U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research 
Visit PD&R’s website 

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 information service, include listservs, special interest reports, bimonthly publications (best 

practices, significant studies from other sources), access to public use databases, and a hotline (800-245-2691) for help 

accessing the information you need. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A REPORT TO CONGRESS 

Prepared for 

U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development 

Washington, D.C. 

Prepared by 

David L. Hardiman 

Carolyn Lynch 

Marge Martin 

Barry L. Steffen 

David A. Vandenbroucke 

Yung Gann David Yao 

May 2010 

iii 

Foreword
 

I am pleased to transmit to the U.S. Congress this report from the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, “Worst Case Housing Needs 2007.” The report, the 

twelfth in the longstanding series on worst case housing needs, 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), which is funded 

by HUD and conducted by the Census Bureau. The AHS has been conducted every 2 

years since 1973 and is a key source of national data on housing markets, conditions, 

and dynamics. It is important to note that the report is based on data from 2007, 

before the full repercussions of the U.S. mortgage market crisis were felt across the 

broader economy. 

This year’s report shows that the number of worst case needs households remained 

effectively flat, with levels still 18 percent higher than in 2000. Worst case needs 

remains an equal opportunity problem, with significant incidence across races, family 

types, geographic regions, and boundaries of cities, suburbs and rural areas. 

In addition, the report highlights the critical role that unit availability, and not just 

market supply alone, plays in determining burdens. For the very lowest income 

groups, there is an insufficient and shrinking supply of affordable rental housing. 

Moreover, even though there are sufficient affordable units on a national basis for very 

low-income renters, many of the lower rent units are occupied by renters with higher 

incomes. This leaves many of the very low-income renters unable to find affordable 

housing and forced to take on greater burdens in higher rent units. 

Further, the report studies the urban geography of the incidence of worst case needs 

among families. We discovered two distinct patterns. In cities, most worst case 

needs families lived in higher poverty neighborhoods. By contrast, most worst case 

needs families living in suburbs and non-metro areas were located in low poverty 

neighborhoods. 

Finally, the report demonstrates that HUD programs providing rental assistance and 

spurring the production of affordable housing play a critical role in creating stable 

housing for low-income renters. However, the evidence is clear: the scope of the 

problem demands that we do more to ensure that all Americans are suitably housed. 

Raphael W. Bostic 

Assistant Secretary for 

Policy Development and Research 

Worst Case Housing Needs 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents
 

Foreword 

Executive Summary..................................................................................................vii

 Findings................................................................................................................vii
 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Key Findings ..............................................................1

 Chapter 2 – Demographics of Worst Case Needs ................................................2
 

Chapter 3 – Availability of Affordable Housing Stock..................................................5

 Chapter 4 – Worst Case Needs and Neighborhoods.............................................6
 

Chapter 2. Demographics of Worst Case Needs.......................................................7
 

Worst Case Needs in 2007......................................................................................7
 

Types of Worst Case Housing Problems ..............................................................7
 

Worst Case Needs by Income Groups..................................................................10
 

Worst Case Needs by Race/Ethnicity Group and Across Central Cities, 

 Suburbs, and Non-Metro Areas........................................................................12
 

Worst Case Needs by Family Types.....................................................................13

 Geography of Worst Case Needs..........................................................................16
 

Transportation and Worst Case Needs..................................................................18
 

Working Households With Worst Case Needs .....................................................19

 Housing Assistance Mitigates the Effect of Very Low Income...........................21

 Summary ..............................................................................................................22
 

Chapter 3. Availability of Affordable Housing Stock ............................................23
 

Why Housing Supply Is an Issue..........................................................................23

 Measures of Affordability and Availability ..........................................................24

 Summary ..............................................................................................................38
 

Chapter 4. Worst Case Needs and Neighborhoods ................................................40

 Poverty and Neighborhood Distress.....................................................................40
 

Worst Case Needs Households and Neighborhood Poverty Rates.......................41

 Summary ..............................................................................................................46
 

Worst Case Housing Needs v 
 

 

 

 

Chapter 5. Background and Methodology .............................................................47
 

Worst Case Needs by Definition Are Below the “Very Low-Income” Threshold .......49
 

References..................................................................................................................52
 

Appendix A. Data on Housing Problems and Supply of Affordable Housing.....54

 List of Tables........................................................................................................54
 

Appendix B. The American Housing Survey: Terms and Data Sources.............82
 

American Housing Survey....................................................................................82

 Exclusions From the AHS Data............................................................................84

 Household and Family Types...............................................................................84

 Housing Problems ................................................................................................85

 Income Measurement ...........................................................................................87

 Income Categories................................................................................................88

 Housing Assistance Status....................................................................................90

 Location................................................................................................................90

 Mismatch of Supply and Demand for Affordable Rental Housing .....................90

 Race and Ethnicity................................................................................................92
 

Appendix C. Changes to the AHS Survey Questions, 2005 to 2007, 

 Regarding Receipt of Housing Assistance............................................................93
 

Appendix D. Additional Examination of the 2005-to-2007 Trend in 

Worst Case Needs...................................................................................................97

 National Trend in Poverty and Income

 Decline in the Number of Extremely Low-Income Renter Households, 

.................................................................97

 2005 to 2007......................................................................................................99
 

Additional Examination of the 2005-to-2007 Changes......................................100
 

vi Worst Case Housing Needs 
Executive Summary
 

The report is the twelfth in the series of worst case housing needs reports that have 

been issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) since 1991. 

Worst case housing needs (WCN) are experienced by unassisted very low-income 

renters who either (1) pay more than one-half of their monthly income for rent; or 

(2) live in severely inadequate conditions, or both. HUD defines “very low-income” as 

below 50 percent of the local area median income (AMI) and “extremely low-income” 

as below 30 percent of AMI. 

Findings 

Demographics of Worst Case Needs 

•		 The number of households with worst case housing needs in 2007 was 5.91 

million households, comprising 12.97 million individuals. This number was a 

slight (and statistically insignificant) decrease of 1.5 percent from the 5.99 

million worst case needs in 2005. 

•		 The small decrease in worst case needs from 2005 to 2007 occurred following 

a large and statistically significant increase of 19.6 percent during the 2001-

to-2005 period. The number of households with worst case needs increased 

from 5.01 million in 2001, to 5.18 million in 2003, to 5.99 million in 2005 and 

then dropped slightly to 5.91 million in 2007. 

•		 The primary cause of worst case needs is severe rent burden. Of the 5.91 

million households with worst case housing needs, 5.48 million had severe rent 

burden as their sole problem, 190,000 households lived in severely inadequate 

housing, and 240,000 households had both problems. 

•		 Income Levels. In general, worst case needs are more prevalent among 

extremely low-income families. A majority of WCN households (4.33 million) 

had extremely low incomes, and a smaller but substantial portion (1.58 million) were in the 30 to 50 percent of area median income group. 

•		 Family Types. Worst case needs are found across different types of families. 

Among the 5.91 million WCN households were: 2.19 million families with 

children; 1.21 million elderly households; 602,000 non-elderly disabled households; and 1.91 million “other” households. 

•		 Disabilities. In addition to the 602,000 non-elderly disabled households, there 

were an additional 404,000 families with children that also had an adult with 

disabilities present – bringing the combined total of these two types of households with disabilities and worst case housing needs to more than 1 million. 

Disabled households were found to have the highest likelihood of having WCN 

among the four main family types (families with children, elderly, disabled 

and “other” households). Among unassisted very low-income households with 

Worst Case Housing Needs vii 
disabilities, the likelihood of having worst case needs was 65.6 percent. This 

exceeds the second highest rate of elderly households (58 percent) and is 

far above the rates among families with children (47.8 percent) and “other” 

households (47.7 percent). 

•		 Race and Ethnicity. Worst case needs were found across racial and ethnic 

groups. There were 2.92 million non-Hispanic white households, 1.35 million 

non-Hispanic black households, and 1.23 million Hispanic households with 

worst case housing needs. 

•		 Geography. Worst case needs were found across national regions and across 

central cities, suburbs and non-metropolitan areas. In the West, 40.0 percent 

of very low-income renters had worst case needs in 2007, while the incidence 

in the South was 37.4 percent and 36.2 percent in the Northeast. The Midwest 

had the lowest incidence, yet in this region too, more than one-third of very 

low-income renters, 34.3 percent, had worst case needs. In central cities, 37.7 

percent of very low-income renters, or 2.80 million households, had worst 

case housing needs. Very low-income renters were most likely to have worst 

case housing needs in the suburbs (39.2 percent) although overall fewer worst 

case needs households (2.05 million) lived in these areas. In non-metropolitan 

areas, 32.1 percent of very low-income renters, or 1.05 million households had 

worst case needs. 

• Working Families. During 2007, almost one-half (46 percent) of households 

with children that experienced worst case needs were working full-time (with 

earned incomes at least at the minimum wage for 40 hours per week). 

Housing Supply 

•		 Although there were a sufficient number of affordable units for very low-income 

renter families, there were an insufficient number of these units available for 

these families. Units are counted as available if they were either occupied by 

very low-income renters or vacant and available for rent (the remainder being 

occupied by higher income families). There were an insufficient number of both 

affordable and available rental units for extremely low-income renters. 

Neighborhoods 

•		 Relative to all renters, families with worst case housing needs were only somewhat more likely to live in high poverty neighborhoods. 

•		 More than 40 percent of worst case needs renters in cities lived in higher 

poverty neighborhoods (indicating both a lack of housing options in cities; and 

a lack of affordable housing even in high poverty areas). 

•		 Most worst case needs renters in suburbs and non-metro areas lived in low 

poverty neighborhoods (reflecting both the overall proportion that such neighborhoods comprise in these areas and the lack of affordable housing options 

throughout these areas). 

viii Worst Case Housing Needs 
Chapter 1.
 

Introduction and Key Findings
 

This introduction provides a brief background on worst case housing needs and a summary road map of the Report. It also includes a list of 24 key findings from the main 

body of the Report. 

What are worst case housing needs? 

Households have worst case housing needs 

if they: are renters with very low-incomes; 

do not currently have housing assistance; 

and either have a severe rent burden and/ 

or live in severely inadequate housing. 

Severe rent burden means a family is 

paying more than one-half their income for 

rent.1 Severely inadequate housing includes 

a variety of serious physical problems 

related to heating, plumbing, electric, or 

maintenance. 

Homeless persons are not included in 

estimates of worst case needs in this 

and earlier reports because the American 

Housing Survey counts only persons living 

in housing units.2 

Worst Case Needs 

Households With Worst Case 

Housing Needs:
 

Are very low-income renters; 

Do not have housing assistance; 

And either:
 

(1) Have a severe rent burden 

(pay more than one-half 

their income for rent); 

and/or 

(2) Live in severely inadequate conditions 

Homeowners are also not included in worst case needs, although they may have 

very low-incomes and have high housing costs consuming more than one-half of 

their incomes. 

Two common terms used throughout this report refer to the income levels of renters: 

“very low-income” and “extremely low-income.” “Very low-income” households are 

below 50 percent of area median income; and “extremely low-income” are those with 

incomes below 30 percent of area median income. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs use “area median 

incomes” calculated on the basis of local family incomes, with adjustments for 

household size. However, as a general rule of thumb, the nationwide median income 

1 Rent-to-income ratios are calculated on the basis of gross rent, which is the sum of rent plus 

tenant-paid utilities. 

2 HUD is assessing the potential of supplementing future estimates of worst case needs with estimates of people who experience homelessness from local Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS). The fourth Annual Homeless Assessment Report, transmitted to Congress in July 2009, 

reported that during the 12-month period of October 1, 2007, to September 30, 2008, about 1.6 

million people used an emergency shelter or transitional housing, including 1,092,600 individuals (68 

percent) and 516,700 people in families (32 percent). 

Worst Case Housing Needs 1 
(for HUD programs) in 2007 was $59,000, with the “very low-income” level being at 

$29,500 per year, and the “extremely low-income” level at $17,700 per year. All of 

these income levels are for a family of four.3 Families with fewer than four people or 

who are living in areas with lower family incomes can have far smaller incomes than 

these national figures of 30 and 50 percent of median income. 

•		 Chapter 2 focuses on the demographics and geography of worst case needs 

households. 

•		 Chapter 3 focuses on housing supply issues. 

•		 Chapter 4 explores poverty levels of the neighborhoods where worst case 

needs households live. 

Chapter 5 and various appendices include more detailed discussion of methodology, 

terms, sources and related topics. 

Chapter 2 – Demographics of Worst Case Needs 

Chapter 2 examines various demographic characteristics of households with worst 

case housing needs, including income, race and ethnicity, family types, geography 

and other factors. The chapter also includes a short examination of transportation 

costs, by looking at commuting patterns, of worst case needs households, included in 

this report for the first time. The chapter then takes a closer look at working families, 

including families with children, that still have worst case needs and concludes with 

a short examination of the effect of housing assistance to reduce the level of worst 

case needs. 

Unmet needs for decent, affordable rental housing 

Finding 1: In 2007, There Were 5.91 Million Households (Comprising 12.97 

Million People) With Worst Case Housing Needs. 

Finding 2: Severe Rent Burden Remains the Key Housing Issue. Of the 5.91 

million households with worst case needs, 5.48 million had severe rent burden as their 

sole priority problem. 190,000 households lived in severely inadequate housing, and 

240,000 households experienced both of these problems. 

Finding 3: No Statistically Significant Change From 2005 to 2007. The 5.91 

million households reporting worst case problems in 2007 represent a slight and 

statistically insignificant decrease of 1.5 percent from the 5.99 million worst case 

needs in 2005. 

3 These income levels are based on “national median” income as calculated for HUD programs by 

inflating Census 2000 and ACS 2005 survey data to mid-FY 2007 to distinguish this median from the 

Census published 2007 median family income. Chapter 5 includes a chart with examples of specific 

area median income limits in selected major cities 

2 Worst Case Housing Needs 
Finding 4: Longer Term Trend Consistent With Increase in Worst Case Needs 

From 2001 to 2005. The relative stability during the 2005-to-2007 period followed 

a large and statistically significant increase of 19.5 percent during the 2001-to-2005 

period. The number of households with worst case needs increased from 5.01 million 

in 2001, to 5.18 million in 2003, to 5.99 million in 2005 and dropped slightly to 5.91 

million in 2007. 

Worst case needs by income group 

Finding 5: Most Worst Case Needs Households Were Extremely Low-Income. 

In 2007, of the 5.91 million households with worst case needs, a majority (4.33 million) fell into the extremely low income group, and a smaller but substantial portion 

(1.58 million) were in the 30 to 50 percent of area median income group. 

Finding 6: Extremely Low-Income Renters Had a Higher Likelihood of Worst 

Case Needs. Among all extremely low-income renter households (those with less 

than 30 percent of area median income), 46.8 percent had worst case housing needs. 

Among renters in the 30 to 50 percent of area median income range, 23.6 percent 

had worst case housing needs. 

Race and ethnicity 

Finding 7: Worst Case Needs for Housing Cut Across Lines of Race and Ethnicity. In 2007, there were 2.92 million non-Hispanic white households, 1.35 million 

non-Hispanic black households, and 1.23 million Hispanic households who had worst 

case needs. The incidence of worst case needs among non-Hispanic whites who are 

very low-income renters was 39.0 percent in 2007, compared with 33.3 percent for 

non-Hispanic black households, and 37.4 percent for Hispanic households. 

Family types 

Finding 8: Over One-Third of Worst Case Needs Households Were Families 

With Children. In 2007, 2.19 million households (34.6 percent) of the 6.33 million 

very low-income renter households with one or more child had worst case housing 

needs. These families with children represented a large share, 37.0 percent, of households with worst case needs. 

Finding 9: About One in Five Worst Case Needs Households Were Seniors. 

In 2007, 1.21 million households (34.6 percent) of the 3.49 million very low-income 

renter households with either a head or spouse at least 62 years of age had worst 

case housing needs. These 1.21 million households made up 20.5 percent of households with worst case housing needs. 

Finding 10: There Were More Than 1 Million Non-Elderly Worst Case Needs 

Households in Which at Least One Adult Had a Disability. In 2007, 602,000 disabled households had worst case housing needs (35.3 percent of all such households). 

A household is counted in the disabled category if it is non-elderly, without children 

and received some form of government assistance indicating a payment for disability. 

An additional 404,000 families with children had an adult with disabilities present. 

Together, these two households types therefore comprised more than 1 million worst 

Worst Case Housing Needs 3 
case housing needs households in which at least one adult had a disability. Disabled 

households made up 10.2 percent of all worst case needs households. When families 

with children that also have an adult with disabilities are included, this proportion 

increases to 17.0 percent. 

Finding 11: Disabled Households Had the Highest Incidence of Worst Case 

Housing Needs Among Unassisted Households (of the Four Types of Families). The likelihood of having worst case housing needs among unassisted very 

low-income renters is highest among disabled households, with rates higher than 

those of the other family types (the elderly, families with children and other households). Among unassisted very low-income households with disabilities, the likelihood 

of having worst case needs is 65.6 percent. This exceeds the second highest rate of 

elderly households (58.0 percent) and is far above the rates among households with 

children (47.8 percent) and “other” households (47.7 percent). 

Geography of worst case needs 

Finding 12: All Regions of the Country Had High Levels of Worst Case Housing 

Needs. Very low-income renters do not escape high levels of worst case needs in any 

region of the country—Northeast, Midwest, South, or West. In the West, 40.0 percent 

of very low-income renters had worst case needs in 2007, while the incidence in the 

South was 37.4 percent and 36.2 percent in the Northeast. The Midwest had the lowest incidence, yet in this region too, more than one-third of very low-income renters, 

34.3 percent, had worst case needs. 

Finding 13: Substantial Worst Case Housing Needs Were Found in Central 

Cities, Suburbs, and Non-Metro Areas. In central cities, 37.7 percent of very 

low-income renters, or 2.80 million households, had worst case housing needs. In 

suburban areas, very low-income renters had a higher incidence of worst case housing needs (39.2 percent) although overall fewer worst case needs households (2.05 

million) lived in these areas. Non-metropolitan areas had 1.05 million households with 

worst case needs - with almost one-third (32.1 percent) of all very low-income renters 

in these areas falling into this situation. The overall distribution of worst case needs 

households generally reflected the distribution of very low-income renters, of which 

46.5 percent were living in central cities, 32.8 percent were in suburbs, and 20.5 

percent resided in non-metropolitan areas during 2007. 

Transportation and worst case needs 

Finding 14: Many Working Worst Case Needs Families Also Experience 

Lengthy Commutes to Work. Of the 2.92 million worst case needs households that 

reported they were working at a fixed location, 485,000 households had commutes 

of longer than 30 minutes to get to work, and 348,000 households had to commute 

more than 20 miles to get to work (these two commute types overlap and are not 

exclusive of each other). Taking into account the overlap between those two groups, 

there were a total of 583,000 households who had either one or both of these types of 

lengthy commutes and had worst case housing needs. 

4 Worst Case Housing Needs 
Working families 

Finding 15: Working Households Had High Rates of Worst Case Needs. During 

2007, of 1.56 million renter households with both extremely low incomes and earnings 

consistent with full-time employment, 860,000 households (55 percent) had worst 

case housing needs. Among the 3.39 million extremely low-income renter households 

with earnings as their primary source of income, 2.07 million (61 percent) had worst 

case needs. Among renters in the 30 to 50 percent of area median income range with 

earnings as their primary source of income, over one in five (21.6 percent), or 1.07 

million households, had worst case housing needs. 

Finding 16: Worst Case Needs Among Wage Earning Families With Children 

Were Also High. Almost one-half (46 percent) of households with children that 

experienced worst case needs were working full-time (with earned income at least at 

the minimum wage for forty hours per week). Among extremely low-income renters 

with children, about 1.04 million (34 percent) were working full time in 2007, and 

540,000 of these had worst case housing needs. 

Effect of housing assistance on worst case needs 

Finding 17: Without Housing Assistance, Lower Income Households Are Far 

More Likely To Experience Worst Case Needs. Among unassisted renters with 

extremely low incomes, 73.4 percent had worst case needs during 2007. Incidence of 

severe problems is far lower, but still substantial at 27.8 percent, among unassisted 

households with incomes from 30 to 50 percent of area median income. 

Finding 18: Housing Assistance Mitigates the Overall Number of Worst Case 

Needs. If current government housing assistance were withdrawn, and those receiving it experienced worst case needs at incidence rates of those currently without such 

assistance, there would be an additional 2.74 million worst case needs households 

(2.46 million extremely low-income and 280,000 in the 30 to 50 percent of area 

median income range). 

Chapter 3 – Availability of Affordable Housing Stock 

Chapter 3 analyzes housing supply issues, looking specifically at the number of affordable and available rental units for different income level groups. 

Finding 19: There Is an Insufficient Supply of Affordable and Available Rental 

Housing for the Lowest Income Groups. For every 100 extremely low-income 

renter households, there were only 76 rental units that would be affordable to them at 

30 percent of income for rent, and of these only 44 such units were actually available 

to them (that is, either occupied by renters in this income group or vacant and available for rent). 

Finding 20: Shortages of Affordable and Available Rental Units Are Not Confined 

to Extremely Low-Income Renters. For somewhat higher low-income groups, the affordable stock is nominally sufficient to house every household above 45 percent of AMI. 

However, for rental units that are both affordable and available, the available stock does 

not match the number of renters until household incomes reach 70 to 75 percent of AMI. 

Worst Case Housing Needs 5 
Finding 21: There Are Insufficient Affordable and Available Rental Units for 

Renter Households Between 30 and 50 Percent of Area Median Income. For 

every 100 renter households in the 30 to 50 percent of median income range, there 

were 112.9 rental units that were affordable to them. However, of these units only 

74 rental units were available to this income group (that is either occupied by such 

households in this income group and not occupied by higher income households, or 

vacant and available for rent). 

Chapter 4 – Worst Case Needs and Neighborhoods 

Chapter 4 is an in-depth analysis of neighborhood locations of worst case needs renters, and also a comparison of neighborhood types (by poverty level) across central city, 

suburb, and non-metropolitan areas. This analysis was first added in the last Worst 

Case Needs Report (Affordable Housing Needs 2005) and is expanded in this report. 

Finding 22: Worst Case Needs Households Were More Likely To Live in Poorer 

Neighborhoods. Nationwide, 29.8 percent of worst case needs households resided in 

neighborhoods with poverty rates that are greater than 20 percent. This figure compares to 24.3 percent of all renter households and 20 percent of all households that 

resided in these poorer neighborhoods. Only 34.9 percent of worst-case households 

lived in low-poverty neighborhoods in contrast to 40.3 percent of all renters and 50.0 

percent of all households. 

Finding 23: Worst Case Needs Households in Central Cities Were Far More 

Concentrated in Higher Poverty Neighborhoods. In central cities, 43.6 percent 

of worst-case households lived in neighborhoods with poverty rates of 20 percent or 

more. Despite living in neighborhoods where housing is likely to be less expensive, a 

high percentage of very low-income renters in central cities were still unable to locate 

affordable housing. 

Finding 24: In Suburban and Non-Metro Areas, Worst Case Needs Households 

Were Less Likely To Live in High Poverty Neighborhoods, but Could Not 

Access Affordable Housing. In suburban areas, approximately one-half of both 

worst-case needs households (52.7 percent) and renters with very low-income (48.9 

percent) lived in neighborhoods with the lowest poverty rates. These high proportions 

reflect the fact that numerous suburban areas have few neighborhoods with high 

poverty rates. The only suburban residential options that very low-income renters 

have are likely to leave them without sufficient affordable housing options. Likewise, 

in non-metro areas, about half of both worst-case need households (49.6 percent) 

and renters with very low-incomes (50.9 percent) resided in neighborhoods with 

moderate poverty levels of 10 to 20 percent—reflecting both the prevailing neighborhood characteristics and lack of affordable housing in such areas. 

6 Worst Case Housing Needs 
Chapter 2.
 

Demographics of Worst Case Needs
 

Worst Case Needs in 2007 

This chapter examines various demographic characteristics of households with worst 

case housing needs, including income, race and ethnicity, family types (families with 

children, seniors, and persons with disabilities), geography, and other factors. The 

chapter also includes a brief analysis of transportation costs, by looking at commuting 

patterns of worst case needs households, included in this report for the first time. 

Finally, the chapter takes a closer look at working families, including families with 

children, that still have worst case needs and concludes with a short examination of 

the effect of housing assistance to reduce worst case needs. 

In 2007, 5.91 million very low-income renter households had worst case housing 

needs because they were unassisted and they had severe rent burdens exceeding 

one-half of their income or lived in severely inadequate housing conditions. These 

5.91 million households included 12.97 million individual people. 

During the 2005-to-2007 period, the level of worst case needs remained basically 

unchanged. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) reported a 

total level of 5.99 million worst case needs households in 2005. There was a slight 

decline of 87,000 households (a 1.5 percent change), from that level in 2007, but this 

decline is well within the margin of error and thus is not statistically significant.1 

Types of Worst Case Housing Problems 

Severe rent burdens 

Severe rent burden constitutes by far the largest portion of worst case needs. Families 

with severe rent burdens pay more than one-half of their monthly income for rent. 

Out of 5.91 million households with worst case needs, 5.72 million (96.8 percent) had 

severe rent burdens. Of these 5.72 million households, 4.25 million were extremely 

low-income (below 30 percent of area median income) and the remaining 1.47 million 

households were in the 30 to 50 percent of area median income group. 

The low incomes of these renter households means that, after paying one-half of their 

income for rent, very little would be left for necessities such as food, medical care, 

transportation expenses, education and childcare. 

1 The 90 percent confidence interval for the 2007 estimate is 5.675 million to 6.135 million. 

Worst Case Housing Needs 7 
uate

 

Severely inadequate housing conditions 

Compared with rent burdens, physical housing problems account for a much smaller 

portion of worst case needs. In 2007, 429,000 households with worst case needs 

lived in severely inadequate housing. Severely inadequate housing includes a variety 

of serious physical problems related to heating, plumbing, electric, or maintenance 

(a full description is provided in Appendix B). More than one-half of these households 

(56 percent) also had severe rent burdens, and a smaller portion (44 percent) had 

severely inadequate conditions as their only priority housing problem. 

Exhibit 2-1. Worst Case Needs in 2007 

0–30% of Area 

Median Income 

30–50% of Area 

Median Income 

Total (below 50% 

Area Median Income) 

Total Unassisted Renter Households 5,893 5,861 11,754 

Worst Case Needs Households 4,327 1,578 5,905 

Percent of Households with WCN 73.4% 27.8% 50.2% 

Numbers are in thousands of households. 

Exhibit 2-2. Worst Case Needs 2001–2007 

Severely inadequate Both priority problems 4.1% 

housing only 3.2% 

Severe rent burden 

only 92.7% 

q Both priority probl 

.2% 

Severe rent burden 

Trend in Worst Case Needs 2001 to 2007 

Although the level of worst case needs remained relatively stable between 2005 and 

2007, this stability followed a longer period of substantially worsening conditions for 

very low-income renters. 

As Exhibit 2-3 illustrates, the small (statistically insignificant) decrease in worst case 

needs from 2005 to 2007 followed a very large increase in worst case needs during 

the 2001-to-2005 period. Between 2001 and 2005, worst case needs increased by 

nearly one-fifth (19.5 percent). Over the longer 2001-to-2007 period, the estimated 

increase in worst case needs was 17.8 percent. Thus, it is critical to observe trends 

in worst case needs over a longer term period. Indeed, when the report on the 2003 

8 Worst Case Housing Needs 
Exhibit 2-3. Worst Case Needs

2001-2007

 

 

 

data was issued, it showed a much smaller increase in housing needs than was found 

in other private research studies. Seen in this context, the overall level of worst case 

needs in 2007 is still consistent with a longer term trend. 

Exhibit 2-3. Worst Case Needs 2001–2007 

4.5 

5 

5.5 

6 

6.5 

Households (millions) 

4 

2001 2003 2005 2007 

# Households (millions) 

Exhibit 2-4 shows the same trend in worst case needs from 2001 to 2007 in comparison with the total number of all U.S. households during the same period. 

Exhibit 2-4. Worst Case Needs 2001–2007 

2001 2003 2005 2007 

All households (millions) 105.44 105.87 108.90 110.72 

Renter households with worst case needs (millions) 5.01 5.18 5.99 5.91 

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

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

Housing Survey data 

Looking back a bit further, worst case needs increased by 22.0 percent between 1991 

and 2007, a rate of growth exceeding the 13.8 percent increase in very low-income 

renters and the 18.9 percent increase in total U.S. households during the same period. 

These changes imply a long-term increase in incidence as well, so that 51.0 percent of 

unassisted very low-income renters had worst case needs in 2007, the same incidence 

observed in 1997, but higher than the 48.1 percent incidence in 1991. It should be 

noted that year-to-year comparisons are not always comparable, due to changes in 

the American Housing Survey (AHS) in some years and because the pre-2000 AHS 

figures are weighted using 1990 Census data. 

Worst Case Housing Needs 9 
Exhibit 2-5. Overall Trend in the Number of Very Low-Income Renters and Those with Worst 

Case Needs, 1991–2007 

0 

5,000 

10,000 

15,000 

20,000 

4,842 

14,002 14,738 14,549 14,801 14,803 

14,903 15,658 16,072 15,940 

5,198 5,203 5,379 4,856 

5,014 5,175 5,992 5,905 

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 

VLI renters (1990 weights)
 

VLI renters (2000 weights)
 

unassisted VLI renters with priority problems (1990 weights)
 

unassisted VLI renters with priority problems (2000 weights)
 

VLI = very low-income 

The slight decline in worst case needs from 2005 to 2007 was accompanied by a 

decline in the total number of extremely low-income renters, from 9.73 million 

households to 9.24 million households during the same period. This phenomenon is 

explained in greater detail, along with other possible causes of the small decline in 

worst case needs, in Appendix D, “Additional Examination of the 2005-to-2007 Trend 

in Worst Case Needs.” 

Worst Case Needs by Income Groups 

By definition, households with worst case needs for affordable housing are below 

the very low-income threshold (50 percent of median income), but households with 

extremely low incomes constitute nearly three-fourths of those with worst case 

needs. In 2007, of the 5.91 million households with worst case needs, 73.3 percent 

(4.33 million households) fell into the extremely low-income group, and a smaller but 

substantial portion (26.7 percent, or 1.58 million households) were in the 30 to 50 

percent of median income group. Because severe rent burden, rather than inadequate 

housing, accounts for most worst case needs, income is obviously a critical factor. 

The predominance of extremely low-income renters among worst case households 

is explained by two factors. First, 58 percent of very low-income renters are also 

extremely low-income renters, having incomes below the 30 percent of median income threshold. Second, unless they receive housing assistance, the poorer subset of 

renters is much more likely to experience severe housing problems. 

Extremely low-income renters were much more likely to have worst case housing 

needs. As previously shown in Exhibit 2-1, 73.4 percent of unassisted renters with 

extremely low incomes had worst case housing needs in 2007. Incidence of severe 

problems is far lower, but still substantial at 27.8 percent, for the remaining households 

making up worst case needs—those with incomes from 30 to 50 percent of median. 

10 Worst Case Housing Needs 
Race and Ethnicity 

Worst case needs for affordable housing cut across lines of race and ethnicity. Minority 

status depends on definitions that are fluctuating as the nation’s population becomes 

more diverse.2 Analyzing housing needs in terms of these demographics shows both 

similarities and differences among the three largest groups defined by race and 

ethnicity. 

Exhibit 2-6 shows that in 2007, there were 2.92 million non-Hispanic white households with worst case needs, 1.35 million non-Hispanic Black households with worst 

case needs, and 1.23 million Hispanic households with worst case needs. Together, 

these three race/ethnicity groups account for 93 percent of worst case needs in 2007.3 

Exhibit 2-6. Race/Ethnicity Groups and Worst Case Needs, 2005–2007 

In terms of incidence, non-Hispanic Whites had the highest likelihood of having worst 

case housing needs, with 39.0 percent of all such very low-income renter households 

falling into this category. Hispanic households had a 37.4 percent likelihood, and nonHispanic black households had a 33.3 percent likelihood of having worst case housing 

needs. Note that these incidence levels, and those in the next three sections (family 

types, regions and metro types) are calculated among the total number of very 

low-income renters (including assisted households) in each category unless otherwise 

noted. For further detail, see Table A-9 in the Appendix. 

Severely inadequate housing varies somewhat by demographic group. Focusing again 

on very low-income renters, only 2.6 percent of non-Hispanic whites experienced 

severe physical problems with their units in 2007, compared with 4.4 percent of both 

non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics. 

2 Beginning in 2003, the AHS used revised Census Bureau categories of race and ethnicity that are 

not directly comparable with prior surveys. Survey respondents now are allowed to select more than 

one racial group, causing small but significant decreases in the size of the single-race categories. 

3 The estimated changes in worst case needs are not statistically significant for these groups. The 

2005 estimates fall within the 90 percent confidence intervals of the 2007 estimates: ± 257 for nonHispanic whites, ±174 for non-Hispanic blacks, and ±192 for Hispanics. 

Worst Case Housing Needs 11 
 

Among very low-income renters with severe problems, 6 percent of white households, 

9 percent of black households, and 10 percent of Hispanic households lived in severely 

inadequate housing. 

Hispanic immigration is an important factor in the U.S. demographic picture, because 

843,000 Hispanic residents were added between 2005 and 2007.4 Despite hardships 

that may be associated with immigration, HUD’s examination of immigration for 

all groups indicates that it does not contribute significantly to worst case needs. In 

2007, householders5 who are naturalized citizens accounted for 6.3 percent of worst 

case needs, proportional to their 6.0 percent share of unassisted very low-income 

households. Likewise, non-citizen householders constituted 14.3 percent of worst 

case needs, slightly less than their 16.5 percent share of unassisted very low-income 

households. Among unassisted very low-income renters, incidence of worst case 

needs is 44.2 percent for non-citizen householders, and 53.3 percent for naturalized 

citizens, averaging 46.6 percent for all immigrant householders. By comparison, 52.3 

percent of U.S. native householders have worst case needs. These data show that, 

on a proportional basis, unassisted very low-income renters who are immigrants are 

slightly less likely than U.S. native householders to have worst case housing needs. 

Worst Case Needs by Race/Ethnicity Group and 

Across Central Cities, Suburbs, and Non-Metro Areas 

Exhibit 2-7 shows the distribution of worst case needs by the three main race/ 

ethnicity groups covered and their distribution across central cities, suburbs, and 

non-metro areas. 

Non-Hispanic White households with worst case needs lived most often in central cities 

and suburbs (with roughly the same distribution in each type of area), and somewhat 

less commonly in non-metro areas. Both non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic households 

with worst case needs lived most commonly in central cities, somewhat less commonly 

(though still with a considerable share) in suburban areas and much less commonly in 

non-metro areas. 

Exhibit 2-7 also shows that non-Hispanic White households with worst case needs 

were more numerous than the other two largest race/ethnicity groups in all three 

metropolitan location types—central cities, suburbs, and non-metro areas. 

4 This estimate is based on Census Bureau figures for U.S. resident population in July 2007, relative 

to age cohorts that existed in July 2005. Births occurring within the U.S. thus are not counted but 

deaths are netted out. 

5 In the American Housing Survey, “householder” refers to the reference person who is responding to 

the survey, not necessarily to the head of household. 

12 Worst Case Housing Needs 
 

 

 

Exhibit 2-7. Worst Case Needs by Race/Ethnicity and Metro Type, 2007 

Metropolitan Location 

Race Central 

Cities 

Percent Suburbs Percent Nonmetro 

Areas 

Percent Totals Percent 

Non-Hispanic White 

(thousands) 

Households with 

Worst Case Needs 1,089 37.3% 1,064 36.5% 766 26.2% 2,919 100% 

Non-Hispanic Black 

(thousands) 

Households with 

Worst Case Needs 789 58.7% 417 31.0% 139 10.3% 1,345 100% 

Hispanic (thousands) 

Households with 

Worst Case Needs 690 55.9% 466 37.8% 78 6.3% 1,234 100% 

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

Housing Survey data 

Worst Case Needs by Family Types 

The composition of different households reflects variations in their stage of life, 

income, other resources, and housing needs. Exhibit 2-8 shows the differences among 

four household types and illustrates how the number of very low-income renters of 

these households relates to worst case needs for each group. 

Exhibit 2-8. Household Type and Worst Case Needs, 2005–2007 

Worst Case Housing Needs 13 
Families with Children
 

In 2007, 6.33 million very low-income renter households included one or more 

children under 18 years of age, and 2.19 million of these households had worst case 

housing needs. The resulting incidence of 34.6 percent is a non-significant change 

from the 35.9 percent rate in 2005. Both a lower incidence and a smaller number 

of very low-income renters contributed to the reduction of 140,000 in worst case 

needs among families with children. Families with children represented a large share 

(37.0 percent) of households with worst case needs in 2007. 

Another substantial fraction of very low-income renters with children (27.7 percent) 

have rental assistance, and, by definition, these 1.75 million households do not have 

worst case needs. 

Elderly Households 

HUD defines elderly households as those with either a household head or spouse who 

is at least 62 years of age and includes no children under 18 years of age. During 

2007, elderly households constituted 1.21 million, or 20.5 percent, of households with 

worst case needs. 

Between 2005 and 2007, the estimated number of elderly households with worst 

case needs declined by 80,000 and those that reported receiving housing assistance 

increased by 50,000. Among elderly very low-income renter households, 34.6 percent 

had worst case needs and 40.3 percent reported housing assistance in 2007. 

Households Including Persons with Disabilities 

In 2007, there were 602,000 non-elderly disabled households with worst case 

housing needs. Disabled households thus made up 10.2 percent of all worst case 

needs households (when families with children that also have an adult with disabilities are included, this proportion increases to 17.0 percent). In terms of incidence, 

35.3 percent of all non-elderly disabled very low-income renter households had 

worst case housing needs. This incidence level on its own is roughly comparable to 

the incidence of worst case needs among families with children (34.6 percent) and 

elderly households (34.6 percent) and somewhat below that for “other” households 

(43.2 percent). 

However, when examining incidence of worst case needs among unassisted very 

low-income renters, the rate for disabled households is the highest of the four family 

types considered. Almost two-thirds (65.6 percent) of unassisted very low-income 

renter households with disabilities have worst case housing needs. This is the highest 

incidence level, exceeding the second highest rate of elderly households (58 percent), 

and far above the rates among households with children (47.8 percent) and “other” 

households (47.7 percent). 

Between 2005 and 2007, the number of non-elderly disabled households with worst 

case needs declined from 694,000 to 602,000. However, the apparent decline in 

worst case needs among these households was not statistically significant and was 

14 Worst Case Housing Needs 
accompanied by two other changes in the data: (1) a decline in the total number 

of non-elderly disabled households from 1.767 million to 1.707 million; and (2) an 

increase in the number of such households that reported receiving housing assistance 

(thus removing them from those who could be considered as worst case needs) from 

703,000 to 790,000. It is likely that both of these changes were due to either changes 

in the AHS Survey between those two years (such as the change in the question 

on housing assistance) or other factors in the data, rather than overall population 

changes or an actual increase in the receipt of assistance. 

In 2008, PD&R issued a separate report on worst case needs among non-elderly 

disabled households, entitled, Housing Needs of Persons With Disabilities: Supplemental Findings to the Affordable Housing Needs 2005 Report (February 2008). This 

report was made possible by improved survey questions in the AHS about the receipt 

of various government supplemental income programs. The improved AHS Survey 

allowed the report to include better detail on housing needs among the disabled.6 

The report found that a larger portion of all households with worst case needs were 

in the non-elderly disabled household category.7 Based on these improvements, a 

household is counted as a “disabled household” if it (1) is non-elderly; (2) is without 

children present; and (3) reports having received assistance from Social Security, 

Supplemental Security Income (SSI), public welfare, or “worker’s compensation or 

other disability payment.” 

A key finding of the supplemental report was that in 2005 there were an additional 

365,000 households within the group of households with children that had worst case 

needs that also had an adult with a disability present.8 In 2007, this number increased 

to 404,000 households with children that also included an adult with disabilities. Note 

that these families are already counted within the families with children category discussed above. Together, these two groups—the non-elderly disabled households and 

households with children that also had an adult with disabilities present—represent 

more than 1 million households with worst case needs. This figure is 17.0 percent of 

all households with worst case housing needs. 

6 The improved 2005 estimate of 694,000 was an increase over the estimate of 540,000 households 

using the old methodology. The new method added a fourth income source to the proxy for disability, using a new question about “worker’s compensation, SSDI [Social Security Disability Income] or 

other disability payment,” which was added to the AHS beginning in 2005. See a discussion of the 

disability proxy in Appendix B, and in Housing Needs of Persons With Disabilities: Supplemental Findings to the Affordable Housing Needs 2005 Report (HUD, 2008). 

7 A review of past Affordable Housing Needs reports identified a mislabeled column heading in several appendix tables. Specifically, Tables A-6, A-7, and A-8 of Affordable Housing Needs 2005 and 

previous reports include a heading, “Nonfamily Reporting SSI Income.” This shorthand heading would 

be more accurately titled, “Nonelderly Disabled Household Without Children,” because it does not 

reflect that (1) families consisting of related individuals but no children are included, and (2) income 

types other than SSI were included in the three-source proxy. The mislabeled category contains 

those households that have nonelderly heads and no children present and reported income from 

Social Security, SSI, or welfare (variables QSS, QSSI, or QWELF for 2005, and QSS or QWELF for 

2003). When no children are present, welfare income is likely to be associated with disability rather 

than with children, as the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program notably would be. 

8 See Exhibit 4 in Housing Needs of Persons With Disabilities: Supplemental Findings to the Affordable Housing Needs 2005 Report (HUD, 2008). 

Worst Case Housing Needs 15 
Other Households 

The final household category shown in Exhibits 2-8 and 2-9 is other households, These 

are renter households that are not elderly, not disabled, and do not have children in 

the household. This group may be further broken down into “other families” (related 

persons without children) and “other non-family households” (single persons, or 

unrelated persons sharing housing), as shown in Appendix Table A-6a. 

As shown in Exhibit 2-9, of the 5.91 million households with worst case housing 

needs, 1.91 million were “other households.” These 1.91 million households included 

352,000 “other families” (related persons without children) and 1.56 million “other 

non-family households” (single persons or unrelated persons sharing housing). 

Between these two household types, the “other non-family households” had a higher 

incidence of worst case needs (46.0 percent of the 3.38 million total number of very 

low-income renter households) than the “other families” households (34.0 percent of 

the 1.03 million total very low-income renter households). 

Exhibit 2-9. Incidence of Worst Case Needs Among Unassisted Very Low-Income Renters, 

By Family Type, 2007 

Disabled 

Households 

Elderly 

Households 

Families with 

Children 

“Other 

Households” 

Total VLI Renter Households 1,707 3,492 6,329 4,413 

Number of Unassisted VLI Renters 917 2,083 4,578 3,997 

Number of WCN Households 602 1,209 2,187 1,907 

WCN as percent of VLI renters 35.3% 34.6% 34.6% 43.2% 

WCN as percent of Unassisted 

VLI Renters 65.6% 58.0% 47.8% 47.7% 

Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of 

American Housing Survey data 

Geography of Worst Case Needs 

Worst Case Needs by Region 

High levels of worst case needs are prevalent among very low-income renters in all 

of the four major regions—Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. Exhibit 2-10 shows 

that in the West, 40.0 percent of very low-income renters had worst case needs in 

2007. Incidence was 36.2 percent in the Northeast and 37.4 percent in the South. 

The Midwest had the lowest incidence, yet in this region too, more than one-third of 

very low-income renters, 34.3 percent, had worst case needs. The greater prevalence 

of worst case needs in the West to some extent reflects higher housing costs in the 

region. 

The population of very low-income renters reported by the AHS declined somewhat 

in much of the country between 2005 and 2007. Only in the Midwest did the number 

of very low-income renters increase (by 260,000). This addition was balanced by a 

comparable 250,000 decrease in the number of very low-income renters in the South 

16 Worst Case Housing Needs 
and exceeded by reductions of 50,000 in the Northeast and 90,000 in the West. As 

the most populous region, the South continues to provide homes for one-third (33 

percent) of very low-income renters, while the other three regions each have between 

21 and 24 percent of very low-income renters. 

Exhibit 2-10. Worst Case Needs and Housing Assistance by Region 

2003 2005 2007 

Northeast 

Very low-income renters (thousands) 3,444 3,538 3,487 

Worst case needs 1,146 1,354 1,263 

Percent with worst case needs 33.3% 38.3% 36.2% 

Midwest 

Very low-income renters (thousands) 3,327 3,331 3,587 

Worst case needs 1,009 1,152 1,230 

Percent with worst case needs 30.3% 34.6% 34.3% 

South 

Very low-income renters (thousands) 5,294 5,444 5,192 

Worst case needs 1,649 1,987 1,942 

Percent with worst case needs 31.1% 36.5% 37.4% 

West 

Very low-income renters (thousands) 3,592 3,759 3,673 

Worst case needs 1,371 1,500 1,470 

Percent with worst case needs 38.2% 39.9% 40.0% 

Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of 

American Housing Survey data 

Worst Case Needs by City, Suburb, and Non-Metro Area 

Worst case needs are distributed not only across all regions of the country but also 

throughout central cities, suburbs, and non-metropolitan areas. 

Central cities had the highest number of worst case needs, with 2.80 million households 

living there. However, families living in the suburbs had a higher likelihood of experiencing 

worst case needs—with 39.2 percent of very low-income renter households falling into 

that category compared to 37.7 percent in central cities. Even in non-metropolitan 

areas, almost one-third (32.1 percent) of very low-income households had worst case 

housing needs. Worst case needs households in non-metro areas made up 17.8 percent 

of all worst case needs. 

The changes in incidence for the 2005-to-2007 period are statistically insignificant for 

all three geographies. 

Worst Case Housing Needs 17 
Exhibit 2-11. Worst Case Needs and Housing Assistance in Central Cities, Suburbs, 

and Non-Metro Areas 

2003 2005 2007 

Central Cities 

Very low-income renters (thousands) 7,446 7,505 7,420 

Worst case needs renters (thousands) 2,532 2,909 2,800 

Percent with worst case needs 33.9% 38.8% 37.7% 

Suburbs 

Very low-income renters (thousands) 5,506 5,417 5,239 

Worst case needs renters (thousands) 1,987 2,092 2,052 

Percent with worst case needs 36.1% 38.6% 39.2% 

Non-Metropolitan Areas 

Very low-income renters (thousands) 2,685 3,149 3,281 

Worst case needs renters (thousands) 657 991 1,053 

Percent with worst case needs 24.5% 31.5% 32.1% 

Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of 

American Housing Survey data 

Transportation and Worst Case Needs 

The issue of affordable housing is inherently linked to a host of other critical issues, 

including access to jobs, schools, businesses, public services, and amenities. Households may choose to pay higher housing costs for better access to these necessities. 

Access to jobs in particular is a critical issue for working families because higher 

transportation costs will further erode already limited budgets of low-income families. 

The AHS provides some basic data on commuting times and distances of renter 

families, and these data are summarized here for households with worst case needs 

and other renters. 

Exhibit 2-12 provides estimates of renter households having persons working at a 

fixed location, including the number of these households with lengthy commutes. 

Those with lengthy commutes either needed more than 30 minutes or had to travel 

more than 20 miles to get to work. A substantial number of worst case needs households that were working had lengthy commutes. The data show that, of the 2.92 

million worst case needs households that were working at a fixed location, 583,000 

households, or 38 percent, had commutes that either took more than 30 minutes to 

get to work, or had a distance of more than 20 miles to do so, or both. 

These long commutes likely add a substantial burden to these households, who already 

experience high housing costs (and/or severely inadequate conditions). The data show 

that there is not always a tradeoff between housing and transportation times and costs, 

but that many families experience both high housing and transportation costs. 

18 Worst Case Housing Needs 
Exhibit 2-12. Commuting Times and Distances of Renter Households Working at a Fixed 

Location, by Income as Percent of AMI (thousands of households) 

0–30% 31–50% 51–80% All Renters 

All Renters 

Total 3,296 4,541 5,904 23,212 

Commute >30 minutes 500 790 1,046 4,593 

Commute distance >20 miles 341 570 906 3,670 

Commute >30 minutes and/or >20 miles** 616 926 1,298 5,565 

Worst Case Needs/Severe Problems* 

Total 1,963 958 439* – 

Commute >30 minutes 286 199 88 – 

Commute distance >20 miles 217 131 61 – 

Commute >30 minutes and/or >20 miles 358 225 98 – 

Assisted 

Total 773 563 358 – 

Commute >30 minutes 123 74 52 – 

Commute distance >20 miles 58 49 40 – 

Commute >30 minutes and/or >20 miles 146 85 62 – 

Table includes only renter households having persons who were working at a fixed location. Assisted households are included 

for comparison purposes. 

* Over 50% of median income is by definition not WCN – the households in this column are unassisted renters with a priority 

problem (but are over the income threshold for inclusion in worst case needs). 

** This row shows the number of renters with either type of long commute, or both of them (without double counting), and not 

an additional category of renters. 

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

Housing Survey data 

The AHS data for 2007 show that about two-thirds of homeowners who were working 

had shorter commutes (under 30 minutes or under 20 miles to get to work) while 

one-third had longer commutes (in both categories). About three-fourths of all renters 

who were working had shorter commutes by time (less than 30 minutes) and about 

85 percent had shorter commutes by distance (under 20 miles), with the remainder 

having longer commutes in both categories. 

Working Households With Worst Case Needs 

Among households with working-age, non-disabled family members, both their work 

participation and severe housing problems are issues of substantial policy interest. 

Numerous federal and state policies and programs focus on helping families move toward long-term self-sufficiency while providing short-term assistance for daily needs. 

The success of these policies, as well as the substantial impact of housing problems, 

including severe rent burdens, is a key issue and the analysis of worst case housing 

needs can shed substantial light on the issue. 

Worst Case Housing Needs 19 
Very Low-Income Renters With Significant Work Participation 

In 2007, 1.91 million very low-income renter households with worst case needs had 

earnings equivalent to a full-time job at the minimum wage.9 By this measure, worst 

case needs are found among 29 percent of the 6.48 million very low-income renters 

with significant work participation. These working, worst case needs households 

included 860,000 with extremely low incomes and 1.05 million with incomes between 

30 and 50 percent of area median income. 

Well over one-half (55.5 percent) of extremely low-income renter households with 

earnings exceeding a full-time minimum wage job nevertheless had worst case needs. 

A smaller but still significant portion (21.2 percent) of renters with significant work 

participation providing incomes of 30 to 50 percent of area median income had worst 

case housing needs. 

A more inclusive proxy for estimating workforce participation counts households that 

had earned income as their primary source of income.10 Based on this measure, out 

of 8.35 million very low-income renter households with earnings as their primary 

source of income, 3.14 million had worst case housing needs, with 2.07 million having 

extremely low incomes and 1.07 million having incomes of 30 to 50 percent of area 

median income. The incidence of worst case housing needs among these two groups 

was 60.9 percent for the extremely low-income group and a smaller but still substantial 21.6 percent for the higher income subset. 

These statistics show that lack of access to affordable housing is a substantial problem 

for the nation’s very low-income workforce. As discussed above, the overwhelming 

majority of these worst case needs are caused by severe rent burdens. The impact 

of severe rent burdens on the limited earnings of these very low-income households 

obviously is crucial in the lives of these families, accounting for a vast share of income 

and leaving little in disposable income for essential costs such as medical care, education, transportation, child care or other necessities. 

Worst Case Needs Among Families With Children and Earnings 

A substantial number of working worst case needs households also were families with 

children. Of the 1.91 million worst case needs households with earnings at least at 

full-time minimum wage, 1.0 million were families with children, including 540,000 

with extremely low incomes and 460,000 with incomes between 30 and 50 percent of 

area median income.11 

9 The AHS does not directly measure work participation. HUD uses household earned income of 

$10,300 as a proxy for full-time employment. This level of annual income is equivalent to 40 hours 

per week for 50 weeks at the national minimum wage of $5.15 per hour. The minimum wage increased to $6.55 in 2008. 

10 “Primary source of income” means their earnings represent 50 percent or more of household income. 

11 Low-income working families with children are eligible to receive a cash benefit through the federal 

Earned Income Tax Credit. The AHS does not capture this form of income. Berube (2006) reports 

that the average claimant in 2004 received roughly $1,800, or more than 10 percent of his or her 

annual income, from the federal credit, and that 19 states plus the District of Columbia offer their 

own earned income tax credits, matching the federal credit at rates ranging from 5 to 35 percent. 

20 Worst Case Housing Needs 
 

The number of worst case needs households that both were working and had children 

is even larger when defining “working” on the basis of earnings as being the primary 

source of income, with a total of 1.42 million families meeting all of these criteria. 

These 1.42 million families included 950,000 with extremely low incomes and 470,000 

with incomes between 30 and 50 percent of area median income. 

Similar to the pattern for working households overall, the incidence of worst case 

needs is higher for those very low-income families with children that have extremely 

low incomes. The 950,000 extremely low-income families with children having worst 

case housing needs represent 30.0 percent of the 1.80 million working extremely 

low-income families with children. For the 30 to 50 percent of area median income 

group, worst case needs are found in 18.5 percent of the 2.57 million working families 

with children. 

Housing Assistance Mitigates the 

Effect of Very Low Income 

By definition, households receiving housing assistance do not have worst case needs. 

Housing assistance from various sources plays a substantial role in reducing worst 

case housing needs. Among the 5.16 million renter households that reported receiving 

housing assistance in 2007, 84.6 percent had incomes below the very low-income 

threshold.12 There were 3.35 million assisted households with extremely low incomes, 

and another 1.02 million assisted households with incomes in the 30 to 50 percent 

of AMI range. Thus, 65 percent of assisted households had extremely low incomes 

placing them at a very substantial risk of experiencing worst case housing needs if 

they did not receive assistance. 

Applying the incidence estimates of Exhibit 2-1 to assisted renters with similar 

incomes (as reported in the AHS, see Table A-1) suggests that in the absence of 

assistance, an additional 2.74 million households would have worst case needs, 

including 2.46 million extremely low-income renters and 0.28 million renters with 

incomes of 30 to 50 percent of area median income. This simple estimate does not 

take account of any secondary effects such as changes in rents that might result from 

shifts in demand for unsubsidized housing. In addition, without rental assistance many 

households would become homeless. 

12 By comparison, 69.5 percent of 6.48 million households reporting rental assistance in 2005 had 

very low incomes. The 2007 estimate is closer to the targeting and totals for HUD’s assisted housing 

programs, a change that reflects improvements in the 2007 AHS that primarily excluded misreported 

assistance by higher-income households. See Appendix B for more detail on the changes in the 2007 

AHS Survey Questionnaire. 

Worst Case Housing Needs 21 
Summary 

In 2007, a total of 5.91 million very low-income renters had worst case housing 

needs, representing 5.3 percent of U.S. households and 37.0 percent of all very lowincome renter households. The number of worst case needs declined from 5.99 million 

households in 2005, but this change was statistically insignificant (i.e., within the 

margin for error). The level of 5.91 million households should also be considered in 

the context of a large overall increase in worst case housing needs from 5.01 million 

in 2001—a 17.9 percent increase during this longer period. 

Severe housing cost burdens, rather than severely inadequate housing, continue to 

be the predominant cause of worst case needs. Of the 5.91 million households with 

worst case needs, 97 percent had an excessive rent burden, while 7 percent lived in 

severely inadequate conditions. Of this latter group of 429,000 households, 242,000 

households faced both problems. 

22 Worst Case Housing Needs 
 

Chapter 3.
 

Availability of Affordable Housing Stock
 

Why Housing Supply Is an Issue 

Chapter 2 of this report focused mainly on describing who has worst case housing 

needs. This chapter examines the question of housing supply. 

Affordability, Availability, and Adequacy 

This chapter uses three concepts to assess the rental housing stock: affordability, 

availability, and adequacy. 

•	 Affordability measures the extent to which there are enough rental housing 

units of different costs to provide each household with a unit it can afford 

(based on the 30 percent of income standard). Affordability is the broadest 

measure of housing stock sufficiency, addressing whether there would be 

sufficient housing units 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 households within a particular income range. Some households 

choose to spend less than 30 percent of their incomes on rent, occupying 

housing that is affordable to households of lower income. These units are thus 

not available to the lower income households.1 A unit is available at a given 

level of income if it is affordable at that level and either (1) occupied by a 

household 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.2 

In this chapter, these concepts are examined in terms of data at the national level, 

and do not take into account important variations in local or metropolitan housing 

markets, although regional data are examined later in the Chapter, along with other 

variations such as those across central cities, suburbs and non-metropolitan areas. 

1 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, by caretakers) or because 

they are owned by relatives or friends of the occupants. 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. 

2 The AHS rates housing units using a three-level measure: adequate, moderately inadequate, and 

severely inadequate. For additional detail, see the entry for the variable ZADEQ in the Codebook 

for the American Housing Survey, Public Use File: 1997 and Later (U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development 2006). 

Worst Case Housing Needs 23 
Measures of Affordability and Availability 

Exhibit 3-1 describes the U.S. rental housing stock in 2007 using data from the American Housing Survey (AHS).3 For purposes of this analysis, income, and affordability 

are divided into intervals representing 5 percent of area median income (AMI). 

Exhibit 3-1. Three Measures Characterize the Sufficiency of the U.S. Rental Housing Stock, 2007 

The point at which the Affordable line crosses 100 represents the income level at 

which there is an affordable rental unit for every household. This point occurs at 

45 percent of AMI, meaning the number of rental housing units is sufficient—with ideal 

allocation—to provide affordable housing to households with incomes above 45 percent of area median income. This is unchanged from 2005. Affordable units peak at 

an income level of 85 percent of AMI. Beyond this, more households than housing 

units are being added. The downward slope beyond 85 percent of AMI represents a 

reduction in housing need, because the households with incomes greater than each 

successive threshold are more and more likely to spend less than 30 percent of their 

incomes on housing. 

The Affordable and Available line shows a different story. Its position below and to the 

right of the Affordable line indicates that availability is a substantial additional constraint. For example, the Affordable and Available line indicates that about 76 percent 

3 Measures of affordability and availability do not reflect small-scale geographic detail. The results 

presented in this chapter reflect large-scale measures that compare the entire housing stock with the 

entire rental population. Although this chapter presents more geographically restricted measures, 

they are still too large to fairly represent housing demand and supply as owners and renters experience them because these are local phenomena. Thus, these 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). 

24 Worst Case Housing Needs 
 

of households with incomes below 30 percent of AMI could be housed in affordable 

units if such units somehow could be perfectly allocated. The 76 percent figure is an 

increase from 68 percent in 2005 and about the same as the 78 percent in 2003. 

The Affordable and Available line shows that a considerable portion of the most affordable housing stock is occupied by households who could afford to spend more. 

As a result, many units that are affordable to lower income renters are not available 

to them. The affordable stock is nominally sufficient to house every household above 

45 percent of AMI, yet the available stock does not match the number of renters until 

household incomes reach 70-75 percent of AMI.4 This 70-percent balance point is 

about the same as it was in 2005 but is higher than the 65 percent of AMI that sufficed in 2003. 

The Affordable, Available, and Adequate line in Exhibit 3-1 shows that excluding physically inadequate units further reduces the sufficiency of the rental housing stock. Even 

for renters with low incomes up to 80 percent of median, only 95 adequate units are 

available per 100 renters. The adequate stock is not fully sufficient for demand until 

those units affordable only above 115 percent of AMI are included.5 

Rental Stock by Income 

Fewer affordable units are available to households with the lowest incomes. Exhibit 

3-2 illustrates this by presenting the housing stock measures for the standard income 

groups used in this report. There is a mismatch between the number of extremely 

low-income renters and the number of affordable units available to them. There are 

only 76.2 affordable units for every 100 extremely low-income households. The ratio 

of available units is about three-fifths as great, at 44.2 units per 100 households. 

If physically adequate units are required, only 37.4 are available per 100 extremely 

low-income households.6 

4 This statement interprets the horizontal difference between the Affordable and the Affordable/Available line, which can be understood as showing the income levels of families who are “displaced” by 

higher income households. The preceding example reflects the vertical difference between the lines, 

which represents the difference between nominal and available supply of affordable units for households of a given income level. 

5 The 2007 AHS dropped certain questions related to the state of common hallways, which had previously been included in the overall adequacy measure. Consequently, it is likely that some units are 

rated as adequate in 2007, which would not have been so rated in 2005. This is particularly true for 

apartments in larger structures. 

6 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 2006, 24). 

Worst Case Housing Needs 25 
Exhibit 3-2. Rental Housing Stock by Income Category, 2007 

Housing Units per 100 Households 

Income Affordable 

Affordable and 

Available 

Affordable, Available, 

and Adequate 

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 76.2 44.2 37.4 

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 112.9 73.9 66.5 

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 139.8 105.5 95.4 

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

Housing Survey data 

At the very low-income level there are enough units overall to house all renters, but 

there is a mismatch of available units here as well. There are only 74 available units 

for every 100 very low-income households, and fewer than 67 that are also physically 

adequate. At the higher levels of income, the available rental stock is sufficient to 

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

Exhibit 3-3 illustrates that the supply of affordable housing stock rose between 

2005 and 2007 relative to extremely low-income households but fell relative to very 

low-income households. The overall supply of affordable units per 100 extremely 

low-income renters increased by more than 8 units, from 67.6 to 76.2. For the same 

population, the deficiency in available units eased by more than 4 units per 100 

renters, from 39.9 to 44.2. On the other hand, very low-income renters experienced 

decreases in the stock under both the affordable measure (4 units) and the available 

measure (almost 3 units). Taking a somewhat longer view, the changes from 2003 

are generally in the direction of reduced supply, although the number of affordable 

and available units for extremely low-income households is basically unchanged. Very 

low-income households experienced a larger reduction in supply than did extremely 

low-income households during the 2003-to-2007 period. 

Exhibit 3-3. Trend in Rental Housing Stock by Income Category, 2003–2007 

Housing Units per 100 Households 

Change 

2003 2005 2007 2003–07 2005–07 

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

Affordable 78.2 67.6 76.2 – 2.0 + 8.6 

Affordable and available 44.0 39.9 44.2 + 0.2 + 4.3 

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 

Affordable 127.0 117.1 112.9 – 14.1 – 4.2 

Affordable and available 81.4 76.7 73.9 – 7.5 – 2.8 

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

Housing Survey data 

26 Worst Case Housing Needs 
Rental Stock by Location 

Deficiencies in the affordable and available stock are less severe in nonmetropolitan 

areas, as Exhibit 3-4 illustrates. The available stock is larger in nonmetropolitan areas 

at all levels of income above 15 percent of AMI, reaching the one-unit-per-household 

ratio around 60-65 percent of AMI, compared with 70-75 percent of AMI for cities and 

suburbs. 

The similar profiles of the city and suburb lines in Exhibit 3-4 show that on average, 

central cities and suburbs have about the same proportion of units available for every 

100 renters at all income levels. 

Exhibit 3-4. Nonmetropolitan Areas Have More Available Rental Units Than Cities and Suburbs 

Exhibit 3-5 summarizes the sufficiency patterns among cities, suburbs, and nonmetropolitan areas. Notably, although cities and suburbs display comparable availableunit-ratios—with slightly more than 40 units for every 100 extremely low-income 

renters and 68–72 units for every 100 very low-income renters—the underlying 

supply of affordable units is more constrained in central cities than in suburbs. The 

difference between the Affordable and the Available estimates implies that in cities, 

higher income households occupy about 30 units that would be affordable at very low 

incomes. Comparable displacement figures are 43 units in suburbs and 53 units in 

non-metropolitan areas. 

Worst Case Housing Needs 27 
Exhibit 3-5. Rental Housing Stock by Income Groups in Central Cities, Suburbs, and 

Nonmetropolitan Areas, 2007 

Housing Units per 100 Households 

Income Affordable 

Affordable and 

Available 

Affordable, Available, 

and Adequate 

Central Cities 

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 60.7 41.4 36.0 

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 102.7 72.3 64.1 

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 133.9 105.5 94.3 

Suburbs 

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 79.1 42.7 39.5 

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 110.6 68.1 62.8 

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 146.5 104.3 96.1

 Nonmetropolitan Areas 

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 108.4 53.0 48.7 

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 139.7 86.7 78.0 

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 141.5 107.4 96.7 

AMI = Area Median Income. 

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

Housing Survey data 

Exhibit 3-6 examines how affordability ratios and availability ratios changed across 

central cities, suburbs, and non-metropolitan areas during the 2003-to-2007 period. 

The key finding is that while the sufficiency of affordable and available units improved 

during the 2005-to-2007 period for every category of urbanization and income level, 

the opposite is true over the longer 2003-to-2007 period. 

Nonmetropolitan areas show smaller improvements over during the 2005-to-2007 

period and larger declines during the 2003-to-2007 period than do central cities and 

suburbs. Thus, although nonmetropolitan areas continue to have more favorable 

supply conditions, their relative advantage has declined. 

The very low-income category shows the smallest improvements during the 2005-to2007 period and the largest declines during the 2003-to-2007 period compared with 

the other two income categories. Although the extremely low-income category can 

hardly be said to have a satisfactory supply, its relative dearth has eased somewhat, 

particularly in the suburbs, where it shows the only improvement in affordable and 

available stock during the 2003-to-2007 period. 

28 Worst Case Housing Needs 
Exhibit 3-6. Trend in Rental Housing Stock by Income Groups in Central Cities, Suburbs and 

Nometropolitan Areas, 2003–2007 

Affordable 

Housing Units per 100 Households 

Affordable and Available 

Housing Units per 100 Households 

Difference Difference 

2003 2005 2007 2003–07 2005–07 2003 2005 2007 2003–07 2005–07 

Central Cities 

Extremely lowincome renters 

(0–30% AMI) 65.6 52.2 60.7 

Very lowincome renters 

–4.9 8.5 43 31.8 41.4 –1.6 9.6 

(0–50% AMI) 120.3 106.1 102.7 

Low-income 

renters 

–17.6 –3.4 81.5 64.1 72.3 –9.2 8.2 

(0–80% AMI) 137.4 133.9 133.9 

Suburbs 

Extremely lowincome renters 

–3.5 0.0 107.7 93.6 105.5 –2.2 11.9 

(0–30% AMI) 74.5 66.7 79.1 

Very lowincome renters 

4.6 12.4 39.1 32.4 42.7 3.6 10.3 

(0–50% AMI) 121.2 113.9 110.6 

Low-income 

renters 

–10.6 –3.3 73.3 64.6 68.1 –5.2 3.5 

(0–80% AMI) 149.6 145.3 146.5 

Nonmetropolitan areas 

Extremely lowincome renters 

–3.1 1.2 106.9 96.7 104.3 –2.6 7.6 

(0–30% AMI) 121.4 106.1 108.3 

Very lowincome renters 

–13.1 2.2 56.7 49.4 53.0 –3.7 3.6 

(0–50% AMI) 160.3 148.9 139.7 

Low-income 

renters 

–20.6 –9.2 97.6 82.6 86.7 –10.9 4.1 

(0–80% AMI) 155.1 140.9 141.5 –13.6 0.6 115.6 98.3 107.4 –8.2 9.1 

AMI = Area Median Income. 

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

Housing Survey data 

Exhibit 3-7 details the affordable, available, and physically adequate stock relative to 

renter populations in the four regions for each of the standard income categories. The 

West has the greatest mismatch, with considerably fewer units for every 100 households than the other three regions have. 

Worst Case Housing Needs 29 
Exhibit 3-7. Rental Housing Stock by Region and Income Category, 2007 

Housing Units per 100 Households 

Income Affordable 

Affordable and 

Available 

Affordable, Available, 

and Adequate 

Northeast 

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 73.1 47.8 42.2 

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 103.8 71.4 64.1 

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 132.7 100.0 89.7 

Midwest 

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 75.8 45.3 42.9 

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 139.8 92.6 85.9 

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 146.8 115.4 106.4 

South 

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 84.3 46.3 40.5 

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 118.1 74.7 65.4 

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 145.6 108.6 97.6 

West 

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 68.2 36.0 32.5 

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 88.1 56.9 51.6 

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 131.1 96.3 86.8 

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

Housing Survey data 

Sufficiency Relative to Fair Market Rent 

HUD establishes, for every housing market, a Fair Market Rent (FMR) that is intended 

to represent the cost of decent existing housing that is neither new, nor luxury, nor 

subsidized.7 The FMR is used in the largest housing assistance program, Housing 

Choice Voucher Program, to determine the maximum level of subsidy for assisted 

households. It is also used in other contexts as an indicator of reasonable housing 

costs in a given area. A natural question is whether the stock of housing renting for 

less than the FMR is adequate to meet the needs of households that can afford to pay 

no more than the FMR. 

Exhibit 3-8 illustrates that the rental stock is insufficient using the FMR standard as 

well. 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 households that 

can afford rents no higher than the FMR. 

7 In general, the FMR is the 40th percentile rent paid by recent movers for standard-quality units 

within each region. For further information, see http://www.huduser.org/datasets/fmr.html. 

30 Worst Case Housing Needs 
 

Exhibit 3-8. Rental Stock of Below-FMR Units, 2007 

Households 

(thousands) 

Housing Units 

(thousands) 

Housing Units 

per 100 Households 

Affordable 

Affordable 

and 

Available 

Affordable, 

Available, and 

Adequate Affordable 

Affordable 

and 

Available 

Affordable, 

Available, 

and 

Adequate 

All 20,097 23,627 17,017 15,329 117.6 84.7 76.3 

Northeast 4,478 5,153 3,912 3,497 115.1 87.4 78.1 

Midwest 3,842 4,826 3,451 3,182 125.6 89.8 82.8 

South 6,641 7,879 5,499 4,878 118.6 82.8 73.5 

West 5,135 5,769 4,155 3,773 112.3 80.9 73.5 

Cities 9,246 10,312 7,876 6,980 111.5 85.2 75.5 

Suburbs 6,946 8,316 5,754 5,300 119.7 82.8 76.3 

Nonmetropolitan 

areas 3,905 4,998 3,387 3,049 128.0 86.7 78.1 

FMR = Fair Market Rent. 

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

Housing Survey data 

Trends in Rental Stock 

Through 2007, the availability of the affordable rental stock has been relatively 

stable for more than two decades. Exhibit 3-9 shows the available rental units for 

every 100 households for the four standard income categories during the 1985-to2007 period.8 

Exhibit 3-9. Availability of Affordable Rental Units, 1985–2007 

8 This figure is based on custom tabulations of the American Housing Survey national data sets for 

odd-numbered years in the period. 

Worst Case Housing Needs 31 
Availability turned downward in 2005 for renters of all income groups below 80 percent of AMI, but most of the losses were recovered in 2007. Middle-income renters 

continued to experience stable supply during the 2003-to-2007 period. 

Exhibit 3-10 examines the factors responsible for the change in the availability of 

affordable units from 2005 to 2007. The HUD income limits rose by approximately 5 

percent during the period, although median household income (as measured in the 

AHS) rose about 5.25 percent.9 Other things being equal, this implies that a larger 

proportion of households would be in the higher income categories in 2007 than 

in 2005. Table 3-10 supports this implication; it shows decreases in the number of 

extremely low-income and very low-income households, although the very low-income 

decrease is much smaller in percentage terms. At the same time, the number of 

housing units affordable and available to extremely low-income households rose by 6 

percent, but the proportion affordable and available to very low-income households 

Exhibit 3-10. Factors Explaining Changes in Rental Housing Availability Rate, 2005–2007 

Extremely LowIncome Units 

(30% AMI) 

Very Low-Income Units 

(50% AMI) 

Low-Income Units 

(80% AMI) All Units

 Cumulative households (thousands) 

2005 9,982 16,324 23,812 33,951 

2007 9,555 16,251 23,902 35,054 

Percent change – 4.28 – 0.45 + 0.38 + 3.25

 Cumulative affordable and available housing units (thousands) 

2005 3,982 12,539 25,400 37,924 

2007 4,224 12,011 25,207 39,330 

Percent change + 6.08 – 4.21 – 0.76 + 3.71

 Income limit (median, current dollars) 

2005 14,804 24,665 39,402 NA 

2007 15,500 25,850 41,200 NA 

Percent change + 4.70 + 4.80 + 4.56 NA

 Median household income (all renters, current dollars) 

2005 26,000 

2007 27,364 

Percent change + 5.25

 Median monthly housing cost (all renters, current dollars) 

2005 672 

2007 722 

Percent change + 7.44 

AMI = Area Median Income. NA = data is not available. 

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

Housing Survey data 

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

32 Worst Case Housing Needs 
 

fell by 4.21 percent. As a consequence, the relative supply of affordable and available 

units for extremely low-income households rose but that of affordable and available 

units for extremely low-income households fell, as exhibit 3-3 illustrated. 

The reason for the difference between changes in extremely low-income and very 

low-income units is not clear. The median monthly housing cost for all rental units 

rose 7 percent between 2005 and 2007, which would imply a general reduction in 

the affordable stock. Preliminary analysis of the dynamics of the rental housing stock 

during the period, however, suggests that the extremely low-income stock gained 

from rental units filtering downward in cost, while the stock of strictly very low-income 

units10 experienced a net decline from filtering. In addition, the very low-income stock 

experienced a net loss of about 5 percent from units entering and leaving the rental 

stock,11 while the net change in the extremely low-income stock from these sources 

was essentially zero.12 

Changes in Rental Stock, 2005 to 2007, by 

Affordability Categories 

Additional evidence of the supply of affordable rental housing can be drawn from the 

HUD report, Rental Market Dynamics: 2005–2007 (June 2009).13 Exhibit 3-11 shows 

the change in rental units affordable to various income groups. Units are grouped 

into eight categories of affordability. At the lower end of the rent scale these groups 

include: non-market (either no cash rent or a subsidized rent), extremely low rent 

(affordable to renters with incomes that are less than 30 percent of the area median 

income), very low rent (affordable to renters with incomes between 30 and 50 percent 

of area median income), low rent (affordable to renters with incomes between 50 and 

60 percent of area median income), and moderate rent (affordable to renters with 

incomes within 60 to 80 percent of area median income). 

Between 2005 and 2007, there was an increase in the overall U.S. rental stock of 1.4 

million units (3.7 percent increase). However, at the lower end of the affordability 

scale, there was a large net loss of 1.14 million affordable units (10.8 percent) in the 

“very low rent” group—those rental units affordable to families between 30 and 50 

percent of area median income. These data show that overall changes in rental housing do not always directly benefit all segments of the stock itself. 

10 That is to say, units affordable at the very low income threshold, but not affordable at the extremely low income threshold. 

11 This would include new construction, demolition, conversion to and from owner-occupied status, 

conversion to and from nonresidential use, and so on. 

12 See “Rental Market Dynamics, 2005–2007,” (June 2009), prepared by Frederick J. Eggers and 

Fouad Moumen http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/cinch/cinch07/Rental_Mrkt_05-07.pdf 

13 “Rental Market Dynamics, 2005–2007,” (June 2009). It is important to note that the weights used 

in the Rental Market Dynamics report may differ from those used elsewhere in this report and thus 

unit counts cited here may not always be directly comparable to this report’s unit counts. 

Worst Case Housing Needs 33 
Exhibit 3-11. Rental Units by Affordability Categories, 2005–2007 (thousands) 

Affordability 

Categories 

Rental Units in 

2005 

Rental Units in 

2007 Change Percent Change 

Nonmarket 8,363,000 8,186,000 –177,000 –2.1 

Extremely low rent 2,262,000 2,201,000 –61,000 –2.7 

Very low rent 10,566,000 9,429,000 –1,137,000 –10.8 

Low rent 5,914,000 6,309,000 395,000 + 6.7 

Moderate rent 6,526,000 7,608,000 1,082,000 + 16.6 

High rent 1,916,000 2,367,000 451,000 + 23.6 

Very high rent 899,000 1,385,000 486,000 + 54.0 

Extremely high rent 1,473,000 1,840,000 366,000 + 24.9 

Total 37,919,000 39,324,000 1,405,000 + 3.7 

Source: American Housing Survey Rental Market Dynamics: 2005–2007 (HUD PD&R, 2009) 

Crowding 

While crowding (defined as more than one person per room) is not a component of 

the definition of worst case housing needs,14 it can be a symptom of affordability 

problems and housing-related stress. Households may double up, and young adults or 

couples may delay forming new households, because of an inability to afford their own 

units. This section examines the extent of crowding by income and location as well as 

the supply of large units relative to the number of large households.15 

Overall about 4.3 percent of renter households are crowded, as shown in Exhibit 

3-12. The incidence of crowding is significantly lower in non-metropolitan areas, 

3.2 percent, and higher in central cities, 5.1 percent. On a regional basis, the Midwest 

has substantially less crowding, 2.2 percent, and the West has substantially more 

(7.0 percent). These regional and metropolitan patterns match the ordering of the 

affordable and available stock ratios by metropolitan status and region, as illustrated 

in Exhibits 3-5 and 3-7. These parallels reinforce the hypothesis that crowding is a 

strategy for coping with reduced affordability. 

These patterns are slightly improved from 2005, when the overall incidence of crowding was 4.8 percent. The incidence of crowding by region and metropolitan status has 

fallen about in proportion for all categories, leaving the relative incidence unchanged. 

14 Crowding is classified as a moderate problem rather than a severe problem. 

15 For a more thorough discussion of crowding and its measurement using AHS data, see Blake, Kevin S. and Kellerson, Rebecca. Measuring Overcrowding in Housing. Prepared for the U.S. Department 

of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research by ICF Consulting. 

September 2007. http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/Measuring_Overcrowding_in_Hsg.pdf . 

34 Worst Case Housing Needs 
Exhibit 3-12. Geographic Pattern of Crowded Renter Households, 2007 

Households (thousands) Incidence per 100 Households 

All areas 1,511 4.31 

Metropolitan status 

Central cities 772 5.12 

Suburbs 516 3.99 

Nonmetropolitan areas 222 3.16 

Region 

Northeast 290 4.10 

Midwest 157 2.21 

South 445 3.68 

West 619 7.04 

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

Housing Survey data 

Larger households are much more likely than smaller households to be crowded. 

Exhibit 3-13 shows a substantially greater incidence of crowding among households 

with five or more persons, with 41 percent of such large households being crowded. 

Indeed, a renter household with five or more members is about eight times more 

likely to be crowded than a renter household with four persons. 

Despite the inverse relationship between income and crowding, extremely low-income 

households show less crowding than very low-income households do. The explanation 

is that extremely low-income households are more likely to be one-person households, which by definition cannot be crowded. 

Exhibit 3-13. Characteristics of Crowded Renter Households, 2007 

Households (thousands) Incidence per 100 Households 

All 1,511 4.31 

Income* 

Extremely low-income renters (≤30% AMI) 515 5.57 

Other very low-income renters (30–50% AMI) 437 6.52 

Other low-income renters (50–80% AMI) 318 4.15 

Middle-income renters (>80% AMI) 241 2.11 

Household size 

One person NA NA 

Two persons 69 0.74 

Three persons 29 0.55 

Four persons 205 5.04 

Five or more Persons 1,207 40.94 

AMI = Area Median Income. NA = data not available.
 

*Income categories in this table exclude lower income subsets.
 

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


Housing Survey data
 

Worst Case Housing Needs 35 
Crowding experienced by large families is not caused simply by a lack of large units. 

The number of affordable large units is abundant relative to the number of large 

households. In Exhibit 3-14, the Affordable line is entirely above the 100-units-perlarge-household line that denotes sufficient stock; in fact, the number of affordable 

units with five or more rooms is two to five times larger than the number of households with five or more persons. 

Exhibit 3-14. Insufficiency of Large Units is Primarily a Problem of Availability for Large Families, 

Not Affordability 

The main cause of crowding must be the lack of available affordable units. Thus, 

crowding does not appear to be caused by a lack of large units, but by the fact that 

smaller households prefer these units as well and keep them off the market. In addition, large units may be concentrated in certain areas, so that they are not available 

to large households in other areas. 

Exhibit 3-15 summarizes the supply of rental units with five or more rooms relative 

to households with five or more persons. Even at 30 percent of AMI, there are 396.4 

large units available for every 100 large renter households, and this increases to 

602.6 per 100 for middle income renters; however, only 64.3 units are available per 

100 extremely low-income households that need large units. Even for very low-income 

renters, there are only 86.4 units per 100 households. 

In terms of crowding experienced by families of different racial and ethnic types, 

Hispanic renter households are more likely to be crowded. In 2007, 9.5 percent of 

very low-income Hispanic households have no severe problems yet are overcrowded 

according to the one-person-per-room benchmark (Appendix, Table A-9). The corresponding values are 1.2 percent for Non-Hispanic White households and 2.8 percent 

for Non-Hispanic Black households. Hispanic families are more likely to live in multi36 Worst Case Housing Needs 
Exhibit 3-15. Metropolitan Patterns of Supply of Large Units for Large Households (five or more 

persons and five or more rooms only), 2007 

Units per 100 Large Households 

Affordable 

Affordable and 

Available 

Affordable, Available, 

and Adequate 

Nation 

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 396.4 64.3 61.5 

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 479.5 86.4 81.9 

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 602.6 122.9 116.2 

Central Cities 

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 236.7 48.2 44.8 

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 366.0 76.2 71.6 

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 497.4 115.5 108.6 

Suburbs 

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 477.0 78.0 76.5 

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 481.7 82.0 79.8 

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 646.7 119.6 115.6 

Nonmetropolitan areas 

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 705.1 87.9 84.8 

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 768.8 120.3 112.2 

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 775.7 146.4 135.3 

AMI = Area Median Income. 

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

Housing Survey data 

generational households in non-caregiving relationships (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). 

Non-Hispanic Blacks, and especially Whites, are less likely to live in this arrangement16 

and much less likely to be overcrowded. 

The importance of this association is compounded by the fact that Hispanics represent 

the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. population. The Hispanic population increased 

by 58 percent between 1990 and 2000, and is projected to increase another 34 percent by 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). 

Thus the availability of large units in regions where the Hispanic population is large is 

worthy of consideration. 

Hispanics are concentrated in the West, as 43 percent of the Hispanic population lived 

there in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). The West also is the region where the 

incidence of crowding is two-thirds greater than any other region (Exhibit 3-11) and it 

has the most severe shortage of affordable units for very low-income households, with 

only 56.9 units available for every 100 very low-income households (Exhibit 3-7). 

16 While 8 percent of both black and Hispanic adults over 30 were grandparents living with their 

grandchildren in 2000 (compared with 2 percent of non-Hispanic whites over 30), only 35 percent of 

these Hispanic grandparents lived there to care for the grandchildren, compared with 52 percent of 

the black grandparents (U.S. Census Bureau 2003). 

Worst Case Housing Needs 37 
Exhibit 3-16 shows that for every 100 large very low-income renter households in the 

West, only 43.1 large units are available. The availability of large affordable units is 

substantially more limited in the West than in other regions. The number of large units 

available for very low-income renters is fully sufficient in the Midwest and nearly so in 

the South, at least on a regional basis. 

Exhibit 3-16. Regional Patterns of Supply of Large Units for Large Households (five or more 

persons and five or more rooms only), 2007 

Units per 100 Large Households 

Affordable 

Affordable and 

Available 

Affordable, Available, 

and Adequate 

Northeast 

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 379.9 65.4 57.2 

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 520.2 80.5 74.2 

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 651.2 104.9 95.8 

Midwest 

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 469.5 71.6 69.5 

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 710.7 139.2 133.3 

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 817.9 181.8 173.6 

South 

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 415.8 73.7 71.7 

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 498.8 93.6 88.5 

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 647.1 143.9 136.8 

West 

Extremely low-income renters (0–30% AMI) 323.6 43.1 43.1 

Very low-income renters (0–50% AMI) 284.5 47.6 46.0 

Low-income renters (0–80% AMI) 396.1 72.7 68.7 

AMI = Area Median Income. 

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

Housing Survey data 

Summary 

One way to assess the condition of the market for affordable rental housing is to 

compare, on a cumulative basis, the number of affordable units with the number of 

renters relative to their income levels. This chapter has presented three such ratios, 

based on (1) affordable units, (2) affordable units that also are occupied by such 

renters or are available for rent, and (3) affordable and available units that also are in 

physically adequate condition. 

Nationwide in 2007, there existed a rental unit that would have been affordable for 

every renter household with income above 45 percent of area median income. This is 

about what it was in 2005. However, the comparable figure in 2003 was 40 percent, 

implying that the affordable rental stock decreased relative to the number of households in this critical very low-income range. 

38 Worst Case Housing Needs 
The number of affordable units that are actually available to households with the lowest incomes was substantially fewer than the number of apparently affordable units 

because many affordable units were rented to higher income families. Employing the 

Availability measure, the national supply of affordable units per renter household does 

not become sufficient until household incomes reach 70 percent of AMI. 

Available units become progressively harder to obtain at lower income levels. While 

there were 113 affordable units available per 100 low-income renters in 2007, the 

availability ratio was only 74 per 100 very low-income renters and 44 per 100 extremely low-income renters. National measures of affordability and availability do not 

fully reflect the regional concentrations or shortages of units relative to households. 

Nonmetropolitan areas have more affordable and available rental units than cities or 

suburbs. However, the immobility of housing makes such units inaccessible for very 

low-income renters who need them near their families and employment. In addition, 

larger households are much more likely than smaller households to be crowded, and 

large units also are distributed in areas where they are unavailable to large families. 

A substantial proportion of available units are physically inadequate. Employing the 

additional criterion of physical adequacy, the number of available units in 2007 was 

reduced from 74 to 67 units per 100 very low-income renters, and from 44 to 37 units 

per 100 extremely low-income renters. 

Occupancy by higher-income households restricts the supply of units renting for less 

than the Fair Market Rent to only about 85 percent of households who can afford only 

such units. This is about the same as the 84 units for every 100 households that were 

available in 2005 and an increase from the 79 units per 100 households that were 

available in 2003. The mixed change in availability of affordable units between 2005 

and 2007 can be attributed to a modest decrease in renter households that interacted 

with differential filtering of the housing stock for extremely low-income and very 

low-income households. For very low-income renters, both affordability and availability ratios declined from 2005 to 2007, and they declined even more from 2003 to 

2007. For extremely low-income renters, affordability and availability ratios improved 

from 2005 to 2007, although affordability is still below the levels recorded in 2003 and 

availability is no better than it was in 2003. 

Worst Case Housing Needs 39 
Chapter 4.
 

Worst Case Needs and Neighborhoods
 

Poverty and Neighborhood Distress 

This chapter examines worst case needs renters and the neighborhoods where they 

live. The analysis examines the poverty levels of neighborhoods where worst case 

needs renters live, and compares their residential patterns with all U.S. households 

and other very low-income renters. The comparison includes a breakdown of residential living patterns across central cities, suburbs, and non-metropolitan areas. 

Concentrated neighborhood poverty can have a significant impact on a household’s 

well-being. For example, studies indicate that living in areas with poverty rates of 20 

to 30 percent can have high social costs in terms of safety, quality of schools, municipal services, and access to employment opportunities. Evidence suggests that neighborhoods characterized by high concentrations of poverty of more than 40 percent can 

actually lead to a downward spiral of poverty for residents living there.1 

This chapter divides neighborhoods into four basic categories based on the percentage 

of people in poverty: 0 to 10 percent in poverty, 10 to 20 percent in poverty, 20 to 30 

percent in poverty, and 30 percent or greater in poverty.2 Nationwide, one-half of all 

neighborhoods (census tracts) fall into the first category with low poverty rates and 30 

percent of neighborhoods fall into the second category with moderate poverty rates of 

10 to 20 percent. The other two categories with high poverty rates (20 to 30 percent 

and 30 percent or greater) each contain 10 percent of the nation’s neighborhoods.3 

In this chapter, the prevalence of worst case needs households in each of the four 

neighborhood categories is compared with other household residential patterns: for all 

households in general, for renters, and for all very low-income renters. This analysis 

sheds some light on the question of whether the severe rent burden of worst case 

needs households may be due to a lack of affordable housing or a decision on their 

part to accept severe rent burdens as the price of locating to better neighborhoods 

when lower cost options are available. 

1 See, for example, Jargowsky (1997), Kingsley and Pettit (2003), “Areas of Concentrated Poverty: 

1999” U.S. Census Bureau (2005), and Galster (2006). 

2 “Neighborhoods” in this chapter are defined as census tracts. Census tracts generally have a population of between 1,500 and 8,000 people, with an optimum size of 4,000 people. Poverty rates in 

this chapter are calculated excluding college students, because the presence of students in some areas may result in a tract appearing to be a high-poverty area while the poverty rates of year-round 

residents may be quite low. 

3 The census tracts and appropriate neighborhood types are merged with the American Housing Survey (AHS) file. Weighting of the AHS sample provides estimates of housing units for each neighborhood and other specified categories 

40 Worst Case Housing Needs 
 

 

Worst Case Needs Households and 

Neighborhood Poverty Rates 

National Neighborhood Characteristics and 

Residential Patterns 

The first two exhibits in this chapter highlight basic characteristics of the different 

neighborhood types and enable comparison of residential patterns of worst case needs 

and other types of households nationally. 

First, Exhibit 4-1 shows the four basic categories of neighborhoods by poverty rate 

and key socio-economic factors. These factors include percent of owner-occupied 

housing, unemployment, educational achievement of residents, income levels, and 

reported neighborhood crime. As shown in the Exhibit, the factors are closely related 

with the overall poverty rate of the neighborhood, providing a good indication that 

neighborhood poverty rate often reflects a whole host of other socio-economic issues. 

This outcome is supported by a substantial amount of research that shows important 

correlations between neighborhood well-being and poverty rates. 

Exhibit 4-1. Neighborhood Characteristics 

< 10% 10–20% 20–30% 30% or > Average 

Neighborhood Characteristicsa 

Population densityb 3,906 6,825 11,868 17,005 6,233 

Percent in owner-occupied housing 75.3 58.0 45.1 33.9 65.4 

Percent unemployedc 3.7 6.4 9.9 15.5 5.7 

Percent bachelors degree or higher 36.8 21.1 15.9 11.8 28.8 

Average median family income 65,795 41,920 32,141 23,547 53,239

 Central cities 68,120 43,537 32,026 23,096 49,050

 Suburbs 68,681 43,274 32,912 24,660 61,175

 Non-metropolitan areas 54,559 39,728 31,779 24,307 44,379 

Percent of households that responded:

 Neighborhood has crime 12.0 16.3 24.2 32.0 15.5

 Public elementary school is unsatisfactory 1.3 1.8 2.6 3.7 1.7 

a Average values of neighborhood characteristics are given for each neighborhood type. The statistics on educational attainment, 

neighborhood crime, and satisfaction with elementary schools are from the 2007 American Housing Survey (AHS). The remaining 

variables are from the 2000 Decennial Census. 

b Population per square mile. 

c The percent unemployed excludes college towns. It is from the 2000 Decennial Census and may vary from the Consumer 

Population Survey (CPS) measure of unemployment. The unemployment rate in 2007 was 4.6 percent. 

Source: Census Bureau tabulations of 2007 AHS and 2000 Decennial Census data performed under contract to Department of 

Housing and Urban Development 

Worst Case Housing Needs 41 
 

Exhibit 4-2 shows the residential distribution of all households nationally across the 

four types of neighborhoods. It provides information on where renters and homeowners reside across the neighborhood types and whether these households are located 

within a central city or suburb of a metropolitan statistical area (MSA), or in a nonmetropolitan area outside an MSA. This information will be useful for comparison 

with the chapter’s later findings on the neighborhood distribution of worst case needs 

households. These data will be used to compare the neighborhood quality of worst 

case needs households with that of other households and renters. 

Generally, the Exhibit shows that most of the poorer neighborhoods are located in 

central cities, and relatively few exist in suburban and non-metropolitan areas. The 

results show that 28 percent of all housing units in central cities are located in highpoverty neighborhoods. In comparison, only 6 percent of housing in the suburbs and 

only 14 percent of housing in non-metropolitan areas are located in neighborhoods 

with high levels of poverty. Nationwide, out of an estimated 16.6 million housing 

units located in poorer neighborhoods (greater than 20 percent poverty), more than 

one-half (8.7 million) are situated in central cities. In contrast, less than one-fifth (2.9 

million) of housing units in high poverty neighborhoods are located in suburban areas 

and less than one-fourth (4.0 million) are found in non-metropolitan areas. 

Exhibit 4-2. Distribution of Renter Households by Neighborhood Poverty and Metropolitan Status 

Census Tracts with Non-College Poverty Rates of: 

(Numbers in 1,000s) < 10% 10–20% 20–30% 30% or > Total 

Central Cities 

Renters in central cities 4,311 5,172 2,653 2,955 15,091

 percent of renters in central cities 28.6 34.3 17.6 19.6 100 

All occupied housing units 12,677 9,980 4,500 4,242 31,399

 percent of occupied units in central cities 40.4 31.8 14.3 13.5 100 

Suburbs 

Renters in suburban areas 7,606 3,811 1,035 474 12,926

 percent of renters in suburban areas 58.8 29.5 8.0 3.7 100 

All occupied housing units 36,502 10,226 2,004 939 49,671

 percent of occupied units in suburban areas 73.5 20.6 4.0 1.9 100 

Non-Metropolitan Areas 

Renters in non-metropolitan areas 2,220 3,439 926 453 7,037

 percent of renters in non-metropolitan areas 31.5 48.9 13.2 6.4 100 

All occupied housing units 12,000 13,677 2,832 1,140 29,649

 percent of occupied units in non-metro areas 40.5 46.1 9.6 3.8 100 

National Total 

All renters 14,137 12,422 4,614 3,882 35,054

 percent of all renters 40.3 35.4 13.2 11.1 100 

All occupied housing units 61,179 33,883 9,336 6,321 110,719

 percent of all occupied housing units 55.3 30.6 8.4 5.7 100 

Source: Census Bureau tabulations of 2007 American Housing Survey and 2000 Decennial Census data performed under 

contract to Department of Housing and Urban Development 

42 Worst Case Housing Needs 
 

Distribution of Worst Case Needs Households By Neighborhood Type 

Exhibit 4-3 illustrates where worst case needs households reside by neighborhood 

type, both nationwide and across central cities, suburbs and non-metropolitan areas. 

Nationally, 70.2 percent of worst case needs households live in neighborhoods with 

less than 20 percent poverty: 34.9 percent live in low poverty neighborhoods and 35.3 

percent live in neighborhoods with moderate poverty rates. Nationally, 29.8 percent 

of worst case needs households reside in poorer neighborhoods with poverty rates 

greater than 20 percent, including 13.6 percent in neighborhoods with poverty rates 

greater than 30 percent. 

Exhibit 4-3. Distribution of Worst-Case and Very Low-Income Renters 

by Neighborhood Poverty and Metropolitan Status 

Census Tracts with Non-College Poverty Rates of: 

(Numbers in 1,000s) < 10% 10–20% 20–30% 30% or > Total 

Central Cities 

Worst-case renters 670 908 605 617 2,801

 as percent of all worst-case renters 23.9 32.4 21.6 22.0 100.0 

VLI renters 1,504 2,422 1,484 2,010 7,420

 as percent of all VLI renters 20.3 32.6 20.0 27.1 100.0 

Gap: % WCN > % all VLI renters 3.7 –0.2 1.6 –5.1 

Suburbs 

Worst-case renters 1,081 652 203 115 2,051

 as percent of all worst-case renters 52.7 31.8 9.9 5.6 100.0 

VLI renters 2,563 1,796 569 310 5,238

 as percent of all VLI renters 48.9 34.3 10.9 5.9 100.0 

Gap: % WCN > % all VLI renters 3.8 –2.5 –1.0 –0.3 

Non-Metropolitan Areas 

Worst-case renters 310 522 150 72 1,053

 as percent of all worst-case renters 29.4 49.6 14.2 6.8 100.0 

VLI renters 806 1,670 515 293 3,282

 as percent of all VLI renters 24.6 50.9 15.7 8.9 100.0 

Gap: % WCN > % all VLI renters 4.9 –1.3 –1.4 –2.1 

Total, All Areas 

Worst-case renters 2,061 2,082 958 804 5,905

 as percent of all worst-case renters 34.9 35.3 16.2 13.6 100.0 

VLI renters 4,873 5,887 2,568 2,613 15,940

 as percent of all VLI renters 30.6 36.9 16.1 16.4 100.0 

Gap: % WCN > % all VLI renters 4.3 –1.7 0.1 –2.8 

Source: Census Bureau tabulations of 2007 American Housing Survey and 2000 Decennial Census data performed under 

contract to Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Worst Case Housing Needs 43 
Further analysis by central cities, suburbs, and non-metropolitan areas provides some 

interesting findings. Worst case needs households are much more concentrated in 

high poverty neighborhoods in central cities and much less so in both suburbs and 

non-metropolitan areas. Although most of the 56.3 percent of worst case households 

in central cities still reside in neighborhoods with less than 20 percent poverty, the 

43.6 percent of the distribution that live in high poverty areas is much higher than the 

national average of 29.8 percent of all worst case needs households that live in such 

areas nationally. 

The suburban and non-metropolitan areas have much lower proportions of worst case 

households, 15.5 and 21.0 percent, respectively, in their high poverty neighborhoods. 

These lower rates in both suburban and non-metropolitan areas reflect the fact that 

far fewer housing units overall are located in high poverty neighborhoods in these 

geographic areas, as shown in Exhibit 4-2. 

The remainder of this chapter compares the residential patterns of worst case needs 

renters with those of all U.S. households, all renters, and very low-income renters 

overall. 

Comparison With All U.S. Households and Renters 

The comparison of worst case needs renters shown in Exhibit 4-3 with all renters 

and homeowners shown in Exhibit 4-2 illustrates that a considerably higher portion of worst case needs households live in high poverty neighborhoods. The 29.8 

percent of worst case needs households that reside in neighborhoods with poverty 

rates greater than 20 percent is disproportionately higher than the 24.3 percent of 

all renter households and the 14.1 percent of all households. In contrast, the lowpoverty neighborhoods include only 34.9 percent of worst case households, despite 

containing 40.3 percent of all renters and 55.3 percent of all households. These 

results might be expected because the concentration of worst case needs households 

in neighborhoods with high poverty rates reflects the lower rents that typically exist 

in poorer neighborhoods. 

Comparison With All U.S. Very Low-Income Renter Households 

How the neighborhood quality of worst case needs households compares with that 

of all very low-income renters is also of great interest. Because worst case needs 

households are very low-income renters themselves, one might expect their choice 

of neighborhoods within each locality to be roughly consistent with very low-income 

renters overall. Indeed, the distribution of very low-income renters presented in 

Exhibit 4-3 shows a very similar distribution to worst case needs households among 

the different neighborhood types. 

The residential patterns of worst case needs renters also track very similarly to those 

of very low-income renters overall in each of the three types of geography considered: 

central cities, suburbs, and non-metropolitan areas. In central cities, 43.6 percent of 

worst case needs households live in neighborhoods with poverty rates of 20 percent 

or more. This rate is only slightly below the 47.1 percent rate of all very low-income 

44 Worst Case Housing Needs 
renters who live in these areas. Housing is relatively less expensive in neighborhoods 

with high rates of poverty, but worst case needs households still experience severe 

rent burden living there. 

As discussed previously, the suburbs and non-metropolitan areas present a very 

different picture. Much lower percentages of worst case needs households reside in 

high-poverty neighborhoods in the suburbs and non-metropolitan areas because few 

of these types of neighborhoods exist in these geographic areas. In suburban areas 

approximately one-half of both worst case needs households and renters with very low 

incomes live in neighborhoods with the lowest poverty rates. These high percentages 

of very low-income renters in low-poverty neighborhoods reflect the fact that numerous suburban areas have few neighborhoods with high poverty rates. As a result, the 

only suburban residential options that very low-income renters have are likely to be 

located in low-poverty neighborhoods, but cause them severe rent burdens. 

In non-metropolitan areas, nearly 30 percent of worst case needs households live in 

low poverty neighborhoods and about one-half of both worst case needs households 

and all very low-income renters live in neighborhoods with moderate poverty levels. 

Similar to suburban areas with low-poverty neighborhoods, numerous non-metropolitan areas consist predominantly of neighborhoods with moderate poverty rates and few 

high poverty ones. These areas, therefore, present very low-income renters with few 

choices about whether to lease housing that would result in a very high rent burden. 

One interesting difference between worst case needs households and very low-income 

renters overall is the small national gap of 4.3 percentage points between the proportion of worst case needs households (34.9 percent) and that of all very low-income 

renters (30.6 percent) residing in low poverty areas. Although very small, this difference seems to show that worst case needs renters are slightly more likely to live 

in low poverty neighborhoods than very low-income renters overall. However, when 

renter households receiving government housing assistance are taken into account, 

the 4.3 percentage difference is reduced to only 1.4 percent (which is not statistically 

significant). This is because assisted households tend to be more concentrated in 

higher poverty neighborhoods for a variety of reasons, including the locations where 

public housing was constructed decades ago (Table A-15 in Appendix A shows more 

detail). This analysis thus does not provide support for the contention that worst case 

needs households in the aggregate are incurring severe rent burdens as a result of 

“strategic behavior” to locate in better neighborhoods. 

As stated, a goal of this chapter is to explore the question of whether worst case 

needs households may be incurring severe rent burdens as a strategic decision to “buy 

up” into better quality neighborhoods. Overall, the data presented in this chapter do 

not provide much support for that contention. Rather, there is significant evidence that 

the lack of affordable housing, regardless of location, is the reason why households 

with worst case needs experience severe rent burden. 

Worst Case Housing Needs 45 
Summary 

This chapter examined the extent to which worst case needs households are living 

in distressed neighborhoods. It also explored the related question of whether worst 

case needs households incurred severe rent burdens in order to live in low-poverty 

neighborhoods. 

A majority of worst case needs households live in lower poverty areas. However, a 

considerably higher percentage of worst case needs households live in high-poverty 

neighborhoods compared with all U.S. households overall. Nearly one-third of 

households with worst case housing needs were living in high-poverty neighborhoods in 2007 compared with less than one-fourth of all renters and less than 15 

percent of all households. 

More than 40 percent of worst case needs households in central cities live in highpoverty neighborhoods. Even in high-poverty neighborhoods, where housing is less 

expensive, worst case needs households still incur severe rent burdens living there. 

The prevalence of worst case needs households in the four neighborhood types classified by poverty level corresponds very closely to that of very low-income renters. This 

was true even though worst case needs households share the same income group as 

very low-income renters but sustain severe rent burdens. In very low-poverty neighborhoods nationally, only a 4.3-percentage point disparity was found in the concentration of worst case needs households compared with very low-income renters. 

For worst case needs households in low-poverty neighborhoods, no strong evidence 

supported the hypothesis that, overall, they incurred severe cost burdens in order to 

live in those more favorable neighborhoods. 

46 Worst Case Housing Needs 
Chapter 5.
 

Background and Methodology
 

Since 1991, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has issued 

regular reports to Congress on worst case needs for housing assistance among the nation’s very low-income renters. These reports developed from requests from Congressional Committees in the 1980s for information on housing needs. In 1990, the U.S. 

Senate Appropriations Committee directed HUD to “resume the annual compilation of 

a worst case housing needs survey of the United States... [to estimate] the number of 

families and individuals whose incomes fall 50 percent below an area’s median income, who either pay 50 percent or more of their monthly income for rent, or who live 

in substandard housing.”1 This report is the twelfth in a series of Worst Case Needs 

reports to Congress, prepared by HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research.2 

Households with worst case needs are defined as unassisted renters with very low 

incomes (below 50 percent of the area median income) who pay more than one-half 

of their income for housing or live in severely substandard housing. HUD originally 

developed the definition of worst case needs in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget and Congressional Committees. It was based on the federal 

preference rules that prioritized admissions for housing assistance programs in the 

1980s and early 1990s. To assess changes over time, HUD has retained this consistent 

definition of worst case needs for affordable housing. 

Although federal preferences for housing assistance have been repealed, the current 

definition of worst case needs is still highly useful. As stated, a consistent definition 

makes it possible to assess changes over time, and severe rent burden and physical 

adequacy of living conditions remain key indicators of the overall need for safe and 

affordable housing. 

1 Committee Report to accompany H.R. 5158, The VA-HUD Appropriations Act for FY 1991 (S. Rpt. 

101-474). 

2 HUD’s previous reports to Congress about worst case housing needs are as follows: 

•	 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). 

These publications are available on line at http://www.huduser.org. 

Worst Case Housing Needs 47 
 

The American Housing Survey 

This report uses data from the latest available American Housing Survey (AHS) in 

2007. The AHS is sponsored by HUD and 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 of existing resources, determining the need for additional resources, and the form 

housing assistance should take. 

Explanation of Household Income Categories 

Many HUD programs and other federal housing programs use specific income limits 

to determine whether households qualify for those programs. HUD has developed a 

useful means of establishing these income limits so they reflect area income levels. 

Income limits are set on the basis of area median incomes for each metropolitan area 

and non-metropolitan county. Area median incomes are also adjusted for family size 

before income limits are determined. 

The terms “low-income,” “very low-income,” and “extremely low-income” used in this 

report follow the specific meanings of those terms as used in several of HUD’s affordable housing programs: 

•		 Low-income. Not more than 80 percent of area median income. Defined by the 

United States Housing Act of 1937 and used as an income limit for many rental 

and homeownership programs. 

• Very low-income. Not more than 50 percent of area median income. Defined 

by the United States Housing Act of 1937 and used as an income limit for 

many rental programs. 

•		 Extremely low-income. Not more than 30 percent of area median income. 

Although “extremely low income” is not a defined term in the U.S. Housing 

Act of 1937, the income threshold itself is used for the purpose of establishing 

admissions standards in HUD’s major rental assistance programs. 

Exhibit 5-1 illustrates income limits for selected U.S. cities. 

For the detailed methodology on setting HUD income limits for fiscal year 

2007, see http://www.huduser.org/datasets/il/il07/IncomeLimitsBriefingMaterial.pdf. 

48 Worst Case Housing Needs 
 

Exhibit 5-1. HUD Income Limits in Selected Cities, Fiscal Year 2007 

Annual Income for a Four-Person Household 

30% AMI ($) 50% AMI ($) 80% AMI ($) AMI ($) 

New York City 21,250 35,450 56,700 56,800 

Los Angeles 22,200 37,000 59,200 56,500 

Chicago 22,600 37,700 59,600 69,800 

Houston 18,300 30,500 48,800 57,300 

Philadelphia 21,650 36,050 57,700 71,600 

Phoenix 18,050 30,050 48,100 59,100 

Jacksonville 18,100 30,150 48,250 59,700 

Washington, DC 28,350 47,250 60,000 94,500 

Denver 21,500 35,850 57,350 71,400 

Atlanta 21,350 35,600 56,950 67,100 

Seattle 23,350 38,950 59,600 75,600 

Worst Case Needs by Definition Are Below the 

“Very Low-Income” Threshold 

Exhibit 5-2 shows how the two severe problems (severely inadequate housing and 

severe rent burden), represented by the smaller ovals, combine with the very lowincome limits, represented by the large oval, to constitute worst case housing needs. 

The large oval represents the total universe of 11.57 million unassisted very lowincome renter households, as reported by the AHS in 2007. Of these very low-income 

renter households, 5.67 million do not have either of the severe problems, while 5.91 

million households have one or both of the severe problems constituting worst case 

housing needs. 

Exhibit 5-2. Bird’s Eye View of Worst Case Housing Needs in 2007 

Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of 

American Housing Survey data 

Worst Case Housing Needs 49 
 

Although the United States has a total of 35.05 million renter households, the diagram 

does not show the 19.11 million renters who are outside the largest oval, because 

they have incomes above the very low-income threshold or receive some form of 

housing assistance. A substantial number of these households—those represented by 

the overhanging portions of the small ovals—also face severe problems, especially severe rent burden. Among all renters, 8.45 million have one or both severe problems. 

Housing Assistance and Affordable Housing Programs 

HUD provides rental housing assistance through three key programs: 

•		 Public housing. This program provides affordable housing to 1.1 million 

families. The units are 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. The project-based Section 8 program 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. Administered through local PHAs, the Section 

8 voucher program assists more than 2.0 million families to help pay their rent 

in the private rental market. Although 30 percent is a baseline, families often 

pay more than 30 percent of their income in rent and may 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 rental subsidies (such as vouchers), extremely low-income 

families would often have to pay well over 30 percent of their income to occupy for 

units in these programs. 

These programs include the following: 

•		 Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program. This tax credit program subsidizes the capital costs of units that will have rents affordable to households 

with incomes at or below 60 percent of area median income. Between 1995 

and 2006, approximately 16,800 projects with 1.23 million units were placed 

into service through the LIHTC program.3 

3 For more information on the LIHTC program, see: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, January 2009. Updating the Low-Income Housing 

Tax Credit (LIHTC) Database: Projects Placed in Service Through 2006. Available at: http://www. 

huduser.org/intercept.asp?loc=/Datasets/lihtc/report9506.pdf. 

50 Worst Case Housing Needs 
•		 HOME Investment Partnership (HOME). This program provides annual formula 

grants to state and local governments that can be used to assist homeowners, 

first-time homebuyers, or renters. Between 1992 and 2007, HOME provided 

subsidies for 307,000 affordable rental units (138,000 new construction, 

153,000 rehabilitation, and 16,000 acquisition). Qualifying rents must be 

affordable to households with incomes at or below 65 percent of area median 

income or must be below local Fair Market Rents, whichever is less. 

•		 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). HOPWA funds have 

been available to state and local governments and non-profits by annual formula and competitive grants since 1992. Currently, 67,000 low-income households receive housing assistance that serves as a base for participating in 

care and HIV treatment. Assistance is targeted to a special needs population. 

Grantees report that 77 percent of recipients have extremely low incomes, and 

another 16 percent have very low incomes. 

• Older rental subsidy programs. Programs named for sections of the National 

Housing Act, primarily the Section 221(d)(3) Below Market Interest Rate 

(BMIR) 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 “Programs of HUD, 2006: Major 

Mortgage, Grant, Assistance, and Regulatory Programs” (HUD 2006a). 

Worst Case Housing Needs 51 
References
 

Berube, Alan. 2006. Using the Earned Income Tax Credit To Stimulate Local Economies. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. http://www.brook.edu/metro/pubs/ 

Berube20061101eitc.pdf. 

Blake, Kevin S., and Rebecca Kellerson. 2007 (September). Measuring Overcrowding 

in Housing. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

Office of Policy Development and Research by ICF Consulting. http://www.huduser. 

org/publications/pdf/Measuring_Overcrowding_in_Hsg.pdf. 

Eggers, Frederick J., and Fouad Moumen. 2007. Rental Market Dynamics: 2003–2005. 

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

and Research. http://www.huduser.org/datasets/cinch.html. 

______. 2009. American Housing Survey Rental Market Dynamics: 2005–2007. 

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

Policy Development and Research. http://www.huduser.org/datasets/cinch/cinch07/ 

Rental_Mrkt_05-07.pdf. 

Galster, George,2002. “An Economic Efficiency Analysis of Deconcentrating Poverty 

Populations” Journal of Housing Economics 11:303-29. 

Jargowsky, Paul A. 1997. Poverty and Place; Ghettos, Barrios, and the American City. 

New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 

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. www.jchs.harvard.edu. 

Khadduri, Jill, Kimberly Burnett, and David Rodda. 2003. Targeting Housing Production 

Subsidies: Literature Review. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

Office of Policy Development and Research. http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/ 

targetinglitreview.pdf. 

Kingsley, G. Thomas, and Kathryn L.S. Pettit. 2003. “Concentrated Poverty: A Change 

in Course.” In Neighborhood Change in Urban America, No. 2. Washington, DC: Urban 

Institute. www.urban.org/nnip. 

Shroder, Mark. 2002. “Does Housing Assistance Perversely Affect Self-Sufficiency? A 

Review Essay,” Journal of Housing Economics 11: 381–417. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. The Hispanic Population: 2000. Census 2000 Brief 

C2KBR/01-3. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. 

______. 2003. Grandparents Living With Grandchildren: 2000. Census 2000 Brief 

C2KBR-31. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. 

______. 2004. U.S. Interim Projections by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 2000-

2050. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj. Washington, DC: U.S. Census 

Bureau. 

52 Worst Case Housing Needs 
______. 2005. American Housing Survey for the United States: 2003. Series 

H150/03, Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division. http://www.census. 

gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs.html. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R). 2003. Trends in Worst Case Needs for Housing, 

1978–1999: A Report to Congress on Worst Case Housing Needs—Plus Update on 

Worst Case Needs in 2001. http://www.huduser.org/publications/affhsg/worstcase03. 

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

Policy Development and Research. 

______. 2005a. Affordable Housing Needs: A Report to Congress on the Significant 

Need for Housing. http://www.huduser.org/publications/affhsg/affhsgneed.html. 

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

Development and Research. 

______. 2005b. “FY 2005 HUD Income Limits Briefing Material.” http://www.huduser. 

org/datasets/il/il05/index.html. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. 

______. 2006a. Programs of HUD: Major Mortgage, Grant, Assistance, and Regulatory 

Programs. http://www.huduser.org/resources/hudprgs/ProgOfHUD06.pdf. Washington, 

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

______. 2006b. U.S. Housing Market Conditions. http://www.huduser.org/periodicals/ 

ushmc.htm. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

Office of Policy Development and Research. 

______. 2006c. Fair Market Rents. http://www.huduser.org/datasets/fmr.html. 

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

Development and Research. 

______. 2006d. Codebook for the American Housing Survey, Public Use File: 1997 

and Later. http://www.huduser.org/datasets/ahs/ahsprev.html. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and 

Research. 

______. 2008a. The Third Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress. http:// 

www.hudhre.info/documents/3rdHomelessAssessmentReport.pdf. Washington, DC: 

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

and Research. 

______. 2008b. Housing Needs of Persons With Disabilities: Supplemental Findings to 

the Affordable Housing Needs 2005 Report.” (February 2008). http://www.huduser. 

org/publications/affhsg/affhsgneedsdis.html. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. 

______. 2009. Updating the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Database: 

Projects Placed in Service Through 2006. http://www.huduser.org/intercept.asp?loc=/ 

Datasets/lihtc/report9506.pdf. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. 

Worst Case Housing Needs 53 
Appendix A. 

Data on Housing Problems and Supply of 

Affordable Housing 

List of Tables 

Table A–1a. Housing Conditions of Renter Households by 

Relative Income, 2005 and 2007 ..................................................................... 57
 

Table A–1b. Housing Conditions of Owner Households by 

Relative Income, 2005 and 2007 ..................................................................... 58
	

Table A–2a. Housing Conditions of Renters and Owners, 

1995–2007—Number of Households................................................................. 59
 

Table A–2b. Housing Conditions of Renters and Owners, 

1995–2007—Percentage of Households ............................................................ 60
	

Table A–3. Housing Conditions of Unassisted Renter Households by 

Relative Income, 2005 and 2007 ..................................................................... 61
	

Table A–4. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Renters by 

Relative Income, 2005 and 2007—Number and Percentage ................................. 62
	

Table A–5. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters by 

Household Type, 2005 and 2007—Number and Percentage.................................. 65
	

Table A–6a. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Very 

Low-Income Renters by Household Type, 2007 .................................................. 67
	

Table A–6b. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Extremely 

Low-Income Renters by Household Type, 2007 .................................................. 69
	

Table A–7. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Worst Case Renters by 

Household Type, 2007....................................................................................71
 

Table A–8. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Extremely 

Low-Income Worst Case Renters by Household Type, 2007.................................. 73
 

Table A–9. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters by 

Race and Ethnicity, 2005 and 2007—Number and Percentage .............................. 75
 

Table A–10. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters by 

Region, 2005 and 2007—Number and Percentage .............................................. 77
 

Table A–11. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters by 

Metropolitan Location, 2005 and 2007—Number and Percentage.......................... 79
 

Table A–12. Households Occupying U.S. Rental Units by Affordability of Rent and 

Income of Occupants, 2005 and 2007 .............................................................. 81
	

Table A–13. Renters and Rental Units Affordable and Available to Them by 

Relative Income, 1995–2007...........................................................................82
	

Table A–14. Average Income and Average Gross Rent of Renter Households by 

Relative Income, 2005 and 2007 ..................................................................... 83
	

54 Worst Case Housing Needs 
Table A–1a. Housing Conditions of Renter Households by Relative Income, 2005 and 2007 

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 

Assistedb 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 onlyc 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 

Household Income as Percentage 

of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income 

2005 0–30% 30–50% 50–80% 80–120% >120% 

All 

Incomes 

Total households (1,000) 9,729 6,342 7,488 5,449 4,943 33,951 

Unassisted with severe problemsa 4,643 1,349 472 264 132 6,860 

Unassisted with non-severe problems onlya 981 2,604 2,363 799 557 7,303 

Unassisted with no problemsa 816 1,127 3,661 3,832 3,804 13,240 

Assisted 3,289 1,262 992 555 450 6,547 

Any with severe problems 6,151 1,548 532 290 145 8,665 

Rent burden >50% of income 5,999 1,361 321 147 61 7,891 

Severely inadequate housing 430 228 215 142 84 1,100 

Any with non-severe problems onlyc 1,804 3,253 2,727 909 593 9,286 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,535 2,934 2,091 452 226 7,238 

Moderately inadequate housing 340 417 488 325 289 1,859 

Crowded housing 229 346 347 170 109 1,200 

Any with no problems 1,775 1,542 4,229 4,249 4,204 16,000 

a

 See table A–3 for housing problems experienced by unassisted renters. 

b The American Housing Survey (AHS) survey questions on housing assistance changed between 2005 and 2007; see 

Appendix B. 

c

 See Table A–2 for estimates of the incidence of non-severe problems without regard to whether severe problems are also 

present. 

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

Housing Survey data 

Worst Case Housing Needs 55 
Table A–1b. Housing Conditions of Owner Households by Relative Income, 2005 and 2007 

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 

Household Income as Percentage 

of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income 

2005 0–30% 30–50% 50–80% 80–120% >120% 

All 

Incomes 

Total households (1,000) 7,473 7,614 11,820 15,230 32,812 74,950 

Unassisted with severe problems 4,444 1,836 1,481 850 671 9,282 

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 1,670 2,183 3,555 3,300 2,838 13,546 

Unassisted with no problems 1,360 3,596 6,784 11,080 29,302 52,122 

Assisted — — — — — — 

Any with severe problems 4,444 1,836 1,481 850 671 9,282 

Cost burden >50% of income 4,360 1,744 1,347 685 405 8,542 

Severely inadequate housing 201 130 156 170 266 923 

Any with non-severe problems only 1,670 2,183 3,555 3,300 2,838 13,546 

Cost burden 30–50% of income 1,508 1,919 3,099 2,876 2,378 11,780 

Moderately inadequate housing 195 224 352 260 353 1,384 

Crowded housing 56 142 255 237 146 837 

Any with no problems 1,360 3,596 6,784 11,080 29,302 52,122 

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

Housing Survey data 

56 Worst Case Housing Needs 
Table A–2a. Housing Conditions of Renters and Owners, 1995–2007—Number of Households 

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

 Total households (1,000) 97,694 99,487 102,802 105,435 105,868 108,901 110,719 

Unassisted with 

severe problems 11,744 12,206 12,203 13,494 13,398 16,142 16,944 

Unassisted with non-severe 

problems only 17,693 17,900 18,237 19,217 19,790 20,849 22,752 

Unassisted with no 63,023 63,682 66,163 66,445 66,468 65,362 65,862 problems 

Assisted 5,230 5,697 6,168 6,279 6,211 6,547 5,161 

Cost burden >50% 

of income 11,158 12,223 12,141 13,330 13,188 16,433 17,140 

Cost burden 30–50% 

of income 15,481 15,115 15,862 16,923 17,856 19,403 21,153 

Severely inadequate housing 2,022 1,797 2,056 2,108 1,971 2,023 1,805 

Moderately inadequate 

housing 4,348 5,191 4,821 4,504 4,311 4,177 3,954 

Crowded housing 2,554 2,807 2,570 2,631 2,559 2,621 2,529 

Renter households (1,000) 34,150 34,000 34,007 33,727 33,614 33,951 35,054 

Unassisted with 

severe problems 5,777 6,024 5,591 5,758 5,887 6,860 6,993 

Unassisted with non-severe 

problems only 7,651 7,451 7,560 7,283 7,557 7,303 8,445 

Unassisted with no 15,492 14,827 14,657 14,407 13,958 13,240 14,455 problems 

Assisted 5,230 5,697 6,203 6,279 6,211 6,547 5,161 

Rent burden >50% 


of income 6,236 6,686 6,301 6,412 6,477 7,891 7,793
 

Rent burden 30–50% 


of income 7,424 6,778 7,141 6,916 7,468 7,502 8,340
 

Severely inadequate housing 849 1,072 1,183 1,168 1,038 1,100 1,073
 

Moderately inadequate 


housing 2,277 3,021 2,768 2,508 2,525 2,542 2,400
 

Crowded housing 1,673 1,891 1,666 1,658 1,615 1,635 1,511


 Owner households (1,000) 63,544 65,487 68,795 71,708 72,254 74,950 75,665 

Unassisted with 

severe problems 5,967 6,182 6,604 7,736 7,511 9,282 9,951 

Unassisted with non-severe 

problems only 10,042 10,449 10,684 11,934 12,233 13,546 14,307 

Unassisted with no 47,531 48,855 51,507 52,038 52,510 52,122 51,407 problems
 

Assisted — — — — — — —
 

Cost burden >50% 


of income 4,922 5,537 5,841 6,918 6,711 8,542 9,347
 

Cost burden 30–50% 


of income 8,057 8,337 8,716 10,007 10,388 11,901 12,813
 

Severely inadequate housing 1,173 725 867 940 933 923 732 

Moderately inadequate 

housing 2,071 2,170 2,064 1,996 1,786 1,635 1,554 

Crowded housing 881 916 894 973 944 986 1,018 

Worst Case Housing Needs 57 
Table A–2b. Housing Conditions of Renters and Owners, 1995–2007—Percentage of Households 

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

 Total households 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with severe 

problems 12.0% 12.3% 11.9% 12.8% 12.7% 14.8% 15.3%
 

Unassisted with non-


severe problems only 18.1% 18.0% 17.7% 18.2% 18.7% 19.1% 20.5%
 

Unassisted with no 


problems 64.5% 64.0% 64.4% 63.0% 62.8% 60.0% 59.5%
 

Assisted 5.4% 5.7% 6.0% 6.0% 5.9% 6.0% 4.7%
 

Cost burden >50% 

of income 11.4% 12.3% 11.8% 12.6% 12.5% 15.1% 15.5%
 

Cost burden 30–50% 


of income 15.8% 15.2% 15.4% 16.1% 16.9% 17.8% 19.1%
 

Severely inadequate 

housing 2.1% 1.8% 2.0% 2.0% 1.9% 1.9% 1.6%
 

Moderately inadequate 


housing 4.5% 5.2% 4.7% 4.3% 4.1% 3.8% 3.6%
 

Crowded housing 2.6% 2.8% 2.5% 2.5% 2.4% 2.4% 2.3%


 Renter households 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with severe 

problems 16.9% 17.7% 16.4% 17.1% 17.5% 20.2% 19.9%
 

Unassisted with non-


severe problems only 22.4% 21.9% 22.2% 21.6% 22.5% 21.5% 24.1%
 

Unassisted with no 


problems 45.4% 43.6% 43.1% 42.7% 41.5% 39.0% 41.2%
 

Assisted 15.3% 16.8% 18.2% 18.6% 18.5% 19.3% 14.7%
 

Rent burden >50% 

of income 18.3% 19.7% 18.5% 19.0% 19.3% 23.2% 22.2%
 

Rent burden 30–50% 


of income 21.7% 19.9% 21.0% 20.5% 22.2% 22.1% 23.8%
 

Severely inadequate 

housing 2.5% 3.2% 3.5% 3.5% 3.1% 3.2% 3.1%
 

Moderately inadequate 


housing 6.7% 8.9% 8.1% 7.4% 7.5% 7.5% 6.8%
 

Crowded housing 4.9% 5.6% 4.9% 4.9% 4.8% 4.8% 4.3%


 Owner households 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with severe 

problems 9.4% 9.4% 9.6% 10.8% 10.4% 12.4% 13.2%
 

Unassisted with non-


severe problems only 15.8% 16.0% 15.5% 16.6% 16.9% 18.1% 18.9%
 

Unassisted with no 


problems 74.8% 74.6% 74.9% 72.6% 72.7% 69.5% 67.9%
 

Assisted — — — — — — — 

Cost burden >50% 

of income 7.7% 8.5% 8.5% 9.6% 9.3% 11.4% 12.4%
 

Cost burden 30–50% 


of income 12.7% 12.7% 12.7% 14.0% 14.4% 15.9% 16.9%
 

Severely inadequate 


housing 1.8% 1.1% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.0%
 

Moderately inadequate 


housing 3.3% 3.3% 3.0% 2.8% 2.5% 2.2% 2.1%
 

Crowded housing 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3%
 

58 Worst Case Housing Needs 
Table A–3. Housing Conditions of Unassisted Renter Households by Relative Income, 

2005 and 2007 

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 

Household Income as Percentage 

of HUD-Adjusted Area Median Family Income 

2005 0–30% 30–50% 50–80% 80–120% >120% 

All 

Incomes

 Total unassisted households (1,000) 6,440 5,081 6,496 4,894 4,492 27,404 

Any with severe problems 4,643 1,349 472 264 132 6,860 

Rent burden >50% of income 4,545 1,184 295 134 56 6,214 

 [And rent > fair market rent] 1,454 829 290 134 56 2,763 

Severely inadequate housing 318 203 182 129 76 908 

Any with non-severe problems only 981 2,604 2,363 799 557 7,303 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 833 2,375 1,836 397 216 5,657 

Moderately inadequate housing 203 339 421 273 273 1,509 

Crowded housing 153 271 285 158 97 963 

Any with no problems 816 1,127 3,661 3,832 3,804 13,240 

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

Housing Survey data 

Worst Case Housing Needs 59 
Table A–4. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Renters by Relative Income, 

2005 and 2007—Number and Percentage (1 of 3) 

2005 2007 2005 2007 

Renter households (1,000) 33,951 35,054 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with severe problems 6,860 6,993 20.2% 19.9% 

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 7,303 8,445 21.5% 24.1% 

Unassisted with no problems 13,240 14,455 39.0% 41.2% 

Assisted 6,547 5,161 19.3% 14.7% 

Any with severe problems 8,665 8,564 25.5% 24.4% 

Rent burden >50% of income 7,891 7,793 23.2% 22.2% 

Severely inadequate housing 1,100 1,073 3.2% 3.1% 

Rent burden onlya 6,883 6,918 20.3% 19.7% 

Any with non–severe problems only 9,286 10,015 27.4% 28.6% 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 7,238 8,099 21.3% 23.1% 

Moderately inadequate housing 1,859 1,828 5.5% 5.2% 

Crowded housing 1,200 1,096 3.5% 3.1% 

Rent burden only 6,363 7,234 18.7% 20.6% 

Any with no problems 16,000 16,476 47.1% 47.0% 

Income 0–30% HAMFI (1,000) 9,729 9,243 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with severe problems 4,643 4,327 47.7% 46.8% 

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 981 828 10.1% 9.0% 

Unassisted with no problems 816 738 8.4% 8.0% 

Assisted 3,289 3,350 33.8% 36.2% 

Any with severe problems 6,151 5,732 63.2% 62.0% 

Rent burden >50% of income 5,999 5,588 61.7% 60.5% 

Severely inadequate housing 430 372 4.4% 4.0% 

Rent burden onlya 5,160 4,892 53.0% 52.9% 

Any with non-severe problems only 1,804 1,778 18.5% 19.2% 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,535 1,536 15.8% 16.6% 

Moderately inadequate housing 340 324 3.5% 3.5% 

Crowded housing 229 196 2.4% 2.1% 

Rent burden only 1,263 1,302 13.0% 14.1% 

Any with no problems 1,775 1,733 18.2% 18.7% 

60 Worst Case Housing Needs 
Table A–4. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Renters by Relative Income, 

2005 and 2007—Number and Percentage (2 of 3) 

2005 2007 2005 2007

 Income 30–50% HAMFI (1,000) 6,342 6,697 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with severe problems 1,349 1,578 21.3% 23.6% 

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 2,604 2,935 41.0% 43.8% 

Unassisted with no problems 1,127 1,168 17.8% 17.4% 

Assisted 1,262 1,016 19.9% 15.2% 

Any with severe problems 1,548 1,711 24.4% 25.5% 

Rent burden >50% of income 1,361 1,579 21.5% 23.6% 

Severely inadequate housing 228 198 3.6% 3.0% 

Rent burden onlya 1,233 1,429 19.4% 21.3% 

Any with non-severe problems only 3,253 3,375 51.3% 50.4% 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 2,934 3,062 46.3% 45.7% 

Moderately inadequate housing 417 393 6.6% 5.9% 

Crowded housing 346 369 5.5% 5.5% 

Rent burden onlya 2,535 2,655 40.0% 39.6% 

Any with no problems 1,542 1,611 24.3% 24.1% 

Income 50–80% HAMFI (1,000) 7,488 7,650 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with severe problems 472 681 6.3% 8.9% 

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 2,363 2,960 31.6% 38.7% 

Unassisted with no problems 3,661 3,541 48.9% 46.3% 

Assisted 992 468 13.2% 6.1% 

Any with severe problems 532 703 7.1% 9.2% 

Rent burden >50% of income 321 486 4.3% 6.4% 

Severely inadequate housing 215 224 2.9% 2.9% 

Rent burden onlya 289 465 3.9% 6.1% 

Any with non-severe problems only 2,727 3,095 36.4% 40.5% 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 2,091 2,524 27.9% 33.0% 

Moderately inadequate housing 488 494 6.5% 6.5% 

Crowded housing 347 305 4.6% 4.0% 

Rent burden only 1,930 2,327 25.8% 30.4% 

Any with no problems 4,229 3,853 56.5% 50.4% 

Worst Case Housing Needs 61 
Table A–4. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Renters by Relative Income, 

2005 and 2007—Number and Percentage (3 of 3) 

2005 2007 2005 2007

 Income 80–120% HAMFI (1,000) 5,449 5,518 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with severe problems 264 245 4.8% 4.4% 

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 799 1,048 14.7% 19.0% 

Unassisted with no problems 3,832 4,059 70.3% 73.6% 

Assisted 555 166 10.2% 3.0% 

Any with severe problems 290 253 5.3% 4.6% 

Rent burden >50% of income 147 98 2.7% 1.8% 

Severely inadequate housing 142 156 2.6% 2.8% 

Rent burden onlya 143 95 2.6% 1.7% 

Any with non-severe problems only 909 1,077 16.7% 19.5% 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 452 684 8.3% 12.4% 

Moderately inadequate housing 325 308 6.0% 5.6% 

Crowded housing 170 99 3.1% 1.8% 

Rent burden only 428 679 7.9% 12.3% 

Any with no problems 4,249 4,187 78.0% 75.9% 

Income >120% HAMFI (1,000) 4,943 5,946 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with severe problems 132 162 2.7% 2.7% 

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 557 674 11.3% 11.3% 

Unassisted with no problems 3,804 4,949 77.0% 83.2% 

Assisted 450 161 9.1% 2.7% 

Any with severe problems 145 165 2.9% 2.8% 

Rent burden >50% of income 61 42 1.2% 0.7% 

Severely inadequate housing 84 123 1.7% 2.1% 

Rent burden onlya 57 38 1.2% 0.6% 

Any with non-severe problems only 593 690 12.0% 11.6% 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 226 293 4.6% 4.9% 

Moderately inadequate housing 289 307 5.8% 5.2% 

Crowded housing 109 127 2.2% 2.1% 

Rent burden only 207 272 4.2% 4.6% 

Any with no problems 4,204 5,090 85.0% 85.6% 

HAMFI = HUD-adjusted area median family income. 

a

 The estimates for “rent burden only” exclude households with any non-severe problem. 

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

Housing Survey data 

62 Worst Case Housing Needs 
Table A–5. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters by Household Type, 

2005 and 2007—Number and Percentage (1 of 2) 

Number Percentage 

2005 2007 2005 2007

 Elderly (1,000) 3,587 3,492 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with severe problems 1,291 1,209 36.0% 34.6% 

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 528 505 14.7% 14.5% 

Unassisted with no problems 409 369 11.4% 10.6% 

Assisted 1,358 1,409 37.9% 40.3% 

Any with severe problems 1,722 1,607 48.0% 46.0% 

Rent burden >50% of income 1,664 1,572 46.4% 45.0% 

Severely inadequate housing 110 101 3.1% 2.9% 

Rent burden onlya 1,484 1,397 41.4% 40.0% 

Any with non-severe problems only 937 947 26.1% 27.1% 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 888 892 24.8% 25.5% 

Moderately inadequate housing 97 118 2.7% 3.4% 

Crowded housing 9 3 0.3% 0.1% 

Rent burden onlya 837 828 23.3% 23.7% 

Any with no problems 928 938 25.9% 26.9%

 Families with children (1,000) 6,465 6,329 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with severe problems 2,324 2,187 35.9% 34.6% 

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 1,674 1,767 25.9% 27.9% 

Unassisted with no problems 676 624 10.5% 9.9% 

Assisted 1,791 1,751 27.7% 27.7% 

Any with severe problems 3,012 2,909 46.6% 46.0% 

Rent burden >50% of income 2,904 2,788 44.9% 44.1% 

Severely inadequate housing 238 234 3.7% 3.7% 

Rent burden onlya 2,533 2,491 39.2% 39.4% 

Any with non-severe problems only 2,301 2,311 35.6% 36.5% 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,948 1,964 30.1% 31.0% 

Moderately inadequate housing 311 304 4.8% 4.8% 

Crowded housing 548 530 8.5% 8.4% 

Rent burden onlya 1,501 1,542 23.2% 24.4% 

Any with no problems 1,153 1,108 17.8% 17.5% 

Worst Case Housing Needs 63 
Table A–5. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters by Household Type, 

2005 and 2007—Number and Percentage (2 of 2) 

Number Percentage 

2005 2007 2005 2007

 Non-elderly disabled (1,000)b 1,767 1,707 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with severe problems 694 602 39.3% 35.3% 

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 267 218 15.1% 12.8% 

Unassisted with no problems 102 97 5.8% 5.7% 

Assisted 703 790 39.8% 46.3% 

Any with severe problems 989 882 56.0% 51.7% 

Rent burden >50% of income 946 845 53.5% 49.5% 

Severely inadequate housing 93 78 5.3% 4.6% 

Rent burden onlya 780 703 44.1% 41.2% 

Any with non-severe problems only 443 492 25.1% 28.8% 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 407 477 23.0% 27.9% 

Moderately inadequate housing 78 57 4.4% 3.3% 

Crowded housing 0 3 0.0% 0.2% 

Rent burden onlya 366 432 20.7% 25.3% 

Any with no problems 334 332 18.9% 19.4%

 Other households (1,000) 4,253 4,413 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with severe problems 1,683 1,907 39.6% 43.2% 

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 1,116 1,273 26.2% 28.8% 

Unassisted with no problems 757 816 17.8% 18.5% 

Assisted 698 416 16.4% 9.4% 

Any with severe problems 1,975 2,043 46.4% 46.3% 

Rent burden >50% of income 1,846 1,962 43.4% 44.5% 

Severely inadequate housing 217 157 5.1% 3.6% 

Rent burden onlya 1,597 1,729 37.5% 39.2% 

Any with non-severe problems only 1,376 1,403 32.4% 31.8% 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,226 1,265 28.8% 28.7% 

Moderately inadequate housing 271 239 6.4% 5.4% 

Crowded housing 18 30 0.4% 0.7% 

Rent burden onlya 1,094 1,154 25.7% 26.2% 

Any with no problems 902 966 21.2% 21.9% 

a

 The estimates for “rent burden only” exclude households with any non-severe problem. 

b Non-elderly disabled represents childless households with adults identified as disabled, using a proxy based on source of 

income. 

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

Housing Survey data 

64 Worst Case Housing Needs 
Table A–6a. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Very Low-Income Renters by 

Household Type, 2007 (1 of 2) 

Total 

Elderly, 

No Children 

Families

 With 

Children 

Other 

Families 

Nonelderly 

Disabledb 

Other 

Nonfamily

 Renter households (1,000) 15,940 3,492 6,329 1,033 1,707 3,380 

Number of children 12,801 0 12,801 0 0 0 

Number of persons 36,521 4,299 23,250 2,451 2,279 4,242 

Children/household 0.80 0.00 2.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Persons/household 2.29 1.23 3.67 2.37 1.34 1.26 

Unassisted with severe problems 5,905 1,209 2,187 352 602 1,555 

Unassisted with non-severe 

problems only 3,763 505 1,767 324 218 949 

Unassisted with no problems 1,906 369 624 234 97 582 

Assisted 4,366 1,409 1,751 123 790 293 

Any with severe problems 7,442 1,607 2,909 379 882 1,664 

Rent burden >50% of income 7,167 1,572 2,788 364 845 1,598 

Severely inadequate housing 570 101 234 29 78 128 

Rent burden onlya 6,320 1,397 2,491 313 703 1,416 

Any with non-severe problems only 5,153 947 2,311 363 492 1,040 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 4,598 892 1,964 335 477 930 

Moderately inadequate housing 718 118 304 51 57 188 

Crowded housing 565 3 530 11 3 19 

Rent burden only 3,957 828 1,542 302 432 852 

Any with no problems 3,345 938 1,108 291 332 675 

Worst Case Housing Needs 65 
Table A–6a. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Very Low-Income Renters by 

Household Type, 2007 (2 of 2) 

Total 

Elderly, 

No Children 

Families

 With 

Children 

Other 

Families 

Nonelderly 

Disabledb 

Other 

Nonfamily

 Other Characteristics 

One person in household 6,863 2,771 132 0 1,267 2,693 

Husband-wife family 3,045 436 1,928 511 169 0 

Female head 9,894 2,373 4,437 548 951 1,585 

Minority head 8,464 1,287 4,282 612 790 1,493 

AFDC/SSI income 3,019 685 1,370 3 961 0 

Social security income 3,941 2,887 484 33 538 0 

Income below 50% poverty 3,649 600 1,658 163 349 878 

Income below poverty 8,298 1,626 3,709 386 1,176 1,402 

Income below 150% of poverty 12,600 2,634 5,547 676 1,516 2,226 

High school graduate 10,880 1,986 4,077 730 1,175 2,911 

Two+ years post high school 2,392 381 669 182 245 916 

Earnings at minimum wage:

 At least half time 7,815 296 4,136 820 186 2,377 

At least full time 6,474 189 3,590 706 104 1,885 

Earnings main source of income 8,348 257 4,371 850 133 2,737 

Housing rated poor 973 86 471 66 152 197 

Housing rated good+ 11,622 2,904 4,388 734 1,217 2,380 

Neighborhood rated poor 1,280 123 676 76 151 254 

Neighborhood rated good+ 11,233 2,838 4,153 721 1,182 2,338 

Central cities 7,420 1,471 2,830 510 805 1,805 

Suburbs 3,281 835 1,283 180 392 591 

Non-metropolitan areas 5,239 1,186 2,216 343 509 984 

Northeast 3,587 841 1,243 175 423 905 

Midwest 3,487 1,021 1,226 220 472 549 

South 5,192 910 2,332 376 520 1,054 

West 3,673 721 1,528 262 291 872 

a

 The estimates for “rent burden only” exclude households with any non-severe problem. 

b Non-elderly disabled represents childless households with adults identified as disabled using a proxy based on source of 

income. 

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

Housing Survey data 

66 Worst Case Housing Needs 
Table A–6b. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Extremely Low-Income Renters by 

Household Type, 2007 (1 of 2) 

Total 

Elderly, 

No 

Children 

Families

 With 

Children 

Other 

Families 

Nonelderly 

Disabledb 

Other 

Nonfamily

 Renter households (1,000) 9,243 2,336 3,452 393 1,320 1,743 

Number of children 7,160 0 7,160 0 0 0 

Number of persons 19,797 2,717 12,396 935 1,612 2,136 

Children/household 0.77 0.00 2.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Persons/household 2.14 1.16 3.59 2.38 1.22 1.23 

Unassisted with severe problems 4,327 901 1,602 203 518 1,103 

Unassisted with non-severe 

problems only 828 175 381 48 51 174 

Unassisted with no problems 738 154 188 71 54 271 

Assisted 3,350 1,105 1,282 71 696 195 

Any with severe problems 5,732 1,272 2,259 225 787 1,188 

Rent burden >50% of income 5,588 1,257 2,195 222 759 1,155 

Severely inadequate housing 372 68 145 15 59 86 

Rent burden onlya 4,892 1,125 1,948 186 627 1,006 

Any with non-severe problems only 1,778 501 703 66 294 213 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,536 466 556 57 289 169 

Moderately inadequate housing 324 76 150 11 20 69 

Crowded housing 196 3 176 6 0 12 

Rent burden onlya 1,302 426 408 49 275 144 

Any with no problems 1,733 562 490 102 238 341 

Worst Case Housing Needs 67 
Table A–6b. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Extremely Low-Income Renters by 

Household Type, 2007 (2 of 2) 

Total 

Elderly, 

No 

Children 

Families

 With 

Children 

Other 

Families 

Nonelderly 

Disabledb 

Other 

Nonfamily

 Other Characteristics 

One person in household 4,605 1,985 110 0 1,087 1,422 

Husband-wife family 1,222 213 762 158 88 0 

Female head 6,177 1,684 2,632 233 744 884 

Minority head 4,963 975 2,384 226 634 745 

Afdc/ssi income 2,420 562 1,060 0 798 0 

Social security income 2,572 1,862 316 20 374 0 

Income below 50% poverty 3,649 600 1,658 163 349 878 

Income below poverty 7,717 1,618 3,205 346 1,162 1,386 

Income below 150% of poverty 9,129 2,283 3,418 389 1,317 1,721 

High school graduate 5,985 1,234 2,093 282 880 1,497 

Two+ years post high school 1,248 233 274 87 170 484 

Earnings at minimum wage:

 At least half time 2,621 62 1,495 226 29 809 

At least full time 1,555 22 1,032 130 5 365 

Earnings main source of income 3,391 88 1,803 270 41 1,190 

Housing rated poor 583 59 300 22 110 93 

Housing rated good+ 6,677 1,939 2,291 290 934 1,223 

Neighborhood rated poor 803 92 436 31 117 127 

Neighborhood rated good+ 6,395 1,868 2,150 290 892 1,196 

Central cities 4,508 1,068 1,662 195 639 944 

Suburbs 1,925 502 718 66 307 332 

Non-metropolitan areas 2,810 766 1,072 132 373 468 

Northeast 2,152 515 696 66 344 532 

Midwest 2,229 740 722 86 382 298 

South 2,883 610 1,260 146 382 485 

West 1,979 471 774 95 211 429 

a

 The estimates for “rent burden only” exclude households with any non-severe problem. 

b Non-elderly disabled represents childless households with adults identified as disabled, using a proxy based on source of 

income. 

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

Housing Survey data 

68 Worst Case Housing Needs 
Table A–7. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Worst Case Renters by 

Household Type, 2007 (1 of 2) 

Total 

Elderly, 

No Children 

Families

 With 

Children 

Other 

Families 

Nonelderly 

Disabledb 

Other 

Nonfamily

 Renter households (1,000) 5,905 1,209 2,187 352 602 1,555 

Number of children 4,336 0 4,336 0 0 0 

Number of persons 12,966 1,477 7,857 833 793 2,006 

Children/household 0.73 0.00 1.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Persons/household 2.20 1.22 3.59 2.37 1.32 1.29 

Unassisted with severe problems 5,905 1,209 2,187 352 602 1,555 

Unassisted with non-severe 

problems only — — — — — — 

Unassisted with no problems — — — — — — 

Assisted — — — — — — 

Any with severe problems 5,905 1,209 2,187 352 602 1,555 

Rent burden >50% of income 5,717 1,190 2,123 336 573 1,495 

Severely inadequate housing 429 75 149 27 59 119 

Rent burden onlya 5,038 1,043 1,903 290 472 1,329 

Any with non-severe problems only — — — — — — 

Rent burden 30–50% of income — — — — — — 

Moderately inadequate housing — — — — — — 

Crowded housing — — — — — — 

Rent burden onlya — — — — — — 

Any with no problems — — — — — — 

Worst Case Housing Needs 69 
Table A–7. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Worst Case Renters by 

Household Type, 2007 (2 of 2) 

Total 

Elderly, 

No Children 

Families

 With 

Children 

Other 

Families 

Nonelderly 

Disabledb 

Other 

Nonfamily

 Other Characteristics 

One person in household 2,685 962 70 0 444 1,208 

Husband-wife family 995 134 612 179 71 0 

Female head 3,587 815 1,539 191 273 768 

Minority head 2,986 413 1,439 197 277 660 

AFDC/SSI income 917 131 461 0 325 0 

Social security income 1,408 1,025 209 14 160 0 

Income below 50% poverty 1,768 301 738 76 166 488 

Income below poverty 3,754 637 1,592 193 471 861 

Income below 150% of poverty 5,226 978 2,088 287 565 1,308 

High school graduate 4,184 756 1,407 252 417 1,352 

Two+ years post high school 1,085 152 269 82 103 478 

Earnings at minimum wage:

 At least half time 2,627 74 1,242 281 45 984 

At least full time 1,907 44 1,000 203 16 644 

Earnings main source of income 3,138 77 1,419 305 33 1,304 

Housing rated poor 376 25 176 15 65 95 

Housing rated good+ 4,279 999 1,498 256 422 1,104 

Neighborhood rated poor 421 32 199 28 52 110 

Neighborhood rated good+ 4,193 994 1,479 240 414 1,066 

Central cities 2,800 533 965 172 267 865 

Suburbs 1,053 225 394 50 144 240 

Non-metropolitan areas 2,052 451 828 130 191 450 

Northeast 1,230 273 382 48 142 386 

Midwest 1,263 338 410 79 183 254 

South 1,942 333 819 136 174 480 

West 1,470 266 576 89 103 435 

a

 The estimates for “rent burden only” exclude households with any non-severe problem. 

b Non-elderly disabled represents childless households with adults identified as disabled, using a proxy based on source of 

income. 

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

Housing Survey data 

70 Worst Case Housing Needs 
Table A–8. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Extremely Low-Income Worst Case Renters 

by Household Type, 2007 (1 of 2) 

Total 

Elderly, 

No 

Children 

Families

 With 

Children 

Other 

Families 

Nonelderly 

Disabledb 

Other 

Nonfamily

 Renter households (1,000) 4,327 901 1,602 203 518 1,103 

Number of children 3,232 0 3,232 0 0 0 

Number of persons 9,335 1,068 5,746 474 656 1,391 

Children/household 0.75 0.00 2.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Persons/household 2.16 1.19 3.59 2.34 1.27 1.26 

Unassisted with severe problems 4,327 901 1,602 203 518 1,103 

Unassisted with non-severe 

problems only — — — — — — 

Unassisted with no problems — — — — — — 

Assisted — — — — — — 

Any with severe problems 4,327 901 1,602 203 518 1,103 

Rent burden >50% of income 4,246 895 1,577 200 499 1,076 

Severely inadequate housing 268 49 84 12 42 80 

Rent burden onlya 3,703 789 1,402 169 405 936 

Any with non-severe problems only — — — — — — 

Rent burden 30–50% of income — — — — — — 

Moderately inadequate housing — — — — — — 

Crowded housing — — — — — — 

Rent burden only — — — — — — 

Any with no problems — — — — — — 

Worst Case Housing Needs 71 
Table A–8. Housing Problems and Characteristics of Extremely Low-Income Worst Case Renters 

by Household Type, 2007 (2 of 2) 

Total 

Elderly, 

No 

Children 

Families

 With 

Children 

Other 

Families 

Nonelderly 

Disabledb 

Other 

Nonfamily 

Other Characteristics 

One person in household 2,095 752 62 0 406 875 

Husband-wife family 618 83 394 96 46 0 

Female head 2,689 619 1,163 120 236 551 

Minority head 2,219 343 1,076 112 243 445 

AFDC/SSI income 807 112 404 0 291 0 

Social security income 1,059 756 167 8 128 0 

Income below 50% poverty 1,768 301 738 76 166 488 

Income below poverty 3,617 635 1,483 177 468 854 

Income below 150% of poverty 4,273 880 1,591 203 515 1,084 

High school graduate 2,977 542 984 145 352 955 

Two+ years post high school 712 99 166 48 82 317 

Earnings at minimum wage:

 At least half time 1,494 24 756 142 8 565 

At least full time 861 7 538 72 0 243 

Earnings main source of income 2,066 39 945 174 16 891 

Housing rated poor 266 17 133 6 57 53 

Housing rated good+ 3,111 734 1,073 158 358 788 

Neighborhood rated poor 316 30 167 14 45 60 

Neighborhood rated good+ 3,039 723 1,049 144 354 769 

In central cities 2,126 446 745 92 228 616 

Suburbs 787 138 313 28 128 179 

Non-metropolitan areas 1,414 317 544 84 162 309 

Northeast 1,013 201 321 34 126 330 

Midwest 949 274 292 44 162 177 

South 1,382 247 593 82 149 310 

West 984 179 396 43 80 286 

a

 The estimates for “rent burden only” exclude households with any non-severe problem. 

b Non-elderly disabled represents childless households with adults identified as disabled, using a proxy based on source of 

income. 

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

Housing Survey data 

72 Worst Case Housing Needs 
Table A–9. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters by Race and 

Ethnicity, 2005 and 2007—Number and Percentage (1 of 2) 

Number Percentage 

2005 2007 2005 2007 

Non-Hispanic White (1,000) 7,907 7,477 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with severe problems 3,098 2,919 39.2% 39.0% 

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 1,700 1,696 21.5% 22.7% 

Unassisted with no problems 1,175 1,099 14.9% 14.7% 

Assisted 1,934 1,763 24.5% 23.6% 

Any with severe problems 3,764 3,469 47.6% 46.4% 

Rent burden >50% of income 3,596 3,374 45.5% 45.1% 

Severely inadequate housing 306 197 3.9% 2.6% 

Rent burden onlya 3,187 3,007 40.3% 40.2% 

Any with non-severe problems only 2,300 2,271 29.1% 30.4% 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 2,098 2,101 26.5% 28.1% 

Moderately inadequate housing 310 289 3.9% 3.9% 

Crowded housing 97 87 1.2% 1.2% 

Rent burden only 1,904 1,917 24.1% 25.6% 

Any with no problems 1,843 1,737 23.3% 23.2% 

Non-Hispanic Black (1,000) 3,989 4,040 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with severe problems 1,336 1,345 33.5% 33.3% 

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 746 752 18.7% 18.6% 

Unassisted with no problems 388 362 9.7% 9.0% 

Assisted 1,519 1,581 38.1% 39.1% 

Any with severe problems 1,969 1,960 49.4% 48.5% 

Rent burden >50% of income 1,880 1,853 47.1% 45.9% 

Severely inadequate housing 181 177 4.5% 4.4% 

Rent burden onlya 1,562 1,644 39.2% 40.7% 

Any with non-severe problems only 1,176 1,253 29.5% 31.0% 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,046 1,082 26.2% 26.8% 

Moderately inadequate housing 208 203 5.2% 5.0% 

Crowded housing 94 114 2.4% 2.8% 

Rent burden only 886 945 22.2% 23.4% 

Any with no problems 843 827 21.1% 20.5% 

Worst Case Housing Needs 73 
Table A–9. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters by Race and 

Ethnicity, 2005 and 2007—Number and Percentage (2 of 2) 

Number Percentage 

2005 2007 2005 2007 

Hispanic (1,000) 3,167 3,297 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with severe problems 1,168 1,234 36.9% 37.4% 

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 928 1,049 29.3% 31.8% 

Unassisted with no problems 267 301 8.4% 9.1% 

Assisted 805 713 25.4% 21.6% 

Any with severe problems 1,496 1,504 47.2% 45.6% 

Rent burden >50% of income 1,423 1,446 44.9% 43.9% 

Severely inadequate housing 151 145 4.8% 4.4% 

Rent burden onlya 1,234 1,249 39.0% 37.9% 

Any with non-severe problems only 1,256 1,279 39.7% 38.8% 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,050 1,130 33.2% 34.3% 

Moderately inadequate housing 169 152 5.3% 4.6% 

Crowded housing 328 313 10.4% 9.5% 

Rent burden only 793 857 25.0% 26.0% 

Any with no problems 415 513 13.1% 15.6% 

a

 The estimates for “rent burden only” exclude households with any non-severe problem. 

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

Housing Survey data 

74 Worst Case Housing Needs 
Table A–10. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters by Region, 

2005 and 2007—Number and Percentage (1 of 2) 

Number Percentage 

2005 2007 2005 2007

 Northeast (1,000) 3,538 3,487 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with severe problems 1,354 1,263 38.3% 36.2% 

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 600 624 17.0% 17.9% 

Unassisted with no problems 369 421 10.4% 12.1% 

Assisted 1,215 1,179 34.3% 33.8% 

Any with severe problems 1,829 1,692 51.7% 48.5% 

Rent burden >50% of income 1,732 1,620 49.0% 46.5% 

Severely inadequate housing 227 166 6.4% 4.8% 

Rent burden onlya 1,457 1,412 41.2% 40.5% 

Any with non-severe problems only 964 1,003 27.2% 28.8% 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 888 893 25.1% 25.6% 

Moderately inadequate housing 106 110 3.0% 3.2% 

Crowded housing 91 106 2.6% 3.0% 

Rent burden only 781 793 22.1% 22.7% 

Any with no problems 745 792 21.1% 22.7%

 Midwest (1,000) 3,331 3,587 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with severe problems 1,152 1,230 34.6% 34.3% 

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 704 857 21.1% 23.9% 

Unassisted with no problems 507 495 15.2% 13.8% 

Assisted 968 1,005 29.1% 28.0% 

Any with severe problems 1,450 1,554 43.5% 43.3% 

Rent burden >50% of income 1,385 1,494 41.6% 41.7% 

Severely inadequate housing 109 99 3.3% 2.8% 

Rent burden onlya 1,232 1,340 37.0% 37.4% 

Any with non-severe problems only 1,025 1,143 30.8% 31.9% 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 912 1,052 27.4% 29.3% 

Moderately inadequate housing 135 127 4.1% 3.5% 

Crowded housing 60 56 1.8% 1.6% 

Rent burden only 838 968 25.2% 27.0% 

Any with no problems 856 889 25.7% 24.8% 

Worst Case Housing Needs 75 
Table A–10. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters by Region, 

2005 and 2007—Number and Percentage (2 of 2) 

Number Percentage 

2005 2007 2005 2007

 South (1,000) 5,444 5,192 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with severe problems 1,987 1,942 36.5% 37.4% 

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 1,320 1,331 24.2% 25.6% 

Unassisted with no problems 728 628 13.4% 12.1% 

Assisted 1,410 1,291 25.9% 24.9% 

Any with severe problems 2,570 2,420 47.2% 46.6% 

Rent burden >50% of income 2,477 2,319 45.5% 44.7% 

Severely inadequate housing 175 186 3.2% 3.6% 

Rent burden onlya 2,156 2,047 39.6% 39.4% 

Any with non-severe problems only 1,759 1,746 32.3% 33.6% 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,525 1,536 28.0% 29.6% 

Moderately inadequate housing 331 304 6.1% 5.9% 

Crowded housing 175 174 3.2% 3.4% 

Rent burden only 1,275 1,291 23.4% 24.9% 

Any with no problems 1,115 1,026 20.5% 19.8%

 West (1,000) 3,759 3,673 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with severe problems 1,500 1,470 39.9% 40.0% 

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 961 951 25.6% 25.9% 

Unassisted with no problems 340 362 9.0% 9.9% 

Assisted 958 891 25.5% 24.3% 

Any with severe problems 1,850 1,775 49.2% 48.3% 

Rent burden >50% of income 1,766 1,734 47.0% 47.2% 

Severely inadequate housing 148 120 3.9% 3.3% 

Rent burden onlya 1,548 1,521 41.2% 41.4% 

Any with non-severe problems only 1,308 1,261 34.8% 34.3% 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,144 1,116 30.4% 30.4% 

Moderately inadequate housing 185 176 4.9% 4.8% 

Crowded housing 249 229 6.6% 6.2% 

Rent burden only 904 904 24.0% 24.6% 

Any with no problems 601 637 16.0% 17.3% 

a

 The estimates for “rent burden only” exclude households with any non-severe problem. 

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

Housing Survey data 

76 Worst Case Housing Needs 
Table A–11. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters by Metropolitan 

Location, 2005 and 2007—Number and Percentage (1 of 2) 

Number Percentage 

2005 2007 2005 2007

 Central cities (1,000) 7,505 7,420 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with severe problems 2,909 2,800 38.8% 37.7% 

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 1,674 1,749 22.3% 23.6% 

Unassisted with no problems 685 739 9.1% 10.0% 

Assisted 2,237 2,132 29.8% 28.7% 

Any with severe problems 3,769 3,584 50.2% 48.3% 

Rent burden >50% of income 3,596 3,436 47.9% 46.3% 

Severely inadequate housing 349 318 4.7% 4.3% 

Rent burden onlya 3,053 2,988 40.7% 40.3% 

Any with non-severe problems only 2,433 2,425 32.4% 32.7% 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 2,168 2,142 28.9% 28.9% 

Moderately inadequate housing 382 355 5.1% 4.8% 

Crowded housing 298 286 4.0% 3.9% 

Rent burden only 1,791 1,816 23.9% 24.5% 

Any with no problems 1,303 1,411 17.4% 19.0%

 Suburbs (1,000) 5,417 5,239 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with severe problems 2,092 2,052 38.6% 39.2% 

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 1,262 1,275 23.3% 24.3% 

Unassisted with no problems 698 679 12.9% 13.0% 

Assisted 1,365 1,233 25.2% 23.5% 

Any with severe problems 2,625 2,496 48.5% 47.6% 

Rent burden >50% of income 2,533 2,426 46.8% 46.3% 

Severely inadequate housing 188 153 3.5% 2.9% 

Rent burden onlya 2,271 2,187 41.9% 41.7% 

Any with non-severe problems only 1,696 1,686 31.3% 32.2% 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 1,505 1,534 27.8% 29.3% 

Moderately inadequate housing 214 187 4.0% 3.6% 

Crowded housing 197 206 3.6% 3.9% 

Rent burden only 1,311 1,331 24.2% 25.4% 

Any with no problems 1,097 1,057 20.3% 20.2% 

Worst Case Housing Needs 77 
Table A–11. Incidence of Housing Problems Among Very Low-Income Renters by Metropolitan 

Location, 2005 and 2007—Number and Percentage (2 of 2) 

Number Percentage 

2005 2007 2005 2007

 Non-metropolitan (1,000) 3,149 3,281 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with severe problems 991 1,053 31.5% 32.1% 

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 649 739 20.6% 22.5% 

Unassisted with no problems 561 489 17.8% 14.9% 

Assisted 949 1,001 30.1% 30.5% 

Any with severe problems 1,305 1,362 41.4% 41.5% 

Rent burden >50% of income 1,232 1,305 39.1% 39.8% 

Severely inadequate housing 122 100 3.9% 3.0% 

Rent burden onlya 1,070 1,145 34.0% 34.9% 

Any with non-severe problems only 927 1,042 29.4% 31.8% 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 796 921 25.3% 28.1% 

Moderately inadequate housing 160 176 5.1% 5.4% 

Crowded housing 80 74 2.5% 2.3% 

Rent burden only 696 810 22.1% 24.7% 

Any with no problems 917 877 29.1% 26.7% 

U.S. total (1,000) 16,072 15,940 100.0% 100.0% 

Unassisted with severe problems 5,992 5,905 37.3% 37.0% 

Unassisted with non-severe problems only 3,585 3,763 22.3% 23.6% 

Unassisted with no problems 1,944 1,906 12.1% 12.0% 

Assisted 4,550 4,366 28.3% 27.4% 

Any with severe problems 7,699 7,442 47.9% 46.7% 

Rent burden >50% of income 7,360 7,167 45.8% 45.0% 

Severely inadequate housing 659 570 4.1% 3.6% 

Rent burden onlya 6,394 6,320 39.8% 39.6% 

Any with non-severe problems only 5,056 5,153 31.5% 32.3% 

Rent burden 30–50% of income 4,468 4,598 27.8% 28.8% 

Moderately inadequate housing 756 718 4.7% 4.5% 

Crowded housing 574 565 3.6% 3.5% 

Rent burden only 3,798 3,957 23.6% 24.8% 

Any with no problems 3,317 3,345 20.6% 21.0% 

a

 The estimates for “rent burden only” exclude households with any non-severe problem. 

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

Housing Survey data 

78 Worst Case Housing Needs 
Table A–12. Households Occupying U.S. Rental Units by Affordability of Rent and Income of 

Occupants, 2005 and 2007 

Relative 

Income of 

Households 

Occupied and Vacant Rental Units (thousands) 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 

Relative 

Income of 

Households 

Occupied and Vacant Rental Units (thousands) by Unit Affordability Category 

(percent of HAMFI needed to afford the highest rent in the category) 

2005 10* 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120+ Total 

Extremely 

low income 

(≤30% HAMFI) 805 1,610 1,163 1,630 1,828 1,167 618 349 134 112 70 240 9,726 

Very low 

income 

(30–50%) 260 263 537 1,078 1,593 1,173 670 338 105 92 33 204 6,345 

Low income 

(50–80%) 295 261 326 1,049 1,636 1,617 1,038 586 212 146 94 227 7,488 

Middle income 

or higher 

(>80%) 326 266 231 710 1,497 2,039 1,595 1,260 567 488 365 1,048 10,391 

Total 1,686 2,400 2,257 4,467 6,554 5,995 3,921 2,534 1,018 838 562 1,719 33,951 

Vacant units 

for rent 151 91 162 495 851 759 503 332 186 119 73 251 3,974 

HAMFI = HUD-adjusted area median family income. 

* The 10 percent of HAMFI category includes units occupied with no cash rent. 

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

Housing Survey data 

Worst Case Housing Needs 79 
 

 

Table A–13. Renters and Rental Units Affordable and Available to Them by Relative Income, 

1995–2007 

1995 1997 1999 2001c 2003 2005d 2007

 Renter households (1,000) 34,150 34,000 34,007 34,042 33,614 33,951 35,054 

Extremely low income 

(≤30% HAMFI) 8,637 9,215 8,513 8,739 9,077 9,979 9,555 

Very low income 

(30–50%) 5,897 5,889 6,243 6,315 6,581 6,345 6,697 

Low income 

(50–80%) 7,205 6,591 7,270 7,251 7,460 7,488 7,650 

Middle income or 

higher (>80%) 12,411 12,305 11,981 11,737 10,496 10,139 11,152 

Affordable unitsa

 (1,000) 36,924 37,186 37,018 37,197 37,577 37,924 39,330 

Extremely low income 

(≤30% HAMFI) 6,633 6,937 6,683 6,870 7,098 6,747 7,280 

Very low income 

(30–50%) 9,933 10,826 12,089 12,366 12,863 12,368 11,071 

Low income 

(50–80%) 15,389 15,012 14,222 13,634 13,518 14,044 15,063 

Middle income or 

higher (>80%) 4,969 4,411 4,023 4,328 4,099 4,765 5,916 

Affordable and available 36,924 37,186 37,018 37,197 37,577 37,924 39,330 unitsb (1,000) 

Extremely low income 

(≤30% HAMFI) 3,790 3,901 3,573 3,803 3,996 3,982 4,224 

Very low income 

(30–50%) 6,799 7,304 7,905 8,132 8,744 8,549 7,786 

Low income 

(50–80%) 12,026 11,882 11,841 11,665 12,396 12,865 13,196 

Middle income or 

higher (>80%) 14,310 14,100 13,700 13,597 12,441 12,528 14,123 

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 HAMFI).
 

b Affordable and available units are rental units that are affordable, as described above, 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 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: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, tabulations of American 


Housing Survey data
 

80 Worst Case Housing Needs 
Table A–14. Average Income and Average Gross Rent of Renter Households by Relative Income, 

2005 and 2007 

Household Income as Percentage 

of HAMFI 

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 

Household Income as Percentage 

of HAMFI 

2005 0–30% 30–50% 50–80% 80–120% >120% 

All 

Incomes 

Total households (1,000) 9,729 6,342 7,488 5,449 4,943 33,951 

Unassisted with priority problems 4,643 1,349 472 264 132 6,860 

Unassisted with other problems 981 2,604 2,363 799 557 7,303 

Unassisted with no problems 816 1,127 3,661 3,832 3,804 13,240 

Assisted 3,289 1,262 992 555 450 6,547 

Average monthly income $653 $1,741 $2,762 $4,021 $7,913 $2,919 

Unassisted with priority problems 648 1,624 2,651 3,628 6,533 1,206 

Unassisted with other problems 983 1,813 2,764 4,060 7,969 2,724 

Unassisted with no problems 418 1,749 2,757 4,031 7,915 4,377 

Assisted 620 1,712 2,827 4,082 8,231 1,981 

Average gross rent $564 $641 $683 $797 $1,016 $709 

Unassisted with priority problems 647 935 1,281 1,594 1,670 805 

Unassisted with other problems 401 584 776 973 1,405 732 

Unassisted with no problems 444 390 534 702 934 693 

Assisted 508 609 686 792 1,004 612 

HAMFI = HUD-adjusted area median family income. 

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

Housing Survey data 

Worst Case Housing Needs 81 
 

Appendix B. 

The American Housing Survey: Terms and 

Data Sources 

To accurately estimate worst case housing needs for federal rental assistance using 

American Housing Survey (AHS) data, it is essential to determine whether household 

incomes fall below HUD’s official very low-income limits (50 percent of HUD-adjusted 

area median family income [HAMFI], also termed area median income [AMI]), 

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 (having rent burdens that exceed 

50 percent of income, living in substandard housing, or being involuntarily displaced). 

This appendix discusses the essential concepts and methods used to produce 

estimates and tabulations of worst case housing needs, using 2005 and 2007 AHS 

microdata. It also highlights limitations of the data and addresses issues relating to 

the consistency of estimates in this report compared with those in previous reports 

about worst case housing needs. 

American Housing Survey 

Description 

The U.S. Census Bureau conducts the AHS on behalf of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to gather data on housing conditions and markets. The 

data include information about occupants, units, housing costs and financing, and numerous other related variables. The Census Bureau’s field representatives interviewed 

occupants of homes and obtained information on vacant homes from informed people, 

such as landlords, rental agents, and informed neighbors. The 2007 AHS survey 

consisted of 52,850 interviews conducted between late April and mid-September 2007 

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). 

Changes in the Survey Instrument for 2007 

Rental assistance 

In 2007, the AHS included significant changes to the survey questions on whether a 

household received government assistance with its rent. Many of the questions on 

rental assistance were clarified (both to improve clarity for the respondent and to 

improve instructions to the interviewer on how to record answers), two questions 

were dropped, and a new question (related to housing vouchers) was added. 

82 Worst Case Housing Needs 
Overall, the changes had a major impact on survey responses.1 The following table, 

excerpted from the PD&R Report, Streamlining the American Housing Survey, (Eggers, 

2009) shows the effect on the number of households that reported receiving housing 

assistance: 

Assisted Households Identified in the American Housing Survey 

Year Income as Percent of Area Median Income (thousands of households) All 

0–30% 30–50% 50–80% 80–120% > 120% 

2005 3,289 1,262 992 555 450 6,547 

2007 3,350 1,016 468 166 161 5,161 

The 2005 estimate of 6.547 million households receiving housing assistance was substantially above the level that should be expected based on the number of households 

served by HUD rental assistance programs (roughly 4.3 million households) plus other 

programs, such as HOME and Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), that might 

be expected to generate a positive response. The level of 5.161 million households 

recorded in 2007 is a much more reasonable estimate. In addition, the largest change 

in reporting assistance occurred among higher income groups, which was a very 

positive improvement (particularly among groups with more than 80 percent of AMI), 

because the previous estimates appeared to be much too high. In terms of the effect 

on this report, because the changes occurred among higher income respondents, and 

because the estimates of assistance below the very low-income threshold were relatively small, a large effect on the estimates of worst case housing needs was unlikely. 

The exact survey questions for both the 2005 and 2007 AHS surveys are included in 

Appendix C. 

Income 

The 2007 AHS included a small modification of the income questions. It subdivided 

the combined “interest/dividend/rental” question into separate income receipt items. 

It also modified the “other income” question to no longer include child support or 

alimony. 

Physical problems 

The 2007 AHS eliminated the questions about hallways (common stairways and light 

fixtures) in multi-unit structures in the section on selected physical problems. This 

change affects the classification of units having severe or moderate physical problems. 

Other changes to the survey instrument are unlikely to have affected the estimates on 

affordable housing needs included in this report. 

1 For additional discussion of the changes on housing assistance, see the report, “Streamlining the 

American Housing Survey” (June 2009), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

prepared by Eggers, Frederick J., Econometrica, Inc. for PD&R; available at http://www.huduser.org/ 

datasets/ahs.html. See “Appendix: Assisted Housing Items in 2007 AHS.” 

Worst Case Housing Needs 83 
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 by better representing it. 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 2001–2007 AHS data used in this report are based on the 2000 Census of 

Housing, with adjustments for estimated change since then. 

Exclusions From the AHS Data 

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 (FMR) while reporting zero or 

negative incomes, then their income situation is presumably temporary, and so they 

are included and higher incomes are imputed to them. 

Household and Family Types 

Households and Families 

In this report, the terms “family” and “household” are not interchangeable. Although 

all families are households, not all households are families. A household is any group 

of persons living in the same housing unit. “Household” types include households with 

relatives, households with children, elderly single persons age 62 or older, and single 

persons with disabilities. “Families” refers only to a subset of households that have 

one or more persons in the household related to another householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. 

Families With Children 

Household type in which a child under age 18 is present. They are presumed to meet 

the definition of family through relation by birth or adoption (including grandparents 

as parents). 

Elderly Households 

Household type in which at least one householder or spouse is age 62 or older and no 

children are present. 

Disabled Households 

Household type that includes only households that (1) are not families with children, 

(2) are not elderly households, and (3) receive some form of income or government 

assistance that is very likely to indicate that an adult with disabilities is present in the 

household. The “proxy” of type of income or assistance is necessary because the AHS 

84 Worst Case Housing Needs 
does not ask survey respondents directly about disabilities. To improve the reliability 

of these estimates, in 2005 the AHS survey was updated with improved questions 

on receipt of various government supplemental income programs. Based on these 

changes to the AHS survey, the income proxy for counting households as a “disabled 

household” is if it meets the criteria above and reports having received assistance 

from Social Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), public welfare, or “worker’s 

compensation or other disability payment.” It is important to note that persons with 

disabilities may be present in other household types (e.g., families with children, 

elderly households), although this report includes a separate estimate of the number 

of families with children that also are likely to have an adult with disabilities present 

based on a modified income proxy (whether they reported receiving Social Security/ 

railroad retirement, SSI, or “retirement, survivor, disability payments”). Additional 

discussion of the changes in this methodology are contained in the report, Housing 

Needs of Persons With Disabilities: Supplemental Findings to the Affordable Housing 

Needs 2005 Report (February 2008). 

Other Households 

Household type that consists of persons who are neither elderly, nor disabled and 

do not have children in the household. This group may be further broken down into 

“other families” (related persons without children) and “other non-family households” 

(single persons, or unrelated persons sharing housing). The definitions of these two 

subtypes of “other households” are as follows: 

Other families. Household subtype in which a householder is nonelderly and has no 

children and in which either one or more people are 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 non-family households. Household subtype in which a single nonelderly 

person lives alone or lives with only non-relatives. 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 persons living alone rather than unrelated persons 

sharing housing. 

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 occurs when housing costs exceed 50 percent of reported income. A “moderate” cost burden exceeds 

30 percent but is less than or equal to 50 percent of reported income. Cost burdens 

qualify as potential worst case needs only if they are severe rent burdens. Households 

reporting zero or negative income are defined as having no cost burden. 

Worst Case Housing Needs 85 
Inadequate Housing 

Housing with severe or moderate physical problems, as defined in the AHS since 1984 

and modified as necessary to reflect changes in the survey.2 Severe inadequacies 

constitute potential worst case housing needs, but moderate inadequacies do not. 

A unit is defined as having severe physical inadequacies if it has any one of the following four problems: 

1.	 Plumbing. Lacking piped hot water or a flush toilet or lacking both bathtub 

and shower, all for the exclusive use of the unit. 

2.	 Heating. Having been uncomfortably cold during the past winter for 24 hours 

or more, or three times for at least 6 hours each time, due to broken-down 

heating equipment. 

3.	 Electrical. Lacking 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 past 90 days. 

4.	 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 past 90 days. 

A unit is defined as having moderate inadequacies if it has any of the following four 

problems but none of the above severe problems: 

1.	 Plumbing. Having all toilets break down simultaneously at least three times in 

the past 3 months for at least 3 hours each time. 

2.	 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). 

3.	 Upkeep. Having any three of the six upkeep problems mentioned under 

severe inadequacies. 

4.	 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. 

2 The AHS rates housing units using a three-level measure: adequate, moderately inadequate, and 

severely inadequate. The questions underlying definitions of inadequate housing were changed in 

the 1997 AHS questionnaire to improve accuracy. For further details, see the entry for the variable 

ZADEQ in the Codebook for the American Housing Survey, Public Use File: 1997 and Later. The most 

recent version is available for download at http://www.huduser.org/datasets/ahs/ahsprev.html. 

86 Worst Case Housing Needs 
“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 items. 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 prior to 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 and younger are not counted as income for this report. 

Supplemental and In-Kind Income Sources 

In the 1999–2005 AHS, poorer renters with high rent burdens were asked several new 

questions about whether persons outside their household contributed to household 

expenses such as rent, food, and childcare. The supplemental questions were 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 2007, because 

the module could not be translated to the Census Bureau’s new computer language 

(Blaise) in time. The AHS will include this module again, beginning with the 2009 

survey. 

Family Income 

Reported income from all sources for the householder (the first household member 

aged 18 years or older who is listed as an owner or renter of the housing unit) and 

other household members related to the householder. 

Worst Case Housing Needs 87 
 

Household Income 

Reported income from all sources for all household members aged 18 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.3 

The HUD-adjusted area median family income (HAMFI) is also referred to as the area 

median income (AMI), although the latter term may be subject to misinterpretation. 

Note 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, and official 

income limits are further adjusted by household size: one person, 70 percent of base; 

two persons, 80 percent; three persons, 90 percent; five persons, 108 percent; six 

persons, 116 percent; and so on. Each household is assigned to an income category 

using the income limit appropriate to its area and the number of household members. 

Statutory adjustments to official income limits in 1999 included upper caps and 

lower floors for areas with low or high ratios of housing costs to income and, for each 

nonmetropolitan county, a lower floor equal to its state’s nonmetropolitan average. 

These statutory adjustments do not apply for 2001–2007 estimates. 

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-income 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. Average income limits were estimated for each of these 48 locations. 

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 for only 3 years: 1978, 1986, and 1995.4 Beginning with the 2003 

AHS, income cutoffs have been based on HUD’s official income limits for those years, 

weighted by AHS weights. These cutoffs are added to the AHS public use file by the 

Census Bureau. 

3 See HUD (2005b) for a description of current adjustments. 

4 For each of these years, HUD revised income limits for all locations in the country based on income 

data from the most recent decennial Census of Population and Housing. Similarly, HUD weighted the 

averages for nonmetropolitan areas by population, based on the decennial census. 

88 Worst Case Housing Needs 
Categorizing Households by Income 

For this report, when households are categorized using the very low-income and lowincome 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 exceeded the FMR 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 only temporary 

accounting losses. 

For housing needs estimates using AHS data since 1985, HUD has classified households with incomes above AMI by comparing their income to the actual median family 

income for the location, rather than with 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 HAMFI. In 

2007, 13.9 percent of AHS households reported income below 30 percent of 

HAMFI. 

•		 Very low income. Income not in excess of 50 percent of HAMFI. 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 HAMFI. In 2005, 28.6 percent of AHS households reported incomes below the very low-income cutoffs. 

•		 Low income. Reported income not in excess of 80 percent of HAMFI or, 

if lower, the national median family income. In 2007, 44.8 percent of AHS 

households reported incomes that fell below the low-income cutoffs. 

•		 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 for a fixed period.) The poverty cutoff 

for a family of four approximates 33 percent of HAMFI. In 2007, 46 percent of 

very low-income households and 81 percent of extremely low-income households were poor. 

•		 Middle income. For this report, income above 80 percent and below 120 percent of HAMFI. In 2007, 16.9 percent of AHS households were in this category. 

•		 Upper income. For this report, households with income above 120 percent of 

HAMFI. In 2005, 38.28 percent of households were in this category. 

Worst Case Housing Needs 89 
Housing Assistance Status 

The 1997 AHS included significant changes to the questions on this subject, in both 

content and order, from questions used earlier. 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, to: 

•		 Determine whether the household must re-certify 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 it 

can be used to move to another location; 

•		 Determine whether the housing authority is the household’s landlord; and 

•		 Determine whether the household was assigned to its housing unit or whether 

the householders were allowed to choose it themselves. 

Location 

Metropolitan Statistical Area 

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, the definition of 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 of various 

income categories and the number provided by the market that are affordable at 

those income levels. 

90 Worst Case Housing Needs 
Affordability 

Several federal rental programs define “affordable” rents as those requiring not more 

than 30 percent of an income cutoff defined in relation to HAMFI. Under the LowIncome Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), for example, housing units with rents that are 

”affordable” to families at 60 percent of HAMFI qualify as affordable and eligible for 

the credit. 

This report generalizes the approach developed to define LIHTC maximum rents 

for units of different sizes 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 HAMFI, above 30 and up to 50 percent of 

HAMFI, and above 50 percent of HAMFI. Gross rents for each unit, including payments 

for utilities, are compared to 30 percent of HUD’s 30 percent and 50 percent of HAMFI 

income limits. 

The income limits 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.5 This formula assumes that an efficiency unit houses one person, a onebedroom unit houses 1.5 persons, and each additional bedroom houses another 1.5 

persons. 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 

The following three measures are used in chapter 3 to analyze the sufficiency of the 

rental housing stock in relation to household incomes: 

•		 Affordability measures the extent to which there are enough rental housing 

units of different costs to provide each household with a unit it can afford 

(based on the 30 percent of income standard). Affordability is the broadest 

measure of housing stock sufficiency, addressing whether there are sufficient 

housing units 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 households within a particular income range. Some households 

that are not of lower income choose to spend less than 30 percent of their 

incomes on rent, occupying housing that is affordable to households of lower 

income. Such housing units are thus not available to the lower income households. A unit is available at a given level of income if it is affordable at that 

level, and is either: (1) occupied by a household with that income or less or 

(2) vacant. 

5 Note that this adjustment procedure is similar to, but distinct from, the adjustment of income limits described under Income Categories. 

Worst Case Housing Needs 91 
 

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

example, by caretakers) or because they are owned by relatives or friends of 

the occupants. The 2007 AHS data indicate that 2.1 million renter households 

(6.1 percent) occupied their units while paying no rent. The AHS does not 

provide estimates of the number of households paying a positive but belowmarket rent because of employment or other reasons. 

• Adequacy extends the concept of availability by considering whether sufficient 

rental units are physically adequate as well as available and affordable. 

Categorizing Rental Units by Affordability and Households 

by Income 

For the analysis of mismatches between affordability and income in chapter 3, 

household incomes and housing unit rents were compared to 2007 income limits (for 

income and rent categories up to and including 80 percent of HAMFI) and to the actual 

median family incomes (for categories above 80 percent of HAMFI). 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 FMR 

and they lived in adequate and uncrowded housing. 

This approach, compared with the approach used in previous reports, provides more 

accurate estimates of the numbers of housing units qualifying as affordable under 

rules such as those regulating the HOME program and LIHTC. For LIHTC, housing that 

is affordable to incomes at 60 percent of median income must have rents that are no 

more than 30 percent of 120 percent of HUD’s applicable very low-income limits (with 

appropriate adjustments for the number of bedrooms). For ease of calculation, analyses of shortages of affordable housing in previous worst case housing needs reports 

had compared income and rents to multiples of HAMFI; however, the statutory adjustments made in deriving HUD’s official very low-income limits on average make the 

actual very low-income limits higher than 50 percent of median income. Therefore, 

the previous data tended to undercount both the number of renters and the number 

of units defined as affordable to them. 

For purposes of mismatch analysis, 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. 

92 Worst Case Housing Needs 
Appendix C.
 

Changes to the AHS Survey Questions,
 

2005 to 2007, Regarding Receipt of
 

Housing Assistance
 

This table shows the questions used by AHS interviewers to ask survey respondents 

about whether they received various forms of government assistance with their rent, 

including whether the respondent received assistance through a government rental 

housing assistance program. 

The full survey instruments are available at www.huduser.org/ahs.html. 

Questions Used by AHS Interviewers (1 of 4) 

2005 2007 

Type of Change to Survey 

Question 

HCST12a_RENEW­ RENEW Clarified the question 

As a part of your rental agreement, 

[fill temp] need to answer questions 

about [fill temp2] income whenever 

your lease is up for renewal? 

(1) Yes 

(2) No 

(Some rental agreements include 

a special re-certification process. 

Re-certification means a renter is 

REQUIRED to report everyone who 

lives with them, all jobs, all savings 

and sources of income AND this 

determines the amount of rent they 

have to pay.) Do you have to recertify to determine the amount of 

rent you pay? 

(1) Yes 

(2) No 

HCST12b_REPHA- Dropped the question 

To whom [fill temp] report [fill temp2] 

income-­

***READ THESE CATEGORIES TO 

THE RESPONDENT*** 

(1) A building manager or landlord? 

(2) A public housing authority or a 

state or local housing agency? 

(3) Or, someone else? Specify 

(D) Don’t know ***DO NOT READ 

THIS ONE TO THE RESPONDENT*** 

HCST12c_SUBRNT1­ SUBRNT1 Clarified the question 

[fill temp] pay a lower rent because 

the government is paying part of the 

cost of the unit? 

Is your rent amount lower because 

you are in either a Federal, State or 

local government housing program? 

(1) Yes 

(2) No 

(D) Don’t know - not sure 

(1) Yes 

(2) No 

Worst Case Housing Needs 93 
Questions Used by AHS Interviewers (2 of 4) 

2005 2007 

Type of Change to Survey 

Question 

HCST12d_PROJ1­ Clarified the question (see 

PROJ1 below) 

Is the building owned by a public 

housing authority? 

(1) Yes 

(2) No 

(D) Don’t know - not sure 

HCST12e_APPLY- Clarified the question (see 

APPLY below) 

How did [fill temp] come to 

live here? 

Did [fill temp2] apply on [fill temp3] 

to the management here, OR did 

an agency, such as public housing 

authority assign this address to 

[fill temp]? 

(1) Applied to management on own 

(2) Assigned to specific address 

HCST12f_VCHER­ VCHER Clarified the question 

Did a public housing authority, or (A housing voucher gives a renter the 

some similar agency, give you a right to choose where they live AND it 

CERTIFICATE or VOUCHER to help helps pay for rent.) 

pay the rent for this [fill HTYPEFILL]? Does your household have a housing 

voucher? 

(1) Yes 

(2) No (1) Yes 

(2) No 

VCHRMOV New question 

Can you use your housing voucher to 

move to another location? 

(1) Yes 

(2) No 

PROJ1 Clarified the question (see PROJ1 in 

first column above and 

Is the housing authority your PROJ2 below) 

landlord? 

(1) Yes 

(2) No 

APPLY 

Was your household assigned to this 

specific ^HTYPEFILLAPPLY, or were 

you allowed to choose it yourself? 

Clarified the question (see HCST12e_ 

APPLY in column 

1 above) 

(1) Household assigned to specific 

living quarters 

(2) Household allowed to choose 

living quarters 

94 Worst Case Housing Needs 
 

Questions Used by AHS Interviewers (3 of 4) 

2005 2007 

Type of Change to Survey 

Question 

HCST12g_RCNTRL1­ RCNTRL1 Slight change to the question 

Does the government limit the rent on Does the government limit the rent 

the unit through rent control or rent on your ^HTYPEFILL through rent 

stabilization? control or rent stabilization? 

(1) Yes (1) Yes 

(2) No (2) No 

HCST13a_RNTADJ1­ RNTADJ1 No change to the question (not 

related to rental assistance) 

Does anyone in the household work Does anyone in the household work 

for the owner, or is anyone related to for the owner, or is anyone related to 

the owner? the owner? 

(1) Yes (1) Yes 

(2) No (2) No 

HCST13b_RNTAJ2­ RNTADJ2 No change (not related to rental 

assistance) 

Is the rent adjusted because Is the rent adjusted because 

someone in the household works for someone in the household works for 

or is related to the owner? or is related to the owner? 

(1) Yes (1) Yes 

(2) No (2) No 

HCST13c_PRENT- PRENT No real change to the question (slight 

change in instruction to interviewer 

Of the [fill temp1][fill temp] rent you Of the ^RENTAMOUNTFILL rent on how to record the answer) 

reported, how much is this household you reported, how much is this 

required to pay? household required to pay? 

[bold]FR: MARK (None) WITHOUT 

ASKING IF NO CASH RENT[normal] 

(0) None 

(1-9997) $1-$9,997 

HCST13cPROB- Dropped the question 

The total amount for the rent for this 

[fill HTYPEFILL] is the same amount 

that you are required to pay, is this 

correct? 

(1) No, [fill temp] is incorrect 

(2) No, [fill temp2] is incorrect 

(3) Yes, both are correct 

Worst Case Housing Needs 95 
Questions Used by AHS Interviewers (4 of 4) 

2005 2007 

Type of Change to Survey 

Question 

HCST14a_PROJ2­ PROJ2 No change—but switched order and 

moved to below SUBRNT2 

Is the building owned by the public Is the building owned by the public 

housing authority? housing authority? 

(1) Yes (1) Yes 

(2) No (2) No 

HCST14b_SUBRNT2­ SUBRNT2 No change to the question— 

(switched order and this is now 

Does the Federal, State, or local Does the Federal, State, or local asked before PROJ2) 

government pay some of the cost of government pay some of the cost of 

the unit? the unit? 

(1) Yes (1) Yes 

(2) No (2) No 

HCST14c_RCNTRL2­ RCNTRL2 No change to the question 

Does the local government limit the Does the local government limit the 

rent on the unit through rent control rent on the unit through rent control 

or rent stabilization? or rent stabilization? 

(1) Yes (1) Yes 

(2) No (2) No 

96 Worst Case Housing Needs 
Appendix D. 

Additional Examination of the 2005-to-2007 

Trend in Worst Case Needs 

This Appendix explores the small reported decline in worst case needs alongside 

various other trends, for instance changes in household incomes over the same 2005-

to-2007 period. 

The slight drop in worst case needs between 2005 and 2007 may be surprising in 

light of the current economic situation. Although economic conditions were somewhat 

better in the 2005-to-2007 period, that alone does not explain the drop. 

The analysis concludes that the key factor in the small decline in worst case needs 

was a decline in the number of households reported as extremely low-income renters in the American Housing Survey (AHS)—from 9.729 million households in 2005 

to 9.243 million households in 2007. This decline in the total number of extremely 

low-income renter households occurred as U.S. household incomes increased but HUD 

Area Median Income Limits changed only slightly. 

National Trend in Poverty and Income 

Exhibit D-1 shows national poverty rates, both for persons and for families. It also 

displays the number of extremely low-income renter households (HUD’s income 

category closest to family poverty) and households with worst case needs, over time. 

There is a general correlation between the number and proportion of households with 

incomes below the poverty line, or below the extremely low-income threshold, and 

worst case housing needs. 

Exhibit D-1. National Poverty Trends Correspond With Worst Case Housing Needs, 1999–2007 

Persons in Poverty Families in Poverty 

Extremely LowIncome Renters Worst Case 

Housing Needs 

Number 

(1,000) 

Percent 

(persons) 

Number 

(1,000) 

Percent 

(families) 

Number 

(1,000) 

Percent 

(households) Number 

(1,000) 

Percent 

(households)

 2007 37,276 12.5 7,623 9.8 9,243 8.3 5,905 5.3

 2005 36,950 12.6 7,657 9.9 9,729 8.9 5,992 5.7

 2003 35,861 12.5 7,607 10.0 9,077 8.6 5,175 4.9

 2001 32,907 11.7 6,813 9.2 8,659 8.2 5,014 4.9

 1999 32,791 11.9 6,792 9.3 8,553 8.3 5,591 5.4 

Note: Poverty data for 1999 reflect implementation of Census 2000-based population controls. 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/histpovtb.html) 

and HUD PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey data 

Worst Case Housing Needs 97 
Changes in Income and Rent of Renter Households 

Exhibit D-2 summarizes average incomes and average rents among both extremely 

low-income and other very low-income renters between 2003 and 2005. In general, 

the increase in worst case needs over this period was due to rents increasing faster 

than incomes. 

The slight drop in worst case needs between 2005 and 2007 was accompanied by a 

drop in the number of very low-income renters reported in the AHS. There was a net 

decrease of 131,000 very low-income renter households during the 2005-to-2007 

period reflecting a decrease of 486,000 extremely low-income renter households that 

was somewhat offset by an increase of 355,000 renters in the 30 to 50 percent of 

median income range. This might imply that incomes of both extremely low-income 

renters and other very low-income renters increased sufficiently to move them to a 

higher income group. 

Exhibit D-2. 2003–2007 Change in Very Low-Income Renters, Incomes, and Rents, by Relative 

Income and Presence of Worst Case Housing Needs

 Extremely Low Income 

(0–30% Area Median 

Income) 

Other Very Low Income 

(30–50% Area Median Income) 

2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007 

Renter households 

(thousands) 9,077 9,729 9,243 6,581 6,342 6,697 

Average monthly income $666 $653 $679 $1,706 $1,741 $1,835 

Average monthly gross rent $519 $564 $584 $587 $641 $682 

Renter households with worst case 

needs (thousands) 3,999 4,643 4,327 1,176 1,349 1,578 

Average monthly income $673 $648 $697a $1,596 $1,624 $1,695 

Average monthly gross rent $607 $647 $707a $879 $935 $966 

a

 Note: These are average incomes and gross rents across the entire population of extremely low-income worst case needs 

households. Median monthly incomes for this group were $675, and median monthly gross rents were $600. 

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

Housing Survey data (see table A-14 in appendix A) 

An examination of the exhibit in greater detail, shows some differences in the reported 

incomes between extremely low-income renters (falling in 2005 then rising in 2007) 

and those of renters in the 30 to 50 percent of area median income group (rising in 

all years), while both groups saw rent increases throughout the period. In the case of 

extremely low-income renters, while there were slight fluctuations in income, in dollar 

terms these were quite small and were offset by larger increases in monthly rents. 

While the 30 to 50 percent of median income group reported increases in income, 

in the case of those with worst case needs the increases were exceeded by larger 

monthly rent increases. 

Overall, in the period covered here, the most important factor affecting trends in the 

number of worst case needs is the number of extremely low-income renter households 

reported in any given year. 

98 Worst Case Housing Needs 
 

- 

One interesting point to note is that among extremely low-income renters, those with 

worst case needs actually had higher incomes than the overall average for the entire 

group. However, the monthly rents among the worst case needs households were 

much larger than the average rent among all extremely low-income renters. 

The balance of very low-income renters—those with incomes of 30 to 50 percent of 

median—show a slightly different pattern. Those households with worst case housing 

needs have lower incomes than the overall average income for this income group, and 

had much higher monthly rents. 

For both income groups, any increases in income substantially lagged increases 

in rents over the longer span of 2003 to 2007. Extremely low-income renters with 

worst case needs experienced average income gains of 4 percent compared with rent 

increases of 16 percent. In the 30 to 50 percent of median group, households with 

worst case needs had income gains of 6 percent compared with rent increases of 10 

percent. 

Decline in the Number of Extremely Low-Income 

Renter Households, 2005 to 2007 

The 2005-to-2007 decrease in worst case needs is primarily attributable to a reduction 

in the number of extremely low-income renters reported in the AHS from 9.73 million 

in 2005 to 9.24 million in 2007. This decrease was somewhat offset by an increase 

in the number of renter households in the 30 to 50 percent of median income group 

(from 6.34 million to 6.69 million households). 

Exhibit D-3. Number of Households, by Income, 2005–2007 

Households in Owner 

Occupied Housing 

Households in 

Rental Housing 

Incomes 2005 2007 2005 2007 

Less than $5,000 1,318,719 1,116,835 2,528,328 2,217,776 

$5,000 to $9,999 2,028,639 1,669,470 3,734,925 3,226,855 

$10,000 to $14,999 3,121,838 2,774,169 3,766,553 3,564,324 

$15,000 to $19,999 3,221,200 2,899,533 3,260,732 3,166,420 

$20,000 to $24,999 3,598,038 3,261,557 3,206,276 3,027,254 

$25,000 to $34,999 7,374,632 6,794,518 5,372,875 5,278,834 

$35,000 to $49,999 10,913,097 10,374,308 5,836,569 5,931,438 

$50,000 to $74,999 15,792,934 15,659,996 5,208,347 5,628,196 

$75,000 to $99,999 10,597,265 11,232,567 2,050,709 2,443,831 

$100,000 to $149,999 9,992,977 11,538,638 1,264,559 1,613,819 

$150,000 or more 6,359,643 8,193,513 541,762 764,126 

Total 74,318,982 75,515,104 36,771,635 36,862,873 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey; Office of Policy Development and Research tabulations 

Worst Case Housing Needs 99 
The drop in the number of extremely low-income renters reported in the AHS between 

2005 and 2007 is consistent with additional data from the Census Bureau’s American 

Community Survey (ACS) combined with HUD’s area median income limits during the 

same period. The ACS data show that fewer households were in the income groups 

with the least amount of income (see Exhibit D-3). At the same time, HUD’s area 

median income limits changed very little during this period. HUD defined 30 percent of 

median income (on a national average) at $17,400 in 2005, with only a slight increase 

to $17,700 in 2007.1 Thus, while incomes for the lowest income groups were increasing during this period, HUD’s income limits remained relatively stable (resulting in 

fewer households falling under the “extremely low-income” threshold). 

Additional Examination of the 2005-to-2007 Changes 

In order to understand the relative effects of the various factors that affected worst 

case needs during the 2005-to-2007 period, a shift-share analysis may be useful. A 

shift-share analysis attempts to identify the relative significance of various factors 

affecting worst case needs, imputing a measure of “shift” to each “share.” Although 

such a model is sensitive to what factors are included, it remains instructive. The 

factors below reflect the changes estimated between the 2005 and 2007 AHS samples 

for successively smaller subsets of the population. Each succeeding calculation nets 

out the contribution of the larger base groups—but the remaining change becomes 

relatively more important because it focuses more specifically on households with 

worst case needs. 

• Population growth and household formation: 1,818,000 additional households 

account for a 1.7 percent increase in worst case needs. 

•		 Tenure shift: 1,103,000 additional renter households account for a 1.6 percent 

increase in worst case needs. 

•		 Income shift: 131,000 reduction in very low-income renters accounts for a 4.1 

percent decrease in worst case needs. 

•		 Lack of assistance shift: 54,000 increase in very low-income renters without 

housing assistance accounts for a 1.3 percent increase in worst case needs. 

1 Between 2005 and 2007, HUD changed its methodology for determining income limits. See Attachment 2 of http://www.huduser.org/datasets/il/il07/IncomeLimitsBriefingMaterial.pdf entitled 

“HUD Methodology for Estimating FY 2007 Median Family Incomes” for a detailed explanation of the 

methodology used for fiscal year 2007. 

100 Worst Case Housing Needs 
• Severe problems shift: 87,000 decrease in severe housing problems (worst 

case needs) among unassisted very low-income renters generates the residual 

1.9 percent decrease in incidence of worst case needs. 

These percentage shares sum to a net decrease in worst case needs by 1.5 percentage points, equaling the change from 5.992 million in 2005 to 5.905 million in 2007.2 

2 Two additional cautionary items: First, the total number of renter households increased by 1.10 

million between 2005 and 2007, a statistically significant increase of 3.2 percent in the universe of 

renters. In the absence of additional information, worst case needs would be expected to increase 

in parallel with increases in renters. (The number of homeowners increased by only 0.1 percent.) 

Second, there was a shift of households between income classes so that, compared with 2005 estimates, there were 0.13 million fewer very low-income renters and 1.23 million more renters with 

higher incomes. This shift may be due to a methodological change in the questions about income in 

the 2007 AHS instrument. Because very low-income renters are the population susceptible to worst 

case needs, the 0.8 percent decrease in their number reduced the incidence of worst case needs 

despite the overall increase in renter households. In any case, changes in both the number of very 

low-income renters and the number of worst case needs between 2005 and 2007 are not statistically significant. 

Worst Case Housing Needs 101