U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research
Visit PD&R’s website www.hud.gov/policy or www.huduser.org to find this report and others sponsored 

by HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R). Other services of HUD USER, PD&R’s 

Research and Information Service, include listservs, special interest and bimonthly publications (best 

practices, significant studies from other sources), access to public use databases, and a hotline 

(1–800–245–2691) for help with accessing the information you need.
Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: 

Report to Congress

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Office of Policy Development and Research

February 2011

Prepared by

Barry L. Steffen

With

Keith Fudge

Marge Martin

Maria Teresa Souza

David A. Vandenbroucke

Yung-Gann David Yao
Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress
I am pleased to transmit to the U.S. Congress this report from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Worst Case Housing Needs 2009. Thirteenth in the 

longstanding series of reports on worst case housing needs, this document provides 

national data and information on critical problems facing low-income American renting families. The report draws on data from the American Housing Survey (AHS). The 

Census Bureau has conducted the AHS with HUD funding every 2 years since 1973; the 

survey is a key source of national data on housing markets, conditions, and dynamics. 

As the nation slowly emerges from a deep recession, a sharp increase in severe housing problems has come into focus. In 2009, 7.10 million households had worst case 

needs—20 percent more than the number just 2 years earlier. These worst case needs 

households are defined as very low-income renters who do not receive government 

housing assistance and who either paid more than one-half of their income for rent or 

lived in severely inadequate conditions, or both. This report makes clear that worst case 

needs cut across all regions of the country; all racial and ethnic groups; boundaries of all 

cities, suburbs, and rural areas; and all household types.

High rents in proportion to renter incomes are an increasingly dominant cause of worst 

case needs. Accordingly, the vulnerability of our poorest households both to employment shocks and to the increased demand for the most affordable units illustrates the 

importance of housing assistance as an economic cushion. HUD programs that provide 

rental assistance and spur the production of affordable housing play a critical role in creating stable housing for very low-income renters. The recent national crises in housing 

and employment lend new urgency to the quest to ensure that Americans are suitably 

housed so they can take advantage of the opportunities afforded by our great nation.

Raphael W. Bostic

Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: 

Report to Congress

U.S. Department of Hous iii ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research

FORE WORD

FOREWORD
Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

iv
Foreword......................................................................................................................iii

Summary.....................................................................................................................vii

Section 1. Extent and Nature of Worst Case Needs ..............................................1

Extent of Worst Case Needs in 2009......................................................................1

Inadequate Income and Inadequate Housing..................................................2

Incidence of Worst Case Needs by Income ....................................................3

Growth in Worst Case Needs..........................................................................3

Demographics of Worst Case Needs .....................................................................4

Race, Ethnicity, and Immigration Status..........................................................4

Worst Case Needs by Household Type ..................................................................5

Families With Children.....................................................................................5

Elderly Households .........................................................................................5

Other Families.................................................................................................6

Other Nonfamily Households ..........................................................................6

Households Including People With Disabilities ................................................6

Summary................................................................................................................8

Section 2. Shortage of Affordable Housing ............................................................9

Geography of Worst Case Needs ...........................................................................9

Worst Case Needs and Housing Assistance by Region and Metropolitan 

 Location ..............................................................................................9

Interaction of Race/Ethnicity and Metropolitan Location ............................... 11

How the Market Allocates Affordable Housing on a National Basis...............12

Affordability, Availability, and Adequacy of the National Rental Stock............12

Rental Stock by Income ................................................................................13

Geography of Supply............................................................................................14

Rental Stock by Metropolitan Location..........................................................15

Rental Stock by Region.................................................................................16

U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research v

CONTENTS

CONTENTS

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: 

Report to Congress
Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

vi

Dynamics of Supply..............................................................................................16

Trends in National Rental Stock ....................................................................16

Trends in Rental Stock by Metropolitan Location ..........................................17

Summary .............................................................................................................18

Section 3. Understanding the Trend in Worst Case Needs.................................19

Changes in Affordable Housing Demand..............................................................19

Household Formation, Tenure, and Income Factors......................................19

Homeownership Crisis and Recession..........................................................20

Changes in the Affordable Housing Supply ..........................................................21

Vacancy Rates, Rents, and Competition for Units.........................................21

Concluding Summary...........................................................................................21

Literature Cited.........................................................................................................24

Appendix A. Data on Housing Problems and Supply of 

Affordable Housing .............................................................................................27

Appendix B. Supplemental Exhibits..........................................................................57

Appendix C. Federal Housing Assistance and Affordable Housing Programs ........59

Appendix D. Previous Reports to Congress on Worst Case Needs.........................60

Appendix E. Data and Methodology .........................................................................61
vii

Summary

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) finds dramatic increases 

in worst case housing needs (known as “worst case needs”) that cut across demographic 

groups, household types, and regions.1

 This rise in hardship is due to shrinking incomes and 

upward pressure on rents caused by growing competition for already-scarce affordable units. 

Worst case needs rose more sharply between the 2007 American Housing Survey (AHS) and 

2009 AHS,2

 both in absolute and percentage terms, than in any previous 2-year period since 

at least 1985. During this 2007-to-2009 period, the number of renters experiencing worst 

case needs jumped by more than 20 percent, from 5.91 to 7.10 million. 

Given the severely challenged economic conditions that the United States has confronted 

during the past several years, particularly surrounding the housing market, it is not surprising 

that the need for housing assistance continues to outpace the ability of federal, state, and 

local governments to supply it. HUD’s Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

examines the causes of and trends in worst case needs for affordable rental housing.

Sharp Increase in Worst Case Needs

Although the incidence of worst case needs has fluctuated during the past decade, the overall 

upward trend is disturbing: since 2001, the number of cases has increased by almost 42 

percent, now representing more than 6 percent of all households. Because of these dramatic 

increases, 41 percent of the 17.12 million very low-income American renters had worst case 

needs in 2009. Most of these renters had severe rent burdens, paying more than one-half of 

their income for rent, with inadequate housing alone accounting for only 3 percent of cases. 

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: 

Report to Congress

1

 The term “worst case needs” is defined as very low-income renters with incomes below 50 percent of the Area Median 

Income who do not receive government housing assistance and who either paid more than one-half of their income for rent 

or lived in severely inadequate conditions, or who faced both of these challenges. HUD’s estimates of worst case needs are 

based primarily on data from the AHS.

2

 The AHS is conducted between May and September in odd-numbered years.

SUMMARY

U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research
Worst Case Needs Affect All 

Demographic Groups and 

Household Types

No racial or ethnic group is immune to the rise in worst case needs, 

but Hispanic renters experienced the largest increase in incidence: 

in 2009, 45 percent of all very low-income Hispanic renters faced 

this hardship, an 8-percentage-point jump from their 2007 rate. Little 

evidence indicates that immigration has had a large effect on this 

increase in worst case needs among the Hispanic population. Overall, 

of renters burdened with worst case needs, non-Hispanic White renters represent about 48 percent and non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic 

renters each represent around 23 percent.

Likewise, all types of households are affected by the increase in worst 

case needs. Families with children represent the highest proportion, 

about 39 percent; the number of these families with worst case 

needs grew by 550,000 from the 2007 level, outpacing the increase 

of very low-income households in this category. The next most 

common household type experiencing this hardship, at 33 percent 

of all cases, was “other nonfamily” households, which comprise 

nonelderly individuals and unrelated people who share a housing 

unit. Very low-income renters of this household type had a higher 

incidence, at 54 percent, than any other household type. Further, the 

addition of 580,000 other nonfamily households during 2007–2009 

increased this category’s share from 30 to 31 percent of very lowincome renters. Although this category’s share of worst case needs 

did not increase in the same way, this shift between household types 

could signal that individuals are doubling up as a way to cope with 

shrinking incomes and increasing rents.3

 Elderly households without 

children and other family households (without children or with adult 

children) also experienced significant increases in worst case needs, 

particularly in percentage terms; however, these groups combined 

only account for slightly more than one-fourth of cases.

Worst Case Needs Among Households 

Including People With Disabilities

In 2009, more than 38 percent of very low-income households including nonelderly people with disabilities had worst case needs, amounting to 990,000 households. The share of worst case needs reached 

as high as 41 percent among families with children including people 

with disabilities and 36 percent among other nonfamily households 

including people with disabilities. Evidence from other data sources 

indicates that this estimate is likely an undercount. The estimate is 

based on new direct questions on disabilities included in the 2009 

AHS. Alternative data from the American Community Survey, however, 

indicate that the share of very low-income renters with disabilities is 

30 to 60 percent higher than the AHS estimate. HUD will issue a more 

indepth supplemental report soon after the release of the core Worst 

Case Housing Needs 2009 report to discuss the demographic and 

geographic characteristics of households including people with disabilities with worst case needs and to examine differences in disability 

estimates using various measures and sources of data.

Geography of Worst Case Needs

Although the 2009 AHS does not allow for analysis at the level of 

individual metropolitan areas, it does distinguish between three 

types of locations—central cities, suburbs, and rural areas—and 

four geographic regions—Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. The 

incidence of worst case needs among the nation’s very low-income 

renters proves slightly greater than the national average in central cities and the suburbs. Likewise, the percentage of those experiencing 

this hardship is above average in the West and below average in the 

Northeast and Midwest. The incidence of worst case needs in the 

South is similar to the average; nevertheless, the South has the highest number of burdened renters by a significant margin.

Because worst case needs are defined in part by a lack of housing 

assistance, the comparative scarcity of housing assistance in suburban areas and in the West and South contributes to the high rates 

in those areas, although expensive rents in the West also play a role.

Shortage of Affordable Housing

The need to pay more than one-half of one’s income on rent is the 

predominant cause of worst case needs, and a lack of affordable, 

available, and physically adequate rental units is the main driver of 

these high rent burdens. Units affordable for the poorest renters have 

lower vacancy rates than those units affordable for higher income 

groups because the high demand and limited supply cause greater 

competition for such units. Higher income renters occupy about 42 

percent of the units that are affordable to extremely low-income renters, who earn less than 30 percent of Area Median Income (AMI). 

Further, higher income renters occupy 36 percent of the units that are 

affordable to renters who have incomes at 30 to 50 percent of AMI. 

As a result of this competition and because a substantial proportion 

of available units are not in standard or adequate physical condition, 

only 32 units of adequate, affordable rental housing are available for 

every 100 extremely low-income renters. For very low-income renters, 60 adequate units are available per 100 renters. This supply is 

more scarce in central cities and suburbs than in rural areas and in 

the West than in other regions; nevertheless, the number of affordable 

units is far from sufficient in any region.

3

 It is notable that two single people with very low incomes who begin to share housing may jointly surpass the very low-income threshold and, thereby, reduce the number of very lowincome renters by two. As a result, doubling up could be even more prevalent than the increase in other nonfamily households with very low incomes suggests.

viii

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress
U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research ix

Summary

Affordable rental stock availability had been fairly stable for much 

of the past 25 years. Since 2003, however, vulnerable renters have 

faced the tightest market for affordable housing since 1985. Several 

major trends have combined to create these conditions.

Major Causes of the Increase in 

Worst Case Needs

The homeownership crisis and economic recession likely played a 

major role in rapidly increasing worst case needs. Although a variety 

of factors are at play, including changes in household formation and 

the renter share of households, most of the 2007–2009 increase can 

be linked to three factors.

1. Renter income losses. An estimated 35 percent of the increase 

in worst case needs is attributable to shrinking incomes. During 

2007–2009, the number of renters with very low incomes increased 

by 1.18 million, or more than 7 percent. Major causes of declines in 

renters’ income were the rapid increase in unemployment during 

the recession and the persistence of this unemployment following 

the recession’s official end. 

2. Rental assistance gap. Approximately 19 percent of the increase 

in worst case needs during 2007–2009 can be tied to a growing 

lack of rental assistance; no increase in housing assistance in 

proportion to the surge in very low-income renters occurred. Increases of unassisted very low-income renters actually exceeded 

increases of very low-income renters.

3. Competition for affordable rental units. As discussed previously, competition for affordable units has played the biggest role 

in the increase of worst case needs, estimated at about 41 percent 

of the increase. This competition leads to displacement, absorption of vacancies, and upward pressure on rents. Supply and 

demand factors caused the mean gross rent for very low-income 

renters to increase by more than 10 percent during 2007–2009; in 

addition, the number of vacant units affordable to them dropped 

by 370,000.

Although AHS data do not suggest that changes in the renter share of 

households have been a key factor, evidence from the Current Population Survey indicates that the homeownership rate for households 

with incomes below the AMI fell by 2.3 percent during 2007–2009. 

Homeownership losses by very low-income and subprime homeowners that added to the number of renters may have been offset in AHS 

data by home purchases by higher income renters.

Conclusion

Although the picture of growing worst case needs, in general, is 

bleak, there is reason to hope that worst case needs may again 

decline. The macroeconomic factors that created great pressures for 

very low-income rental housing are likely to ease as the rebound from 

recession accelerates. Nevertheless, when more than 6 percent of 

the nation’s households experience this form of hardship, the need 

for prioritizing assisted housing in national policy deliberations has 

never been greater.
x

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress
U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research 1

Section 1. Extent and Nature of Worst Case NE eds

Extent of Worst Case Needs in 2009

In the context of the recent upheaval in the U.S. housing market and subsequent economic recession, we examine the latest 2009 AHS data to understand the current 

dimensions of what was already a growing problem. The basic facts presented and 

examined in the following pages are these—

− In 2009, 7.10 million renters had worst case needs, as shown in exhibit 1-1. These 

are renters with very low incomes3

 who lack housing assistance and have either 

severe rent burdens or severely inadequate housing, or both. 

− The number of worst case 

needs in 2009 has increased by 20 percent from 

2007 levels and by almost 

42 percent from 2001 levels. 

− The primary problem affecting worst case needs is rent 

burden—insufficient tenant 

incomes relative to rental 

costs. Severely inadequate 

housing accounts for only 

a small fraction—2.9 percent—of worst case needs.

The U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development (HUD) 

is the largest federal provider 

of affordable rental housing. 

Following a request by Congress 

in 1991, HUD’s Office of Policy 

Development and Research 

(PD&R) has been periodically 

reporting to Congress on the 

severity of worst case housing 

needs (known here as “worst 

case needs”) for affordable 

rental housing as collected in 

the biennial American Housing 

Survey (AHS).1

 This report is 13th 

in the series of core reports.2

Extent and Nature of

Worst Case Needs

Priority Problems Trigger

Worst Case Needs

Two types of priority problems constitute worst 

case needs for federal housing assistance. 

• Severe rent burden means a renter is 

paying more than one-half of his or her 

income for gross rent (rent and utilities). 

• Severely inadequate housing refers to 

units having one or more serious physical 

problems related to heating, plumbing, 

and electric systems or maintenance. 

(Problems are listed in appendix E.)

1

 The American Housing Survey is conducted between May and September in odd-numbered years.

2

 The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) 

supplements the core reports on worst case needs with periodic topical reports. A forthcoming supplement will focus on new 

data about people with disabilities and worst case needs among households including these individuals. For a list of previous 

titles, see “Previous Reports to Congress on Worst Case Needs” in appendix D.

3

 The terms “very low income” and “extremely low income” are used throughout this report to refer to the income levels of 

renters. Very low incomes are those no greater than 50 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI) and extremely low incomes 

are those no greater than 30 percent of AMI—typically below the poverty line. HUD programs use AMI calculated on the basis 

of local family incomes, with adjustments for household size. Nationwide, the median income was $64,000 in 2009, placing 

the very low-income level at $32,000 per year and the extremely low-income level at $19,200 per year. All these income levels 

are for a family of four. Families with fewer than four people, or who are living in areas with lower family incomes, may have 

incomes far below these national thresholds if they qualify as very low- or extremely low-income households in their areas. For 

details about how HUD sets income limits, see http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/il.html.

Section 1
2

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

− The dramatic increase in worst case needs during the 2007–

2009 period4

 reflects the effects of the homeownership and 

financial crises. Mortgage foreclosures, widespread unemployment, and shrinking renter incomes during the recession added 

many new very low-income renters—those vulnerable to worst 

case needs.

− Lower incomes affected worst case needs both directly, by decreasing incomes relative to rents, and indirectly, by rapidly increasing demand and competition for the most affordable units 

and thereby raising rents. So, although the population of vulnerable very low-income renters grew substantially, the proportion 

of this population that had worst case needs (the “incidence”) 

increased as well during the 2007–2009 period.

− Although housing assistance prevented millions of housing 

problems during 2009, the supply of public rental assistance 

was far from adequate to cope with surging needs—and indeed 

expanded very little during the 2007–2009 period.

With these basic facts as the focus, Section 1 explores the current 

extent of worst case needs and the demographic characteristics of 

those who have such needs and the situations in which they live.

Inadequate Income and Inadequate Housing

Of the two types of priority problems that qualify as worst case 

needs, severe rent burden appears far more frequently than severely inadequate housing. As exhibit 1-2 illustrates, 97.2 percent of 

all worst case renters, or 6.89 million, had severe rent burdens in 

2009. Paying one-half of a limited total income for rent leaves very 

little for other essentials, such as food, medical care, transportation 

expenses, education, and childcare. 

Severely inadequate housing alone triggers only 2.9 percent of worst 

case needs. If renters with severe rent burdens are included, then 

6.3 percent (443,000) of worst case renters had severely inadequate 

housing units. 

The small fraction of worst case needs caused by severely inadequate housing is the result of a multidecade trend of improvements 

to the nation’s housing stock. More stringent building codes prevent construction of units without complete plumbing or heating 

systems, and additional obsolete units are demolished each year. 

Nevertheless, the housing stock is continually aging, and severely 

inadequate units continue to pose threats to the life and health of 

thousands of renters.

4

 This range of dates reflects the time between the 2007 AHS and the 2009 AHS.

Exhibit 1-1. Growth in Worst Case

Housing Needs , 2001–2009

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of 

American Housing Survey data

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Renters With Worst Case Needs (1,000)

Exhibit 1-2. Most Worst Case Needs Are

Caused by Severe Rent Burdens , 2009

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of 

American Housing Survey data

Severely 

Inadequate 

Housing Only 

Both Priority 

Problems 

Severe Rent 

Burden Only

2.9%

3.4% 93.8%

5,014 5,176

5,992 5,905

7,095
U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research 3

Section 1. Extent and Nature of Worst Case NE eds

Very low-income renters (thousands) 9,961 7,157 17,118

Worst case needs renters (thousands) 5,069 2,026 7,095

Percent of very low-income renters with worst case needs 50.9% 28.3% 41.4%

0–30% AMI 30–50% AMI Total

Exhibit 1-3. Worst Case Needs in 2009

AMI = Area Median Income.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing 

Survey data

5

 The 90-percent confidence interval for the 2009 estimate of worst case needs is 6.844 to 7.346 million, which does not overlap with the 2007 confidence interval of 5.675 to 6.135 

million. See the following footnote for a fuller discussion.

6

 When analyzing 2009 results, HUD was unable to conduct sophisticated tests of statistical significance that would take into account the AHS panel design. Because the AHS samples 

the same housing units in multiple years, the samples are not independent from year to year, and confidence intervals for the change in means are larger than simple statistical tests 

imply. HUD and the Census Bureau, however, previously used a more stringent method in assessing the 2003–2005 change. That test indicated that a 2003–2005 change in incidence 

across all U.S. households was significant at the 95-percent confidence level if it exceeded 0.294 percentage points (HUD, 2007). The result of this earlier test is strongly suggestive but 

not conclusive that the 2007–2009 increase of 1.01 percentage points in overall incidence easily is statistically significant.

What About Homeless Persons ?

Homeless individuals and families clearly have worst case 

needs for housing assistance. Homeless people, however, 

are not included in official estimates, because the American 

Housing Survey covers only housing units and the households 

who live in them, and homeless populations are always difficult 

to survey or count.

In the most recent Annual Homeless Assessment Report

to Congress, HUD estimated that 643,067 sheltered and 

unsheltered people were homeless at a single point in time 

during 2009 (HUD, 2010). This estimate reflects continuing 

improvements in Homeless Management Information Systems 

operated by a national network of homeless service providers. 

More reliable homeless data increasingly allow for such 

estimates to inform analysis of worst case housing needs.

Source: HUD-CPD (2010)

Incidence of Worst Case Needs by Income

In 2009, two out of three renters with worst case needs had 

extremely low incomes. The predominance of severe rent burden as 

a cause of worst case needs highlights the importance of household 

incomes to the problem. As shown in exhibit 1-3, the 7.10 million 

worst case needs in 2009 occurred within a universe of 17.12 million 

very low-income renters. These estimates reflect an overall incidence 

of 41.5 percent of very low-income renters having worst case needs.

Very low-income households, however, comprise two subgroups: 

the extremely low-income households who have incomes at 0 to 

30 percent of Area Median Income (AMI), and the higher income 

households with incomes in the range of 30 to 50 percent of AMI. 

Most very low-income renters, 58.2 percent, are in the extremely 

low-income category. In 2009, 9.96 million renters had incomes at 

0 to 30 percent of AMI, compared with 7.16 million renters with incomes at 30 to 50 percent of AMI. 

Extremely low-income renters accounted for 5.07 million cases of 

worst case needs in 2009, with 50.9 percent of renters in this poorest group having severe housing problems. Renters in the 30–50 

percent of AMI group had 2.03 million cases of worst case needs. 

Thus, the incidence of worst case needs among the higher-income 

group, at 28.3 percent, was little more than one-half as great as the 

incidence for extremely low-income renters.

In 2009, the extremely low-income group had both greater numbers 

and higher incidence of worst case needs than the 30–50 percent 

of AMI group. As a result, a substantial majority, 71.4 percent, of all 

worst case needs occurred to those with incomes below 30 percent 

of AMI. In Section 3, we explore further the relative importance of 

factors such as changes in the numbers and incomes of very lowincome renters.

Growth in Worst Case Needs

The number of worst case needs in 2009, 7.10 million, is more than 

20 percent greater than the number just 2 years earlier during 2007. 

HUD’s 2007 estimate of 5.91 million worst case needs was not significantly different than the 5.99 million recorded in 2005. In contrast, 

the increase of 1.19 million during the 2007–2009 period easily satisfies the basic test for statistical significance.5

The 2007–2009 increase in worst case needs extended and accelerated the upward trend that has been occurring since 2001. Between 

2001 and 2009, 2.08 million renters with worst case needs have 

been added, an increase of nearly 42 percent.

Worst case needs also are increasing as a percentage of U.S. households. During the 2007–2009 period, the overall incidence increased 

by a full percentage point, from 5.3 to 6.3 percent. This increase is 

statistically significant as well.6
4

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

All households (millions) 105.44 105.87 108.9 110.72 111.86

Renters with worst case needs (millions) 5.01 5.18 5.99 5.91 7.10

Worst case needs as percent of all households 4.76% 4.89% 5.50% 5.33% 6.34%

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing 

Survey data

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Exhibit 1-4. Trend of Increasing Incidence of Worst Case Needs is Extended and

Accelerated in 2009

7

 The estimated increases in worst case needs exceed simple tests of statistical significance (ignoring the lack of independence of the samples) for White and Hispanic renters, but not 

for Black renters. 

Because the problem of worst case needs primarily involves lacking 

sufficient units with affordable rents for renters with very low incomes, 

the remainder of this section examines the demographics of the renters who have these problems. Then, Section 2 explores the dimensions of inadequate supply of affordable rental units, and Section 3 

summarizes and integrates supply and demand issues to shed light 

on the root causes of the growing worst case needs problem.

Demographics of Worst Case Needs

Race, Ethnicity, and Immigration Status

Worst case needs for affordable housing persist across racial and 

ethnic lines. As the nation’s population becomes more diverse, the 

problems are found among all communities. Similarities and differences do exist, nonetheless, among the three largest groups defined 

by race and ethnicity.

During 2009, most worst case needs continued to affect nonHispanic White renters, with smaller shares affecting non-Hispanic 

Black renters, Hispanic renters, and other renters. The shares approximate the representation of these groups among very low-income 

renters. Together, the three largest race/ethnicity groups accounted 

for 93.8 percent of worst case needs in 2009. 

In terms of incidence, the order differs. Exhibit 1-6 illustrates that 

Hispanic very low-income renters had the highest incidence of worst 

case needs in 2009, with 45.3 percent. White renters had the next 

highest incidence, with 42.7 percent, followed by Black renters, with 

36.5 percent.7

The high incidence among Hispanic renters during 2009 reflects a 

striking increase of 8.0 percentage points from the 2007 rate. White 

and Black renters experienced smaller increases of 3.7 and 3.2 percentage points, respectively. 

In contrast to the importance of higher incidence for Hispanics, for 

Black renters, the more important factor in 2009 was the increase 

in the number of vulnerable very low-income renters. During the 

2007–2009 period, the number of very low-income renters increased 

by 11.1 percent for non-Hispanic Blacks compared with 7.7-percent 

growth for non-Hispanic Whites and 5.9-percent growth for Hispanics.

The varying experiences of Black, White, and Hispanic renters during the 2007–2009 recessionary period may reflect variations in their 

Exhibit 1-5. Share of Worst Case Needs

by Race and Ethnicity , 2009

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of 

American Housing Survey data

Non-Hispanic 

White

Non-Hispanic 

Black

Hispanic

Other

48.4%

23.1%

22.3%

6.2%
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT | OFFICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH 5

SECTION 1. EXTENT AND NATURE OF WORST CASE NEEDS

8

 Other factors that might have contributed to differences in worst case needs among groups during the recessionary period include involvement with the subprime mortgage market 

and foreclosures, and variations in occupations and industries (for example, construction). A detailed analysis of such factors is beyond the scope of this report.

9

 In the AHS, “householder” refers to the reference person who is responding to the survey, not necessarily to the head of household.

EXHIBIT 1-6. VERY LOW-INCOME RENTERS 

AND WORST CASE NEEDS BY RACE/

ETHNICITY, 2007–2009 

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of 

American Housing Survey data

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

2007 2009 2007 2009 2007 2009

Very Low-Income Renters 

Worst Case Needs

Renters (1,000)

Non-Hispanic 

White

Non-Hispanic 

Black

Hispanic

EXHIBIT 1-7. SHARE OF WORST CASE NEEDS 

BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE, 2009

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of 

American Housing Survey data

Elderly Without 

Children

Other 

Families

Other 

Nonfamily

Families With 

Children

18.7%

8.9%

33.8%

38.5%

geographic locations, which we examine in connection with rental 

housing markets in Section 2.8

Although the rate of immigration, especially Hispanic immigration, has 

been strong during the past decade, little evidence indicates that it 

has a disproportionate bearing on worst case needs. In 2009, householders9 who are naturalized citizens accounted for 7.0 percent of 

worst case needs, proportional to their 6.6 percent share of unassisted very low-income households. Likewise, noncitizen householders constituted 15.8 percent of worst case needs, slightly less than 

their 16.2-percent share of unassisted very low-income households. 

Among unassisted very low-income renters, the incidence of worst 

case needs is 53.7 percent for noncitizen householders and 59.1

percent for naturalized citizens. Across both immigrant groups, the 

average incidence of worst case needs among unassisted very lowincome renters is 55.3 percent, nearly identical to the 55.2-percent 

rate for U.S. native householders. Among Hispanic immigrants, the 

incidence is slightly lower, at 54.4 percent of unassisted very lowincome renters. 

Worst Case Needs by Household Type

The composition of different households reflects variations in their 

stage of life, income and resources, and housing needs. Most worst 

case needs affect families with children, followed by nonfamily renter 

households, elderly renters, and other families. 

Exhibit 1-8 provides greater detail, showing the number of very lowincome renters and worst case needs among these household types 

in 2007 and 2009. 

Families With Children

Worst case needs are an increasing problem for families with children. In 2009, the number of renters with children and very low 

incomes increased by 430,000 from the 2007 level. The number 

of worst case needs for this group grew even more substantially, 

increasing by 550,000 cases over the same period. Among very lowincome renters with children, the 40.5-percent incidence of worst 

case needs is up sharply from the 34.6-percent incidence in 2007. 

Without housing assistance, worst case needs would be substantially higher. Among very low-income renters with children, 1.69 million 

(25.0 percent) have rental assistance, and therefore cannot have 

worst case needs by definition. 

Elderly Households

HUD defines elderly households as those having a household head 

or spouse who is at least 62 years of age and no children under 18 

years of age. During 2009, 1.33 million elderly renters had worst case 

needs, an increase of 120,000 from the 2007 estimate. In 2009, the 

incidence of worst case needs among elderly very low-income renters was 36.5 percent, which is slightly less than the rate for families 

with children but is slightly higher than the 34.6-percent rate recorded 

in 2007. 

2,919

7,477

3,436

8,051

1,345

4,040

1,640

4,493

1,234

3,297

1,582

3,493
6

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

Other Families

After accounting for families with children and elderly-headed households, other renter households can be divided into those with family 

relationships and those without. “Other families” include households 

such as married couples who are childless or have adult children at 

home, adult siblings sharing an apartment, or householders boarding an elderly parent. As such, “other families” is a category that is 

affected by doubling-up behavior (that is, reverse household formation) during times of economic stress. 

“Other families” constitute the smallest category shown in exhibit 

1-5, representing 1.41 million very low-income renters, of whom 

630,000 had worst case needs in 2009. “Other families” thus account for only 8.9 percent of worst case needs. Their incidence of 

worst case needs, however, at 44.9 percent, exceeds the rates for 

both families with children and elderly households, and it represents 

a dramatic increase from the 33.8-percent rate recorded in 2007. 

Other Nonfamily Households

In 2009, more than 5.31 million very low-income renters were “other 

nonfamily” households, making this the second-largest category after families with children. These renters comprise individuals (82.1 

percent—see table A-6a) and unrelated people sharing a housing 

unit. Worst case needs among these renters numbered 2.40 million, 

for an incidence of 45.2 percent: that is the highest among the four 

household categories. However, the increase in incidence from 42.9 

percent in 2007 is smaller than the increases seen among family 

households—either with or without children. 

The addition of 580,000 “other nonfamilies” during the 2007–2009 

period increased their share from 29.6 to 31.0 percent of very lowQuestions About Disabilities in the 2009 

American Housing Sur vey

• Are you deaf or have serious difficulty hearing?

• Are you blind or have serious difficulty seeing, even when 

wearing glasses?

• Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition, 

does anyone in this household have serious difficulty 

concentrating, remembering, or making decisions?

• Does anyone in this household have serious difficulty 

walking or climbing stairs?

• Does anyone in this household have serious difficulty 

dressing or bathing?

• [For all persons 15 years and older] Because of a physical, 

mental, or emotional condition, does anyone in this 

household have difficulty doing errands alone such as 

visiting a doctor’s office or shopping?

Source: HUD PD&R (2010)

income renters. Although their share of worst case needs did not 

increase in the same way, the increase in “other nonfamilies” as a 

proportion of very low-income renters could signal that individuals 

are doubling up as a way to cope with shrinking incomes and increasing rents. 

It is notable that two single individuals with very low incomes who 

begin to share housing may jointly surpass the very low-income 

threshold, thereby reducing the number of very low-income renters 

by two. As a result, doubling up could be even more prevalent than 

the increase in “other nonfamilies” with very low incomes suggests.

Households Including People With 

Disabilities

Worst case needs can be especially troublesome for households 

including people with disabilities. Disabilities can reduce employment options and make it more difficult to find suitable housing at a 

reasonable cost. Until recently, the only method of identifying people with disabilities using AHS data was to look for income sources 

associated with people with disabilities, such as social security or 

disability payments. HUD used these income proxies in past reports 

on worst case needs, even though the proxies have been shown 

to undercount people with disabilities (HUD-PD&R, 2008). Over the 

years, HUD has worked to make estimates of worst case needs better and more precise, particularly among people with disabilities. 

Beginning with the 2009 AHS, respondents are asked directly 

whether household members have any of six types of disabilities, 

which include four basic functional limitations—visual, hearing, 

cognitive, and ambulatory—and difficulties with activities of daily 

Exhibit 1-8. Incidence and Growth of

Worst Case Needs by Household Type , 

2007–2009

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of 

American Housing Survey data

10,000

5,000

0

2007 2009 2007 2009 2007 2007 2009 2009

Very Low-Income Renters 

Worst Case Needs

Renters (1,000)

Families

With

Children

Elderly 

Without 

Children

Other 

Families

Other 

Nonfamily

2,187

6,329

2,734

6,758

1,209

3,492

1,328

3,636

477

1,384

633

1,410

2,032

4,735

2,401

5,314
U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research 7

Section 1. Extent and Nature of Worst Case NE eds

living—self-care and independent living.10 This valuable capability of 

the 2009 AHS survey enables HUD to estimate directly worst case 

needs for households including nonelderly people with disabilities, 

thereby avoiding limitations of the income-based proxies. 

People with disabilities are found among all four household types 

discussed previously. In 2009, 8.3 percent of all households and 

11.0 percent of all renters included nonelderly people11 reporting at 

least one of the six measures of disabilities. Of the 7.10 million renter 

households with worst case needs in 2009, almost 990,000, or 13.9 

percent, include one or more nonelderly people with disabilities.

Among very low-income renters that include nonelderly people with 

disabilities, the incidence of worst case needs averages 38.2 percent. The incidence of worst case needs reaches as high as 41.5 

percent among families with children including people with disabilities, and also exceeds one-third of “other” households that include 

nonelderly people with disabilities. 

Although these new direct measures of disability are clearly an improvement from the past proxy measures, evidence from other data 

sources suggests that the estimate of renters with worst case needs 

that include people with disabilities is likely an undercount. Alternative data from the American Community Survey indicates that the 

share of very low-income renters with disabilities can be 30 to 60 

percent higher than the AHS estimate. 

It is the incidence among the disabled population rather than the 

precise estimation of worst case needs that is crucial for making 

comparisons across different data sources and examining trends in 

this important policy area. Although the new AHS disability questions do not yet support a trend analysis, the income-proxy measure 

used previously can inform us of trends in worst case needs among 

very low-income renters with disabilities. 

In 2009, 40.7 percent of very low-income renters who were found to 

include people with disabilities through use of the income proxy had 

worst case needs. This rate was 3.2 points higher than the 2007 incidence (37.5 percent) and 2.4 points higher than the 2005 incidence 

(38.3 percent).12

Based on the income proxy, the large increase in the number of 

worst case needs households overall during the 2007–2009 period 

was not matched by a proportional increase in the number of worst 

case needs households that include people with disabilities. Worst 

case needs among households that include people with disabilities 

grew by 13.3 percent, substantially less than the 20.1-percent increase in worst case needs overall. As a result, from 2007 to 2009, 

the incidence of disabilities among renters with worst case needs 

decreased from 17.0 to 16.1 percent.

In order to give the issue of worst case needs among people with 

disabilities more indepth analysis, in 2011 HUD will issue a supplement to the worst case needs report. The supplement will examine 

how the AHS’s direct questions on disability compare with measures 

based on income, analyze the differences in disability estimates 

based on different measures and data sources, and discuss the 

demographic and geographic characteristics of worst case needs 

for households including people with disabilities.

10 The specific AHS questions about disability are documented as additions to the AHS codebook. See HUD-PD&R (2010). 

11 The analysis is limited to nonelderly people with disabilities because a large proportion of elderly people suffer from impairments and activity limitations as a predictable consequence 

of aging. Note, however, that nonelderly people with disabilities may be found in elderly headed households, and that these individuals are not identifiable with proxy-based methods.

12 These estimates differ from previously published estimates because they include nonelderly adults with disabilities found among families with children.

Very low-income renters 6,758 3,636 1,410 5,314 17,118

Worst case needs 2,734 1,328 633 2,401 7,096

Percentage with worst case needs 40.5% 36.5% 44.9% 45.2% 41.5%

Percentage having nonelderly persons with disabilities 14.8% 2.4% 21.5% 22.4% 15.1%

1,002 88

Very low-income renters having nonelderly 

persons with disabilities 416 29 303 1,190 2,583

Worst case needs 41.5% 33.0% 112 429 986

Percentage with worst case needs 33.0% 41.5% 37.0% 36.1% 38.2%

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing Survey 

data

Family 

With 

Children

Elderly 

Without 

Children

Other 

Families

Other 

Nonfamily Total

Exhibit 1-9. Worst Case Needs and Presence of Nonelderly people with Disabilities 

by Household Type , 2009
8

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

Summary

Worst case needs for affordable rental housing are a large and growing problem. In 2009, of the 17.12 million very low-income renters 

susceptible to severe rent burdens and severely inadequate housing, 7.10 million—41.5 percent—faced one or both of those problems without housing assistance. The number of worst case needs 

increased sharply and significantly since 2007, when 5.91 million 

worst case needs were estimated. Further, the number of worst case 

needs has been climbing for many years. Since 2001, the number of 

worst case needs has grown by 42 percent, expanding from 4.8 to 

6.3 percent of all households in the nation.

Worst case needs have grown even as severely inadequate housing 

has become less prevalent. In 2009, severely inadequate housing 

was the sole cause of only 3.4 percent of worst case needs, while 

97.2 percent of worst case needs were triggered solely by severe 

rent burdens, and 3.4 percent by both problems. 

For very low-income renters, no racial or ethnic group examined, and 

no household composition, is exempt from worst case needs. From 

2007 to 2009, worst case needs increased among non-Hispanic 

White renters (with a 3.7-point increase to 42.7 percent of very lowincome renters), non-Hispanic Black renters (3.2-point increase to 

36.5 percent), and especially rapidly among Hispanics (8.0-point increase to 45.3 percent). Differing experiences of racial and ethnic 

groups during the recessionary period may result from differences 

in location, subprime mortgage involvement, and employment situations.

Among very low-income renters, worst case needs are prevalent 

among families with children (40.5 percent), elderly households without children (36.5 percent), other family households (44.9 percent), 

and other nonfamily households (45.2 percent), which include single 

adults and roommates. Families with children account for the largest 

share of worst case needs, 38.5 percent, followed by other nonfamily renters at 33.8 percent. And although other families constitute a 

relatively small category, their incidence of worst case needs is 11.1 

points higher than it was in 2007.

Worst case needs occurred for 38.2 percent of very low-income 

renters including nonelderly people with disabilities in 2009—below 

the overall incidence of 41.5 percent among very low-income renters. Based on income-based proxies, the incidence of worst case 

needs among disabled renters increased by 3.2 percentage points 

from the 2007 rate.

Section 2 will examine how the broad problem of worst case needs 

is caused by shortages of affordable housing, and mitigated by assisted housing, in national and regional markets.
U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research 9

Section 2. Shortage of Affordable Housing

Nationally, only 61 affordable units exist for every 100 extremely low-income renters. 

Fewer than 36 affordable units are available for occupancy for every 100 extremely lowincome renters. The geography of worst case needs and housing assistance sets a 

foundation for understanding competition for affordable rental housing. There is an inadequate supply of affordable rental units available to very low-income and, especially, 

to extremely low-income renters. This shortage is worsened by the process of displacement by higher income renters. A final blow is that a significant portion of the affordable 

stock is physically inadequate and may pose threats to occupants. 

Geography of Worst Case Needs

Housing markets are local markets. And perhaps even more than wealthier renters, very 

low- and extremely low-income renters may find their choice of housing units limited to 

those in their local communities and neighborhoods.

As a national survey, the AHS does not support biennial estimates of worst case needs 

for individual metropolitan areas.13 It does, however, support an examination of three 

types of metropolitan locations—central city, suburb, and nonmetropolitan or rural areas—and four geographic regions—Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. This spatial 

analysis, although at a high level, provides considerable detail to the national picture of 

worst case needs.

Worst Case Needs and Housing Assistance by Region 

and Metropolitan Location

A key aspect of the definition of “worst case needs” is that it can be understood as 

an indicator of need for affordable housing. Because rental housing with deep public 

subsidies falls into the “affordable” range, the definition of worst case needs excludes 

renters with housing assistance. Therefore, examining the spatial distribution of housing 

assistance and of worst case needs together provides information about the extent to 

which assistance is mitigating severe housing problems.

Exhibit 2-1 shows the distribution of the nation’s 17.12 million very low-income renters 

across the three metropolitan categories and four Census regions. On a regional basis, 

Shortage of Aff ordable Housing

13 Through 2009, HUD and the Census Bureau have conducted periodic AHS metropolitan surveys to supplement the 

national AHS. Beginning in 2011, the national AHS will incorporate metropolitan oversamples to provide metropolitan 

data more frequently. 

Section 2
10

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

14 AHS estimates of assisted very low-income renters rely on self-reported data, but they reflect recent improvements in data reliability. For comparison, HUD administrative data for 2009 

show 4.60 million assisted households, based on 3.38 million units of Section 8 assistance; 1.05 million units of public housing (net of 7-percent vacancy); 0.15 million units of housing 

for elderly and disabled individuals; and 0.02 million units of HOME tenant-based assistance (HUD, 2009). Some HUD-assisted renters may have incomes above the very low-income 

threshold if their incomes increased after program admission.

15 High rents introduce the question of whether enough rental units are available at Fair Market Rent (FMR) to make housing vouchers an adequate policy response to affordable housing 

shortfalls. The supplemental table B-3 in appendix B addresses the extent of housing supply on a regional basis. Although enough affordable units exist in each region, the number of 

available units in each region is sufficient to house only 83–90 percent of the renters who can afford rents no higher than the FMR. For renters who are attempting to find a unit with a 

Housing Choice Voucher, the housing quality standards of that program imply that those renters’ success will depend upon the prevalence of “adequate” units in their area—housing 

that is not merely affordable and available units.

most very low-income renters, 5.91 million, are found in the South, 

followed by similar shares of 3.63 million each in the Northeast and 

Midwest, and 3.95 million in the West. Central cities are home to 

7.92 million very low-income renters, followed closely by suburbs 

with 6.12 million and nonmetropolitan areas with 3.08 million.

Like very low-income renters, worst case needs are common in every region and metropolitan category across the nation. As a national 

average, 41.4 percent of very low-income renters have worst case 

needs. The incidence is slightly higher than the national average in 

the West, about the same in the South, and marginally lower in the 

Northeast and Midwest.

Looking across metropolitan categories, the incidence of worst case 

needs is slightly greater than the national average in central cities 

and suburbs and below average in nonmetropolitan areas. 

Exhibit 2-1 also demonstrates the important role played by housing 

assistance in reducing worst case needs. On a national basis, 4.27 

million very low-income renters—25.0 percent—report receiving 

housing assistance and 41.4 percent have worst case needs. Thus, 

1.7 very low-income renters have worst case needs for every 1 that 

is assisted.14

Because most assisted households would otherwise experience 

worst case needs, it is worth observing that housing assistance is 

relatively less common in the suburbs, where only 21.3 percent of 

these renters are assisted. The prevalence of housing assistance 

also varies on a regional basis, ranging from 21.2 percent in the West 

to 30.7 percent in the Northeast, with its established but aging stock 

of public housing.

Exhibit 2-2 charts the same data to illustrate how housing assistance 

and worst case needs are inversely related. The incidence of worst 

case needs is lower in nonmetropolitan areas and in the Northeast 

and Midwest where housing assistance is relatively more available. 

The incidence of worst case needs is greater in the West and in suburbs, where housing assistance is scarcer, although high rents in the 

West also contribute to this scenario.15

 Exhibit 2-1. Number of Very Low -Income Renters and Incidence of Worst Case Needs

and Housing Assistance by Region and Metropolitan Location , 2009

 Metropolitan Location

Region Central Cities Suburbs

Nonmetropolitan 

Areas Total

Midwest (1,000) 1,654 1,111 864 3,628

With worst case needs 42.1% 38.6% 33.0% 38.9%

With housing assistance 27.0% 24.1% 31.3% 27.2%

Northeast (1,000) 2,041 1,204 381 3,626

With worst case needs 39.2% 41.4% 30.4% 39.0%

With housing assistance 31.8% 25.8% 40.2% 30.7%

South (1,000) 2,399 2,151 1,362 5,912

With worst case needs 42.4% 43.6% 38.5% 41.9%

With housing assistance 26.2% 18.3% 23.3% 22.6%

West (1,000) 1,821 1,654 476 3,951

With worst case needs 45.6% 46.3% 40.8% 45.3%

With housing assistance 22.0% 20.0% 22.5% 21.2%

Total (1,000) 7,915 6,119 3,084 17,118

With worst case needs 42.2% 43.0% 36.3% 41.4%

With housing assistance 26.8% 21.3% 27.5% 25.0%

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing 

Survey data
U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research 11

Section 2. Shortage of Affordable Housing

Interaction of Race/Ethnicity and 

Metropolitan Location 

Exhibit 2-3 shows the number of very low-income renters, both overall and with worst case needs, by the major race/ethnicity groups 

and their metropolitan location.

Across the nation, HUD found a total of 3.34 million worst case 

needs in central cities (47.1 percent of the total), 2.63 million in suburban areas (37.1 percent), and 1.12 million in nonmetropolitan areas 

(15.8 percent). The distribution of worst case needs by metropolitan 

location parallels the distribution of very low-income renters across 

these areas.

The most common areas to find worst case needs, however, differ for White renters16 compared with minority populations. White 

households continue to account for the largest share of very lowincome renters and of worst case needs in every metropolitan category. The largest proportion of White very low-income renters (39.3 

percent) live in suburbs, and the largest share of their worst case 

needs (39.2 percent) are found there as well. 

In contrast, minority very low-income renters and minority worst 

case needs are most commonly found in central cities. Central cities 

are home to 59.9 percent of Black very low-income renters and 59.1 

percent of Black worst case needs. Similarly, 56.2 percent of Hispanic very low-income renters and 54.9 percent of Hispanic worst 

case needs occur in central cities. A similar story can be told for 

“other” minority households.

Exhibit 2-2. Greater Access to Housing

Assistance , Especially in Rural Areas , 

Reduces Incidence of Worst Case 

Needs , 2009

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of 

American Housing Survey data

45%

35%

25%

15%

30% 40% 50%

Percent of Very Low-Income Renters With 

Housing Assistance

Percent of Very Low-Income Renters With Worst Case Needs

Northeast 

Nonmetro

Midwest 

Nonmetro

Northeast 

Central City

Midwest Suburb

South Suburb

Midwest Central City

South Central City

West 

Central City

West 

Suburb

Northeast 

Suburb South Nonmetro

West Nonmetro

 Exhibit 2-3. Number of Very Low -Income Renters Overall and With Worst Case Needs (1,000) 

by Race /Ethnicity and Metropolitan Location , 2009

 Metropolitan Location

Race/Ethnicity Central Cities Suburbs

Nonmetropolitan 

Areas Total

Non-Hispanic White 2,743 3,167 2,140 8,051

With worst case needs 1,291 1,346 799 3,436

Non-Hispanic Black 2,691 1,334 467 4,493

With worst case needs 969 506 164 1,640

Hispanic 1,965 1,238 290 3,493

With worst case needs 869 603 109 1,582

Other 516 379 186 1,081

With worst case needs 214 176 47 437

Total 7,915 6,119 3,084 17,118

With worst case needs 3,344 2,632 1,119 7,095

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing 

Survey data

16 In this discussion, “White” refers to non-Hispanic White renters, and “Black” refers to non-Hispanic Black renters.
12

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

How the Market Allocates Affordable 

Housing on a National Basis

Exhibit 2-4 shows the distribution of rental units and their occupancy by the affordability of their rents relative to Area Median Income 

(AMI). A unit is considered affordable for a renter as long as gross 

rent (rent plus utilities) does not exceed 30 percent of income. Any 

given renter, however, may live in a unit renting for less than, the 

same as, or more than that threshold.17

The extent of competition for the most affordable housing portrayed 

in Exhibit 2-4 is striking.18 Higher income renters occupy 41.5 percent 

of the units affordable to extremely low-income renters, 36.3 percent 

of units affordable for incomes at 30 to 50 percent of AMI, and 32.6 

percent of units affordable at 50 to 80 percent of AMI.

Competition for affordable units is demonstrated further by the varying proportions of vacant units across the affordability categories. 

The vacancy rate increases as affordability of the rent decreases. 

Among the least costly units—those with rents affordable for incomes at 0 to 30 percent of AMI—only 4.3 percent are vacant. The 

vacancy rate jumps to 10.7 percent among units affordable at 30 to 

50 percent of AMI, to 12.0 percent among units affordable at 50 to 

80 percent of AMI, and to 15.1 percent among the highest rent units. 

This steep gradient in national vacancy rates reflects the very tight 

market for extremely low-income units and the increasingly slack 

market conditions found at higher rent levels (which include numer17 Note that renters whose incomes place them at the bottom of an income range would not find units affordable that rent at the top of their range. More detailed presentations of these 

data appear in appendixes A and B, where table A-12 and exhibit B-2 show unit affordability and occupancy status using 10-point income breaks. 

18 For several reasons it may be inappropriate to label the consumption of housing unit that is less costly than one could afford as “displacement” of poorer renters, but for lack of a 

better word, that term will be used. Households at many income levels face a variety of competing demands on their discretionary income, and they have the freedom to allocate their 

consumption as they choose. Further, exhibit 2-3 reflects national aggregate data, which do not support assumptions that very low-income renters occupying extremely low-income 

units, for example, would actually have extremely low-income renters nearby seeking their unit.

19 Measures of affordability, availability, and adequacy compare the entire housing stock with the entire renter population, and they do not reflect small-scale geographic detail. Even 

the smaller geographic units used in this analysis are too large to accurately represent local housing supply and demand, so results should be viewed with some caution as national or 

regional indicators based on underlying local housing markets. More severe shortages or generous surpluses can occur in specific housing markets despite these national and regional 

findings. For an overview of issues related to local markets, see Khadduri, Burnett, and Rodda (2003).

 Exhibit 2-4. Occupancy of Affordable Units Shows Effects of Competition Among Renters , 

2009

Rental Units by Income Needed to Make the Rent Affordable (1,000)

Occupancy Status

0–30% 

of AMI

30–50% 

of AMI

50–80% 

of AMI

>80% of 

AMI Total

Higher income occupants 2,600 3,970 5,289 NA 11,859

Same or lower income occupants 3,395 5,797 8,988 5,357 23,537

Vacant 270 1,171 1,951 956 4,348

Total 6,265 10,938 16,228 6,313 39,744

AMI = Area Median Income. NA = Not Available.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing 

Survey data

ous vacation homes). The gradient also shows that in many markets, 

rental vouchers could feasibly reduce worst case needs if landlords 

are willing to participate.

Although vacancy rates provide a valuable indication of the balance 

between supply and demand, they do not directly compare the number of affordable units with the number of renters. The remainder of 

Section 2 makes such comparisons, employing three increasingly 

stringent concepts to assess whether the rental housing stock is 

sufficient for the need.

Affordability, Availability, and Adequacy of 

the National Rental Stock

Exhibit 2-5 describes the U.S. rental housing stock in 2009 using AHS data. These aggregate data portray how the overall stock 

would compare with the need for affordable housing if location did 

not matter.19

The cumulative number of affordable units is shown to equal the cumulative number of renters only when incomes of 50 percent of AMI 

are included. Beyond this point, more than 100 affordable units exist 

per 100 renters—enough, with perfect allocation, to provide affordable housing to every renter with income above 50 percent of AMI. 

This threshold moved higher from the 2007 level of 45 percent of 

AMI, meaning that the scarcity of affordable units is reaching higher 

up the income scale. 
U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research 13

Section 2. Shortage of Affordable Housing

The ratio of affordable units per renter peaks at an income level of 

80 percent of AMI. The ratio of cumulative units to comulative renters 

declines at higher incomes. Higher income renters find less need to 

spend more than 30 percent of their incomes on housing and are 

able to absorb units without experiencing cost burdens.

Enough affordable units exist to house only 61 percent of extremely 

low-income renters even if those units somehow could be perfectly allocated. Notably, 61 percent is substantially below the 76 percent of 

extremely low-income renters for which affordable units existed in 2007.

Considering availability in addition to affordability adds an important 

dimension: whether or not affordable units are currently occupied by 

higher income renters.20 Availability poses an important additional constraint for renters seeking affordable units, because only about 36 percent of extremely low-income renters could actually find an affordable 

unit available for their occupancy even if location were not a factor. 

The paucity of affordable and available units is due in part to the occupancy of a considerable proportion of the most affordable housing 

stock by renters who could afford to spend more (as shown previously in Exhibit 2-3). The affordable stock is nominally sufficient 

to house every renter above 50 percent of AMI, but the available 

Measuring Whether Affordable Housing

Stoc k Is Sufficient for the Need

• Affordability measures the extent to which enough rental 

housing units of different costs can provide each renter with a 

unit it can afford (based on the 30-percent-of-income standard). 

Affordability, which is the broadest measure of the relative 

supply of the housing stock, addresses whether sufficient 

housing units would exist if allocated solely on the basis of cost. 

The affordable stock includes both vacant and occupied units.

• Availability measures the extent to which affordable rental 

housing units are available to renters within a particular income 

range. Availability is a more restrictive concept, because units 

that meet the definition must be available as well as affordable. 

Some renters choose to spend less than 30 percent of their 

incomes on rent, occupying housing that is affordable to renters 

of lower income. These units thus are not available to a lower 

income renter. A unit is available at a given level of income if it is 

affordable at that level and either (1) occupied by a renter with 

that income or less or (2) vacant. 

• Adequacy extends the concept of availability by considering 

whether sufficient rental units are physically adequate as well as 

affordable and available. Adequacy thus is the most restrictive 

of the three measures.

Exhibit 2-5. Three Measures Characteri ze

the Sufficiency of the U.S. Rental Housing

Stoc k, 2009

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of 

American Housing Survey data

Income as Percent of Area Median Income

Affordable

Affordable and Available

Affordable, Available, and Adequate

stock does not match the number of renters until household incomes 

reach about 73 percent of AMI. 

Exhibit 2-4 also illustrates that adding a final criterion—that units 

should be physically adequate—further reduces the supply of the 

rental housing stock. Even for renters with low incomes up to 80 percent of AMI, only 95 adequate units are available for every 100 renters. The physically adequate stock does not fully match the need until 

those units affordable only above 105 percent of AMI are included.21

Rental Stock by Income 

We have seen that relatively few rental units are affordable, and, because of displacement and limited vacancies, even fewer are available to renters with the lowest incomes. Exhibit 2-6 summarizes the 

three housing stock measures for the standard income groups used 

in this report. 

A severe mismatch exists between the number of extremely lowincome renters and the number of affordable units available to them. 

For every 100 extremely low-income renters, only 61 affordable units 

20 The availability measure also removes units from consideration if they have artificially low rents because they are occupied as a benefit of employment (for example, units provided for 

caretakers) or because relatives or friends of the occupants own the units. The 2007 AHS data indicate that 2.4 million renter households (6.2 percent) occupied their units while paying 

no rent. The AHS does not provide estimates of the number of households paying a positive but below-market rent because of employment or other reasons.

21 Beginning in 2007, the AHS dropped certain questions related to the condition of common hallways, which had previously been included in the overall adequacy measure. 

Consequently, it is likely that some units rated as adequate in 2007 and 2009 may have been rated inadequate in 2005, especially for apartments in larger structures.

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

0 10 40 20 30 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Housing Units per 100 Renters
14

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

exist, and fewer than 36 affordable units are available for their occupancy. If physically adequate units are required, only 32 units are 

available for every 100 extremely low-income renters.22

Renters with very low incomes find 99 affordable units per 100 renters—nearly enough overall—but similarly find a mismatch of available units. Only 67 units are available for every 100 very low-income 

renters, and only 60 available units per 100 renters are physically 

adequate. For low-income renters, available rental stock is sufficient 

to house all renters, although a small proportion of units have physical problems.

Exhibit 2-7 illustrates that the supply of affordable housing stock for 

extremely low-income renters fell by 15 units per 100 renters during 

the 2007–2009 period, from 76 to 61 units per 100 renters. For very 

low-income renters, affordable units fell by 14 units per 100 renters. 

Availability of affordable units did not decline quite as severely during 

the 2007–2009 period. Available units decreased by 8 units per 100 for 

extremely low-income and by 7 units per 100 for very low-income rent-

 Exhibit 2-6. Rental Housing Stoc k by Income Category , 2009

Rental Units per 100 Renters 

Affordable

Affordable and 

Available

Affordable, 

Available, and 

Adequate

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 61.0 35.7 32.2

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 98.7 67.2 60.3

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 135.9 104.6 95.1

AMI = Area Median Income.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing 

Survey data

ers. The longer term 2005–2009 trend is also negative for both income 

groups and for both measures, reversing the modest gains observed 

for extremely low-income renters during the 2005–2007 period.

Geography of Supply

The previous discussion shows that worst case needs are dispersed 

across the nation, yet they can be concentrated in certain geographic areas; that spatial variation is affected in part by the availability of 

housing assistance. 

The private market, including both for-profit and nonprofit housing 

providers, can provide both assisted units and affordable housing. 

The examination of affordable housing supply on a national basis reveals the following: first, the supply of rental units that are affordable 

to very low-income and poorer households is simply inadequate; 

second, this shortage is worsened by the natural process of displacement by higher income renters; and third, this shortage is further worsened by some of the stock’s physical inadequacy. 

22 Research based on the Residential Finance Survey indicates that 12 percent of units with gross rents of $400 or less produced negative net operating income, suggesting they are 

heading for demolition or conversion to nonresidential use (Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, 2006).

 Exhibit 2-7. Trend in Rental Housing Stoc k by Income Category , 2005–2009

 Rental Units per 100 Renters

Change

2005 2007 2009 2005–2007 2007–2009

Extremely Low-Income Renters (0–30% AMI)

 Affordable 67.6 76.2 61.0 + 8.6 – 15.2

 Affordable and available 39.9 44.2 35.7 + 4.3 – 8.5

Very Low-Income Renters (0–50% AMI)

 Affordable 117.1 112.9 98.7 – 4.2 – 14.2

 Affordable and available 76.7 73.9 67.2 – 2.8 – 6.7 

AMI = Area Median Income. 

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing 

Survey data
U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research 15

Section 2. Shortage of Affordable Housing

The following discussion sharpens that scenario by showing how 

inadequate supply varies by geography.

Rental Stock by Metropolitan Location

Deficiencies in the affordable and available stock are less severe 

in nonmetropolitan areas. Exhibit 2-8 summarizes the affordable 

housing supply for cities, suburbs, and nonmetropolitan areas. 

Notably, although cities and suburbs display comparable availableunit-ratios—with 32 to 34 units per 100 extremely low-income renters 

and 62 to 66 units per 100 very low-income renters—the underlying 

supply of affordable units is more constrained in central cities than 

it is in suburbs. 

Further, the relationship between the affordability ratio and availability 

ratio highlights variations related to metropolitan location. The mathematical difference between estimates of affordable units and available units reflects the combined effect of the two factors presented in 

Exhibit 2-3: low vacancy rates for affordable units, and displacement 

of needy renters from affordable units by higher income renters. 

Exhibit 2-8 reveals that fewer affordable units are lost because of 

unavailability in denser, more urban areas. In central cities, about 23 

otherwise-affordable units are unavailable per 100 very low-income 

renters.23 In comparison, 35 affordable units are unavailable per 100 

renters in suburbs, and 47 affordable units are unavailable per 100 renters in nonmetropolitan areas. 

A smaller reduction of affordable housing availability in central city 

areas may flow from the benefits of thicker, more efficient markets 

within cities. These markets can offer a wider range of unit features 

and price points that offer appealing value to higher income renters. 

More and better choices for higher income renters can affect availability of affordable housing for very low-income renters by reducing 

displacement or by increasing vacancy rates and causing rents of 

adequate units to filter down to affordable levels.

Also worth consideration in Exhibit 2-8 is the extent of differences 

between the ratios of available units and adequate units. Suburban 

areas lose fewer affordable and available units to inadequacy, likely 

reflecting the younger housing stock.24 For suburbs, adding the adequacy test reduces the availability ratio by 4 units per 100 very lowincome renters. The difference is more than double that in central 

cities and nonmetropolitan areas, with 9 and 8 fewer units per 100 

renters, respectively.

Adjusting availability ratios for differences in adequacy nearly eliminates 

the city-suburb difference in the affordable rental stock. The adequacy 

23 These estimates of unavailable units reflect the difference between the estimates of affordable units and available units presented in table 2-8, and differ from estimates of displacement reported in connection with exhibit 2-3 by covering the full very low-income category: units affordable at 0 to 50 percent of AMI rather than only 30 to 50 percent of AMI.

24 Only 13 percent of suburban rental units were built before 1940, compared with 27 percent of central city units and 20 percent of nonmetropolitan rental units (Census Bureau 2008, 

table 4-1).

 Exhibit 2-8. Rental Housing Stoc k by Income Groups in Central Cities , Suburbs , and

Nonmetropolitan Areas , 2009

 Housing Units per 100 Renters

Affordable

Affordable and 

Available

Affordable, 

Available, and 

Adequate

Central Cities

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 48.5 34.4 30.0

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 88.8 65.9 57.3

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 129.8 104.8 93.4

Suburbs

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 60.9 32.4 30.6

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 97.0 61.9 57.8

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 139.4 102.2 95.5

Nonmetropolitan Areas

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 97.0 45.6 41.2

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 127.6 81.0 72.7

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 143.9 108.6 98.4

AMI = Area Median Income. 

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing 

Survey data
16

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

test also considerably reduces the potential affordable housing appeal 

of nonmetropolitan areas relative to denser areas. Even in nonmetropolitan areas, only 7 of every 10 very low-income renters could find an 

adequate unit that was affordable and available for their use.

Rental Stock by Region 

Exhibit 2-9 shows substantial variation in the availability of affordable 

rental units across the four census regions. The Midwest has the best 

availability, with 87 units per 100 very low-income renters. The West is 

worst off, with 53 units per 100 renters, and the Northeast and South 

have 65 to 66 units per 100 renters. For extremely low-income renters, the availability of affordable units is far from adequate in any region. It is notable that extremely low-income renters find substantially 

tighter supply in the South than in the Northeast even though very 

low-income renters in those regions face similar markets. 

Indeed, in the West and the Northeast, not enough affordable units 

are available even when low-income renters (0 to 80 percent of AMI) 

are included. 

Nevertheless, the primary point in exhibit 2-9 is that extremely lowincome renters continue to face severely constrained markets across 

all four regions. Although some regions sometimes have substantially lower housing costs on average, even those regions cannot 

 Exhibit 2-9. Rental Housing Stoc k by Region and Income Category , 2009

 Housing Units per 100 Renters

 Affordable

Affordable and 

Available

Affordable, 

Available, and 

Adequate

Northeast

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 68.6 42.7 38.1

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 95.9 66.3 58.8

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 126.8 99.8 89.1

Midwest

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 63.0 39.5 36.3

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 127.8 86.7 79.5

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 148.2 115.4 106.4

South

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 58.9 31.8 28.4

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 95.2 65.3 57.9

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 139.3 106.8 97.2

West

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 54.6 30.8 27.8

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 79.8 52.9 47.5

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 127.8 95.6 87.1

AMI = Area Median Income. 

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing 

Survey data

make affordable units available for even one-half of their extremely 

low-income renters. Adding the adequacy test to the availability ratios does not introduce the type of additional disparities across the 

regions that were apparent across metropolitan locations.

Dynamics of Supply

In addition to understanding the spatial aspects of affordable housing supply, it is useful to consider the trends in supply over time, both 

nationally and by metropolitan location.

Trends in National Rental Stock

The availability of the affordable rental stock has shown a degree 

of stability for 25 years. But as exhibit 2-10 illustrates, that stability 

is waning and housing shortages are approaching new extremes. 

The availability of affordable rental units per 100 renters is shown for 

the four standard income categories during the 1985–2009 period. 

During the past 5 years, the most vulnerable renters—the very lowincome majority and the extremely low-income subset—have faced 

the tightest market for affordable housing since 1985. 

In 2005, the availability of affordable rental units decreased for renters in all income groups below 80 percent of AMI. Although some of 

the losses were recovered in 2007, the shortages regained strength 
U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research 17

Section 2. Shortage of Affordable Housing

in 2009. Middle-income renters, in contrast, have continued to experience a stable and adequate supply of affordable rental units. The 

unusual variations observed in rental housing during the 2003–2009 

period may be tied to the gyrations of the homeownership market in 

recent years—a topic to be explored further in Section 3.

Trends in Rental Stock by Metropolitan 

Location

Exhibits 2-11 and 2-12 show how affordability ratios and availability 

ratios have changed across central cities, suburbs, and nonmetropolitan areas during the 2003–2009 period. 

Considering exhibit 2-11, it is apparent that the stock of affordable units has declined significantly relative to the number of renters. These changes are seen despite the year-to-year variations in 

these estimates that result from the intricacies of changing rents 

and movement of households between income groups or between 

homeownership and renting.

During 2007–2009, the affordability ratio declined by 12 to 14 units 

per 100 very low-income renters in central cities, suburbs, and nonmetropolitan areas. Over the longer 2003–2009 period, declines in 

the affordable housing stock are even more dramatic, ranging from 

24 fewer units per 100 very low-income renters in suburbs to 32 to 33 

fewer units per 100 renters in central cities and nonmetropolitan areas.

Although declines in the affordable stock from 2007–2009 are substantial, declines in the availability ratio, although significant, have 

been less dramatic. Compared with losses of 12 to 14 affordable 

units, the losses shown in exhibit 2-12 are less severe: the available 

Moderate Income (>80% AMI) 

Low Income (0–80% AMI) 

Very Low Income (0–50% AMI) 

Extremely Low Income (0–30% AMI)

Exhibit 2-10. Availability of Affordable

Rental Units , 1985–2009 

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of 

American Housing Survey data

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

1985198719891991199319951997199920012003200520072009

Housing Units per 100 Renters

units ratio declined by only about 6 units per 100 very low-income 

renters, regardless of metropolitan status. 

Losses of available units nevertheless have been substantial over the 

longer 2003–2009 period, with 11 fewer available units per 100 very 

low-income renters in suburbs, 16 fewer in central cities, and 17 fewer in nonmetropolitan areas. Similar changes have occurred for ex-

 Exhibit 2-11. Trends in Supply of Affordable Units by Metropolitan Location , 2003–2009

 Rental Units per 100 Renters

Change

2003 2005 2007 2009 2003–2009 2007–2009

Central Cities

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 65.6 52.2 60.7 48.5 – 17.1 – 12.2

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 120.3 106.1 102.7 88.8 – 31.5 – 13.9

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 137.4 133.9 133.9 129.8 – 7.6 – 4.1

Suburbs

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 74.5 66.7 79.1 60.9 – 13.6 – 18.2

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 121.2 113.9 110.6 97.0 – 24.2 – 13.6

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 149.6 145.3 146.5 139.4 – 10.2 – 7.1

Nonmetropolitan Areas

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 121.4 106.1 108.3 97.0 – 24.4 – 11.3

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 160.3 148.9 139.7 127.6 – 32.7 – 12.1

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 155.1 140.9 141.5 143.9 – 11.2 2.4

AMI = Area Median Income. 

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing 

Survey data
18

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

tremely low-income renters, as the declining availability of affordable 

housing continues to create worst case needs. Only for renters with 

incomes at 50 to 80 percent of AMI would the news of availability be 

considered good, with availability generally exceeding 100 units per 

100 renters, and with trends somewhat stable or positive since 2007.

Summary

Worst case needs are common in every region and metropolitan 

category across the United States. Nationally in 2009, 41.4 percent 

of very low-income renters have worst case needs. The incidence 

is slightly higher than average in the West (45.3 percent), in central 

cities (42.2 percent), and in suburbs (43.0 percent). The incidence is 

lower in nonmetropolitan areas (36.3 percent), in the Northeast (39.0 

percent), and in the Midwest (38.9 percent). 

Housing assistance, including that provided by HUD, is an important 

preventer of worst case needs among very low-income renters. Nationwide, 25.0 percent of very low-income renters report receiving 

housing assistance, totaling 4.27 million households. 

But for every very low-income renter who is assisted, 1.7 renters 

have worst case needs for such assistance. The incidence of housing assistance among very low-income renters is greater in nonmetropolitan areas, and lower in suburbs (21.3 percent), in the West (21.2 

percent), and in the South (22.6 percent).

The nation has enough affordable units to house every very lowincome renter if allocation were perfect; however, far fewer affordable 

units are actually available to renters with the lowest incomes. This 

discrepancy occurs because vacancy rates are low for the lowest 

rent units, and many affordable units are rented to higher income 

families. Of units affordable to extremely low-income renters, 41.5 

percent are occupied by higher income families. And, in 2009, the 

vacancy rate for units affordable at extremely low incomes was only 

4.3 percent, compared with 15.1 percent vacancy for units affordable 

above 80 percent of AMI.

When a simple ratio of affordable units per very low-income renters 

is made more stringent by adding availability as a constraint, the ratio 

decreases from 99 units per 100 renters to only 67 per 100 renters. 

The effects of the availability constraint are even more severe for extremely low-income renters, reducing the affordable unit ratio from 61 

to 36 per 100 renters. 

Further, a substantial proportion of available units are not in standard 

physical condition. When the criterion of physical adequacy is added 

to the analysis of availability during 2009, the number of available 

units is reduced from 67 to 60 units per 100 very low-income renters, 

and from 46 to 32 units per 100 extremely low-income renters.

The availability of affordable units also varies across regions. The supply is most scarce in the West, with only 53 affordable units available 

per 100 very low-income renters, compared with 65 in the South, 66 

in the Northeast, and 87 in the Midwest.

The long trend of market stability in the national availability of 

affordable units began weakening in 2003, and availability of affordable 

units has significantly worsened. During the 2003–2009 period, 

affordable and available units per 100 very low-income renters 

decreased by 16 in central cities, by 12 in suburbs, and by 17 in 

nonmetropolitan areas. In 2009, available units were down to 66 per 

100 very low-income renters in central cities, 62 in suburbs, and 81 

in nonmetropolitan areas.

 Exhibit 2-12. Trends in Supply of Affordable and Available Units by Metropolitan Location , 

2003–2009

 Affordable and Available Units per 100 Renters

Change

2003 2005 2007 2009 2003–2009 2007–2009

Central Cities

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 43.0 31.8 41.4 34.4 – 8.6 – 7.0

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 81.5 64.1 72.3 65.9 – 15.6 – 6.4

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 107.7 93.6 105.5 104.8 – 2.9 – 0.7

Suburbs

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 39.1 32.4 42.7 32.4 – 6.7 – 10.3

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 73.3 64.6 68.1 61.9 – 11.4 – 6.2

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 106.9 96.7 104.3 102.2 – 4.7 2.1

Nonmetropolitan Areas

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 56.7 49.4 53.0 45.6 – 11.1 – 7.4

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 97.6 82.6 86.7 81.0 – 16.6 – 5.7

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 115.6 98.3 107.4 108.6 – 7.0 1.2

AMI = Area Median Income. 

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing 

Survey data
U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research 19

Section 3. Understanding the Tr end in Worst Case NEEDS

Understanding the Trend in 

Worst Case NEED s

Section 2 demonstrated that worst case needs increased across the nation, and that the 

increase is related to decreasing availability of affordable rental units relative to the number of 

very low-income renters who need them. Section 3 elaborates on how the changes in numbers of units, numbers of renters, and rents during the 2007–2009 period underlie this result.

The homeownership crisis and economic recession likely played a major role in fueling 

the increase in worst case needs. Of the 1.19 million cases of worst case needs that 

emerged during 2007–2009, 59.0 percent can be attributed to demographic changes 

that affected the population of unassisted very low-income renters, and 41.0 percent 

can be attributed to changes in incidence that resulted from the new market pressures 

those renters generated. 

Falling tenant incomes—and possibly mortgage defaults as well—landed many additional households in the category of very-low-income renters with worst case needs. As 

a secondary effect, new competition for affordable rental units increased displacement 

of extremely low-income renters, absorbed vacant units, and drove up rents.

Changes in Affordable Housing Demand

This report has shown that changes in worst case needs reflect both changes in the population vulnerable to worst case needs—unassisted very low-income renters—and changes 

in incidence of worst case needs for that population. The population of vulnerable renters 

is affected primarily by demographic factors, and the incidence of worst case needs is 

a product of microeconomic factors—the market response to changes in demand for 

affordable housing. (The supply of affordable housing is relatively fixed in the short run.)

The following analysis sorts out these factors. First, we distinguish between the effects 

of incidence and the effects of population change to estimate their relative importance. 

Then we identify how much various demographic factors affected the population change.

Household Formation, Tenure, and Income Factors

The population of unassisted very low-income renters increased by 11.0 percent during 

2007–2009, from 11.57 to 12.83 million. During the same period, incidence of worst case 

needs in this group increased from 51.0 to 55.2 percent. 

From these facts, we can attribute 700,000 new cases of worst case needs (59.0 percent) to demographic changes, and 490,000 new cases (41.0 percent) to changes in 

Section 3
20

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

incidence, together totaling the 1.19 million new worst case needs 

observed in the AHS between 2007 and 2009.25

The 700,000 new worst case needs resulting from demographic 

shifts can be further broken down, as follows:

− Household formation. A 5.5-percent increase in worst case 

needs, or almost 70,000 new cases, can be attributed to household formation. The nation added 1,140,000 new households 

from 2007 to 2009. The household formation rate of 1.0 percent 

(during this 2-year period) was slower than the average biennial 

increase of 1.5 percent observed in AHS samples since 2001.

− Renter share of households. A negligible 0.3-percent decrease in worst case needs is attributed to minor shifts in tenure between homeownership and renting. The nation added 

340,000 renter households from 2007 to 2009, but the increase 

of 1.0 percent was slightly less than the 1.0 percent increase in 

households on a proportional basis. For comparison, the average biennial growth rate in renter households since 2001 has 

been 1.2 percent.

− Renter income losses. A 34.5-percent increase in worst case 

needs, or 410,000 new cases, is attributed to income shift. 

1,180,000 new very low-income renters were added from 2007 

to 2009 because of shrinking incomes, and the growth rate of 

7.4 percent exceeded growth in renters on a proportional basis. Since 2001, the average biennial change in very low-income 

renters has averaged 3.6 percent.

− Rental assistance gap. A 19.2-percent increase in worst case 

needs, or 230,000 new cases, is attributed to lack of rental as25 The demographic effect is based on the new incidence multiplied by the numerical increase in renters, and the incidence effect is based on the increase in incidence multiplied by 

the baseline number of renters.

sistance. The 2007–2009 increase in very low-income renters 

who lack housing assistance was 1,270,000. The 11.0-percent 

increase was substantially greater on a proportional basis than 

the 7.4-percent increase in very low-income renters. Indeed, at 

least in the AHS data, new unassisted very low-income renters 

actually exceeded new very low-income renters overall (that is, 

on an absolute, as well as proportional, basis). The average biennial change in unassisted very low-income renters has averaged 

4.8 percent since 2001.

This analysis shows that the primary causes of increases in worst 

case needs from 2007 to 2009 are economic in nature. The recessiondriven losses of income that increased the number of very lowincome renters explain 34.5 percent of new worst case needs, and 

the housing-market driven increases in incidence explain 41.0 percent 

of new worst case needs.

Exhibit 3-1 illustrates the results of the attribution analysis. The 

household formation and renter share played only a minor role. Renter income losses, in contrast, were a crucial factor, because falling 

incomes drove hundreds of thousands of higher income renters into 

the category of very low-income renters with worst case needs. The 

rental assistance gap was also significant because no increase in 

housing assistance occurred in proportion to the surge. 

The competition for affordable units had the greatest role in this 

analysis, increasing the incidence of worst case needs through displacement, absorption of vacancies, and upward pressure on rents.

Homeownership Crisis and Recession

The share of renters among U.S. households might have been expected 

to play a significant role in increasing worst case needs during the 

recent subprime mortgage and homeownership crises. During the 

2007–2009 period, numerous very low-income homeowners once 

again become renters. Although this AHS analysis does not demonstrate that foreclosed homeowners frequently became renters with 

worst case needs, this may in fact have occurred. HUD tabulations 

of the Current Population Survey (CPS) show that the homeownership rate for households with incomes below the AMI fell by 

2.3 points during this period, from 53.0 percent in the third quarter of 

2007 to 51.7 percent in the third quarter of 2009. 

The AHS data are not clear-cut about the facts underlying changes 

in tenure, but homeownership losses by very low-income and subprime homeowners may have been concealed in these data by home 

purchases by higher income renters that limited the overall growth in 

renters. Compared with the 2.3-point decline in the below-medianincome homeownership rate, the CPS data show that the overall 

homeownership rate declined by a much smaller 0.6 points between 

the third quarters of 2007 and 2009, from 68.2 to 67.6 percent. 

The fact that homeowner incomes slid downward substantially from 

2007 to 2009 is also suggestive. Despite an increase of 800,000 

Exhibit 3-1. Demographic and Economic

Causes of Increasing Worst Case Needs , 

2007–2009

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of 

American Housing Survey data

1,500

1,000

500

0

Added Worst Case Needs (1,000)

Household 

Formation

+ 66

Renter 

Share

– 4

Renter 

Income 

Losses

+ 410

Rental 

Assistance 

Gap

+ 229

Affordable 

Unit 

Competition

+ 488

Net 

Change 

in Worst 

Case 

Needs

1,190

Increases Decreases Net Result
U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research 21

Section 3. Understanding the Tr end in Worst Case NEEDS

26 NBER 2010.

27 BLS 2007, BLS 2009.

28 Note that AMI is calculated on the basis of all households, not just renters.

in the total number of homeowners, a nearly equivalent decrease 

occurred in those with incomes above 80 percent of AMI, accompanied by an increase of 1.41 million very low-income homeowners 

(see table A-1b).

Finally, the number of very low-income renters might have increased 

even more rapidly if unrelated individuals had not doubled up into 

580,000 new “other nonfamily” households (see exhibit 1-8). Individuals whose incomes fall below the very low-income threshold 

might not form very low-income households when they pool their 

resources and share housing. Doubling up also could help explain 

the lower rate of household formation and the flat proportion of renters observed during the 2007–2009 period.

A major cause of declines in tenant income was the rapid increase 

in unemployment during the recession and the persistence of unemployment after the recession officially ended. The recession officially 

occurred entirely within the mid-2007 to mid-2009 period for which 

changes in worst case needs are estimated: it began in December 2007 and ended with the trough in the business cycle in June 

2009.26 The impact on unemployment was dramatic. In September 

2007, the unemployment rate was 4.7 percent and 7.2 million people 

were unemployed. Unemployment doubled during the recession, so 

that by September 2009 the unemployment rate was 9.8 percent 

and 15.1 million were unemployed.27

Changes in the Affordable Housing 

Supply

Exhibits 2-11 and 2-12 in the previous section presented the widespread decline in availability of affordable rental units, but the reasons may not be clear given the relative stability of the proportion 

of renters and homeowners. Some additional data, including key 

numbers underlying the changes in available unit ratios, will shed 

light on the issue. 

Vacancy Rates, Rents, and Competition 

for Units

Exhibit 3-2 examines the factors responsible for the change in the 

availability of affordable units. During the 2007–2009 period, the 

overall U.S. rental stock increased by 1.1 percent, or 410,000 units, 

and the number of renters increased by a similar 1.0 percent, or 

340,000 households. These changes offer no indication of why dramatic increases in worst case needs arose.

It should be noted in exhibit 3-2 that HUD income limits, which define 

the extremely low, very low, and low-income categories, increased 

about 5 percent during the 2007–2009 period. During the same 

2-year period, the median renter’s income increased by only 3.8 percent.28 This difference indicates that stagnant or decreasing incomes 

may have allowed more renters to slip below the income category 

thresholds. The increases in the numbers of extremely low-income 

renters (7.5 percent) and very low-income renters (7.2 percent) illustrate that incomes slipped, and suggest why competition for the 

most affordable units gained strength. 

As the analysis at the beginning of this section showed, increased 

competition for affordable units was a major factor in increasing the 

incidence of worst case needs. Supply and demand factors caused 

the median housing cost for all renters to increase by 8.6 percent 

during the 2007–2009 period.

Rent increases were more severe at the low end of the market. Mean 

rents increased by 10.6 percent for renters with very low incomes during 

2007–2009. (Percentage increases were about the same for the 0–30 

percent of AMI and the 30–50 percent of AMI groups. See table A-14.)

Although increases in the number of units exceeded increases in renters on an overall basis, the situation is substantially different at the lower end of the affordability scale. For very low-income renters, affordable 

and available units decreased by 300,000 but renters increased by 

1,180,000. For extremely low-income renters, affordable and available 

units decreased by 600,000 but renters increased by 715,000.

A significant part of the story is the reduction in vacant units that 

occurred at lower rent ranges. Exhibit 3-3 illustrates that 480,000 

fewer units affordable to extremely low-income renters were vacant in 

2009 than in 2007. Very low-income renters lost 370,000 vacant units. 

Across the entire market, a net increase of 230,000 vacant units 

occurred mostly among units renting for more than very low-income 

families could afford.

The absorption of the most affordable vacant units in the market is 

consistent with the surge of poor renters that occurred as a result 

of shrinking incomes and mortgage foreclosures. Taken together, 

the absorption of vacant units, the increase in displacement of very 

low-income renters, and the increase in the rents they paid paint 

a compelling picture of the impact of increasing market competition from 2007 to 2009. These factors show that demographic (and 

macroeconomic) changes in the population of unassisted very lowincome renters may have a direct effect on worst case needs. The 

direct effect, however, is exacerbated by the effect of competition for 

affordable housing.

Concluding Summary

An analysis of the effects of the incidence of worst case needs on 

the nation’s population of vulnerable very low-income renters and the 

effects of population change during the 2007–2009 period indicates 

that 700,000 new cases of worst case needs (59.0 percent) resulted 

from demographic changes, and 490,000 new cases (41.0 percent) 

from changes in incidence. 
22

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

Four demographic factors affect the number of unassisted very lowincome renters who are susceptible to worst case needs. National 

household formation accounts for a small fraction of new worst 

case needs: 5.5 percent of the 2007–2009 increase. Changes in the 

renter share of households were negligible, causing a 0.3-percent 

decrease in worst case needs. The major demographic factors were 

renter income losses that caused renters to slip into the very lowincome population. This factor accounted for 34.5 percent of additional worst case needs, or 410,000 new cases. Finally, the gap in 

rental assistance relative to growing need accounts for 19.2 percent 

of new cases, or 230,000 new cases. 

The primary causes of increased worst case needs are economic 

in nature, involving the 34.5 percent of new cases resulting from 

recession-driven losses of renter income (part of the demographic 

shift) and the 41.0 percent flowing from housing-market driven 

increases in incidence of severe housing problems.

Limited, but suggestive, evidence indicates that superficially stable 

tenure data do not display the effect of foreclosures and other losses of 

homeownership experienced by recent homebuyers during the 2007–

2009 period. Losses of homeownership by below-AMI households 

may be concealed by home purchases by higher income renters 

even though incomes are generally declining. Foreclosed homeowners would likely increase the pools of very low-income and extremely 

low-income renters, which actually increased by a substantial 7.2 

and 7.5 percent, respectively, during the 2007–2009 period. An important cause of income losses was the doubling of unemployment 

during the recession, from 4.7 percent (7.2 million people) in September 2007 to 9.8 percent unemployment (15.1 million people) in 

September 2009.

Higher incidence of worst case needs among unassisted very lowincome renters primarily reflects increased competition for scarce 

affordable units. Rapid growth in the number of very low-income 

renters both increases the number of households seeking each affordable unit, and when incomes suddenly decline, can cause rents 

that were formerly affordable to become severe burdens. 

Several key statistics demonstrate the greater competition for affordable units in the 2007–2009 period: the 8.6-percent increase in 

median gross rent (compared with only a 3.8-percent increase 

 Exhibit 3-2. FaCTORS EXPLAINING CHANGES IN RENTAL HOUSING AVAILABILITY RATE, 2007–2009

Extremely 

Low Income 

(0–30% AMI)

Very Low 

Income 

(0–50% AMI)

Low Income 

(0–80% AMI) Total

Cumulative Households (1,000)

2007 9,555 16,251 23,902 35,054 

2009 10,270 17,427 24,595 35,396 

Percentage change 7.5% 7.2% 2.9% 1.0%

Cumulative Affordable and Available Housing Units (1,000)

2007 4,224 12,011 25,207 39,330 

2009 3,665 11,710 25,715 39,744 

Percentage change – 13.2% – 2.5% 2.0% 1.1%

Income Limit (Median, Current Dollars)

2007 $15,500 $25,850 $41,200 —

2009 $16,300 $27,150 $43,450 —

Percentage change 5.2% 5.0% 5.5% —

Median Household Income (All Renters, Current Dollars)

2007 — — — $27,364 

2009 — — — $28,400 

Percentage change — — — 3.8%

Median Monthly Housing Cost (All Renters, Current Dollars) 

2007 — — — $722 

2009 — — — $784 

Percentage change — — — 8.6%

AMI = Area Median Income.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing 

Survey data
U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research 23

Section 3. Understanding the Tr end in Worst Case NEEDS

Exhibit 3-3. Change in Rental Vacancies

by Affordability of Rent , 2007–2009

AMI = Area Median Income.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of 

American Housing Survey data

300

200

100

0

– 100

– 200

– 300

0 10

– 152

– 238

– 89

– 37

147 162 179

217

73

2

– 11 – 28

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120+

Rental Units (millions)

Affordability Category 

(percent of AMI needed to afford the highest rent in the category)

in median renter income); a 10.6-percent increase in gross rents of 

very low-income renters; and the net absorption of 370,000 vacant 

units affordable to very low-income renters. 

Although the picture of growing worst case needs, in general, is 

bleak, there is reason to hope that worst case needs may again decline. The macroeconomic factors that created great pressures for 

very low-income rental housing are likely to ease as the rebound from 

recession accelerates. Nevertheless, when more than 6 percent of 

the nation’s households experience this form of hardship, the need 

for prioritizing assisted housing in national policy deliberations has 

never been greater.
24

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2007. “The Editor’s Desk.” http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2007/

oct/wk2/art01.htm (accessed November 17, 2010).

———. 2009. “The Editor’s Desk.” http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2009/ted_20091006.htm 

(accessed November 17, 2010).

Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. 2006. State of the Nation’s Housing: 

2006. Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. http://www.

jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/son2006/index.htm (accessed January 19, 2011).

Khadduri, Jill, Kimberly Burnett, and David Rodda. 2003. Targeting Housing Production 

Subsidies: Literature Review. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. http://www.huduser.org/publications/

pdf/targetinglitreview.pdf (accessed January 19, 2011).

National Bureau of Economic Research. 2010. Minutes of Business Cycle Dating Committee. 

http://www.nber.org/cycles/sept2010.html (accessed November 17, 2010).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. American Housing Survey for the United States: 2007. Series 

H150/07, Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs.html. 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 2009. Performance and Accountability Report, Fiscal Year 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development (HUD-CPD). 2010. The 2009 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development. http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/povsoc/ahar_5.

html. 

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

Research (HUD-PD&R). 2006a. Codebook for the American Housing Survey, Public Use 

File: 1997 and Later. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

Office of Policy Development and Research. http://www.huduser.org/datasets/ahs/ahsprev.

html.

Literature

Cited
U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research 25

Literature Cited

———. 2006b. Programs of HUD, 2006: Major Mortgage, Grant, 

Assistance and Regulatory Programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/

progs_of_hud.html. 

———. 2010. “2009 National American Housing Survey Additions 

to Codebook.” http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/ahs/ahsdata09.

html accessed January 20, 2011. 

Additional Reading

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

Development and Research. 2008. Housing Needs of Persons With 

Disabilities: Supplemental Findings to the Affordable Housing Needs 

2005 Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. 

http://www.huduser.org/publications/affhsg/affhsgneedsdis.html.
26

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress
U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research 27

Appendix A. Data on Housing Problems and Supp ly of Affordable Housing

Data on Housing Problems and 

Supply of Aff ordable Housing

Table A–1a. Housing Conditions of Renter Households by Relative Income, 2007 and 2009......28

Table A–1b. Housing Conditions of Owner Households by Relative Income, 2007 and 2009......29

Table A–2a. Housing Conditions of Renters and Owners, 1999–2009—Number of 

Households.................................................................................................................30

Table A–2b. Housing Conditions of Renters and Owners, 1999–2009—Percentage of 

Households.................................................................................................................31

Table A–3. Housing Conditions of Unassisted Renter Households by Relative Income, 

2007 and 2009 ...........................................................................................................32

Table A–4. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Renters by Relative Income, 

2007 and 2009—Number and Percentage................................................................33

Table A–5A. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters 

by Household Type, 2007 and 2009—Number and Percentage...............................36

Table A–5B. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters 

With Disabilities by Household Type, 2009—Number and Percentage ...................38

Table A–6a. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Very Low-Income Renters 

by Household Type, 2009...........................................................................................40

Table A–6b. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Extremely Low-Income Renters 

by Household Type, 2009...........................................................................................42

Table A–7. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Worst Case Renters 

by Household Type, 2009...........................................................................................44

Table A–8. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Extremely Low-Income 

Worst Case Renters by Household Type, 2009..........................................................46

Table A–9. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters 

by Race and Ethnicity, 2007 and 2009—Number and Percentage...........................48

Table A–10. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters 

by Region, 2007 and 2009—Number and Percentage..............................................50

Table A–11. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters 

by Metropolitan Location, 2007 and 2009—Number and Percentage.....................52

Table A–12. Households Occupying U.S. Rental Units by Affordability of Rent 

and Income of Occupants, 2007 and 2009 ................................................................54

Table A–13. Renters and Rental Units Affordable and Available to Them by Relative Income, 

1999–2009.................................................................................................................55

Table A–14. Average Income and Average Gross Rent of Renter Households 

by Relative Income, 2007 and 2009...........................................................................56

Appendi xA
28

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

Table A–1a. Housing Conditions of Renter Households by Relati ve Income , 

2007 and 2009

 Household Income as Percentage 

 of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income

2009 0–30% 30–50% 50–80% 80–120% >120%

All 

Incomes

Total households (1,000) 9,961 7,157 7,168 5,658 5,452 35,396 

Unassisted with severe problemsa 5,069 2,026 644 203 143 8,085 

Unassisted with non-severe problems onlya 768 3,082 2,747 1,089 544 8,229 

Unassisted with no problemsa 784 1,115 3,424 4,220 4,668 14,211 

Assisted 3,340 934 354 146 97 4,871 

Any with severe problems 6,536 2,139 662 208 144 9,688 

Rent burden >50% of income 6,407 1,985 469 97 41 9,000 

Severely inadequate housing 387 194 204 111 102 998 

Any with non-severe problems onlyb 1,692 3,467 2,851 1,115 552 9,678 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,486 3,205 2,381 728 181 7,981 

Moderately inadequate housing 323 392 407 287 274 1,684 

Crowded housing 161 302 290 130 111 993 

Any with no problems 1,732 1,551 3,655 4,335 4,757 16,030 

 Household Income as Percentage 

 of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income

2007 0–30% 30–50% 50–80% 80–120% >120%

All 

Incomes

Total households (1,000) 9,243 6,697 7,650 5,518 5,946 35,054 

Unassisted with severe problemsa 4,327 1,578 681 245 162 6,993 

Unassisted with non-severe problems onlya 828 2,935 2,960 1,048 674 8,445 

Unassisted with no problemsa 738 1,168 3,541 4,059 4,949 14,455 

Assisted 3,350 1,016 468 166 161 5,161 

Any with severe problems 5,732 1,711 703 253 165 8,564 

Rent burden >50% of income 5,588 1,579 486 98 42 7,793 

Severely inadequate housing 372 198 224 156 123 1,073 

Any with non-severe problems onlyb 1,778 3,375 3,095 1,077 690 10,015 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,536 3,062 2,524 684 293 8,099 

Moderately inadequate housing 324 393 494 308 307 1,828 

Crowded housing 196 369 305 99 127 1,096 

Any with no problems 1,733 1,611 3,853 4,187 5,090 16,476 

a

 See table A–3 for housing problems experienced by unassisted renters.

b See Table A–2 for estimates of the incidence of non-severe problems without regard to whether severe problems are also present.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing Survey 

data
U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research 29

Appendix A. Data on Housing Problems and Supp ly of Affordable Housing

Table A–1b. Housing Conditions of Owner Households by Relati ve Income , 

2007 and 2009

 Household Income as Percentage 

 of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income

2009 0–30% 30–50% 50–80% 80–120% >120%

All 

Incomes

Total households (1,000) 7,028 8,201 12,383 15,097 33,755 76,465 

Unassisted with severe problems 4,390 2,612 2,128 1,231 812 11,174 

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 1,316 2,226 3,757 3,943 3,754 14,996 

Unassisted with no problems 1,322 3,363 6,498 9,923 29,189 50,295 

Assisted — — — — — —

Any with severe problems 4,390 2,612 2,128 1,231 812 11,174 

Cost burden >50% of income 4,309 2,511 1,946 1,090 602 10,458 

Severely inadequate housing 159 146 202 149 213 868 

Any with non-severe problems only 1,316 2,226 3,757 3,943 3,754 14,996 

Cost burden 30–50% of income 1,183 1,999 3,383 3,598 3,225 13,388 

Moderately inadequate housing 180 156 299 255 440 1,331 

Crowded housing 85 159 224 171 156 795 

Any with no problems 1,322 3,363 6,498 9,923 29,189 50,295 

 Household Income as Percentage 

 of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income

2007 0–30% 30–50% 50–80% 80–120% >120%

All 

Incomes

Total households (1,000) 6,192 7,630 12,213 13,195 36,436 75,665 

Unassisted with severe problems 3,667 2,136 1,991 1,101 1,057 9,951 

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 1,185 2,264 3,370 3,312 4,175 14,307 

Unassisted with no problems 1,339 3,230 6,851 8,783 31,204 51,407 

Assisted — — — — — —

Any with severe problems 3,667 2,136 1,991 1,101 1,057 9,951 

Cost burden >50% of income 3,595 2,077 1,858 979 838 9,347 

Severely inadequate housing 143 86 149 123 231 732 

Any with non-severe problems only 1,185 2,264 3,370 3,312 4,175 14,307 

Cost burden 30–50% of income 1,019 2,035 2,945 2,983 3,710 12,691 

Moderately inadequate housing 189 199 304 234 410 1,336 

Crowded housing 54 140 290 190 145 820 

Any with no problems 1,339 3,230 6,851 8,783 31,204 51,407 

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing Survey 

data
30

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Total households (1,000) 102,802 105,435 105,868 108,901 110,719 111,861

Unassisted with severe problems 12,203 13,494 13,398 16,142 16,944 19,259

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 18,237 19,217 19,790 20,849 22,752 23,225

Unassisted with no problems 66,163 66,445 66,468 65,362 65,862 64,506

Assisted 6,168 6,279 6,211 6,547 5,161 4,871

Cost burden >50% of income 12,141 13,330 13,188 16,433 17,140 19,458

Cost burden 30–50% of income 15,862 16,923 17,856 19,403 21,153 21,818

Severely inadequate housing 2,056 2,108 1,971 2,023 1,805 1,866

Moderately inadequate housing 4,821 4,504 4,311 4,177 3,954 3,884

Crowded housing 2,570 2,631 2,559 2,621 2,529 2,509

Renter households (1,000) 34,007 33,727 33,614 33,951 35,054 35,396

Unassisted with severe problems 5,591 5,758 5,887 6,860 6,993 8,085

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 7,560 7,283 7,557 7,303 8,445 8,229

Unassisted with no problems 14,657 14,407 13,958 13,240 14,455 14,211

Assisted 6,203 6,279 6,211 6,547 5,161 4,871

Rent burden >50% of income 6,301 6,412 6,477 7,891 7,793 9,000

Rent burden 30–50% of income 7,141 6,916 7,468 7,502 8,340 8,240

Severely inadequate housing 1,183 1,168 1,038 1,100 1,073 998

Moderately inadequate housing 2,768 2,508 2,525 2,542 2,400 2,264

Crowded housing 1,666 1,658 1,615 1,635 1,511 1,499

Owner households (1,000) 68,795 71,708 72,254 74,950 75,665 76,465

Unassisted with severe problems 6,604 7,736 7,511 9,282 9,951 11,174

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 10,684 11,934 12,233 13,546 14,307 14,996

Unassisted with no problems 51,507 52,038 52,510 52,122 51,407 50,295

Assisted — — — — — —

Cost burden >50% of income 5,841 6,918 6,711 8,542 9,347 10,458

Cost burden 30–50% of income 8,716 10,007 10,388 11,901 12,813 13,578

Severely inadequate housing 867 940 933 923 732 868

Moderately inadequate housing 2,064 1,996 1,786 1,635 1,554 1,620

Crowded housing 894 973 944 986 1,018 1,010

Table A–2a. Housing Conditions of Renters and Owners , 1999–2009—Number of Households

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing Survey 

data
U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research 31

Appendix A. Data on Housing Problems and Supp ly of Affordable Housing

 Table A–2b. Housing Conditions of Renters and Owners , 1999–2009—Percentage

of Households

 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Total households 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 11.9% 12.8% 12.7% 14.8% 15.3% 17.2%

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 17.7% 18.2% 18.7% 19.1% 20.5% 20.8%

Unassisted with no problems 64.4% 63.0% 62.8% 60.0% 59.5% 57.7%

Assisted 6.0% 6.0% 5.9% 6.0% 4.7% 4.4%

Cost burden >50% of income 11.8% 12.6% 12.5% 15.1% 15.5% 17.4%

Cost burden 30–50% of income 15.4% 16.1% 16.9% 17.8% 19.1% 19.5%

Severely inadequate housing 2.0% 2.0% 1.9% 1.9% 1.6% 1.7%

Moderately inadequate housing 4.7% 4.3% 4.1% 3.8% 3.6% 3.5%

Crowded housing 2.5% 2.5% 2.4% 2.4% 2.3% 2.2%

Renter households 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 16.4% 17.1% 17.5% 20.2% 19.9% 22.8%

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 22.2% 21.6% 22.5% 21.5% 24.1% 23.2%

Unassisted with no problems 43.1% 42.7% 41.5% 39.0% 41.2% 40.1%

Assisted 18.2% 18.6% 18.5% 19.3% 14.7% 13.8%

Rent burden >50% of income 18.5% 19.0% 19.3% 23.2% 22.2% 25.4%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 21.0% 20.5% 22.2% 22.1% 23.8% 23.3%

Severely inadequate housing 3.5% 3.5% 3.1% 3.2% 3.1% 2.8%

Moderately inadequate housing 8.1% 7.4% 7.5% 7.5% 6.8% 6.4%

Crowded housing 4.9% 4.9% 4.8% 4.8% 4.3% 4.2%

Owner households 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 9.6% 10.8% 10.4% 12.4% 13.2% 14.6%

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 15.5% 16.6% 16.9% 18.1% 18.9% 19.6%

Unassisted with no problems 74.9% 72.6% 72.7% 69.5% 67.9% 65.8%

Assisted — — — — — —

Cost burden >50% of income 8.5% 9.6% 9.3% 11.4% 12.4% 13.7%

Cost burden 30–50% of income 12.7% 14.0% 14.4% 15.9% 16.9% 17.8%

Severely inadequate housing 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.0% 1.1%

Moderately inadequate housing 3.0% 2.8% 2.5% 2.2% 2.1% 2.1%

Crowded housing 1.3% 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3%

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing Survey 

data
32

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

Table A–3. Housing Conditions of Unassisted Renter Households by Relati ve Income , 

2007 and 2009

 Household Income as Percentage 

 of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income

2009 0–30% 30–50% 50–80% 80–120% >120%

All 

Incomes

Total unassisted households (1,000) 6,621 6,223 6,814 5,512 5,355 30,525 

Any with severe problems 5,069 2,026 644 203 143 8,085 

Rent burden >50% of income 4,996 1,896 469 97 41 7,500 

 [and rent > Fair Market Rent] 1,581 1,231 427 97 41 3,378 

Severely inadequate housing 278 165 186 107 101 837 

Any with non-severe problems only 768 3,082 2,747 1,089 544 8,229 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 647 2,869 2,317 712 175 6,720 

Moderately inadequate housing 192 348 371 280 273 1,464 

Crowded housing 124 288 282 126 111 930 

Any with no problems 784 1,115 3,424 4,220 4,668 14,211 

 Household Income as Percentage 

 of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income

2007 0–30% 30–50% 50–80% 80–120% >120%

All 

Incomes

Total unassisted households (1,000) 5,893 5,681 7,182 5,352 5,785 29,893 

Any with severe problems 4,327 1,578 681 245 162 6,993 

Rent burden >50% of income 4,246 1,472 470 96 42 6,326 

 [and rent > Fair Market Rent] 1,458 1,043 463 96 42 3,102 

Severely inadequate housing 268 161 215 149 120 913 

Any with non-severe problems only 828 2,935 2,960 1,048 674 8,445 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 701 2,693 2,440 661 283 6,777 

Moderately inadequate housing 191 330 457 305 302 1,586 

Crowded housing 132 326 286 96 124 964 

Any with no problems 738 1,168 3,541 4,059 4,949 14,455 

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing Survey 

data
U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research 33

Appendix A. Data on Housing Problems and Supp ly of Affordable Housing

 Table A–4. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Renters by Relati ve Income , 

2007 and 2009—Number and Percentage (1 of 3)

 Number Percentage

2007 2009 2007 2009

Renter households (1,000) 35,054 35,396 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 6,993 8,085 19.9% 22.8%

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 8,445 8,229 24.1% 23.2%

Unassisted with no problems 14,455 14,211 41.2% 40.1%

Assisted 5,161 4,871 14.7% 13.8%

Any with severe problems 8,564 9,688 24.4% 27.4%

Rent burden >50% of income 7,793 9,000 22.2% 25.4%

Severely inadequate housing 1,073 998 3.1% 2.8%

Rent burden onlya 6,918 8,110 19.7% 22.9%

Any with non–severe problems only 10,015 9,678 28.6% 27.3%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 8,099 7,981 23.1% 22.5%

Moderately inadequate housing 1,828 1,684 5.2% 4.8%

Crowded housing 1,096 993 3.1% 2.8%

Rent burden only 7,234 7,094 20.6% 20.0%

Any with no problems 16,476 16,030 47.0% 45.3%

Income 0–30% HAMFI (1,000) 9,243 9,961 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 4,327 5,069 46.8% 50.9%

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 828 768 9.0% 7.7%

Unassisted with no problems 738 784 8.0% 7.9%

Assisted 3,350 3,340 36.2% 33.5%

Any with severe problems 5,732 6,536 62.0% 65.6%

Rent burden >50% of income 5,588 6,407 60.5% 64.3%

Severely inadequate housing 372 387 4.0% 3.9%

Rent burden onlya 4,892 5,712 52.9% 57.3%

Any with non-severe problems only 1,778 1,692 19.2% 17.0%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,536 1,486 16.6% 14.9%

Moderately inadequate housing 324 323 3.5% 3.2%

Crowded housing 196 161 2.1% 1.6%

Rent burden only 1,302 1,230 14.1% 12.3%

Any with no problems 1,733 1,732 18.7% 17.4%
34

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

 Table A–4. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Renters by Relati ve Income , 

2007 and 2009—Number and Percentage (2 of 3)

 Number Percentage

2007 2009 2007 2009

Income 30–50% HAMFI (1,000) 6,697 7,157 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 1,578 2,026 23.6% 28.3%

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 2,935 3,082 43.8% 43.1%

Unassisted with no problems 1,168 1,115 17.4% 15.6%

Assisted 1,016 934 15.2% 13.1%

Any with severe problems 1,711 2,139 25.5% 29.9%

Rent burden >50% of income 1,579 1,985 23.6% 27.7%

Severely inadequate housing 198 194 3.0% 2.7%

Rent burden onlya 1,429 1,815 21.3% 25.4%

Any with non-severe problems only 3,375 3,467 50.4% 48.4%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 3,062 3,205 45.7% 44.8%

Moderately inadequate housing 393 392 5.9% 5.5%

Crowded housing 369 302 5.5% 4.2%

Rent burden only 2,655 2,811 39.6% 39.3%

Any with no problems 1,611 1,551 24.1% 21.7%

Income 50–80% HAMFI (1,000) 7,650 7,168 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 681 644 8.9% 9.0%

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 2,960 2,747 38.7% 38.3%

Unassisted with no problems 3,541 3,424 46.3% 47.8%

Assisted 468 354 6.1% 4.9%

Any with severe problems 703 662 9.2% 9.2%

Rent burden >50% of income 486 469 6.4% 6.5%

Severely inadequate housing 224 204 2.9% 2.8%

Rent burden onlya 465 446 6.1% 6.2%

Any with non-severe problems only 3,095 2,851 40.5% 39.8%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 2,524 2,381 33.0% 33.2%

Moderately inadequate housing 494 407 6.5% 5.7%

Crowded housing 305 290 4.0% 4.0%

Rent burden only 2,327 2,173 30.4% 30.3%

Any with no problems 3,853 3,655 50.4% 51.0%
U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research 35

Appendix A. Data on Housing Problems and Supp ly of Affordable Housing

 Table A–4. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Renters by Relati ve Income , 

2007 and 2009—Number and Percentage (3 of 3)

 Number Percentage

2007 2009 2007 2009

Income 80–120% HAMFI (1,000) 5,518 5,658 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 245 203 4.4% 3.6%

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 1,048 1,089 19.0% 19.2%

Unassisted with no problems 4,059 4,220 73.6% 74.6%

Assisted 166 146 3.0% 2.6%

Any with severe problems 253 208 4.6% 3.7%

Rent burden >50% of income 98 97 1.8% 1.7%

Severely inadequate housing 156 111 2.8% 2.0%

Rent burden onlya 95 96 1.7% 1.7%

Any with non-severe problems only 1,077 1,115 19.5% 19.7%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 684 728 12.4% 12.9%

Moderately inadequate housing 308 287 5.6% 5.1%

Crowded housing 99 130 1.8% 2.3%

Rent burden only 679 705 12.3% 12.5%

Any with no problems 4,187 4,335 75.9% 76.6%

Income >120% HAMFI (1,000) 5,946 5,452 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 162 143 2.7% 2.6%

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 674 544 11.3% 10.0%

Unassisted with no problems 4,949 4,668 83.2% 85.6%

Assisted 161 97 2.7% 1.8%

Any with severe problems 165 144 2.8% 2.6%

Rent burden >50% of income 42 41 0.7% 0.8%

Severely inadequate housing 123 102 2.1% 1.9%

Rent burden onlya 38 41 0.6% 0.8%

Any with non-severe problems only 690 552 11.6% 10.1%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 293 181 4.9% 3.3%

Moderately inadequate housing 307 274 5.2% 5.0%

Crowded housing 127 111 2.1% 2.0%

Rent burden only 272 175 4.6% 3.2%

Any with no problems 5,090 4,757 85.6% 87.3%

HAMFI = HUD-adjusted area median family income.

a

 The estimates for “rent burden only” exclude households with any non-severe problems.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing Survey 

data
36

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

 Table A–5A. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low -Income Renters by Household

Type , 2007 and 2009—Number and Percentage (1 of 2)

 Number Percentage

2007 2009 2007 2009

Elderly without children (1,000) 3,492 3,636 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 1,209 1,328 34.6% 36.5%

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 505 551 14.5% 15.2%

Unassisted with no problems 369 440 10.6% 12.1%

Assisted 1,409 1,316 40.3% 36.2%

Any with severe problems 1,607 1,747 46.0% 48.0%

Rent burden >50% of income 1,572 1,694 45.0% 46.6%

Severely inadequate housing 101 103 2.9% 2.8%

Rent burden onlya 1,397 1,555 40.0% 42.8%

Any with non-severe problems only 947 921 27.1% 25.3%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 892 878 25.5% 24.1%

Moderately inadequate housing 118 97 3.4% 2.7%

Crowded housing 3 0 0.1% 0.0%

Rent burden only 828 824 23.7% 22.7%

Any with no problems 938 967 26.9% 26.6%

Families with children (1,000) 6,329 6,758 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 2,187 2,734 34.6% 40.5%

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 1,767 1,704 27.9% 25.2%

Unassisted with no problems 624 630 9.9% 9.3%

Assisted 1,751 1,691 27.7% 25.0%

Any with severe problems 2,909 3,444 46.0% 51.0%

Rent burden >50% of income 2,788 3,337 44.1% 49.4%

Severely inadequate housing 234 225 3.7% 3.3%

Rent burden onlya 2,491 2,963 39.4% 43.8%

Any with non-severe problems only 2,311 2,250 36.5% 33.3%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,964 2,020 31.0% 29.9%

Moderately inadequate housing 304 260 4.8% 3.8%

Crowded housing 530 448 8.4% 6.6%

Rent burden only 1,542 1,602 24.4% 23.7%

Any with no problems 1,108 1,064 17.5% 15.7%
U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research 37

Appendix A. Data on Housing Problems and Supp ly of Affordable Housing

 Table A–5A. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low -Income Renters by Household

Type , 2007 and 2009—Number and Percentage (2 of 2)

 Number Percentage

2007 2009 2007 2009

Other families (1,000) 1,384 1,410 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 477 633 34.5% 44.9%

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 406 372 29.3% 26.4%

Unassisted with no problems 260 168 18.8% 11.9%

Assisted 241 236 17.4% 16.7%

Any with severe problems 549 697 39.7% 49.4%

Rent burden >50% of income 527 671 38.1% 47.6%

Severely inadequate housing 46 53 3.3% 3.8%

Rent burden onlya 453 618 32.7% 43.8%

Any with non-severe problems only 485 453 35.0% 32.1%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 454 434 32.8% 30.8%

Moderately inadequate housing 73 45 5.3% 3.2%

Crowded housing 13 10 0.9% 0.7%

Rent burden only 398 399 28.8% 28.3%

Any with no problems 351 259 25.4% 18.4%

Other nonfamily (1,000) 4,735 5,314 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 2,032 2,401 42.9% 45.2%

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 1,085 1,222 22.9% 23.0%

Unassisted with no problems 653 662 13.8% 12.5%

Assisted 966 1,030 20.4% 19.4%

Any with severe problems 2,378 2,786 50.2% 52.4%

Rent burden >50% of income 2,280 2,689 48.2% 50.6%

Severely inadequate housing 189 199 4.0% 3.7%

Rent burden only 1,979 2,392 41.8% 45.0%

Any with non-severe problems only 1,411 1,535 29.8% 28.9%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,287 1,360 27.2% 25.6%

Moderately inadequate housing 223 314 4.7% 5.9%

Crowded housing 19 5 0.4% 0.1%

Rent burden only 1,188 1,217 25.1% 22.9%

Any with no problems 947 993 20.0% 18.7%

a

 The estimates for “rent burden only” exclude households with any non-severe problems.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing Survey 

data
38

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

 Table A–5B. Incidence of Housing Problems among Very Low -Income Renters With

Disabilities by Household Type , 2009—Number and Percentage (1 of 2)

 Number Percentage

2009 2009

Elderly without children (1,000) 88 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 29 33.0%

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 29 33.0%

Unassisted with no problems 6 6.8%

Assisted 24 27.3%

Any with severe problems 38 43.2%

Rent burden >50% of income 38 43.2%

Severely inadequate housing 0 0.0%

Rent burden onlya 32 36.4%

Any with non-severe problems only 38 43.2%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 38 43.2%

Moderately inadequate housing 9 10.2%

Crowded housing 0 0.0%

Rent burden only 29 33.0%

Any with no problems 12 13.6%

Families with children (1,000) 1,002 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 416 41.5%

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 201 20.1%

Unassisted with no problems 62 6.2%

Assisted 323 32.2%

Any with severe problems 556 55.5%

Rent burden >50% of income 542 54.1%

Severely inadequate housing 44 4.4%

Rent burden onlya 427 42.6%

Any with non-severe problems only 307 30.6%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 282 28.1%

Moderately inadequate housing 40 4.0%

Crowded housing 40 4.0%

Rent burden only 229 22.9%

Any with no problems 139 13.9%
U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research 39

Appendix A. Data on Housing Problems and Supp ly of Affordable Housing

 Table A–5B. Incidence of Housing Problems among Very Low -Income Renters With

Disabilities by Household Type , 2009—Number and Percentage (2 of 2)

 Number Percentage

2009 2009

Other families (1,000) 303 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 112 37.0%

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 62 20.5%

Unassisted with no problems 29 9.6%

Assisted 100 33.0%

Any with severe problems 136 44.9%

Rent burden >50% of income 134 44.2%

Severely inadequate housing 9 3.0%

Rent burden onlya 122 40.3%

Any with non-severe problems only 106 35.0%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 101 33.3%

Moderately inadequate housing 12 4.0%

Crowded housing 0 0.0%

Rent burden only 94 31.0%

Any with no problems 61 20.1%

Other nonfamily (1,000) 1,190 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 429 36.1%

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 164 13.8%

Unassisted with no problems 80 6.7%

Assisted 517 43.4%

Any with severe problems 613 51.5%

Rent burden >50% of income 578 48.6%

Severely inadequate housing 62 5.2%

Rent burden onlya 473 39.7%

Any with non-severe problems only 311 26.1%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 266 22.4%

Moderately inadequate housing 61 5.1%

Crowded housing 5 0.4%

Rent burden only 245 20.6%

Any with no problems 266 22.4%

a

 The estimates for “rent burden only” exclude households with any non-severe problems.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing Survey 

data
40

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

 Table A–6a. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Very Low -Income Renters

by Household Type , 2009 (1 of 2)

Total

Elderly, 

No Children

Families 

 With 

Children

Other 

Families

Other 

Nonfamily

Renter households (1,000) 17,118 3,636 6,758 1,410 5,314 

Number of children 13,801 0 13,801 0 0 

Number of people 39,704 4,566 25,154 3,396 6,588 

Children/household 0.81 0.00 2.04 0.00 0.00

People/household 2.32 1.26 3.72 2.41 1.24

Unassisted with severe problems 7,095 1,328 2,734 633 2,401 

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 3,849 551 1,704 372 1,222 

Unassisted with no problems 1,900 440 630 168 662 

Assisted 4,274 1,316 1,691 236 1,030 

Any with severe problems 8,675 1,747 3,444 697 2,786 

Rent burden >50% of income 8,392 1,694 3,337 671 2,689 

Severely inadequate housing 581 103 225 53 199 

Rent burden onlya 7,527 1,555 2,963 618 2,392 

Any with non-severe problems only 5,159 921 2,250 453 1,535 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 4,691 878 2,020 434 1,360 

Moderately inadequate housing 715 97 260 45 314 

Crowded housing 463 0 448 10 5 

Rent burden only 4,041 824 1,602 399 1,217 

Any with no problems 3,284 967 1,064 259 993 
U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research 41

Appendix A. Data on Housing Problems and Supp ly of Affordable Housing

 Table A–6a. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Very Low -Income Renters 

by Household Type , 2009 (2 of 2)

Total

Elderly, 

No Children

Families 

 With 

Children

Other 

Families

Other 

Nonfamily

Other Characteristics

One person in household 7,381 2,839 177 0 4,365 

Husband-wife family 3,070 447 1,979 644 0 

Female head 10,617 2,503 4,751 759 2,604 

Minority head 9,067 1,414 4,476 877 2,300 

AFDC/Social Security income 3,051 711 1,310 239 791 

Social Security income 4,032 2,941 394 157 539 

Income below 50% of poverty threshold 4,053 665 1,897 216 1,276 

Income below 100% of poverty threshold 9,011 1,625 4,199 557 2,630 

Income below 150% of poverty threshold 13,622 2,675 6,066 1,001 3,880 

High school graduate 12,292 2,203 4,618 1,004 4,467 

Two+ years post high school 2,751 501 745 198 1,307 

Earnings at minimum wage:

At least half time 8,118 315 4,278 931 2,595 

At least full time 5,975 186 3,296 713 1,780 

Earnings main source of income 8,898 293 4,619 987 2,999 

Housing rated poor 990 89 489 62 350 

Housing rated good+ 12,652 3,023 4,760 1,034 3,835 

Neighborhood rated poor 1,405 102 728 110 465 

Neighborhood rated good+ 11,986 2,988 4,409 972 3,617 

Central cities 7,915 1,573 2,957 663 2,722 

Suburbs 3,084 698 1,224 206 955 

Nonmetropolitan areas 6,119 1,364 2,577 540 1,637 

Northeast 3,628 845 1,271 235 1,277 

Midwest 3,626 1,081 1,217 367 960 

South 5,912 977 2,582 492 1,860 

West 3,951 732 1,689 315 1,216 

AFDC = Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

a

 The estimates for “rent burden only” exclude households with any non-severe problems.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing Survey 

data
42

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

 Table A–6b. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Extremely Low -Income Renters

by Household Type , 2009 (1 of 2)

Total

Elderly, 

No Children

Families 

 With 

Children

Other 

Families

Other 

Nonfamily

Renter households (1,000) 9,961 2,290 3,912 639 3,120 

Number of children 8,122 0 8,122 0 0 

Number of people 22,132 2,688 14,226 1,534 3,683 

Children/household 0.82 0.00 2.08 0.00 0.00

People/household 2.22 1.17 3.64 2.40 1.18

Unassisted with severe problems 5,069 930 1,998 397 1,744 

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 768 145 359 49 215 

Unassisted with no problems 784 175 232 47 331 

Assisted 3,340 1,041 1,323 146 831 

Any with severe problems 6,536 1,313 2,675 454 2,095 

Rent burden >50% of income 6,407 1,281 2,631 446 2,048 

Severely inadequate housing 387 77 148 27 135 

Rent burden onlya 5,712 1,174 2,308 411 1,820 

Any with non-severe problems only 1,692 423 716 97 456 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,486 397 632 94 364 

Moderately inadequate housing 323 49 129 18 127 

Crowded housing 161 0 161 0 0 

Rent burden only 1,230 374 448 79 328 

Any with no problems 1,732 554 521 88 570 
U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research 43

Appendix A. Data on Housing Problems and Supp ly of Affordable Housing

 Table A–6b. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Extremely Low -Income Renters 

by Household Type , 2009 (2 of 2)

Total

Elderly, 

No Children

Families 

 With 

Children

Other 

Families

Other 

Nonfamily

Other Characteristics

One person in household 4,785 1,947 145 0 2,693 

Husband-wife family 1,316 170 880 266 0 

Female head 6,526 1,626 2,963 369 1,568 

Minority head 5,539 1,004 2,691 392 1,452 

AFDC/Social Security income 2,436 588 992 153 702 

Social Security income 2,461 1,766 234 86 374 

Income below 50% of poverty threshold 4,051 665 1,894 216 1,276 

Income below 100% of poverty threshold 8,377 1,612 3,665 529 2,571 

Income below 150% of poverty threshold 9,876 2,252 3,901 631 3,091 

High school graduate 6,747 1,275 2,519 431 2,521 

Two+ years post high school 1,388 286 355 68 679 

Earnings at minimum wage:

At least half time 2,888 85 1,703 271 829 

At least full time 1,193 22 872 104 195 

Earnings main source of income 3,897 101 2,151 355 1,291 

Housing rated poor 691 76 346 36 232 

Housing rated good+ 7,136 1,869 2,618 446 2,203 

Neighborhood rated poor 976 83 502 65 326 

Neighborhood rated good+ 6,688 1,826 2,384 416 2,061 

Central cities 4,901 1,054 1,868 289 1,690 

Suburbs 1,722 387 694 93 547 

Nonmetropolitan areas 3,338 849 1,350 256 883 

Northeast 2,204 488 813 115 789 

Midwest 2,212 720 723 158 611 

South 3,342 569 1,490 226 1,057 

West 2,203 514 886 140 663 

AFDC = Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

a

 The estimates for “rent burden only” exclude households with any non-severe problems.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing Survey 

data
44

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

 Table A–7. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Worst Case Renters by Household

Type , 2009 (1 of 2)

Total

Elderly, 

No Children

Families 

 With 

Children

Other 

Families

Other 

Nonfamily

Renter households (1,000) 7,095 1,328 2,734 633 2,401 

Number of children 5,561 0 5,561 0 0 

Number of people 16,576 1,663 10,260 1,558 3,095 

Children/household 0.78 0.00 2.03 0.00 0.00

People/household 2.34 1.25 3.75 2.46 1.29

Unassisted with severe problems 7,095 1,328 2,734 633 2,401 

Unassisted with non-severe problems only — — — — —

Unassisted with no problems — — — — —

Assisted — — — — —

Any with severe problems 7,095 1,328 2,734 633 2,401 

Rent burden >50% of income 6,893 1,296 2,658 613 2,326 

Severely inadequate housing 443 70 160 46 167 

Rent burden onlya 6,197 1,185 2,383 563 2,066 

Any with non-severe problems only — — — — —

Rent burden 30–50% of income — — — — —

Moderately inadequate housing — — — — —

Crowded housing — — — — —

Rent burden only — — — — —

Any with no problems — — — — —
U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research 45

Appendix A. Data on Housing Problems and Supp ly of Affordable Housing

 Table A–7. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Worst Case Renters by Household

Type , 2009 (2 of 2)

Total

Elderly, 

No Children

Families 

 With 

Children

Other 

Families

Other 

Nonfamily

Other Characteristics

One person in household 3,049 1,049 98 0 1,902 

Husband-wife family 1,286 139 855 293 0 

Female head 4,271 938 1,869 320 1,144 

Minority head 3,659 489 1,754 387 1,029 

AFDC/Social Security income 1,083 175 513 100 295 

Social Security income 1,476 1,071 156 56 193 

Income below 50% of poverty threshold 1,984 354 884 126 620 

Income below 100% of poverty threshold 4,516 712 2,037 351 1,417 

Income below 150% of poverty threshold 6,193 1,061 2,609 517 2,006 

High school graduate 5,186 841 1,814 465 2,066 

Two+ years post high school 1,254 211 316 90 637 

Earnings at minimum wage:

At least half time 3,299 98 1,656 406 1,138 

At least full time 2,016 60 1,098 260 598 

Earnings main source of income 3,974 108 1,916 463 1,487 

Housing rated poor 456 41 205 26 183 

Housing rated good+ 5,142 1,048 1,950 466 1,678 

Neighborhood rated poor 541 35 258 37 211 

Neighborhood rated good+ 4,997 1,058 1,859 440 1,639 

Central cities 3,344 619 1,206 262 1,258 

Suburbs 1,119 219 425 72 403 

Nonmetropolitan areas 2,632 490 1,103 299 740 

Northeast 1,410 289 488 83 550 

Midwest 1,415 350 518 161 385 

South 2,479 402 987 231 859 

West 1,791 286 740 158 607 

AFDC = Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

a

 The estimates for “rent burden only” exclude households with any non-severe problems.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing Survey 

data
46

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

 Table A–8. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Extremely Low -Income Worst Case

Renters by Household Type , 2009 (1 of 2)

Total

Elderly, 

No Children

Families 

 With 

Children

Other 

Families

Other 

Nonfamily

Renter households (1,000) 5,069 930 1,998 397 1,744 

Number of children 4,096 0 4,096 0 0 

Number of people 11,737 1,118 7,470 975 2,174 

Children/household 0.81 0.00 2.05 0.00 0.00

People/household 2.32 1.20 3.74 2.45 1.25

Unassisted with severe problems 5,069 930 1,998 397 1,744 

Unassisted with non-severe problems only — — — — —

Unassisted with no problems — — — — —

Assisted — — — — —

Any with severe problems 5,069 930 1,998 397 1,744 

Rent burden >50% of income 4,996 912 1,976 393 1,714 

Severely inadequate housing 278 52 95 23 108 

Rent burden onlya 4,458 831 1,751 359 1,517 

Any with non-severe problems only — — — — —

Rent burden 30–50% of income — — — — —

Moderately inadequate housing — — — — —

Crowded housing — — — — —

Rent burden only — — — — —

Any with no problems — — — — —
U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research 47

Appendix A. Data on Housing Problems and Supp ly of Affordable Housing

 Table A–8. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Extremely Low -Income Worst Case

Renters by Household Type , 2009 (2 of 2)

Total

Elderly, 

No Children

Families 

 With 

Children

Other 

Families

Other 

Nonfamily

Other Characteristics

One person in household 2,272 767 87 0 1,418 

Husband-wife family 799 62 560 177 0 

Female head 3,086 668 1,406 202 809 

Minority head 2,689 363 1,324 243 759 

AFDC/Social Security income 944 158 441 79 266 

Social Security income 1,036 727 124 41 145 

Income below 50% of poverty threshold 1,981 354 881 126 620 

Income below 100% of poverty threshold 4,287 700 1,859 334 1,394 

Income below 150% of poverty threshold 5,041 924 1,996 390 1,730 

High school graduate 3,573 535 1,276 281 1,481 

Two+ years post high school 811 126 211 48 425 

Earnings at minimum wage:

At least half time 1,891 40 1,015 210 626 

At least full time 730 13 503 80 134 

Earnings main source of income 2,618 53 1,298 270 997 

Housing rated poor 364 37 165 24 138 

Housing rated good+ 3,588 715 1,364 300 1,210 

Neighborhood rated poor 452 32 212 28 180 

Neighborhood rated good+ 3,441 715 1,284 276 1,166 

Central cities 2,465 451 953 152 910 

Suburbs 782 140 290 46 306 

Nonmetropolitan areas 1,822 338 755 200 528 

Northeast 1,133 203 411 50 469 

Midwest 1,030 265 372 95 298 

South 1,716 260 710 155 591 

West 1,190 201 505 97 386 

AFDC = Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

a

 The estimates for “rent burden only” exclude households with any non-severe problems.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing Survey 

data
48

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

 Table A–9. Incidence of Housing Problems among Very Low -Income Renters by Race and

Ethnicity , 2007 and 2009—Number and Percentage (1 of 2)

 Number Percentage

2007 2009 2007 2009

Non-Hispanic White (1,000) 7,477 8,051 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 2,919 3,436 39.0% 42.7%

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 1,696 1,905 22.7% 23.7%

Unassisted with no problems 1,099 1,105 14.7% 13.7%

Assisted 1,763 1,606 23.6% 19.9%

Any with severe problems 3,469 3,938 46.4% 48.9%

Rent burden >50% of income 3,374 3,832 45.1% 47.6%

Severely inadequate housing 197 232 2.6% 2.9%

Rent burden onlya 3,007 3,453 40.2% 42.9%

Any with non-severe problems only 2,271 2,404 30.4% 29.9%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 2,101 2,223 28.1% 27.6%

Moderately inadequate housing 289 320 3.9% 4.0%

Crowded housing 87 104 1.2% 1.3%

Rent burden only 1,917 2,001 25.6% 24.9%

Any with no problems 1,737 1,708 23.2% 21.2%

Non-Hispanic Black (1,000) 4,040 4,493 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 1,345 1,640 33.3% 36.5%

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 752 806 18.6% 17.9%

Unassisted with no problems 362 338 9.0% 7.5%

Assisted 1,581 1,710 39.1% 38.1%

Any with severe problems 1,960 2,359 48.5% 52.5%

Rent burden >50% of income 1,853 2,258 45.9% 50.3%

Severely inadequate housing 177 183 4.4% 4.1%

Rent burden onlya 1,644 2,020 40.7% 45.0%

Any with non-severe problems only 1,253 1,322 31.0% 29.4%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,082 1,202 26.8% 26.8%

Moderately inadequate housing 203 204 5.0% 4.5%

Crowded housing 114 77 2.8% 1.7%

Rent burden only 945 1,051 23.4% 23.4%

Any with no problems 827 812 20.5% 18.1%
U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research 49

Appendix A. Data on Housing Problems and Supp ly of Affordable Housing

 Table A–9. Incidence of Housing Problems among Very Low -Income Renters by Race and

Ethnicity , 2007 and 2009—Number and Percentage (2 of 2)

 Number Percentage

2007 2009 2007 2009

Hispanic (1,000) 3,297 3,493 100.0% 100.00%

Unassisted with severe problems 1,234 1,582 37.4% 45.3%

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 1,049 932 31.8% 26.7%

Unassisted with no problems 301 308 9.1% 8.8%

Assisted 713 672 21.6% 19.2%

Any with severe problems 1,504 1,841 45.6% 52.7%

Rent burden >50% of income 1,446 1,787 43.9% 51.2%

Severely inadequate housing 145 135 4.4% 3.9%

Rent burden onlya 1,249 1,578 37.9% 45.2%

Any with non-severe problems only 1,279 1,151 38.8% 33.0%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,130 1,016 34.3% 29.1%

Moderately inadequate housing 152 148 4.6% 4.2%

Crowded housing 313 256 9.5% 7.3%

Rent burden only 857 776 26.0% 22.2%

Any with no problems 513 501 15.6% 14.3%

a

 The estimates for “rent burden only” exclude households with any non-severe problems.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing Survey 

data
50

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

 Table A–10. Incidence of Housing Problems among Very Low -Income Renters by Region , 

2007 and 2009—Number and Percentage (1 of 2)

 Number Percentage

2007 2009 2007 2009

Northeast (1,000) 3,487 3,626 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 1,263 1,415 36.2% 39.0%

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 624 678 17.9% 18.7%

Unassisted with no problems 421 421 12.1% 11.6%

Assisted 1,179 1,112 33.8% 30.7%

Any with severe problems 1,692 1,831 48.5% 50.5%

Rent burden >50% of income 1,620 1,739 46.5% 48.0%

Severely inadequate housing 166 184 4.8% 5.1%

Rent burden onlya 1,412 1,531 40.5% 42.2%

Any with non-severe problems only 1,003 1,003 28.8% 27.7%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 893 914 25.6% 25.2%

Moderately inadequate housing 110 146 3.2% 4.0%

Crowded housing 106 67 3.0% 1.8%

Rent burden only 793 793 22.7% 21.9%

Any with no problems 792 791 22.7% 21.8%

Midwest (1,000) 3,587 3,628 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 1,230 1,410 34.3% 38.9%

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 857 811 23.9% 22.4%

Unassisted with no problems 495 422 13.8% 11.6%

Assisted 1,005 986 28.0% 27.2%

Any with severe problems 1,554 1,735 43.3% 47.8%

Rent burden >50% of income 1,494 1,672 41.7% 46.1%

Severely inadequate housing 99 127 2.8% 3.5%

Rent burden onlya 1,340 1,516 37.4% 41.8%

Any with non-severe problems only 1,143 1,131 31.9% 31.2%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,052 1,051 29.3% 29.0%

Moderately inadequate housing 127 136 3.5% 3.7%

Crowded housing 56 60 1.6% 1.7%

Rent burden only 968 951 27.0% 26.2%

Any with no problems 889 762 24.8% 21.0%
U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research 51

Appendix A. Data on Housing Problems and Supp ly of Affordable Housing

 Table A–10. Incidence of Housing Problems among Very Low -Income Renters by Region , 

2007 and 2009—Number and Percentage (2 of 2)

 Number Percentage

2007 2009 2007 2009

South (1,000) 5,192 5,912 100.0% 100.00%

Unassisted with severe problems 1,942 2,479 37.4% 41.9%

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 1,331 1,416 25.6% 24.0%

Unassisted with no problems 628 678 12.1% 11.5%

Assisted 1,291 1,338 24.9% 22.6%

Any with severe problems 2,420 3,020 46.6% 51.1%

Rent burden >50% of income 2,319 2,944 44.7% 49.8%

Severely inadequate housing 186 145 3.6% 2.5%

Rent burden onlya 2,047 2,636 39.4% 44.6%

Any with non-severe problems only 1,746 1,813 33.6% 30.7%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,536 1,645 29.6% 27.8%

Moderately inadequate housing 304 287 5.9% 4.9%

Crowded housing 174 115 3.4% 1.9%

Rent burden only 1,291 1,427 24.9% 24.1%

Any with no problems 1,026 1,079 19.8% 18.3%

West (1,000) 3,673 3,951 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 1,470 1,791 40.0% 45.3%

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 951 945 25.9% 23.9%

Unassisted with no problems 362 378 9.9% 9.6%

Assisted 891 838 24.3% 21.2%

Any with severe problems 1,775 2,088 48.3% 52.8%

Rent burden >50% of income 1,734 2,037 47.2% 51.6%

Severely inadequate housing 120 124 3.3% 3.1%

Rent burden onlya 1,521 1,843 41.4% 46.6%

Any with non-severe problems only 1,261 1,213 34.3% 30.7%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,116 1,081 30.4% 27.4%

Moderately inadequate housing 176 146 4.8% 3.7%

Crowded housing 229 221 6.2% 5.6%

Rent burden only 904 870 24.6% 22.0%

Any with no problems 637 650 17.3% 16.5%

a

 The estimates for “rent burden only” exclude households with any non-severe problems.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing Survey 

data
52

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

 Table A–11. Incidence of Housing Problems among Very Low -Income Renters

by Metropolitan Location , 2007 and 2009—Number and Percentage (1 of 2)

 Number Percentage

2007 2009 2007 2009

Central cities (1,000) 7,420 7,915 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 2,800 3,344 37.7% 42.2%

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 1,749 1,752 23.6% 22.1%

Unassisted with no problems 739 695 10.0% 8.8%

Assisted 2,132 2,125 28.7% 26.8%

Any with severe problems 3,584 4,206 48.3% 53.1%

Rent burden >50% of income 3,436 4,054 46.3% 51.2%

Severely inadequate housing 318 341 4.3% 4.3%

Rent burden onlya 2,988 3,584 40.3% 45.3%

Any with non-severe problems only 2,425 2,363 32.7% 29.9%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 2,142 2,131 28.9% 26.9%

Moderately inadequate housing 355 423 4.8% 5.3%

Crowded housing 286 225 3.9% 2.8%

Rent burden only 1,816 1,749 24.5% 22.1%

Any with no problems 1,411 1,346 19.0% 17.0%

Suburbs (1,000) 5,239 6,119 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 2,052 2,632 39.2% 43.0%

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 1,275 1,470 24.3% 24.0%

Unassisted with no problems 679 715 13.0% 11.7%

Assisted 1,233 1,303 23.5% 21.3%

Any with severe problems 2,496 3,093 47.6% 50.5%

Rent burden >50% of income 2,426 3,028 46.3% 49.5%

Severely inadequate housing 153 146 2.9% 2.4%

Rent burden onlya 2,187 2,783 41.7% 45.5%

Any with non-severe problems only 1,686 1,890 32.2% 30.9%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,534 1,765 29.3% 28.8%

Moderately inadequate housing 187 154 3.6% 2.5%

Crowded housing 206 195 3.9% 3.2%

Rent burden only 1,331 1,568 25.4% 25.6%

Any with no problems 1,057 1,135 20.2% 18.5%
U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research 53

Appendix A. Data on Housing Problems and Supp ly of Affordable Housing

 Table A–11. Incidence of Housing Problems among Very Low -Income Renters

by Metropolitan Location , 2007 and 2009—Number and Percentage (2 of 2)

 Number Percentage

2007 2009 2007 2009

Nonmetropolitan (1,000) 3,281 3,084 100.0% 100.00%

Unassisted with severe problems 1,053 1,119 32.1% 36.3%

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 739 628 22.5% 20.4%

Unassisted with no problems 489 490 14.9% 15.9%

Assisted 1,001 847 30.5% 27.5%

Any with severe problems 1,362 1,376 41.5% 44.6%

Rent burden >50% of income 1,305 1,310 39.8% 42.5%

Severely inadequate housing 100 94 3.0% 3.0%

Rent burden onlya 1,145 1,160 34.9% 37.6%

Any with non-severe problems only 1,042 906 31.8% 29.4%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 921 795 28.1% 25.8%

Moderately inadequate housing 176 138 5.4% 4.5%

Crowded housing 74 43 2.3% 1.4%

Rent burden only 810 725 24.7% 23.5%

Any with no problems 877 802 26.7% 26.0%

U.S. total (1,000) 15,940 17,118 100.0% 100.0%

Unassisted with severe problems 5,905 7,095 37.0% 41.4%

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 3,763 3,849 23.6% 22.5%

Unassisted with no problems 1,906 1,900 12.0% 11.1%

Assisted 4,366 4,274 27.4% 25.0%

Any with severe problems 7,442 8,675 46.7% 50.7%

Rent burden >50% of income 7,167 8,392 45.0% 49.0%

Severely inadequate housing 570 581 3.6% 3.4%

Rent burden onlya 6,320 7,527 39.6% 44.0%

Any with non-severe problems only 5,153 5,159 32.3% 30.1%

Rent burden 30–50% of income 4,598 4,691 28.8% 27.4%

Moderately inadequate housing 718 715 4.5% 4.2%

Crowded housing 565 463 3.5% 2.7%

Rent burden only 3,957 4,041 24.8% 23.6%

Any with no problems 3,345 3,284 21.0% 19.2%

a

 The estimates for “rent burden only” exclude households with any non-severe problems.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing Survey 

data
54

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

 Table A–12. Households Occupying U.S. Rental Units by Affordability of Rent and

Income of Occupants , 2007 and 2009

Relative Income of 

Households

Occupied and Vacant Rental Units (1,000) by Unit Affordability Category 

(percent of HAMFI needed to afford the highest rent in the category)

2009 10* 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120+ Total

Extremely low income 

(≤30% HAMFI) 646 1,569 1,180 1,355 1,841 1,517 805 515 149 85 75 224 9,961

Very low income (30–50%) 210 390 477 1,017 1,583 1,378 910 507 204 136 109 235 7,157

Low income (50–80%) 175 250 337 733 1,403 1,664 1,086 605 252 171 153 338 7,168

Middle income or higher (>80%) 222 272 266 573 1,261 1,928 1,802 1,559 977 581 455 1,215 11,110

Total 1,253 2,482 2,260 3,679 6,088 6,487 4,604 3,187 1,582 972 792 2,011 35,396

Vacant units for rent 80 69 121 350 821 858 624 469 270 152 127 407 4,348

Relative Income of 

Households

Occupied and Vacant Rental Units (1,000) by Unit Affordability Category 

(percent of HAMFI needed to afford the highest rent in the category)

2007 10* 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120+ Total

Extremely low income 

(≤30% HAMFI) 705 1,561 1,209 1,439 1,631 1,125 516 228 108 107 85 248 8,963

Very low income (30–50%) 270 329 562 1,000 1,470 1,343 569 262 119 95 72 210 6,301

Low income (50–80%) 266 300 342 797 1,467 1,712 929 410 194 145 144 352 7,059

Middle income or higher (>80%) 324 319 343 684 1,522 2,017 1,600 1,017 761 474 420 1,337 10,820

Total 1,566 2,509 2,456 3,920 6,091 6,198 3,614 1,917 1,183 822 722 2,147 33,144

Vacant units for rent 232 307 210 387 674 695 445 252 197 150 137 435 4,122

HAMFI = HUD-adjusted area median family income.

* The 10 percent of HAMFI category includes units occupied with no cash rent.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing Survey 

data
U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research 55

Appendix A. Data on Housing Problems and Supp ly of Affordable Housing

Table A–13. Renters and Rental Units Affordable and Available to Them by Relati ve Income , 

1999–2009

 1999 2001c 2003 2005d 2007 2009

Renter Households (1,000) 34,007 34,042 33,614 33,951 35,054 35,396

Extremely low income (≤30% HAMFI) 8,513 8,739 9,077 9,979 9,555 10,270

Very low income (30–50%) 6,243 6,315 6,581 6,345 6,697 7,157

Low income (50–80%) 7,270 7,251 7,460 7,488 7,650 7,168

Middle income or higher (>80%) 11,981 11,737 10,496 10,139 11,152 10,801 

Affordable Unitsa (1,000) 37,018 37,197 37,577 37,924 39,330 39,744

Extremely low income (≤30% HAMFI) 6,683 6,870 7,098 6,747 7,280 6,265

Very low income (30–50%) 12,089 12,366 12,863 12,368 11,071 10,938

Low income (50–80%) 14,222 13,634 13,518 14,044 15,063 16,228

Middle income or higher (>80%) 4,023 4,328 4,099 4,765 5,916 6,313 

Affordable and Available Unitsb (1,000) 37,018 37,197 37,577 37,924 39,330 39,744

Extremely low income (≤30% HAMFI) 3,573 3,803 3,996 3,982 4,224 3,665

Very low income (30–50%) 7,905 8,132 8,744 8,549 7,786 8,045

Low income (50–80%) 11,841 11,665 12,396 12,865 13,196 14,004

Middle income or higher (>80%) 13,700 13,597 12,441 12,528 14,123 14,029 

HAMFI = HUD-adjusted area median family income. 

a

 Affordable units are rental units (whether vacant or occupied) that rent for no more than 30 percent of specified income levels (relative to the

HUD-adjusted area median family income).

b Affordable and available units are rental units that are affordable as described in footnote a and that also are either currently available for rent or 

are already occupied by a household with the specified income level.

c

 Estimates for 2001 are based on 1990 Census weights rather than the 2000 Census weights used elsewhere in this report.

d The estimates of units for 2005 were erroneous as originally published but are corrected in this version.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing Survey 

data
56

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

Table A–14. Average Income and Average Gross Rent of Renter Households by

relati ve income, 2007 and 2009

 Household Income as Percentage 

 of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income

2009 0–30% 30–50% 50–80% 80–120% >120%

All 

Incomes

Total households (1,000) 9,961 7,157 7,168 5,658 5,452 35,396

Unassisted with priority problems 5,069 2,026 644 203 143 8,085

Unassisted with other problems 768 3,082 2,747 1,089 544 8,229

Unassisted with no problems 784 1,115 3,424 4,220 4,668 14,211

Assisted 3,340 934 354 146 97 4,871

Average monthly income $717 $1,917 $3,006 $4,319 $8,459 $3,191

Unassisted with priority problems 764 1,820 2,860 3,945 8,723 1,416

Unassisted with other problems 1,072 2,005 3,017 4,338 8,498 2,993

Unassisted with no problems 362 1,947 3,031 4,344 8,459 4,972

Assisted 647 1,799 2,951 3,959 7,832 1,278

Average gross rent $646 $755 $805 $920 $1,166 $825

Unassisted with priority problems 766 1,061 1,495 2,178 2,155 958

Unassisted with other problems 491 664 872 1,205 1,481 845

Unassisted with no problems 536 444 611 789 1,099 823

Assisted 514 647 719 774 1,119 574

 Household Income as Percentage 

 of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income

2007 0–30% 30–50% 50–80% 80–120% >120%

All 

Incomes

Total households (1,000) 9,243 6,697 7,650 5,518 5,946 35,054

Unassisted with priority problems 4,327 1,578 681 245 162 6,993

Unassisted with other problems 828 2,935 2,960 1,048 674 8,445

Unassisted with no problems 738 1,168 3,541 4,059 4,949 14,455

Assisted 3,350 1,016 468 166 161 5,161

Average monthly income $679 $1,835 $2,800 $4,061 $7,941 $3,127

Unassisted with priority problems 697 1,695 2,661 3,855 7,340 1,378

Unassisted with other problems 1,019 1,925 2,785 3,921 7,667 2,843

Unassisted with no problems 409 1,888 2,844 4,135 8,007 4,772

Assisted 633 1,727 2,767 3,470 7,671 1,352

Average gross rent $584 $682 $742 $821 $1,042 $753

Unassisted with priority problems 707 966 1,338 1,399 1,492 871

Unassisted with other problems 495 614 805 1,029 1,459 790

Unassisted with no problems 532 499 570 730 973 757

Assisted 452 584 653 788 917 519

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing Survey 

data
U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research 57

Appendix B. SU PPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS

Appendi xB Exhibit B-1. Bird ’s Eye view of worst case housing

needs in 2009 (Millions )

0.20

0.49

0.24

0.07

6.65

2.04

Worst Case Needs

7.10 Other Renters

22.55

Unassisted 

Very Low-Income 

Renters 12.85

Renters With

Severely Inadequate Housing

1.00

Renters With 

Severe Rent Burden

9.00

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

Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing Survey data

SUPPLEMENTAL EX HIBITS
58

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

 

FMR = Fair Market Rent.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing 

Survey data

Exhibit B-3. Rental Stoc k of Below -FMR Units , 2009

Renters (1,000) Housing Units (1,000) Housing Units per 100 Renters

Affordable

Affordable 

and 

Available

Affordable, 

Available, 

and 

Adequate Affordable

Affordable 

and 

Available

Affordable, 

Available, 

and 

Adequate

All 21,713 24,363 18,475 16,700 112.2 85.1 76.9

Northeast 4,582 5,129 3,965 3,537 111.9 86.5 77.2

Midwest 3,995 4,704 3,419 3,119 117.8 85.6 78.1

South 7,624 8,582 6,577 5,926 112.6 86.3 77.7

West 5,513 5,948 4,514 4,117 107.9 81.9 74.7

Cities 9,786 10,554 8,410 7,414 107.9 85.9 75.8

Suburbs 8,204 9,273 6,818 6,366 113.0 83.1 77.6

Nonmetropolitan areas 3,724 4,537 3,248 2,919 121.8 87.2 78.4

Exhibit B-2. Affordable Rental Units Frequently Are Occupied by Higher Income Renters , 2009

AMI = Area Median Income.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American Housing Survey 

data

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

0 10

0.65

1.57 1.18

0.35

0.82 0.86 0.62 0.47

0.21

0.39

0.48

1.36

1.84 1.52

0.81

0.52

0.17

0.25

0.34

1.02

1.58

1.38

0.91

0.51 0.98

0.58 0.45

1.21

0.22

0.27

0.27

0.73

1.40

1.66

1.09

0.61

0.57

1.26 1.93

1.80

1.56

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120+

Rental Units (millions)

Unit Affordability (percent of AMI needed to afford the highest rent in the category) 

Renters with incomes >80% AMI

Renters with incomes 50–80% AMI

Renters with incomes 30–50% AMI

Renters with incomes 0–30% AMI 

Vacant units for rent
U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research 59

Appendix C. Federal housing assistance and aff ordable housing programs

Appendi xC

Federal Housing Assistance and 

Aff ordable Housing Programs

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides rental housing 

assistance through three key programs:

− Public housing. Provides affordable housing to 1.1 million families through units 

owned and managed by local public housing agencies (PHAs). Families are required 

to pay 30 percent of their income for rent.

− Project-based assisted housing. Provides assistance to 1.3 million families living in 

privately owned rental housing. The assistance is attached to the units, which are reserved for low-income families that are required to pay 30 percent of their income for rent.

− Tenant-based rental assistance. The Section 8 voucher program supplements 

rent payments of more than 2.0 million families in the private rental market. The 

program is administered through state and local housing agencies. Although 30 percent of income is the rent baseline, families often pay more and use these portable 

subsidies to locate housing of their choice.

A number of other federal housing programs produce affordable housing, typically with 

shallower subsidies. Although these units are often more affordable than market-rate 

units, without additional rent subsidies (such as vouchers), extremely low-income families 

would often have to pay well more than 30 percent of their income under these programs:

− Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program. Tax credits offered to investors by the 

Treasury Department subsidize the capital costs of units that have rents affordable to 

households with incomes at or below 60 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI). 

− HOME Investment Partnership. Provides annual formula grants to state and local governments that can be used to assist homeowners, first-time homebuyers, or 

renters. To qualify, rents must be affordable to households with incomes at or below 

65 percent of AMI or must be below local Fair Market Rents, whichever is less.

− Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS. Annual formula and competitive 

grants are available to state and local governments and nonprofit organizations for 

rental assistance targeted to a special-needs population. 

− Older rental subsidy programs. Programs named for sections of the National 

Housing Act, primarily the Section 221(d)(3) Below Market Interest Rate Program 

and the Section 236 Mortgage Assistance Program, were active from the early 

1960s through the early 1970s. They were designed to produce housing affordable 

for families with incomes above the public housing income limits. 

For further detail on HUD program requirements, see HUD-PD&R (2006b).
60

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

Appendi xD

Previous Reports to Congress on 

Worst Case Needs

− Priority Problems and “Worst Case” Needs in 1989 (June 1991, HUD-1314-PDR).

− The Location of Worst Case Needs in the Late 1980s (December 1992, HUD-1387-

PDR).

− Worst Case Needs for Housing Assistance in the United States in 1990 and 1991

(June 1994, HUD-1481-PDR).

− Rental Housing Assistance at a Crossroads: A Report to Congress on Worst Case 

Housing Needs (March 1996).

− Rental Housing Assistance—The Crisis Continues (April 1998).

− Rental Housing Assistance—The Worsening Crisis: A Report to Congress on Worst 

Case Housing Needs (March 2000). 

− A Report on Worst Case Housing Needs in 1999: New Opportunity Amid Continuing 

Challenges, Executive Summary (January 2001).

− Trends in Worst Case Needs for Housing, 1978–1999 (December 2003). 

− Affordable Housing Needs: A Report to Congress on the Significant Need for Housing

(December 2005).

− Affordable Housing Needs 2005: Report to Congress (May 2007).

− Housing Needs of Persons With Disabilities: Supplemental Findings to the Affordable 

Housing Needs 2005 Report (February 2008).

− Worst Case Housing Needs 2007: A Report to Congress (May 2010).

These publications are available on line at http://www.huduser.org.
U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research 61

Appendix E. Data and Methodology 

Appendi xE Data and Methodology 

Using the American Housing Survey Data

This report uses data from the latest available American Housing Survey (AHS) in 2009. 

The AHS is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housing and Development (HUD), 

conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, and is the only detailed periodic national housing survey in the United States. It provides nationally representative data on a wide 

range of housing subjects, including apartments, single-family homes, mobile homes, 

vacant homes, family composition, income, housing and neighborhood quality, housing costs, equipment, fuel type, size of housing units, and recent moves. National data 

are collected every 2 years from a sample of about 53,000 housing units. The survey, 

which started in 1973, has sampled the same housing units since 1985; it also samples 

newly constructed units to ensure both continuity and timeliness of the data. Information from the worst case needs reports has helped inform public policy decisions, 

including decisions on targeting existing resources, determining the need for additional 

resources, and the form housing assistance should take. 

To accurately estimate worst case needs for federal rental assistance from AHS data, 

we must determine whether household incomes fall below HUD’s official very lowincome limits (50 percent of HUD-adjusted area median family income [HAMFI, termed 

AMI in this report]), whether a household already receives housing assistance, and 

whether an unassisted income-eligible household has one or more of the priority problems that formerly conferred preference in tenant selection for assistance (rent burdens 

exceeding 50 percent of income, substandard housing, or involuntary displacement). 

Weighting. Because the AHS is based on a sample of housing units rather than a 

census of all housing units, estimates based on the data must be “weighted up” so that 

totals for each year match independent estimates of the total housing stock and better 

represent the full housing stock. The Census Bureau weights up responses to account 

for undercoverage of households (about 2.2 percent) and household nonresponse 

(about 11 percent). The weights for 2001–2009 AHS data used in this report are based 

on the 2000 Census of Housing, with adjustments for estimated change since then. 

Exclusions. Households reporting incomes that are zero or negative are excluded 

from estimates of worst case needs, although they are included in counts of total 

households. If such households pay rents greater than the Fair Market Rent while reporting zero or negative incomes, then their income situation is presumed temporary, 

and so they are included and higher incomes are imputed to them.
62

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

Household and Family Types

Households and families—In this report, the terms “family” and 

“household” are not interchangeable terms. Although all families are 

households, not all households are families. “Household” types include households with relatives, households with children, elderly 

single people age 62 or older, and single people with disabilities. 

“Families” refers only to a subset of households in which one or more 

people are related to another household member by birth, marriage, 

or adoption.

Families with children. Households with a child under age 18 

present. They are presumed to meet the definition of a family through 

relation by birth or adoption (including grandparents as parents).

Elderly households. Household in which at least one 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 either one or more people is related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption; or one or more subfamilies 

reside there that have members related to each other by birth, marriage, or adoption.

Other nonfamilies. Households with a single nonelderly person living alone or only with nonrelatives. The “other nonfamily” subgroup 

appearing in table A-7a and others accounts for a significant proportion, 25 percent, of households with worst case needs, even after 

excluding those with disabilities. Most of these households are single 

people living alone, rather than unrelated people sharing housing.

Disabilities. Before 2009, the AHS contained no direct questions 

that could ascertain whether individuals suffered from disabilities. 

Worst case needs reports for 2007 and earlier years identified 

households containing people with disabilities using various forms 

of income-based proxies. Disabled households were (1) not families with children; (2) not elderly households; and (3) receiving some 

form of income or government assistance that indicates that an adult 

with disabilities is present in the household. Beginning with the 2009 

AHS, direct questions about impairments and difficulties with activities of daily living are asked about each household member, including 

children. This worst case needs report, therefore, addresses disability on the basis of people identified with these problems. Elderly 

people with disabilities are not counted because of the prevalence 

of disabilities associated with aging. A forthcoming supplemental 

report will focus on new data about people with disabilities and 

worst case needs among households containing these individuals.

Housing Assistance Status

In 1997, the AHS questions intended to identify households receiving rental assistance were changed in both content and order from 

those used previously. After careful review, HUD and the Census 

Bureau adopted the following procedure to identify assisted units in 

a way that produces results that are more comparable to pre-1997 

data. These questions were further refined in 2007 as a result of additional cognitive research.

− Determine whether the household must recertify in order to 

determine the rent it pays.

− Determine whether the rent is lower because of a federal, state, 

or local government housing program.

− Determine whether the household has a housing voucher, and, 

if so, whether the voucher can be used to move to another 

location.

− Determine whether the housing authority is the household’s 

landlord.

− Determine whether the household was assigned to its housing 

unit or whether they were allowed to choose it themselves.

Housing Problems

Rent or cost burden—A ratio between housing costs (including 

utilities) and household income that exceeds 30 percent, which is 

a conventional standard for housing affordability. To the extent that 

respondents underreport total income, the AHS estimates may overcount the number of households with cost burden. A “severe” cost 

burden exceeds 50 percent of reported income. A “moderate” cost 

burden exceeds 30 percent but is less than or equal to 50 percent 

of reported income. Only severe cost burdens qualify as potential 

worst case needs. Households reporting zero or negative income 

are defined as having no cost burden.

Inadequate housing—Housing with severe or moderate physical 

problems, as defined in the AHS since 1984 and modified from time 

to time in order to reflect changes in the survey. Severe inadequacies constitute potential worst case needs but moderate inadequacies do not. The 2007 AHS eliminated the questions about hallways 

(common stairways and light fixtures) in multiunit structures in the 

section on selected physical problems. This affects the classification 

of units having severe or moderate physical problems. Briefly, a unit 

is defined as having severe physical inadequacies if it has any one of 

the following four 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 3 times for at least 6 hours each, because of 

broken-down heating equipment.

− Electrical. Having no electricity or having all of the following three 

electrical problems: exposed wiring, a room with no working 

wall outlet, and three or more blown fuses or tripped circuit 

breakers in the last 90 days.
U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research 63

Appendix E. Data and Methodology 

− 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 unit has moderate inadequacies if it has any of the following four 

problems, but none of the above severe problems:

− Plumbing. Having all toilets break down simultaneously at least 

3 times in the last 3 months for at least 3 hours each time.

− Heating. Having unvented gas, oil, or kerosene heaters as the 

main source of heat (because these heaters may produce unsafe 

fumes and unhealthy levels of moisture).

− Upkeep. Having any three of the six upkeep problems mentioned under severe inadequacies.

− Kitchen. Lacking a sink, range, or refrigerator for the exclusive 

use of the unit.

Overcrowding. The condition of having more than one person per 

room in a residence. Overcrowding is counted as a moderate problem rather than a severe problem that constitutes a potential worst 

case need.

“Priority” problems. Problems qualifying for federal preference in 

admission to assisted housing programs between 1988 and 1996: 

paying more than one-half of income for rent (severe rent burden), 

living in severely substandard housing (including being homeless or 

in a homeless shelter), or being involuntarily displaced. These problems informed the original definition of worst case needs. Because 

the AHS sample tracks housing units and thus cannot count the 

homeless, AHS estimates of priority problems are limited to the two 

severe problems described above: severe rent burdens greater than 

50 percent of income or severe physical problems. In accord with 

the intention to estimate the number of unassisted very low-income 

renters with priority problems, a number of tables in appendix A 

classify households with a combination of moderate problems and 

severe problems as having severe problems.

Income Measurement

Income sources. Income means gross income reported by AHS 

respondents for the 12 months preceding the interview. The 2007 

AHS income questions were very similar to those used in 2005. The 

only change was that the combined interest/dividend/rental income 

question was split into separate questions. The “other income” question was also modified to no longer include child support or alimony. 

For each person in the family, the AHS questionnaire collects the 

amounts of 13 different types of income. Income 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, before deductions 

for taxes or any other purpose. Imputed income from equity is not 

included as income in this report. Following HUD rules for determining income eligibility for HUD programs, the earnings of teenagers 

aged 17 years or younger are not counted as income for this report.

Supplemental and in-kind income sources. Poorer renters with 

high rent burdens are asked several new questions about whether 

people outside the household contributed to household expenses 

such as rent, food, and child care. The supplemental questions are 

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. (These questions were not asked in the 2007 AHS 

because the module could not be translated to the Census Bureau’s 

new computer language [Blaise] in time.) 

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 years or older. 

Income Categories

HUD-adjusted area median family income and official income limits—HUD is required by law to set income limits each year that 

determine the eligibility of applicants for assisted housing programs. 

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. 

HAMFI is more commonly referred to as the Area Median Income 

(AMI), although the latter term may be subject to misinterpretation. 

It should be noted that income limits are based on median family 

income, not median household income. Each base income cutoff 

is assumed to apply to a household of four people, and official income limits are further adjusted by household size: one person, 70 

percent of base; two people, 80 percent; three people, 90 percent; 

five people, 108 percent; six people, 116 percent; and so on. Each 

household is assigned to an income category using the income limit 

appropriate to its area and the number of household members.

Income cutoffs in association with AHS geography—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, HUD compares household incomes with area income 

limits. Very low- and low-income cutoffs for a household of four are 

defined for each unit of geography identified in the AHS national microdata files. For housing units outside these metropolitan areas, the 

AHS geography identifies only four regions, metropolitan status, and 

six climate zones. HUD estimated average income limits for each of 

these 48 locations.
64

Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress

Because developing estimates of official income limits for the geography identified on the AHS microdata was time consuming, HUD 

prepared income limits to use with AHS geography only for 3 years: 

1978, 1986, and 1995. Beginning with the 2003 AHS, income cutoffs 

have been based on HUD’s official income limits for those years, 

weighted by AHS weights. The Census Bureau added these cutoffs 

to the AHS public use file. 

Categorizing households by income—For this report, when households are categorized using the very low- and low-income cutoffs, 

the cutoffs are adjusted for household size using the same adjustment factors used by HUD programs. 

In addition, households reporting negative income are attributed incomes just above the AMI if their monthly housing costs exceed the 

Fair Market Rent and they lived in adequate and uncrowded housing. 

The justification for imputing higher incomes is that 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 housing needs estimates using AHS data since 1985, HUD has 

classified households with incomes above median income by comparing their income to with the actual median family income for the 

location, rather than to 80 percent of the low-income cutoff, as was 

the only approach possible for estimates made through 1983.

− Extremely low income. Income not in excess of 30 percent 

of AMI. 

− Very low income.Income not in excess of 50 percent of AMI. 

Very low income thus includes extremely low income, although 

the term sometimes is used loosely in specific contexts, such as 

mismatch analysis, to mean incomes between 30 and 50 percent of AMI. 

− Low income. Reported income not in excess of 80 percent of 

AMI or, if lower, the national median family income. 

− 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. AHS poverty estimates are based on 

income of households rather than income of families or individuals, and 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 4 is approximately 33 percent of 

AMI. Comparisons of income limits with poverty thresholds are 

presented in tables A-6a, A-6b, A-7, and A-8.

− Middle income. For this report, incomes above 80 percent 

and below 120 percent of AMI. 

− Upper income. For this report, households with income above 

120 percent of AMI. 

Location

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)—From 1973 to 1983, the definitions of metropolitan location in AHS data corresponded to the 243 

Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas 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. 

Mismatch of Supply and Demand for 

Affordable Rental Housing

Mismatch. The discrepancy between the number of rental units 

needed by renters in various income categories and the number 

provided by the market that are affordable at those income levels.

Affordability. Several federal rental programs define “affordable” 

rents as those requiring not more than 30 percent of an income cutoff defined in relation to AMI. Under the Low-Income Housing Tax 

Credit (LIHTC) Program, for example, housing units qualify as affordable and eligible for the credit if they have rents as high as 30 percent 

of an income equaling 60 percent of AMI. 

This report generalizes the approach developed to define LIHTC 

maximum rents for units of different size to define three categories 

of affordability (extremely low income, very low income, and low income) based on the incomes that are sufficient for the rents: at or 

below 30 percent of AMI, above 30 and up to 50 percent of AMI, and 

above 50 percent of AMI. Gross rents for each unit, including payments for utilities, are compared with 30 percent of HUD’s income 

limits, which are set at 30 percent and 50 percent of AMI. 

The income limits used to define rent affordability are adjusted 

for number of bedrooms using the formula codified at 26 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 unit houses one 

person, a one-bedroom unit houses 1.5 people, and each additional 

bedroom houses another 1.5 people. For vacant units, the costs of 

any utilities that would be paid by an occupant were allocated using 

a “hot deck” technique based on a matrix of structure type, AHS 

climate code, and eight categories of gross rent. 

Three measures of affordability. We use three measures in Section 2 to analyze the supply of the rental housing stock in relation to 

household incomes.

Categorizing rental units by affordability and households by 

income. To analyze mismatches between affordability and income 

in Section 2, household incomes and housing unit rents were compared with 2009 income limits (for income and rent categories up 

to and including 80 percent of AMI) and to the actual median family 
U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development |  Office of Policy Development and Research 65

Appendix E. Data and Methodology 

incomes (for categories above 80 percent of AMI). As in the analysis of household income, households reporting negative income 

were redefined as having incomes just above median income if their 

monthly housing costs were above the Fair Market Rent and they 

lived in adequate and uncrowded housing. Units with “no cash rent” 

reported are categorized solely on the basis of utility costs. Utility 

costs are allocated to vacant units through “hot-deck” imputation 

based on units that are comparable on the basis of cost, number of 

units, region, and tenure.

Race and Ethnicity

In 2003, the AHS began using revised Census Bureau categories 

of race and ethnicity that are not directly comparable with the 2001 

and earlier AHS. Survey respondents now are allowed to select more 

than one racial group, causing slight but significant decreases in the 

size of previously monolithic categories.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Washington, DC 20410–3000

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Return Service Requested

FIRST-CLASS MAIL

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

HUD

PERMIT NO. G–795

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research