI

disabled recipients have a mental rather than physical disability, simple arithmetic then

suggests that over 1.1 million worst case households might have nonelderly adults with 

either a mental or physical disability. 

Estimating worst case needs from SSI data. As done in previous reports, comparisons 

between AHS data and the SSI Stewardship Review sample allow more complete

estimates of worst case needs among the mentally and physically disabled nonelderly

adults receiving SSI benefits. This approach also suggests that some 1.1 million worst 

case households might have nonelderly adults with either a mental or physical disability. 

 

1

 Because the Housing Modification Supplement focuses on persons with physical disabilities and their 

needs for housing modifications, its counts of persons with physical disabilities probably identify at most 

half of persons who would qualify as disabled. According to the 2000 Green Book, p. 246, “over one-half

of all SSI disabled recipients are eligible on the basis of a mental disability.” 

A–47 
Exhibit C–1 The incidence of physical disability among very-low-income 

renters by household type according to the 1995 AHS Housing 

Modification Supplement using two different proxies for 

households with nonelderly disabled adults 

Physical disabilities reported by household type with former AHS disability proxy

 

All 

households

Elderly With

children

Other 

family

Nonfamily,

SSI

Other 

nonfamily

 Very-low-income renters

 (Thousands) 14,549 3,336 6,502 985 559 3,166 

 Percentage with disability 12% 29% 7% 12% 20% 6%

Assisted 4,278 1,331 2,151 179 253 364 

 Percentage with disability 18% 34% 8% 20% 25% 21%

 Very-low-income renters reporting 

SSI or SS income 2,111 448 536 260 559 308 

 Percentage with disability 27% 35% 25% 33% 20% 26%

Other very-low-income renters 12,438 2,889 5,966 725 — 2,858 

 Percentage with disability 10% 28% 5% 5% — 4%

 

Physical disabilities reported by household type with revised AHS disability proxy

 

All

households

Elderly With

children

Other 

family

Nonelderly, 

no children, 

SSI or SS 

income

Other 

nonfamily

 Very-low-income renters

 (Thousands) 14,549 3,336 6,502 725 1,127 2,858 

 Percentage with disability 12% 29% 7% 5% 24% 4%

Assisted 4,277 1,331 2,151 101 457 238 

 Percentage with disability 18% 34% 8% 9% 29% 14%

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of the 1995 AHS Housing Modification Supplement

As Exhibit C–2 shows, when the AHS relationship between severe rent burden and worst 

case needs is applied to data on blind or disabled adults from the SSI Stewardship review 

sample, results for 1999 imply that some 990,000 very-low-income renters with worst 

case needs were nonelderly adults with disabilities. 

A further adjustment is highly desirable because SSI maximum benefits are less than 

poverty and thus well below HUD’s very-low-income cutoffs. SSI is an income 

supplement with maximum benefit levels that approximate 75 percent of the poverty

level for singles, and 90 percent of the poverty level for couples.2

 These extremely low 

maximum benefits imply that those with SSI income almost always would have total 

incomes below 30 percent of HAMFI. Therefore, SSI estimates probably exclude some

disabled renters with incomes between 30 and 50 percent of AMI. 

 

2

 According to Tables 3–9 and 3–10 of the 2000 Green Book. 

A–48 
Exhibit C–2 

Comparison of all disabled worst case renters to respondents identified by the AHS SSI

ing the

.

The improved AHS proxy implies that a high share of those with disabilities and 

9

rly

o do

on

is

 

Total

With rental

assistance

Rent >50%

of income

Worst case

needs

(Thousands) Number Percent

of total

Number Percent

of total

Number Percent

of total

Needs

as % of

unassisted

American

Housing Surveya

 1987 1,047 471 45% 328 31% 356 34% 62%

 1991 1,087 450 41% 428 39% 380 35% 60%

 1993 1,065 417 39% 314 29% 364 34% 56%

 1995 1,127 457 41% 431 38% 459 41% 69%

 1997 1,093 531 49% 353 32% 374 34% 67%

 1999 1,127 548 49% 350 31% 378 34% 65%

SSI Stewardship

Review Sampleb

 1994 2,148 700 33% 824 38% 881 41% c 61%

 1997 2,207 521 24% 874 40% 935 42% c 55%

 1998 2,151 516 24% 900 42% 962 45% c 59%

 1999 2,171 511 24% 923 43% 988 45% c 59% a

 Households with adults 18–61 living alone or in families without children reporting welfare or Social Security

income

b

 Blind or disabled adults 18–61; 77–74 percent of total shown in SSI review sample to exclude blind or disabled

persons 62 or older

c

 Estimates of worst case need for SSI Stewardship Review sample based on relationship between severe rent

burden and worst case needs shown by AHS data

Source: HUD-PD&R calculations from the American Housing Survey and the SSI Stewardship Review Sample.

proxy from the 1995 HMS shows that that number of physically disabled worst case 

renters with incomes between 30 and 50 percent of HAMFI is underestimated by

approximately 10 percent of the total physically disabled worst case renters. Inflat

SSI estimate of 990,000 by 10 percent to offset this underestimate supports the earlier 

estimate that some 1.1 million disabled nonelderly adults had worst case needs in 1999

Results. 

SSI or welfare income already receive housing assistance. Tabulations with the new 

proxy for the years between 1985 and 1999 show that the share of disabled very-lowincome renters who reported receiving assistance fluctuated between 39 percent and 4

percent, higher than that observed for any other type of household. Yet several 

considerations suggest strongly that the AHS proxy counts the assisted nonelde

disabled more completely than it does the nonelderly disabled worst case renters wh

not receive assistance. In the first place, the estimate from the AHS proxy of 555,000 

assisted disabled in households without children is almost identical to the 543,000 

recorded by HUD administrative data for 1999.3

 Secondly, the SSI data on 2.1 milli

disabled show only 511,000 receiving rental assistance, only one-fourth of the total. Th

3

 As shown in Table A–13 of the previous worst case report.

A–49 
is essentially the same as the HUD administrative data, because some 560,000 disabled 

renters with very low incomes would be assisted if the SSI total is increased by 10 

percent to add very-low-income disabled renters with incomes above the SSI maxim

benefits. 

um

In sum, these considerations suggest that the “true” total of worst case disabled renter 

Trends over time. Even though the AHS new proxy for disabled nonelderly renters [that 

tent

997

is

3.

e

stimating real change between 1997 and 1999 by excluding the effects of

ecause of improvements in AHS questions and processing and the use of 1999 income 

re

t 

its.

 

households in 1999 is 1.1 million, with the “true” total of assisted disabled around 

550,000 households. 

are not in families with children] apparently counts only a third of the number of 

households with worst case needs in this group in 1999, it should provide a consis

estimate of how needs over time changed among the subgroup of disabled renters it 

identifies. As Exhibit C–2 shows, the proxy does not show needs dropping between 1

and 1999, although there was a marked drop, of 18 percent, between 1995 and 1997. 

Indeed, the 1997 and 1999 estimates of worst case need among proxy households are 

quite close in both magnitude and incidence to the 1987, 1991, and 1993 estimates. Th

pattern suggests that the 1993–95 rise in worst case needs among the disabled that was 

highlighted in the 1998 worst case report4

 may have reversed between 1995 and 1997, 

and the total number with needs in 1999 may well be similar to that experienced in 199

Alternatively, worst case needs among the disabled may have increased slightly, because 

estimates based on the SSI Stewardship Review Sample (Exhibit C–2) rose from 940,000

to 990,000 between 1997 and 1999. In either case, the more detailed analysis of AHS and 

SSI data done for this report implies that the number of worst case households with 

nonelderly disabled adults was closer to 1.1 million in both 1999 and 1997 than to th

1.1–1.4 million range estimated for 1995 and 1997 in earlier reports. 

E

procedural changes 

B

limits, HUD judges that the 1999 estimates of worst case needs in this report more 

accurately count current households with severe cost burdens and households not 

receiving assistance than did estimates from earlier surveys, and thus provide a mo

reliable point-in-time measure of the number of households with worst case needs. Bu

the four changes in 1999 procedures discussed above in this appendix mean that the best

1999 estimates cannot be directly compared to previous 1997 results to evaluate real 

change between 1997 and 1999. For this report, data from 1997 and earlier years were

rerun to use the improved proxy to identify households with nonelderly disabled adults,

and the revised definition of assisted households was used in 1997 as well as 1999. But 

even after these changes to make pre-1999 data as comparable as possible to the 1999 

results, special procedures were needed to isolate the impacts of the new 1999 AHS 

questions on outside financial support and of approximating the real 1999 income lim

4

 See Finding 6, page 30, of Rental Housing Assistance—The Crisis Continues.

A–50 
As the first two lines of Exhibit C–3 summarize, when both 1997 and 1999 AHS data 

were tabulated using the improved definition of assisted households and 1995 constantdollar income limits, worst case needs apparently dropped by 660,000 households 

between these 2 years. But some of this decline possibly reflected lower rent burdens 

resulting from corrections to income or rent made by respondents answering the new 

1999 AHS questions on outside financial support. To identify the effects of these new 

questions, the third run on Exhibit C–3 estimated what the 1999 count of worst case 

needs would have been without the new questions. All of 250,000 unassisted households 

whose corrected income or rent reports reduced their reported rent burden were assumed 

to have changed rent burden status from a severe rent burden (more than 50 percent of 

income) to a moderate burden. This reduction is effectively the most conservative 

assumption possible, because some of those with lower post-revision rent burdens may

actually still have had burdens above 50 percent of income. Because the public-use AHS 

data file does not show which households corrected their income or rent, it was necessary

to devise another means of estimating the net impact of this change. To do so, tabulations 

were made of rent burden among the households asked the supplemental questions, and 

250,000 unassisted very-low-income renters with rent burdens between 35 and 50 percent 

of income were found to have answered the supplemental questions. Accordingly, to 

estimate the impact of these corrected responses, those 250,000 households were instead 

assigned a severe rent burden. Doing so increased the number of households with worst 

case needs by 220,000.5

 Therefore, it appears that at most 220,000 of the reduction in 

worst case needs is procedural, and that worst case needs really fell between 1997 and 

1999 by at least 440,000 households. All of the report’s discussion of specific changes 

between 1997 and 1999 is based on a total reduction of 440,000 households, although 

needs may well have fallen by as much as 660,000. 

As discussed above, PD&R has only processed official HUD limits to use with AHS 

geography in the 3 years—1977, 1986, and 1995—when official income limits were 

revised based on results of the most recent decennial census data. In other years, these 

income limits have been used as adjusted only or mainly for inflation. The 1997 worst 

case estimate of 5.4 million made in the previous report in 2000, therefore, was based on 

constant-dollar 1995 income limits. 

When the 1999 data were first processed using the constant-dollar 1995 income limits 

(Run B in Exhibit C–3), worst case needs were clearly lower than in 1997. Numerous 

possibilities were reviewed to determine whether this decline was real. Because the 

significant decline of at least 440,000 appeared due, in part, to real income growth among

all households and among very-low-income renters, we decided that a complete estimate 

of 1999 worst case needs should include those qualifying under HUD’s 1999 income 

limits, which had risen by 8.8 percent above inflation since 1995. As the final line of 

Exhibit C–3 shows, using 1999 income limits rather than constant-dollar 1995 limits 

added 140,000 households to the worst case estimate. 

 

5

 Worst case needs were reduced by only 220,000 because 30,000 of these households had severely

inadequate housing.

A–51 
Exhibit C–3 Results of runs to isolate the effects of procedural changes 

and thus estimate real 1997–99 change in numbers of

households with worst case needs 

Major runs and their assumptions Worst case needs

(thousands)

Differences between estimates

A. Worst case needs in 1997, using 1999

definition of assisted renters and 1995

constant-dollar HUD income limits 5,380

B. Worst case needs in 1999, using 1999

definition of assisted renters and 1995

constant-dollar HUD income limits 4,720

B–A = (660) 1997–99 change

including effects of new questions

C. Worst case needs in 1999, using 1999

definition of assisted renters, 1995 constantdollar HUD income limits, and adjustment to

remove effect of new questions on outside

financial support

4,940

C–B = (220) Possible effect of new

questions on 1999 worst case

estimate

C–A = (440) Minimum real 1997–

99 change within 1995 income

limits and excluding effects of new

questions

D. Worst case needs in 1999 with 1999

income limits and corrections from new

questions on outside financial support

4,860

D–B = 140 Worst case needs

added by raising 1999 income

limits

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations from the American Housing Survey.

A–52 
Appendix D 

Procedures Used To Estimate Comparable Trend Data on 

Housing Needs and Rental Affordability by

Relative Income Between 1978 and 1999 

From Annual and American Housing Survey Data 

Ever since counts of households with worst case needs for rental assistance were first 

estimated in the mid-1980s, there has been interest in measuring changes in these unmet 

needs over time. The first report to Congress in 1991 showed worst case needs increasing

among family and elderly households from 1974 to 1985 before falling between 1985 and 

1989; it also crudely projected future worst case needs under different assumptions about 

household growth and levels of incremental assistance. Several subsequent reports have 

tracked worst case needs among all households for years since 1978, when income data 

were first gathered for all households in the AHS. 

The 1997 changes in questions about rental assistance, however, mean that most pre-1997 

data published in previous reports are not comparable to current data and definitions. 

Moreover, even the 1991–97 trends discussed in the last report to Congress used a 

definition of assistance that has since been slightly changed, as Appendix C details. To 

the degree possible, this report develops consistent data on worst case needs and housing

problems under the revised definition of assistance for the two decades between 1978 and 

1999. Yet the comparability of these data over time are not perfect because of weighting

changes, several differences in AHS questions and definitions, and the approximations of 

income limits used in estimation procedures. Careful review with staff of the Millennial

Housing Commission (MHC) emphasized the importance of clearly describing the 

procedures and assumptions underlying these estimates. 

This appendix discusses the procedures and definitions used with microdata from the

1978 and 1983 Annual Housing Surveys and from the 1985 through 1999 American 

Housing Surveys (AHS) to make comparable estimates of the topics of main interest: the

number of households in different income-eligibility categories that have worst case 

needs, severe housing problems, or other housing problems, and the number of rental 

units in affordability categories defined as percentages of HAMFI compared to the

number of renters with incomes in the same categories. 

• Estimates in this report for the years 1985–99 base income category and rent burdens 

on reported household income for the past 12 months for all households. Because the 

1978 and 1983 Annual Housing Surveys only gathered data about housing costs for 

“specified” owners and renters, however, the 1978 and 1983 estimates of numbers of 

households with rent burdens or other housing problems in this report are made by

assuming that the incidence of housing problems, including rent burdens, observed 

for income categories of specified renters holds for all renters in those income 

categories. 

A–53 
• Area income limits. To categorize households in relation to “local” income limits as 

accurately as possible within the limitations of the geography given on the AHS 

public use files, household income was compared with area income limits for all 

households. Very-low- and low-income cutoffs for a household of four—that is, 50 or 

80 percent of HAMFI, respectively—were defined for each unit of geography

identified on the AHS national microdata tapes. Official income limits were used

directly for each of the 141 MSAs identified on the 1985–99 AHS tapes. For housing

units outside these MSAs, the AHS geography identifies only four regions, 

metropolitan status, and six climate zones. Average income limits were estimated for

each of these 48 locations weighting by 1990 population. A similar but less detailed 

approach was used for 1978 and 1983. The actual income limits for 1978 were used 

for the lower number of MSAs identified then, and average income limits were

calculated for metropolitan areas and nonmetropolitan areas by region otherwise. 

Because developing estimates of HUD’s income limits for the geography identified 

on the AHS microdata is time-consuming, PD&R has prepared income limits to use

with AHS geography only for 3 different years: 1978, 1986, and 1995.6

 AHS

estimates for years other than these three have used these limits adjusted for inflation 

rather than the official income limits published by HUD for program eligibility each 

year. 

Because HUD’s official income limits have been based on 1990 census data since 

1995, limits based on 1990 census data, adjusted for inflation by the CPI-U, were 

used for the estimates of income categories for the time series data for the years 1985 

to 1999 in this report.7

 The 1978 and 1983 estimates use the constant-dollar 1978 

income limits, which were originally developed from 1970 census data. Because 

median family income rose appreciably faster than inflation between 1995 and 1999, 

however, the “best” estimates for 1999 are based on 1995 limits updated both by

inflation and by the average factor 1.0877, by which income has exceeded inflation. 

Although estimates prepared with these “constant-dollar” income limits do not vary

annually as real income rises or falls during business cycles, over most of the past two 

decades they illustrate long-term trends quite accurately. This occurs because median 

family income was remarkably constant in real terms over this period. Expressed in 

1999 dollars, for example, the U.S. median family income was $44,100 in 1979, 

$44,800 in 1986, and $44,400 in 1995. The time-series estimates of very-low-income 

renters and households with worst case needs presented in Chapter 1, therefore, 

closely approximate the actual number of renter households with worst case problems 

who also had very low incomes at different years during that period. More important 

for time-series analysis, because the income limits used for each year (except 1999) 

are essentially the constant-dollar 1995 income limits for that year, the results show 

 

6

 For each of these years, HUD revised income limits for all locations in the country based on income data 

from the most recent decennial Census of Population and Housing. 7

 Technically, the income limits that were developed in 1995 from 1990 census data and observed trends in

metropolitan area income between 1990 and 1995 account for metropolitan area differences between 1991 

and 1995. Consequently, the limits used in this report’s estimates for 1985 through 1991 are the constantdollar 1991 limits, while those used for 1995 and 1997 are the constant-dollar 1995 limits. 

A–54 
the net effects of changes in incomes, rents, and rental assistance on the housing

problems of those who would have been income-eligible in 1995; they do not reflect 

the short-term increases and decreases in income-eligible, very-low-income renters 

that may have occurred because of changes in real income associated with business 

cycles during this period. 

The income limits used for 1985 in this report are not those used in the tabulations 

prepared by PD&R for the MHC. Because the MHC wished to adjust income limits 

for both general price inflation and real income growth, the 1985 limits used for their 

tabulations were “backcast” from the 1991 income limits by accounting for real 

income growth between 1985 and 1991. However, subsequent comparison of the 

1985 income distributions of renters categorized by three different approximations of 

the official 1985 income limits suggests that the approach used in this report gives 

results more similar to actual 1985 limits than the approach used for the MHC 

tabulations. Exhibit D–1 shows the 1985 income distributions of renters grouped in 

relation to 1985 income limits developed in three different ways: 1) the constantdollar 1986 income limits that were developed from 1980 census data in 1986; 2) the 

constant-dollar 1991 income limits (developed from 1990 census data) that were used 

in this report; and 3) the limits used for MHC tabulations that were backcast from 

1991 constant-dollar income limits based on real growth in median family income 

between 1985 and 1999. The percent distributions in the second panel show that the 

second method is better than the approach used for the MHC tabulations: it equals the 

first method exactly in the shares of all renters categorized as having very low 

incomes (0–50 percent of HAMFI) or upper incomes (120+ percent of HAMFI), 

although the correspondence is not exact in the two middle income groups. The MHC 

approach, by contrast, undercounts both very-low-income and low-income groups. It

categorizes only 61.2 percent of renters as having incomes 0–80 percent of HAMFI, 

2.4 percentage points below the 63.6 percent identified by the first method. 

• Categorizing households by income. For all households, income status is 

determined by comparing household income with the very-low- and low-income 

cutoffs, with appropriate adjustments for household size. Households reporting

negative income were redefined as having incomes just above median income if their 

monthly housing costs were above the fair market rent (FMR) and they lived in 

adequate and uncrowded housing, since many households in this situation live in 

housing with amenities such as dining rooms, balconies, and off-the-street parking

and thus may be reporting temporary accounting losses. For the years 1985 on, 

households with incomes above median income were identified by comparing their 

income to the actual median family income for the location, rather than to five-fourths 

of the low-income cutoff, as had previously been done because it was the only

approach possible for estimates made through 1983. 

A–55 
Exhibit D–1 Renters by income in 1985, based on alternative estimates of

1985 HUD income limits 

Categorizing rental units by affordability and households by income. For the 

999

ed

s

This approach provides more accurate estimates than in previous reports of the 

lating

Income as percent of

HUD-adjusted area median income

0–50% 51–80% 81–120% 121%+ Total

1. 1986 constant-dollar income

limits 13,894 6,641 6,289 5,456 32,280

2. 1991 constant-dollar income

limits 13,871 6,564 6,396 5,449 32,280

3. 1985 income limits backcast

from 1991(MHC) 13,294 6,452 6,505 6,029 32,280

1. 1985 income limits backcast

from 1986 43.0% 20.6% 19.5% 16.9% 100.0%

2. 1991 constant-dollar income

limits 43.0% 20.3% 19.8% 16.9% 100.0%

3. 1985 income limits backcast

from 1991 41.2% 20.0% 20.2% 18.7% 100.0%

1. Run October 1995; 2. Run October 2001; 3. Run for the Millennial Housing Commission

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations from the 1985 American Housing Survey.

•

analysis of mismatches between affordability and income in Chapter 3, both 

household income and housing unit rents were compared to multiples of the 1

constant-dollar income limits for income and rent categories up to and including 80

percent of HAMFI and to the actual median family incomes above that. As in the 

analysis of household income, households reporting negative income were redefin

as having incomes just above median income if their monthly housing costs were 

above the FMR and they lived in adequate and uncrowded housing. The tabulation

for 1999 are the same as those produced for the MHC. 

numbers of housing units qualifying as affordable under rules such as those regu

the HOME and low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC). For the LIHTC, housing that 

is affordable to incomes at 60 percent of median income must have rents that are no 

more than 30 percent of six-fifths of HUD’s applicable very-low-income limits (with

appropriate adjustments for number of bedrooms). For ease of calculation, analyses of

shortages of affordable housing in previous worst case reports had compared income 

and rents to multiples of HUD’s estimates of each location’s median family income. 

However, the statutory adjustments made in deriving HUD’s official very-lowincome limits on average make the actual very-low-income limits higher than “50 

percent” of median income. Therefore, the previous data tended to undercount both

the numbers of renters with very low incomes and the number of units defined as 

affordable to them. 

A–56 
• Receiving housing assistance. As discussed in Appendix C, to more accurately

identify households participating in housing assistance programs, the order and 

content of the AHS questions about housing assistance were changed in 1997, but 

HUD’s published counts of 1997 assisted units differed from those produced by the 

Census Bureau. In this report, assisted households are identified as those with 

affirmative answers to any of the following questions: As part of your rental 

agreement, do you need to answer questions about your income whenever your lease 

is up for renewal? (If so,) do you report your income to either “a building manager or

landlord” or “a public housing authority or a state or local housing agency”? Do you 

pay a lower rent because the government is paying part of the cost of the unit? Is the 

building owned by a public housing authority? 

Like the assistance questions used in the Annual Housing Survey through 1983, these 

questions do not distinguish between federal and state or local programs. 

Accordingly, to increase comparability between earlier data and the new definition 

resulting from the 1997 questions, with data from 1985 to 1995 in this report, 

households were counted as receiving housing assistance if they answered “yes” to 

the question “Does the state or local government pay some of the cost of the unit?” or

to one of the three questions: “Is the building owned by a public housing authority?

Does the federal government pay some of the cost of the unit? Do the people living

here have to report the household’s income to someone every year so they can set the 

rent?” 

• Severe or moderate physical problems. For the years from 1985 on, the definitions 

are those used since 1984 in the AHS and defined in Appendix A of published AHS 

volumes. For 1978 and 1983, these definitions were approximated as closely as 

possible from available Annual Housing Survey data, but are not exactly the same as 

the post-1985 definitions. In 1985 and 1987, a change in procedures led to an 

undercount of households with shared plumbing facilities, artificially reducing counts 

of severely inadequate units in those years. In 1997, some of the questions and 

procedures underlying the definitions were changed, thus making post-1997 results 

more accurate but less comparable to earlier results. 

A unit is considered severely inadequate if it has any one of the following five 

problems: 

 

— Plumbing. Lacking piped hot water or a flush toilet or lacking both bathtub and 

shower, all for the exclusive use of the unit.

 

— Heating. Having been uncomfortably cold last winter for 24 hours or more or 

three times for at least 6 hours each due to broken-down heating equipment. 

 

— Upkeep. Having any five of the following six maintenance problems: leaks from 

outdoors, leaks from indoors, holes in the floor, holes or open cracks in the walls or 

ceilings, more than a square foot of peeling paint or plaster, or rats in the last 90 days. 

 

A–57 
— Hallways. Having all of the following four problems in public areas: no working

light fixtures, loose or missing steps, loose or missing railings, and no elevator. 

 

— Electrical. Having no electricity or having all of the following three electrical

problems: exposed wiring, a room with no working wall outlet, and three blown fuses 

or tripped circuit breakers in the last 90 days. 

A unit is defined as moderately inadequate if it has any of the following five

problems, but none of the severe problems: 

— Plumbing. Having all toilets break down simultaneously at least three times in the

last 3 months for at least 6 hours each time. 

— Heating. Having unvented gas, oil, or kerosene heaters as the main source of heat 

(because these heaters give off unsafe fumes). 

— Upkeep. Having any three of the six upkeep problems mentioned under severe 

problems. 

— Hallways. Having any three of the four hallway problems mentioned under 

“severely inadequate.” 

— Kitchen. Lacking a sink, range, or refrigerator for the exclusive use of the unit. 

• Weighting of AHS estimates. Because each housing unit in the AHS sample 

represents many other units, the sample data are adjusted so that each year’s total

matches independent estimates of the total housing stock. For 1991 through 1999, 

these independent estimates were based on the 1990 Census of Housing (1990 

weights). Weights for data for 1985 through 1989 were based on the 1980 Census of 

Housing, and data for 1978 and 1983 were based on weights derived from the 1970 

Census of Housing. As Exhibit 1–3 illustrates, comparison of 1991 data tabulated 

with 1980 and 1990 weights shows that the 1980 weights gave estimates that were 

slightly high by 1991. No direct comparison between 1970 and 1980 weights was 

made. 

A–58 
Appendix E 

Sensitivity Analysis of Measures of Affordable Units per 100 

Renters 

As Chapter 3 mentions, the “mismatch” ratios of affordable units per 100 renters defined 

and used there may overestimate supplies of affordable housing below any income cutoff. 

These ratios may also be questioned because they include extreme values—households 

reporting zero or negative incomes or units for which no cash rent is paid—and thus may

be biased if respondents really have higher incomes. This appendix explores these 

questions by examining alternative tabulations to determine the sensitivity of the ratios to 

different approaches. The results suggest that the ratios in Chapter 3 are quite robust for 

the cutoffs examined. They reveal, moreover, that shortages of affordable rental housing

are worse for households with incomes at 10 and 20 percent of HAMFI than those for 

households with extremely low incomes. 

The ratios could tend to overestimate supplies of affordable housing because units are 

defined as affordable if their rent is less than or equal to 30 percent of the upper income 

limit being examined. Therefore, if units have rents clustered near the upper limit of a 

range—for example just below 30 percent of HAMFI—while renters have income more 

evenly spread throughout the range, some or many of the extremely-low-income renters 

living in units defined as “available and affordable to extremely-low-income renters”

may in fact pay far more than 30 percent of their income for rent. 

A related weakness of mismatch ratios calculated only for incomes below 30 percent, 50 

percent, 60 percent, and 80 percent of HAMFI is that they are “lumpy” and give no 

information about the match or mismatch between affordable units and renters for 

incomes below these four upper limits. 

To examine such concerns, alternative tabulations of mismatch ratios were prepared that

vary in three ways. Exhibit E–1 compares their results to the report’s basic mismatch 

ratios of units “affordable” or “affordable and available” to renters below four different 

income cutoffs, which are given in the first line of the exhibit. 

The first alternative, which is graphed as the upper line in Exhibit E–2, calculates 

cumulative mismatch ratios for each 5-percentage-point interval of HAMFI. As it should, 

below each income cutoff it gives mismatch ratios that are essentially the same as those 

from the report’s runs. The third line in Exhibit E–2 graphs these mismatch ratios for

units that are both affordable and available to renters with incomes under each HAMFI

cutoff. 

A–59 
Exhibit E–1 Sensitivity analysis of measures of affordable and available 

rental housing 

xhibit E–2

Affordable units per 100

renters with incomes as

percentage of HAMFI

Affordable and available units

per 100 renters with incomes as

percentage of HAMFI

0–30% 0–50% 0–60% 0–30% 0–50% 0–60% 0–80%

Report ratios 78 127 147 42 78 93 106

Calculated with 5-percentagepoint HAMFI intervals:

 Basic 79 127 127 42 78 93 106

 Comprehensive* 63 102 102 35 65 85 103

Without zero-cost units and

renters with zero or negative

income:

 Basic 82 131 131 45 81 97 109

 Comprehensive 68 106 106 37 68 88 106

* Conservative tabulations ensure that renters can afford units by comparing renters below an

income cutoff to units affordable to incomes below a cutoff that is 5 percentage points lower. For

example, (units <25 percent of HAMFI)/(renters <30percent of HAMFI).

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations from the 1999 American Housing Survey.

E

Affordable Stock Measures

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Percent of AMI

Mis

match Ratio

Affordable Conservatively Affordable Available Conservatively Available

A–60 
The second “conservative” alternative is essentially a lower bound. It ensures that all 

units in a range are truly affordable to renters below an income cutoff by comparing units 

affordable to incomes below (x–5) percent of HAMFI to renters with incomes below x

percent of HAMFI. Consequently, even if all units had rents affordable to incomes 

bunched near the upper limits of each 5-percentage-point income range and all renters 

had incomes bunched near the lower limits of each narrow income range, no renter would 

pay more than 30 percent of income for a unit. This conservative alternative, which is 

graphed as the second and fourth lines of Exhibit E–2, is always less than the 

corresponding basic mismatch ratio. Where it is decidedly less, as, e.g., 102 compared to 

127 for units affordable to incomes below 50 percent of HAMFI, it implies that there are 

many units with rents affordable to incomes in the 5-percentage-point range that is 

excluded from the conservative estimate. 

The third alternative, which is summarized in the bottom panel of Exhibit E–1 and 

graphed in Exhibit E–3, repeats the first and second alternatives while also excluding

units with no cash rents and renters reporting zero or negative incomes. Because the 

resulting ratios range only 2 to 6 units higher per 100 renters than the corresponding

ratios calculated with all units and renters, they suggest that the omission of extreme

values does not greatly bias the original ratios.8

 The fact that all the alternative ratios are 

so similar at each point of the HAMFI distribution suggests strongly that the ratios 

originally estimated are quite robust. 

Exhibit E–3 

 

Affordable Stock Measures

Ignoring Zero Cost and Income

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 105 115

Percent of AMI

Mism

atch Ratio

Affordable Conservatively Affordable Available Conservatively Available

8

 These ratios are slightly higher because the number of units with no cash rent is lower than the number of

renters with zero or negative incomes. 

A–61 
The third alternative provides very conservative estimates of mismatch ratios because, in 

addition to excluding zero or negative incomes, it also excludes the homeless, who are 

not covered by the AHS. For this reason, although its values for the lowest income 

groups are probably optimistic, the basic and conservative values should quite reliably

indicate whether shortages of affordable housing are worse for incomes below 30 percent 

of HAMFI. As Exhibit E–4 details, shortages of affordable and available housing are 

indeed much worse than previously calculated for renters with incomes 20 percent of 

HAMFI and below. Specifically, for the 1.7 million renters with incomes below 10 

percent of HAMFI, there are at most some 27 affordable and available units for every 100 

renters, roughly one-half the supply affordable and available to renters with incomes at 

the extremely-low-income cutoff. 

Exhibit E–4 Even with zero or negative income renters excluded, 

shortages at the lowest incomes are very severe. 

Affordable and available units per 100 renters

with incomes as percentage of HAMFI that are:

0–10% 0–20% 0–30% 0–40% 0–50% 0–60% 0–70% 0–80% 0–90%

Without zero cost

units and renters with

zero or negative

income:

 Basic 27 38 45 61 81 97 105 109 110

 Conservative 13 28 37 49 68 88 100 106 109

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations from the 1999 American Housing Survey.

A–62